It's my pleasure to call to order the Half Moon Bay Planning Commission meeting for September 9, 2025.

I'll ask Bridget to uh tell us about the hybrid meeting protocols and such.

Um I'll do abbreviated um good evening and welcome to the September 9th Planning Commission meeting.

We haven't been here in some time.

Um we do have um Zoom and as a hybrid um as well as in person, and we give the planning or the public thirty three minutes to speak.

Um we start with the public um in person and then move to Zoom.

Um our meetings are televised on PC TV as well as um the YouTube channel for I'm sorry, Channel 27 and PCT.

Um we do have um translation this evening as well, and um we did have one memo that went out for the Correa's project, and it's been posted on the project or the agenda under the project, and uh the commissioners received that this afternoon.

And that is all I have for this evening, so I'll give that back to you.

Thank you.

Uh before we do the Pledge of Allegiance, I just want to acknowledge uh brand new planning commission member is with us tonight, uh Christopher Del Negro.

We're very pleased to have you, and Chris comes to us with a lot of great real-world experience, including serving on the planning commission in Milbray for two years recently.

So welcome.

Please join me in the plan Pledge of Allegiance.

I'd be allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, to the Republic over which it stands.

One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

May we have a roll call, please, Bridget?

Yes, Commissioner Rems.

Here, Commissioner Del Nagro?

Here.

Commissioner Gorn.

I'm here.

And Chair Reddick?

Here.

We have Commissioner Hernandez is absent this evening.

Our first item is consideration of the minutes of our last meeting, which was way back on June 10th.

If nobody has any comments or corrections on that, we could we have a motion to approve?

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed.

And you'll probably abstain.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This is the point in our agenda where we invite members of the public who are present or watching online to address the planning commission and comment on anything in the world you'd like to, other than the things that are on the agenda that are coming in a very few minutes.

If anybody would like to, please, Julie.

I have no one online.

All right.

Well, in that case, yes, we all want to recognize uh Margaret's uh service.

I I believe you were on the planning commission for about four years, uh some of which were a bit tumultuous, and you did good service last year as chair during a especially controversial times.

And uh in recognition of that, Margaret, um it's my honor to, on behalf of staff and the commission to present you with this uh plaque in honor of your service, and also your very massive uh name uh placard from all those years.

So thank you for your service and would you like to to say anything?

Can you hear me?

Oh, yes, good evening, everyone.

I just want to say uh thank you for the recognition.

I enjoyed working with staff and with my fellow commissioners and with the public.

And it was uh interesting time, uh, especially last year when I was chair during some um challenging, interesting projects.

That's and so thank you so much for this recognition.

I appreciate it.

Well, you deserve it.

Vice Vice Chair Gorn would like to comment.

Oh, I just wanted to say um a lot of people were wondering uh why you were leaving.

Um so Margaret is moving to the East Coast to be with closer to her family.

Um, so she loved Half Moon Bay, loves Half Moon Bay and wants to stay, and like the Planning Commission even.

So um for me, I thought she was the perfect planning commissioner.

Always with the data, always like every uh opinion backed up, every question really backed up by um by the data, the concerns that you saw in front of her with the um with the project itself.

So um uh wonderful job, just terrific.

Thank you.

Commissioner Rams, please.

Mr.

Chairman, I'd just like to uh add my uh few thoughts about Margaret.

I I haven't worked with her very long, I don't know her very well, but the few times that we sat down and talked, uh I really enjoyed it and I enjoyed the short time we had together on the commission, try to make this more beautiful community.

And I still lament since I heard about your resignation, about finding the time to walk that coastal trail that we talked about just to inspect it and talk about things.

So uh Godspeed and I wish you well and good luck and all of that, and so uh once again, it was a pleasure.

Thank you, Margaret.

Do you mind if I say a few words, Chair Red?

Of course not, Director Lako.

Well, first of all, um, I feel like I got special time with Margaret because she was the chair when I first started here, and so we got to have one-on-one meetings, and um she's just really a just a pleasure as a person to talk with.

Um, but I also really respect her thirst for knowledge as Commissioner Gorn was sort of indicating that she always had data with her, but she was always taking classes, going to seminars and reading up on issues, and at the same time, I really respect the fact that she um she was never afraid to ask a question if she didn't know something.

So um I will miss you, and I really thank you for introducing me as the community development director to the planning commission, really.

Thank you.

Thank you for that.

Uh let me present these to you, Margaret, please.

Our first public hearing item is an application for a coastal development permit and a setback variance for a project at 759 Correa Street.

Ms.

O'Coe Wilson, I believe this is yours.

Yes, thank you, Chair Roddick, and good evening, planning commissioners.

I will be presenting to you on a proposed project at 759 Correa Street, which includes uh an addition, which will require a variance to the existing residence and uh demolition of an existing garage and then construction of a new detached garage.

The subject property is 759 Correaus.

Uh this is located actually on the border of our Heritage Downtown and the South Downtown neighborhood.

Uh the requested permits are coastal development permit, architectural review, and a setback variance.

The zoning of the property is R1B2, which is single family residential, and its land use designation is medium density residential.

Uh the site is developed with an existing single-family residence uh and detached garage.

The residence dates back to as early as the eighteen seventies in terms of when it was first built.

Um it was the site is bordered by uh existing single family on all sides, other than to the east, where the Arroyal Leone perennial stream exists.

Due to the presence of the Arroyo Leone perennial stream, there is adjacent Eschia to the site, Eschia being environmentally sensitive habitat area.

So the applicant applied for preliminary review and environmental review back in 2022 to do a biological resource evaluation for the site.

The biological resource evaluation looked at a study area of the site, and a 200-foot buffer surrounding the site.

This is in accordance with land use plan policy 6-8, which requires sites adjacent to Eschia to have a biological study.

Land use plan policy 6-4-9 identifies using a hundred-foot top of bank buffer for the site.

However, this hundred foot top of bank buffer includes the entire building site.

Therefore, there is a land use plan policy at 6-5-0, which allows for a reduced buffer.

And also encourages in that case that the design should maximize the buffer and use design alternatives.

So you'll see how that's been incorporated into this project.

The BRE found that the subject property is highly disturbed.

But the general study area and nearby area does have some potential habitat for monarch butterflies during the overwintering season.

Allen's hummingbirds, and then steelhead trout in this stream.

This is mostly located within the eucalyptus that's further back on the property than where you'll see the proposed addition is.

A site plan helping show this more as we go through the presentation, but just to give you an early idea, the garage meets all required development standards, including setbacks and the maximum building envelope.

Just the addition to the residence would require a variance.

And so here you can see the minimum front setback is typically 25 feet.

It's existing at around just beyond eight feet.

However, you'll also see that this is it is a bit difficult to define some of these setbacks based on the property when we look more closely at it.

Additionally, the other variants would be for the street-facing side setback, where it exists as 10 feet.

But there would be an addition further into it, so more structure within that same setback area.

So as you can see here, this is the existing site plan.

I tried to highlight that property line in blue on the front there.

As you can see, there's several right turns on that property line, and this is part of what makes it difficult to define exactly what should be the front setback, a side setback, and so on.

The two orange lines you're seeing, those are the setbacks where the variance would be required, although this is the existing site plan.

So the closest definition staff could find would be identifying a street-facing side setback and a front setback.

However, it's it's quite a unique lot.

But you can see here, you can also see the garage is in the same location, it's just slightly larger.

Can you go back one slide just for a second?

Okay, thank you.

So the garage here is in the same location.

It does move about two feet forward, but there is an access easement, it remains outside of that access easement and in the same general location as is.

So a setback variance requires three findings to be made, that being that extraordinary circumstances exist on the site that do not usually apply to infill lots in the area.

In this case, staff found that you could make this finding based on the irregular lot shape and the environmental constraints of the property taking up what is a very large property, but the actual building site becomes quite constrained due to the required buffers and the site shape the lot shape.

Additionally, that the variance would preserve the enjoyment and the property rights, the preservation of the property rights.

And here, this is a rather small addition.

But becomes larger due to the unique shape of the lot.

Additionally, the applicant provided their variance burden statement, and and they're seeking that that this would help them clean up the floor plan on the interior as well to allow them to better be able to utilize the house and the entry to the house being much more prevalent.

And essentially even have better curb appeal by being able to see that actual entryway to the property, which currently is a bit difficult to identify from the right-of-way.

And additionally, that the third finding being that there's no adverse impacts as a result of the variance.

Here it's not encroaching towards any neighboring properties, the neighboring properties all remain setback far away, as you'll I actually did not include a slide showing that, but if you look on the street view, you would see they're quite far away still.

And then additionally, that typically where there might be a front setback variance or a street side-facing setback, there might be a line of sight concern, which is typically the intent of some of those setbacks to some extent.

And here you really wouldn't have that, being that it's a dead end street.

There's not a corner or crosswalk or moving traffic that could be have the visual line of sight inhibited as a result.

So here just focusing in more on where that variance is located on the subject property.

And then here you can see it even more zoomed in and better highlighted that it would be uh filling in a portion of the building, and then uh there's even where that existing encroachment is being in orange, but then a slightly more uh increase in red.

Uh this apologize for the very blurry picture, but the this is the aerial view from Google Street View, which uh just to show you that this is where uh the variance would be as well, uh filling in that entry as is, and then creating a larger, more prominent entryway uh with the covered porch.

This is the front elevation, the west elevation.

Uh so as you can see the changes are relatively minor, but it incorporates some dormers as well, and just makes that entryway a bit more visible, but does create some more visual interest as well along the front of this house.

This is the south elevation.

So this is actually the side that is most visible from the public right-of-way.

Uh it cleans the addition would clean up some of the existing roof lines that you can see on the top, um, are a bit unique, likely through many additions over time, uh, and so and you would be able to see that covered porch, which would also indicate where that entry is gonna be.

Here's the elevation of the garage.

Uh as is, it's a single story garage, uh two-car garage with a very large garage door taking up almost the entire facade.

Um, so the addition of uh an additional garage space, but also breaking that into two uh separate garages helps and is in alignment with our uh single family residential design guidelines, which encourages this for three-car garages.

Uh and additionally, just uh the second story also helps provide a bit more visual interest uh to it, makes it a lot a bit less of a blank facade there.

Overall, uh, so the project was found to be exempt uh based on the following sequest sections listed here.

Uh it's staff finds it to be in substantial conformance with our single family residential design guidelines and and would improve the house to be more in conformance with those, as well as the project meets all development standards other than the need for the setback variants and the review and project is also in conformance with the land use plan uh policies as well.

Staff is recommending uh to approve the coastal development permit, architectural review, and setback variance to allow the addition, the demolition of the garage and the construction of the new garage with the second story residential office space.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Do commissioners have any clarifying questions for O'Coe?

I do.

How many variances are we talking about here?

Because I see a lot of like how the variances can be addressed, but are there two or are there three?

Are there more?

I I guess you would call it two because a side and a front.

Yeah.

So the front one is more of that little rectangle that's kind of pushed back away from the street and um just a yeah, so um I don't honestly I I know we're not deliberating, but that seems really minor.

But then the the other one is the side, and tell me about that.

What yeah, so you can kind of also see the two setbacks do slightly form into one, the dashed line being the way the applicant could find let me show the larger um there's a pretty it's difficult to see here, but there is a dash line that the applicant provided to shoot.

We could use Okoe's slides back on the monitors, please.

Oh, sorry, I thought you had that.

Just so I understand things.

Do you have them back or don't have it?

Here they are.

Uh, yeah.

So there's a the applicant to the best of their extent tried to show these setbacks so you can see where it kind of curves through the property.

So that general area is where we're talking about the setback.

Um so they do kind of merge into one.

Like I said, it is really difficult to define in this case, but there is a front and a side.

Um, and the side, yeah.

That small that right hand turn, yeah.

Is the front.

Really small, but then the side one the issue is the hearing cord, right?

You can decide and uh go back, right?

Oh, sorry about that.

Um so the front one, it's very clear what that is, but can you I it's not very clear what the side variants where it is, right there.

Yes, recording in progress.

Um, so yeah, like you said, the front one is where that little fill-in would be the where you can see the orange and the red square here, that is where the covered porch would move forward and that's existing lawn area uh on the subject property.

You can kind of see here that is lawn between the property.

That's helpful.

Okay, thank you very much.

Uh Commissioner Del Negro, please.

Is there any impact on emergency vehicles turning around inside the space in that area?

So uh previously there were discussions involving uh the abandonment of the right of way.

That was the initial course that the applicant did uh speak to the city about that was not approved because that would have from my understanding.

Um fire did have some concerns in that um they wanted to ensure that remained right of way for their access and turnaround, but given that this is uh all on the subject property, they're remaining on their property, there shouldn't be any concerns in terms of emergency vehicle access.

Other clarifying questions?

Well, let's ask for uh uh comments from the public at and and at this time then, either online or in the room.

I have no speaker cards.

And no one online.

What?

Oh I thought the occupied that the allocator.

Yeah.

Feel free, please.

So I'm gonna I'm gonna open the public hearing just to be safe.

Thank you.

My name is Tim Pond, and I'm the applicant.

So a couple things about the property in addition.

It's a 70 foot wide right-of-way that it was established after the home was built, right up to the front door.

So this kind of encroached on the rights of the owner of the property at the time.

This house was built prior to the mapping of the street.

So it's kind of a unique situation there where the rights were actually kind of given away at that point.

And um, and I think Okoe presented most of the project you know very well.

And the other thing is I don't quite understand why the abandonment wasn't granted or our request wasn't.

The fire district has very specific rules on fire truck turnarounds, and this street isn't long enough to warrant one at the end from the intersection that's near it.

The property is well within 150 feet of the intersection, so that a fire truck could actually pull down and pull back out without having to, you know, and this meets CDF standards for that.

There's also a fire hydrant down there.

There's also a giant tree on public property in the right of way, a heritage tree, five feet in diameter.

I forget the type of tree that it is, but you can see it.

It's a walnut tree.

And you know, this whole thing looks like his lawn when you drive down the street.

I mean it will never, you know, it looks like it's been his lawn and will always be.

And I can't imagine, you know, an improvement to the street 70 feet wide at that point at that small location at the end of the street.

Um the roof the way it sits now will be simplified.

I mean, it's a great raccoon habitat the way they have it now because there's like a roof built on top of a roof on top of a roof.

And you know, that first house, that first gable that you see actually goes all the way through, and then they kind of just threw other roofs on top of it.

And my idea my idea was trying to make it into a single plane, and then you know, articulate it with some dormers just to give it a fine feature and some light to the interior because it's fairly long inside.

And of course, we couldn't go out the back because the creek's there.

And we wanted to keep it to a minimum, and the floor plan, if you look through it, is pretty convoluted.

You have to walk in and around and the master bedrooms right, you know, it's so our idea was to, you know, rationalize the floor plan and bring it more into line with what's what's you know currently um currently thought.

So anyway, thank you.

Oh, thank you.

I can't help you with your disagreement with the fire department, but um I take to heart your comments about the uh unusual nature of the lot.

Would anyone else like to address the commission on this matter?

Nothing online, Bridget.

Okay.

No, I have no one raising their hand online.

We'll close the public hearing on this and invite commissioners to deliberate.

Um, I guess um I see no real problem with this personally.

Um the variances are pretty far set back away from uh the street.

Um, I did worry slightly about um when you do the construction that you might intrude on this uh repair and set back in um if you go past the if I were staging it, if I were construction, I would use that sort of triangular area to the right of the house to um to park everything.

And um and I would worry a little bit about that.

But um, but that's the only thing that I see that is um possibly problematic.

Thank you.

Commissioner Rems.

I have no issues with uh this project, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you for that.

I'm ready to approve it.

Commissioner Del Negro.

I really saw a lot of positives here between the clean lines on the roof.

Um impact on the trees, which was great.

That's a beautiful tree out front.

I'm glad to hear there's nothing impacted on the trees, and there was no tangible growth towards the creek.

Obviously, very positive in my opinion.

Um and it did clean up the floor plan, which I liked as well.

Um, uh to me a very pragmatic and conscientious plan about the environment around it.

Um, my only questions really were um about access to the rear of the house in case of a fire.

Um, there is a terrace back there.

It's in the forest area.

Obviously, at some point people are using it for something.

Um it looks like it's been kind of cleaned up since then.

But um, you know, I'd always be conscientious about fire risk in a house like this on the creek area with that vegetation behind it, um, keeping a wide enough room for somebody to get back there and be able to alleviate fire if it does happen.

And it seems like there's a wide enough corridor back there with the with the path back.

Um obviously I'm happy to see that somebody cleaned up the storage of you of materials that was back there by Google, I guess, uh maps.

You can see that there was some stuff back there that's no longer there now.

And that's really nice to see that clean up.

So overall, I thought it was a very good package.

I have no conflict with it.

Thank you for that.

I I agree with my fellow commissioners.

I um appreciate the fact that the uh activity on this project will be as far from the creek as is possible, and I appreciate the fact that our setback laws were probably different in 1870 than they are today.

So to move things along, I'm gonna make a motion to approve this coastal development permit and architectural review with setback variants as stated in the resolution at hand.

I would second.

Can I get some assurance that the staging for construction would not include that area off the gravel drive?

Yeah, I can I can speak to that.

There are uh the biologists did provide uh best management practices that have been incorporated throughout the conditions.

Uh these include there's to be no work within environmentally sensitive habitat.

Uh the staging has set distances.

Um it's a it's a small project, so there shouldn't be things like refueling on site, but that is supposed to be more than 100 feet, so really that even needs to be off site.

Um, and so there shouldn't be any work or staging within uh the buffer or an environmentally sensitive habitat, and there's conditions that the applicant will need to agree to and follow throughout construction, or in that little triangle, um, that's what I'm asking about.

The little triangle I will show picture.

Um, it still shouldn't occur within that area, but it is existing uh gravel area back there that is still outside of the buffer and the environmentally sensitive habitat uh where that uh brown is.

Um but uh we can if if that is a concern, I I I would say we could clean up the conditions to provide more clarity that it shouldn't occur within that area either.

Um but for now it's specific more to setbacks and the type of of work or staging.

Yeah, I would leave it to you.

Thanks.

I don't think we're required to have a roll call vote for everything, are we?

I don't think so.

No, um, well, everyone's already expressed the formal of it.

So can I just uh all in favor say aye?

Yes, any opposed say nay.

Motion passes.

I'm sorry, Bridget.

We won't uh relieve you of that duty every vote, but thank you, folks.

Our next item for public hearing is the application for the sign program and sign permit uh having to do with the south of uh Wavepress Trails.

The Sarah Polger of Coastside Land Trust being the applicant, and Mr.

Scott Phillips to present, I presume.

Yes, thank you, Chair Ruddick and members of the planning commission.

Nice to see everyone.

I hope everyone had a nice summer.

All right, so as you mentioned, this this project involves a sign program and signed permit for uh the Coastside Land Trust uh North Wave Crest Phase 2 trail.

And the project site is located uh a little ways south of the Poplar Beach parking lot, south of the phase one of Coastside Land Trust Trail, and then west of the sort of the western terminus of Wave Crest Road by Smith Field, and then north of the end of Redondo Beach Road.

Now uh the planning commission uh approved the the project that's under construction right now back in 2023, and uh, for the you know the construction of the trail, the parking lot, as well as the you know stairways down to the beach, and uh included with that approval was a condition of approval requiring a separate submittal for a sign program.

And so that's really the the purpose of this item on the agenda this evening.

And like the trail is currently under construction, and like uh right around the same time as construction started, the application was submitted for the sign program.

Okay, and um now the signs and kind of getting into the the nitty gritty of what's included in the signs.

Uh the the slide on the screen right now shows the sign layout and uh includes the installation of coastal access, interpretive and wayfinding signs, you know, and um, you know, when you look at this, it does seem a little busy.

Seems you know, the the density of the signs seem seem a little much.

Um but part of this is that you know the the sign designer that Coast I Land Trust selected, they they really spent a lot of time on this layout, and they as just to give you an idea, this the um the scale of this is an inch equals 125 feet.

And now instead of just putting dots, uh the sign designer actually uh superimpose little pictures of each of the signs, which are clearly out of scale and bring a little more attention to the each of the signs compared to what actually will be installed on site, or at least what's proposed.

Now, so it I guess my point being that it it does give the illusion of a you know a little more signs than uh what would uh actually be installed.

Now that said, 49 signs are proposed, and uh it includes um you know the signs that you see here, as well as uh parking lot uh disabled access uh signs, new restroom signs, and vehicle circulation signs.

Now though those signs do not require a sign permit.

So those are excluded from the 49 signs and limited to the the parking lot areas.

Now the applicant also thought it would be helpful to uh for me to show the commission this slide.

Uh that this is just the trail.

And in total, uh approximately three miles of trail would be installed, which is under construction currently, and then the next three slides are let's see.

I've got a um uh this slide shows a uh gives you a summary of the signs that are proposed, the 49 signs uh totaling, you know, the 124 square feet.

Now, probably the most prominent signs uh would be the uh the vehicle directional signs, two of these would be installed along Redondo Beach Road, the sign on the left.

Uh and then also the um you know the the orientation signs, the the little map on each of the trailheads.

So the sign on the right would be installed at uh the three trail heads and not on the interface between the phase one and phase two.

So just uh two along Redondo Beach Road and then one at the Wave Crest Trailhead.

Now the wayfinding signs, uh the slides are the signs shown sort of the two on the left there, they would be the same size.

Uh five of them would be installed.

One of them includes informational as well as uh the larger directional sign.

And then uh the bulk of this the signs proposed would be the the directional, the smaller of the two rectangular signs, as well as the post signs at each of the intersections along the uh the new trail.

So anywhere you have an intersection along the new trail, one of the post signs would be installed.

Now, last but not least, they do uh have 12 uh interpretive signs that would be installed.

And the idea behind this is they would this would give uh the trail user some uh information about uh the habitat within the area uh as well as um identifying uh wetlands and uh give information you know pertinent information to the trail users.

Now a couple of things just to touch upon uh you know compliance with the sign code, our local coastal land use plan does have some uh reference to uh trail signage, and then the California Environmental Quality Act.

Now, as far as the sign code, uh the sign programs allow the planning commission uh to authorize unique sign situations that uh don't normally fit into the normal sort of sign permit uh issuance.

So this is definitely a unique situation where we've got um you know uh you know the the multi-user trail uh and you know parking lot coastal access.

Um this certainly would fit into the you know realm of a sign program.

Now part of that is because uh typically uh you know you're allowed one sign plus an additional sign per frontage.

That would only leave uh coastside land trusts the ability to uh install three signs uh apps in a signed program.

So it really makes sense in this case to uh you know prefer Coastside Land Trust to pursue a signed program.

Now you may have noticed in the resolution there is also a reference to a signed permit.

Normally, once a signed program is in place, then staff would use the signed program to review any signed permit.

We've included the approval of the signed uh permit if you know the you know, as long as the planning commission feels that's appropriate.

Now there is uh you know coastal access associated with this proposal.

Uh, you know, the signs would uh identify coastal access.

Uh our normal procedure is to you know uh request comments from coastal staff when any time there's coastal access involved.

Uh we did uh receive a you know some a little bit of feedback from our our coastal staff representative uh primarily on the uh the vertical access stairways that uh apparently in other places in the state there they've been their code enforcement division has really been battling folks trying to privatize public stairways.

So they asked that an additional condition of approval be added, requiring signs at the bottom of the stairways to advertise anyone that may be walking along the beach that didn't access uh you know the trails from uh Redondo Beach or the trailheads that Coast Land Trust is uh constructing currently uh just to notify them that hey, this is coastal access, and uh, you know, we felt that that was you know an important thing to add.

So uh you may have noticed that condition B2 does ask for uh two new two additional signs at the bottom of the new stairways.

Uh so I wanted to point that out.

Now the sign program also advertises uh habitat protection, uh which there's also policies in our land use plan that uh talk about you know uh preserve preservation of habitat, and then part of this project also has uh there's a habitat restoration component.

So the the habitat restoration signs would also advertise that.

Now you know the PUDs and bluff top areas are considered uh visual resources uh as identified in our land use plan.

Uh you know, the signage has been designed to blend with the natural environment uh using earth tone colors and um, you know, not you know overly uh you know noticeable as you know from a long distance.

So the idea is that the new signs would blend with the landscape.

Uh and sign programs are uh categorical categorically exempt from CEQUAS, section 15 3 15 3 1 1 A, which calls out accessory structures and on premise signs.

Uh so we we feel that that exemption is appropriate, and uh you know, just to you know, we recommend the planning commission conduct a public hearing.

We did uh receive one email uh correspondence from uh Chair Ruddock, uh just noting about the you know the amount of signs included in the proposal.

Uh we did pour that email on to the commission as well as the applicant, and uh we recommend approval of the sign program as noted in the resolution.

Uh that concludes my presentation.

I'm happy to answer any clarifying questions.

We also have the applicant here this evening.

Thank you.

Yeah, I'd welcome um hearing from the applicant uh to clarify, as I said in that email, what how how do we understand what the right number of these signs are?

So we welcome former planning commissioner Sarah Polger to this to the stand.

Thank you, Chair Redek.

Um I'm Sarah Polgar uh with Coastside Land Trust, and uh I appreciated your questions in the um in the uh comments that you had.

Uh I'll be honest, I don't know exactly how to answer that.

But what I can say is that um, I think to be clear, uh we were in in laying this out, trying to, meaning we being with the consultant, and then also in knowing our experience in in terms of this area and looking at the the casual trails and the kind of interest in what people uh might be interpretive opportunities.

We were trying to identify where would be the best places for the different types of signs, where we need to have stay on trail signs, and it's so we were basically that's the kind of basis of how we were looking at this.

Um and I think there's from our perspective, there's flexibility.

Uh so if we if the commission's gonna look at it and go, uh that's a lot of interpretive signs or stay on trail signs.

I don't I don't think we're married to having them all.

I will say that as the trail um is you know, once the trails open and people are starting to use it, we will discover where there's places where huh, that is a highly valuable restoration area.

For instance, we're really trying to restore um course as popcorn flower there, and it would be great if we could make sure like we really want to let people know that they should stay out of there, and it also might be helpful to have interpretive signage there to help them understand why that's valuable.

Um so I would I would say that there's a lot of flexible, like from our perspective, it isn't set in stone that we have to have at least.

I think there are some areas where we know that there's casual trails, and we really do need to have a sign.

Um, so some of them I would say, uh, keep that one, but others maybe not.

Um I also do want to point out that this diagram part of what can be a little confusing is those uh there's a lot of things that look like T's on there, and those are the post signs that are you know uh six inch and they have the little um placards that show, and the reason that there look like there's three or four or two of them at a corner is that it's just showing you what's on each side.

It's not actually four of them, but it does look a little overwhelming on there.

Uh those I would say to be honest, I wouldn't want to um remove any of those.

I think out of the 49 signs, uh 10 of them, I think, if I done my counting right, 10 of those.

Let's see.

Post-directional.

Yeah, so 10 of them are those.

And those are really valuable to help people know how to get to the beach.

Um, you know, and they'll be very simple, like with a you know, have an arrow with a you know beach umbrella, and this, you know, so and they use very uh standard uh symbology.

So I I would encourage uh not um l you know go limiting on those, and they're also extremely in terms of an impact, visual impact.

They're not uh, you know, they're just a post.

Uh also um I think uh they're the signs themselves are not as big as the interpretive signs that are on the existing 50 acre uh the the bird trail, the third of my.

We try the um consultant urged us to use much smaller ones because she was pointing out that first of all um it's a lot to try to develop content a huge amount of for one sign, and she's for exactly the reason of being able to post uh to mount them on the fence because there's a the split rail fence, she said that's a really nice low-key way to um install signage, and so she recommended so a lot of these signs they are much smaller than the for instance the interpretive signs that are on the existing um 50 acres.

Um I also um sorry I had written down a couple things.

Um I do think part of the reason why I suggested including the trail map that shows the distances, it has the red trail.

As I wanted to point out, because uh to help understand is um that at the south side of the stairs um there's a little trail that connects up to the the main coastal trail.

That's almost 200 feet, and it looks like nothing on there.

But these are big distances, so um I don't know that we'll it it seems pretty crowded, but it probably it isn't as crowded as as it may seem, let's put it that way.

Again, that's not saying that we're not open to adjusting the number, reducing the numbers.

I'm just wanted to kind of point out the scale of it.

Um I actually dragged my husband out, and we went out and held up a sign of the correct size at every single location to see what it would look like.

Um, so just to get a feel for it as well.

Um we're out there a lot, and it they are very they really are not much in this in the scale of this size of a project area, but again, uh just uh wanted to point that out because it's it's hard to tell from this.

Um, and then I did want to point out I know that one of the comments had to do with the number of signs near the stairs, and I um I do think it's important to have the um what's called it's it's an interpretive sign at the top.

Um, but I think that's really valuable because there's a lot of confusion uh for people about how far this beach is, like when they're going down, like will they be able if they walk one way or the other, where are the other beaches, what's the distance, um things like that.

Just even being familiar that there are some pretty big title changes and that you know, and having some information about that, that's what we had anticipated putting on the two signs that are at the tops of the stairs.

Um it's not that we're gonna, you know, give them everything under the sun, but it's just it's a helpful for them to have an awareness of where this beach is with respect to other ones, and so that's why we felt like it was important to have signage at the top.

We also um I mean the Coastal Commission added the sign at the bottom, but they also we will have to have some sign at the top that says it's public access per the coastal commission.

Like they they they knew we already had a sign at the top, or else they would have asked us for one.

So um we kind of do need to keep uh some informational signage at the top of each this the beach access through through the chair.

Can I ask you a question?

Oh of course, so you know your your little red map, the trail.

Um I know those trails really well.

Um the phase one trails that we've been on.

Um so the the ones around that that come out of Smithfield and go down there are actually look to me longer than the Renando Beach ones, but I'm uh I guess to get an idea about how many signs you need.

Because I don't know, what do I know?

Um, how many are in that phase one?

Like in if you look at phase one, which is a kind of a bigger area, how many are in there?

Because it seems like it's a lot less than that.

Phase one is much as a much smaller area.

Much smaller.

Than this project area.

Um yeah, it's yeah, look at the red.

Look at the red trail map and tell me that.

Um, this is this is the phase one trail, Dave, just from the Seymour Bridge to here.

It's a third of a mile, yeah.

So I'm I thought you were talking about this being part of one.

That's part of the new that's part of the new.

Yeah, and and the amount this amount of trails are closer to two and a half miles.

Yeah, right.

A little bit actually under, it's under two and a half miles.

But uh the one to the north, the bird trail is about a third of a mile.

Off the top of my head, I I should have uh checked that out because I can't remember.

Um that probably it definitely has fewer signs than this.

I can tell you because I did actually count them the other day.

Two trailhead signs, three interpretive signs, and eight uh please stay on the trail signs.

And I would one of the things that we will be doing is those signs are quite um old and in need of replacement.

So the replacements would be like the trailhead replacement would be the same as these trailheads.

So there wouldn't, and then we would no longer have a trailhead sign between these the two phases because there's no it's all one now.

Uh so there would just replace we would remove that trailhead sign and just have the one at the um north end after you come across the Seymour Bridge.

Um we replace that, it would be the same type as is what you see here to be consistent, and then the interpretive signs would be replaced with signage that's smaller that's the same as this type as well.

So it it to be consistent, um, but that we wouldn't be adding any new signs um in the in the north area, just literally be in kind replacement.

So, and just so I'm clear so I understand it's the 49 signs plus the parking lot signs plus the stair signs plus the bathroom signs, or are the 49 signs included in all those areas?

I think that's should be all of those, but look we can look at the numbers.

I'd be happy to answer that question.

So the 49 signs are the signs that require a sign permit, and the the restroom signs and the no parking signs are not included in the 49 signs.

So the stair stairway ones are the the ones that we see on this map are all included in the 49.

Per the condition of approval, we would add two additional signs at the bottom of the stairs.

So 51 plus the parking lot plus the bathrooms.

Correct.

Okay.

Sarah, I'm thank you for that.

That's very helpful to me.

I I'm sorry to that I don't remember this, and I have to ask you to clarify because I should remember it from our earlier hearing where we approved this, but uh over the course of all these trails, what is the extent of the split rail fence?

Um there will be approximately I'm trying to think of the there'll be about uh there'll be about 10,000 linear feet.

Is that right?

That sounds wrong.

Um I'd have to look it up.

I don't remember.

It's only we it uh well split rail fencing is expensive.

Um and it really we want to minimize the use of it.

However, there are spots where we want to um the biggest challenges will be the areas where people are likely to go off trail and cause the erode because that's what's accelerating the erosion that concentrates the flow.

So there are the areas, and then the others are where we want to um keep people off of habitat that's that's good habitat.

Like that's important, you know, like sensitive habitat areas.

So we've tried to uh identify, we've laid out in the in the plans um where that and that actually it's actually shown in here, it's just probably hard to see.

Um, and that's why some of the it's uh blue dotted kind of line that has uh light blue.

But it's I'd have to look up, I honestly can't remember off the top of my head the linear feet.

Um, but the that's why there's some areas you see the signs proposed for attaching to the split rail fence.

Yeah, I see that blue line on the map now that you mentioned.

It's kind of hard to it's a big area to show in one map.

Are there more clarifying questions for Scott or for our applicant?

I have a few questions.

Please.

Um for some of those um edge signs um that are gonna be on those fences.

Do we actually warn the public about the dangers of being near the edge?

Stay away from edge for their own safety.

There's part of the sign.

But there are a couple areas that there's one area in particular we noticed that people were kind of trying to get down, and it's really dangerous.

I mean the whole it's very dangerous in a lot of the but there's one spot where people, so we purposely, even though there's no fence, we couldn't put the fencing there.

So we uh we just put a sign that says, you know, hazardous area stay on and point.

The other thing is that we could include like an arrow to the pay beach access this way, that's the other thing.

Um in fact I would the best way to keep people from doing something is tell them that they can collect ticks and poison oak this way or go that way to get to the beach.

Um so and you know, we could do that and that would probably be more convincing.

Uh I asked because I just recently was down there and saw somebody taking in, you know, your classic Instagram picture of themselves at the edge of the cliff, and obviously worry for people's decision making when it comes down to it.

Um I think the next question I had was about the sign that's at the very south west corner at the end of Redondo Beach Road.

Um April Pro, I just yesterday was having um lunch with my wife, and we met a couple from Pennsylvania that was on the trail and accidentally went to the golf course and had no idea the golf course was there.

Um do we do any signage that says golf course ahead, danger on our side of it?

I didn't understand where we would they went down past Redondo Beach on that road and they went the wrong the wrong direction south.

Oh, oh I see.

They kept on going and they ended up in the golf course and got yelled at because they came out of the golf course on their bikes in the middle.

Um that might be a matter of putting signage on the good.

Golf course side.

Yeah, of the of the trail.

Because the coastal trail technically continues it along that road, um and so.

But do we have signage that says golf course ahead or any type of?

Yeah, I mean, but that it that's actually the city's uh um section of the coastal trail.

So I it would make sense like to put a sign there.

Yeah, I mean, as a wayfind, I'm just kind of curious.

Maybe that's one of the elements.

But the map will show um at the trailhead there.

So if you looked at it, you would know, oh, well, if I go north, that's this the trail, and if I go south, I'm going towards the the golf course.

But the the um it's a little confusing the question because the uh coastal trail should go all the way through there.

Yeah, absolutely, but I guess they didn't know there was a golf course coming up.

They kept going and they found themselves in the middle of the golf course.

And um, just kind of curious if we actually give indications there's a golf course ahead.

From the signage, um, doesn't sound like it.

On the stairwell access at the bottom, uh what is the exact wording that they were asked to use?

Public access, public.

Uh they said it had to say, Scott, do you remember?

Yeah, so we've we've included the the language into the condition of approval B2.

No.

So I think I missed it.

So the the signage will need to indicate the public's right to use the stairway and trails from the beach.

So we don't have exact wording in English and Spanish.

So we don't have exact wording, we just have the information about what type of wording we have to cover.

Correct.

Yes.

Um but there's nothing and are those posts proposed at the bottom also wood?

Yes.

Everything is red wood.

Yeah.

Um grew up at a beach in Southern California, saw many people steal signs for firewood.

Um, but we're um so we would not be allowed to um I I you it would be we'd be hard pressed to get a permit to to put um other type of signage in.

Um I I would uh the one thing I wanted to point out about the that is that that sign, the signs at the tops and the bottom of the the stairs will go in at the point when the stairs are installed.

So right now we have the trail, but not all the like there's an we wouldn't be putting in the signs about the s the beach access from this with the stairs to we actually have the stairs in.

The maintenance of the signs, um obviously it needs a maintenance program and it's money to keep them up, you know.

I think we're seeing them degrade over time.

Yeah, and that's another thing that is part of the reason for using um the smaller signs is that it's much easier to um to replace them as they get, you know, that it's just easier and less costly and update them if information changes.

Uh just it's the larger signs are much harder, like much more expensive.

The other thing um is we do uh go out there, uh we being coastside land trust, our um our stewardship committee is out there uh cleaning signs.

There's a lot of you know, graffiti happens in those.

So we do a lot of that, it's unfortunately uh fair it happens fairly frequently, so we know about cleaning them, that's for sure.

Is there vandalism resistance to the signs like the material?

Yeah, they keep the I mean they're cleanable, but uh people still do stuff to them.

Abending them is usually the the biggest one, but that's usually with things like um to be honest with no the dogs on leash, those are the signs that get um mangled.

Okay.

Um any information at the top and bottom about beach use and limitations, things like fireworks and yeah, so there will be um there's there's some signage that's included that has like hey, no these things, and also the um there's the symbology as well, so it's not just like so it's the you know no fires, no, you know, like things like that, um, because that yeah, so there will be exactly signs like that that are about that.

That will also very importantly be in the parking lot on this um the trailhead signs, and so that's a requirement.

I want to say there's a comment um is I really like this idea of giving a distance to the next beach access north.

Um I see a lot of people do a sort of one-directional walk looking for a stairwell to go up, they don't know how far it is to go.

Yeah, so is the plan at the bottom as well to have a directional saying next access?

No, because we probably want to keep the sign at the bottom pretty small.

Um but uh we uh that's an interesting point.

I hadn't because we hadn't proposed that sign in ours, and so I didn't think about I don't know.

It's a long ways to go up to find out.

Yeah, no, I guess you yeah, we could uh do that as well.

Um it just would be a little bit bigger sign, um like one of the the what we propose at the top basically.

I consider that element is kind of a nice to have if you did have the opportunity.

It's a good idea.

That was a extended question, thank you.

Other uh questions?

Commissioner Rams?

I did have some questions, but I think Chris covered them all.

Uh I was concerned about maintenance primarily, and who who is responsible for the maintenance, and uh I think I heard that the city's not going to be responsible for any of the maintenance, including the stairs and signs and everything else.

Point of clarification, Mr.

Chairman.

This may uh give you a little chuckle, but I did a seat of the pants calculation here, three miles of trail and 49 signs, one sign per 323 feet, linear feet.

So if that means anything, I think it's a reasonable amount 300 feet on the average per sign.

I don't have a problem with it.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Go ahead, please, Dave.

Okay.

Yep.

So um so um this um this project we approved um as a project.

And I was surprised to see that it's actually three projects that it's phased in three projects, and maybe it was you know, on the planning commission that we should have directly asked, is it all gonna be done at once or is it going to be done in pieces?

So we're having the the parking lot built first, and then we're having the bathroom built second, and then we're having the stairs built third.

Is that right?

The the our what we're doing is building the we first have to build the trails and the parking to be able to then build obviously the restroom, um, but also we need uh an area for staging the materials for the stairs.

So and we have to build the the trail before we can get access out to the stairs.

So and we're also limited on when we can do certain work.

So it couldn't happen all at once, anyways, but uh right now they're going to be finishing up the trail in October.

Okay.

And then that's what and the signs, you know, that's will we'll go in and we'll be able to that and the parking lots will be open.

It is true though that we won't be have the stairs or the restrooms done, but there's no point in keeping people from parking there right now.

I mean, that's we wanna c we have to close off the end of Redondo Beach Road uh because we're trying to restore, we're gonna be re-vegetating and restoring that.

And so we have to open up the parking, um, and then we are then we will be working on the stairs.

The stairs are our hand construction, it's it's a carpentry project.

So that'll happen.

Um that's gonna take a while.

Um, and so we're you know, that'll happen.

Ideally, we're gonna try to do that um over the winter, but we'll see whether the um the uh agencies the uh will will allow that.

Um CDFW and the waterboard.

Winter this year.

This year, yeah.

Sorry, like that's what we're we're pushing for, but we'll see if they allow it.

And then the uh for the restroom, we remember that that involves uh installation of uh uh extending the water main, and so we're also limited on when we can do that now.

In our original when we brought this before the um the planning commission, we were going to be able to tie into a section of Maine that is now um been it's it's the uh water district is it's abandoned it, which is fine, but that means we have to install a short section of Maine, and we again we are limited on when we can do that work.

We also had to that is a longer permit process with the water district.

We have to do that for uh that's it's we've been told it that's gonna take about six months.

So we're still pushing, we're moving that forward.

Um we've you know got the the plans for you know ready for that permitting, um, but it's gonna take a bit longer, it's not and things have changed.

This project went through many years of review and circumstances changed that are beyond our uh but we I I want to be clear that we are not phasing it because we are doing everything.

Um it may have to wait because we have other um regulatory limitations on when we can work, um, and there's physical kind of uh limitations as well on how what we can do at the same time.

Um, and so we had to get the parking and the trail access in first before we could do the other parts of the project, and unfortunately, we may be limited on whether we can work in the winter on the stairs.

If we can, we are we'll we'll move forward.

We have the money for it, we're we're ready.

Okay.

So that's helpful.

Yeah, and we have and we also have the money for the restroom, just so you know.

Like there's no I was like, oh god, it's gonna be like well, it may be next year, end of next year when we get both the rest of the things in, but um we will we want it done as soon as possible as well because keep in mind costs for construction just continue to drop it up.

I mean, if you're inviting people to come in, you're increasing the traffic on this area, and those stairs uh already are eroded away, and you're just inviting more people to go down those stairs, particularly during wet weather, and it's just gonna get like I'm worried about that.

The bark parking will be less, because they no longer will have the well there's there they have the entire end at the end at the end, it will be closed off, and um they were they shouldn't be parking on if the city will install the no parking on the along the redondo beach road, there will be that's so there's a lot of casual parking going on.

Um, formalizing that parking, and I so I would argue that the situation will not be attracting more.

Okay, we can arm wrestle over that one.

It um and to be clear, the there will be the entire end will be fenced off.

Like there will be no access for cars at the end of Redondo Beach Road.

Well, and no access to try to kill yourself going down that cliff, which is what people do right now.

So that's great.

And actually, if I had to if I had to do anything in this project, if I if it was going to be phased, I would probably start with that those stairs to like encourage people to go the right way, um and to shore up that cliff.

But I get what you're saying.

Yeah.

Um we're also inviting people to go to an area that doesn't have a bathroom.

So, which is no different than now.

I think we're straying a little from clarifying questions.

I know, but um this is something that we approved before, and it looked like it was different, and you're saying it's not.

So thank you.

Scott, one tiny question for you.

In the sign code, what does the term frontage mean?

When we read through our sign code, there are a couple of different uh definitions of frontage.

There's uh there's business frontage, there's and there's street frontage.

So um and business frontage does include uh, you know, contiguous parking lots, you know, for you know, and shopping centers.

It's it's really more of a um applicable to more of a you know commercial setting.

So hard to translate that to trails, I suppose.

Exactly.

And I I think it really you know emphasizes the reasons why a signed program is appropriate in this case.

Yeah.

Are there any more clarifying questions for our applicant or for staff?

Well, let's invite public comment in that case.

Folks in the room or online.

I have none in person or online.

All right.

Well, in that case, we invite deliberations by planning commissioners.

Who would like who would like to kick it off?

So Vice Chair Gore?

Um, it's a lot of signs.

Um, but then when you start to look at what each sign says and what it does, they all seem to have their purpose.

And um, so um I'm not a design person, so I couldn't tell you.

I would say um you might want to think about the number of interpretive signs because those do get in the way of enjoying sort of like the wildness of the place because it's so beautiful out there, and I don't really want to be, you know, reading another sign about the red tailed hawk.

But um, but I would leave that up to everybody else.

That's my only sort of uh concern about the signs.

Thank you for that.

Commissioner Rems.

I would just ask uh Commissioner Doran, what's the alternative?

No signs?

Um fewer interpretive signs.

The interpretive signs?

Yeah.

Nothing.

Why do you have to have interpretive signs?

I mean, you could have one or two if you really want them, or three or four.

Like me, or it seems like my only challenge, and I don't understand all these critters that are floating around there.

So I would be appreciative to know which critters are gonna cross my path.

Just my opinion.

So I don't want to be argumentative for anything.

I just don't think there's a I don't think there's a lot of signs there for the for the linear feet of trail that we're talking about.

It's not hard to imagine that different users of this space will have varying points of view about the open space versus science.

Commissioner De Necro.

Yeah, I'd be a concerned if the interpretives were very duplicitous.

If you had repeatedly the same thing on each one.

It's one thing to have some information about a species in one area where maybe the most prominent uh area where they are.

Um that obviously to me would be kind of overkill to do more than one interpretive about one species.

Um I think also your your Commissioner Reigns' point about the 32 feet between signs.

You know, I can't read a sign 322 feet away.

Am I really seeing it all that clear from that far away?

No, probably not.

Obviously, some are gonna be closer than others.

Um I do think the posts vanish very quickly in your eyesight.

Um they don't really interfere with views, so it's more the bigger signs that you worry about, and those are key positions.

So I don't have much problem with those.

But um I would agree that obviously duplicitous to interpretive science may be problematic too.

Well, so I just meant that we're you know, you're out walking on the cliffs, you're walking on the bluffs, and it's beautiful.

Like that's it's it's a great, it's just a beautiful place.

And so if you have a sign in the middle of that, it takes away from that wild feeling to the wild experience.

And you know, I don't mind like one or two or whatever, but if you have one and then you have another and then you have another, it gives you this feeling of like I'm on a walkway that could be, you know, like the walkway around Alcatraz.

It's not the same.

So that's all.

I mean, it it's um, you know, um, I don't feel strongly about it, but I do love it out there, and as everyone involved with this thing does, want to make sure that it's not a uh sign by committee proposal, right?

Like, you know, everybody wants their sign out.

And so I would I would be cautious about how many interpretive signs you have because that experience of being out in the out in the wild is really cool.

I do see from the count here on the table that it's this is five split rail interpretive signs and seven primary and secondary post-interpretive signs.

So it's really that that totality of uh science.

Uh 12.

That's it.

Yeah, and I I think, you know, I'm conflicted on this because I'm personally very curious and I think almost always welcome things like interpretive signs, but I know firsthand that when phase one of the CLT trail went in, there were folks in my neighborhood who said, you know, they took perfectly good open space and they're they're trying to channel it and restrict it and regulate it, and so there are some folks for whom the more is not necessarily more when it comes to things like that.

So I but you know, I don't pretend to have any expertise in what the right number of signs is.

I think Vice Chair Gorn is pretty articulate though.

I guess if I if I had to weigh in, I would feel more comfortable with a number that's somewhat less than twelve interpretive signs, just for, you know, for the point of making sure that it's clear that we do cherish the open space experience out there.

Can we ask the question about the duplicitous are any of them duplicates of each other in different locations?

That's a good question.

I think um so you're asking about like do i having repetitive information.

Yeah, so um I will say that the signs for the tops of the stairs, I would almost not consider those interpretive because they're more just straight informational.

So but they I probably are included in your interpretive numbers.

Um definitely we had felt that we did not want to have this be just about the different species.

We thought it would be there could be a more history, there could be uh, you know, a sign about history historical references, you know, and and uh criteria uh context of the area.

Um there would be it it would be fun to do one that's more about the actual what actually rest restoration is.

Um that one would probably not be facing at the edge of the bluffs, it would be more inland, um, because it's a nice opportunity to kind of think looking in that direction.

Um, but we had really wanted to avoid doing repetitive uh, you know, having the same information or just having a series of signs that were just about different species.

Uh because we felt that that wasn't very interesting.

I have to say that I think that um so I think that uh Commissioner Gorn, you raised a really good point.

Um so what about uh maybe I could propose that not counting the two at the top of the stairs, uh, but the but maybe just propose to start off with a reduced number.

And then if, you know, and then if it seems like it's something where it would be really nice to have the opportunity to put another interpretive sign, then we can come to the to the uh uh to the development director or to the planning commission.

I can't remember I'm not sure how how that would, but to to propose putting in another sign, but for now maybe reduce it to a number that feels much like it would preserve the wildness, which is a really good point.

Um, I would also I could suggest like a at Sutra Baths in San Francisco, they have a lot of interpretive signs right around the parking lot.

And then when you go out on the trail to go, the there are fewer of them, and so you get the history and you get like if you if what you want you're parking there and you're getting a sense of what the place is and what it used to be, that's all around the parking lot.

And then there's there's a few other signs along the trail, but it's just not very many.

So that's all.

Then that that's a good idea.

We could propose to move like one or two by the as you come out of the put two parking lots, because that is a you're right, that's an entry spot.

Um yeah, I'm we're open to that.

And and I think that if that's like it, these are good points.

I think your your suggestion seems very constructive to me, Sarah.

If you were willing to live with you know the two at the top of the stairs and say six instead of twelve, I'd I I would support that.

I also wanted to say that the variety of signs that you have on phase one of the trail and also that exist along the cowl parissima trail.

I've I've been very impressed with both of those groups.

There's a nice variety of them in there.

It's not just a snake, a frog, a bird.

May I make a suggestion?

Please, um, there is a section in the sign program code that provides for the community development director to make minor changes um to the signs.

So you could um place a limit on the number of signs and then if um they found that say they needed an additional stay on the trail sign, you know, in a hazardous location or something, they could come to the commun to me um for approval of that sign um if the planning commission was okay with that idea, sure.

Yeah, I'm fine with that.

I mean it's it's it's almost more um what's the word?

I don't know the word.

Sorry.

Where we're suggesting rather than making some kind of like complaint.

How do commissioners feel about the the concept of limiting the interpretive signs to something like I suggested two at the top of the stairs and six rather than twelve?

To the chair?

And cutting out four, right?

You're only cutting out four.

Well, I think there's twelve in in this proposal between the rail and the primary.

To the chair.

Um I really appreciate the applicant's flexibility and willingness to work on that.

I do like the idea of limiting the start with a potential for future expansion.

If there's some opinion that this is, you know, better in the future to add more.

Um I do appreciate the wildness of the cliffs in the area, and I do think that argument does hold great strength.

Mr.

Chairman.

Um my position is uh I don't care how many signs are there, a lot or a little.

Don't beat around the bush, Jim.

The impact, the impact that the signs have is the minimus compared to three miles of gravel and split rail fence and stairs going down to the ocean.

That's minor.

Okay.

To me, it's, you know, it's not worth, you know, arguing about.

So if you want to do what you want to do, I mean I'm okay with that if the applicant's okay with that.

But uh, you know, it's really the applicant who's making the proposal, and then we have to try to find a common common ground here.

Yeah.

So I'm gonna vote for their proposal regardless of which way you go.

It just I just think that the impact is greater, you know, with the gravel split split rail and the stairs than the signs.

Thank you.

No, well, thank you for that point of view.

I I will reiterate that I have some experience with uh being on the receiving end of people with different points of views about such things, so it's okay to acknowledge there's a range of points of views.

Um would you like to should I mean you're the one that's gonna do you want to make a motion for it?

Would that be would we uh I just want to double check again with with our applicant if if that uh is a reasonable way forward, yes, entirely.

So I'm I'm very flexible uh, or I think we are very flexible, so and I mean I think this kind of to be honest makes more sense to see how uh to be flexible and see how things go.

Um I'd rather uh under uh sign and then figure out oh whoops, maybe we need another and we can um that would be preferable to overdoing it, in my opinion.

Thank you for that.

Director Lako or Marlene, what would the best way to amend these numbers about the interpretive signs of via an amendment or a uh or a condition of approval or what?

I think you can just make a motion including the cap that you want to put on the signs, um yeah, okay.

Uh and I don't have the resolution language in front of me because I got too absorbed in the plans.

Well, I'll take a stab at a motion if if folks are ready.

So I move we approve the resolution at hand for the sign program and sign permit with the with the change to the number of interpretive signs being reduced from twelve to six, but not the this does not count the two at the top of the stairs.

I I have a clarifying question on that point.

Um, are the two signs at the top of the stairs among the 12 interpretive signs?

If they are, then I think the you'd want to clarify that it'd be a reduction from 10 to six other interpretive signs.

Actually, Scott, do you know the answer to that?

Because yes, they are included in the 12.

So really we're just cutting by four.

Right.

From basically, uh I'm I'm saying that we're flexible to whatever you decide.

Um I don't want to get rid of all interpretive signs, but yeah.

But uh yeah, so you uh we're we're okay with what your whatever if you're proposing the six include the two and we have four other interpretive I don't know however you want.

No, I'm sensitive to their their special nature, so I would say we're going from twelve to eight, inclusive in both numbers of the two at the top of the stairs.

May I have a second to that?

Sure, second.

No, well, I don't think we need to move the roll call.

I was just reading.

The director is talking to the attorney for a moment.

We got it worked out.

Okay.

Bridget, may we have a roll call, please?

Yes, Commissioner Rems.

Yes.

Commissioner Del Nagro?

Yes.

Commissioner Gorn.

Yes, please.

Chair Reddick?

Yes.

Motion approved four zero.

Thank you, Sarah.

That brings us to the director's report, if I remember my agenda correctly.

All right.

Well, thank you, uh, Chair Reddick and Commissioners.

Um, I do hope that you enjoyed your summer off.

That was not our intention.

We did have items continuously fall off of the agenda for one reason or another.

Um, but at this point we do have a pretty busy fall ahead of us.

Um, and we didn't just sit around all summer, just in case you were wondering.

Um Scott has been working on configuring the new cloud permit um system for planning permits.

So we're expecting that to go online and uh the later fall, which is a big change for us.

ACOE's been working on code updates for the objective design standards and Marlene has been helping us with that.

Um, and we've also reached agreement with HCD staff on the final, what we hope will be the final changes to the housing element.

Uh so we went ahead and circulated the CEQA document for that.

Um, and uh we also made significant progress on the safety element update, and we're taking draft policies to the technical advisory committee this week, actually.

And we're finalizing the um $500,000 grant agreement with the Coastal Commission for the implementation plan update.

So in addition to that, we issued uh a permit at 2411 Cabrillo Highway for I think I might have told you guys about this one already.

Three new pre-manufactured mobile homes that are affordable.

Um and then at 501 Main Street where City Hall is, uh we issued a permit for the construction of a car port.

That's that word always catches me, and uh with solar vol a solar photovoltaic array on it, so um and then um we did another another sign permit for half moon play, um very clever, and also an emergency CDP for remediation of the graded site um out at Cabrillo Highway and Highway 92.

Um, and uh a permit at 400 Redondo Beach Road for an addition to a single family residence and 701 uh Parissima Street, construction of uh um ADU and garage conversion uh 431 Spruce Street, a new detached ADU, and then finally um for 2800 Champs Salosé, which I know I pronounced incorrectly, um the Coastal Commission found in that appeal that there was no substantial issue.

Um in the future, coming up, uh September 23rd, we're gonna bring the Taco Bell sign program permit.

I think it was switched from a sign program to assign permit.

Is that correct, Scott?

Yeah, and um also the Smith Field uh coastal development permit and CEQA document, which is a mitigated neck deck.

Um also the the piece the planning commission will be briefed on the objective design standard code updates in October.

The housing element and CEQA document will come to you at the second meeting in October.

Um, and then we'll bring the safety element forward probably in November in a joint planning commission and city council study session.

Uh and we will have staff reaching out to you to try to organize that meeting soon.

And then once the grant agreement for the implementation plan with the Coastal Commission is finalized, we'd like to come back to the Planning Commission for feedback on how the Planning Commission would like to be involved in this process, maybe an ad hoc committee or anyways.

That's that'll be a part of the discussion that we will bring to you later.

And then if we can squeeze it in, we would like to do a briefing on AB 130 and 131, which uh relaxed some of the CEQA requirements for certain projects.

Um and that would be Marlene bringing that forward.

That concludes my report.

Thank you very much.

May I ask you um that agreement with HCD?

Does it touch on the question of uh Measure D and ADUs?

It does.

It does it.

Um it's on the website now, it's posted, so you can check out the language.

It's um, it would um it's instructs us to come back to Planning Commission and Council with code amendments for half an allocation for ADUs, and also for some procedural changes that would um carry over unused measure D allocations.

Um, that's that's the crux of it.

Um so that's those were the major changes that we worked out with HCD and HCD was more amenable to those now because they have had continuous meetings with the California Coastal Commission, and they have a better understanding of uh of what the demands are on the coast.

Um and I think the coastal commission has similarly a better understanding of what HCD is looking for, so where we were previously caught between uh the two agencies were we're seeing a light at the end of the tunnel.

I hope.

Yeah, well, nice to have resolution of that.

Do you have any idea what the timing might be for those things becoming part of our code?

Um I do not.

There's there's a couple ways that we could approach that.

We could approach it as a separate code amendment.

Um we can fold it into the update of the implementation plan that will likely be a phased approach.

There's I don't think there's any realistic way to do it all in one in one fell swoop.

So um it could be an early phase of that.

Um so I'm not sure what that looks like yet.

We only get three LCP amendments per year with the Coastal Commission, and with um uh with the code amendment for um for the ADUs, should that pass.

Um we'd be and the implementation plan we'd really be bumping up against that number.

So well, thank you for that update.

Oh, right, and the objective design standards that I knew I was missing something, yeah.

Commissioner Rems.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I I think I missed something in your report.

Uh Madam Director.

Um did you mention the appeal for the Redondo Beach Road closing at all?

Uh I did not.

I think that was in the last, um Was it in the last one?

The last director's report.

Yeah.

What happened?

Um the Coastal Commission uh we withdrew that coastal development permit because they they were going to deny it, most likely.

The staff recommended denial.

And that would put us in a position that would make it difficult to be able to do a little more research and come back with a different proposal if we wanted.

So the gate stays open.

The gate stays open.

The gate has been open and it stays open.

And we have been working with the sheriff on getting better security out there.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Do any commissioners have any communications to offer up?

May we have a motion to adjourn?

Make a motion to adjourn the meeting.

I'll second it.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed say no.

Meeting adjourned.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.