Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

ready. Okay. Welcome to this evening's meeting of the planning commission. May we have the roll call, please? Yes. Thank you. Good evening, chair and commissioners. Um, Commissioner Van Antworp here, Commissioner Lefvers here, Commissioner Benfield here, Vice Chair Moyer here, and Chair Allen here. Uh, please join me in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Are there any introductions, presentations, or announcements?

Uh, chair, I do have one announcement. I've made this a couple times at recent city council meetings, but I thought I would take the opportunity to do so here as well and just remind folks that the draft environmental impact report or EIR is out for public review for the Surfliner in project. So, it was released on January 22nd, and we're accepting public comments on the draft EIR until March 9th. And we'll also be holding a public meeting with the Environmental Review Committee to uh hear about the draft EIR and receive public comment on February 18th here in the council chambers at 5:30 p.m. Uh, if folks have questions or if they want to take a look at the EIR, it's up on the city website on the on the project page. The easiest way to find it is to go to the homepage of the city's website and scroll down to the very bottom under hot topics you'll see a button there for the Surfliner in. And if you click on that, right at the top of that page is the draft EIR and all the accompanying documents. Uh so again, EIR is available for public review until March 9th and ERC meeting environmental review committee to go over the draft EIR at 5:30 p.m. here in this room on February 18th.

Okay, great. Uh, thank you. Okay, now is the time for public comment on matters that are not on tonight's agenda and that are within our jurisdiction. Is there anyone who'd like to address us? Yes, please come forward.

Thank you, chair. I did submit a form with Yes, I just received them. So, Patrick, please go ahead.

Very good. Commissioners, staff, thank you. Um wanted to speak just briefly about um project 232234. It's the Dorance Way project over by the spot parking lot that's been approved recently. Um I'm speaking as a resident Patrick Okconor in district 5, but I'm it's going to be hard to not cross the line into my role as ARB, so I'll try to be appropriate. Um this project has gotten a lot of airtime as have the other colar projects we're going to hear more about. Um, brief history on this one. From February 15th of 2024 to May of 2025, it transitioned from a duplex to a single family. Um, in the review of the single family on May 1st, there was no mention of the DG4 requirement, the design guideline requirement for the the proportion of the second floor to the first. It wasn't in the minutes. It wasn't in the staff report. And to our own detriment, the ARB didn't catch it either. Um so not not our best day. Um on August 4th, planning commission reviewed it and there was content in the staff report that went into some level of detail on DG4 and made it you know an interpretation of a visual compliance because of this the massing of the first floor and its out outdoor patio. So it was sort of perceived to be meeting the intent. The planning commission didn't go along with that. They approved it with a condition to meet DG4 with reductions on the second floor square footage as the primary approach. Um it came back to ARB and what was actually done was they enclosed the two walls on that patio to count so that the square footage would be able to count it on the first floor with minimal reductions on the second floor. Um the awkward part is having chaired that that ARB meeting, you know, there was no alternative but to approve it because it met DG4. And

the awkward part, the disappointing part for again from a process standpoint is during that deliberation about the conundrum of the condition of approval and ARB's limitations, it was stated that CDD approved it before the ARB meeting. So we sort of superseded decision- making which I don't think is the intent of these bodies. So again another not a good showing I think on all parts in this in this context. So I those are my observations. I've got I got one question and a couple of recommendations. My one question is is there a consequence? Um was there any change as a result of that awkward condition that wasn't the intent not having been met? So is there a consequence? The second thing is a couple of recommendations. I just I don't think planning should abdicate meeting conditions of approval to a to an advisory body that it really doesn't have authority in the first place. Um so I think that's you know a move we shouldn't do in the future. It's just it just creates conflict. Um the other thing I'd like to recommend is all of these issues which you know I've commented on a number of cases around non-conformances and and sort of guideline related things gets down to density and we've got our hands tied on density with all the different state law stuff which we continue to learn more and more and more about. To me what this is now stepping into is safety more than density in the context of housing. When we've got projects that are going outside of setbacks or at the setbacks and building completely, we've got fire hazards. You know, we're going to look like Lahina here pretty soon with the density getting packed into these properties. And so, what I'd like to suggest is some real critical thinking about about these ordinances that live within the state intent to drive housing, but also create some safety mechanisms for what's being built. You know, simple ideas would be putting

firewalls on anything that's inside a setback or outside of a setback. You know, that's particularly next to a neighboring house that also may be outside its setback. So, within some sort of window of proximity, there should be additional safety measures imposed on these build these projects. Um, the other one is is like a is is a notion like you know the the fire safety requirements for sprinkling over a certain square footage of or percentage of square footage of change, you're compelled to put in more safety features, more sprinkling, more, you know, whatever that case may be. I think this can apply here. If you've got a project that's significantly being redeveloped and using the existing non-conformances as a mechanism to achieve those those growths in in in use in density and in in intensity on the property, there should be a trigger. There should be a trigger that that invokes safety features to be applied if not reducing the density in the first place. So those are my thoughts. Thanks.

Okay. Thank you. The next uh speaker slip I have which does not identify an item number. So um looks like it's a matter on our agenda. Uh, Nathan,

push. There we go. All right. Nathan Pratt, Carpenteria. Uh, I had two two things I came down to comment on. One was I sent you all an email I think uh before Christmas requesting that we uh get verbal updates on major projects at the city council meetings and at the uh planning commission meetings. Um I didn't hear back from any of you, but I did hear back from the majority of the city council people and they seem to think it was a good idea. And I noticed that uh the community development director gave a major projects verbal update at the last city council meeting. So I want to applaud the city for enacting that little suggestion. I think it's good to keep things in front of people's minds and you know most people aren't going to read attachments or you know addendums to things. So having it just you know two-minute little summary worked out really well at the city council meeting and I did talk to Nick and he said he's going to give a version of it tonight. And then the second thing I wanted to talk about since I assume that there might be a modest amount of uh residents, property owners following this meeting that um we do have this ballot uh issue for capital funds for uh I'm not sure what department the money actually ends up going to, but uh that theoretically could be used for trees and landscape maintenance and all that. And I wanted to just remind people if they haven't really thought about it that there's a significant value in landscaping. Uh and everybody everybody who's a property owner, you know, no one likes to pay taxes they don't have to pay. But um you can figure that having one or two big trees in front of your house is worth 5 to 7% of your property's value. And with the current values of carpentry, you know, reaching the multi-million dollar range, that's a nice chunk of change. So, I think it's a wise investment to spend a few bucks every month to make sure we keep our trees and landscaping up to snuff and if anything improve it and add more. So those are my and then also I would just

on the fire suppression issue because I did one time built something that we had to put fire suppression in and um it's a good thing you know I think it was a 5,000 foot cutoff at that time to put in fire suppression the sprinkler of the whole building house and uh so if you have a density issue and he's worried about fire safety issues the firewall is a good idea. Uh windows are also an issue about fire transmission property to property and uh sprinklering everything pretty much resolves any problem. All right, that's it.

Okay. Uh thank you. I would just uh comment that often a report on what's going on in terms of uh development uh and projects in the city has found kind of at the end of our agenda under the director's report were often brought up to date on what may be going on on projects and uh um we appreciate that. Yeah. Okay. Uh the uh next speaker report I have up, I'm not certain whether it's uh on Matt or not on our agenda or on u uh one of our two items. Um Rose Deacon, are you speaking on either the Coler or the cell tower? The Coler residence or the cell tower? Okay, then I'll defer your speaker. Okay. Uh are there any other members of the public that would like to address us on matters that are not on the agenda? Okay. Uh seeing none, let's move on in our agenda to item um one, the consent agenda, which is for approval of the minutes of December 1st. Are there any uh revisions or corrections uh needed by commissioners? Unless others have uh changes, I would move to approve.

Second. Second. Okay. All in favor? I I I Okay. Um we are on to the first uh public hearing and this is on the uh Coler residence at uh 333 Lynden Avenue and this is a time for planning commissioners to disclose exarty communications or information they have that uh other members of the commission and the public may not have any disclosures. I just drove by a couple of times. Okay. And I'm familiar with the property as well from knowing Carperia.

I visited the site. Um no other no other communications. Okay. No further disclosures. Okay. Uh we're ready for the staff presentation on this.

Good evening, Chair Allen and members of the planning commission. Um, so tonight we have the uh new residence and lot line adjustment at 333 Lynen Avenue, which also does include 355 Lynden Avenue. Um, the project description is for approval of a development plan, a lot line adjustment, and a coastal development permit to construct a new 3,866q ft two-story single family residence that would be comprised of a 3,34 square ft of living space and an attached 432 ft two-car garage. The maximum height would be 23 ft and 10 in. a lot light adjustment between 355 and 333 Lynen Avenue. New landscaping and hardscape, a new driveway from Lynden Avenue to serve the new residents, a tree protection plan for an existing sycamore tree and removal of one palm at the street and demolition of the garage at 355 London Avenue to resolve an encroachment issue. And here's the uh property. This is both lots here highlighted in the in the red outline. Um here's Lynen Avenue. Here's Tomal Park. We've got the state park. Uh Lynen Field here, the spot on the corner. Um and then um the house on the corner at 355 Lyndon. It's commonly known as the old Stein house. Um if you're familiar with that terminology. Um but it's it's the the two-story house on the corner at at Lynden or excuse me, at Dorance and Lyndon. Okay, so the lot line adjustment, uh, here's the existing lot configuration. So, the parcel at 355 Lynden is basically like a backwards L-shaped parcel,

and it's currently 9,787 1/2 square ft in size. Um the 333 Lynen Avenue is this parcel here labeled number two. Um is 5,287.5 ft presently. So the lot line adjustment would take 2,250 ft from parcel A and give it to parcel B. And that would be accomplished by taking this uh north south lot line and making it go east west more east west I should say. Um so that uh the line is just one continuous line between the two for two parallel uh equival equally sized parcels of 7,573 1/2 square ft each. And then the garage demolition. This is it's um this is the detached garage here uh which was built uh in the '9s. is not part of the original structure that was built here. Um it was a replacement garage. Um but it slightly encroaches over this common property line between the two lots. Um about 6 in. At the back end it's 7 in. At the front end it's 5 in because it was actually constructed like slightly not square with the world. So, um the applicant has opted to demolish this garage and then um possibly build a new garage in the future when they uh finish their plans for redevelopment of of this lot on the corner because they are under common ownership. And then um any other encroaching structures, there used to be a shed here. I believe that shed's been removed now, but if it's still there, it would

have to be removed also. And here's the site plan for the project for the for the new residents. Um here's Lynden. Um this is the location of the palm that would need to be removed in order to facilitate the new driveway here. Um and this is the 30-in sycamore that is um the project essentially has been designed around to retain the sycamore because it is a native te tree and it is protected by our policies. Um, so the house would um stretch back on the narrow lot with a courtyard here to to um allow uh root space for the sycamore. There's a covered patio at the back and then a lawn area and um outdoor space here. And this is the palm that's proposed to be removed. It is a city street. And then this is the sycamore that is uh proposed to remain. And then the first floor plan, I'll just go through these quickly. Um you know, garage facing the street uh for the driveway. Um mostly living space on the uh first floor with the exception of one bedroom downstairs. And then the second floor has three more bedrooms upstairs. And each room has its own bathroom as well. And then a balcony here. And then uh uh over the garage looking out towards Lynon and Lynen Field. And then a smaller front balcony here. And then another uh balcony looking over the backyard. And here's the street elevation. Oh, and to point out the plate heights on here. Um the first floor has a 9 foot plate height, which is, you know, typical for today's living standards. And then um the upstairs the plate height around the perimeter of the second floor is actually only 7 1/2 ft. And then they did volume volume ceilings

to to get the feel of more height, but the the the main plate height is um 7 and 1/2 ft just to keep the height down. And here you see the north elevation. This would be the side um facing the old Stein house or the spot direction. Here's that covered porch in the back. And then this is the south elevation um or the beachside elevation. And again, this is a little courtyard area here. So, this is pushed back and then the west elevation or the rear elevation. And again, you see the the little covered porch. And here's uh just a section. This is really just showing you how they did the 7 and 1/2 ft plate height for the the main part, but then with the vated ceilings, um it, you know, creates that extra height inside without adding to the height of the structure. And then the roof plan, here's the story poles that you saw, or I hope most of you saw if you drove by and took a look. Um, and then here's the the uh the um roof plan that the story poles correlate to the the perimeter of the second floor and colors and materials. Um the ex if you read the staff report, the ARB did have one comment to make uh the exterior be Greek villa to match uh which is the same color that the Dark Coffee Company is up in the New London Square. However, since they had that conversation, the another one of the cooler residences around the corner is also proposed to be that Greek villa color. So, um, when this goes back to final ARB, we will ask them if they really want two houses of the same color next to each other, or if they want to

keep it, uh, with the Navajo white, which is a dark white, but not as dark as the Greek Villa, um, but also not super bright white. So, it's it's kind of a middle of the road white. Um so that's one comment and you'll that was mentioned in the staff report and that will be resolved when it goes to um final ARB the exact color that they want and then here's the tree protection plan. Okay, here's the sycamore tree and then here is its critical root zone. Um the arborist has determined that um 43% or 42% excuse me of the critical root zone um would be encroached in pond during the construction. Um so here's the area where the tree protection fencing would be located during construction. And then um any uh digging or trenching that were to occur in the footprint of or excuse me in the in the drip line would be done by hand um including grading and excavation activities. And then um during construction uh plywood would be placed over mulch to protect the roots um that are not within the fence during construction. And the tree protection plan is uh also included in our conditions of approval as well as it's one of the sheets of the the plan set. And then here's the uh hard landscape and hardscape plan for the the balance of the property. Um here's the new driveway. uh permeable pavers. Um a lot of flag stone and permeable pavers. This is an artificial turf lawn in the back. And this is a little uh DG area back here with some olive trees and um and then uh plantings in front. And then there's a little 2 and 1/2t tall wall here along Lyndon with a little gate to the entrance. And these are the story pole photos. Um, this is looking northwest from uh Lynden

Avenue um across the street over at the the park side. Um, and you can see the story pools in here. And then here, this is a better picture in real life than on the screen, but um, you can see the pools in here if you're actually looking at the picture. Um, this is looking southwest from London. And then here's another picture a little further um south on Lyndon looking northwest up at the story poles here. And then this is looking straight north from Third Street. And you can see the top of the ridge right here. And then this is a little further down on Third Street um further west um and then looking northeast. And you can see the the back of the house right here. And then uh looking south from Dorance Way again, here's the story pools in the I don't know why it's giving me this little clock. Do you know what that's about?

I'm sorry. Um but the um Oh, there we go. Back to normal now. Um and then here's the story polls again here. So, the key objectives and policies for discussion tonight, um, land use or excuse me, land use element objective LU3, um, to preserve the small beachtown character, the built environment of Carperia and encourage compatible revitalization and avoid sprawl at the city's edge. uh objective CD1 that the size scale and form of buildings on a parcel should be compatible with the adjacent nearby properties and with the dominant neighborhood or district development planner pattern. uh objective uh community design uh element objective CD2 that architectural designs based on historic regional building type should be encouraged to preserve and enhance the unique character of the city and then open space um and conservation element policy uh OSC 7A that oak trees and oak woodlands because they are particularly sensitive to environmental conditions as well as walnut sycamore and other native trees uh shall be protected through appropriate development velment standards. So that one relates to um the retention of the sycamore tree as part of the project and then the action options are um the first one to approve the project and adopt the resolution and the sequent notice of exemption um which is staff's recommendation and then we have uh two other options to uh have revisions or conceptually deny the project and that concludes my presentation. Okay, thank you. Um, are there questions of staff Alexandra?

Thank you. um kind of coming this is a question sort of a big picture question but did staff weigh Lynen Avenue's role as a continuous civic corridor you know from the mountains to the beach um when evaluating the scale and the ground uh ground level design did you use how did you weigh that in your analysis

um for compatibility is that I'm sorry through the chair I guess most of the if I think I'm understanding your correction most of the analysis we did was based on the primarily the beach neighborhood and the structures in the beach neighborhood So, like we didn't go up by the high school and look at houses there for design for for like height and and architectural style and everything. We just kept it mostly in the beach neighborhood for our analysis because that's where this property is located.

Okay. I'm just I'm just what I'm wondering is other than some of the um applicable applicable community design and the beach neighborhood policies, the fact that it is a major um corridor that is extremely important. Oh, it is. you know, you we've we've got a a relatively, you know, we've got the facade itself is right up on that street in that on that block and right across the street is Lynenfield which is open space.

Um you've got lots of smaller um single family homes. Uh right around the corner on third and on that block on Lynen. How what other than other than you know what you've got in the report, how else did you weigh that in?

Let me Yeah, I see what you're ask. Okay, so let's go to the Well, this will help. Okay, so there's the spot here. There's the existing Stein house, which is taller than this one. Then there's the the vacant parcel where this one's proposed. Uh then there's uh this one here, which is actually a two-story house also. And then across the street going towards the beach, we've got the um the name escapes me right now, but the vacation rentals. That's another twotory. And then next door to that is um the uh condos with the the roofs like this. Um and then which are also twotory and then you get to the Sunset Shores on the corner which is twotory and then Carperia Shores across the street. So for this section of Lynen, two stories is the predominant um theme. And also most of the structures are closer to Lynen than this one will be cuz this one's set back 20 ft. This house is very close to the street. The Stein house, as you know, is very close to the sidewalk right there. So, this one's actually going to be set back. Um, you know, it's it's going to be here, whereas this one's here, and then this one is also closer.

So, is that answering your question for like the the feel of the just if you take a look at that one block and you look at it from more of a pedestrian standpoint. Mhm. Um, and again, it's a it's a it's an important corridor for our city that you've got a lot of house right up in front with that garage. So, so my my just for the record, I mean, I

I person I think that um there is a a scale and pedestrian experience that we need to consider here. So, that was one of my questions in terms of clarification for you. Um, I have a few other questions, but I'm happy to let somebody else go. Well, I'll come back to you if somebody else has a question. I have a couple. Sure. Does the garage do the cars from the driveway have to back up onto Lynen? Uh, through the chair? Yes, they would back up onto Lynden, but that's allowable with a single family dwelling,

but it's not a good street to back up on, especially when you're talking about the Surfliner. So, I just want to know, and the other thing is, has the owner indicated he or she will be using it as um short-term rentals? Uh the owner has not indicated any of that to us, but the applicant is here tonight.

Okay. Well, if they're not, I'd like to see a condition of approval. If they are, I'd like to know. So, there you go. Um Okay, that's all I have for right now. On that subject, I'd just like to know perhaps from council whether um conditioning on future application for short-term vacation rental is a discretionary action

through the chair. I'm uh obviously not legal counsel. I'm the community development director, but I'm happy to weigh in on this with my take on it, right, which is that uh short-term rentals are an allowable use in the Beach Neighborhood Overlay District uh provided that somebody obtains a license. So, um this home as would any other home in the neighborhood would be eligible to apply for a license and when one becomes available, they could conceivably pursue it.

Okay. But the the I'm not sure that directly answers my question, which is whether based on whatever circumstances uh commissioners might uh come up with, it's within our discretion to say that one residence versus another could not apply. Yeah. Uh, Chair Allen, I I I'll think a little bit more about it and get back to you as we as we go on through and if that if that comes up further, but um my my initial thought aligns with Nyx that because it's an allowable use both in the coastal zone and specifically in the in this in this zone um and there's not any standards in the city code prohibiting it. I I'm I'm unsure, I guess, what what standard we the commission would be relying on in in implying or in applying that condition of approval. But that being said, let let me think a little bit more about it and and I can get back with a yeah better question.

Could I thank you? Um yeah I had to there am I wrong in that there's a certain number of licenses that and so if if they if somebody wants to turn their unit into a shortterm rental they have to uh get a license

through the chair commissioner Moyer that's correct so there's an overall number of licenses available for the entirety of the beach neighborhood And then from there, the beach neighborhood is further divided into four subdists. And each of those subdists has a certain number of licenses allotted to it. A couple of the districts still have a handful of licenses available. And a couple of the districts are fully fully occupied with licenses. I think this just

I I believe this home would be in in one of the subdists that currently has a waiting list. So, um, right, the the owner if they wanted to pursue a short-term rental could get on the waiting list, but unless or until they actually obtain a license, they could not operate it as a short-term rental. Okay,

just a couple questions if I could. Um, couple quick questions with regards to the city palm tree that's on Lynden. Was was there any consideration given to whether it's possible to reconfigure the driveway to avoid removing that tree?

Uh, through the chair. Uh this one actually the reason we're removing the street tree is in order to save the sycamore. So it was a trade-off between a native or a street tree.

Save both. Um, not well I guess I mean the applicant can speak to that but I mean without narrowing the driveway and which might make backing in and out a little unusual. Um, yeah. I mean the theoretically the driveway could be narrowed but the originally they they had the driveway on this side and they were proposing to remove the sycamore tree and so then through the course of the review to retain the tree then the driveway got moved to the other side.

Okay. So the evolution of the project then the driveway location did change to yes in order to save the sycamore but that change then resulted in the need to take out the palm. Correct. Okay. Correct. and they could plant another palm, you know, elsewhere in front um if okay they wanted to. And then on the on the LI Lyndon frontage um and it may be in here and I missed it the

um there's currently curb parking there. So are we losing just one space on Lynen then? I can't remember exactly how the parking spaces are marked in front of this one, but a typical parking space and the parallels are between 18 and 20 ft, I think. So, for a 16 foot wide driveway could be just one parking spot, depending on how the TE's are, you know what I mean?

Okay. And is that the um responsibility of the uh project applicant to re uh remark the street parking as part of the project? Uh, I believe public works would require anything in the rightway as a result of the project to be corrected if it if the project were to Okay. Thanks. change it. And then I guess my last question, um,

I'm just curious the, you know, until the lot lines reconfigured. It's not really on this lot, but it appears that there's, you know, already construction occurring at the back of this parcel, grading. Um, is that related to this project?

Um, I don't know. There's going to be I I know what you're talking about. There's been some soil stockpiled there. I've seen the I've seen the piles myself. Um, I'm not sure if that's specifically for this project or just being stored there for all three of the houses when they eventually get constructed cuz the two on Dorance are also the same owner. Um, and those also have to have grading uh over excavation and recompaction. So, it'll probably be used somewhere, but I'm not sure if it'll be used specifically on this site. Okay. But as far as staff knows or is concerned, construction has not yet begun.

No, no, we know we know that construction has not begun yet.

Okay. Okay. Thank you, Alexander, you had more questions. Yeah, I've got one more for staff. Um, getting back to sort of the facade. Um, it's my understanding that we have a design guideline that addresses the concern about ground floors primarily devoted to garages. um the facade. So, can you tell me how you're seeing that? How you're looking at that?

How that works? I think it's design. I think you have it in there. Yeah, it's in. I think there's actually a couple of them that relate to it. CDS14, I think. So, I just wanted to know what your thinking was there. And and what I what I what I don't what I don't want to get into is a I want to make sure if we're talking calculations that we're really clear. Okay. With everybody here about what we're calculating. Thank you. Yeah. I will um What did you say it was? D which one? Um I think there's uh CDS14 although there's I believe three. Uh yeah, CDS13.

There's like two or three, I think. Oh, okay. So, there's policy four that says no more than 50% of the facade, which should be occupied by garage doors. Yeah.

And then um which one were you pointing to next? Oh, okay. Here we go. And then there's um I think there's one of the design guidelines too maybe. But I can answer this cuz I I did I did do the math and that it's um it's 46%. Um so the parcel is 45 ft wide. Let me find my as discussed above section here. Okay. Okay. The site's 40 ft 45 ft wide with 35 ft of buildable width with the two 5ft sideyard setbacks on each side. So to meet the interior dimension requirements of a twocar garage is 18 ft x 18 ft to 9 by8 parking spaces put together 18 by 18. So then with the exterior walls that forces the garage to be at least 19 ft wide which the whole garage is more than 50% but the actual doors are narrower. So with the two door design the perceived uh space of the garage is less than 50%. So let me find out where I put that. And that's when I got the 46%.

Okay. There's the garage frontal mass though. I think there were there's maybe two in the staff report. I should have put the page numbers on there, but there was a little confusion there. Like one 65% and then I I remember your 46%. Mhm. Effectively, what we end up with here is is a math problem, right? You have a 45 foot wide lot. You have a garage that's roughly 20 ft wide. So just by default, if we're going to have a garage on the property, it's going to take up more than 50% of the allowable building frontage. It's inescapable in this case. Okay. Thank you.

I have one more question. Any additional questions of staff? John, I think John was first. Was a was a traffic study done for this Um yes, John uh public works, excuse me, through the chair, John Alassen and the public works department did look at this project uh for the driveway. All right. And that's also why the wall is only 2 and 1/2 ft tall rather than being our full 3T that's allowed. Okay, Jane.

Yeah. Well, I've got so many projects uh by Coler that I can't find the one I need from the ARB. Were there conditions included? All of them. I can't find them right here. Were they included in the changes to the the staff report? Um, yes, the most recent comments from the ARB were included, which was to add a tree in the front yard, which is this tree you see here in the rendering. And then the other comment was about the exterior color going the Greek villa, which is what the other one is. So, those are the two most recent comments from the ARB, which um the landscaping has been addressed, and then the final AR, the color will be determined at the final ARB.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Um I have uh I guess sim question or comment. In the up large scale upstairs diagram uh we have uh a u bedroom name uh labeled bath number three which is actually a bedroom. Um, but I mention that it's because I count five bathrooms and in real life I count five bedrooms. Although it's described as a four bedroomedroom house, there's a den with a closet adjacent to a bathroom which has no other ba bedroom dedicated use. And I suppose one reason it might be called a den is because there's a door to the garage. But other than that, functionally it looks like a fifth bedroom. I don't I mention that simply because I think uh we should acknowledge that uh the house can carry fairly large use

through the chair. Um Commissioner Allen, Chair Allen. Um yes, you're right. That one is labeled as den, but rid the closet and everything technically it could count as a bedroom. Okay. Thank you. And I guess just answer question that people have and we can ask it of the applicant. Uh if you don't believe you indicate you don't know whether there's been an application uh as a short-term vacation rental for this property. And how about the adjacent property?

I believe this property, the adjacent property, and both of the ones on Dorance. I believe they're all on the waiting list. All four of them on the waiting list. Okay. I'm talking about both 355 and 333. Yes, they're on the waiting list. Okay. Thank you. Any additional questions of staff?

Okay. Okay. There's a little bit of confusion in how people have labeled um request to speak. Uh not your fault. the way the agenda works, there's some that are labor number two. Uh and they may be for Colar or they may be for the um Verizon um or for the cellular tower. So, uh the ones that I'm uncertain about are um Francis Brand, are you here for the Colar resident for the Verizon? For the for this residence? No. No. Okay. So, I'll put that underneath. Um, Marilyn Jenkins, are you here for this project?

Yes.

Okay. Would you like to come forward and address us? 3,866 square ft. Five bedrooms, five bathrooms, two stories. My house is used as a two-story example. I live on Lynen next door to this property. My house is 1 and a half stories, 1900 square ft. The house behind my house, 1,200 square ft. This couple is proposing three houses, all of them over 3,000 square ft. All of them twotory, all of them on the list to be short-term rentals. 15 total people who would come to these houses and rent them on a weekend. Two-car garage takes up two spaces in front of a house. Only two people can park in the garage if they can get in. The garage is narrow. I have a two-car garage set way back from the street. I have to back out into traffic. It's impossible now. I had a difficulty getting here tonight because there's so much traffic in the summer. Even worse, it just doesn't work. Now, there is some area in the back of the house where they own the property and I've asked why they can't put the garage in the back. I don't know. That wasn't considered. So, my first concern is the size of the property. My second is and I can't remember I think it was a state law or just convention says that if a view has existed for a long length of time it shouldn't be impeded by new development. The view behind my house of the mountains has been available to me since

well before I owned the house. The house has been there since 1923. The Stein house was built in in the same era. the brother um not the Stein but Cravens owned the big house. My house was then owned by the sister after I guess Mr. Craraven's passed away. So the views would be considerably changed by this project. Not only my house is covered by this two-story view, but the house behind mine, it it is five feet from the back step of that house, and it's a tiny little house. Um, okay. That's it. Second concern. The third concern is the standards from 2008 have changed this much. I remodeled my house. I was required to have a certain percentage of open space around my house. I was forced to make two um plots into one because I didn't have enough open space. The two houses had historically been there, but they required that change because there needed to be more open yard space. This house is enormous for the size of the lot. Next concern, um people uh the art board asked the developer, the contractor to state what was going to happen to the Stein house. They haven't done that. What is the plan? This house will be 5 ft from the back of the Stein house. I don't think that house is even as big as 3,800 square ft. It was the first hotel in town. It's been there since the 1920s. And I believe the plan probably because they've let it go to rack and ruin. The plan seems to be that they will tear it down after they have this project built. They need to say what they're going to do with that house. They own that

property as well. Nothing has been stated. Finally, this project of course does nothing to alleviate the housing problem in Carperia. It's designed to be a short-term rental. That's it. Thank you. You know, I made an error in that uh the first u public speakers I should have invited forward uh are the applicants and the applicants representative. My apologies. So if the applicants are the applicants res representatives like to address us please come forward.

Good evening uh chair and lady lady and gentlemen of the board and staff. Thank you for being here. Uh Cindy, thank you for that presentation. Um Alexandra, I think you pointed out something that was I mean very apparent that is this is an pretty unique location in Karp. Um, I think on planet Earth it's one of the I mean you're right next to a park, you're right next to a playground, you're a few hundred feet from the beach, you're within walking distance to a ton of restaurants. Um, it's one of the most visible corners I think if you come and visit this town.

Would would you mind letting everyone know who you are? Hi, I'm Dylan Chappelle. I'm the architect and this is George Miner, uh, project manager. Um, Cindy, can you pull up the Do you have the t the title sheet? Oh,

and I didn't I do have your um that exhibit you prepared. I included that at the back of my presentation. I don't know if you that exhibit that we showed on previous. Yeah, that would be lovely. That document would be lovely. I don't know what I keep doing here. Sorry. Um and We have been working with the architectural review board uh through several meetings and iterations. Um that one

Yeah, that one's great on this project. Um as Cindy stated, initially we we wanted to save the street tree. Um and then it became more apparent that the sycamore was was more important and more protected. And so then we redesigned the project around saving the sycamore tree. Um uh just maybe to give some information Jane on one of your questions, why is the garage facing the street, right? Like couldn't why don't we put the garage at the back of the property? Um, one of the issues is this lot. I believe it's only 45 feet wide and you have uh it kind of it's kind of back to the the garage percentage. It just gets down to the numbers. 45 ft wide. You have to have uh a 5-ft setback on this property. A garage um minimum is like 18ish, but normally it's about 20 ft from the walls, the outside walls of the garage. Um, so that's 5 ft for the setback plus 25 ft plus 20 ft, sorry, that's 25 ft. Minimum backup distance for a car out of a garage is 25 ft. So to to to be able to not have the garage or face sideways, you need a 50- foot wide lot. So we we explored that in the beginning as well. Um this is a diagram. I've I've presented this to you guys before. Um I I wasn't planning on presenting it tonight, but it kind of goes back to Alexandra some

of your initial comments and questions. Um we didn't look at buildings or projects uh you know on the other side of the freeway the downtown area of Karp where it's all commercial right above there. We didn't really look at it but there's some pretty good density there. We did do a study through this whole area. Um, and I think what the study shows is this is um the least dense project um on the block. I know there's a small house next door, but there is a garage and the the owner just stated that they struggled even to meet their open yard on that project. Um, and when I go through some of the numbers on this project, you'll see that we're nowhere near uh the maximum allowable development on this property. No doubt it is slightly over a 3,000q ft house which is is not a small house especially for Karp which has a history of these charming beach bungalows that are twobedroom one baths and we all we all love those. Um our uh project is uh 33% of the lot coverage. Uh 50% is allowed in this district. Um so that's 1,200

square ft. um that we could add and still comply with the the ordinances. Um our open yard, you're required to have a minimum of 20% open yard. Um we have 60 63%. Um, so we have three times the the open yard. And it's it's just tough whenever you see a vacant lot and then there's a house proposed on it. It just feels like an attack. And I I understand that. I get that. Um, what else was I going to say? I if we if we wanted to maximize the development on this property, those are some of the numbers we could come back in with. Uh I have to double check, but I think you could the size of this lot would allow you to put three units on it.

That's what it's for. and and then legally we could add two ADUs to those three units. So I could come in and present five units on this property legally and meet all the codes and not need any exemptions. But I'm coming in with a single family residence that is over a,000 square ft smaller than what's allowed. The height is 23 feet. We're doing everything we can to make a comfortable house, but keep it well well below the allowable height in the area. And I think if you I mean story poles are just offensive, you know, there's just no way not to be. But if you if you I mean I obviously I'm on one side of it but if subject you go out there this house is set back quite significantly from both the houses to either side of it and if you go look at the story polls I mean they show where our second story is. Um, the Stein house, I don't know if it's 10 ft back from the sidewalk. Um, the the house on the corner is pretty dang close to the street as well. Our garage is 20 ft back. And then our twostory structure is starts 20 ft back from that. Both of the adjacent houses have

plenty of view

twotory structures almost at like 10 ft back. Um, so anyways, we've tried to do a lot to uh make it fit in. It is a it is a large modern house. Uh, chair, to your question, you're not legally allowed to have a bedroom off of or access a garage, which is why that room is called a den. Um, there is a bathroom right next to it. Uh, so, you know, it someone could do something. The bathroom is there. We're right up the street from the beach. We like to have a bath for guests. Um, so they don't have to go into a bedroom. Uh, you know, and these are these are all things that most of our houses don't have. So, I get it. Um, and I think to the other point about the the VBOS's or or short-term vacation rentals, yeah, we don't know what's going to happen. And I think when the owner purchased all these properties, they got on the list immediately just cuz they didn't know what they were going to do. Um so

but uh but at this time, you know, it's this is going to be their house. They have other houses there, but it's going to be a personal home. I don't know if they're going to sell or what's going to happen. Um if they did do vacation rentals, they would have to do it legally. Um, I know we're all sick and tired of vacation rentals taking over our neighborhoods. Um, at the same time, I would love for everyone in the room to be able to stay across the street from a playground and a park and walking distance to hotels and right down the street from a beach. So, if it were to happen, it seems like it would be a place that it would be appropriate. Um, other than that, I think we're here to answer any any questions or or concerns.

Do members of the commission have questions of the applicants representatives? Yeah. Okay. On the lot line adjustment, does that go out to Dorance now? Doesn't go into Dorance. No, it doesn't because it doesn't seem impossible to put the parking behind that. There's no access to it. Yeah. Well, maybe it shouldn't be such a big house then. But but it's a it's a big lot, too. It's It's over 7. Yeah, but you've designed it and it doesn't work for the garages in the back.

Yeah. So, this I guess to answer your question, this parcel that we're talking about and looking at uh does not go to Dorance and never has gone to Dorance. Not that the other the one next to it that you're uh cutting off. Well, the Stein the Stein house is on Dorance. Yeah. Well, I know I'm talking about the back. It's it's a it's locked in. It's okay. that that Stein house that you're seeing in that number five lot, that's that's one lot. That 28 that's I'm sorry I've forgotten your last name, but as you speak, if you could use the mic, please.

Yeah. Uh to address that garage issue, it's if you're looking at lot one right there, that goes back to lot five, which legally I think lot would be another parcel at some point when they did the plot map for Carperia, but that's considered one parcel. You own that too, right? They own that too. Well, yeah, that's Yeah, I own that. But would be done. I'm not gonna beat it, but uh you would have no garage for the other house then. You you'd have to tear down the garage for tear down the garages anyway. But we'd like to have a garage back there. I think everybody would here would probably like to have a garage at their house, I'd imagine. I mean, that's

Okay. Thank you. Do any other commissioners have questions of the applicant the applicants representatives? Alexandra?

Yeah, thank you for clarifying a few things. Um, I'm still a little confused. Um, so you're saying that you have not built to the maximum envelope allowed. Okay. So it's about I think the calculations may be about 2/3. Does that sound about right of what of what you're proposing to build on the lot? About 2/3 of the maximum allowable.

Yeah. We are 33% and 50%'s allowed. So yeah, there's an additional 1,200 square ft um on the ground floor that we could build. And I Yeah. Uh in the PRD zone, lot coverage is only footprint. So that's footprint. So then theoretically we could twostory that space. So, you know, there's 2,000 plus square feet that we could add to this and still comply. Not saying that that would get approved, but that's within the current code.

Okay. The development plan requires us to the process itself requires us to weigh private impacts against public interest along a major corridor. So that's one. Um I know we talked a little bit earlier about my concern about protecting what that looks like. So, you wouldn't We've already heard from another Well, I shouldn't say that. Um, we know we've already discussed that there are other homes in the area um that haven't been able and don't build up to the full envelope of the parcel. And that's part of what keeps that be beach neighborhood um in compliance, the neighborhood itself. That's part of the general plan. Um, so even though I understand that you're saying, "Hey, I'm not building to the full envelope, it it really, you know, from an aesthetic standpoint and getting back to the neighborhood compatibility. Twothirds is is is pushing right up there. So, I just I I I just wanted to to check that with you because I know that that's something that we've been talking a lot about here.

We didn't think this was going to be a slam dunk here tonight. Okay, great. That was going to be my next question. So, so you know, if if we required a It's time to shield. Sorry. It's okay. If we required a materially uh smaller um building envelope, um what elements do you think could be reduced? Would you be willing to do that?

Um I mean, I'm the architect. I'm willing to do anything and I can draw rectangles and erase rectangles. um you know so so yeah I mean it I could we could make it smaller absolutely but I mean you know if you go back to that diagram we're already the smallest on the street besides maybe the neighbor next doorm I mean the other huh considering lot guys.

Well, or I mean I mean look at the look at the I mean look at the beach. That's a what is the first project? I mean it's like a 60 unit condo complex. Then then the next project is another 60 unit condo complex and then it's like a 30 and then a 40 and then then there's the the pio which is five or six units. And then there's the charming house on the corner that is twotory that does have a garage that we're we're per our lot size we are similar size to that. I don't think they could add 1,200 ft on their property and comply. We can um there is the spot which is kind of the outlier. Um I don't know how we compare to that. And then there's the proposed three-story 30 unit hotel that's got a pool above our house. So I don't see how we're the biggest.

Uh Dylan, I'm sorry. So when when I when we talked a little bit earlier, I'm specifically talking about that block. So I I appreciate um the study that you did

the you know the large um the apartments that have been there, the structures that have been there for a long, long time. But if you, you know, I'm in the beach neighborhood a lot. I just see it a lot. Um you know, you're heading down Lynen, you've got the open space on the left, you've got spot, and then you've got this block that we're talking about. So, and then you take a right onto Third Street and you know, you've got a lot of smaller houses. So, I just wanted to be really clear what I was referring to. Just that area. Yeah. Yeah.

Um, okay. So, speaking of that, um, what about tree retention? Would you be willing to redesign to retain the palm tree? I mean, let's face it, iconic Lynen Avenue palm trees. I agree. I mean, when we came in, I'm like, that palm tree's got to win over the sycamore, but that wasn't the choice that uh was made. You know, I think we're always open and willing to save trees. I mean, we we worked together to save a tree on the last project. um and on Maple Street. Um

really, you know, so it's it just gets into a weird area and and once again, that tree is not on the property. Our hands are a little tied once again. Um, there's safety issues and not only is there issues of can you physically get the car into the garage, but then there's other safety, vision, corridor issues, backout safety, um, you know, so, um, that's a that's a tough one. If there was if there was an easy way to save the tree, we would always try and save the tree. But this one we're kind of stuck between two trees and we had to make a decision on which one other agencies prefer we would save.

But but we are willing to relocate it or or plant it and replace a new one somewhere else if if we can make it work. Absolutely. Yeah. I wasn't talking about relocating it. I think both trees need to stay, but Sorry, I'm I'm I'm finished. Thank you.

Done. Are there any other questions of applicant or applicants representatives? Anyone? Okay. Um, see none, we may uh invite you back later, but okay. Uh, I'm now opening the public hearing to other uh regular members of the public. And uh, correct me if it's not on this project. Uh Jeff, no.

Uh Rose, I think you were on the cell tower. Uh Francis Brand, are you on this project? No. Okay. And uh Patrick Okconor, you did indicate you wish to speak on this. Okay.

Thank you, chair and commissioners and staff. Um Patrick Okconor, District 5 resident, speaking both as resident, and it's going to be hard to not cross over the line because I did review this as ARB. Um same comments apply. This has gotten a lot of airtime. Uh it was originally uh proposed as a as a duplex. In the sort of you know early 2025 it's shifted over to a single family home much like the other property over by the spot. Um the awkward thing here I think the elephant in the room on the biggest awkward part of this is the lot line wasn't defined during most of these reviews. And in fact, as I now read the the staff report that articulates that lot line adjustment, I think best now implies that we were reviewing building structures that weren't buildable in those prior reviews on this on this 333 lot. Its size wasn't large enough without that lot line adjustment. So, we got kind of a wonky, you know, series of discussions going on here. And you know, the ARB isn't able to really address most of this. You know, it's it's a design review process. So, we're pretty limited in our scope. And that's unfortunate because I think that's where a lot of the discussion occurs. And it lands here. You know, this is where the food fight occurs. And honestly, I don't think we got a complete food fight because we don't have the owners here. You know, we all respect to the, you know, to the projects manager and the and the architect. they're doing a job and it's a fine piece of architecture, but they're representing an interest that isn't here to defend itself. So, I think that's a point. Um, couple other points. You know, we've talked a lot about the, you know, the neighboring thing and the initial question about how it was considered. There was a pretty deliberate discussion about the the sort of tearing of heights, you know, from Stein House to this property to Maryland's house. And that's all true. I think we owe Marilyn a bit more respect

to quit referring to that as a two-story house and larger than this. It's just not, you know, and you can parse the words and parse the definitions all you like, but you know, she deserves the respect of having a pretty, you know, gateway property in in this area, too. That is important. Um, one thing positively I will say it appears there's a power pole gone, which is great. And if it's not, it should be. It's right in the middle of that of the lot on the the beach side of the lot. Um, close to that sycamore tree. So, I think that's good news if that's gone. Um, sorry for the random thoughts here. Back to the exhibit A. The exhibit A and B for the lot line adjustment is confusing because it's showing two lot line adjustments occurring to create one east west lot line. So, it it's not clear to me what the original state was. If those were three lots and the lot line adjustment is as stated, then the there was in fact access on Dorance for that lot that's now becoming part of 333. So the intention for that lot that's now being added into the other side was to have access from Dorance and that's now taken away. So all the nuance about is the lot now wide enough for a driveway to go through. I think the lot line adjustment process could allow you to put a driveway in there and have it be part of that 333 address. Now, that's because of the wonkiness of all this, there's a lot of water that's been under the bridge and things are cooked in pretty, you know, pretty far in these reviews. Um, so it's it's unfortunate. I guess it's another one of these it's not our finest day when we go when we do these things out of order as bodies, both, you know, ARB planning and the staff together. And I think that's what led to to all of this confusion. Um, and last point I'll make is there's no discussion in either of the ARB reviews

since the conversion to single family about DG4. And I think you just look back to the last half hour ago. We should be addressing DG4 and it's not been addressed. So does it meet it or or does it not? May I ask for some clarification from staff on the last uh comment? Are there currently three lots that will become No, two. Okay.

Through the chair or chair Allan, you are the chair. Um right now, so you know, way back when the the city map, um this was three lots. There was one, two, and then this one over here afterwards was lot five. they were three lots. However, one and five have been transferred together for so many so many times for so many years that um the city surveyor uh determined that that was one legal lot now, not two lots. And so that's one legal lot. And then uh this one uh number parcel APN28 was in fact a separate legal lot. So these are per our city surveyor are two legal lots not three.

Thank you. Um I don't have any additional speaker slips on this but if there are members of the public who'd like to address us Nathan was yours on this. Would you like to come up and address us? Okay. So I said there's some confusion over the numbering. Um I had no concept of this project at all. Turn on your mic. The mic. Turn on the microphone.

Not all the time. Um I didn't plan on speaking on this at all, but having seen what's going on here, um I do have some comments. I think if you have uh looks like this is a a hotel in disguise in multi-arts, a slow motion development. if they own four or five parcels, five rooms per parcel, actually you can go up to six per parcel and uh you know you got 30 units real quick. So you might want to look at it that way or I don't know if you have looked at it that way. Maybe you analyze it that way or not. I don't know. But I would be worth taking a look at it as a global project of multiple parcels of a single project and see how that all fits together. Um, generally speaking, and uh, your community development director knows this, I'm concerned about the historic look of the downtown area and the oldtown area. And could you put up the facade on the street facade on the uh, slide, please? Back. There it is. Um, I'm not sure depending on how they actually build this, it could go anywhere from a really beautiful handcrafted home to pretty cheesy track house. I mean, this architectural rendering doesn't bull me over and I've seen a lot of them. So, uh I'm not sure what kind of details you can require of a builder like as far as hand plastering versus spray stock versus this versus that. But this is a typical, you know, it could be an apartment building in the valley really or Westlake Village or anywhere. So, I don't see anything historic beach community about that look right there. Um, I guess they're trying to do a uh Spanish vibe is what it looks like they're doing. A little bit hard to tell depending on how they do it, but anyway. Doesn't you have a scale issue like everyone talks about all the houses are the small beach bungalows. So, this is

definitely going to stick out. Um, on your driveway issue, as they do control all the properties, they can run a driveway and easement across the back and put a garage in the back and plan everything around all that. So, that's not really to be frank and and that's a red herring if they say they can't do that. Um, let's see my little notes here. Uh, and then yeah, like the manager said, you can just rip out the palm tree, put another palm tree 5T over or whatever if that is your issue in saving palm trees. Uh, lot coverage, you know. Um that's why historic design and downtown beach area design standards have to be really locked down tight. Like he says they have wiggle room. You know they can veiled to give you a veiled threat that we could build an apartment building here a big box or whatever which you know according to the rules they can go 50% you know floor area ratio and twotory it off and there you go. But um this doesn't feel like it fits the vibe of what everyone's trying to do with the town. you know, and this is I think my global perspective on it. It's like this doesn't quite hit the mark and I wish you would take more time and really think of all the projects on all the parcels and try and get a global buildout plan on everything and go go forward that way. Thank you.

Are there any other members of the public that would like to address us on this project? Okay, seeing none, I'll bring it back to the commission for discussion and possible decision. Chair Allen, excuse me. Sorry. We have one, I believe, one public commenter on Zoom. I'm just apologize for that. Yes. Um Eileen, if you would like to your public comment now, please uh unmute yourself. She's having a power outage. Oh, yes.

Yeah. I I don't know if the power outage has ended, but I was She texted me. Um right now we cannot hear you, but try uh muting yourself and and muting yourself again. Uh, while we're waiting to see if we can connect with Miss Markerson, I'll just note that we did receive a public comment letter from Eileen Marcus.

Um, you're still muted, so try Eileen coming in and out the call. Oh. Okay. Um,

uh, we can hear you now. Can you hear me?

Yes, we can. Eileen, we can hear you. Please go ahead and and make your public comment. Um, Eileen, we can hear you. Okay, great. Um, I wanted to remind uh the project manager, George Manurus, that his father spoke um I don't know a dozen years ago before the planning commission in connection with the island apartments that is now currently PIA beach lodging. um that is um a short-term rental property on Lynden at Third Street. And at the time um his father made an appearance, his father Harry Manurus, and he went on record that the Colers were going to use the top floor of that property, that remodeled property as a home. That is not taking that didn't happen. That um top floor is part of the uh five unit STR property. Um they did not move

in and make it their permanent home. So when I hear Dylan and Chappelle say that it is their plan to make it their home, um I have to express my skepticism. Um I think uh the gentleman before me who who described these parcels as a future hotel in disguise is right on the money. And um yeah, I I don't think the beach neighborhood needs any more short-term rentals. And that's all I've got for you.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. Uh is there anyone else on Zoom? If you would like to make a public comment about this item, please raise your hand. Uh there is no more public comment at this time. Okay. Then now I will bring it back to the commission for uh discussion and possible action. Um okay, Jane,

I'll be short even though I'm tall. Okay, I uh live in this neighborhood and there have been three. Now, this is the third one, Coler Property, and another one has been approved. Anyway, I can't act on those that are closest to my house for fear of uh bribery, I guess. Wouldn't know how to do that. But now this house is 3900 square ft. That isn't the average. That isn't the vibe. As Nathan says, it's just out of place. I really resent the backing out onto Lynden because, you know, any planner knows you don't back out onto a major street. And they could have figured that out with a rare easement so easily. And because it isn't built, they could still do it. Um, I just think these houses are too big and they uh what they do is bootstrap on the last one. Oh, there's a house that's just like this one and then it's a little bigger. This just like that one and then it's a little bigger. That's not a good argument. The area really does have a lot of small bungalow houses. And it's not to say you can't improve them, but this is a too big, too large, too uh imposing, and also it is going to be uh short-term rentals for sure. So, yeah. Well, it's my turn to talk.

Fine assumption. I don't care. I But I think a lot of people have the same opinion. So, I'm not talking to you, George. I'm talking to the microphone here. I'm against this project. I want to deny it fully. I don't want to condition it or anything. Just I deny it. Excuse me. Please, please, uh, hold applause. Um, Commissioner Favor, do you want to go next or Okay.

Okay. Um, appreciate the input um, tonight from commissioners and members of the public and the applicant. Um, from my review of this project, um, I mean, I have a couple thoughts, but the the project itself, uh, I support. Um I it's you know this project uh heights are kept to a reasonable level um in comparison to what we see elsewhere in this neighborhood and other parts of the city. The um it is a lot of square footage and a lot of bedrooms. I understand that. Um and to to a large extent I believe that property owners should be able to build the homes that they would like to build uh assuming that it meets the criteria uh and zoning and design guidelines for the community. Um and this project does um including the uh DG5 I think it is which is the second story setbacks from the first floor being less than 40% of the total square footage. That was a I spent a lot of time on that at our last hearing and um I wanted to make sure we were there on this one. So it uh exceeds that uh it meets and exceeds it on the favorable side for the city. Um so I'm I'm good with that. The um I don't see that once this is well couple other thoughts. um the design and

architecture of this project um the input that our ARB provided to this project along the way uh is positive. I think I would I expect this to be a very nice looking building. Um and um I think there's no reason to believe that it won't be based on what's in the the uh information that's been provided from the applicant as as well as the uh the work that is done in our community from similar projects. Um, so when I review this project against this zoning requirements, the the uh beach neighborhood design guidelines, um, setbacks. Um, we're not asking for variances here there. You know, this this project complies. Uh, it exceeds the requirements. There's a perception that this is way too big for the neighborhood and it is a large home. I you know I and how it will be used in the future I don't know. Uh perhaps we could all speculate on that and um but I for me personally I I would rather not speculate. Um so so I'm good with the project. Uh the I I guess a couple thoughts I'd throw out for discussion by you know obviously you know other commissioners have different ideas on this project. Um we are rolling in the lot line adjustment. Uh we're rolling in the demolition of the structure on the neighboring parcel. So

this project as it's before us really does encompass activities on both parcels. Uh in so um a little interesting the way that has unfolded but I understand the creation of these two lots makes sense. there is an opportunity uh with the lot line adjustment to create an easement to the back of the lot for some way to deal with the garage structure um that doesn't front lendon. Um I don't see any reason why that couldn't be worked out. The property the project proponent owns both parcels. It's my understanding. And we're already doing a lot line adjustment. And it could be done with either a modification of the lot line adjustment or a recorded easement for a driveway. Um either way, um I I don't see any real advantage to the personally to the owners of the property to have the garage on the front there facing Lyndon. It seems like it will be inconvenient and it's not exactly consistent with what we see elsewhere along Lyndon. So that would, you know, so I would suggest that that be looked at. I don't see why that couldn't happen. It does a couple things. It avoids the conflict of traffic uh and avoids cars in the driveway, crossing the sidewalk on Lynden, which is a busy sidewalk. uh protects the iconic um palm tree, which I realize is just a palm and

perhaps doesn't have the clout of the sycamore, but man, that's a that's a big palm and it is truly iconic. So, we could protect that. Um I realize that results in a pretty significant design change. Um, we're pretty far along in the project to be making these kind of design changes. I get that. Um, perhaps such a change uh with uh reconfiguration of the garage might might ease concerns from some of the other commissioners with approving the project. I don't know, but um seems seems doable to me. Uh aside from that, those two issues really, the you know, the garage and then the palm tree, I think it's a very nicely designed project. I think it fits on the lot. Um I don't think the mass, bulk, and scale is overwhelming. Uh and um I'm prepared to support the project, but I would like to hear further discussion on a adjustment to the lot line adjustment. Yeah, I I may conclude my comments a little later, but just briefly, I agree with most of what Commissioner Le Fevers has said, but specifically and most importantly, uh I would really like to hear if the commissioners agree from the applicant. Uh well, we can hear later, but at any event, I think that uh it is entirely doable and appropriate to have an easement or a lot line adjustment that allows a garage at the

rear. That simply makes so much sense. Um, it's uh not a good design for a number of reasons on busy streets such as London to be backing out. As the neighbor uh testified this evening, uh it is uh not in keeping with our uh preferred um streetscape design to have a garage of uh that much frontage, whether you calculate it one way or the another at uh um by the garage door frontage distance or percentage. Um it would uh alleviate the need to remove the uh palm tree which is part of the look of Lynen Avenue the aesthetics. Uh but on the flip side um I do recognize that the um uh size uh bulk and scale are well within what our city has determined to be appropriate um guidelines for construction on lot of this size or proposed lot of this size. Um and uh the setback as the applicants representative pointed out on the second story puts it back you know 40 ft. So the perceived um bulk and scale of the residence is uh significantly reduced. Um I don't particularly like the architecture the this the Spanish style for the beach town. I prefer Craftsman, but that's that's my um preference. Not a reason I would ever deny a project that was otherwise welldesigned and met ARB approval. I tend to defer to ARB on design uh issues. Um I find it

appalling. Um so those are my thoughts. I would like to see it come back to us designed with a rare entrance. Uh and uh um and with the comment that uh I would uh um you know don't find the actual square footage offensive. I do think that um it's likely to be a short-term vacation rental. Um our council has decided that we can have a certain number of them. Uh this is the area of town where they're allowed. Uh I'm not entirely happy with what that does. I don't like what it does to neighborhoods. Uh uh but uh it has historically been in the beach area, an area where, you know, short-term rentals um occur. It's a beach beach town neighborhood. Um so you know that is our um our plan and that is you know what's allowed. Um and you know I never asked for council to come back and perhaps it's appropriate to do so and whether it's a subject that we could deny or not deny on solely on the basis of that use.

Yeah. Chair Allen. So, regarding short-term rental regulation, as Nick noted, the city's code and LCP allow for short-term rentals, um, but it also has the short-term rental license program, which regulates the short-term rentals to avoid or mitigate impacts to the community. So, the program is also fully prescri prescribed, has a wait list. So, in other words, short-term rentals are regulated uniformly through the license program rather than on a project bypro basis. and the city council adopted the ordinance to regulate short-term rentals in lie of attempting to u regulate them based on timing of a discretionary entitlement. Um I'd also just note that outright bans on short-term rentals in the coastal zone have been struck down by California courts and so seeking to prohibit short-term rentals outright in the coastal zone here could also be challenged potentially as a violation of the coastal act.

Yeah, I I suspected that would be the case. So, put in plain English, our hands are kind of tied to say no, we don't want another short-term vacation rental. Could I just add um coming up? Uh yes. So, I'll defer my further comments. I pretty much go along with Glenn. Uh the only part of the project that I didn't like when I reviewed it was the garage uh microphone.

Yeah. Louder. Okay. Well, the only part that I I don't like about the project is the traffic situation with the garages cuz that part of Lynon is really it's got a lot of pedestrians and bikes and cars all at the same time. But beyond that, we denied a project on 8th Street cuz they wanted their garage in the front so that they could watch their kid play basketball. And we denied that project. Uh they were really unhappy. But I that's I kind of go along with Allen and and Glenn on this one. Uh the thing about you know like like the lawyer said we have in place uh short-term rental uh guidelines and and rules and it's you know they just can't pop up and use them. I mean there's certain amount of them that can be used and that's reasonable. I don't have a problem with that. And another thing that you got to keep in mind is this remod this new structure is probably going to cost over a,000 a square foot. I mean just a track home now is a,000 a square foot. And and it's not everybody and their mother that's going to show up here and rebuild this city for us. And it needs it. A lot of the housing stock in carb is 30 plus years old or older and it really needs to be rehabilitated. And uh so I I feel you know the callers have a good shot record. You know you might not like to hear that but they do. Their projects have been good. You know the island island uh apartments is that

was a low rent rendevous was just needed park. I mean, what? It's a huge improvement in the city. Oh, I don't I'm I mean, I'll stick to the the issue of the garage, but other than that, I could accept this project. Uh and I think that in the end, it would look beautiful. You know, they they even uh ribbed the the uh the roof barge. That's expensive. You know, the design's not cheap. you know, they they didn't like cut. There's no cut back on any of it. So, anyway, that's I I said enough. Thanks,

Alexandra. I'll try to be brief. Uh, one thing that I had meant to ask the applicant was uh, sea level rise and reason why um, from what I could tell in the staff report, I didn't see that um, there was any discussion about that other than in the staff report that discussed it, but hadn't been um, to my knowledge the applicant. Um, to me it's common sense stewardship um to take a look at utilities, flood resistant ground flooror materials and not to rely on future armory. Um, so site drainage, foundations, that kind of thing. Um, Lynen Avenue warrants heightened sensitivity. Uh, I think that compatibility must consider the entire corridor, not just two neighborhoods. I think the project size and massing feels out of proportion to the nearby homes. Um, the GL the ground floor experience uh matters more than just the facade averaging that we had discussed earlier. Uh, we talked about street tree, the street tree. Um, I think there's some real core design concerns and uh I they got a number of policies that that I'm prepared to quote here, but pretty much it comes down to excessive size, bulk, and scale. Uh, the

garage dominant ground floor. I realize we have we did discuss that there's some ways to get around that. Um I think it has very weak pedestrian orientation as it stands stands. It's uh the street rhythm is off because of it. Um I I I I'm not able to support the project. That's all I have. Can I say a couple?

Okay. Um, just ask for a little little well the first grabs among ourselves. We ought to see where we are. I mean, if I'm counting heads correctly, I think I see three that would like to see it come back with a a design that would put the garage at the rear and are otherwise okay with the um with the um basically this size and kind of design. Um I'm I'm not sure about you, Jane. Um, you're you're a no on size spoken scale. Yeah.

Okay. and and I know you are and Alexandra, but I think we may have a majority that could make a recommendation for them to come back with a a redesign that basically uh puts I mean I would say the the the whole of the structure no closer to the street uh in my mind but the garage at the rear with an easement or adjustment bringing the garage to the rear. Would you agree with that, John? Yeah. Okay. So, I'd ask for staff to assist us in making that um recommendation for um the project.

Would that negate the property line adjustment? My recommendation would be to leave that to the applicant to determine whether they want to do it by way of easement or lot line adjustment. That's good. chair, you leave me the hard part, huh? Well, I could I could do it, but I'll look to you as the uh expert. Okay.

Planner. Um, so based off what I'm hearing from from you and from commissioners Moyer and Lef Fevers, uh, you know, such a motion would be something like to recommend continuence of the project. Yes. to a future planning commission hearing with direction to the applicant to revise the project in such a way that the garage is relocated to the rear of the lot with access taken from Dorance Way. Uh the means for doing that are you know at the discretion of the applicant whether it's through an easement or a lot line adjustment. uh and you know with the further condition or limitation that in the kind of readjustment of the site plan the the structure itself should not move any closer to Lynen than where it's presently located meaning that the 20ft setback from the property line would be preserved but the living area would be brought up to that 20 foot setback line um rather than the garage being at that setback line

as stated. Is that okay with the fellow commissioners, the two of us, the three of us? Glenn. Uh yeah, that's I'm okay with that as a framework. And and I would add just as a comment supporting uh our action that as uh Glenn pointed out uh we are acting on a project that involves both parcels. In other words, the demolition of the I mean it it is clearly tied in more ways than one. So, okay. Um, ask for a motion.

Um, sure. Um, so I'm going to take a little bit of liberty on this motion, but um, so I move to continue this item to a future planning commission meeting. uh and um to um direct staff to work with the applicant to make adjustments um such that the as has been elaborated by our staff on the motion. Well, so I I' prefer to have staff reread the language into my motion here, but um the intent is that the uh the garage be relocated to the rear of the lot, the access to the garage be obtained from Doranceway and um and the location of the footprint of the property. remain essentially the same. So that's the intent of my motion and I I like Nick's specific language. So I would incorporate that into my motion and um I'll leave it at that.

Okay. Is that acceptable? Okay. I have a motion and a second and uh discussion. How do you vote on that? I mean if we're We'll do a roll call vote. No, no, I don't mean how do you do it? Um, you three have a good idea and we're against the mic. Oh I did it. John Moyer. Um, you three. You three have a good idea and we're opposed to the project. How do we vote on that? Well, that's that's I I would say that's up to you.

Well, thank you. That was a big help. All right. I I'll I'll introduce I'll not second. Oh, you introduced a motion. So, okay, we have a motion in a second. Any further discussion? Okay. Anyone? What your second is? Okay. May we have a roll call vote, please? Oh, jeez. Commissioner Vanerp, deny. Commissioner Lef Fevers, yes. Commissioner Benfield, no. Vice Chair Moyer, yes. And Chair Allen, yes. Motion carries 32. Okay. Thank you. Do we want a fivem minute break? Yes. Okay, we'll take a five minute break. Be right back.

I'll get my plans back from George before just Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.

Okay, we are resuming the hearing. So, if everybody will take a seat. Okay, we're now moving on to item number three, the Verizon Wireless Communications Facility. Uh once again it's time first for um Commissioner Exparta Communications. Any information they have we should all know. Okay. I assume everybody has seen the site. Yeah. Okay.

I I went and talked to the owners of the Pacific Health. I talked to the husband and the wife at different uh times and I uh looked at the back part of the store where they're concerned about some structure.

Okay. Nothing that's not already in their communications in the record. Nothing new. I mean Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Um, so with that, we're ready for this staff presentation. Okay, Chair Moyer, members of the planning commission. My name is Brett McNelte. I'm the planner for this project. Um it is um a proposal by Celeste McGinness on behalf of Centerline Communications and Verizon Wireless for the property located at 912 Lynden Avenue with other addresses including 944 954-962 and 970 Lynen Avenue. Um this project is uh number is 252336. It it is for a conditional use permit. Um, a coastal development permit application was filed on March 6 of 2025 for approval uh of the installation of a new wireless community facility with screening on the rooftop of an existing singlestory retail commercial building, including two new wireless antenna arrays adjacent to the sides of the existing Carpia clock tower. one new wireless antenna array at the south end of the building and one battery and radio support equipment enclosure on the roof of an accessory structure at the rear of the building along Cactus Lane. Rooftop access letters and dedicated parking for an emergency generator truck and installation of utility connections within the Cactus Lane public rideway under the provisions of sections 649A

of the federal spectrum act. The Carpentria Municipal Code. Uh, section 1422, Central Business District. Section 1444, Visitor Serving Highway commercial overlay district. Section 146210, conditional use permit. Section 1456, wireless communications, and to approve an exemption pursuant to sections 15301 and 15303 of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines. The application involves APN 003263 029. Going to go over the existing setting um along Lyndon Avenue. Uh wrong way. So first we have an aerial of of the site location which I think we all know of. This aerial um depicts the footprint of the proposed project components. Um this this first where the first arrow is pointing at is the proposed wireless facility that'll be mounted at the um at the side of the existing clock tower. And the second wireless um facility that'll be located on the other side to the north and east and I guess to the north and west a previous one. The other antenna that will be located at the south corner of the building is shown here. The wireless um support equipment enclosure is located here and there's a little tiny yellow rectangles that represent the ladders. The the first ladder is behind the fence that'll access the rooftop of this accessory building where the equipment is at. And

this ladder goes from the top of the accessory building to the rooftop itself. And then the last arrows pointing towards a work that's going to be conducted in the right of way of cactus lane where there'll be an excavation extension of uh of um conduit to access existing utility uh cable and power. These the next few slides are going to be of the existing setting photographs of of the site. You see uh 912 Lynden Avenue from perspective of Lynen and Carpa Avenue and then from Carpa Avenue itself there on the right. Uh this perspective um on the lower left uh is from Lynen Avenue towards the center of the block looking back towards the north towards the back of the clock tower. And the one on the right is uh from across the street looking straight on to the clock tower in the building. Um, this gives you a perspective on the clock tower itself with a zoomin shot of the the the Carperia clock spelling out Carpia in case any of you didn't see that before. Uh this is another perspective from Lindenge uh from the sidewalk in front of Pacific Market looking towards the clock tower and then a a bit closer looking at the clock tower again from the sidewalk on both shots. This is a perspective looking west from Cactus Lane towards the location of the proposed installations which that that van is sitting right next to the accessory building where the equipment will be located. And then above those

windows all the way at the south end of the building there is where the antenna will be on top of the roof located there with the ladders there. And I'll show you those in just a minute. Um actually right now um this is um the photo simulations that are provided from the applicant. And I I want to stop here for a second and explain that these um these photo simulations are of the project that was that was recommended for revision by the ARB. So the ARB comments have been integrated into the photo simulations that you're going to see right now. So um on the top is the existing tower and at the bottom you'll see that there's been two the two structures have been added. They have architectural designs meant to mimic the the tower. There's been some changes to to make u make those installations smaller and to uh make them blend better into the clock tower itself. This is back to the perspective um view from Lynen Avenue. It's kind of zoomed out in Carperia Avenue. I'm going to use the zoom here so you can see the difference in that installation. You can see it's kind of goes under the tree there, but it it it's these this is the clock tower. This is the wing that's uh the architectural wing. And then another architectural wing that has the um um horizontal lines and then the new antenna next to it there. And then you can see it kind of peeking out from behind on this side. And turn this off. Thank you. another perspective uh from Lynen Avenue and

it's kind of it's kind of really close to 9inth Street where um you have the Tory shops at the south end of the building. Can you speak real quickly? We're having people hearing you online.

Oh, sorry. Thank you. Um, so this is uh the view from Lynen Avenue at near 9inth Street looking at the south end of the building near Tory Avenue. And you can kind of they thread the needle here with the um with the um depiction of the proposed clock tower there. And so we're looking right there. And then you can kind of see it peeking around behind the tree there. So you can see the box that's back there. This uh next slide shows that similar perspective from Cactus Lane. And then it has the proposed antenna and equipment installation on the accessory building. Um the the upper roof ladder I believe is right here and they've got it stealththed, but I asked the applicant during their presentation to kind of clarify that if that's right. Um but it's the the roof ladder is located in this location and that would be um concealed and locked so that people cannot go up there unless they um have authorization to do so. Uh this is the the view uh from Carperia Avenue across the the about to be a new restaurant uh showing the view of the site which um goes behind the tree and doesn't really give us a perspective on that site. So the pro and the project history uh as I stated before the application was submitted on actually was March 6th uh 2025. Um upon review staff uh asked

for additional items including a revised technical studies addressing RF um uh historical analysis and the clock tower. Um and they were provided by the applicant. The applicant and staff entered coordination regarding the designs that were submitted with staff providing uh several rounds of comments to the applicant to um help them understand the site and to address some of the issues that were identified regarding design and compatibility issues with this with the architectural elements. and then to uh provide try to ensure that uh concealment was provided for all installations. Um at the at the at the October 16th, 2025 ARB meeting, the ARB identified these key issues uh related to the structure. the visual impact to the building's character and frontages, the compatibility findings could not be made with the the design that was being submitted at that time. They wanted a study of um by Verizon of what it would do to their capacity by moving the antennas forward to the center of the building while still meeting project objectives. and they wanted to them to demonstrate that improvements could not diminish historical integrity of the building and the clock tower. And they expressed concern regarding existing deferred maintenance, citing the non-functioning clock and lighting and crumbling masonry around the bre uh building facade. Um the the applicant con conducted its review of the the um

the comments by the ARB and they returned back with uh a revised project proposal to the um ARB. And this include um reduction in the size of the the the number of clock um of antennas outside the the clock tower and um they brought the height down on the um the tower fans. They took off the one they took off one previously proposed antenna that was going to sit on top of that second fin and mimic that fin. They took that off and they lowered the height of the um of the of the installation that I just pointed out to you next to the clock tower. That antenna um the antenna installation at the south corner of the building was moved back from the corner of the building which is where it was located before. It was located all the way up to the edge of the building. So it made like a tower effect um at the corner as seen from the Tory shops and uh the south end of the building. So they they changed that by moving it back. Um and they reduced its height slightly from 8' 10 in to 8t uh 4 in. Uh the proposed six-foot panel antennas, two at each uh antenna array location, were removed from the uh that was part of the version of the ARB um first meeting proposal. They replaced them with a different smaller antenna model that only requires one antenna at each array location. Uh so they went from proposing uh six of these down to three total antennas of a smaller size. Uh the equ the equipment enclosure was

increased in height um from 7 ft to 8 ft and so that uh uh that it could better accommodate um structural improvements requiring an H frame that would go underneath the equipment. Um and then one new wireless electrical meter was included inside the electrical box that that uh um the number of wireless radios were reduced from three to six total for that proposal. The ARB came back with um a recommendation for approval with uh additional comments about the design of the project. They wanted to see uh revisions to address inaccuracies in the roof plans and architectural elevations. Uh they wanted to see the the um antennas set back further from the edge of the building to be to better complement the clock tower and reducing the size of the installations at the south side of the building. the antenna and equipment enclosures to reduce the visual impacts adjacent to uh the Tory gate shops area. Uh they wanted to see the applicant extend the shielding enclosures to entirely enclose the antennas to ensure that they are not visible from ad adjacent vantage points anywhere around the building including the street side and from adjacent buildings. and moving the lower roof access letter behind uh the existing fence at the rear of the building to reduce visual clutter. The revised project has taken into account the ARB recommendations as follows. The clock tower and the clock will be repaired and painted as part of the project. Uh the revised roof plan

which is a part of your um planning commission packet shows that um the the inaccuracies in the previous depictions of the existing clock tower and proposed new antenna setbacks from the edge of the north corner roof line um have been met. The clock tower antennas set back from the edge of the building and include a consistent crown features to better uh complement the clock towers's architectural articulation which was um one of the early comments from staff that uh the ARB supported and moved forward. The clock tower antennas further reduced um the si in size from um 5t wide to 4 feet wide and lowered in height uh again by 4 in to be 11 in lower than the um adjacent clock tower fins which before it was u um it was it was um 6 in below or excuse me 5 in below um and to total maximum height of 25 ft 5 in above ground. Continuing on, um as a result in the uh the overall vertical height and width of the enclosures, they also reduced the visual widening effect of the originally proposed installation. um to explain that for just briefly. Um when you put a taller box next to other um articulated downward tower, you put in a wide one at the bottom, it serves to widen the effect of the visual for it takes away from especially in a small tower, you start to widen it out, it gets wider and it becomes less of a

tower. Uh the applicant responded to that by removing the one installation off the one wing and reducing it down quite a bit and backing it away from the edge. So it' be it would appear to be more away from the actual tower and provide distance um vertically and horizontally. Um so to accommodate the new alpha and gamma installations and I'm referring to the clock tower installations. Um, a new ray cap radio would be installed uh to the rear of the existing clock tower. Um, and it would be hidden from view by the new enclosures. All installations are to to be hidden from views. As I just said, overall the applicant has uh proposed that the area of construction be reduced from the originally proposed 305 square ft uh by 60 uh 6 36 square ft to 269 square ft. The conditions of approval also require maintenance uh and CDED monitoring of the work to ensure protection of the clock tower and to be ensure that to ensure that uh installations um including that south antenna are uh done with um permits structural standards so that the city engineers reviewing it and um and planning staff will be reviewing it and that's part of the conditions of approval. um for the regulatory setting. Um moving into the the Spectrum Act, the Federal Spectrum Act, uh section 6409 establishes a shot clock for state and local governments u to approve or deny applications for the modification or installation of certain wireless facilities. If a local authority u the city in this case fails

to act within the specified time frame, the application can be deemed granted effectively streamlining the deployment of wireless infrastructure which is the intent of the spectrum act. Currently the shot clock expires on the date of the the um this planning commission hearing um actually tomorrow. Approval of the uh conditional use permit would ensure that the project complies with the Carpa general plan and municipal code uh regulations regarding telecommunications while complying with the requirements of the spectrum act. Um, if there was a denial of the project, it cannot limit the wireless uh service as determined by the FCC in a coordinate in coordination with the telecommunications providers for Carperia zoning code consistency. The applicable standards for this project include uh um a granting of a permit will not be detrimental the to the health, safety, and general welfare of the neighborhood. The proposed use must be consistent with the uh coastal land use plan, the general plan, and uh any applicable specific plans. And we also have that the proposed use will not cause substantial environmental damage or um in avoidantly or substantly injure fish, wildlife or their habitat. uh any other conditions which are reasonably necessary to protect the public peace, health, safety and general welfare. Um Carperia Municipal Code section 15 uh 5610 wireless communications purpose and intents. The uh I'm going to do water now.

The applicable standards are preserve the small town character in all physical features of the city. Protect against visual impacts in order to preserve the area's unique coastal resources. uh allow for development of wireless communications facilities located designed to provide adequate reception in the city considering its unique size and environmental constraints and to avoid creation of of or maintenance of areas of the city in which acceptable wireless communication services cannot be provided. Uh to treat wireless communication service providers equally and without regard to the technology upon which they rely. um section 145650 locating location criteria for all wireless uh facilities. The standards applicable here uh wireless communications providers are encouraged to construct and site their wireless communications facilities in anticipation of colllocation and similar facilities on the same site. New wireless communications facility but shall be located a minimum distance of 1,320 feet or a quarter mile from the closest facility and the location of wireless communications facilities are encouraged in they're supposed to be the word commercial industrial and utility zones. Um in uh section 145670 development criteria um this really gets to the gist of the installation. The addition of new architectural features on an existing building to conceal antenna shall not be negatively affect the architectural design of the building uh or how it blends into the environment. Building mounted facility shall architecturally blend with the

structure um to avoid the appearance of a wireless facility. Colors, textures, and material shall be consistent with those on the existing structure. All mechanical equipment associated with the operation of the wireless communications facility shall be located within um or concealed um in conformance with Oh, which lost myself there for a second. No exposed conduit, wire, cables or similar impertinances shall be permitted uh other than the facilities in that are located within or concealed by the structure on which the facility is located. um general plan policies that speak to this in the land use element, community design element, sub area 2 and 2a. Uh the open space, recreation and conservation elements speak on preserving small town character, providing services to um businesses uh in which could be extended to wireless services. Architectural designs based on historic regional building types uh should be encouraged and preserve and enhanced. character um new development that may disturb um in this case historically valuable sites. The careful review and then the noise and circulation element has applicable objectives and policies to address address potential construction and operations of the facility. Um in regards to the environmental review of the project, the applicant submitted two um analyses of potential uh that address the potential impacts to historic um structures in this case and

radio frequency engineering analysis. Um the the building is determined to be by Okay, so they let me back up. The applicant's consult consultant is a historical arch an architectural historian um and reviewed the project for whether it qualified for registration as such under the National Register of Historic Places and the criterion A. um the California uh register of historical resources under criterion one and a city structure of merit which is criterion six of those the California register criterion. The consultant concluded that the project will not impair um a material impair the historic resource since it will adhere to the secretary of interior standards for rehabilitation and guidelines for rehabilitating historic structures. Um all that said, it is that document is essentially the building and construction engineering document that um has to be followed when it's um whenever a designated historic structure is being considered for alteration. The radio frequency engineering analysis um submitted by the applicant was reviewed by staff and we we found that it demonstrates that the the the revised facility which approval was was would be granted will continue to meet all applicable FCC emission standards. However, at the same time, the conditions of approval address these issues to to more to greatly ensure that

they will be implemented during the project. So, um the conditions of approval in attachment a exhibit 3 to your staff report in requires long-term repair and maintenance of the antennas and the clock tower. As we discussed earlier, uh building and public works permits are required for meeting structural engineering and for work in the public right ofway. Um circulation plan will be required to minimize construction impacts to businesses and visitors. And community development um department will be monitoring the work to ensure protection of the clock tower. And we're also requiring that before it uh the utility comes into operation, we will be uh having um a independent consultant verify the initial RF emission um related to the project, excuse me, and sure ensure that they comply with the FCC standards which speak to public health in regards to um and um telecommunications facilities. So staff's recommendation on this project is that you adopt resolution PC2602, thereby approving project 25-2336 CUPCDP to allow installation of a new wireless communications facility on an existing multi-tenant commercial building, including the installation of 3 4t wide, 6' 5-in tall wireless telecommunications antennas, three wireless radios, three surge protection radios and associated rooftop equipment and outdoor screening materials to visually shield the antennas. accept the SQUA exemptions

proposed in the staff report and adopt the findings in attachment A exhibit one and the conditions of approval as proposed in attachment A exhibit 3 which is again staff's recommendations or direct staff otherwise is listed below. That concludes my presentation. the applicant is here um and is ready to make an um a presentation at your discretion.

Okay. Thank you. Are there questions by the commission? I have one or maybe one um it's under development criteria uh the colors, textures and materials of the new enclosures for the wireless facilities are to be consistent with the existing structure. Correct.

Yes. One thing I have sometimes observed in um some uh installations is that although the colors may be somewhat similar, the apparent requirement for permeability or the you know actual structures used to enclose wireless facilities. Well, there might be an attempt to be the same color are not really identical and you can sometimes clearly see that they're not identical. So, I'm wondering about the condition and I will be asking the applicant if this is um acceptable that the exterior surface be identical to what is there and if that's stuckco that means stucco on the outside for example. Yes.

So, I'll be asking that question and perhaps you can answer whether that's the case.

Our understanding of of the material that's being used is it's a it's a vinyl uh that's been infused with fiberglass and textured to look like stucco and can be colored identically to the stucco so that it com that it provides complete stealth. um the the crowning structure is part of the molding. They they go ahead and um produce that. So, as you look back, and I'll let u the applicant speak to this as well. Um if we go back to uh excuse my run here, see if I one that's got the closest look, I guess, is this one. Let me zoom in on that. But then I I'll let Celeste McGuinness, you know, kind of speak to this with more authority. Um I do know that the in the history of you can see the crown that extends right there that they're trying they're matching this crown up here um and the one up here. Um that the uh technology for stealthing these enclosures is getting better. Um, and I've seen ones that in the past that I understand your concern about, too. So, but, um, they've demonstrated that they that they have the technology and, um, if it doesn't meet the conditions of approval in the project description, we're going to work with them until it does. And that would be

and and just to add to this chair Allan right this is typically the type of thing that we would look at and ask the applicant to come to the final ARB meeting with sufficient details to show you know these final kind of colors materials textures that sort of thing. So, I mean th those are the types of details that typically get ironed out during final ARB, but um you know, at the commission's discretion, you're certainly welcome to to include additional language that specifically requires that. I'm wondering within the context of the permit that we can grant this evening whether uh the conditions of approval could require it to return to us say at two or threeear intervals for a look at consistency of the materials to assure the compatibility that is required

uh through the chair or chair Allen. I I think that is an option. I I want to go back and look through the conditions because I I have a recollection that we put some kind of recurring monitoring language in there, but I don't recall we did, but it wasn't to planning commission level. Okay. Yeah. Yeah.

Okay. That that's all the questions I have at the moment. Oh, you know, I do have one other and and and that's simply st I know there was some discussion of it, but um uh and I know the applicant presented information on the um potential for um placement of these facilities across Carpy Avenue uh at some of the commercial buildings uh there. um and his staff fully uh uh supportive of their conclusions that uh this is the necessary location to provide service.

Yeah, there the analysis that they did um appears to be comprehensive. Um they contacted property owners. They um they are limited by uh line direct line of service for 5G antennas and I'll let them explain that in better detail. Uh their RF engineers here as well. Uh but they appear to have followed u um the requirements by law on how on doing alternatives um uh investigations and they they have a map that shows uh um that they're going to show that shows all the locations and the reasons why they um they did not choose that site. They got to have willing land owners. U it's not a proper installation area. It couldn't be done. So um they they did follow that requirement and it's uh uh explained very well in their in their location document. Um

okay and and one other thing there is the uh statutory desire for sites to be selected that are suitable for collocation. I'd suggest that this is a site that will never be suitable for collocation of future facilities and that seems to me be a concern once approves at a particular location. So just uh can staff can can comment on uh our ability to preclude any additional collocation of facilities at this site?

Um that is that is a good question. uh they're going to with the conditions of approval will require that the wiring be made sufficiently you know the the enclosures be made sufficient in size to allow a collocation. Um, it will be up to the applicant of any future proposal to come in and make their case on how that could work with our our city's telecommunications um um regulations because they have to meet all those regulations too on a separate facility.

So, okay. So, so that that's addressed by um conditions of approval number 25. This is collocation. The applicant shall avail its facility to other wireless communication providers. That's correct. So, that's where that's at. well doesn't give them a permit if I may clarify um um through the chair.

I guess the question is is there space within the proposed structures to allow for collocation or would that depend upon the nature of additional antennas? What's the likelihood of that? You know, I'm only an expert on local wireless as far as engineering uh antennas that could fit into the the um the enclosures that are being recommended here. Uh that would be another question for the applicant. So just any addition

about the two parking spaces for the health food store. They are required to have two spaces and they're usurping one for this uh telecommunications project. How does that work for the health food store? No, I need the applicant to step up for this one, but it's my understanding that's already a no parking zone in that location where they intend to. That's my understanding from the application material. So that's something we would need to clarify and um and ensure that um we keep the parking spaces that are allotted. So

I mean that could be a part since it's part of our project description. we can make sure that that we're not affecting the businesses which is also what's required in our our our um circulation plan that we're requiring. So I think that will be a vehicle for us to work out parking if there's an impact. Okay. John, was a structural analysis of the building done?

Yes, there was. And the anal well the the analysis was of the location sites themselves on the ability of the building to hold the structure that's being proposed and then the they the they provided the the frames that would uh that are being proposed in that location. I need to fall back to despite that, the city would would be looking for the applicant to submit fully engineered plans that would meet the building code that if any issues regarding the structure um are applicable in that building that um the city would require that that be addressed before anything could get constructed before permit would be issued for building

and they're they they say that they will not disrupt the businesses at all. Is that correct? We have a condition of approval that requires u actually the circulation condition that I mentioned requires that that uh businesses that to the extent possible they're not going to have to adjust their hours and they're not going to interfere with people coming into their businesses during regular business hours. So, circulation plan will have to figure out how how to address there will probably be scaffolding on on a side of the building. They'll have to address how pedestrians are going to get in and out of the restaurant and the stores um and present it to the city for public works and community development department review

uh through the chair. I'd also just remind the commission uh that this is also something that the you know the tenants and Verizon and the landlord can can discuss and negotiate amongst themselves as well if there are going to be any kind of disruption of of business activity temporarily during construction. Right. Some of this is kind of a private landlord tenant type arrangement to to a degree.

There any other questions? Alexandra. Okay. Um, can you better explain to me how the applicant demonstrated that the specific configuration represents the least intrusive means for addressing their service objectives um particularly as we look as required by our uh one of our CMC codes which you had already discussed but um I want to make sure where I'm going with this is I want to make sure that this is not merely a convenient um location or a preferred one because when I was looking through the scope of alternatives analysis which you referred to earlier. I believe you stated that that that was done by Verizon. Correct.

That is correct. And it that's okay. You go ahead.

Okay. Okay. Um through Chair Allen um Commissioner Vanwerp uh yes we reviewed their study and it meets the requirements. uh we asked them for clarifications and they provided a revised document with more details as to the conclusions that were made. Um there was a site um this kind of speaks to your question that's why I mention it. Uh there was a site up at Genia Place that um uh they were asked to review. They've submitted uh the reason for not choosing that location as well. there's an existing uh facility within a quarter mile um and it doesn't give them the line of sight and distance that they require for their 5G signals in that uh in an area that they identified in their mapping as being a deficient zone for indoor and incar um um uh signals. Um, as far as the ideal location, it wasn't it we l we asked them the um the ARB asked them to look at moving the antennas back away from the corner of the building so it would be less visible. Um Verizon looked at that and determined that it would their signals couldn't breach the uh parapit enough to get down into serving people on street levels or in their cars. That's how direct 5G line of service is. Um, it seemed to be the a good approach to stealthing the antennas was to conceal them as an architectural feature. As far as it being the best, highest, and best location, um, it's kind of

subjective, but they they did meet all the requirements that we have. Um and so we are recommending approval.

Okay. Um I can ask them more specifically but in the alternatives analysis what I have showed I think 13 sites that were looked at. out of the 13 um and you know I I apologize but my uh the the staff report I think there's a pageionation issue so I had to I don't have it right in front of me since I don't have it online right now but but when I was reviewing it I reviewed all 13 sites um and it looked like uh three or four were due to a pitched roof, so it couldn't have been a site anyway. Then the remainder, it was a landlord issue for one reason or another. And then that led us down to one out of 13. So my question is how many rooftops were actually looked at overall and and will the applicant be going through that in more detail?

I I I think that's an appropriate question for the applicant. Absolutely.

Sure. And then for the city, um, and maybe this is for the applicant as well, but we have the Veterans Memorial Hall in the library. That's county property, correct? Couldn't that be a uh I guess I'd have to ask Verizon, but it would be awfully nice if there was a way if it works out with their frequencies. That would be ideal because then the city would be able to obviously collect the rent from it. So, I'm really kind of zeroing in on this aspect of it. So, I thought I'd ask you the questions first and that gives Verizon a chance.

Sure. Thank you. Yeah. We we didn't um propose as staff any different locations knowing that the owner of the property and Verizon are in an agreement to propose it on this site. And so our our our task in this regards is to review a project for a conditional use permit for that property. Uh we looked at the alternatives they looked at per per law and it it seems to have done what it was supposed to do. Uh but that's a legitimate question again for the applicant.

Okay. Okay. I'll I'll wait for that. And then um yeah, I am I am I'm I'm a little concerned about one issue and I watched both of the ARB meetings and at the the first one I think in October that I watched we had quite a few people here. Second one, nobody from the public. So, I'm trying to figure out if if that's an issue for us procedurally because I think that the commission um needs to in their findings of approval make sure that there was adequate noticing. So, I'm just wanted to reaffirm so that I I know that that's been done.

Yes, we have our procedures per the municipal code. Uh we followed them. We got our list from the um of APNS and occupants u from the county assessor's office. We printed we we have the applicant bring the labels, but we go through I went through and checked every single parcel to be sure that it was addressed and it had uh a mailing label that would go out to them. Um and then we mail out the the notice of the meeting to to them through those requirements and it's checked by um administrative staff and and ensured that it goes out on time. So in my experience, yes, we it's a very important thing that we do public noticing. We we notice the owners within 300 feet and occupants within 100 feet of the project and that's per city statute per the municipal code.

If I may add, there are other noticing uh requirements imposed by law that you also presumably followed. We we follow our requirements for public just for the members of the public. Could you specify what that is? It's a it's well for this project, for an ARB meeting, uh for this meeting, those are the requirements. There are no outside requirements to be met yet until we have a for this this one is uh we submit a notice of exemption for the environmental review. I'm just talking about notices of hearing that are available to the public.

Oh, yes. In our I'm sorry. Thank you, Chair Allen. Uh they're posted in the newspaper and in the um uh the kiosk box outside at the library. Um we also post our meeting agendas and notices on our city website and uh more recently are leveraging social media channels through our PIO, public information officer to to get word out there through Facebook, Instagram and and so forth. So we go above and beyond what the legal requirements are for noticing. So that the tenants were all properly noticed for I don't think both ARBs I don't think we can guarantee that every tenant is noticed.

That's right. Okay. It's a quirk of how the noticing comes from or the labels come from the county assessor's office. Uh but we make every effort to get the word out there. And I too wondered why we had a you know a healthy turnout for the first meeting but but no members of the public attend the second one.

Okay. All right. Um I'm also let's see. Did you did you evaluate for the the potential cumulative impacts? I know we talked about collocation, but um is there have I guess I'm concerned this is this is maybe a broader issue, but um I guess it has to do more with the SQUA exemption. Um h have we are have have we evaluated and thought of the combined effect of similar rooftop wireless facilities over time in the downtown core in particular because I know there's a density issue for the service to actually work.

Yes. Uh, as mentioned before, we have a section of of our code that requires there to be a quarter mile distance between facilities, colllocated facilities, which could have multiple installations on them. Uh, the RF analysis is a a type of cumulative analysis. So they make sure that the signal is appropriate to the setting to in regards to FCC standards and I'll let them speak to that because they have their engineer here. But in reviewing the analysis that's in the staff report, um it's it appears to demonstrate that those rules have been um addressed. And yet we took our our conditions of approval a little bit further to add in um independent engineering monitoring first before it goes active uh to make sure it's at the right level and then um regular check-ins with with staff as part of the conditions of approval to make sure that nothing's changed that our settings haven't uh changed. Great.

That's a good question. Thank you. Thank you. Any further questions of staff? Glenn,

one quick one, I promise. Um the um part of this project uh thanks to all of the efforts of staff and ARB includes um you know repair of the clock tower uh painting of the clock tower and according to the conditions of approval the facade of the building will be repaired and painted. I'm just curious about the scope of that. I, you know, I've heard and I really, you know, about crumbling um masonry or whatever. So, when we say we're painting and repairing the clock tower and the facade, is that the Lynen Avenue um facade? Is that the entire building? Does it include the Carpentry Avenue facing part of the facade? Just curious what the what staff's understanding and the applicant's understanding is of the scope of that work.

Do you have the condition of approval number on there? Condition number five. It's on page uh three of the conditions in the staff report.

Thank you. Let's just if we could take a just a look at that and see if we can Oh, damn. through the chair. Commissioner Lef fevers, the condition as it's currently written isn't more specific than the facade and the clock tower. So I would I would say at minimum our expectation would be the Lynen Avenue facade in its entirety. Um certainly open to ideas if the commission thinks we need to go above and beyond that, but that would certainly be the most visible, you know, elevation of the building. and what what I think we were concerned with trying to address.

Okay, thank you. That's all my questions. There any additional questions of staff? Okay, seeing none, I'll invite the applicant or the applicant's representative to address us. Oh, here we go. And if you'd uh please uh let us know who you are.

Hi, good evening. Um, I'm Celeste McInness. I'm from Centerline Communications on behalf of Verizon Wireless. Um, and this is Josh Erlick and he's from Verizon. He's the RF engineer. So, um, I do have a presentation and I'm going to kind of adjust it to try to touch base a little bit more in depth on some of the concerns. If I miss some of them, I'm I'm here for questions and to kind of not elaborate more on ones that Brett has already discussed. Do you want chairs to sit? I'm fine.

Okay, thank you. Um, but the main reason that Verizon wants to bring this site is to bring broadband services for underserved areas, provide safety for the community, especially at times when network is overloaded, and provide emergency services with tools to run operations appropriately. Um, this the site is important for public safety and communications and I just appreciate the time being able to speak. Oh, let's see.

Okay, I didn't realize I moved it. Sorry about that. Um, the first slide I'm going to be showing here is the coverage maps. And there is a little uh graph up at the top that has green which is in building coverage, yellow which is in vehicle coverage and then red is the outdoor coverage. On the left side you can see where the what the current um coverage is and right here is where the proposed location is and then after the installation this is the area for the proposed location. This is a broader view. Oh, I didn't realize I scrolled down too far. Um, and so the second one just shows it up closer. Um, just so you can kind of see that. Um, and and like Brett did mention, we did provide an RF report to the submitt that shows um what the coverage is on that and that we're in compliance. Um this slide just goes over the municipal code compliance and things that we have done and things that are in compliance with the code. Um the zoning the site being where it's located is a um location that's approved uh or it's a sorry I don't know why I can't talk. Um it's a recommended location. The height we're not proposing any additional height. the design and screening. The antennas are concealed with architecturally compatible screening. It is the FRP that was mentioned before and we do screen and paint to match what's already there. Um we have for the placement the parapit mounted antennas are consistent with the city design standards. The visual impact we really reduced and worked with the city on reducing that um just to have a better visual impact. uh the location. We did try to minimize everything that we could and then as well as we needed to be at

least a quarter of a mile away from another facility. Um I do have some photo sims here and Brett did share them and this shows the existing in the top left corner. Um the bottom left corner shows the location of where it's at and just for reference. And then we have our first proposal, a second proposal on the bottom and then the top right is our final of of how that looks of the clock tower. Um you can see down Lynen Avenue the back side. We did end up enclosing um the FRP screening just so from any side of the anywhere you view it um you don't see the antennas. This is the backside um off of Cactus Avenue and you can see the first prop or the existing um what it looks like right now, the first proposal, the second proposal and the current one. And we did move the ladder. There's a ladder right here. We did move it around the corner upon recommendation. Um, and as far as a parking spot goes, we just typically will have it listed in our drawings of Verizon will have listed in their drawings for emergency parking, but it's not something that's taking up any parking spots. It's I I mean, we'll park in the street if there's an emergency. Uh, it's just it's not something that happens hopefully often or ever needed, but they do like to have know where they can park if there is an emergency. Um and then this is down the street a little bit more. um looking at the back side of of the clock tower with you know current and then the proposed and then this one which when it was showed before I you know I do walk the streets this right here is kind of in the way or this tree sorry is in the way of seeing the

after but the proposed the view is not um we really did Ryzen tried to minimize it. um my alternative site list that I do have. Um I understand that as as someone who lives here, you guys have ideas and things that would like to be suggested and Eugenia Place was one of the ones that the ARB did recommend last time and we did look at that and it's just too close to an existing location. Um as far as going from the top one all the way down, um let's see. Verizon did review a wide range of existing buildings, towers, and potential new facilities located in the surrounding area to improve wireless coverage and support reliable emergency communications. Each site was evaluated based on location, technical performance, property availability, and compatibility with surrounding uses. Some locations were not suitable because they were too far from the area experiencing service issues while others could not be pursu pursued due to property availability or technical limitations. After extensive outreach and and evaluation, no alternative site was identified that could adequately meet the coverage needs. Um the first three were candidates that were very interested at one point and we've visited we we've tried working with them one thing or another it didn't work through the rest there was a lot of just landlords are not interested. So, it could be a perfect location, but if a landlord is not interested, then there's nothing we can do. Or if we don't get a response, and when we don't get a response, we do reach back out multiple times. Um, whether it's by email, if we have an email, a phone number, but we don't want to be intrusive or if it's a letter that we send out just of intest. Um, there was a county property that we did and in reaching out to the county

through email and the phone number, we just didn't have anyone that was willing to help us find who we needed to speak with on that property. So, I don't have that list of who was actually spoken with or emails that went out, but that can that is something that we did work on. Um, and then this is just a map of the locations that were viewed just to kind of see generally the green right here is is the proposed location. And so we looked at um different areas and that's what um you know we have a willing landlord at this location. So that did make a difference in moving forward. the timeline of the project. Uh we started looking in the spring of 2024 um to fill this service gap and um the radio frequency engineer did review the locations and we you know there was discussions on yes the roof pitch because some of them just are not going to work for antennas. Um and then letters of interest were sent out um to anyone that was that fell within the range that could possibly work. And again the current property owner showed interest. Um the the planning was submitted in March of 2025 and we've been working with the planning department um on any revisions that were needed and additional design changes just to try to meet what would work for for everyone that's here. Um and then there was the ARB meeting in October and another one in December and then we're here for the the planning commission now. Um uh ju just in conclusions uh in conclusion, sorry. Um I appreciate the commission's time, staff's time, and the community's participation in this process. We do review and read, um any of the letters that come in. We try to work with what we can. Um and so I just I do appreciate that. Uh we've worked carefully with the staff and the ARB to address concerns where feasible while

maintaining the functionality required to provide the service. Um but based on the project's compliance with the municipal code, the design refine refinements made in response to feedback and the demonstrated service need uh you know we just definitely um you know respectfully request the planning commission rec recommend approval of the project subject to convent conditions of approval. So thank you for your time. Are you available for questions? Yes, absolutely. I have a question. Jane, let's start at this corner. Um, these alternative sites you looked at, other than the ones that are just not feasible. Mhm.

How much effort did you put into getting in touch with people who didn't respond or didn't hesitated or whatever because it it seems like it could be a more concerted effort. But I don't know. What did you go through?

Oh gosh, excuse me. Um, we typically will send out a letter, two weeks later we'll do a certified letter and then we'll start looking for emails, phone numbers. We'll reach out if we have those phone numbers, emails, um, send another certified letter and then we just kind of evaluate at that point if we've had any interest um, or if we need to keep reaching out. Um, we do have people that live close by that will try to stop by if it's like in a neighborhood um, not at home at residential homes. We didn't look at that, but um that we'll stop by and just see if hey, you know, if there's any interest. I

I guess I would ask you to to have been more assertive about this. Uh plus maybe bigger compensation for some nearby sites. I don't know. Um yeah, that's the main question I had. So, thanks. Okay. The commissioners have any additional questions? John. Yeah. I I asked about a structural analysis and just you you evidently did a structural analysis.

Absolutely. That was one of the requirements for um planning submitt. We had to we ended up having to resubmit one. Um again once it goes into building we'll it'll have to be if there's any reinforcements need it's going to have to be approved through the building department. But yes we did submit uh structural analysis. So if so if a part of this building is deemed structurally unsafe, then what do you do?

It depends on what that that part is that's unsafe if it's something that Verizon's able to to remedy. Um but they're not going to build on a structure that is not structurally sound. No, because there's a lot of I've heard a lot of uh comment about this the the building has been let go for a long time and the owner is very old and it's an issue that and and then we've got a health food store there,

right? And you got to I mean this is not referring to RF but this is going to be detrimental to their business just off this cuff. So detrimental just having the wire wireless antennas there. Yeah. Okay. I mean it's it's I'm not entering into the argument about our app uh at all. It's just that a certain percentage of their clientele will probably stop going there. So, how do you how do you compensate for that?

I mean, personally, I don't know how you would compensate for someone I I can't speak. I haven't worked on a project where that has been the the outcome. Definitely don't want that to be the outcome. Oh, okay. That's all I got. We are where we are. But I'm, as far as I'm aware, it's just one county building. Could What? But what was the county building you looked into? Oh, let's see. That be the vet. It was on 941 Walnut Avenue.

The veterans. That's the veterans building, which did have a wireless facility at one time many, many years ago. But I can't find any evidence that it's still in operation. Yeah. I guess my only comment would be someone at the county is woefully uh gent not at least responding and saying no, we don't want it or we do. It seems that somebody at there should have been able to find somebody at the county to be responsive. I'm uh kind of appalled at that one

and it it very well um when we found the one interested candidate, we start focusing on that one candidate and don't continue reaching out and we did end up reaching out after conversations with with Brett at the beginning on needing a strong alternative and it's like we've reached out so we wanted to reach out again to not every candidate because somewhere already like a no we're absolely absolutely not interested. But the ones that we didn't get contact from, we tried.

I get it. I'm just quite surprised at seeing the county on the list of no response. Um, and then, um, as I said in questions to staff, uh, I've, uh, seen various, uh, wireless facilities where I'm sure good faith attempts have been made to match materials to the existing materials that just have not worked. Sunfade changes the material that you have versus the material that is there. uh aging of the material, changes the color, whatever. Um staff mentioned that uh that techniques may be improving, but I' I'd appreciate your comments on, you know, what you're going to have there and how you anticipate matching it truly to what is there.

Okay. Well, um the screening wall that is being proposed is is uh an FRP. A um Oh, sorry. I always mix up my words. Fiber reinforced plastic. I'm sorry, I always mix that up. It's a lightweight, durable composite material made of pol polymer resin reinforced with fibers, usually fiberglass. Um, it's used that way the antennas can actually penetrate through. Um, because anything different like if we were to match it completely with stucco, it's not going to match or it's not going to be able to penetrate through. um one of the the equipment area in the back. It's going to be more of the match of the building, but as far as the FRP, the screening walls for where the antennas are. Um they're painted and matched as best as possible. Um I don't have an example with me to show, but we've been very successful at matching those um with the color. And especially with Verizon, if they're going to be painting the building and fixing the tower, they're definitely, you know, it's a lot easier to make sure that the colors match.

Okay. And I would hope you wouldn't have any concern with a condition of approval that requires you to return here to so that we can it requires you to return in a couple of years for us to evaluate that the uh screening has still performed its function of matching. Yeah. As a condition of approval. Absolutely. Okay. Yeah. Any questions? Any other questions of the applicants? Okay. No. Okay. Uh well, if you've can finish your presentation, I'll move the I will move on and uh open the uh hearing to the public. Uh beginning with U.

Thank you, Francis Brand. And and I I'll ask you to try to keep your comments to three minutes, please, everybody.

Yes, sir. All right. I'm a longtime supporter of Pacific Health Foods, multi-generational carpenter business that has served our community when we needed them most. During CO and in the years beyond, they showed up for residents in a way that went far beyond commerce. Pacific Health Foods is not just a store. It's a community hub and a trusted gathering place. For that rate, for that reason, I do not understand how the city can agree to place a cellular tower and related equipment on such a cherished and well-used location. This site is uniquely sensitive due to the nature of the business and the trust the community places in it. Uh, locating this Verizon project here feels uh dismissive of the role Pacific Health Foods plays in the health identity and cohesion of carpenter. I would like to ask whether other opport we spoke about this um I'd like to ask whether other options more appropriate have been um considered. for example, the right eight building just down the road that is uh vacant now, the current Smart and Final building just down the road, as well as the uh the county veterans building um which we've now found out has uh previously been used for uh such uh such equipment. Um, additionally, has the county been asking to assist in identifying alternate locations that would avoid placing the infrastructure above beloved community center businesses? If a cellular tower must be placed within town limits, surely there are options that do not uh do not compromise a long-standing local institution. At the very least, if our town is expecting to accept this infrastructure, it should be located on public property so that the community the community can directly benefit from the revenue to improve city services and quality of life. Pacific Health Foods has supported Carpenter for generations. I urge the city to reconsider this

location and to transparently pursue alternatives that better reflect our community values and priorities. That's it. Thank you. Uh thank you. Um, Rose Deacon, are we allowed to ask questions before we comment? I don't know the No, the the procedure is now it it's it's public comment. You can ask a question and we may ask staff to answer it, but you can't directly ask staff to answer a question. Okay. So, ask the questions and we we may or may not ask staff to address it. That's how Thank you for explaining that. Sure.

Hi everybody. Thank you for time. Um, so I have something to say, but I guess I'll ask my longer list of questions now as I listen tonight. So, do we know what year the building was built? I can see around the 30s from old archival aerial images for um, okay, go through your questions and we'll note them.

When was it built? What year was the clock tower built are my questions? And then in regards to studies for structural integrity, um is it the building as a whole or just individual areas on the building and did they bring any of those studies with them today? Um you guys are renting uh mentioning rent. There's rent being paid. I'm curious what that is. Um, and has a health study been done in regards to humans, wildlife, birds, and is there a safe and healthy distance for people working inside of the building directly underneath all of these installations for all of those businesses? Those are questions. Um, hi, my name is Rose Deacon. I'm here in strong support of Pacific Health Foods. For decades, I've watched them serve our community wholeheartedly, staying true to their mission to keeping Carpa healthy while providing a muchneeded gathering place, especially during times of uncertainty. Um, Pacific Health Foods has been an integral part of Carperia since 1991. The historic building that they occupy, including the iconic clock tower, requires careful maintenance and restoration to preserve its character for future generations. The irreversible damage this project could cause to such a long-standing local business that has consistently given back cannot be ignored. Given the already heavy foot traffic in the area, the historic nature of the building, and the ongoing need to maintain its restoration, it's clear this location is not an adequate place for such additions. As a sixth generation carpanian, I respectfully ask the planning commission to consider these impacts carefully and to urge the city to work with the county to identify a more appropriate location. It just seems like there has to be a better option placement wise. Uh the clock tower has been there for nearly a hundred years as far as I can tell. Can we please give it some respect and the protection that it deserves?

Thank you. Okay. Thank you. um we may be able to answer all the questions but one question might be a good uh thing to address uh you know for the public's benefit now and that has to do with uh uh extent of our discretion and potential health effects of RF radiation either staff or council might want to address that one could you repeat that last part I got yes yes you know question was raised whether or not there's any health effect from having RF radiation above the building. Um,

and and and I add to that you may want to talk about our federal law and and what our discretion is or our absence of discretion.

Um, yes, Chair Allen. Uh we are limited by the requirements of the spectrum act as far as uh the amount of time that we are allowed to review the project and in what circumstances we can deny such a project. Um in regards to the RF um emissions and I have the report right here. The way that that is established is by the FCC on what is a safe emission and how far from a the emitter the radio emitter or the cell emitter a human being can come to within that area. So this report talks about the emissions of these installations in terms of who can come close to it and how and there's a there's a map that shows a height level of emissions. And so in that document, they identified the antenna, its emissions, and if it needed to be reduced in power to a level where it would not have negative impacts on people who are going near it. There's also a sign um plan requirement by the FCC that if there are um and I welcome the applicant to help with this if I'm getting any of this muddled, but okay, I got a thumbs up. Um the sign program is for qualified workers to maintain the um antennas so that they know where the emissions are on the rooftop. Uh the purpose of the ladders is to keep people away from uh the rooftop completely so that they don't go near there. And then

the sign program also applies to that along with wired fences to keep people out. Um the implications of denying a project um in regards to an RF emissions document um is is uh not within our purview. It is in the purview of the FCC. Okay. To ju just cut to the chase. The FCC and the federal government says if they meet the emission requirements, we don't substitute our judgment for that. And they do this study. They show how much it is. They say FCC federal government says it's fine below that level. That's what we have and we accept it. We have no discretion.

Chair Allen, if I may. Yeah. Um, it's it's also that if it's demonstrated that they're being denied an a service in an area that has a lack of service, that that's um that's not within our per purview either. Right. Okay. Um, the next speaker I have is Mary uh Doyron. Mary Dyron, excuse me if I didn't pronounce it correctly.

Um, they've already said much of what I was going to say. Um, I've lived here in Carperia since 1981. I can remember Nathan's grandfather's building when I needed to go to a gluten-free diet when we didn't know about gluten-free diet. So, they've been around helping me for a long time. Um, it's been a joy to have them in the community helping us. Um, especially during CO, I felt so safe. It was the only place I ever shopped. So, saying that um I'm concerned that the county cannot be um contacted to find out why we can't have access in a less conspicuous area than our downtown. Um I grew up near Huntington Beach, which is a travesty to go down to now. Um, we're one of the few towns that still has the kind of community feeling that we do that's a beach community. And I just really am hoping that we can kind of keep it that way and not also, you know, impact our businesses. These people have been in our community and helping us for so long. And I think we all need to consider the other businesses in that area. I have concerns about radio frequency coming through their ceilings. I I mean, I'm no expert or engineer, but we need to really think about where we're putting this um facility. Thank you.

The next speaker slip is Diane Nolles. Is Diane Nullles here? Okay. Uh, Rick Jeffers. Hi, I'm Rick Jeffers. Uh, thank you for having me. Um I'm not an expert either on you know some of the technical details but I you know FCC may say that well this is okay and that's okay but um I've seen studies and research and there's plenty of it out there that you know within proximity of the cell tower there's you know headaches, dizziness, uh sleep disturbances along with a list of you know quite a few other things. And you know, I'm 72. I I feel like I'm 32. I've been buying my food at the Pacific Health Food Store for, you know, I've lived in this community for 50 years. And um I've I've been I I know that anytime I need something for my health that's recommended by my doctor, uh Nathan brings it in. No questions answered. No questions asked. And um you know it's it's it's a community you know the uh uh we're a family here you know this whole community is a family uh you know I mean there's always conflict interest I mean if if Verizon is is a a corporation is is paying rent for to put a sale tower. Why don't they find a place in in the city that they're paying the city the money rather than a a private property owner? you know, uh why doesn't the city benefit and it'd be put in a place where it's uh um uh where it it's not in harm's way of

anybody, you know. Um uh you know, and and you know, the thing is is that it is a gathering place. People eat their lunch out there. Kids, you know, uh families bring their children there. Children, they all sit at the tables. They're eating their their their their lunches there and uh you know uh they they don't put cell towers near schools because uh children have a a at a young age have a thin cranial uh uh makeup and and so they don't put cell towers near schools. Well, what about the children? There's families there on the weekends on the during the weeks. There's people there with their children and they're all out in front eating their lunch and and having you know smoothies and and different things, you know, and and uh you know uh it's the same thing as as you know putting it near a school. They don't put them near schools. they don't you know so I I don't see a reason that there's not more of an effort being put forth to find uh an alternative place where it's not near a business especially where we buy our fresh fruits and vegetable our healthy foods and and and uh you know I mean do we have to leave Carpentry where we live to to go uh to you know to another city to buy healthy food because we don't want to you know what about the contamination of the food itself self or the supplements, you know. Um, you know, uh um there isn't a another health food store anywhere for miles that's even close to the this is a unique store that that carries a complete spectrum of everything needed for a healthy life. And um you can even go into Santa Barbara and there, you know, there's, you know, number of different stores that have organic health food items.

Could you wrap it up for us, please? Still not even close enough to to the wide spectrum that we have at at Pacific Health Food. So, I just uh want to make all those points known. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh next speaker I have is Jeffrey Jensen. Good evening. Thank you for having me. Jeffrey Dean Jensen, Canolino School, class of 1994 and proud recipient of the um proud parent of a Canolino reader bumper sticker. Mrs. Green may have been the one to give me my test. Um, why don't we just build a 50ft lighthouse on the on the bluffs and disguise the disguise this this antenna is that? Why don't we Why don't we put it on top of the 18story proposed uh apartment building over at the Frontier Communications Place? I mean, this place is wonderful. And all of these things that keep happening in this town, we're in danger of losing the charm that makes it why people want to come here. We're pricing out the people who make it what it is. We're running people out of it because of all this stuff that's happening. Can't park downtown anymore. there's all this stuff happening that's gone through these different um review boards and things and it's just really disappointing uh to see a place that we've called home and that we've made our home and enjoyed as it is. This clock tower is exceptional as it is. And if you if you guys know what I'm talking talking about, you know what I'm talking about. Um, some of me and my friends have a slogan that we've coined, keep carpshaw. And if you know what that means, you know what that means. It doesn't mean keep it disgusting. It means keep it ours. And I implore you to not uh bow to corporate greed. I know that's not

y'all's um purview because it is the landlord's decision. But I strongly implore you to uh suggest that this can't go where it is. We've had enough things uh that are irreversible happen here. Uh vacant lots that were beautiful things that once it's in there, it's nature will take it back over someday, but we won't be here to see it. And uh I'm kind of I'm pretty over it. So that's how I feel. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Um I'm not sure. Is it Lorenzo Nola? Nicola. Lorenzo. Nola. No. Um Nathan Null. Thank you, chair, commissioners, and staff. Um, just a couple little things before I get into my little bit here. Um, as far as structural stuff, the accessory building that's on the back half of our store, we are the ones that redid that whole building. Structurally, it's not sound to hold any equipment. We have both a walk-in fridge and a walk-in freezer back there. um the equipment to run that, the compressors had to go up on the main roof to be out because of the weight of them because it's not structurally sound. And even if they were to make it structurally sound to put equipment on top of that accessory building, it would hinder our business quite a bit. Um because that used to be a tin shed, if anybody remembers back there, and we basically just framed it in and uh made it part of the store. Uh that's just one of my comments about that building. Um, as far as one other comment to the ladder that they have moved to the side, that's where we receive all of our pallets and loads that come in. So, if they put a ladder there, it would obstruct how we get all of our product into the store as well. Um, no one's talked to us as far as how it would affect us as a business just on a day-to-day scale with what they're doing there at the store. Um, especially with some of the things that I know they're going to have to do. being in that building for 20 plus years, it's there's a lot of different things that are going to have to be done to that building for them to be able to do the S towers, put the stuff on the accessory building, and it's definitely going to hinder our business. Um, but

uh me and my wife Whitney own the store here. Um, third generation, family-owned um served the community for decades. Our customers shop with us because they trust us. That trust is grounded in shared values and wellness and environmental awareness and precaution. Our primary concern with Verizon's proposed telecommunications installation is the direct and irreversible risk to our business. While we understand that regulatory agencies rely on established science and compliance standards, the reality of operating the community-based retail business is different. Customer perception drives everything. Many of our customers are not persuaded by regulatory assurances alone, particularly when it comes to visible 5G or telecom communication infrastructures. A visible attenna visible antenna associated with a family-owned health food store would, in our belief, erode customer trust, reduce foot traffic, and cause long-term loss of sales. This is not speculative. It's based on decades of direct engagement with our customer base. Even a small business sustained decline in customers would impact us quite a bit. Unlike large corporations, we cannot absorb ongoing losses or recover easily from harm or loss. We are currently in discussions with our landlord about taking on the burden of repairing and improving some of the building with a goal of preserving the property's character at the key entrance to Carpentura. Our landlord has been assured by Verizon that the project will will not negatively impact the building occupants or community. However, from the perspective of a small consumer face facing business, we do not see how loss we do not see how loss of trust, reputational harm or gradual decline in customers could ever be predicted, prevented or guaranteed against. For these reasons, we respectfully submit this, sorry, we respectfully submit this that this is not an appropriate or compatible location for Verizon's proposed project. Beyond the immediate financial impact,

the proposal also places our family's future and community at risk. Pacific Health Foods represents generations of investment, commitment, and commitment. If the business is harmed, it affects not only the storefront, but our ability to remain rooted here. At this time, we do not see how the potential impacts to the business of our family's future could be meaningful meaningfully mitigated or guaranteed against. We respect respectfully ask the commission to recognize this proposal's places as not a good place for these towers to go. Thank you. Thank you.

We're going to take a short break for a couple minutes. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.

I go home and go to bed. I was in my pajamas ready, but I ran I ran back. So, I want to go on the record to let you know that my office never received those notices. Not at anybody's fault. Maybe it was lost in the mail, but something was a miss. So, I spoke. So the county is open to having the cell towers out at our facility and on walnut. We'll be more than happy to work with housing in the community to make sure we bring forth the best project possible and the safe safest project possible for everyone. So with that, so that changes thing a little bit. Um a lot and I know all of you want to do your best. That's our supervisor.

Yeah. So there's a solution here. We all can do it together. I think um that's a great plan. So I don't want to tell you what to do, but just kind of plant the seed there. So the county is willing to do anything possible to uh working with the city to make it happen. So okay, thank you. Okay. Thank you, supervisor.

I have some remaining supervisor uh speaker slips. Um Patrick Okconor was that on this? Yes, thanks again chair and uh the board and the staff. Um another comment about process. You know I think we whiffed on this one as a body and three three bodies. Um you know the ARB spent a lot of time on the design really because it was limited to that. We were expressly not able to address location and we were expressly not able to address building code issues. Those are the two main points and all this discussion really is kind of looked past you know what ARB provided. So my suggestion on the process is in a situation like this planning commission should have reviewed it first not not after ARB because the real issues and I think I think to be a little brutal I think the judgment that that somehow these points weren't important the location and the building code you know integrity weren't important is a miss. We just missed the point. Um and so it is we are where we are is the point. We are where we are because we missed. So I really think um it's it's again a third missed opportunity on the combination of all these boards in the last month. So it's not a good start to the year. Um last point I'll make is I'm confused about the shot clock. Is there a shot clock or not? Can we put this thing back?

We'll be talking with staff about that. Yeah. Thanks. Um, next speaker slip is uh Whitney Null. Did I recall? This is I emailed it to you as well. Thank you.

Um thank you chair, commissioners, and staff. Uh I had a couple notes. I'll try to be quick. Um, first of all, to answer um, Commissioner Alexandra's question, we were never notified of the second ARB meeting. That's why nobody showed up. Um, we were notified by Patrick that there was a meeting. And he came in saying, "Where were you guys?" And we're like, "We had no idea." It was a really hard piece of news to hear right before the holidays. So, respectfully, maybe do better and come in and shake the person's hand. you're delivering a notice to when it's this big of a deal. Uh my name is Whitney Null. Nathan and I own Pacific Health Foods. As you know, our second main set of concerns focuses on the physical integrity of the building and accessory structures and the operational risk created by adding equipment, structural load, and ongoing access requirements to aging and already compromised buildings. I handed them something they've already seen via email, which is a email from a structural engineer in 2018 that was said to um we got our building permit based off that email was we were not we were able to do what we wanted to do and what we could afford to do at the time because we were not adding any um affecting the structural integrity of the building. We were just told that we needed to fix the siding per the um city's code. The ma main building roof has not been properly maintained and has only been patched over time. Multiple respected local roofing contractors have advised that the roof requires full replacement. Adding equipment or load to a roof in this condition raises serious concerns. Horizontal cracks exceeding 4t in length have developed in the cinder block wall above the back corner office windows. These cracks are cracks are deep deep enough during rain events water penetrates into my office.

Photographs that I have emailed you. One photograph shows the crack. The proposed antenna is located near the same back corner right above my office. An additional load or vibration can worsen worsen existing damage or lead to future structural failure. Over the past four to five years, office windows in this area have become pinched and difficult to open or close, indicating shifting of the block wall and ongoing structural movement. I also want to note at any point in this over the last year has Verizon or our landlord come to communicate with us. The building was not originally designed with a roll-up door. In the 1990s, an opening was cut to accommodate a warehouse operation on the back side of the health food store. Adding further weight or stress to an already altered structure could further weaken this area. It's also fair to note that what you guys have seen with the old Austin's buildings, what's going on with the Palms and the Rencon Designs building, these buildings were built in the 30s and 40s. Who's to say that the concrete walls can hold up? Are they filled with sand like the Austin's building? We don't really know. The storefront facades and windows at 944 and 954 also show severe dry rot and confirmed subterranean termite damage. These areas have not been fully inspected and the full extent of the damage still remains unknown. This also applies to the supporting lumber under the roof. The accessory structure behind the main building presents additional concerns. It was originally marginally constructed as quoted in that email and the civil engineer advised against need to upgrade the structural system because the remodel work was not structural and did not in any way diminish the current structural value. Pictures have been provided to you guys via email. The corner of this accessory structure directly below the proposed equipment location where our gate attaches has confirmed rot ladder cannot go there. Um Joe Gonzalez is a local welder had to

retrofit bring his welding equipment in and kind of seat metal into the joint to get our gate to further like sink back into the rotting wood. The roof of the accessory structure consists of thin roofing material installed over metal and 2x4 framing and has not been upgraded or properly maintained in at least 25 years. This building houses all of our backstock and cold storage for our juice bar. Any construction required code upgrades or structural fail failure would directly disrupt operations and food safety. Finally, we have unresolved logistical concerns. This is in regards to the parking as you can see that our we had to provide two parking spots when we got that building permit. So we are unsure how um Verizon quoted saying that they didn't really need a spot but when I was at the first ARB meeting that spot is designated so when the power goes out their generator truck can park there. So how can she say that they don't need a designated parking spot? They can't park the truck in Cactus Lane and block traffic. That doesn't make any sense. I'm almost done without um the one of the other concerns of the back wall. Uh we don't understand how a ladder could be attached to that. It looks pretty substantial those ladders without penetrating the walls of our equipment um andor supplies back there. Given the existing conditions and documented concerns, we do not see how structural risk equipment damage especially business interruption could be a meaningful gu meaningfully guaranteed against. For these reasons, we respectfully submit that it this is not an appropriate or compatible location for Verizon's proposed project. We ask that the commission give serious consideration to the cumulative structural and operational risks posed by this proposal. Thank you.

Thank you. We have one more speaker slip. That would be Eddie Hall.

I'm Eddie Hall. Uh Carperia resident. If I seem uh that you know me, it's because I am a safety coordinator at the farmers market on Lynden uh at 7th uh every Thursday. And I've had that job for 13 years. Uh I was asked by uh store uh owners on Lynden to come in and say something. They object to energy like 5G being bombarded into their stores. They don't want that, you know. Um anyway, uh so that's how I found out about this meeting. But I have something more troublesome to share with you. Um, in the time I've been a safety coordinator, uh, on Wednesdays, I show up, put, um, uh, no parking signs up, uh, as required by insurance, insurance requirements, uh, want to avoid lawsuits, right? And at 1:00 in the afternoon, I come put up barricades in a very specific uh timeeffective way to block off the street so the vendors can set up and sell their wear. Uh, and the other part of my job is to be um keep my eye on safety and make people that come feel welcome and enjoy spending the afternoon there at the beach on Lynden Avenue. And um this last Wednesday when I showed up in the evening, put the signs out, everything was fine and um just put them

out as normal. The next day at 1:00 in the afternoon, I showed up and I could feel this energy coming down from above me. I was near the alley uh and where we keep the barricades stored by the art center. They're part of our um operation and they let us uh leave our barricades there and I could feel it coming down. I knew I could identify it as uh 5G. I am sensitive to energy and I'm sensitive to EMF and I before I lived in Carper India, I lived in um Altadena. Aladina had a fire last year. It was very bad. I went up there as soon as I found out about that fire. And to my horror, uh, the burned out areas did not smell like a fire. A fire often to me smells like a, you know, like a a campfire, something where woods burning. This smelled like electricity. And that's horrifying. You know, I could talk about that for a long time, but anyway, I can identify this energy field. So I set up the barricades as usual and we were talking, the vendors and I were talking about this energy that was there in um the you know like on Seventh Street there where we set up um uh the marketplace. And anyway, um, so when it came time to put everything away, I was, um, I have a very very, uh, succinct way of putting everything away in a very quick, uh, safe way so that nobody's blocked, nobody's upset, and

it's done in a very safe way. Well, last Thursday, these cars were coming through at high speed, not even giving me a chance to get the barricades out of the way, you know, going 40 miles an hour through the intersection, running the light, missing me by just a couple of feet. And uh this was horrifying, you know, that these people made one car after another after another after another. What is wrong with these people? I knew that we were being showered with 5G energy because I could feel it and we talked about it. And after I got everything put away, I walked up uh Lynden to some of the stores and I was mentioning this incident, you know, with to other people there and they were experiencing the same thing, you know, that in the parking lot people were driving around at high speed trying to like park their car going the wrong way at high speeds. It's like the the what I walked away with. Now the other thing is I had I could feel this prickly energy in the air and I could like feel how it was affecting me. I had to go home and like get into water and like clarify myself. Again, my point, what I'm saying, what I'm sharing here that I was asked to come share with you is that this energy that we're talking about putting on Lynen Avenue is a dangerous energy. In my experience, it is dangerous. It is like negative. It is going to affect people. It is going to affect those businesses. And by the way, I'd like to point out I

don't ever believe what an RF engineer has to say to me. I've learned that they say whatever makes their case, you know, and like I can go into a lot of detail about how I found that out. So anyway, I would like this uh commission to understand my point and that is if we have to have 5G, don't put it on the people like that. People can't handle it. That's what I was learning last Thursday is I knew the energy was there and I could see what it was doing to people also.

Thank you. Can you can you wrap it up? I think we understand it. Also, somebody was hit crossing in the U uh crosswalk. I mean, this is a dangerous thing we're talking about. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, I have no further speakers uh here. Uh is there anyone on Zoom? Um if you would like to make a public comment now, please raise your hand. There is no public comment at this time.

Okay. Uh I will bring it back to the commission for discussion. Possibly questions of staff. Yeah. U John the shot clock. If what do we have to do if we don't do anything? This is going through tomorrow. Well, could we go back to the recommendations from staff of our options? Yeah, sure. Put the screen up.

Given give it just just an off hand. You you this is really hard graphics to read. You know, it should be a little more contrast. So, you can't do it. But, okay. Let me see if I can Let me see if I can Okay. make it look better. That's all right. It's fine. So, go ahead. Oh, well, let's go back to that screen even though it may be difficult. Uh, within the shot clock, we have to make a decision tonight. Does that decision include number two for example or three?

So directing the applicant to prepare project revisions would cause the shot clock to um expire and essentially approve the project minister. Well then these shouldn't have been up there as a proposed recommendations then right? Yeah, they shouldn't we shouldn't have that as it's it's it's definitely not our recommendation, right? But I mean it's up there as an option when it really isn't. That's we have to either approve or deny and and make a record for the as a basis of our denial. Right,

Chair Allen? The other option here would be depending on what the planning commission's thinking or where they're headed is they could engage the applicant in a dialogue to see if there's an option to extend the shot clock. And I I think that is the first question to ask. So could we have the representatives, the applicant, would you would you mind coming forward? So to assist our deliberations, I think the question for you would be we've heard Supervisor Lee speak to the availability the the probable availability of the county building which previously housed a wireless facility. Are you willing to uh suspend on behalf of your client the shot clock for a period of time so that that option can be explored and we'll return to a future hearing before this uh body?

Um gosh I'm I

let me first ask staff did I ask that appropriately? Okay. Um yeah, shot clock with it expiring tomorrow. Um we were definitely hoping for an approval with conditions. Uh I do need to take back the recommendation or the the new um event that happened as far as him uh coming forward and saying that they are interested in that because I can't speak specifically on what everyone would would think at this moment as far as even though it was recommended. I know Verizon has put a lot of time and energy, money into this project. Um, definitely want to do what we can to work with everyone here. Um,

gosh. Um I mean if that's going to be what the recommendation is as far as you know exploring this alternative option then um extending you know the shot clock tolling the agreement further would I I would presume would be what the next necessary step would be but I'm not sure if that's what direction Verizon wants to go at this moment. Okay. I think we would need to know one way or the other tonight if we were to I mean you'd have to accept a continuence or we would be running the shot clock. Absolutely.

So question for staff and and to further explore if we deny the project I think we would have to make a record for reasons to deny. I can think of some uh um you know aesthetics with an established uh uh you know landmark uh um inadequacy of exploration of alternative sites which goes to the county and any other uh things that planning commission might come up with. But so I think the option is either uh you you assume the authority to say you'll extend on behalf of your client extend the uh the um uh shot clock or depending on what my fellow commissioners see because we're still going to have to but assuming they agreed with this or we would if if a majority of us feel that the county option is something that ought to be explored and that there are reasons for denial uh we need to deny it. No, I understand where you're coming from. Yeah, I understand.

The dilemma. The dilemma we're all in here. No, I absolutely understand that. Can I take a two three minute break and step outside so I can call? Absolutely. And we should suspend our deliberations obviously until you had a chance. I won't return.

Okay, we're going to recess for five minutes. Get off the record or as long as it takes Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat up here. Heat

up here. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.

Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.

Heat. Hey, Heat. Heat. Heat.

Okay, we're back in session. Um, like to invite uh Verizon's representative to let us know if she's been able to Hello. um if you have any information to convey to us. Hi. Sorry. Sorry. Thank you for for that. Hold. Um yeah, Verizon would like to go ahead and and do a continuence on this.

Okay. So, um I they are asking if there can um be like a condition um if you're wanting us to work with the county um like some kind of time frame on the lease with with the county for approvals that if the county falls out that this um location does come back up. that would I guess the question you might be asking is what the application process would be for you and and whether what you would have to go through again. Okay. The new application. Okay.

Um since you've already done all the work, but I'd let staff address that. Okay. So, let's just go through the scenario. We agree we're doing a continuence. Yes. Okay. Agreed.

So, we agreed to a continuence and maybe we should talk about the length of time. Uh but I don't know that we can condition the nature of the application that you'd need to come back with. If I'm understanding, perhaps staff can address what I think you're getting at. I'm sorry. Throwing it back to you. Uh, Chair Allen, if I understand if I understand the question correctly, um, so there's currently a signed agreement between the applicant and the city which um extended the or uh set the shot clock expiration date as of tomorrow. And so I I would think that, you know, if since the applicant is willing to mutually extend that date, it would keep this this application open while they explore other options. And so if another option, you know, if the county option did not um pan out, they would still be they would still have this as a pending application um on the under the mutually agreed shot clock. I'm not I'm not sure if that

I that's the way I would think it would be and how you would want it to be. Yeah. So I I may have thought you were asking for something different. No, if we if we uh do a continuence and perhaps it better be longer than a month. We do. Do you think a month is going to be enough for you to explore what you need to explore in terms of agreement with the county? And uh um um I mean I' I'd think you'd want a couple months to uh make sure your coverage is sufficient and

county seems like you can work it out and so on. Government moves slowly. Two months probably. Yeah.

Okay. So, we are we will we are agreed on the record then that we will do a two-month continuence. Two months being to our next regularly scheduled planning commission date or whenever that date has to be continued because of disaster or anything else but our next our two-month u planning commission date. And that you are agreed that the shot clock is suspended until that future hearing 2 months from now approximately. Yeah. Verizon's legal will contact the city. You're agreed to that? Yes.

Yes. Okay. Is that sufficient for you on the record council and staff? Sorry. I was just was uh discussing with council trying to gain I guess a little bit of clarity on what we hope to be ready to come back to the commission within two months time. Is it is it simply a a commitment that this alternative location with the county has promise and and Verizon wants to explore it further or is it with a fully cooked and redesigned, you know, project at a whole new location with new RF studies and everything else that goes along with it?

Yeah. I just want to make sure we're kind of on the same page of what we're what we're asking for, what we think we're getting in that timeline and that that's realistic for our applicant team in terms of what you can turn around and deliver within that time frame. Yeah, we can explore this alternative location, but we still want to keep this current. This is a placeholder. Okay. For you, okay, right? So what so we're just keeping this current application before us for our uh approval or denial 2 months from now. So we're going to stay this for two months time while they explore this other option. Ex exactly. So

and then we can revisit at that time what to do with this application whether we stay it again whether we close it out if the alternative project has legs or what have you. Right? This is simply a continuence of this project for 2 months. Okay. Procedurally, Chair Allen, if if I may, just to for the record, I think we're all on the same page about what the continuence includes, but um in addition to just continuing this hearing that it also would um for the record be extending the the tolling agreement that the parties have entered into dated October 29th. Yes, absolutely. And I believe we got a yes to that question. Yes. Yes, correct. Yes. On the mic. Oh, sorry. Oh, yes. Didn't hear you. Correct. Thanks. Thank you.

Okay. So, is the commission agreeable to continuing this two months? Yes. Among ourselves? Yes. I I would like a little more discussion if at the appropriate time, but yes, I think it's a good step move forward. Is now the appropriate Yes, we're discussion.

I definitely support a continuence. I think that's the right move here. I think it's the uh hope of the commission that uh an agreement can be worked out with the county for this alternate location. Uh we've heard directly tonight from our first district supervisor who uh spoke on this item and I guess I would suggest to the commission that as part of our action to continue this that we ask staff if they will facilitate uh working with the first district's office to to expedite um this you know this process. I I really hope we can come back in two months and be moving forward with that and not back on what we have before us tonight. And I think we should put some our resources to that if that's possible to help facilitate that so that we can feel comfortable in two months that we're and you can feel comfortable and Verizon can feel comfortable that we're we've reached a point where we can go forward with a different project. So that would be my request. Okay. Any additional discussion?

No. Alexandra, I just want to make sure that I absolutely understand it's a continuence. Mhm. Uh chances I mean, we're we're hoping that it's going to go through for everybody involved. Um, if something happens and it doesn't, we're back in the same place. Right. Right back here. Yes. I just want to make sure everybody in the room understands. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Okay. I I would invite um well first we agreed with the recommendation that um Commissioner Lef Fevers has made that we uh ask staff to do all they can to facilitate communications with county. Yes. That's a recommendation of this body. Yes. Okay. Do you want that as a motion or do you Yes, I'm comfortable with that being part of the motion that we continue this item. Okay. Would you like to make the motion then for continuance and include that? Sure. Uh I move that we continue this item to uh our let's see we're

oh let's see

February March our April uh regular planning commission meeting um and that that motion includes uh a uh that the applicant has agreed to suspend or re reset the the shot clock on this project and that um uh during this time period that city staff work with the county supervisors, first district office to assist in facilitating um a potential lease agreement with the county. Um, I stopped there. Is there a second?

I second discussion. I don't think two months is long enough. I don't either. Yeah. Government. I I I don't and I think that's risky. Well, there are two options. you can suggest 3 months as a representative or um you know it doesn't happen obviously and you're still in negotiations we could continue again but that's sloppy if you would like 3 months is certainly fine with all of us

I mean we're gonna they seem very eager I need to talk to Verizon in regards to how that process will look moving forward Um, we're not looking to have the the final lease signed. Um, so negotiations, I understand that they can be lengthy, uh, especially with counties. Um, I don't want to appear sloppy by needing to extend it past 2 months, but we've we have been on this project for quite some time and we do want to see it progress further. Um, in in speaking with Roy Right.

Is that right? Okay. Sorry. I wanted to make sure I just wanted to make sure I had the name right. He very eager and he was wanting to get things started right away. So, um I mean in two months we should be able to get with that eagerness to know if we're able to move forward. John, you you just needed a commitment from the county uh to proceed, right? Yeah. And and also just kind of some of the basic business terms of what we're looking at to make sure and that's just a basic general, but yeah, it's more the commitment.

Yeah. This two months you ought to be able to reach the agreement if you're going to Exactly. Yeah, there should be the baseline of what it of what is needed. Chairman, are we going to ask are we going to go to ARB and back to commission? Um, oh my god. Okay. I say uh no the new the new one continuence acceptable two months. That's what Fzen would like. Two months. Okay. Well, we have a motion. We have a second. We ready for a vote? Roll call, please. Commissioner Van Antworp.

Is that a two or a threemonth? Two. Two. Okay. Commissioner Lef Fevers. Yes. Commissioner Benfield. Yes. Vice Chair Moyer. Yes. Chair Allen. Yes. Motion carries 5-0. But wait, I don't understand. Okay. Now just clarify it for me. If they pick another location, we have to go through the same process again. Correct. Yeah. Well, is how's that going to get done in two months through the chair commissioner Benfield? That that that was what I was kind of seeking clarity about earlier. So this two months two-month continuence is simply to allow Verizon time to

see if if there's uh you know strong potential or likelihood that a deal can be made with the county. Okay, that's it. I would if that if that looks promising and that looks like it's heading in the right direction, then Verizon can make that decision at that two-month timeline whether to withdraw this application, ask for another tolling of the shot clock to put a pause on this while they start down the process of pursuing this alternative uh location through the formal permitting process. Thank you. Right. Okay, we have completed our business. Thank you very much. I'm sure it's been stressful for you and all of us. Uh, thank you every Thank you everyone for your time. I appreciate it. Yes.

Thank you. Okay. Uh, we are moving on to the director's report. Okie dokie. Uh, before we get there, chair. Um, other business. Other business. So, it's not Sorry, I'm looking for my agenda here. Um, it's not listed on

the agenda specifically, but traditionally at the first meeting of each year is is when your commission would elect a new chair and vice chair. So, I don't know if that's something that you want to do tonight or if you want to postpone that and we can pick that up at next meeting. I'll defer to you. I I I won't interfere in that. I guess I guess the only thing I wonder is whether it ought to be agendaized or not. Is it? So I looked back and last year we did put it on the agenda. I don't know that it needs to be. That might be a a Cody question out of it.

That's why, you know, I I mean unless there's strong feelings about selecting a new chair and vice chair tonight, I just assume we we postpone that to the March meeting and then we'll put it on the agenda just to be safe. I agree. I agree. Okay.

Um, is that it for other business? Under business. Yeah. Under other business. Yes, that is it. And uh for the director's report.

Okay. For the director's report, you've got your usual items in here, including action minutes for uh a couple of the ARB meetings from last fall, the city calendar for the month of February, and the planning activity report and building permit report for January. I do have a few items there that I wanted to highlight on on some of our larger projects that have u you know, had some activity since the last time your planning commission met. and just want to make sure that that you all are aware of these. Um, so you know, first up here is the Chevron decommissioning project has commenced. So we issued the demolition permit to Chevron last week and uh they've started in with kind of the initial tree removal work that's needed in areas where there's site contamination. So these are a handful of trees that were identified in the EIR that have to come out in order to facilitate the future stages of the project. That tree removal work is going to take a few weeks and we anticipate that come mid to late February here they'll be transitioning into starting to actually take down some of these structures, the above ground structures and and the goal is to start with the big green tank.

Good. So thinking again midFebruary, late February is when you'll see, you know, actual structures coming down out there on the on the Chevron property. That demolition phase is going to take a number of months, maybe like five, six months based off of the timelines that we're seeing. And once that work is done, uh, then Chevron would move into the next phase, which is to start actually removing some of the contaminated soil and doing excavations, hauling that off site and bringing in clean fill to to restore the site. So, um, that's a a big one to have that work underway that's been many years in the making, and I'm excited to to get that project rolling. I also wanted to highlight just a couple of new businesses that are making some headway here on Lynen Avenue. So, we issued the building permit for the Palms uh just uh recently, just about a week ago as well.

And so, they'll be getting started on the renovations there to to that building. My understanding is they're going to focus in initially on the small takeout cafe deli space which is in a portion of what used to be Wajaka Fresh and try to get that up and running first because the larger renovation of the Palms building will take you a considerable amount more time. And then um we've also issued the building permit for Arie's rooftop bar which is the uh second floor location there in the Lynen Square development. So, so they're also working away on their tenant improvements and trying to get that up and running here as soon as they can. Uh, and then I wanted to also just give a quick update on some of our larger housing projects. So, I've reported on this to the city council a number of times, but I don't know that I've presented on all this to your commission. Um, we have a page on our city website where we are providing kind of real-time updates on our larger housing projects, which we've defined as any project with 25 units or more. So, we've got three of those right now between the the former Lagonus uh commercial residential project, the proposal on Bluffs One here next door at Tea Time, and then of course the Ogen Road uh project. And so, um, all of those have been active recently. The VR Realal project, um, resubmitted for their third time, I think, right around the new year, and, uh, Cindy's wrapping up her review of that that third resubmitt, and we'll be getting out our completeness determination later this week. Uh, it looks like maybe they still have a couple items that they need to to address or resolve, so that's likely to be incomplete for another round. Um the tea time project 5885 Lynen here next

door or excuse me 5885 Carpenter Avenue next door to us. Uh that application was called complete by city staff just before the end of the year. So on December 30th that application was called complete. That means that we have all the information that we need and we can start the actual review of the project. Now, um, we have informed the applicant that we will be requiring an environmental impact report for that project and we've already initiated the request for proposals to select an environmental consultant to get that work going. How many units that do they want?

Uh, currently they're proposing 94 town homes and 97 detached single family residences. Um, and we're also completing the consistency review of that project currently and our goal is to have that wrapped up by the end of this month. And so that's a kind of the next statutory step in the in the review process is to provide an analysis to the applicant of any policy, city policy or regulation that applies to the project and what our read is on whether the project is consistent or not or what would what would it take to become consistent.

Okay. how how broadly and how is the request for proposal for the environment review consultants uh disseminated. Seems like we not that they're not good or anything like that. We always seem to see the same couple of

Yeah. So, we we have a a a pretty extensive list. I don't recall how many people are on it here off the top of my head. Uh we have the benefit of having the president of the uh California chapter of the Association for Environmental Professionals on our staff. And so, uh, she's got, you know, kind of great contacts across the entire industry and has put it out to a pretty broad list of consultants. Uh, we we certainly try to focus on, uh, firms that are local to this general area because they would have, you know, arguably more familiarity with with kind of the peculiarities of of Carperia than maybe somebody from from farther out of town. Uh, but I I want to say that we sent it out to, you know, off the top of my head, I I think 20 25 firms.

Um, so we've got a good list and we should be getting some of those proposals back here by the end of the month, I I expect. And then finally, just a quick update on the road application. Uh you'll recall this is the 130 unit complex proposed by the Carperia Group LLC on a portion of a property owned by Frontier Communications. So that application was called incomplete for the third time by the city just before Christmas. Um and the applicant responded shortly thereafter with um a claim that the city is conducting a course of conduct for an improper p purpose such as to harass or cause unnecessary delays. And so pursuant to state law then by by submitting this notice to the city we have to post that notice on our city website for 60 days which we've done. uh we have to receive any public comment on that allegation of undue delay during that 60-day period. And then uh 30 days after the close of that period, we have to issue a statement to the applicant either agreeing to cease the challenged conduct or to provide written findings in terms of why we believe what we've asked for in our incomplete letter is still required. and um and that, you know, probably sets up the, you know, kind of the steps for a potential legal challenge by the applicant if they continue to disagree with us. So, that's where we're at on on our three big housing projects at the moment.

Okay. And I think that concludes my director's report, unless you have any questions for me. Yeah. Okay. Uh is there anyone who will not who does not expect to be here at our next meeting in March? Getting old. I'll be here. I plan to be here. I plan to be here, I should say. Yes.

Okay. Um I skipped over matters presented by commissioners uh by accident. And I'd simply note that uh I was reviewing the log sheets from Seal Watch and the numbers of harbor seals that are being counted have continued to at least so far this year decline uh over all previous years by year for uh several years now. So that may be a concern. And um any other um matters presented by commissioners that anybody wants to bring up? Alexander,

quick one. Um I wanted to thank Nick for sending out the beacon report on coastal resiliency out of UCSB to all of us. And I'm just wondering if we can get it out to anybody else and if anybody here has reviewed it um through the chair is I mean as long as as long as Beacon continues to host the recording on their website I don't see why we couldn't circulate it further and and and you know share the link and try to make it available to folks. Okay.

Any other matters presented by commissioners? Okay. Seeing none, we're adjourned. Heat. Heat.