May we have a roll call, please, Bridget?

Yes.

Commissioner Rems.

Commissioner Del Nagro?

Here.

Del Negro, sorry.

Commissioner Hernandez.

I am present.

And Chair Redick?

Here.

We have four present commissioner Hernandez.

I mean, sorry, Commissioner Gorn is absent this evening.

First item on our agenda is consideration of the minutes of the last meeting, September 9.

Are there any comments or motion to approve those?

I'm happy to make a motion to approve the minutes.

I wasn't present, so I'll abstain.

I second that motion.

All those in should I just do that?

Yeah, that's fine.

Yeah, as long as there's a favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed say nay?

Minutes are approved.

Thank you.

Uh this is the point in every planning commission meeting where we invite members of the public either present in the room or online to address the Planning Commission on any topics that you'd like other than items that are coming up on our public hearing agenda in just a minute.

So if there's anything else anybody would like to bring forward, this is the moment.

I have no one here present or online.

I do want to make mention if those of you that are watching on or through Zoom, the video is not working, the sound and audio is, but we're working that out right now.

So we're we're aware of it.

Just want to let you know.

Thank you, Bridget.

Public hearing item 1A is our first project to consider.

It's an application for uh permit for new and existing signage by a business at 118 San Mateo Road.

And Mr.

Scott Phillips is going to present the staff presentation on that.

Thank you, Chair Ruddick and members of the planning commission.

Uh, as mentioned, this site is at uh 118 San Mateo Road, which is on the northeastern corner of Cabrillo Highway and San Mateo Road.

Uh a gas station uh currently occupied it's a uh two-tenant building, roughly 5,000 square feet, uh, and then a gas station uh occupies the eastern tenant slot, and then through a recent uh building permit issuance, a new restaurant is currently being established in the remaining portion of the building.

A uh paid parking lot, gas station canopy and pumps and various landscaping occupy the rest of the site, and then a large parking lot surrounds the remaining uh borders uh on the adjacent properties.

Now the site itself uh per our land use plan uh is adjacent to a scenic corridor, uh referred to as the town boulevard, and then is also at the uh, you know, the intersection of Cabrillo Highway and San Mateo Road is considered a community gateway.

So that is one thing I wanted to point out.

Now the project includes uh four business signs, and the reason why this is uh uh being presented tonight to the planning commission is because one of the signs exceeds 20 square feet in size.

Uh now the sign proposal does meet the sign code, but approval by the planning commission is required for any sign over 20 square feet or uh 40 square feet of sign area in total, right?

Adding up all the signs, which uh this this proposal does exceed 40 square feet.

Now this slide uh gives you a uh summary of the signs proposed, and you'll see that it's uh in total, it's 55 and a half square feet uh for four signs.

Probably the most visually prominent sign is uh the one that I'm yeah considered on the uh sort of the tower element between the two tenant slots.

Should should we sorry?

Is it I know that you guys don't have it in front of you right now.

Would it be better if you guys I could move you out here to see it up on the screen at least for the presentation part while we're working on the tech to not see if if you don't foresee fixing it very soon I guess we should walk out there and view the slides.

I just they can't see anything you have it don't you right I mean it's on the presentation so it's just well Rick's got it here so that might work for you I just want to make sure I just want to make sure you're able to visually see it that you're not okay sorry for the interruption sorry Scott French option go ahead I do have some printed thank you Scotty since you're welcome awesome thank you sorry for the interruption okay and what uh I was able I was able to uh find a previous photograph of the previous business sign just for comparison purposes and you can see that it's the dimensions are slightly different so this would not be a you know direct um sign replacement so that's that's part of the reason why a signed permit is required now the other business sign is uh the main entrance uh which would be right above the the entrance to the new restaurant uh one in one foot five inches tall by eight and a half feet so roughly 10 square feet for the second business sign and then a sign permit is not required for the uh the late night pickup window uh that you see that that's currently being installed on the outside of the restaurant both the main entrance and the tower sign would include push through internally illuminated channel letters uh so no raceway which we uh work closely with the sign uh sign permitting to eliminate the raceways uh you get a much cleaner look with uh just the push through channel letters dimmers would be installed on the uh the um illumination uh in the case that the you know we find that the illumination is too bright uh we'll have the ability to turn down the illumination if need be and this shows again the previous business sign above the the entrance to the restaurant uh you can compare the you know the what's proposed to what previously existed slightly smaller than the previous business sign now the the third sign is uh the largest it would be 25 square feet and the new business would like to uh has already removed the previous uh static menu board and this would be replaced with a digital menu board which would allow the business to uh more easily update the the menu for the restaurant drive through and then the fourth and final sign would be a uh double sided directional sign providing uh direction to the existing drive through uh sort of around the restaurant or the around the gas station now you may have noticed that uh two two additional signs were included in the sign package uh these would be direct copies uh within the um the multi-tenant sign gas station signs uh two of them on the frontage and uh sign permit is not required for direct sign copies uh we did include these two signs just as context uh in relation to the other signs you you know you can see that they are compatible uh with the uh the new signs that would be installed on the building in the drive-through uh these would be you know just the same internally illuminated uh cabinet signs that you see out there currently just a direct swap now a couple of key things I'm gonna go over the sign code or local local coastal land use plan and the California environmental Quality Act.

Now, as I mentioned earlier the you know, sign permit is required because these uh the signs proposed are different than what existed previously.

And uh in general, businesses are allowed one sign uh plus one additional sign per business frontage.

In this case, there are four business frontages.

The uh, you know, the rear, the uh the adjoining property lines are actually considered frontages since they're uh about uh public parking lots.

Uh four signs are proposed, so we're less than the maximum allowed required, and then since the site is on a major highway, uh a maximum of 70 square feet per tenant uh of signage is allowed.

Uh since we're at 55 and a half square feet, uh the business is has requested less than the maximum required.

So we're happy about that.

Now as I mentioned earlier, the site is on a visual resource corridor, uh, as well as a gateway.

Um the uh since because of that, we did bring this proposal to our architectural advisory committee.

The AAC did review the sign proposal on September 11th, uh, and they were supportive of the signs as proposed.

Uh we they found that the you know the amount of signage was not overpowering and minimal required to identify the business and the drive through.

Uh they did find a few typos on the uh site plan, so those were fixed before we finalize the planning commission packet.

Uh so uh definitely good practice to get our AAC involved with uh sign proposals.

Project is categorically exempt from CEQA.

Uh there is an exemption that uh exempts on premise signs.

We recommend that the planning commission hold a public hearing, and staff uh recommends approval of the signed permit.

I'm happy to answer any questions, and I believe uh the applicant is uh logging in this evening uh for any questions.

Uh the landowner is also present this evening.

I'm sure he'd be available to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you, Scott.

Do commissioners have any clarifying questions for Mr.

Phillips.

No.

In that case, I'll invite any members of the public who may wish to comment on this either with us tonight in the room or online.

Umless you have green cards, I do not.

And then I don't see anyone raising their hand.

I have green cards, but they're all to do with Smithfield.

In that case, we uh we can go to deliberations by planning commissioners.

Commissioner Hernandez.

Uh, first of all, I will disclose that I'm a Taco Bell rewards member, but I am receiving no benefit.

I'm afraid you'll have to recuse yourself from from this uh this project.

Um I think I think overall um if I if I look at past uh issues we've dealt with signage, this is consistent with other um signage that we've looked at as a planning commission.

I also just look for consistency with the previous business, the Popeyes and the Dunkin' Donuts that were there, and I think this is sort of it's well within the limits of the rules.

Um, and also if I compare it to what I see with New Leaf or Ride 8, which share the parking lot or the McDonald's of the Burger King, it just seems like it's appropriate, it's enough to draw attention to the business.

It's still subtle and fits in, so it doesn't feel like we're you know on El Comino Real or on Highway 101.

Um so I think that this is consistent with the elements I would expect to see from a planning perspective.

Um I will call out that the um it'd be great if somebody just takes a careful look at the color palette of the gas station signage with the Taco Bell purple.

That red, purple, and green may not be the best palette.

So somebody might want to take a look at that, but that's that's not a recommendation I'd want to make.

So I I feel comfortable approving this project as is.

Thank you.

Commissioner Del Negro, please.

Um, the way I interpreted this is that the only sign that was actually greater than 20 feet is actually the menu sign.

Um it is at 25 feet according to the paperwork that I saw.

Um, it's a different style.

It's obviously gonna have a little bit more light coming off it if it is the sort of screen with the television, as long as it's not flashing things at you.

It's not very disruptive.

It is facing a parking lot, not towards the street, not towards um our corridor of view.

Um to me, there's nothing here that's you know, grievously beyond expectations of a business operating um in Half Moon Bay and in alignment with our other businesses as well.

I see nothing here to be in conflict with.

Thank you.

Commissioner Rams, do you have something to add?

Mr.

Chairman, I'd just like to say that uh I have no issues with the sign.

I'm prepared to approve it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah, I'm I'm in sync with what Commissioner Hernandez has uh praised about this project.

I suspect that the two businesses are probably stuck with their color palettes due to corporate branding, but uh but uh yeah, in a perfect world, that would be good to relook at that.

But um, I have no problem with this and would entertain a motion to approve the resolution at hand.

I make a motion to approve the item before us.

So I can thank you.

Bridget, would you like to call the roll call vote, please?

I can.

Um Commissioner Rams?

Yes.

Commissioner Del Lagro?

Yes.

Commissioner Hernandez?

Yes.

Chair Reddick?

Yes.

Uh motion passes 4-0.

Terrific.

Our next item on our public hearing agenda is the planning commission is asked to review a.

Sorry.

Review an initial study and mitigated negative declaration and coastal development development permit for the existing Smith Field Park and for phase one of the park improvement project, architectural and site design review for phase one, and tree removal permit.

And I believe our public sort of public works director, Maz Bozo is going to present to us.

Thank you, Maz.

Thank you, Chair Reddick, members of the public, members of the commission.

Uh, my name is Maz Bulzerginia, public works director, city engineer.

And I'm joined here by Dale Lita with the uh our associate engineer with the city of Half Moon Bay.

Um, we're uh really excited to be here tonight to present the um items that uh chair read off, and I'll jump right into our presentation.

Um tonight's item.

If approved, uh, the tonight the action tonight will allow for the city to move forward with the preparation of final plans and construction of phase one of the project, phase one only.

So, what does that include uh in a nutshell upgrading of the existing two-inch water line to an eight-inch water main?

This which will allow for adequate water pressure for the new and necessary hydrants to serve the site, uh paved parking lot with striped stalls, including 788 compliance spaces, bioretention and treatment areas for the stormwater for the newly paved surface areas, as well as the removal of uh trees and planting of replacements at a one-to-one ratio minimum, and a uh revamped uh coastal trail entry node.

Um, what's not included in phase two is a new lighting, any major improvements to the plating field, including the surfaces, the picnic area that's on the um eastern side of the uh project scope uh surrounding trails there and the new dock park playground or any other items that were identified in the master plan.

Um, those improvements would be subject to a future coastal development permit and will be brought back to the planning commission with that date to be determined.

Um, just a quick footnote on that.

This would this would also entail a potential recirculation of the CEQA document, and that decision again would be made uh based on any plan changes and or updates to the state law when the time comes.

Um for folks that are unfamiliar.

Smithfield is located on the southern side of town on the west end of Wave Crest Road, as pictured here on this slide.

A little bit of background.

Um, this facility has been used as a baseball complex by Little League since the mid-1960s.

Uh the property's a little under 30 acres, surrounded by uh a couple of landowners, uh significant landowners, put uh Peninsula Open Space Trust and Coast Side Land Trust.

Um, this property was um originally privately owned until it was acquired by the city in 2012.

There is a continuous use of baseball at this facility for 60 plus years as well as other uses in the surrounding vicinity.

In 2022, the city council accepted the facility's master plan for this park and authorized the filing of an application for a coastal development permit for the project.

Wanted to share a couple of photos for regarding the historical development.

You can see here there's an aerial image from the mid-1960s when it was privately owned that shows the configuration of the baseball fields, and on the right you can see what the configuration looked like in 2012 when this when it was acquired by the city, which is largely remaining as is.

A photo of one of the dugouts on the bottom left, the bottom right, photo of the uh one of the typical backstops, and then on the top right is the concessions and restrooms that are towards the western end of the um uh of the parking lot.

As part of the master plan, um the uh the concept behind it was really a lot of public input and feedback.

Um the goal of the master plan was to address the majority of user needs, um, looking at providing adequate parking and enhancing parking, as well as providing um uh coastal access parking lot parking spaces during during the majority of the time, or for the for the entirety of the project, um, and then as well as looking at potentially preserving some of the former military buildings that were out there, the bunkers, which we'll get into a little bit more detail as we go through.

Another concept was about the protecting of the dark skies policies.

Um that was um something that's highlighted in our land use plan, as well as um a desire that we came out of the public um public uh comment period.

Um obviously the protection of water quality with any project that modifies um uh surfacing, um, looking at trying to minimize tree removals as well as um uh significant in infrastructure uh need, which is the upsize and extension of the water main for um not only for the fire hydrants but also for adequate site service for irrigation purposes.

So here um I have some there's some photos of the um the former military built military buildings on site during the master planning uh process uh there was uh the timing of it of the of the construction of these structures.

There was a potential for this to be uh historical uh facility.

Um so a little bit of history.

This was part of the U.S.

Air Force uh radar station facility uh during World War II.

It was deactivated in the late 1940s and early 50s.

Um, as part of the CEQA analysis, it was determined that the buildings didn't meet the qualifications to be considered historic resources.

As part of the phase one of this project, the improvements were were um uh are designed in such a way where it would avoid any removal of these con these existing facilities as part of the ongoing discussions for phase two.

That'll be a consideration that needs to be determined whether it's beneficial to rehab rehabilitate this space and utilize it for storage and other types of uses, or if it would be better to do a demolition and use this location for something else.

Again, not something that's part of the discussion for the CDP phase one, but something to be considered in the future.

I do want to highlight the wetlands in this area.

There are a number of wetlands are wetland areas that surround Smithfield and Wavecrest Road leading up to Smithfield.

A couple of notes the Army Corps of Engineers confirmed that none of them meet the wetlands for jurisdictions under the federal.

But regardless of that, the local local coastal land use plan does designate these as wetlands, and there is a policy 613 that allows for existing developed areas that are within environmentally sensitive habitat area to remain without intensification.

So here you see again the red line shows the project boundary.

The uh dashed is the within the survey area, includes the buffers beyond the project uh scope itself.

Now I wanted to talk a little bit about the tree removals.

Um there was uh in the environmental document that was circulated.

There was a slight miscalculation of the total number of trees to be removed if both ways phases went forward.

Um if they both went forward, the uh total is actually 48 trees with 35 being classified as heritage.

Looking closer at phase one, which is the item before before you tonight, uh, the total number of proposed trees to be removed, are 31 trees with 22 of them being classified as heritage.

There are also a um there we are also looking at the options to potentially save a number a handful of additional trees.

Um if we were able to work around some of the improvements for the parking lot, um, that's something that we will take a closer look into.

The Arboris report um did uh call out the um conditions of a lot of these trees.

90% of the ones that are proposed to be removed are um in fair condition.

10% of them are in poor condition.

Um we can uh we also have um there's also the potential to look at uh the possibility of transplanting and relocating some of these trees to be used as part of the mitigation for the new trees.

Um, but there are some, there are some challenges to that concept, mostly the clustering of some of the some of the trees.

It may it may be problematic and challenging to do that where the tree is will remain healthy and and transplanted properly.

But again, that's something we can certainly consider as the project plans are um developed to 100% stage.

Um, with a little bit more detail, the the uh project components as I mentioned early on, for phase one is the upgrading of the existing two-inch water uh service to an eight-inch water main, um, which is generally the minimum, which is the minimum water main size that um Kosei County Water District recommends.

Um, this would help to serve the new fire hydrants that will serve the site, as well as the irrigation system that lacks the pressure necessary to properly irrigate during certain seasons.

Um, it also incorporates the new paved parking lot as I mentioned with striped parking stalls, including the accessible stalls, which we have, which the plan has noted as seven, with the number of van spaces, as well as the new coastal trail entry node that will help which will which will be part of the west end of the parking lot as folks get into the trail systems.

Phase two, again, these are future improvements, which um at this point is not being asked for a coastal development um vote on.

That would be coming back to the Planning commission at a date to be determined.

A lot of that has to do with um with funding, honestly.

Um, the and the potential of grants are always out there, but um the funding is isn't there for the significant upgrades to some of the other areas, and those would include any modifications to the fields themselves, including underground storage of stormwater and/or the type of surface uh surface, whether it's natural or artificial, there's um that wouldn't that would also be anything with regards to existing lightings and update um updates to those lighting infrastructure.

That's all going to be part of would be part of phase two.

Um there was a potential of looking at the field three, which is one of the larger fields, and using that as a multi-use field, which was part of the public common process.

Again, that would be part of that one.

Um, any of the uh pathways that are um internal to the site, as well as the areas around the dog parks, the children's playgrounds, um a lot of the other amenities that are listed here.

I won't bore you with the details.

Um highlight on existing parking.

Um, we I wanted to share this.

This was uh part of the Google uh this was a Google Earth image.

Um, I just wanted to note that this was a memorial day back in May of 2022.

Um as you can see um the parking is um haphazard.

Wherever there was areas for parking, people would um people would park.

And this is with this would this is actually um could be a typical day for a little league event too.

Um although um usually on the holiday weekends you don't have little activities, but it's it's a good representation of the amount of parking that's um that's out there right now that people are utilizing um kind of the sides of the roadways, the you know, some of the potentially sensitive habitat areas, and wherever they can fit their uh a vehicle, it generally gets used up.

Um here we have a quick um view of the concept park plan.

Um this again shows the the combined phasing.

Uh so you can see on the bottom of your screen where you have phase one, it's really limited to the parking lot on the southern end of the park itself, and the small piece that goes up that comes up to where the existing dog park and horseshoe pits are.

Phase two would be all the other elements that we I mentioned in the previous slide that's that you can see in kind of the in the um in the the other red section that's on the northern the north side, the the upper part of the screen.

So that includes kind of the trail that goes up to the northeast as well as the fields to the north and uh and west.

Um a little I wanted to talk a little bit about the stormwater management plan.

As proposed, um the project um for phase one would be looking at doing a number of bioretention areas around the parking lot itself.

You can see there's a bioretention, there's a bioretention strip on the northern side of the parking that's um on the roadway as you get into Smith Field.

Um there's also a portion of bioretention that is proposed to be as part of phase one on the northern tip of the of that small lot that's next to the horseshoe pits and the dog and the current existing dog park.

And then um on the far west side of it, there's an underground vault that's being proposed after the stormwater is run through some of these um bioretention areas as an area for um additional storage and and uh sediment uh settling before it is um before it is discharged up north to uh some of the areas um on the northern side of the fields.

And again, this would be part of phase one.

It's part of phase two.

There's um there was concepts about having self-treating areas um and the incorporation of additional underground storage as feasible.

Um that'll need to be further reviewed and analyzed before that that second phase comes comes back for review.

Um a little bit on the project approvals and timeline um phase one, which is the subject of this CDP.

Um the hope would be that construction could commence in the spring of 2026.

Um there is a private donor that is in that has been interested in helping um fund some of these improvements.

There's also some uh city um uh some uh some money from the city that has been designated towards some of the infrastructure upgrades so the combination of the two um would help us to move forward with phase one.

And again, that would be um some of the general grubbing and grading of the areas for the parking lot and the bioretention areas, removal of the of the of the 30 uh of 31 trees for phase one, which would um up to 31 trees, which would include up to 22 heritage trees.

It would be the removal of the existing two-inch water line and some of the other infrastructure uh associated with the irrigation, um it would uh as well as the some of these structures, um there are some elements um some railroad uh ties and and some other pieces that have been utilized to kind of um main manage the parking areas uh currently some of that would be removed to um to provide the construction of um the water line, the parking lot, the sidewalks, and the other the other facilities I as I mentioned.

Um and again the phase two is a subject for future CDP and that date is to be determined.

Um there's there's no set plan on on the timing of that quite yet.

Um to sum it up, um the staff recommendation would be to adopt the mitigated neg um and the associated uh mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the proposed pod project, as well as the approval of the um PDP 23-054, which is an application for a coastal development permit for the existing Smith Field Park facility and for phase one of the park improvements, the architectural and site design review for phase one of the project, as well as the tree removal permit to allow for these improvements to move forward at Smith Field, as well as the um, which also includes the water line as we mentioned previously, and with the way of Crest Road right of way.

With that, that is the end of my presentation, and I'm happy to answer any clarifying questions.

Thank you, Maas.

If I if I might kick off clarifying questions, could you go back for a moment, please, to your slide that lists the details in phase one versus phase two.

I think I think it's important that the commission and the public understand that you're sharing with us the overall uh project vision, but we're we're only the commission is asked tonight only to approve a fairly small subset of of actions that are that are part of phase one.

And I I guess that it doesn't mean that we may not uh talk about things that go beyond phase one, but we're not to deliberate on phase two items or or be asked to make decisions about them.

Thank you, Chair Reddick.

Um we're always happy to take public comment on future phasing, um, and and you are correct.

The action tonight would not um would not uh move any of those items forward, but again, happy to take any public hear any public comment or any commission comments with respect to phase two to help us as we move forward with with any future projects there.

Great.

Uh Commissioner Hernandez, do you have a clarifying question?

Yeah, just as a follow-up though, the um the sequel analysis that has been completed imagines both phases of the projects though, correct?

So we've we're not sneaking something in later on.

No, that's correct.

And um, which is why I wanted to make it really clear that if we uh when that phase two comes back for the cond coastal development permit, um it could very well be with it will likely be with any updated CEQA document to reflect anything that's modified from there.

So if you go above and beyond what's in phase two that you've currently imagined, you might have to do another analysis.

Yes, there could there could be the potential for an updated CEQA document.

Okay.

Clarifying questions?

Commissioner Donna Grove.

If you could throw up the construction and the deconstruction slide that you had on the Sorry, I'm not seeing it still.

Alright.

No, it's not gonna appear.

It's okay.

Um.

Well, that's okay.

Um, I did notice, oh there we are.

Um on the demolition part of what's going on here.

Obviously, we're moving the trees way back here in the phase one on the construction line.

I don't want to trees being reinstalled during the phase one part of the project.

Is there a separation of the tree restoration to a later time, or are we doing that now?

That's a good question.

So, as you can see, as part of phase one, there is a number of trees that are being proposed to be replaced currently as part of this existing project.

When we as we refine it, we can take a closer look at that.

If there are some areas that might be a little bit outside of the existing location, uh, but it doesn't mean that we can't move forward with the with the plantings.

Okay.

So they're not waiting to plant until later in phase two.

We are planting.

No, the yeah, the requirement is a one-to-one minimum, and that that would be uh met as part of phase one.

Great.

Happy to see trees planted as soon as possible because growth time does take time.

Uh more clarifying questions.

Miles on the your map of the wetland areas.

Phase one does not call, I believe, for expansion of the parking lot on the southern end of the project into that like blue wetland area, right?

No, it does not.

You're correct.

It is within the red lines where the existing parking is that is um the state property line between the city owned parcel and the coastal land trust project parcel.

So the the existing area of that parking lot does not change in this project.

No, it remains where it is.

Great.

You know, I'm I have to admit that I'm still a little confused about the tree removal plan.

Um are we being asked tonight to approve a tree removal plan that includes trees that are in the phase two area as well as phase one?

No, that's that's a great point.

Um, so the number of trees that I I that I that I noted as part of the presentation, which would be um the 31 total with 22 being heritage.

If you look at the screen, I think yeah, you can see my mouse.

So that includes these two trees potentially here, and it includes this cluster here.

These actually, these little ones here, the these three heritage, these are the ones that are in poor condition, and then it's these cluster trees here.

So the ones up here on the north of the screen, those are not part of current phase one, and those that would not be removed currently, and what you see in the center here, none of that's part of phase one, so those would not be removed as part of this proposed project.

And then you can kind of see here these little marks, those are the other trees that are to remain that aren't going to be removed as part of either phase.

So really the cluster we were talking about, the 31 and 22 being heritage, are these two, and then the ones you see here on the southern portion of the screen.

Um the reason why I don't have a full site plan.

There are no other trees on this site, and no one no other ones that are being impacted.

Thank you for that.

Any further clarifying questions?

Well, let me I'm sorry.

I might ask a couple if you don't mind.

Of course.

Um, the bioretention that's occurring at the north, sorry, the south east corner, um, in front of that parking area.

Is there a sidewalk in front of those stalls?

So if people show up, yes, yeah, that's correct.

So part of the phase one would be um sidewalk, um, uh a concrete sidewalk on the north side of the parking stalls that also ties into the ADA access component that's necessary for this project.

And it's snake and it does go all the way out towards the tail end.

I'm looking at the parking to the far east side of this figure.

There is a sidewalk in front of those with the water retention.

Those as well, yes.

I agree.

That's good to hear.

Um, I'm trying not to dive into part two, but understanding we're part one or the project interfaces of part two.

Um, I'm late to the game on the overall park design, having just joined the commission recently.

Um things I'm concerned about, obviously, are entrance from this jetty out into the future dog park versus the playground being so close to each other and why there isn't a separate access for dogs from over that far right parking lot is kind of a thought process of mine to kind of reduce that um and just making sure that that if there was a possibility in the future of moving something for access and getting people with dogs to park in that far right parking would be an advantage to the park as a whole.

Um that's for future comment, but just making sure we have the potential if that was on the table at the future is what I'm considering.

Um the other one was about the lighting and the electric source.

If there is a future time in which an expansion of lighting in this park as a whole is considered, is the infrastructure gonna be available for running more power to the site to do that during this build, or are we already maxing out the capacity of the lines?

No, I don't we're not we're I don't think we're looking at um any major upgrades.

Um a lot of these lighting systems that are existing are older um systems.

Um and as part of phase two, I think we would be looking at um trying to mitigate what's out there and making it less of an of an issue with respect to the dark skies policy.

I think we did a high level uh uh review with um with uh Pacific Gas and Electric with respect to the power that's available out there, and we're not anticipating any major improvements necessary, but um, I don't know, Dale if you have any other comments.

Are the power lines coming down Wave Crest Road?

Is it the power line access?

Yeah, it's correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any further clarifying questions?

If not, I will open the public hearing and invite folks in the room to start off with to address the to uh address staff and the commission first speaker uh former mayor Mike Ferrero, please.

Okay.

Yeah.

I am concerned that where we probably should be in the bottom after the back permits or the soon as 19 and 76, uh, soon as the only one permanent is you know, and that permanent is the bottom of our V.

So, thank you.

So if we might start with uh slide one, that's what was in existence in 1972 in the coastal records project.

Hang on a second, Mike, we can't see it's going in.

Okay, thanks.

That isn't going to your we got it now.

Okay.

And uh in the next slide would be 1979, and actually pretty much the same story.

The next slide should be 1986.

Again, the same story.

And of course, by that time, the coastal act is ten years old.

But uh then we go to the next slide.

And suddenly things have boomed out there without permits.

Uh I think that's uh twenty.

Not two thousand four.

I'm sorry, you've got the date on it.

Yeah, we had to merge them together in order to present tonight, so we do have the dates all accordingly in our folder.

Actually, this was uh later in the 80s, I guess, and uh you can see that uh the clubs out there were pretty much operating without permits.

You can see the um the horseshoe pits or whatever, all of this without permit, and there's a little bit of activity south of the road, which will go away over time, uh if we can go to the next slide.

Uh this is 2013, I believe, and it's pretty much the same, except you've got a lot more buildings around there, etc., including the dog park, and then we can actually we can stop there, and you can see that there's been a lot of stuff going on out there with basically no permits.

There is a process that none of us like called after the fact permitting, but it actually is kind of necessary, I think, to memorialize what is actually there, because to simply say that there was baseball there in the 60s, so baseball is fine, that's not true.

Okay, there was two small uh fields and one large one, and that's all.

So it would have been nice to have that institutional memory created by the permitting system.

Uh there are the next slide, or if you may, uh you can skip that one because it's largely just the same thing, and that's more of the same.

That's 2024.

That's one went fog, and then now this is the one.

These are the wet area was all around the World War II artifact.

It was south of it, it was west of it, it was north of it, it was surrounded by wet.

And uh this is brought forward.

There's an uh a word document that I gave you, if we could put that up.

We have it, it's just unattached to that.

You guys all received it this afternoon.

I sent it.

Alright, there's also uh some photos there that showed some people were having fun doing wheelies in the wetland out there, and uh you probably saw those photos, uh there is also a document that's a copy of a federal wetland delineator where he includes a photo in the middle of it of the wetland in 2006.

The earlier photo that we saw was 2004, and so that's a matter of federal recognition that there was a wetland there that met the state definition, though not the federal definition.

So I just put all those together to say that really that's kind of work that's I think helpful for the future to memorialize and to get clear on what shouldn't have happened, but it happened.

The Coastal Commission tends to be somewhat forgiving about that, but it's a process that I think should have happened, and then uh sorry about all the trees.

I hate to see the trees go.

I don't like to see the road expanded into wetland buffers.

There's been a lot of that over time already.

Um and then in closing, I would just like to address the artificial turf, and for this moment, I would have to say that I'm now speaking with a voice of the Sierra Club because I'm the chair of the Loma Prieta chapter.

We oppose artificial turf, especially in sensitive areas.

It's on your agenda as an option.

That means if it's only an option, it's not needed.

That there's something else that could go there, like natural grass.

Here's your chance.

Eliminate the option, stick with the grass.

That's what the kids want, it's what they enjoy.

My grandkids played on the kuna stuff out here.

They hated it.

They live in a town now that's all natural grass, they love it, they talk about it.

What an improvement it is.

So that's all I have to say tonight.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mike.

Our next speaker is Tiffany Kay, followed by Luke Gibbons.

Hello, my name is Dr.

Luke Gibbons.

I live a couple blocks away, and I walk down to Smithfield every day with my two dogs, and uh enjoy the dog park as much as the rest of the natural open area.

And I wanted to come in today for a few reasons.

If you could just speak into the mic, please.

And I don't see any reason why any of these trees need to be removed.

I think there's way too much parking being put in.

I think if it's site construction, if it's utility expansion of the waterline, all justified, but I think there's a way to keep the trees without sacrificing too much parking.

Someone uses the dog park more than the fields.

I think everyone at the dog park would be fine parking in the dirt as long as there's a few spots with handicap access.

Um we also had like a local loss about five months ago.

Man named Bill Baxter died, and I would propose that the new dog park be named Bill Baxter Dog Park.

Finally, I think the new dog parks, yeah.

I know it's not tonight's topic, but in incorporate a dog run so that the locals can teach new people how to incorporate their dogs into the dog park.

Uh so like it's in you know, going back to the beginning, this is my last point, just see the minimum amount of of new development there, but I think this is a great addition to the local community, and I think we do need to make some upgrades, but not at the expense of the local wildlife or of children's health.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um did Tiffany Kay wish to speak?

No.

Uh Marcia Kimball, welcome.

Um, so I was a little confused because I thought this was gonna be a big discussion of the dog park.

So I'll make this very short because I can see that's for a later time.

But um, this whole group are we all go to the dog park all the time, and so I just wanted to make sure that when it comes down to working on that, that you have input and people who really do use the dog park put in their comments.

Like um Luke was just saying we need a dog run because dogs come in that there may be puppies, or they're slightly aggressive, and so we need a little dog run where they can be separated from the other dogs to get used to being at a dog park, so that's a comment and um and then we love our shed there, so we're a little worried that the shed is gonna be demolished, and um we use that for all sorts of things, and um basically the people who use the dog park, we'd like a little input um when it comes down to it down the road, and it sounds like because of budget constraints, we're gonna talk about maybe a year or two down the road, so at that point you'll be hearing from me again, but um also I wanted to comment about phase one and and I'm totally with Mike about the not doing artificial turf.

I just think that's a terrible shame.

And um, and then I wish there was some way to reduce the number of trees taken out, um, especially some of the older trees, and I do worry about our wildlife like our hawks, and you know, they go they come back for generations, and and so you know, I wish that 31 could be winning down to something less than that, but um that's all I have to say, and so I will address phase two more down the road when it when it comes up.

So thank you, thank you.

We have uh online commenters, Bridget.

Yes, I have Hilary.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Go ahead.

Thank you for hosting this meeting.

I'm Hilary Stamper.

Um, I'm also on the Parks and Rec commission, and I just had a couple comments uh about this phase of the um park.

The first one is for the dog people.

Um, as someone on the parks and rec commission, I just wanted to say I would love to have y'all come to a parks and rec commission meeting and talk about what you want out of the um dog park because it would be really helpful to me as a commissioner to hear directly from you what you're thinking as we are consulted in this process, and then the second thing is very specific specific about the this phase that we're talking about right now.

First, I agree with the comments around the trees.

I really would love to see some work done to reduce the number of trees that are taken down.

Um that said, I am also a huge huge fan of recreation for all ages in our community, and I urge you to consider in this process of creating um parking areas if there are ways to add in um uh basketball court that's inobtrusive and would be um like go along with parking so that when cars are not parked there, people could play basketball.

I think that would be an amazing addition and probably not a very high cost if there is gonna be asphalt.

I just can't remember if the this was asphalt or not, and same thing with pickleball.

If there's a way to incorporate some pickleball um courts that are compatible with parking, um, so people could come on and use that again when there aren't cars there.

I think it'd be a fantastic way to get some more use out of this project from the early stages, so even before we go into phase two or three, and that is all.

Thank you so much.

Thanks, Hillary.

We thank you.

Next up, Anthony Sparati.

Go ahead.

Are you can hear me now?

Yes, we can.

Okay.

Um I'm a board member for the Half Moon Bay Little League.

Um, we including uh Pirates, which is the SOR program that's not filled with Little League, and um uh junior Giants had over 800 uh participants this year in terms of baseball participants, um, in terms of the field usage with Cunya being down at the beginning of uh in August and September.

We had three uh we had baseball teams and soccer teams practicing on the same fields.

Um so first um the fields get a ton of use.

Um in terms of this project, we're all for you know the the water part.

Um if someone flushes the toilet while we're trying to water the fields, we lose water pressure and can't water the fields.

Um so um we're super excited about this program.

Um, we're super uh grateful um for the city.

Uh we did have an increase of of over 30% in our registration this year, and to the point where we had to go and reach out to the school district to re- reutilize Hatchfields and uh get uh El Granada uh also um, you know, put it into their ear about you know once they're done with the construction there, utilizing the fields there.

Um so the baseball fields are getting a ton.

I like all of you know what Hillary said about being able to use utilize the the con you know how the asphalt is when it's not super busy, um, and you know it's just it's a great, it's a great uh facility right now.

And um my son also does the summer program, which is pirates and to a to a person, you talk to anyone.

We had 40 different baseball teams come out for Memorial Day, and almost every single one says it's their favorite tournament and they love coming out here.

So thank you.

Just want to say thank you to the Half Moon Bay, everyone.

Um in terms of like the scheduling and stuff, a special shout out to uh Eddie Beadle and Rob Mills over at the at the parks and rec.

We are shooting a ton of emails with each other to make sure that you know kids that won't get the soccer teams on there and the baseball teams are on there and everything.

So uh just appreciate that this is moving forward, hopefully, and uh thank you very much.

Thank you.

I have no other hands raised.

Anyone else present here wish to ask a question or direct a comment?

Yes, sir.

Um Mike Jordan, I'm a local resident, but uh my family uses Smith Park.

Um every week, uh 10 weeks a year.

It's a fantastic asset, it's a wonderful jewel that the community uses incredibly.

I think it's probably one of the highest used assets that the coastal community has.

So Smith Field needs help.

It's really in need of some TLC, and we can't get to the TLC perspective phase two until we get phase one done.

You need water for irrigation, you need proper parking, you need the site use.

There's there's obviously some questions about site use, either expansion of the dog areas, expansion for other uh usages, but certainly Smith Field is an incredible asset for the community for the coastal community, and everything that we can do to improve that facility will be highly regarded by all the constituents in the community itself.

So my understanding is phase one is funded, phase one is funded.

So really, if we get phase one in, then that makes phase two viable.

Because all of the things that you want to do to improve the facility, to improve the turf conditions, to improve a little league experience, could then fall in place after phase one is done properly.

So that's it.

Thank you for that.

If there are no other uh public comments, I'll close the public hearing.

And ask commissioners if we're ready to move the deliberation.

Maybe you can look at the tree map for what's being removed one time.

Yeah, I'd enjoy that too, yeah.

Can you pull that up on you know you said 31 is the current for phase one with 22 heritage?

Correct.

Right now the current one is 30 um one with 22 heritage.

Sorry, one second while I get this back up.

And there you are.

Okay.

Um obviously within the phase one area itself, there's not 31 trees.

Some of them are kind of just over the boundary there at the parking.

Those two out there are included.

So yeah, the the ones as the 31 proposed for removal.

Those two.

Okay.

Uh this cluster here.

And then uh and then these ones in the southern portion of the parking lot, proposed parking.

I looked closer at the uh attached figures in the addendum to the project, and that's 31 than if it's those two up top.

Um the size of them, which ones are the biggest ones, the most remarkable trees in this group.

Is it the cluster or is it some of the more individualized ones on the south side near the entrance to this this jetty out?

That's what's out of the other health.

Um as our associate engineer Dale Lita pointed out to me right now.

Um the ones in the south, they're a little bit spread out or the ones that are in better health, um, just generally speaking.

Um, but for the most part, uh they are a little bit mixed as far as the larger ones and the smaller ones.

Um I don't know if we have that right off the top of our head, but we can certainly take a closer look at that.

Um and as as I mentioned, I think as we move forward, um the maximum we would be looking at would be 31 as part of this phase one project.

If there's opportunities to save some of them.

I think we can look at uh working around that and try to reduce that number uh a little bit further.

Um You mentioned that the cluster of three that's to the left of the cursor there, that those are the sickest ones.

Those were the ones that were uh identified as in poor health.

Okay.

Um the two to the left of those, are they interfering with access in and out for vehicles?

Or is it really uh Yeah, those one the the the challenge with those two there are um access to the parking lot to the north as well as um some of the uh as far as the as well as the traffic calming um that's being proposed and um just if one of them would it would be in the drive aisle.

I think some of the ones on the south are in better health.

You could possibly um either look at reducing some of the uh maybe there's an opportunity to restripe some of this where you can work around some of those trees and incorporate it to the parking.

Those would be the ones we can take a really close look at to see how many we can incorporate.

Hate to lose the parking at the same time.

I do say something uh all the trees south of the map, like below the map.

There's a another uh four, there are less than trees.

So the trees highlight on the southern parking lot area, those would probably all go.

All those spots on the north part and the trees from phase two, there should be that are slowly.

All those should stay and then just get rid of the parking lot on the northern pack.

Alright, thank you.

Thank you for that opinion.

I'm I guess what I'm getting at is I'm not opposed to paving around a tree.

I've been in many towns where the actual road goes around a beautiful tree that you want to retain because it's very keyly keenly attractive to have trees at a park area.

At the same time, you know, if you're losing a parking spot or two, it's not the worst thing in the world.

If you're losing a large number of them, I can see the the conflict here.

Um I do appreciate that there's a couple trees here, the one that's kind of in the swell and north of those two that are blocking the drive, that's a retained tree, not a new plant.

Is that correct?

A little up right there?

Correct, okay, good.

As well as the ones kind of on the northern side here.

Um yeah, I think some of the ones in the exterior, like this one, probably we can work around and not um blues.

Um, we were also looking at some of the ones kind of on the northern side of this strip here.

We can probably look at retaining.

So I think the the again the maximum would be 31 is presented tonight for phase one, but there are opportunities where we can look at reducing it further.

I would encourage savings manually and obviously I think that's your objective as well as I understand it.

Thank you.

Just since we're we're on this topic, um, I'm looking at Google Maps, which is also in the presentation.

The the area for this new parking area where the don't move, don't move.

I'm sorry, come back.

Okay, this area where you got these two green trees in the middle, um, this is uh just south of the existing dog park area today.

Correct.

Okay, great.

And what I heard you say is there's certain trees that are diseased and unhealthy that are good candidates to be removed, and we've had a lot of discussions around protecting urban forests here, so you guys know my position on protecting trees.

I'm a big fan of it, but I do.

When I look at this plan, the first thing I thought of was good god, do we really need that much parking?

And then the image you showed us from Memorial Day says, Yeah, apparently we do, because people are parked all over the place.

There's people parked in the grassy area where those two trees are going to be removed.

There's people parked all up and down um redondo beach road or uh whatever the road is there.

So I do think there is definitely a need for parking.

Um I'm not gonna debate that.

I think um I would like us to identify the trees that are the healthiest and the best candidates, uh especially the larger trees.

There are a few um substantial trees in that area that I think if you could like at least pick out the top 25% of those trees in terms of quality from the arborist report, what's likely to survive, I'd work around those.

Um I don't think we need to necessarily save every single tree, um, but I do think the most prominent, the healthiest, the largest, the ones that you know the arborists recommend.

I'd lean into saving those for sure.

Commissioner Rems.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Well, I too have concern over trees.

So I went out there last Saturday and spent some time driving around.

And I was very surprised of the activity.

The human activity was in every field, including the dog park.

The only place that didn't have human activity was the horseshoe places.

I went out there because I had a concern for the trees, and I couldn't understand why so many trees are gonna be removed and why.

And when I got there, I found out why.

Uh the stand is so dense that it's choking most of the seedlings, and they're dying off.

They're not getting enough sun.

You can see that the branches are they're non-existent.

They tower up to the very top, and you've got a little bit of a kind of a uh cover at that point.

Uh that invites disease and other things to come by.

So at that point, uh I said I understand now what's going on.

And as was expressed here, I would I would like to see some of the older growth trees that are robust.

If they're not diseased, then it won't fall on someone to be tried to be saved, and maybe some of the seedlings that are around their boxed and maybe preserved and put somewhere else on the site where uh they can enhance everything.

And so I like the project.

Uh, Commissioner Hernandez said when I was there, uh everything was populated.

There's virtual chaos in the driveway areas, the parking areas, helterskelter, and I had a very big concern because I was also driving it.

The little kids were running back and forth.

You could hardly see them.

They weren't even tall as the car.

And so it's a it's a very big concern of mine, and I think this project needs to go forward so that at least uh there's a margin of safety that increases tremendously.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Yeah, that's a good point, Commissioner Rams.

The uh the the improvement of parking to me is not just about the convenience of the families that use that, but there is a honest public safety issues out there when cars are uh uh doing freelance parking the way that they have to at Smithfield.

I I've also seen what you're talking about with the the extremely thick growth of some of the trees out there which are you know don't make them good candidates for for long lives.

Some of these ones that uh well moss doesn't have the slide up anymore, but some of the some of the ones that are densest right at that uh that northern strip for parking are are certainly in jeopardy.

But I I really do want the commission to put in place the directions on this project to use a a pretty robust filter in terms of preserving as many of these trees as we can.

The the idea of sacrificing a couple of parking places to leave those those trees in place is an example of of something that makes a lot of sense to me.

I don't I don't know exactly the wording of the commission putting the that into words, but we'll figure that out.

I mean I'd be curious to see what Moz has because my my thinking is have the arborist recommend the trees, you know, the top third of the trees that are healthiest and most robust or something along those lines.

Um I don't I don't want to it gets dangerous when you start litigating which tree survives and which doesn't.

We've spent a lot of time in these uh meetings talking about that, but do you have a structure that would work, Moss?

Um Yeah, I think I think maybe something to the effect of the health of the trees would be important as well as the um size and the established um, you know, the the size and the established um level of those uh trees.

Um I don't know how we want to deal with the potential count, the number is 31.

Um if we want to commit to a 10% reduction of that, I think we can certainly make be happy to entertain a 28 maximum removal um and then look at um as well as as well as looking at other options and opportunities to reduce it further um as um as feasible, something like that.

Um since we're still talking about trees, I'd make a recommendation of a reduction of 20%, unless the parks and recreation commission has a strong opinion of like I would just push it over to them because this is all the other areas.

Sir, you the public hearing's not open right now, so I I can't entertain your uh comment.

Hang on to that for a minute.

I I would just I I would I'd like to see something a little more robust than 10%.

I I'm not exactly sure what it is, but um I agree with I've been to the site many times.

I've seen sick and dying trees, um, you know, I also see kids climbing the trees and enjoying them.

So I'd like us to take a more aggressive posture and preserving the more substantial trees, certainly the ones that are 30 years or older.

Um, and I know it takes about 10 years for a Monterey Cypress to become a heritage tree, because I have several of them in my yard.

Um, so I don't know.

I I'm not sure where we where we land.

I mean, uh through the chair, I think you know, even a 20% reduction.

I think that that could be realistic.

Um we may lose a couple of spots here and there, but I think that's something that our engineering um division can work out as a maximum.

And then again, just because we're saying that's the maximum doesn't mean if there's other opportunities to save more trees or re- uh transplant them.

Um we will continue to consider that as part of the the finalization of the plants.

Yeah, that that feels good to me.

20% would be the preservation of of six and the removal of no more than twenty-five.

I I think I think we could I think you folks working with the arborists could find six trees to spare from from this list here.

Or more, based on health and and such.

I I don't have a strong opinion on um turf or not turf.

I've seen pretty detailed arguments for and against grass and non-grass.

Um certainly when we looked at um the high school field, we we did some we dug into this a little bit.

I do respect the Sierra Club's position that uh turf or grass is better than artificial turf.

I I don't discount that.

I do think there are having been on Smith Field and um uh tried to play soccer on there a few times and and watch people roll around.

Um, some of the there are some problems with um the field um that it's easier to maintain turf uh from a cost perspective and it's a little safer.

So I do think there's some some benefits of that.

And it's I don't think all of the fields would be turf, it's just one of the fields would be turf and it would be for multi-purpose.

That's correct.

What was proposed as far as the phase two would have been the multi-purpose one as artificial.

And as I understand it, like for soccer in particular, uh that that was probably informed by the parks and recreation commission where they were I know they've handled this a few times.

Um, okay.

Um I'm curious um what we should be doing about this.

Um, do we do an after-the-fact permit or not?

I think there's an interesting question that's been raised.

I know this is a former military site that's had a lot of structures on it over time that have been removed.

Um some of them are still there.

I've seen reports on the historical structures that are still there.

I didn't know that that was a radar dish.

Uh that that wasn't that was a new discovery for me.

Um what's the city's position on do we need to do an after the fact or just do a permit?

Um, because there's there's been a long-standing use here that predates the Coastal Act going back to World War II.

Yes, so um, as part of tonight's action, it was being requested that the existing park uh that's remaining outside of phase one be part of the approval as is.

Um if we wanted to go forward with a more robust after the fact, that's certainly something we can consider.

Um but that'll be uh but what's before you tonight is uh asking for a formalization of the existing facility as it's currently situated with the addition of the phase one improvements that were proposed.

And the city's position is an after-the-fact permit is not required.

Um that is um I may turn to legal for their opinion on that particular piece.

Um that's not something that I've had the chance to analyze um for this.

Um, but what I will say is the coastal commission had an opportunity to to comment and did comment on on the scope of the proposed project.

Um, and that was I don't believe that that was something that came up in their comments.

Um, all right, thank you.

I don't have any other comments right now.

I'll leave my discussion about um I guess fields versus turf having been on a park and rec commission for eight years in a place where we battled with access to fields.

Um we do have a future debate here with between lighting, uh, number of programs you're trying to run, having to rest grass fields, and then of course turf fields, um future date.

But um I do have some experience on it, and I'm looking forward to the conversation about it because it is a worthy debate to have.

Um, I do recognize that it's not the time tonight to do it, but and we're not talking about adding lighting at this point, great.

No, that is not part of the phase one scope.

I'd like to comment briefly on one phase two element, which I've which I've been skeptical about in public before, which is the the proposed trail that would go to the northeast from roughly the location of the new dog park into the uh what is today undeveloped areas out there.

I I I uh I remain skeptical that that would be a popular path for folks to use.

And I think it's ironic that we, you know, at this moment in our history, the the city and coastside land trust are investing in a pretty major improvement and uh to the accessibility of the trails to the west of Smithfield, which are which are extremely popular.

I mean, people drive every day of the year to the Smithfield parking lot in order to walk on those trails out to the bluffs and down to the beach.

So I'd I'd like us to and I guess ultimately it'll be a city council decision, but I I'd like us to think carefully about the the value of investing in uh in those those trails rather than the than the walkways that are gonna be out on the bluffs.

That's the only phase two comment I'll make.

Well sir, sir, I'm gonna I'm gonna open the public hearing and ask you to come up to the podium, talk into the mic.

I just uh recommend also that that I agree those that's probably an unnecessary expansion.

Um if I was gonna hike I would definitely go towards the coast.

There are way too many ticks out there and and and nobody w would use it for that reason with the option of just going towards the coast where the salt air keeps the t ticks at bay much much better.

Thank you for that.

Mr.

Ferrara.

Thank you very much, uh Chair Ruddick.

Uh I did want to respond to the attorney's comment about the Coastal Commission not commenting or not requesting an after-the-fact permit.

Well, they wouldn't if they weren't told what had gone on all those years, and they weren't.

So if you tell them that there was all that unpermitted activity, they will comment.

Thank you.

Thank you again.

And that closes the public hearing.

What other deliberations do we have?

Commissioner Hernandez?

I think the um it's a little outside of our scope, but I would take uh uh our planning commissioners uh or our parks and recreation commissioners' feedback on identifying ways to use the parking for multiple ways.

Uh basketball court or pickleball court, like having multi-purpose is helpful.

One of the lessons of the multi-purpose gym that is on the boys and girls club facility um on Kelly is we rushed forward and we missed an opportunity to have it support pickleball, to have it support volleyball.

The lighting wasn't done in a way that allows other sports besides basketball to use it.

So if we can take advantage of the parking and uh find other places to, you know, people can do pick up roller hockey, whatever.

Um I think thinking about those types of things as we get to design would be great.

Thanks.

More?

Commissioner Del Negro?

I just like to appreciate the flexibility in our conversation about the trees and finding a solution towards that.

Um I think that was actually a really good deliberation and kind of compromising finding the best way to save as much as possible.

Um I definitely have a positive feeling coming after that uh towards approving this at this point.

Are we feeling like it's uh Commissioner Rems?

I thought just occurred to me uh would it be uh appropriate to take a look at those horseshoe pits.

Nobody's using them.

What what good are they, or can we reduce the number of them and maybe put another amenity in there for something else?

Just the thought I'm having right now.

I believe that the public works has some data about the use of those facilities.

Yeah, thank you.

Through the chair, um I do want to mention that yes, although they're infrequently used, they do host a number of tournaments.

So there are certain weekends where it is pretty busy um at those horseshoe pits.

Um as we go through with the second phase of this project, um we can do a little bit more outreach to the users of that facility and see if there's opportunities there.

As part of the phase two, what was being proposed as a part of the master plan was actually to relocate it somewhere else.

Um so um that's something that will need to be revisited um as part of phase two.

But your notice uh your comment is noted.

Would you consider lawn bowling?

I like lawn bowling personally.

So do I.

But yeah, we can I think I think um those those comments are noted here, so we'll keep we keep that in our notes as we move forward.

And um I think there's, you know, I heard basketball, I heard pickleball, there's I think there's a lot of um demand for um active uh recreation, and so we can certainly incorporate that as part of our phase two discussions.

I'm just thinking of the active seniors, Mr.

Chairman.

We like lawn bowling.

Lastly, uh, you know, I have a as long as we're talking about grass and artificial turf, uh I just think it's more appropriate to put in grass than artificial turf on everything.

I think kids need to roll around in grass, not an artificial turf.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you.

Um I I applaud the um the outreach that was done when the city was um formulating the parks master plan from which this flows.

I think as as Maas has alluded to a couple times, it'd certainly be great opportunity to keep keep that good work going as we as we approach phase two.

Any other comments from the commission?

Commissioner Hernandez?

No, I I think um I think we'd probably like to put a proposal together on uh a motion together here.

I'm just trying to pull up the yes, you're and you're the you're the commissioner to do it too.

Lucky me.

Oh you're so good at it.

So um this one's I I do I do want to actually have one little item before we get to a motion.

Um I do want to recognize that um there is some ambiguity here, and I've certainly heard uh today public testimony, or not testimony, I heard in the staff report the historic use of the site goes back to at least World War II.

And there are existing structures there.

I've also seen multiple presentations about the various uses that have been in place at this park.

So I do think that if we make a substantial change to the park in the future, I do think that that would probably merit something more substantial from a permitting perspective.

But I I think I'm I'm mostly satisfied with the city's position that we'll be just we're just gonna approve this project as it's scoped out.

I think there are a number of improvements that replace existing structures in this are you know the things that aren't fencing or picnic cables or risers.

Um it looks like a lot of those are being replaced in this project, and so that's what's the permit permitted project before us, so including the you know changes to the dog park and so forth.

So I I feel mostly comfortable um recognizing that there's an existing use and this isn't a significant change um from the historic uses that have been there, and this permit before us captures the bulk of the infrastructure, the permitted infrastructure in place.

So I just just wanted to put that into the comment.

Um I do think we need to be careful about um those types of things in the future.

So I'd like to make a proposal to approve um adopt a mitigated negative declaration, the associated mitigation uh monitoring report uh for the item before us, and also approve PDP 20.

Do we need to do two motions?

Okay.

And then approve PDP 23054 with a 20% reduction in the removal of heritage trees.

And a general encouragement to find ways to reduce the number of uh healthy trees that are removed and look at ways to take advantage of turning the par some of the parking into multi-purpose parking.

Do we have a second?

I'll second that.

Thank you.

Do you want to roll call back?

Please.

Commissioner Rems?

Yes.

Commissioner Del Nagre?

Yes.

Commissioner Hernandez?

Yes.

And Chair Reddick.

Yes.

Motion approved 4-0.

Thank you.

Thank you, everybody, for your uh for your participation in this process.

Our public hearings typically are not back and forth uh sessions like that, but I I recognize the interest and the enthusiasm that's that several people have, so we're we're happy to be flexible there.

I can see that that's clear.

Thank you for being here.

Do you know if someone's adding those trees?

Does that bring us to the director's report?

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

Uh, director Lako regrets not being here this evening.

Uh she had a family emergency to attend and asked that I uh step in in her absence uh for the director report.

Uh just uh primarily wanted to go over uh upcoming meetings, and for one uh housing element is on track for the October 28th planning commission meeting, so uh expect that in uh the planning commission packet leading up to the 28th of October and uh we're also um preparing for a uh special meeting date of November 18th uh for planning commission city council joint study session on the st on the safety element.

Now November is kind of a unique month in that uh Veterans Day lands on our uh normal planning commission night, so we are intending to cancel that, as well as the normal planning commission meeting that lands on Thanksgiving uh during Thanksgiving week.

So you know what I would suggest is go ahead and uh anticipate both of those meetings being canceled in November, but uh special meeting on November 18th.

Um that's all I had.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

Commissioner Hernandez.

Um housing element, uh, have we gotten anything definitive back from the state on where we sit with our measure D's and our um whatchamacallit our uh accessory dwelling units?

Uh have we gotten anything definitive back from the state?

And then yes, we did receive feedback, uh, some some comments back, uh, some some positive comments uh from my understanding, and the the suggested changes have been integrated into the draft housing element, and uh Asher will be uh available uh during that meeting.

He will be this uh he is the sort of lead on the housing element.

So what we'll see in November eighteenth will or in October will incorporate that feedback, correct?

Great.

Scott, once upon a time we had um objective design standards update on the horizon.

Is that not imminent?

So we do have two tentative items for October 14th.

We will follow up with the planning commission to uh as at if or when those items become uh more solidified.

One of the tentative items is an update on the objective design standards uh for tentative for October 14th.

Um but like I said, we'll follow up with the commission uh with uh more solid feedback on the items for the 14th.

Sure.

Well, thank you for that update.

Thank you.

Do commissioners have any uh communications to make?

Commissioner De Negro.

I'll make one communication.

Today I had a lovely day about watching uh the whales off the coast here.

Maybe there's a chance.

There was just so many of them out there swimming.

Sat at the Miramar having lunch, and it was absolutely gorgeous out there.

Somebody else saw told me they saw whales at Miramar this afternoon.

Yeah, last Friday I got to swim with the dolphins on Poplar Beach, so that was pretty cool.

I got photos.

You always will one-up everyone else.

I love living here.

Are we ready to adjourn?

I'd like to make a motion to adjourn.

I'll second that motion.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, say no.

We are adjourned.