Can I I was just gonna before we get to minutes and so forth, we need to do some teleconferencing housekeeping.

No, I know.

Okay, all right.

So um, so we're back on.

Um, Bridget, you want to tell me what um what is going on with our um with Steve Ruddick.

Yes.

So this is the meeting for October fourteenth, twenty twenty-five.

Ruddick is remote this evening, and we just need to verify a couple of things.

So, want to make sure that we make clear that the meeting for the record reflects um that he's remote.

Um, Commissioner Ruddick is participating um by Zoom.

According to the Brown Act, each teleconference location has been identified.

We did not notice because this is a um due to a potential illness.

Um, so this has been just upon us this afternoon.

Um, I would like to now request that Penny Commissioner Ruddick respond to the following questions.

Can you hear me well?

I hear you fine, yes.

Were you able to hear the proceedings up until this time?

I have to admit I missed the pledge of allegiance, but other than that, yes.

Do you have a copy of the agenda for this meeting?

Yes, but did I'm all by myself.

All right.

I would now like to ask any of the members of the commission to speak up at this time.

If such commissioner has not been able to hear Commissioner Reddick.

We can all hear him.

Seeing none.

Um that's.

Okay.

So hearing no comment, the record should reflect that all planning commissioner members present have indicated that they were able to hear Commissioner Ruddick.

I would next request that any commissioners speak up at this time if he or she for any reason to believe based on the voice recognition and/or the video.

Otherwise, that this person representing himself as Commissioner Reddick.

And is if you if it's not true, please speak up.

Hearing no comment, the records reflect that no commissioner has expressed any doubt that this is Commissioner Penny Commissioner Reddick, and that he will be participating via teleconference.

I would like to advise the commission that any votes taken during a teleconference portion of this must be taken by a roll call vote.

Um and then I also just want to welcome everybody this evening to our meeting.

Um it is live and um videoed on Pacific Coast TV's webpage as long with channel 27.

We do have Spanish interpretation for this meeting.

Um just some public etiquette items to review that um we will go ahead and do in-person um public comment first and then followed by the Zoom platform.

Planning Commission chair will open up the general public comment section of the agenda at that time.

The community members are welcome to speak at any item that is not listed on this evening's agenda for those items that are listed specifically on tonight's agenda during that time there will be discussion, and the chair will designate a specific time for public comment opportunities.

Three minutes are given to each commenter, and again, we will proceed with in person and then zoom.

Um those in Zoom, just raise your virtual hand and we will um collect or ask in order that they received.

We have not had any correspondence that I am aware of, and nor have we posted anything uh this evening or to the to the plenty commission for correspondence for these items.

And um, I just would like to remind everyone to speak into the microphone so that the public can hear us on TV and on the hybrid Zoom.

Thank you, everyone, for your participation.

And I will now hand it back over to our um vice chair who's our acting chair this evening, uh Commissioner Gorn to officially begin the evening's meeting.

So uh officially did we have a pledge of allegiance?

Because we had a pledge of allegiance, but was that on camera?

Can we just just tell everybody that yes, we did have a pledge of allegiance if it wasn't on?

Yes, I believe it was recording, so we have that on recording.

Oh there you go.

Um, so I haven't been chair for a while.

Um, so bear with me.

Um, could we have a roll call to start?

Yes.

Um, is absent at this point.

Uh Commissioner Rems.

Commissioner Del Nagro?

Present.

Vice Chair Um Gorn.

I'm here.

And Chair Reddick.

Here.

Thank you.

So uh first on our agenda is approval of minutes.

Um it's for uh September 23rd, 2025.

Um I was not present at that, so I will recuse.

Um we do have three members though that are um are here.

Does anyone have I'd be willing to make a motion to approve the minutes from the last meeting?

I'll second that.

Um, okay.

Commissioner uh Rems.

Yes, Commissioner Del Nagro?

Yes, Commissioner Gorn.

Oh, yes, we could just say, sorry, and um Commissioner Reddick.

Yes, okay, motion approved, minutes approved.

So uh before we get started, we do have um uh public uh hearing.

Anyone who has a comment on anything that is not on the agenda tonight, this is the opportunity to talk.

Uh we do have a green card from Zoe Batista.

Is Zoe Batista here?

Ah, there you are.

The mic is yours.

Hi, uh my name is Zoe Batista.

I'm with Pacific Coast Television.

I direct the production of these meetings, and I just wanted to let everyone know that for the upcoming Half Moon Bay Pumpkin Festival, we will be broadcasting it.

So if you want to watch the parade or any other fun festivities, you can tune in on Comcast channel 27 or stream it live from our website, Pacific Coast.tv.

We will be at the Pumpkin Fest located in front of the Sabala House.

So come by and visit us anytime after 11 a.m.

We'll be doing interviews.

So if you want us to showcase what you're doing for the community, definitely come down and chat.

Lastly, I just wanted to mention that our crew is mostly volunteers.

So if anyone is interested in volunteering with Pacific Coast Television, we'd love the extra help.

And you can find all the contact info on our website, Pacific Coast.tv, and we hope to see you at the Pumpkin Fest.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Do we have any other comments?

I don't see anything online.

I see none.

So I will officially close.

We'll move on to our first item, which is our update on objective design standards for multifamily and mixed use housing.

And that is going to be Okoe who's going to present that.

Is that right?

Okay.

It's yours.

Good evening, Chair Roddick and planning commissioners.

Yeah, I'm going to be giving you an update tonight on the objective design standards.

This is a process we began just over a year ago, and it has been a minute since we've gotten to provide a formal update.

So we just wanted to be able to update our planning commission as well as the public on where we're at in that process.

A little bit of background for anyone that might not be familiar.

Objective design standards are a set of definable standards that can be used to regulate development.

In this case, these are specifically objective design standard design standards, meaning they're focused on design elements.

This was initially catalyzed by uh new state legislation that recently went into effect, specifically SB 423 became effective January 1st, 2025.

SB 423 introduced the provisions of what was SB 35 into the coastal zone.

So whereas other jurisdictions were already dealing with SB 35, Half Moon Bay being fully within the coastal zone, currently was not subject to those provisions.

Typically having some sort of affordability requirement within these jurisdictions that are not making sufficient progress towards their regional housing needs.

And there is a list out there that identifies these jurisdictions and their minimum affordability requirement in Half Moon Bay, that is a 10% affordability requirement.

There's also other uh eligibility criteria uh eligibility criteria that need to be met for a project to officially qualify for that streamlined ministerial approval process.

Um, but the affordability aspect is is that main component.

Uh so through these this streamlined ministerial approval process, jurisdictions can still implement objective design standards in Half Moon Bay as it relates to multifamily.

We currently don't have objective design standards, so that was uh really important for those to be developed and why we're continuing to work on them.

Uh, there's also other legislation that continues to uh that might have some sort of applicability uh with having these objective design standards as well.

Okoi, I don't mean to interrupt you.

Um, just as a point of order, wanted to say that we do have a fifth commissioner here, uh, Commissioner Heinandes is here.

Um so just to make it official, that's all.

Thank you.

So a bit more background on what we've done so far.

Staff initiated work on the objective design standards back in September 2024, including working with a consultant at that time.

Between September 2024 and November 2024, staff worked with the consultant to also form a subcommittee who could help inform the standards as they were developed.

And then in November 2024, we brought forward a first set of standards to a joint study session with the AAC and the Planning Commission.

Then we received feedback and took that and worked on it for the next few months, including with that subcommittee, and then again brought it forward in December as a study session with the City Council Planning Commission and Architectural Advisory Committee, and then a public hearing to adopt a set of interim objective design standards.

Since then, in January, between January to May, staff continued to work with the consultant on developing graphics.

That was really a main point of feedback received throughout the process was a need for graphics to make these standards more understandable.

And we continue to work on identifying code amendments, and then in May, staff discontinued or the city discontinued working with the consultants.

Fortunately, the consultant had established a good amount of framework that staff has been able to continue to build off of internally to continue to move the project forward.

So since then, staff has been doing a lot of research and drafting code amendments, and then we've also drafted some additional graphics and have worked on reformatting, making maps, etc.

As far as code amendments go, we've identified that there will be code amendments within our zoning code, which is Title 18, specifically to Chapter 1820, our local coastal development permits chapter.

This would include adding some definitions, and then potentially a process, establishing a process for reviewing qualifying ministerial approval projects.

We're still doing a bit of research on that.

And then in chapter 1437, this is where the objective design standards will likely be codified by reference.

And then additionally, we're looking at potentially establishing a design review process for those qualifying projects as well.

So the difference between these two sections being one of those review processes more focused on entitlement and the other more focused just on the design review aspect.

And then additionally, we're looking at establishing a new chapter that would establish a multifamily and mixed-use overlay area to apply these objective design standards throughout that area.

So the overlay area would look something like this.

This is the draft map currently.

It could still be modified, but this would include most of our mixed use and multifamily zoning that's outside of the Coastal Commission Appeals jurisdiction.

So all new multifamily or mixed use development in this area would then need to conform to the objective design standards.

However, all existing standards and development standards associated with the underlying zoning designation would remain the same, such as height setbacks, etc.

So none of that would be changed.

It would just be adding on the design standards.

The consultant also helped initially start a draft of a checklist for any sort of qualifying affordable housing project that may come in.

This checklist can be used to help streamline the process further.

It includes a list of all the standards, and the applicant would go through and identify how they believe they've met each standard, as well as the eligibility criteria, and they would select for that to ensure that they are meeting that criteria.

And this is likely a step in the process that'll come towards the end.

But it's something that has been partially drafted but will likely be completed later on in the process.

So the consultant set up prototypes of a large lot design and a small lot design of a 3D model that staff can then zoom around and it should incorporate the different standards so you can zone in on a standard, identify that standard, and then use coloring or call outs to identify that standard and create it as a graphic within the actual document for the objective design standards.

So that's what you're seeing here is how that process should continue to move forward.

Next steps would ideally this would be our tentative timeline.

If we can do it quicker, we'd love to, but this is likely what we're looking at given the various review processes.

We would look to have an admin draft of the code amendments ready for review sometime in November.

That would then be reviewed internally, and then in January, we would hope to circulate that to the Coastal Commission for a first round of feedback from them.

That would then allow staff to implement any feedback from the Coastal Commission and work with the Coastal Commission to make any changes necessary and then update those draft amendments before bringing that forward to public hearings, ideally in sometime around April.

And then lastly, the coastal there would be Coastal Commission certification that would be required, and then final adoption.

And I'm available for any questions that anyone may have.

Mr.

Chairman?

Commissioner Ms.

You have a question?

Yeah, I have a couple of questions regarding a few things that I saw in the report in the design design guidelines, at least from a graphics standpoint.

I didn't have the opportunity to read the entire text.

You're showing some flat roofs and some really boxy structures.

Not a whole lot, but a few.

But Voxy thought Boxy stuff doesn't really appeal to me or flat roofs.

So I know I'm late to the game, and I don't know if these the question is this are the design standards set or are they fixed and can they be modified, changed, or at least maybe discussed at some point.

Under our current scope of work, there wasn't any intent to change the standards themselves any further, but staff could receive direction to modify them.

They haven't officially been certified and adopted, so there is the potential for that, but it's not currently worked into the timeline that staff was working with to get to a final set of objective design standards.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I would be interested in hearing other commissioners comment on what I just said, whether they agree with uh that kind of architectural style.

Right, I think I think that's um one reason why we're here is to kind of look at the objective design standards and talk about them.

So does any other commissioner uh commissioner Del Negro?

Yeah, um just seeing their timeline, what's going on, where we've been.

Um one question I have up front is are there any major projects that have been grandfathered in prior to these objective design standards?

We haven't received any projects uh currently uh applying for a streamlined ministerial approval or any new multifamily projects where this would currently apply.

And if they did at this point forward, it'd be under the interim design standards.

Yeah, we would look into how that would be implemented.

All right, I'll leave it there for now.

Um Chair Reddock, um Chair the floor is yours.

Thank you.

Um a clarifying question for Okoe.

Uh I think it's clear from the overlay map, but just for the record, the uh school district property at uh Hatch School is uh would would fall into this uh this zone, right?

Yeah, currently the overlay map that is included as an attachment with the in the agenda does include that property.

Thank you.

To the chair, but it doesn't include it does not include the property of the pedesta uh just uh below the high school.

Is that correct?

It does not include pedesta.

Uh looking back on my memory, there are some eligibility criteria that uh would eliminate Podesta from qualifying under streamline ministerial approval.

Um which isn't the full intent of the overlay at this point, but that was an initial concern in the thought of developing these objective design standards.

So I just thought I'd provide that background as I know that was a previous concern that we had heard and addressed.

Uh Commissioner Del Negra.

Um to Chair Reddick's point about the school district property falling within the um overlay, I'm I'm assuming that may be due to the risk of of housing being built on schools, a new objective of California.

Um, so are they also app um applied to the same standards for school properties, or they can work around that legally, not have to um have the same standards if it's done on school property at this point.

I guess what I'm asking is the objective design standards apply to school property projects.

That is a really good question.

I'm actually not sure about that.

That's almost too new.

I know they're dealing with this in San Mateo County already at a couple schools like in Mills where I'm previously lived.

We have to deal with the design standards coming for projects there.

Yeah, yeah.

We'll have to go back and do a little research on that.

Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you.

Commissioner Hernandez has an opinion.

Um, I don't think it's 100% either way.

Um my understanding is that um the way things have been interpreted and applied prior to our LCLUP and afterwards, uh the school district would still need to conform with the Coastal Act and our residential design standards would fall into the Coastal Act.

Um, but I think it is an area that would probably merit some research.

Um, and I think it'd be great if we could just work with the school district and have a study session and talk about how we can work together on it versus um getting into something that sounds more like adversarial.

So, but it's a good point.

It's um I've heard a strong opinion from an architect who works with the school district that says no, no, no, none of that applies, and I've heard very strong arguments that in fact the school district does have to conform with all of the coastal act requirements.

Um do commissioners have any other questions, comments?

Um, in the previous version of the residential design guidelines, we had a do this, not that.

And I think we've uh taken an active position that we're not allowed to say don't do that.

I'd just like to understand, are we allowed to say avoid doing things that look like this and design standards should look more like something else?

Can we do those types of things?

I believe where that wasn't implemented was due to the fact that that might be considered subjective.

So it's necessary that the these design standards remain as objective as possible in the circumstance that they're not a fully objective, then they could be considered non-not applicable, because we can only, at least for certain projects, can only apply objective design standards.

But if we had an objective design standard that said for a multi-story mixed use commercial building greater than four units, you shouldn't have a flat roof.

Can that be an objective design to Commissioner Rems's position?

Can that be a design standard that we apply?

I do believe that could be implemented through the right wording.

Okay.

Chair Redick.

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot to lower it.

Okay.

So we're still in sort of clarifying questions, Commissioner Del Negro.

I'm curious about the overlay map.

Um, just to be very clear, obviously, it it doesn't conform to our measure D areas.

It kind of varies from there.

Um, it's not definitely just downtown.

Is it based mostly on the zoning is what I understood of where we can have these type of housing?

Yeah, zoning is a main factor of the map.

It also considers certain areas where um part of the intent of applying the this overlay area would be to sort of not only streamline the process for streamline ministerial approval projects, but also other multifamily projects.

Um, so in certain areas where you might be either within the Coastal Commission Appeals jurisdiction or within a certain distance of environmentally sensitive habitat, all of that has been factored out of the map uh for the most part.

And so we tried to take in cons into consideration a few different elements, but I would say the main one is that that zoning.

So there may be some lots that are zoned for multi-family multi-use that are not within the design standard.

Yeah, there could be um there's gonna be some plan unit development areas that if a specific plan were to be adopted or master plan that could allow for multifamily that aren't currently in the uh overlay area, and then um some mixed use areas as well are not necessarily included in there.

Okay, thank you for the clarity.

Um do any other planning commissioners have any other questions about um this agenda item?

Commissioner Hernandez.

I just wanted to revisit the pedestal lot.

Um what is the reason the pedestal is not part of the draft overlay?

Is it that it's part of a planned unit development?

Yeah, so I'm actually glad you brought that up so I could speak more to that as well.

Um it not being included in the map, doesn't have too much intent behind it.

It's not necessarily a site that currently would be um a multifamily site, and if it a project were to come in there, it would still be subject to discretionary review.

So I do just want to make that clear.

Um so in the case, sorry, I'm trying to like work through how to explain this most clearly.

Uh, where this overlays gonna apply is we will be requiring all those projects that are multifamily or mixed use to meet these objective design standards.

So pedesta not being in that map doesn't necessarily meet mean that they don't still have, I just don't want that to get lost in the record, that there is still, of course, the standard review process and design review that would be required for any project that would come in there.

And yeah, I can't recall, but the underlying zoning is plan unit development, is that correct?

Yeah, so plan unit development, I believe it also might be some mapped prime agricultural soils on part of the project.

So there are quite a few other criteria that that project would be subject to all the standard review, but it could be added if that was something that one they wanted to see.

Thank you.

That was a helpful explanation.

I mean, I know that was um we talked about this when we first talked about the design standards, um, but I have heard of you know projects being you know bandied about, I guess, talked about that do have uh housing on that project.

Um, and so um does does it not being in the map sort of take some teeth out of the objective design standards?

I mean, because if you if you're saying that objective design standards apply to everyone everywhere, then why even have the map?

Yeah, so the way that we are looking at it right now would be to apply those standards just to the area that you're seeing, and part of that intent is uh in order to allow for some potentially additional flexibility in other areas of the city where we wouldn't necessarily want all projects to be too constrained to the objective design standards.

Um, and so that's part of the intent of the overlay, but it could the objective design standards could be applied city citywide if we chose to codify it that way.

Um, but there was the intent behind it was to leave some potential flexibility or room for modification.

Okay, so we're kinda headed toward discussion.

Um I wanted to if everyone has uh their questions answered, I'd like to open it up to public comment.

Um, do we have um pardon me?

I don't have any green cards.

And is there anybody is there anybody in the audience or anybody online who wants to speak to this issue?

I'm seeing none.

You can raise your hand now.

Now is the time to talk.

Okay, so I am um not gonna open the public comment.

Um, and we can uh get to discussion and deliberation, and I think Podesta is probably one of those important points, but um, who wants to start?

Commissioner Dom.

A question, um are we gonna go through the layout of the objective design standards like the mass articulation section?

We're gonna kind of sequentially go through the document or you guys just wanna no, I think we're gonna um yeah, I think the idea is to raise things that you feel like are important to discuss and possibly to change.

Um or expand.

Like maybe we would expand the objective designers to other places where I the language was confusing to me as a person reading it.

Let's um want to kind of put some clarity.

Maybe absolutely all right.

So any time you want to start.

Okay, well, I'm gonna start off in the massing section here, massing articulation.

Um, one of the things I was trying to understand is under the small lot development standards in the um section B, uh part one and um the subsections.

Um there is um a way of reducing massing by balconies, bay windows, recess windows, but there wasn't anything about awnings in this feature.

While there is awnings missing uh mentioned as an element within the large properties.

Is there a reason for awnings being excluded from the small as a way of decreasing massing as an option?

I'll be honest, I I can't fully answer that.

Um we did lean on our consultants's expertise in in developing these standards, but I can speak to what my perspective might be on on that, which would be that I think the intent of incorporating those into some of the larger projects is is sort of like you see with the mixed use and uh specifically in uh the this graphic here that we demonstrated, sort of using some of those types of features, whereas I don't know if you see that quite as frequently with smaller uh projects, and it doesn't mean that a project can't incorporate a small awning or trellis or something like that.

It just isn't constraining those projects to require it on some of those smaller projects.

So when I was reading it, it sounds like these are the ways that you could meet a standard as one of these options.

Yeah.

So I'm hoping that something like adding in something like awnings and or um some type of uh what was the other word?

Yeah, the the was just awnings, it was also uh um trellises, might also enable those projects to have another option on the small to meet the criteria.

Yeah, it should be in there.

Um, and the other issue I had a question about was on sides of buildings that are on corner lots where you're facing a street and you're usually very close to the lot limit line, um, some of these elements are not enabled because you can't extend within the public right away, even if you're not over the sidewalk, but you're still within the fence boundary.

Um, is there any way to enable some of those elements to be unlike a maybe not a balcony that goes four feet, but an awning, something that's not have people on it, into that area without crossing over a fence line to decrease the mass of a structure.

I'm actually thinking of my own house when I look at this, because I live on a corner and I have this large mass of this house I bought, and I have no way to break up the side of the house to decrease the massing effect because I technically can't build an awning any closer because I'm on the public right-of-way line, even though I have eight feet between me and the fence line.

And so this these rules restrict me from doing uh an element that's very simple to decrease the mass look on a very visible side of a building.

So I'm thinking about how that a standard would apply to other projects.

I have never heard that before.

That's interesting.

So the my main thinking with that is that we can't implement any standards that would uh conflict with the existing uh development standards within that zoning district without then going through and doing a full overhaul of any sort of development standard in there.

So having something potentially encroaching into a required setback would be conflicting between the objective design standards and the existing development standards.

Um I think that might kind of answer where you're going.

I guess what I see is it specifically says balconies can't go in there, but I don't see anything about how far a trellis or an awning can extend from a house towards that side.

Um that's not even clear in here as what that limit is for those elements.

Maybe having some clarity in the document about how far they can extend would help.

I'll make note of that through the chair, Commissioner Hernandez.

I think um it's an interesting question.

Um, would an awning or a trellis be considered a permanent structure?

In a small residential project?

Yes.

Okay, um, if you don't mind, I just like to add that um awnings and trellises are becoming more and more problematic with new fire codes.

So um a lot of a lot of the area that's covered by this is now in what's called zone zero, is now subject to zone zero, which restricts awnings and trellises within a certain distance of the house or away from the house.

So um, yeah, so I'm just saying that it's a great point, and it's something that we can consider, but uh we also have to consider it very carefully, so it might might take a little bit of thought.

That's a good point.

Obviously, here we're encouraging people to build them on the sides of some buildings, at least for the large ones, but there could also be conflicts with other code, yeah.

That's maybe something to return to when we finalize or change any other standards.

Yeah, absolutely.

Um, if I keep going, is that okay?

In section C on large lot development standards, um, while reading this, it talks about how each of these features has to cover 75%.

Um is that a sum of all features, or each individual feature has to cover 75%?

Sorry, let me just read the standard just to make sure I'm understanding correctly.

Yeah, I believe it's cumulative.

Cumulative, okay.

So I can have a one big window that sticks out, and then I can have the rest of elements be correct.

Okay, great.

That might be good to put a word in there that indicates it's cumulative.

Um is there any standard about if you do put a bay window, you have to do all bay windows, or you have to only do one bay window?

It looked kind of you know standard wise, it would look very unstandard to have a single window in one corner and other ones otherwise.

So I'm just kind of curious as if there's a perspective on what a standard across the building looks like versus on a single element.

Can I offer a suggestion on that one?

Yeah.

Um, yeah.

Um part of the reason why we landed here, um was we were trying to avoid situations where we had large planes, and and um where more than 75% like more than 50% of a wall was like just flat one vertical, like one long plane.

Um we do have an eclectic uh set of design history in the city.

Um so like I I hear you it could look weird, but um I I don't know if we want to litigate to that level or legislate to that level of uh might be too objective.

It might be too objective, sure.

Um, but I just I think setting the picture of we're trying to break up the massing, we're trying to create uh, trying to avoid the um boring drab, you know, sort of poured concrete walls um that we see over the hill in a lot of multi-story projects.

That was how we got here, I think.

To exactly that point, one of the elements I also saw here was that under the next um point of this listing here, um, windows.

We have a lot of we offer a lot of these elements.

Um I think it was we had to have three elements be met in order to meet the standard, um, two of which were around windows, number four and number seven.

And I'm wondering if these shouldn't be combined.

Um you've given you have to have three, and basically I can take a huge wall of a building, put up a strip bar across the middle on the floors, and just do a bunch of window elements with that are like some shutters, uh a box underneath it for a planter, and get away with the whole element requirement, yet the building will still look huge and flat on one side.

It's just the windows that are touched.

So I'm wondering if we should combine numbers four and seven to limit them down to one element of the list, which is the window details such as shutters, um boxes, six-inch deep lintels, trims, or four-inch wide um trim requirement.

I I I looked at this kind of a devil's advocate.

If I want to make a building look a little flat and ugly, I can get away with doing very little and still let it look that way if those two aren't combined, because I can do those window shutters, the one strip, and then on top of that, put on a awning over the window.

I think Steph heard you.

And keep going.

Doing great.

All right.

Um window trim described.

Sounds like very standard window trim.

Four inches, and that's kind of what you have around all in one inch deep.

That doesn't seem like it's a very structural, like a way of breaking up mass is to have very standard window trim a window window.

So I was a little surprised at the use of window trim as a standard to decrease mass articulation.

I'm looking down my list, somebody else has anything else, I'll keep going.

No, keep going.

She's taking notes.

I mean, yes, keep going.

Um, goe's taking notes.

So I think the um city staff will consider all of this.

This is good.

Well, I just want to clarify that of course we'll consider all of this.

Um the list is long enough that we may need to go back to our architectural advisory committee, which will also lengthen that timeline.

So that'd be unfortunate.

Yeah.

So I just want to be clear about that.

Okay.

Um I also looked at kind of some of the standards and what how current buildings in our community would fit that standard.

The um standard of having a uh minimum number of the surface area of a second story covered by windows.

Pretty sure that Cunha Country Store wouldn't fall into that standard if we built it today, which is nice to see the element going up, and that's common.

It seemed like a very positive um line to establish that 25%.

Um, I I think to that point, um, maybe an element that can be used to break up a wall could be a mural.

Um because I if I look at Cunha, if there's a design intent to put a mural on a structure, then it could become quite attractive.

So I think that that's something worth considering as an additional element.

Uh, yeah.

And it through the chair, if I may add.

Um we do have murals.

It may not be in this chapter, but it is in another section of the standard.

Yeah, it was in there.

Uh the door wells, um facing towards the street.

This is I mean, some doors don't face right at the street, it's at least on the street side of the property, correct?

If like I face a 90 degrees away from the street, but the walkway goes straight up to it.

Is that acceptable?

Could you which um I'm looking at uh number two uh site layout and building orientation general standard A2.

Which page?

This is on page 26.

Oh, you're in the full standards now.

Is that okay?

I've already gone over for I I'm just trying to make sure I only printed chapter two in front of me, so I didn't have the full set in front of me, but I can pull it up.

Just curious, you know, and some doors don't face straight at the street, they face to to the side, but you can see the obviously the walkway to the door.

The requirement when I read it says it has to be faced towards the street.

The intent is for it to be a street-facing entry.

Um, actually getting near the end of everything I had here.

I had no question on colors.

I am colorblind.

So I thought it was best to stay with that.

Literally, literally.

Literally.

Okay.

Um on page 34.

Um, this was actually something I was trying to understand what it was saying.

Um General Standards A, building materials and colors, though, uh, section two number three.

It was about salvaging existing materials.

Um here, um, well, the first part was that it says show to be salvaged.

I appreciate it was shown was the word you guys were intending to use.

But um, should this also extend to salvaging from other sites?

We shouldn't just have to be salvaging materials from your site.

And I'd love to see this expand its intent for salvage, and there's a whole industry around salvaging and reusing materials from buildings.

It narrows it down.

It says, shown to be salvaged from the existing site unless unsafe for human contact.

The intent obviously is for reuse and sustainability.

I actually had a question also about solar panels and whether we have in our standard any requirement that we screen the sides of them to prevent birds from occupying and living underneath them.

I recently learned this having solar panels on a house I purchased.

I had a fire hazard due to birding, and I had thousands of birds that were uh pigeons that were becoming a nuisance to all of my neighbors.

Do you know if we have a standard for trimming and sealing the basis of solar panels?

Not within the objective design standards or as a planning standard from what I know, it may be something building code, but if it's if you're seeing it not happen, maybe it's not.

It wasn't on my building when I bought it, so I said it wasn't part of the code because I know the how the panels were put in on code.

But that being said, is on these larger buildings and public downtown areas, I'm more worried about these bird nuisances and pigeons creating these large.

I had like 40 of them living in there.

And it was a real disaster.

Yeah, that sounds like something for building code.

We have uh I'm not sure how that would work.

But we have our building code amendments coming forward.

I I think I'd be in agreement with putting it into the building code.

How do we do this?

You can open up.

We haven't had public comment yet.

I have to open up public comment.

Um, we have someone who wants to comment.

Um so I will open a public comment on this agenda item.

Thank you.

Um James Benjamin.

James Benjamin 400 Pillar Cedar Savenue.

Good evening.

I'm microphone.

I try.

Can you hear me now?

Yes.

Okay.

I feel like an FM radio jockey from the 60s.

So, James Benjamin 400 Pillar Cedars Avenue.

Uh, good evening.

It's nice to see you all and meet some of you.

Um I appreciated your comments.

I just wanted to chime in on your question about uh pigeons underneath the uh solar panels.

Um I have them.

I have the pigeons too.

Um one of my neighbors just finished an inspection.

He was told that there were restrictions in terms of uh uh that you actually couldn't seal the area because it presented a heat hazard.

Um, but perhaps there's some kind of more limited thing you can do that's okay.

But I think sealing would probably be overkill.

And you get to the fire code, I'm sure that our inspector Mike will be able to help us navigate that.

Thank you.

So if we can continue on the c to the comment.

Um there actually are screenings.

Actually, I installed them this last summer.

Um you can do a screen, it's open screen.

So obviously it's circulation underneath still.

So very well.

I have to close public comics.

We are back.

Commissioner Del Negro.

Um, was curious about uh obscure to textured glass used on full-size bathroom windows, elevations only facing the interior side yard.

Is that an element that you typically have across any bathroom window of large size?

I mean, I don't want it it's something at least in our single family that is a is a guideline and is encouraged.

Uh I think the intent of including it here is to ensure that gets carried forward in these projects.

I guess I'm more worried about if I have small children, I have an apartment complex in front of me, and I'm at the back of their building.

I still don't want open bathrooms facing my family's view.

I would think that you want that both not just on the exterior side.

I see.

So you you would like to see it expanded to all bathroom walls.

That are visible from any other building or public right away.

And I'm I think there's um a friend of mine recently remodeled his bathroom, and um he has the most spectacular view of the Pacific Ocean.

And so if um, you know, he obviously nobody can see into his bedroom, so I think um giving owners and designers a little bit of flexibility if it's not clearly um viewed by the public, I think is worth um worth figuring out how to finagle.

I agree.

Anything clustery, of course, also or something high up, obviously, you don't have to worry too much.

Yeah, um roofing section.

We dropped some colors, gray, brown, and terracotta family of colors.

This is under the fourth uh item under A.

Uh questions whether or not black classifies as the gray, brown or terracotta family of colors.

I see a lot of black metal roofs.

These are very popular.

They're actually kind of attractive, but I don't see that as an element of color enabled.

Could you clarify that comment for me?

I'm so quickly taking notes that I sort of missed the point you were making.

We restrict our colors to the gray, brown, and terracotta family of colors for roofing materials.

Okay.

Thanks.

Well, I agree it's not a classic in the area.

Was there a reason why we decided against this?

Um I had to look up what a mansard roof of course looked like.

It's those very colonial-looking sides, often with uh, yeah.

This was feedback we received during the development process that they were not um well appreciated.

That's fine if the public is a general bias towards former mayor Mike Ferrar.

Um under Clark large large lot development standards, item number four, a parapet wall that is appropriately scaled to the building.

Now appropriately scaled for the building is no longer an objective, the subjective design standard.

Is there any way we can change the language to make it more objective?

Yes, there is, and we will.

Window trim should be considered.

Um right now it says it has to match the architectural style of the walls around it.

I don't know how many garage doors that match the wall around it, usually they're contrasting.

That's the way I read that that point.

Um says uh it's under uh V2 panel design with or without accents such as decorative hinges or artistic treatments consistent with the architectural style of the residential building.

That's great.

But under three color material finishes that mimic the color material finishes of the building surface to which the garage door is adjacent.

Typically, garage doors are wood, they match the front door, or they're paneled.

It seemed backwards to me.

Like this is the opposite of what we wanted.

Um there was also a statement I gotta I'll find it here in a second about the front of a garage door and front facing of a building.

Yeah, 30%.

That was great.

I think it was that the front of a garage door cannot exceed the front of the residential area of a building.

Um I think every garage door I looked at when I drove my street, the garage door sits out further than the building.

I'm misunderstanding the language of that section.

Do you know which section exactly?

B3, under small lot development standards.

And which page was that?

This is on page 45.

A garage door facing onto a public right away shall be no closer to the public right away than a wall enclosing the ground floor interior living space of the residential building to which the garage is an accessory.

Sorry, did you say 45?

Is on page 45?

Or it says 45 in the corner, but it says 26 documents.

Almost all garage doors on small residential buildings are in the front of a house, usually often most often further forward than the rest of the house.

Yeah, I believe the intent is for the garage to be set in.

I know we do see that a lot in Half Moon Bay where we do have uh garages that are more prominent than where the front entry might be or something along those lines.

It is something we do also, so the consultants did try to base this uh somewhat off of our single family residential design guidelines to the extent possible, and that is also a guideline in our single family where it encourages uh de-emphasizing the garage through setting it back further.

I guess my issue is that 80% of houses around where I live have the garage out front, up front, and you can see it from there.

So I'm a little surprised that that's a standard there.

Well, the idea is that people drive up in their cars, they go into their garage, and then they go into their house from their garage, and they don't see their neighbors.

So the idea of bringing the the front of the house forward more is really about creating community and neighbors who see each other uh when they're you know going from one place to another within their house.

Um yeah, or they're leaving their house, you know.

I don't know.

That that's sort of the general idea.

I like the motivation that you're getting at there for sure.

I guess it just doesn't suit the standards of what I see in the city so far, so I had a question about it.

Um I also think when you're talking about a multi-unit four-unit complex, something that's got more than just a single family unit.

I guess this may make more sense than a single family residence.

I'm just a little surprised to hear it comes from the single family residence object or just design standards that we have.

Yeah, yeah.

One of the constraints that we have on a lot of the lots in this city is that they're long and narrow.

So sometimes even though our residential design guidelines say that we don't that we prefer to have the garage set back, there's really no way to do that.

Um but yeah, on a larger lot where you're you're developing multifamily housing, um, it really does make a lot of sense to try to do that.

Okay, I guess I'll leave it at food for thought for now.

Um one thing I didn't see in here is anything about um parking distance from the street, like the length of a of a driveway.

Um I have noticed obviously a lot of cars in our community do hang out over the sidewalk, make it impossible to walk down a sidewalk, you have to walk around a vehicle.

Um we don't have any design standards about the length of a driveway.

You know, trucks are 24 feet long driveways at this point, 22 feet long for SEVs.

Yet we don't bring up any objective design standards on how long a driveway, if it's going to be considered a parking stall for a vehicle is required to be.

So there are some standards in our uh actual municipal code already uh relating to uh the amount of distance required to enter a one or two-story garage.

Uh and in this circumstance where you have a larger development project, um, you're likely gonna have that parking set back towards the rear of the lot, the drive aisle would be more to access those areas.

So it should be covered by um the existing standards and then some of the other standards in here that m force the parking to other areas, and um ideally we're not gonna consider a parking spot being one that would be encroaching into the driveway or up sidewalk or something.

Just hoping there was an objective design standard to that requirement is what I was thinking.

And by the way, I really liked the uh screened um for tin vehicles were greater.

That was a good element that they incorporated there.

I have not seen that in previous design standards for cities.

I'm in the landscaping section.

I noticed that we don't have a actual reference to a list of trees that we'd like in our arbor plan.

Do we have a list of trees the city prefers?

And why do not use that list specifically?

We still don't have a list in the city.

I believe it's something that we would like to establish in the future, um, but we don't have it at the at this time.

Should this document predate that at least link to that future plan, or are we gonna leave it open here and they have to come back to it later?

I don't know how to answer that yet because it that depends on how how we ultimately adopt this into our code if we do it by resolution or if we actually change the code, and what section we adopt it into.

So that's a tricky question, and we're not we're not there yet.

Okay.

But I will say that uh yeah, we we do want to change the way that our code addresses tree replacement and removal and replacement and have a list of preferred trees, and that is um part of the code overhaul that we're planning um to start in 2026.

So that's on our.

We have a long a long list of items to address in that.

Very normal.

Um I'm gonna keep going to the other site and building features.

We're almost to the end here.

Um ground mounted, this is under section A bullet point three on page 32.

Ground mana mechanical electrical utility equipment concealed.

Uh says within buildings, subsurface faults, screened by framed wired, molded, but doesn't say behind a fence.

Like I mean, it does say number one that it should be not visible from the public, but we never say that behind a fence is sufficient.

I believe there might be some intent behind that, being that uh I think we would have to add additional standards as to what type of fencing would be sufficient, where that fencing could be implemented or could not be implemented.

Um, so I I'm assuming that might have been the intent from not including the fencing, but um it's I'll make note of it as well.

Okay.

Okay, other things that might be worth uh.

Oh, that's interesting question.

Um understand why we don't have four ladders up to rooftops that makes sense on the outside of a building.

But if any of these are three-story buildings, are do we have a code requirement for fire escapes or exiting a building or fire ladders?

Is that something that's part of our objective design standards that we're enabling or allowing for, or is that just about building code?

That's building and safety code.

Okay, yeah.

But we don't conflict with that by saying there's no ladders on the side of buildings.

I don't I'll have to look.

Uh I don't I don't think that we do, um, but I'll have to look.

Okay.

And I'm back to my final comment, which was um some elements I was wondering that were missing.

One I mentioned before was about gazebos and trellis, we still standards in here about those at all, um, really, other than awnings on the side of of buildings to decrease mass articulation.

Um there's nothing about address signage.

I know there's about building signage, but nothing about a standard for what a s uh uh indicating your address is requiring that you have a visible from the street.

That's probably municipal code, I would assume.

It's actually in the building code and the fire code, that's already covered elsewhere.

Okay.

All right, that's really it.

I had no other comments or questions.

Thank you very much, by the way.

That was well done.

So I take it you were working off of a list that you wrote out.

I actually put comments onto a PDF version of the document.

I'm happy to share.

Oh, thank you so much.

Um just be clear, I actually worked on the um objective design standards in previous um positions as well.

So I just had a feeling very key, yeah.

So um I do have uh one question about the architectural advisory committee.

Um they we've had a number of meetings about this.

Are are we uh do we need to follow the five meeting rule because maybe you want to limit the number of times the architectural review sees this?

Uh the five meeting rule really applies to development proposals, so we're we're fine on this one to go back to the AAC.

It's just it's the it's the timeline that's impacting than anything else.

Yeah, um, so um most of those are questions for um city staff and for AAC.

Um is there uh did anyone else want to talk about anything, any of the sort of larger topics?

Like the Desta, for instance.

Uh I'd like to finish going through the design guidelines.

Do you have uh questions or comments?

I'm largely in alignment with um the previous statements or uh feedback that was provided.

I think the um question of the garages in the overlay area.

I think the point you were making um director Lacko about the reason why you want the garage door in this area to be aligned with the front facing uh like the living space in the building is not just uh creating a sense of community, but I think creating a sense of orderliness in these higher development areas and having like weird garages kind of throws off the design standard.

I think they I think we've gotten a little bit of feedback on that in the past and December and prior sessions.

I think I think that's uh just kind of adding to the comments you made.

It's not just community, I think there's an aesthetic that it that benefits from having the again not for single family residential design outside of the overlay area, but for downtown.

I do agree there are lots of exceptions that currently exist.

I also think it's important that if somebody goes through a remodel, they don't have to retrofit their house.

I think that's an important thing to lay out in the documents.

Um people have applied design standards and zoning to torture people in the past, and we've gotten away from a lot of that, so I don't want to see that type of stuff come back.

I think the ladder in 9A9 uh question.

Um there's actually a specific example of an access ladder.

Uh and there's um I think that language could be modified to say, except in the case where it is required under fire code.

Um, but I think designing structures, so the only way you get to the roof with a ladder is just kind of problematic, unless it's like a deck, but um I do love the idea of um requiring native species, um, but I think that maybe um maybe this is an item we punt to the future, um, and have a more like just separate like the design standards um to like the specific things we want to put in here.

I think it's a good discussion to have.

I I really love the idea of it.

Um the especially with the changing rules that are coming with respect to fire standards, the zone zero stuff, I think that that's important.

When we started this project, um my awareness of fire hardening was much lower than it is now, and uh there's really nothing in the design standards that call out um hardening for fire standards like windows of a certain standard um or materials that are more resistant, or having um uh water sources that um like for large projects that you can call upon and use as a fire suppression system.

I think as we have our fire safety element, I think there'll be some items that come up during our our fire safety, and um I'd like to propose that we also do um a public session on new types of sustainable materials.

Um I'm not saying we need to incorporate it into our current design standards, but um we really do need to take seriously the threats of fire.

Um there's a lot of um city urban forest, as they call it, that is composed of highly flammable eucalyptus.

Um we have other trees and treescapes that unfortunately are big fire hazards.

So I think we need to have um maybe not in this document in this iteration, but maybe we need to start thinking a little bit more carefully about fire standards and the structures of a certain size.

Need to incorporate certain elements.

Maybe that's the way to do it.

For the larger structures, you know, things that are larger than four units.

We need to have some kind of fire-hardening standard that's informed by um current science on fire suppression and current standards.

I also agree with uh Commissioner Rems' comments about um the sort of single story flat roofed buildings.

Uh I think that's a structure we need to get away from.

I know we have some legacy buildings in in town, but I think that that style is uh for a single-story building is not aesthetically attractive.

I think for two-story buildings, you know, as long as the other things are on massing are um addressed.

I you know, we have some interesting art deco buildings, for example, that don't have straight flat roofs.

Um I agree with Commissioner Rems.

I think just this square square or rectangular flat roof with no um breaks, um, isn't a look we're going for.

Um so and I think there's I have a couple of examples.

Uh CX3, so sorry, C11, C.113, C.11.6, and C.9.

I think those are all examples that uh Commissioner Rems and I were both uh poking at and saying, yeah, I don't it's not something I'm interested in in Half Moon Bay as something we're supportive of.

The other thing I would add is um for many of the photos, there are captions that call out the particular feature that you're trying to draw people's attention to, but there are also a number uh quite a few illustrations that don't call out the particular aspect that you're trying to draw people's attention to.

So if we can just have a caption with each of those items that what you're trying to draw people's attention to, I think it would help inform the public as they're going through the design process for their projects.

Overall, I think this is a very good document.

I think you've made a lot of great progress, and I know you've been short-staffed in pulling all this together, so I'm very appreciative of the progress you've made.

Thank you.

Commissioner Rems.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I'd just like to just add my comments that uh I agree by and large with what was said here by the commissioners.

I would also add that breaking up, you know, a wall today is pretty easy.

We could do pop-outs, pop-ins, dormer roofs.

I mean, they've got glue on, you know, like quadrifoils and things like that just to break up uh a flat wall or whatever.

So I would encourage uh staff to look at that and encourage the applicants to look at that.

I would also encourage more barrel tile roofs.

They're good for fire, they're attractive, they'll last a long time, and they fit in the community.

Uh there are other types of slate roofs, you know, that may be attractive also that you could uh look into and maybe maybe uh encourage uh the applicants uh to do those kind of things.

Uh but my my biggest concern is that the architecture that's coming be more consistent with what the traditional architect architecture has been in the community, and basically a village type atmosphere.

And once again, I think that's like California craftsman, mission style, even some Victorian, and perhaps uh the Portuguese type architecture, and so all of those things I think need to be encouraged to the applicants to look at those things first, and then if they can't come up with something reasonable that's acceptable to the city, then maybe we could look at other alternatives.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Can I ask a clarifying question of uh Commissioner Rems?

Sure.

Are you talking about for like the larger structures, four stories and more?

Talking about everything.

Now larger structures can be a little tricky.

Theyck it could be handled a little differently.

You know, you could you could start with one level, one story, and then a second story and have a different kind of a facade or designs or pop-outs, or or you break up those walls just like that one picture you're working at was kind of kind of neat, wasn't it?

The roof lines were kind of like the gables were coming all over the place.

It was pop-outs pop them, little archway entrance.

It looked beautiful, it looked like it belonged to the community, you know.

So that's that's my goal, anyway, is to is to look for uh new developments and new single family or multifamilies that are more consistent with the traditional architecture that was in the community and maybe with today's materials you could enhance that to a really really attractive uh type of situation.

So I think the four standards we've talked about in the past are neoclassical uh mission revival.

Um the um craftsman or victorian sort of coastal craftsmen, and then I also think the when we last went through this in December of last year, we talked about sort of more of a contemporary coastal, which would be consistent with some of the larger scale development we've seen.

The best aspects of the senior housing we have on the coast.

I think those are the four standards we discuss, and I think we probably ran out of um consulting time and dollars to thoroughly build those out.

Um but I think those are the four standards that we talked about before.

Um I'd be a little um concerned since we have such an eclectic design set of design standards for single residential, like less than four, I'd be um concerned about adding that constraint to smaller projects.

I do think the current residential design standards for the smaller projects is gonna avoid the the weird that we don't want, but it's gonna support the weird that we do want.

And I think there's a lot of like it it I think there's a lot of flexibility in there.

But that's my feedback.

Well, I agree to the extent that uh, you know, we'd have to look at I mean the staff would have to look at it based on the guidelines that we set forth through this document or maybe other documents, and so uh they would have to look at it uh objectively uh for each uh for each application that came in.

And I believe today there's a lot of creative juices out there that can satisfy all of these needs, and there's a lot of building materials and other enhancements that could be attached to the architecture that make it really look good and uh at not that great a cost.

I'll just add a couple more things, a couple of details.

So, as long as we're getting into details, I'm not too keen on um awnings.

Uh down south I lived in a place with awnings, they would have to replace them every few years.

They're garbage collectors, leaf collectors, all kinds of things.

After a while, they start to mold so that then they have to replace them.

I don't know if that would happen here if they're wound up and wound down.

These were permanent awnings that were put in over balconies, and eventually they sagged and they trapped water, and then that brought in leaves, and then they weren't cleaned periodically, you got mold and all kinds of other nonsense that you didn't need.

Like I say, not too keen on that mansard roofs, I'm really not keen on that.

So uh thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

So uh Chair Reddick, your hand is up.

Yeah, thank you.

Um in this process I've leaned heavily on the expertise of our architectural advisory committee out of respect for their professional experience and insight.

And I would coming into this hearing was pretty happy with the state of the draft of the standards as it had evolved with the from the AAC and planning commission and staff time and energy.

Excuse me.

Um but I do appreciate the uh uh valuable experience and expertise that Commissioner Del Magro has up over the hill in this field and a lot of detailed insights, and I don't have any quarrel with any of his insights on the bigger picture.

I I would hope, maybe this is being too simplistic, but I would hope that the the school district property at at Hatch and the Podesta area would ultimately um uh be governed by the objective design standards just in order that it may help expedite some worthwhile projects there at some point in time.

So that's all I have for now.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Reddick.

Anyone else?

Um when I look at the overlay, I thought Hatch and Cunha are in the overlay area.

Yeah.

Okay.

But Podesta is not.

Correct.

So do you want to talk about Podesta?

I just want to know, I want to know why it's not in there.

Because it is right at the border of it and it is a PUD.

Um, seems ripe for multifamily and mixed use.

Uh why isn't it in there?

With it not being in there, as I tried to explain a little bit earlier, it there will still be a discretionary review process, and I think it while we you certainly can provide direction and we can modify the maps to include it if that is the way we want to go.

I think one thing to take into consideration is um it is a very large area and a development project there, so there would be lots of flexibility in how they could potentially develop that site.

And uh we wouldn't want the objective design standards to also constrain that site, though if we do if you do want to see that you could we could certainly apply it there, but I hear from Commissioner Rems discussing certain architectural styles, wanting to see elements like that that maybe the objective design standards could pull away from by encouraging having to meet all of these objective design standards, versus there is discretionary review either way with a project that's going to come in there, but certainly if if you think that these objective design standards should be applied to that site if a project were to come in, then that is something that can be done.

So I'm I'm not excuse me, I'm not really understanding because we want them to follow the objective design standards.

And and the map, the reason for the map is to define those areas where there might be multifamily and mixed-use projects.

Um, and it is on right on the border.

So I don't I don't really understand the explanation about why it's not included.

It doesn't make sense to me.

Um so um to say that we don't want to constrict them in some way is exactly what the objective design standards are supposed to do.

Certainly, yeah, I should I'll correct myself some in the sense that I'm not trying to staff didn't have much thought or intent on that specifically as I just explained.

So I want to make that clear on the record.

That was more of I was just trying to play devil's advocate in helping to understand that um the areas outside of these objective design standards aren't necessarily going to just be built willy-nilly.

They they will there will be discretionary review.

Likely a project there is going to come through the planning commission, would be my assumption, and so um it leaves more potential for flexibility, but certainly the objective design standards could be applied there.

Part of why I think it is currently left off this map is the as I tried to answer uh for Commissioner Del Negro earlier was um this is based more on on the underlying zoning, and I think Commissioner Hernandez hinted that as well that PEDES is currently PUD.

Um, and so you're gonna have a specific plan and all of that that's also going to go through a process and identify development standards in that area.

Um and those development standards are also going to apply, and then if you wished you could also have the overlay area include that, which would then apply the objective design standards for a multifamily project there as well.

So I do get that there's there's creep here, right?

And that if you extend it to Podesta, then you should extend it to every other PUD that's on the coast, um, and really to every multifamily and mixed-use project on the coast.

And I get also that you're saying that even if it's not in the map, they still have to follow these objective design rules.

But so why do we have the masses?

Sorry, they wouldn't have to follow these specific objective design standards if it was codified as an overlay area.

The overlay area would only require those projects within the the overlay area to meet all of the objective design standards in order to reach an approval um and so like you said with the with the creep there is some of that I think also um this map is also a bit more focused on in fill projects some of those smaller lots where development might be more likely to come about um in the near future a quicker development process etc but um I'm not I'm not saying either way whether or not but just trying to open that.

Um Commissioner Del Negro so um is there any risk that a ministerial approval project could come into the Podesta space.

Sorry to close the camera or the microphone.

Is it possible that it that one of these uh SMAP type of ministerial approval projects could be applied to the Podesta currently for SB423 at least um the Podesta project is not eligible based on the criteria the current criteria is it stands without any new as it stands within the government code uh where SB423 is included correct.

So I'm always worried about as I'm watching the progressive California's change in laws it happened so fast I'm wondering if we don't apply this at this point are we gonna find ourselves at some point down the future not having an objective design standard that would apply to a ministerial approved project on that location.

I'm looking at the risk of something coming along.

I I can't predict what how California state law is going to change in the future regarding housing it seems to change every month.

Exactly almost impossible to track.

Well it definitely has changed in the last two years.

What it definitely has changed in the last two years yeah multiple times actually yeah um given the zoning that's there now though and the specific plan that would be required um I I mean the level of review that will that would have to happen on that property is so involved it's it's hard to imagine that they're gonna be able to propose something that I don't know I don't know what the risk is.

I'm gonna stop I can imagine I can definitely imagine through the chair.

Commissioner Hernandez I believe the overlay is applied to areas where there's um several types of specific development multifamily residential commercial general or um areas that include a workforce housing overlay.

Correct and the current pedestal lot is currently zoned as agriculture I would have to double check.

I thought it was P.

It's a PUD yeah sorry the land in agricultural use with a couple of residences that have historic farmhouses and so forth that have been there for many years.

To be honest I can't say whether or not you likely know more on that than I do.

I'm looking at section two of development there's a pretty extensive write up of the Podesta lot and um so it's two residential units and agriculture is a current development there's an explanation of I think the point is um what normally happens with PUD is that the developers gonna have to come to us with a plan and there's a review process and we say okay what kind of housing do you want?

What's the zoning standard that's proposed?

We would have to approve the update to the PUD and make a recommendation to the Coastal Commission to update our PUD.

So there's a fairly extensive review process that's already there.

There is a fairly extensive description of what is imagined here and like some of the ideas behind it, but I don't know.

I I think that I think we're gonna get a bite at this apple as a project at some point.

Um I've seen proposals for development here.

I've heard many people talk about different ideas.

So if something moves forward, it would require an update to our LCLUP.

So I guess my real question is what is the drawback to including Podesta in the objective design standards and in this uh overlay map.

I don't understand that.

I maybe we can work on trying to provide some more clarity on that in the future.

Um and certainly see if we can come up with more pros and cons um than we have right now.

The only the only thing I could continue to attest to would be that the potential flexibility element of um seeing what comes through as a specific plan and then as a proposal as a result of that specific plan, um, and that being very far out in the future due to the development requirements associated with the site.

Okay.

Again, I don't really see applying objective design standards as being so limiting, but uh to and quite understand what flexibility they need that they don't that they wouldn't have.

So, I wouldn't have anything concrete, it's more of okay.

Like I said, devil's advocate type thinking.

Thank you.

Um, to the chair.

Um I guess I'm thinking about this.

Obviously, you're saying there's a point in which we have to rezone it under the PUD update if they're gonna do some project there.

It seems to me that that would be the appropriate time, which the objective design standard would then now apply to it, that you would extend it over the top of it at that time.

That would to me be aligned with our current zoning, keeping the objective design standards within a identified current zoning.

But under what I'm more worried about is is there a situation where we apply the new standard after PUD a proposal comes to us, and then we're caught into some litigation about that that hey you're retroactively trying to change or limit the entitlements or the types of buildings we can do here.

So I'm more worried about that aspect during the rezoning process of a PUD.

Is there any liability there?

Mr.

Chairman, I think we need some time to look into it, and we'll come back with that.

Mr.

Chairman, Commissioner Evans?

Uh just a question for staff uh on a specific plan for this project.

I don't know anything about it, but just in general, for the specific plan, uh, can there be specific design standards associated with that project?

Yes, there can be.

Um, with a a specific plan, you would often propose uh specific development standards relating to the sites, and you could also incorporate uh specific design standards as well that would apply to that general area.

So those design standards could be consistent with the general design standards that we're looking at tonight, or they could be distinctively different for this particular development.

It would be something that would be discussed as part of that specific plan process and as it comes to hearings, but it could theoretically could be.

Thank you.

Just to build on that, if we diverge from the design standards, that's something that the planning commission and ultimately the city council would have final say on.

I'll defer to the director if city council is on that.

I believe certainly planning commission, but I don't know about city council.

Well, I mean, I think the planning commission would have discretion to to include Podesta as as part of the map, as part of the overlay map.

I don't think that's really out of our purview.

The question is whether we really want to do that, and if there's a drawback to doing it, I don't I still don't understand what the drawback would be to doing it.

Um I think I've heard three times city staff said flexibility for the developer and for the city to meet.

What does that mean?

Flexibility.

Like you know, anyway, sure.

Yeah, I think my answer was that we will do some more work on that and get back to you so that you have something, you know, written and um and we can work out our logic in that.

Um and it might be that you know we look at it and we can consider it and we decide that it it is a good place to apply the standards so but uh but we'd like to be able to do a little more work on that and come back to you.

So I don't think we're we're as a planning commission we're not really expected to um approve or disapprove anything right now, anyway.

So all we're really doing is making recommendations to staff.

Is that correct?

Yeah, yeah, and at this point um with I I think at this point we'd also appreciate some guidance on um whether or not we should be coming back to you sooner with some of these you know answers to some of these follow-up questions and also uh a new timeline and approach to this project.

Um, I mean, I I think this project is pretty far along.

I don't I mean, maybe once more, but I don't feel like it's um something that needs like extensive work.

I think there's a few things that were brought up um by Commissioner Del Negro that are need to staff time needs to be put into them.

Um there's a few little corrections, and then there's the decision about Podesta.

And so that's really all that has to be decided, right?

Is that clear?

Well, yeah, but that's not decided by staff.

We have to go to the architectural advisory committee, which so we're looking at a couple months worth of work, and so I'd like to come back if possible, provide you with more feedback on some of the outstanding questions and provide a new timeline to update you on that.

Oh, to get it done, because we've been doing this for a long time.

Yeah, yeah.

So um, so you're saying we don't have enough information to decide about Podesta because we don't know whether there's drawbacks or not drawbacks.

Yeah, and you don't you don't have to make any decisions tonight.

This is an update.

Right.

Uh thank you.

Um Commissioner Del Negro.

Sounds to me like obviously as we go forward that the changing of the overlay is something that can happen without having to change or update the objective design standards.

The map can change.

Sure.

Correct.

So that seems to be very flexible.

I like that we could have the opportunity in the future.

I mean, I I would also, I mean, I I think it's it's an interesting question to look at.

I think if you have an area that's immediately adjacent to um the um overlay that is multifamily, then uh I would want to see a pretty strong argument why if it is if it does become multi-family in intent, why we wouldn't want to include the uh residential design standards.

I mean, I think that it's a fair point.

I just think that it's um it could all turn into a massive park in town square, right?

I mean, there's all kinds of things that could happen there.

It could be a swimming pool, um municipal use, which you know, uh so I just I think it's a good question to have staff do some analysis, think about and give us feedback on.

So I agree with that point.

I just don't feel comfortable making a change willy-nilly.

Um Chair Reddick.

Well, I I wanted to add my agreement to Vice Chair Gorne's position because regarding Podesta, if I understand it correctly, there is no drawback to putting it in the overlay map, and in that case, the uh any the development applicant would have the uh the opportunity to uh the uh um put forth a proposal that is in sync with the design standards, but also the uh the opportunity to opt out of it and do something uh quite quite different with uh with a different kind of PUD plan.

So uh but in any case, um uh I'm happy to give staff some time to uh think through that and come back and explain that more fully to us.

Thank you.

Um I think we're done with this item.

Um I actually don't have that strong opinion about Podesta, but it just seemed to make intuitive sense to include it.

So um, I oh, we're not done.

Actually, not on the desktop, I'm actually at a question.

Um I'm always curious about colors when we go to somebody paints a home and it's under a certain design standard we do.

What stops someone from repainting a home a different color at any time?

There's nothing like it's it's a strange objective design standard to have that you can't regulate.

You use it to meet a standard as one of the criteria, meets your one of three objectives, and then you turn around and paint it the next year, you've lost that standard element.

Well, if they paint it orange and black and pink, um then you can bring up your design standard and enforce it because there would be complaints.

Gotcha.

So there's a retroactive process to hold them to that design standard that they would have to fix it.

Okay, great.

But they could change different colors.

It just fine.

Um and uh one thing I want to encourage, I also do agree that a single story flat roof building brings down the value of a community, does not look great.

I do concur with the rest that it's a standard I actually would not like to see included, at least on first single stories for sure.

Okay.

Um let me just pull people.

Do we need a break before we start the second one or can we just get going?

How does everybody feel?

You feel good?

Okay, I think we're just gonna keep going.

Um so we are moving on to um our second item one B, which is the uh coastal development permit permit for uh remediating the unpermitted grading, disking, deconstruction, construction of a gravel road and fence over by um uh cabrillo highway and main street.

Uh San Mateo Road.

It's actually San Mateo Road and Main Street.

Um, and who is presenting this?

Is this Leslie?

Yeah, that's me.

I'm just waiting for Bridget.

Okay.

We have the.

Um so as you all recall back in June, um, well, sorry, Commissioner.

Um back in June, um Caltrans started their bridge scour project uh on the Cabrillo Highway Bridge that crosses Pillar Sidos Creek.

This was a major project um that and a needed project that took really years of permitting um by all the resource agencies and the city.

Um the project was supposed to take place all on within Caltrans right-of-way.

Um through a miscommunication uh between Caltrans and their contractor.

Grading happened on the um on a portion of land that's privately owned and that was not a part of that project.

Um the grading was supposed to be for a construction lay down area.

Um so this is the property on um San Mateo Road and Cabrillo Highway.

And this is what took place.

A gravel road was laid down.

There was grading, a fence was put up.

I think there's another picture there that I'm skipping.

Okay.

Um sorry, I thought there was another picture there.

Um when we discovered that we stopped to work on the project.

Um we had our our major concerns were what?

No, it's fine.

Oh yeah, it is that one.

That's weird.

Um our major concerns were uh what kind of habitat was there and was it disturbed and that that might have been disturbed.

Um we didn't want a lot of pooling happening on the property if it was um you know graded unevenly in various areas, and we didn't um we were concerned about sedimentation in the creek should it rain because as you could see from that aerial, it's very close to Pilar Cedos Creek.

Umce we were able to start talking with Caltrans, we determined that the best path forward would be to do an emergency permit, in part because this was not part of the scope of their project, as on a different piece of property, and also because we wanted this taken care of as soon as possible.

We wanted it taken care of before the rainy season.

So we uh we had we asked them to submit an emergency permit application as part of that.

They submitted a restoration plan, which is attached to your staff report.

Um, and we then hired a biologist to do peer review on that.

Um essentially what we found was that um which you probably all knew.

I'm still new enough to this town that I did not know this, but this this lot has been used to host events and has been disked repeatedly over the years.

Um it wasn't supporting any um special habitat or special species or species of concern, um and most of the vegetation that was graded was non-native.

And so that this thing is not working, um yeah.

So that includes this vegetation here, and that was pretty much what was on the site.

Um what we asked them to do was to regrade the slide the site so that there weren't any major um places where water would pool, um, and to hydro seed, um, which they did, and these are this, these are the species that they chose, which were all native species.

Um they went the process that they that they undertook for the uh reseeding was to grade and to lay down mulch and um to do the seeding.

Um, and we wanted that done uh by mid-September so that we could have some growth that occurred um before Caltrans was leaving the area on October 15th.

So October 15th, which is tomorrow, is typically the cutoff time for um work windows in this area to avoid um disturbing any special status species.

Um, so for example, the workout at Wave Crest has similar windows, um, and this work had a similar window.

When you issue an emergency permit, the applicant is required to return within 60 days for a permanent permit, and that's why we're here tonight.

Um this is what I'm giving up on this pointer.

Um, yeah, we want to go to the post-remediation.

Yeah, so this is what the site is looking like now.

Um we have some growth that's that's started uh not as much as we would have liked to have had by now, but um but the seat is in place, um, the growth is starting.

Um the Caltrans engineer and our interim city engineer have uh both been to the site um and looked at the erosion control plan and the grading elevations and confirmed that um the site is restored back to its original um topography for lack of a better term.

Um that's and that's that's where we are today.

So our our recommendation is um that to correct this violation, um we approve coastal uh the coastal development permit to permanently authorize the work that was performed under the emergency coastal development permit for remediation of the unpermitted grading, disking, and construction of the gravel road and fence, and that concludes my presentation.

Thank you very much.

Um I know we have a lot of people want to talk about this.

Um we also have uh people have been waiting long time in the public to talk.

I would like to um actually I would like to skip clarifying questions and we'll move clarifying questions to after VOBA can comment so that we can get people in because it's actually starting to get a little late.

So um I would like to open public comment.

Anyone um online who wants to comment, you should raise your hand.

We do have a green card here.

I'm opening public comment um from uh James Benjamin.

Is our only green card?

Okay, am I still on that one or wasn't it?

Um so I'm I'm still James Benjamin, and thank you for the chance to speak on this tonight.

Um I was really grateful to see a regular CDP, and I want to be sure to say thank you because I frequently see and perhaps you have had that experience of emergency coastal development permits that came through, and then they just sort of never got followed up and dribbled out of our consciousness.

So this is a welcome change, and I truly thank you for that.

Um I did have some concerns, however.

Um, as I read the staff report, I had I was sort of looking for the word violation because that's what it was, and I also want to thank uh uh our community development director for calling it that tonight.

Um this was work that was not part of a project.

If it's not part of a project that was permitted, it's a violation, and the process of remediating violations is a little different than the process for an emergency coastal development permit to become a regular permit.

But in any case, when you're in an area of geologic hazard, like an alluvial fan, um, we're supposed to get a geologic report that's under our local coastal uh implementation plan and under the hydrology policies of our local co-local coastal program.

And for those of you who uh are here present, um on the back of your handout that I brought you tonight, there's a map, and I circled the area where this is located.

You'll uh and I've included a legend that was on this.

This is a map that's in the public domain.

This is I think a 2014 USGS map.

So it's got uh in this area QA, which is alluvial soil, and uh QA2, I believe, which is a younger soil than an active alluvial channel.

You can't get more alluvial than that.

That's really alluvial.

And uh what I'm what I'm asking is that we make a cultural change.

It's not that I want to browbeat the applicant or staff or anything like that.

It's that when we're when we're looking at development, especially unpermitted development in an area of of significant geologic hazard, and we should recognize these alluvial areas through which water is passing as that sort of area.

We need to get the studies our our local coastal program requires, and we didn't get it for this.

So I'm respectively calling that out respectfully, excuse me.

Um, I also appreciated the concern about sedimentation into Pillar Cedars Creek.

Sedimentation into Pellar Cedars Creek could also be referred to as erosion off this parcel.

And I am somewhat confused as since the way erosion works is the water, I'll be very brief, please bear with me.

Uh the way the the way this works is that water flows off of the You're our only speaker.

Sorry?

You're our only speaker.

So uh the water has to flow off the parcel and carry soil with it, poorly consolidated or unconsolidated soils, which is the essence of alluvium.

And the way you avoid that is to not have the water flow.

And the way you don't have the water flow is to retain the water on site.

And my way of thinking is that's a pool.

It could it could also be completely underground, you know, a subterranean groundwater process, but if you haven't studied the site, you don't know which of those is feasible.

So I struggle with the objective of avoiding pooling being in conflict with the objective of avoiding in trained flows leading to erosion and sedimentation.

So I hope that you can clarify that and that my concerns are are clear, and I will be happy to answer questions.

Thank you for your forbearance, and again, thank you for this regular CDB.

Thank you.

Um is there anyone else online or seated here who needs to comment?

Raise your hand, please.

Um, seeing none, I'm going to close public comment.

I'm going to bring it back here.

Um we can start with clarifying questions.

Uh does anyone have a particular question they want to ask?

Uh, Commissioner Rems.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um Madam Director, did you say the Caltrans is going to leave tomorrow?

And does that include their contractors or just Caltrans?

Um, actually why don't we ask Caltrans?

Uh Darrell, do you mind?

Hello, I'm Daryl Stram, Caltrans, uh senior engineer on this Daryl Shram.

And um we are going, we are out of the creek on the 15th, and that's the permit requirements to be out of the creek, and we have uh remediate the creek, actually.

We just had a review of the creek just uh today, actually.

And so we will have a plant establishment period.

We'll go into we're still doing landscaping, actually, landscaping there and put our permanent soil erosion measures in on the state right away.

And that will be concluded here probably this month, and we'll go into a one year permanent plant establishment period where we'll monitor the plants and everything that we've done at the site and replace plants in that one year time period if they fail.

So we are getting close to getting done because the majority of our work was in the creek, and the majority of that work, all that work has been completed.

So I think the question, Commissioner Rams has is is the remediation done.

The site restoration it has been completed.

We have gone through all the uh we handed in the plan that was through cooperation with Leslie, uh the restoration plan.

We have gone to item by item on the restoration plan and completed all the item work on the restoration plan.

Mr.

Chairman, uh I would like to ask the speaker a couple of questions.

Uh you should know that I live right there.

I watched you for the last four and a half months off my balcony.

Your workers probably or maybe you yourselves would see me looking at what's going on.

I have a concern because a lot of water comes under my balcony.

We're built up on piers.

And two years ago, nearly two years ago, there was a major event that put eight feet of water underneath that that balcony.

I'm looking at the same situation now, just downstream from where your work area, it's all a bunch of debris and everything's clogged up.

I'm wondering why you didn't go in there and muck that out so that you'd have a nice free flow, at least beyond.

Well, you know.

Normally there is a lot of debris in there, and that was noticed actually.

But unfortunately, all that is out of the state right-of-way, and we don't have permit to go out of the state right-of-way to remove it, even though it would be benefit.

There's shopping carts in there, there's you know, stuff from the homeless people that are deposited in there.

But unfortunately, I just don't have the authority to go out of my right-of-way and remove or remediate or restore anything out of Caltrans right away.

Okay, I get I get that.

But uh through the chair.

Um this is questions are really related to a different project than the remediation project.

And I'm just wondering if maybe we're going down the wrong line of question.

Well, I think I think maybe added with all the rest of the question.

Yeah, with all due respect, this is we have the man here.

No, I know.

But so this is one more question, and uh perhaps I I know you'd be able to answer it.

There's a there's a little bit of redesign there when you put all the rock in and everything.

Uh how much CFS is coming down there, do you think?

Um CSF?

Yeah.

Can we create for a second how much water is coming down there?

Uh coming down there.

Actually, I w I do not know, but I know of course it was studied by many people.

I I'm in the construction guy.

So I don't really look at the there was a lot of project development.

Okay, I'll I'll I'll ask you one more question if you don't mind.

There's some large tree stumps in there.

Are they gonna be removed or just gonna stay there?

Uh many of the large tree trumps were placed in there to tell you the truth.

Uh that's part of our permitted uh mitigation measures.

It depends on what tree stumps you're talking about.

Obviously, the ones that were placed in there um in the shoulder bank are actually for the habitat to enhance the habitat, and they were placed by us.

And they're actually rather but they're right in the stream.

Yes.

So again, this isn't really on the they're actually right on the bank of the stream, right next to it during low flow, but they will be in the stream, obviously, with very high flow situations.

They're in the stream now.

Well, we have had a high flow situation recently, right?

Okay.

So yes, and they are there to uh stop a slope erosion, basically, and that's their purpose.

Thank you very much for your answers.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman, for your indulgence.

I just want to follow up on the point at hand.

So Commissioner Hernandez.

If I might um the restoration work has been completed, the remediation has not been completed because there's a monitoring period that goes with the remediation.

Is that is that right?

There was a list, we will be out there, but we're talking about the restoration of the lot.

Right.

Looking at the restoration of the lot, and basically right now we're fine with like I said, we uh met all the requirements.

There was some uh stop, but of course, and we'll be happy because we are out there for a year anyway.

We're not going anywhere for another year where we're plant establishment period.

But um when the if it is used for other purposes that happens to destroy our restoration work, we're kind of concerned that we don't want to be held responsible for restoring work that because of cars are parking on there basically during and during or different events are held on the restored lot that we just restored and we spent a lot of effort on restoring.

So um if we are monitoring it and would be happy to address any concerns, but if the concern, if the if our restoration work is affected by other uses of the property, we feel like kind of our hands are kind of clean at that point.

Excuse me, just to be clear.

Just to be clear, you're talking about like parking during pumpkin vestival.

Is that what you're doing?

Well, the lot has been, as Leslie pointed out, the lot has been used in the past for many purposes.

Right.

Okay.

And uh our restoration wasn't made to endure those types of events.

It's a navy seed mix and native soil, so I mean it's not a parking lot, and we made it we put a lot, like I said, after graded, you know, original grades, uh soil amendments, native seed mix, restoring that back to actually better than it was before.

So just to clarify, going back to um the restoration effort, you've restored the original grade.

Yes, to the best of your ability to figure out what that original grade was.

Yes.

We dug back to our files and found some original grades, uh topos of that area.

We did a new topo survey that shows that we reflect the original grades that were done there uh from a uh older survey that was done there years ago.

And um I understand that you're uh to quote, um not to quote, but to um sort of state how you described yourself.

You're the construction guy, not the biologist or the hydrologist.

Water volumes I didn't do the hydraulic study and design the feature that we built.

Like I said, I built the feature for the plant, so did go through a pretty lengthy design process and review process.

And the design process we went through, like the materials that were used are not going to increase.

I mean, I I I'm I'm looking at this letter from um noted water expert in our community who's also a former planning commissioner, and you know, he's trying to, you know, he's bringing up the geomorphic hazards.

So on the one hand, we're worried about runoff.

Um the other hand, um, like we're pooling, and I'm seeing an observation that there's pooling on the site right now where I th as I understand it, the remediation has happened.

Are you talking pull about pooling on the lot?

On the lot where the remediation has happened.

That's what I'm I'm interpreting this letter to say.

If you look at the old topo graphics, it kind of depends on the location on uh on the lot you're looking at.

The lot is fairly large, we didn't affect the whole lot area basically.

So we restored the area that we affected to the original grades.

The areas um that we didn't touch, we didn't touch, we didn't go back there and try to make them not pull.

There is some local pooling on that lot that's that was pre-existing.

I've I've observed that local that pooling, but on the area that you um restored.

Are you observing any pooling or uh like clear signs of erosion happening where you've you've done your work?

Oh, actually the lot is looking great.

Actually, we just had some pictures taken.

Uh the hydro seeding is starting to actually we're we're seeing plants sprout up some of the native vegetation, it's actually taking hold and growing.

Um, and uh, like I said, it looks in in my opinion, it looks better than it did before we started.

And we have a lot, there was a lot of evasive as Leslie pointed out.

There were the majority of plants on that lot were evasive.

And now we've actually was all the abase spaces have been removed.

Uh the soil amendment was added to the top couple inches of uh the soil.

So when we did hydro seed it, that the native plants that we seeded out there would have a really good chance of taking off.

And if you look at the right now, you can see that they are taking off.

Thank you.

Chair.

Um Commissioner Del Negro.

Sorry, yeah.

I had a couple questions.

Um actually sorry to jump with Caltrans, Daryl.

Um I actually had one question for you about the Are you guys, I'm I always think about the future.

Obviously, something's happened.

We've done some restoration work here.

Are you guys planning on leaving an access point on the Caltrans right-of-way on highway one to the bridge?

Obviously, I know you got your construction equipment going up and down.

No, there, well, there's no there's gonna be no permanent access point, like you say, like, or for you know, there's the path, which is kind of the access point, but our right-of-way only has a little section right there, right?

So, and we don't uh access other than from walking like any normal citizens would do to access under the bridge, basically.

We uh, so there will you know where our contractor is axing under the bridge right now, you know, that will all when we back up, that will all be permanent erosion control measures will be in place there, and we won't, but right now there will be stuff because we have to put a water buffalo down there, so there will be some access and we will be down there because there's not an appro uh there's not a permanent sprinkler system installation at that location, but during our planet establishment period, we have put up a temporary uh irrigation system that has to be fed through a water tank, basically.

So you but most likely that will be fed from the shoulder area, and we don't see, I don't see a um, there's a possibility that uh our landscapers may go down there, but once we get the permanent erosion control measures in there, I don't see I'll bring that up with my contradictory.

They better not be going under our permanent place stuff because they're not supposed to be driving over once it's all permanently placed.

They're not supposed to be driving access over there, they'll be walking on foot.

Okay.

I mean, just always think of the future about once we're in the same situation again.

If we have to restore, have to work downward working now.

How are we gonna access that and not have the same event type thing happen in the future?

Is there a met so we're not leaving behind a permanent way of getting any?

We went back and did the same project in the future.

How would we access there?

We probably do similar to what we just did this time.

We uh our contractor uh purch uh leased that lot without our knowledge at first.

It was and it was we took responsibility because our responsibility is to enforce the permit requirements on our contractors, and so we took responsibility for that, our contractor's action, but technically the contractor didn't need the lot to perform the work as we prove it here.

He has finished all the work without using the lot because the lot was never used in the construction of the scour protection uh project.

Sure.

And we stopped him as soon as it was brought to my attention by the city of Halfing Bay that uh our contractor was in violation of the permits.

We said, you will not enter this lot, you will not do anything as well, you will not use this lot for the construction of the project.

Um, and then we went and until you will basically you won't even enter this lot until we have permission for the restoration plan that's complete.

And then we basically so we stopped all activity on the lot and it was never used in the construction of the project.

So in the future, future projects with scour protection projects, which are a normal course of action, any creek bed that's not concrete line, like this is a natural creek.

So it will come up in the future and we'll probably do it the same way we did it this time, uh, which will be just from our right-of-way.

But we might suggest if that lot is still available, as a if I did a constructibility review on it today, I would say it would have made our life easier to use that lot, and that's why the contractor did it in the first place, but we would have to go, it would have to be incorporated during the design process, and we would have a temporary construction easement in our contracts that you guys and ever all the agencies would have been on board with.

Um but that wasn't the case, so um, and we don't have to do it, and that's kind of what our designer said.

It did come up during the design process about using that lot, and our designers uh said, No, we don't need to use the lot, we're not constructing anything on the lot.

It we do have adequate access, and so it was thought about, but um it was chosen.

We don't impact other people's properties, we don't have to.

Did you have another question?

Uh actually this one's probably more to the city.

Um can this yacht still be used for events?

I mean, is this something that's restricted of use in the future moving forward now that it's been restored and now has native plants, or is this still the same potential use of it available for the future?

Yeah, so the use of this lot for parking was sort of news to me.

Um and I did do a little bit of research.

Um so this lot has been used for parking and events for 50 years.

It's a I would categorize it uh based on my reading of the Coastal Act as a continuous ongoing use, which would be exempt from a coastal development permit.

So um so that's that was my take on on this property, and I was really disappointed to see that um to find out that there would be parking there this coming weekend.

Um and I mean I'm I'm pleased that there's as much growth as there is there, but it yeah, it was kind of a shocker for me.

Hope the uh plants grow back after they've used it for parking, of course.

So they're gonna use it this weekend for parking?

Pumpkin festival parking.

Oh my god.

Yeah, yeah.

Um that being said, um now that we've changed it back to better than it was before, I'm assuming that this grade is maybe even better than it was before it was recently disked and changed is what I understand.

Like it was done in the past where they planned and dissed it for other uses and they were using it for parking lot.

The way I interpreted the data tonight is that we've now gone back and actually made it a little more slope than it was before they got there, back to historical prior to previous diskings.

Um they returned it to where it was before before the Caltrans contractor disked it.

Right, but not an historical elevation that people eliminated before for any of the purpose.

No, okay, no, all right.

So nothing's changed from prior use and prior standards.

No, the only the what's changed is that there's now some um native plants and some new growth, which um and some mulch which will hopefully hold soil in place so that we don't have loose soil running off the site.

I will point out two positives here.

One is obviously the native species that are now there.

Two is all the trash that was in that field is no longer there.

Um there was a tremendous amount of trash blowing from highway 92.

What's that?

It wasn't trashed.

Oh wow.

It was trashed down by the cream.

I would see it on the road side right there, like blowing from the sidewalk or from the street into that field.

It was pretty much a field that had like um waist high.

I would say more litter is what I'm getting at.

The litter's not there that used to be there from the road.

Nothing's there.

Yeah, yeah.

So one positive is it's a little bit more cleaned up, is what I'm getting at on the street side.

But that's not it, yeah.

Um, so um, Commissioner Hernandez.

Thank you.

Um, so the property owner received compensation from Caltrans as subcontractor, they were paid for the use, the this lease wasn't terminated.

I I don't know how the payment happened, but the lease was actually expired.

Um, I I'd like to understand this and and part of it is just um as a property owner you have a responsibility to make sure that things are done in an appropriate manner.

And if we're asking Caltrans to restore um plants uh on this site as part of a um a mitigation effort, um, because of a violation from their subcontractor.

Um and we're also asking them to monitor it.

I I think the the I'd like to understand like were they paid for the entirety of this lease, um, because to me I I I'm just putting this out there.

Like it just seems like, well, maybe we shouldn't allow parking on that portion of the lot where we've just done a restoration if the plants still haven't established themselves.

And I don't know whether or not they've been established and how they're going to be impacted by people parking there, but if the owners already received compensation, um I like there's this is a this is a byproduct of them not managing their property.

So I'd be curious to understand what happened with the lease.

Uh ran until the tenth of this month, October 10th.

So I can I think I can't even.

I'm sorry, the contractors lease rent to the 10th of this month.

And so as far and that's why we were kind of wanting to get all the restoration done before the 10th, so there would be had to be no further agreement with the property owner because uh the contractor had the rights to go in there and do the restoration.

Okay.

So uh but they were paid for the the lease.

Yes, as far as I know the the contractor fully paid.

We don't have really anything to do.

I'm just doing it based on the contractor's verbal that they did pay for the lease and they honored their agreement to the 10th of this month.

Thank you.

And and have you heard any comment from the people who are doing the restoration work who I mean you are a construction expert, you are somebody who manages projects, and you receive you're somebody who uh I admit as an egg I would admit as an expert on lease to construction.

Have any of the people who uh are in your employee told you they shouldn't be parking here while the plants are still being established?

I they told us no, well that's kind of common sense, but uh have you heard this from the experts who are doing the restoration work the remediation work for you?

Oh, that other people are gonna be parking there, or have no, we just know this.

Well, like I said, I've been uh 30 years of construction here.

I've worked a lot of projects at Half Wing Bay, um, not in the city limits, to tell you the truth.

I actually was one of my first projects with the Happening Bay maintenance.

So we know from our past experience from to our Caltrans maintenance folks and everything that there is a history of people parking on the lot.

So like I said, I don't have any objections to the people parking on the lot or the city using the lot for other purposes.

Um it's not our lot, it's not state.

That was that wasn't his question.

No, you you made the point earlier that we're asking you to monitor the lot for a year.

But monitoring the lot kind of uh that's probably one thing that we don't have a problem doing during the plant establishment period and helping out in the monitoring lot, but like I said, once the kind of the lease runs out on our contractor side, we don't really have permission to do anything else on the lot after the 10th.

So our monitoring is kind of limited.

We could always go into another agreement, you know, and to help, like I said, working with Leslie and Happening Bay.

If there's something that needs to be done out there, we could probably get permission working with Hackman Bay, like I said, and the property owner to do some additional work if it's warranted.

I to I don't want to have responsibility for other uses.

Well, we got the property, we restored the property, and we will do whatever it takes to make it all whole again.

I just you you there's an implied con uh there's an implication that you made earlier, which is I just restored all this property or um restored all this land.

I put in maybe better than what it was before.

The plants you didn't quite say it this way, but the plants haven't been established yet.

They're still getting up and running, and now you're gonna allow parking, and you're requiring me to monitor for this for a year to make sure there's no runoff or overt sedimentation or other adverse effects.

So has anybody on your staff said people shouldn't park here while the plants are being established, or is it your professional opinion that people shouldn't be parking there while the plants are being established?

Well, that is my question.

Thank you.

Um Chair Reddick, do you have any clarifying questions?

Thank you for asking.

No, I don't.

Anyone else have uh clarifying questions before we start discussing?

Um I had a I had a couple of them.

Um I'm sorry, I don't remember your name from Caltrans.

Um now the whoever's talking about it's Daryl.

Daryl.

Uh Darrell had a couple of quick questions.

Should bring a chair up for you.

Um who's the contractor?

Or uh Disney construction.

What is it called?

Disney.

Disney construction.

No mouse.

Okay.

Um and um and so when did they do this?

They entered into the agreement with the property owner a verbal agreement.

I heard even because we suspended this job.

This job was originally going to start uh the year before, actually.

So uh but it kind of came out late because we have that work window that's very tight, June 15th to October 15th to work in the creek.

And so we said it was the smart because we didn't think it was gonna be scheduling.

We're not gonna get done by the 15th for the permit requirements, and we're only allowed to go in the creek one time.

So we said let's suspend the job until the next season.

We're gonna get a good start on the fifth, you know, the 6 15, June 15th.

We can hit it hard and that way we have a good chance of completing the project in that tight window.

Um, so our contractor basically said, so he when I went out to bid, they talked to that product uh property owner if they if they could entertain the idea of leasing that property to make their lives easier, have a nice storage area for their equipment and the materials.

And uh I guess that verbally they had kind of a handshake deal when they bid the job like over a year ago.

And um they entered into a formal agreement about I think it was the I'm going, is it June or it was just a few days before the actual we came out of the suspension period and we're gonna go to work on the 15th of June basically.

So they can't they came to a verbal agreement sometime in the end of May or so.

I heard before they even bid the job, which could put it even back farther than a year basically.

Okay, and when did they start working?

They did start mobilizing on in June, and that's when um and one of their first orders of work was grading the lot basically, you know, kind of scraping the when did they do that?

Uh I don't have the it was June of this year.

Well, I'd have to go back and look at the dates to get it.

So I mean, I mean normally jobs start on Monday, right?

Uh yeah, typically, typically it's probably on a Monday.

Probably on a Monday.

The contractor, you never know contractors.

Um I think that's all my clarifying questions.

Thank you.

Anything before I step down?

No, I think I'm good.

No, we're good for now.

Thank you.

All right, I'll be happy to come back.

Thanks.

So we can open this one up to discussion.

Um does anyone have anything to say.

Commissioner Hernandez.

Um I've kind of shared my perspective.

Um, a little conflicted about this.

Um I I will say I've observed pooling, erosion issues on this site for many years uh in the May-June time frame.

There was a bunch of trash that was pulled out of the creek and was sitting next to the trail for several weeks.

Um so there's litter that has been up and down the creek um on the menitis property, um, and also in the Caltrans right-of-way, and then to the west of the Caltrans right of way, and there's still a bunch of litter there.

Um I'm not sure like there's two things going on.

One, we have a property owner who hasn't really policed their own area very well over the years um with respect to protection of the environment.

And um second, we have Caltrans who um has clearly committed a violation, and uh and it's not just on permitted work, it's a violation.

So I would like to call that out and that at least call that out in the findings.

Um because you know, if another violation happens and we have a pattern of violations that are clearly called out.

Um, but and I don't know what to do about the idea of asking to put in pooling.

Um I'm I'm I'm you know, I'd love to hear of other people's feedback on what whether or not we should, you know, say these plants need to establish themselves or not.

Um it's really awkward because we literally have pumpkin festival, and the last thing I want to do is create a parking issue for pumpkin festival, but um, you know, the subcontractor, the contractor, and um the property owner are the ones who've created the situation.

Can I interrupt you for a second?

So um it just rained, and so I went out to look at the uh the site and um and there's a lot of runoff, and there's pretty much I mean you know, you're you're uh you guys keep talking about how it's all restored, everything's done, everything we're leaving, we're going, but you go out to the site and the plants are very small.

Like what was there before was hip high, and what's there now is ankle high, and it's like and and the rain is loosened everything up.

So I'm really looking at um pumpkin festival and parking cars on this lot that's m muddy and is already losing soil and already losing plants is going to uh be destroyed.

So when it's destroyed, we're gonna have the the basically the empty lot that we had when Disney contractor um graded it.

I mean, it's gonna be we're basically gonna have an empty lot again.

So um I mean, I guess um, like to your concern that you know pumpkin festival parking is gonna harm this, um pumpkin festival parking will destroy it.

So just so you know that it's it's already pooling and eroding today, yesterday and today.

So, um does anyone have anything else they want to add?

Yes.

So this parking allowing for the parking there.

How is that arranged?

Is that by the city arranging it with the owner, the owner, just decides to do this on their own.

Um, uh yeah, it's it's the owner that that does this, and it's my understanding that this is done at various places throughout the city.

Um and it and it is a money making endeavor.

Um, it's a money-making endeavor, which tells me that they may have the money to restore it back to where it should have been environmentally before the user for parking now.

Is there potential that the owner becomes liable for any damage further done to it?

The the owner so Caltrans is the applicant, and the owner is the owner, and the permit applies to the owner of the property.

I mean, it yeah.

So the owner had to sign off on the permit application in order to receive a permit.

I said this is a pro boner to the city, I'd be a little less likely to ask that question, but this person's making money off their lot and they're creating environmental damage potential risk to the creek themselves.

Are they not going to be held liable for that damage or that risk for erosion and further during this coming winter?

Well, that could be um a condition of the permit.

I mean, you have the ability to condition a permit to limit the parking there.

So they applied for a permit for parking.

They don't need to use historical use.

No, it would be this permit that you were.

Okay, yeah.

I feel like, you know, Caltrans has done everything it can to remit its program.

I don't see where we're going from with them.

I'm more worried about this question of long-term viability of the survival of the plants on the lot.

I mean, obviously the risk here is the creek has run off the lot, pollutes the creek with extra runoff, and we have erosion problems over time.

That's obviously the risk.

Now we have a situation where we've done it we can to restore it to where it can be at this time of year.

And now an owner's gonna come in and now make it back into a risk.

And the question I get asking is are they held liable if their lot ends up developing an environmental risk towards Post Creek as runoff erosion?

Well, I think the way to and Marlene, you can correct me if I'm wrong here, but I I think the way to ensure that they are held liable would be to condition the permit.

The permit applies to the owner.

Okay.

So even though Caltrans has taken responsibility for their part of the work, that doesn't, it doesn't mean that the that they're responsible for the whether or not there's parking.

Now we're saying we're gonna for a permit that has passed its utility though for what was intended originally into a new scope of time and activity, which would be parking for the festival.

Because the lease is run out.

So w how does the how does the landowner um how does this approval that we're making apply to the landowner?

Well, the permit belongs to the landowner.

So you can so a condition would be to restrict parking or to ensure the viability of the of the plants could be something like um, you know, once once the hydro seating is complete, the landowner is responsible for ensuring the viability of um the remediation.

I I don't have the language on the tip of my tongue, but we could work out something like that.

That's one avenue forward.

Um so the ADP is for the landowner, not Caltrans.

Yeah, the permit is it always runs with the property, right?

The landowner, yeah.

Thank you.

Um, Mr.

Hernandez.

I think I've um I've received evidence that um the restoration has already failed.

Um I've heard testimony from a fellow commissioner who walked the site that the restoration appears to have failed.

Um or appears to be failing.

And um, you know, we've got a couple of days of dry weather, but uh I don't think the issue of the lease is our problem.

I think the monitoring is Caltrans' problem.

And if we've already seen evidence that the restoration has failed, I think it's up to Caltrans to demonstrate that um they demonstrate that that has actually survived this first bit of rain that we have.

Um, you know, my inclination is to um condition the approval to require the monitoring, to require um a report back to the planning commission within 60 days that um the restoration is actually taken effect, and um I don't know.

I mean, I I think I think it's silly to allow people to park on this site.

And really, this is the responsibility of the owner.

Um, I would like to bring up um a couple other things.

Um, I mean, one is I want to know what's gonna stop this from happening again, both here and on other places, because if I was Disney contractor, I would be, oh, I got in trouble with Caltrans, but nothing really happened.

We were we did some hydro seeding, and we, you know, um we restored everything back to the original topography, which I find kind of hard to believe, but maybe um everything's back to we know that there was no sensitive habitat there, but we don't actually know that.

We know that there were no um that everything was invasive plants, but we don't really know that.

Um so I guess the real thing is when this first happened, you looked at me and you said there's there's gonna be a lot of mitigation on this one, and to me, mitigation is you ref we restore the place back to the way it was, and you mitigate somewhere else to pay for what you did, and so saying to you know that Caltrans is hydroceded this area and has removed the road that they put in isn't mitigation to me.

That's restoring back to what it was.

So I want to know what have you looked at in terms of mitigation.

Well, considering that there was no there weren't any special status species, and there was very little there in the way of habitat beforehand, which their biologists and our peer review both found.

Um I don't I don't see how we could require a mitigation.

I don't really care what was there before.

I mean, mitigation means that you r restore some other area to pay for what you did.

So maybe, you know, um so it sounds to me like you're talking about assessing a fine.

I I want to know what the city has how you've approached Caltrans and the landowner, since we're about to give a a CDP to a landowner who um who basically turned um, you know, who graded and put in a uh actually two roads, um and there's no repercussions from it other than we have to hydroseed.

So what are the repercussions of it?

The repercussions were to remediate the site, and if you'd like to see more repercussions, then I can pursue that.

Okay, so the city hasn't hasn't really like tried to say Caltrans, you did something this was wrong, you know it was wrong, your contractor made a mistake, you know, fix it and do this mitigation.

You never like what you said was fix it, put it back the way it was.

Yeah, once we had the the biology report, that is what we said.

And can you tell me just it's kind of an aside, but it is a concern that a lot of people have raised with me.

When did this happen?

When did Disney contractor disc and grade and tear up that area?

It was the first week of June.

Right.

The Monday, I honestly don't know.

And I know you've asked me this question before.

I don't know when they started.

I found out on Wednesday at noon, which I know because I was sitting at my son's high school graduation and I received a text.

And the next morning we went out and we stopped work.

Okay.

And you looked at me when you said that, and you said that everything that Caltrans did, everything that Disney contractor did, which was to grade and disk, to disk and grade that entire area, and to put in two roads that are what, six inches deep?

Is that what you said?

Five inches deep?

Of gravel?

Like that was all in one day.

I don't know.

And are you like is that so people have concerns?

You know, I hear a lot of people who saw it on Monday, including, you know, city council members who saw it on Monday.

And you know, I want to know like what?

So there's two questions.

How can we stop this from happening again?

How can we stop Caltrans from doing this again, or a contractor from doing this again, or a landowner from doing this again?

Like what's the what's the what's the repercussions of doing it?

And then also, how can the city respond quicker so that the city can respond on Monday or Tuesday instead of Thursday when this is all done?

Like, is there is there has the city talked about trying to have a quicker response?

Maybe um, you know, when people in the city see something, they report it to somebody or I don't know what what that would be.

But I'm that's a that's I think a real concern, isn't it?

Um yeah, there that has been raised.

It's um and I've I've talked to my staff about how quickly re we respond.

Um, and I talked to the public works director about the response.

I don't know exactly when the work started.

I know that our former public works director reached out to Caltrans, which is a normal and respectable response to reach out right away when you hear about something that's happening.

What he heard about was that they had started the project and we hadn't been notified.

He didn't realize that the grading wasn't part of the permit, so he was trying to contact Caltrans.

It took a while to get through.

Caltrans is a big organization.

I believe that um they had a relatively new project manager who uh so we he wouldn't know exactly the right person to contact.

So all of that takes a little bit of time.

It also takes a little bit of time to look at, you know, find the permit, look at it, figure out oh, this is not permitted here.

So, and that's what we did.

I found out on Wednesday that there was grading.

I came in the next morning, I looked at the permit, it wasn't authorized, we went out, we stopped the work.

So if we just suppose for a second that the grading actually started on Monday, which is you know, it did, and so suppose for a minute that it did.

Is there a way that you can talk to staff or come up with some plan that streams streamlines that process so that uh a rogue contractor like Disney doesn't have three or four days to destroy an area?

Like that's it's I just want some assurance from the city that you're paying attention to it and that it's an important that it's important to you to not have that happen again.

It is important to me to not have that happen again, and I have talked to my staff about how we communicate and how we can communicate better.

And how do we address Disney contractor not doing this again?

Like how does it hurt Caltrans or how does it hurt Disney not to be punitive about it or punishing, but what's to stop anybody from doing it if the only repercussion is, hey, we have to put down some hydroseeding and then we're gonna let them, you know, do whatever they want with the property park on Pumpkin Festival there.

Like that's all they have to do.

So, like, it doesn't seem like it really costs them anything, or it doesn't seem like if I were a contractor, I wouldn't hesitate to like do it first and ask forgiveness later.

So what's to stop them from doing that?

Can I make a suggestion?

Commissioner Hernandez.

Um I think um just just to continue the discussion.

Uh I don't think any um substantive species were impacted.

Um I think the bigger issue is there was unpermitted work in an area that is hydrologically sensitive, and it's unclear what the long-term implications are from the work that they've done.

And we've also observed that the um uh restoration plan may not have taken hold.

Um so I would propose we have an extended monitoring period of three to five years.

Um I did a little research while we were here.

Um, it's not unusual to have a longer term monitoring process, and I think that is a reasonable thing to do.

Um I um because I think the bigger issue is making sure that we're not causing erosion issues in this area that is already hydrologically sensitive.

Um so my recommendation would be to extend the monitoring period and also within the next 30 days, since I've not heard anything to the contrary.

Um we get a report back from city staff as to whether or not the restoration has taken hold.

Um and if it hasn't, then Caltrans and the owner need to sort out between them how that gets restored.

Um I think ultimately it has to be the owner's responsibility, but I think Caltrans has a stake in this.

Uh, and I think uh the particular area, like the the whole not all of that lot, but the area where the grading largely happened, I think that area um should be fenced off during the 30-day period.

That'd be my recommendation, just it's it's not great, but I think the owners created the situation.

That's my recommendation, and I think that that is substantive, it's clear, and it's consistent with other things that have happened in other jurisdictions.

Yes, there's listening to what you're saying, um, uh Commissioner Germanis.

Um, you're proposing that the landowner who's the sponsor of obviously the permit and the reality, they're the owner, they're the ultimate responsible individual, is really bearing the responsibility for making sure this restoration stays even if they use it for a parking lot next, under their own use of their land, like they're responsible for it, but it sounds like Caltrans is more responsible for making sure that they monitor it to make sure that if there is further damage done by the new land use of a parking lot that it doesn't fall back to a state of disrepair, a state that's now damaging the creek.

It's almost like the owner's responsible for any fruit or reseeding or remediation that needs to be done after the parking lot.

But Caltrans is responsible for making sure that whatever they do keeps it up to standard.

I mean, I have I I haven't heard a plan that I I don't know the details of it.

I mean, I don't know exactly how the responsibility lies, but my expectation would be that Caltrans might need to replant and do more put more plants back out there if they've washed away before they've had a chance to get established.

That's not an unreasonable position.

I think the monitoring is more about are they creating are there longer term hydrological impacts to this?

Um that that's and I think Caltrans does need to monitor it.

And I'm it's unclear to me who ultimately bears responsibility.

I think the Caltrans subcontracted the work.

They changed the pattern of development.

They've tried to restore it, but the obligation's on them to demonstrate whether or not it's there.

And I think ultimately the cost of the remediation, if it turns out that it's failing, um I think it sits with Caltrans, but I don't know.

That's a good question for our city staff and attorneys.

I guess the part I'm having a hard time with is that Caltrans can't control whether or not the landowner decides to put parking there.

It's almost like the responsibility transfers from Caltrans to the property owner when he starts putting parking on top of a damaged location under remediation.

Well, I think from Caltrans' point of view, they're done.

Yeah.

And so um I think that as at a bare minimum our our CDP is to the landowner.

I think at a bare minimum we have to have uh, you know, uh um we have to say that you can't use this area until it recovers.

Or if you do, you have to now remediate it back to how it should be.

I think they just should not use it.

Well, I mean, because I prefer that they don't, but well, but they but like it has to be a condition of it can be a condition of approval that they wait until this remediation, the seeds that are there become plants.

You know, they're they're little plants, they are plants.

But you know, even you know, even the Caltrans guy is is saying, you know, it's it's you're gonna destroy it if you park on it.

I mean they they Caltrans doesn't want responsibility for that for good reason because they know that it's gonna get destroyed if you park on it.

So I think that's a bare minimum is to say as a condition of approval of an uh a CDP that you have to not use this property until the land has recovered.

I would assume that's probably in Caltrans' best interest too.

That is in Caltrans' best interest, definitely.

But but it but our CDP is not to Caltrans, our CDP is to the landowner.

So but Caltrans is the party that caused the damage and is required to do the restoration.

So so my point is if the restoration hasn't been established, they should have responsibility.

You know, we can't on the one hand say, yeah, you can park there, um, which would probably we've heard testimony from Caltrans saying, well, if you park there you're gonna wreck the restoration.

Um and then say, well, if somebody does park there, then you've got to restore it.

I think that that that in my view puts an unfair burden on Caltrans.

But I do think that if it doesn't get established and we don't see evidence that it's established, the section that was fenced off, I'll just call it out, is the area where we should just say, hey, look, you know, um you can't park there until we've received an affirmative report that it the restoration's taken hold.

And um we've, you know, we've gotten a report back from the city.

If it's two weeks, great.

If it's a month, uh I don't really care, but and I think having longer term monitoring for um like we we see things happen, right?

People do a project and there's an unintended consequence.

We think we've restored it, but it looks like, you know, it's eroding faster than it was before, right?

Like that that obligation needs to uh Caltrans has experts and I put the responsibility on them to monitor it for five years.

Uh I think that's fair.

I think I think also um having a uh condition of approval for the landowner, yeah, is essential.

I'd say uh everybody's getting off really easy.

Yeah.

I don't think for me, that's yes, go ahead.

I do believe if we put Caltrans as responsible for monitoring this long term, that we need to stop the owner from having parking in the area because we have a mixed liability issue here that you just can't.

Yeah, you can't do one or the other you can't, yeah.

I mean, I I can't I don't think we have the right to take away somebody's use of the property um longer term.

I think this the remediation is have we restored it to a state where plants are established and we don't see evidence of additional erosion?

Those are like the two conditions that I think need to be monitored for.

I think that's fair.

And I would say, you know, like like just set a minimum of 30 days, city staff can come back, Caltrans can come back to us, or city staff can come back to us and say, Looks like plants are off and running, everybody's happy.

Great.

And then you know, then the property owner can have their rights restored because then the plants have taken off.

Um but who makes that determination because 30 days is kind of a r you know, we're just I'm I'm I'm so at least 30 days is what we're saying.

Well, I unless somebody has a better suggestion, I would say 30 days would be the soonest, but um I think an additional time if the if they're um if the area is not, we need to restore we need to hear findings back from an expert, and I don't even need to set a time.

We just need findings back from an expert.

If they come back and say, Yep, turns out everything's fine.

Um a biologist looked at it, people can park there if if you know if if we've got clear evidence that the restoration has taken hold.

Like I don't need to set it to be 30 days, that's an arbitrary date.

It's just I want somebody to monitor it and tell us that it's done.

That feels more objective to me.

I do like that better.

Yeah.

Set date.

The monitoring long-term issue though, on top of that, um, you know, it also seems like how do we define the length of time?

Should there also be an expert who defines that length of time for monitoring?

I looked it up.

Three to five years is standard for these types of mitigations.

It's a common thing.

Uh we had somebody ask for 10.

Um, I think that's a little excessive.

Um, anywhere from three to five is what I'd be comfortable with.

Would you be happy if the expert who does the analysis also comes back with a mitigation duration uh time of monitoring?

As a rule.

Well, if they're a biologist hired by Caltrans, peer review.

I mean, uh so can it at least be somebody who's hired by the city?

I mean, I don't think the city should have to bear that cost.

No, but picked by the city, let's say, instead of I mean, I don't know, like if I'm Caltrans, I'm gonna hire somebody who tells me everything's great.

I mean, we can have them come back to us and we can just say, you know what, the mitigation period is three years unless we receive evidence that it's no longer necessary and the burdens on Caltrans to put that in front of us.

How about that?

Yeah, so Caltrans has to submit to the city.

To the planning commissioner report, we can either accept it or not.

So maybe we just set it to three years.

That sounds good to me.

I would like to see a Caltrans in addition to the property owner as a dual responsible bear.

Yes, yes.

All right.

Um could we hear from our attorney about what we just talked about and let us know if there's any um issues, or should we propose um should we make a resolution and get feedback on it?

Would that be the better way to do it?

Um through the chair, do you do you mean to make a resolution to lay out the particular language that you're proposing?

And then and then hear your opinion.

I mean, are there from what you've heard, are there any issues um because you hear what we're talking about that are substantially problematic?

I think key considerations, and this has been part of your discussion, is wanting to have really clear standards or timelines for anything that that you're requiring.

So if you're you're talking about remediation or restoration, like what's specifically are you looking for?

Um, and I think Leslie could speak to some of this just based on her familiarity with the you know working with a biologist, but I think things that come to mind is um uh looking at erosion or you know, and and I can say this at a general level, but impact to the creek.

I think that probably is speaking to erosion or you know, movement of material.

Um you've been talking about plants being established um I think that's probably something that would happen within a growing season right plants have been or seeds have been planted recently um we have water coming down from the rains right that growing you know happens during the rainy season but um so I think a thought and again interested in maybe what Leslie would think but um these are probably potentially annual plants you know I don't know the nature of the plants being planted.

Yeah, I'm I'm yeah you know I'm no expert yeah how do I know right subjective the when when the plants are established so but I think we have to say um I mean you know because Caltrans says it's established now and I went out there yesterday and there's a lot of erosion and there's a lot of runoff and there's a lot of uh soil being you know soil being lost not the not the plants but the the you know there's could not fix could we condition the project to have a geomorphologist or geologist uh tell us how long we should monitor for so then you would want a biologist for plant growth and plant types and a geomorphologist or geologist um for the runoff and erosion for the erosion and the movement of material yeah I guess what we're asking is whether or not the remediation has resulted in a mitigation of the erosion and confirm that by both a biologist and a geologist is that what you're asking for okay and also I want to attach the um this if we can get a copy of this um uh soils the alluvial plane um that's in the public record if we could ask uh ms uh Mr.

Benjamin Dr.

Benjamin to um provide that because I think it should be entered into the record we've received a physical copy of it but it should be added um so that the whoever's looking at this has easy ready access to it so I'd like to make uh um a motion to um approve the CDP with um uh modification to the language in um the resolution saying that first of all this was not just unpermitted development but this was um a violation of our CDP um second um I'd like to get um monitoring to establish that the um restoration uh with the plants has taken hold and that um there's no significant uh issue with respect to there's no change there's no significant issue with respect to um erosion or movement of material by uh an expert uh that is a geologist or geomorphologist and um until we receive evidence that the um restoration is taken hold and that there are no changes to the um erosion um the area that was fenced off um no parking be allowed on it until we receive some sort of um affirmative statement remains fenced off I wouldn't say uh there I would just say you're not allowed to park there, however, people block it off uh I don't think we need to keep ugly fencing there but and but I also and and you know, to the extent that it's permissible Caltrans is responsible for making sure that the plants take hold so um you know, if if they've all just washed away, I think that responsibility.

We need to include that in the resolution.

Any other change any other modifications to the resolution?

I'm wondering if we should have a minimum of 30 days.

I don't think we need to, I think we just leave it to the experts to tell us what the time is.

Do I feel comfortable with that?

Does everybody feel comfortable with that?

I feel more comfortable with that.

Okay.

I'd like that red back if we could.

Mr.

Chairman.

Mr.

Chairman.

I have something for the point of information.

Yes.

Pardon me.

Would uh Commissioner Hernandez be acceptable to modify that to your resolution to include uh to the satisfaction of someone at the city, like the satisfaction of the planning director, so that everything is under one umbrella, so that when they're doing the inspection and the biologist is gonna report to somebody and who's gonna pay for the biologist.

I would I would say that I think I think to the satisfaction of the community development director, I would be comfortable with that.

I've pretty defer to staff, and I think the community development director is probably the appropriate person.

Yeah, so I'll modify my resolution.

And then the expert biologist, um I would suggest that Caltrans or the contractor or the property owner pay for them, the city doesn't pay for them, but the city selects an independent to oversee to get an independent look at what's going on there.

I think to the satisfaction of the city would be fine to me.

I don't I don't I don't I don't need to all right.

Chair Redick.

Yeah, I you know that there seems to be a uh uh a feeling amongst us that the it's just common sense that uh young plants that have been planted so recently are not gonna uh do well uh with cars parking on them during pumpkin festival.

But it's a big step.

I mean, for us to sit here and and conclude that uh and then I wonder even if it's enforceable for the city two days before pumpkin festival starts to inform the property owner that he can't use his private property in a way that is historically done every year for many years.

It's uh I don't know, a little bit of a dilemma.

But it's a condition of approval of a CDP that we're granting to the landowner.

Yeah, this broadens the scope of the CDP.

I w I wonder.

Well I'm open-minded.

Maybe I don't I'd appreciate if it's staff or and and or the attorney have any uh point of view on that on whether such a thing would be enforceable.

Thank you.

Through the chair, it's it's a good question.

I mean, this is a significant impact to the landowner's ability to to use their property.

Um, I think in terms of if it's a for enforceable to the extent that there are conditions added to the CDP that require this, I think it's probably enforceable to the extent that any condition of approval is enforceable.

Yeah.

Um I mean, I I will note that the the property owner, I I don't know that they're present tonight.

I don't know if they're online, you know, so um we don't have their voice as part of this conversation.

Um we can't say necessarily what they would what they would add here, um, but their voice isn't part of the mix here, and this is uh an impact to their property.

Um, okay.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Leslie may have.

But it's enforceable as a condition of approval.

Well, the other thing.

Through the chair, vice chair, I guess.

Uh Leslie Lacko.

Um Yeah, the other thing I'll add is that the language that I wrote down from Commissioner Hernandez, um sort of achieves the same thing without the restriction on the parking.

Um we would therefore uh avoid the issue of disturbing the pumpkin festival um uh festivities.

Um maybe I could read you what I heard.

Um to require uh condition of approval to monitor the site, and you tossed around a couple of timelines or up to five years that um plants have taken hold, there's no significant issue with respect to erosion or movement of material, that that's been um confirmed by the appropriate experts.

Um, and that Caltrans is responsible for Caltrans is responsible for ensuring that the plants take hold.

I would amend that to maybe say Calt that the applicants are responsible for, or the permittees are responsible for ensuring the plants take hold.

Then you capture Caltrans and the property owner.

Um I'm I'm comfortable with the applicants language, and I think maybe the way to deal with the parking is if um damage occurs as a result of the parking, then the owner is liable.

So they can choose to let people park there or not, but it's their any damage that's caused as a result of the parking is their responsibility.

I do like that more because you are taking on a new responsibility when you add on.

It basically says um that the landowner can do whatever they want, and that yes they will be responsible, but how enforceable is that?

I just don't see that the landowner is then gonna pay for more restoration or I just I just don't that's the condition of approval, right?

So the alternative should be that that the I'm sorry, but the but like it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that the parking is gonna destroy the little plants that are out there.

The rain is already destroying part of it.

So you gotta give it a chance to be restored.

It's not Caltrans is saying they're done and that it's restored, but it's not restored.

And so having a condition of approval saying you can't use it until it's restored, I think is is fair.

I don't think that's a you know we're we're granting a CDP to the landowner, and so the landowner needs to wait until that area is restored until they use it.

That's all.

I mean, that's not a that's not like oh, you know, we you you we're restricting your use of the property, we're restricting your use of the of the damaged property until it's not damaged anymore.

I mean, the the point I would make is um the owner has an obligation to make sure the applicants have an obligation to make sure that the mitigation is happened.

If the owner of the property makes a decision to allow people to park there, which they've done for referred testimony fifty 50 plus years, um and that causes um the restoration to be damaged, um the obligation the damage is on the owner to deal with it.

But Caltrans still has the obligation to monitor it, report back to us, and the city can take action, they can take enforcement action if there's erosion and the restoration hasn't happened.

That's that's so if I'm Caltrans, and this lady is um parked a bunch of cars on my restoration, and I'm not taking as he as he said out loud, I'm not taking responsibility for damage that other people have inflicted.

Caltrans can just say, well, you know, we're we're done.

They still have to monitor it and tell us what it's like.

They can monitor all they want, but but they're but they can't say that it's gonna be fixed because it was damaged.

But that's the owner's responsibility.

They can make a decision to do with their property as they see fit, but when they have to bear the consequences of it.

That's reasonable.

I'm not taking away their property rights, but they have an obligation because they allowed this development to happen on their property.

Well, I mean, I can tell you what you know what's gonna happen.

Right.

Like they're gonna allow the pumpkin festival parking, they're gonna say it wasn't so bad.

Caltrans is gonna say, you know, it was damaged, and so we don't really have to monitor, can't monitor that area because that was damaged.

We'll monitor some other area that wasn't damaged, and that's all they'll do, and it'll turn into a dirt pit, basically with weeds.

I mean, that's like and so I mean that's what's gonna happen.

So if that's what you want, if that's what we want to happen as a planning commission, then we can plan for that.

So the chair.

The homeowners are ultimately responsible for any erosion leading into the creek.

If your property and something you do your property causes damage to local environment, you do have liability there, correct?

Um they've had it for many, many years, and they're they haven't never been held responsible.

So, because nobody's been monitoring it.

I mean, you know, there's all kinds of things you can blame stuff on, right?

Like it's a big rain, it's uh it's an act of God, it's the homeless people that are down in the creek bed, it's all kinds of things.

It could be anything.

So there she's not really responsible for for any of it, it's just a field.

I'd like to uh modify my resolution.

Um I'd like to recommend that we uh approve the CDP.

Um we call out the clear violation of our uh local coastal land use plan with respect to the unpermitted development that happened as a part of the project.

I'd like to um require that we have monitoring for a minimum of two years by Caltrans.

Um, and if an expert at the city community development directors um discretion um provides evidence um that it needs to go longer um, then they can modify that if it's necessary, um and they should be monitoring for um the restoration of the habitat and to make sure that uh there's no significant impact from erosion or movement of material.

Those are the two things that need to be measured, and it needs to be uh it needs to follow and conform with our LCLU.

I mean, it should conform with our land use plan, so and then uh I'd like to see some kind of reporting back to the planning commission when that decisioning has been made.

Um that's the resolution I'd like to make.

Is there a second?

Second.

I'm not hearing one.

Somebody else wants to make a resolution.

Oh, I'm horrible at motions.

All right, I guess where do you feel it falls short?

So um I would like to approve the CDP.

I would like to have a condition of approval.

That um the um that the area not be used until um the renovation I guess is complete.

What's the board for it?

I don't know what the right word for it is.

Remediation until the the remediation is complete.

Um which would be the determination of a biologist who would say that this area is similar is stable and similar to where what it was before the grading happened.

I would add that Caltrains needs to monitor uh erosion and runoff um for two years I guess two years sure um and uh to hire a biologist to do that and report back to the city um on um on how it's doing and to fix it if it's um if it's broken yeah so that's actually a biologist and a geomorphologist I guess eggs so two studies.

That's what I would recommend.

That's what I I would make that motion how about that do I have a second I am hearing none does anybody else have a motion they want to make Mr Chairman I'll take it I'll second uh budget Chair Gorn's motion.

Roll call please I think um yeah regarding your motion David we have to be very careful about the you use the word uh no no use of the area we'd have to be very careful about defining exactly what the area is yes I think that's right how about um no damage to the area until it's whatever could recovered the fenced off area the the it's not the remediated the remediated area subset of the of that which which where the remediation is taking place.

Right the remediated area how about that?

Okay that makes sense to me through the chair do you mind if I ask a question on that point?

Of course um do we know if the rest of the site is accessible for so to folks who so I have not seen the site used as parking from the for the pumpkin festival um but is the rest of the site or what would it be accessible for parking oh there is some yeah yeah and so it entrance to the site would still be possible so that's not a concern yeah they could park they there could be a lot of parking there but they're gonna want to park all the way down the certainly just wanted to clarify that point so that that was clear.

Thank you.

Yes they could still have parking I'm gonna ask for a roll call.

Can I ask us to read back the resolution you just stated one more time.

So I'll make sure I understand fully a few times I'm sorry, Vice.

What's wrong with reading it back.

It's just a motion.

Yeah, you I just I'm not sure that I got it all correctly.

So you would like to approve the CDP with a condition that the area of remediation not be disturbed until the remediation is complete, which will be determined by a biologist.

And you didn't say this, but I think the discussion has been end a geologist.

And Caltrans must monitor erosion and runoff for you say minimum two years and report to the city and then respond to any deficiencies.

Um I would like to alter that slightly because I think a biologist could look at the at the remediation area and that the geomorphologist is something that Caltrans would do that would have not anything to do with the parking more short short term, I guess.

Like the biologist seems like it's anyway, um that maybe I should just leave it alone.

Should I just leave it alone?

I'm leaving it alone.

Thank you.

Can I ask a question?

Commissioner Ms.

Is it your intention with your motion to uh limit the parking on this area now or for two years, or for some specific period of time until the plants become established, or is it your intention to allow that parking on the area through this weekend, or maybe beyond that, and if the plants don't take hold that someone is going to be responsible to redo the whole thing?

I would say that um there could be parking there on the area that is not remediated, so there's a big area that is uh um like a parking area and a driveway and uh there's a lot of parking area, but the place where Caltrans remediated that they would not be able to park there, so that's your intention to do this now.

So restrict the property owner from from allowing cars to park there this weekend, yes, Chairman.

I I don't think I could support that.

Yeah, I I'm of the same opinion, but I think that if the property owner chooses to let people park there, then they're responsible, they'd be responsible for the damages.

Um, I understand.

So we just get a roll call and see if it works and if it doesn't, then we'll keep talking.

Sure.

Um Commissioner Rems?

No.

Commissioner Hernandez?

No.

Commissioner Del Nagro?

No.

Uh Vice Chair Gorn.

Uh yes.

And Chair Ruddick.

Yes.

Motion fails.

Okay.

Do you want to take a shot at it or you want to do that?

I think I'm I'm falling into the same pool as you are about this ownership of responsibility and land use obviously rights.

You own a piece of land.

Whether you damage it, you can still damage your own land on your own will.

It's the damage done to the local property next to it.

That's the liability.

And once you start damaging beyond what Caltrans has already done for the remediation, they've done everything they can to remediate.

Whether or not that remediation takes hold and mitigates the erosion in the long term is left to be seen.

And right now, um, as you've confirmed in your own experience that it does look like it's not mitigating so far.

Well, I've heard testimony from uh the vice chair.

All I've said is that there's um when I went out pooling.

There's pooling, there's erosion, there's runoff.

So the mitigation hasn't taken hold yet, even though the remediation's been done.

So the plants aren't grown, yeah.

Yeah.

And we've received letters uh uh evidence um from somebody who's also walked the site and who's uh, yeah.

So you know it really comes down to this battle between somebody's rights to damage the land and the impact that has on the local land next to it, in my opinion.

That's where I'm struggling with this very clearly.

I get it.

Yeah.

But it but as a planning commission, we're like representing the city, representing the people, and and if they if we're saying yes, you have the right to damage your property and we'll we'll charge you for it.

You know, we'll we'll we'll make you fix it later.

That's basically what the the con the contractor did, the Disney.

They went in there, they destroyed it.

Yeah, and then we said, okay, well, you have to fix it.

And so, you know, did they fix it?

Not really, but somewhat.

And now we're saying, landowner, you have the right to destroy it again.

As long as later you fix it.

But really, what we want is we want it fixed.

Yeah.

We want the, you know, we want like to not have damage.

And on the other half is damage.

On the other part of this is the home the landowner is responsible for even the damage was originally done by allowing the use of the land.

Ultimately they're responsible.

Even if Caltrans in a sort of roundabout way, yes.

But that is true.

They share responsibility.

Well, Mr.

Chairman, um I'm looking at this thing from a standpoint of, you know, what is the goal here?

What is our goal?

And that is to put everything back the way it was, or maybe better.

And how do we do that?

Well, can't we just do a simple condition to the permit that says that the applicant's gonna restore the site to the satisfaction of the director of planning over the next two years or five years or ten years or thirty years, whatever length it takes until there's a satisfaction point achieved.

Is is that what we're trying to do here is to put the put the property back to where it was.

Yeah, we're trying to fix it.

I mean, trying to like have it.

Yeah, but let's not complicate it.

That's that's what I'm trying to say.

Let's make it simple and let's just restore it back to where it was to the satisfaction, and it should whatever it takes for the applicant to do that, and I don't know what what that's gonna take, but whatever it takes, uh under the monitoring and direction of the planning director to oversee it and then report back to us to say, okay, we're done.

So as a planning commission, as a planning commission, we are approving the coastal development permit.

We're approving it.

We're saying this is okay.

But we're uh we're we're saying conditionally.

Right.

So that's why we want to have a condition of approval that says that that you can't disturb this remediated area, this area that's been fixed.

You can't disturb it until it's taken hold.

That's what I was trying to say.

So to do that, it's true.

You can't park on it, you can't run a grader over it, you can't disk it, you can't destroy it.

And so you have to leave it alone until it's remediated.

The just this remediated area.

Not the whole thing, but just this one part that was destroyed, like, leave it alone until it's not destroyed.

Well, I thought I heard someone say that the the area is not taking hold or it's not doing what it's supposed to do at this point that it's virtually destroyed.

Well, if that's the case, then they'll have to redo it next week.

You know?

Well, Caltrans might have to reseed, it's possible.

That's one of the reasons that you have a biologist look at it and say, you know, well, you reseed it, that's great.

But half of it didn't take.

And I understand that.

You know, you have to have to try again.

What I'm saying is we're gonna condition the permit, or at least I would like to see the con condition on the permit to say put it back the way it was, uh reseed it three times, four times w however many times it takes to get it done.

And then to the satisfaction of the planning director, who will report to the planning commission and tell us that it's okay or not okay, or they're not complying.

If they're not complying, then maybe we could take some other action.

So that's kind of what we did.

Yes, I guess one thing I'm what did I'm getting at the I mean in rebuttal to that is you could recede recede reseed recede, but if in this winter it doesn't take root before the rain starts washing the dirt away, no matter how much you recede, you're gonna have lost the new grade, and that's the problem.

Is it has to happen, has to take root.

Now that being said, as I have a question, is do they mow this thing before they park every pumpkin festival?

They just park on top of the deep grass at with the fire risk.

I think there's ways to do the seeding also, and that's on top of the other things to green.

They've done different things in different years.

Sometimes they just um weed whack it.

Right?

I'd like to make a new motion.

I'd like to make a motion that we approve the CDP and we condition the project so that um the applicants are responsible for the restoration of the property, uh, to the point where the plants are established and there's no evidence of increased erosion or movement of material into the creek, um, as witnessed by or is um supported by evidence from a biologist and geologists who are qualified to the satisfaction of the community development director.

Um given the unusual circumstances that we're in, the proximity to pumpkin season, I think the obligation is that the restoration happen and clear evidence of progress occur within the next 90 days, and um if there's damage caused by the property owner, uh that's between the applicants, Caltrans and uh the owner, but the obligation is that within the next 90 days we see evidence that the restoration work is taking place, and um and if not, and then monitoring shall continue for a period of two years, so that's great.

And also, just to make sure we got the violation language in there as well.

So, um so my concern is that if we do that, basically we're saying Disney Mickey Mouse contractor, go ahead and destroy it as long as you fix it later.

You take responsibility for fixing it later, but you can destroy it again if you want to, but then you have to fix it again after that.

That's that's kind of what we're saying.

I'm saying that because there's nothing concrete to tell to condition the approval to say you have to leave it alone until it's better, until it can establish.

Well, how about we add a condition of approval that if uh clear evidence isn't made, then um the city should look at, you know.

Uh I I don't know.

I I I don't like like at the end of 90 days we can make a decision, right?

I think the applicant is gonna move forward, but could is does somebody want to does anybody want to second that motion?

Um let me make one statement before I make the second on that one.

I actually think there is a punitive measure here, which is that Caltrans is unlikely to hire Disney to do the same type of work trust-wise.

That's between them, but obviously the contractor has a black mark on their experience with Caltrans.

I'm sorry, I don't mean it that way.

Yeah.

I don't mean that Disney should be held accountable.

I'm just saying that Disney destroyed this area.

And so Caltrans had to fix it.

And we're basically saying if the landowner wants to destroy it again, she'll have to fix it.

And that is not from my point of view, that's not like a what we're trying to do is fix it, not to fix it after you destroy it.

It does make sense.

I hear what you're hearing, you're saying.

Um current version.

I am comfortable making a second on this current version.

You're seconding the move.

Okay.

Um can we have a vote, please?

Commissioner Rems?

Yes.

Commissioner Hernandez?

Yes.

Commissioner Del Negro?

Yes.

Commission or Vice Chair Gordon?

Oh no.

And Chair Reddick.

Yes.

Motion approved.

So um we are done with this item.

We are moving on, I guess, to director's report.

Is that correct?

Is that what's next?

Okay.

Yes.

Director's report, please.

Okay.

I'll start by reporting out on permits that were issued since your last meeting.

We issued a sign permit for the Pearl Coastal Boutique at 414 Main Street.

And another sign permit at 707 Mill Street.

A minor CDP amendment for some changes to a fence at 2801 Champs-Elysée.

At 340 Central, we had another minor CDP amendment to change some minor architectural features on a single family residence.

And at 410 San Benito, we did a tree removal permit.

Also, we have a director's hearing tomorrow with three info projects where measure Ds were allocated this year.

All three are two-story single-family residences with uh an ADU.

And they're all on long narrow lots.

One is at 495 Filbert.

And the other is at 614 Myrtle.

And the other's at 615 Grove.

Sorry, what's happening with them?

They are two-story single-family residences with an ADU.

What's happening with them?

Why are you telling us about them?

What?

What's happening with them?

That there's a director's hearing tomorrow for these three projects.

At the next meeting on 1028, we'll bring the housing element forward.

So far, that's the only thing that's on the agenda.

However, we are finalizing the grant agreement for the LCP amendments.

So we may do a briefing on that to start getting um getting you familiar with the different elements that will happen during that project and what our goals are.

And then finally, we have a job announcement out for a senior planner, and as soon as we hire the senior planner, we will be hiring an associate planner who will focus on housing, which will be a huge loadoff.

So and that concludes my report.

Thank you very much.

Do any of the planning commissioners have anything to report?

We have yes.

Downtown, tea shop in downtown, and it was fantastic.

They had a wonderful time, highly suggested it.

So if anybody's interested in that sort of thing, I do suggest going.

Anyone else?

Okay.

Um I will take a motion to adjourn.

I make make second it, yeah.

I make you make the motion.

No, I didn't.

I make the motion to adjourn.

I'll second that motion.

We need a roll call.

Commissioner Rems?

Yes.

Commissioner Hernandez?

Yes.

Commissioner Del Nagro.

Yes.

Vice Chair Gorn.

Thanks for taking so much time tonight, by the way.

And yes.

And Chair Reddick.

Yes.

All right.

We can all go home.