Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the May um planning commission meeting. Do we have a roll call? Yes. Good evening, Chair Moyer. Uh Commissioner Vantorp here. Commissioner Allen here. Vice Chair Benfield here and Chair Moyer here and Commissioner Lef Fevers let us know uh earlier today that he would not be here today 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. I don't think I want to do this. Do you have any Do we have any presentations, announcements, or introductions?

Uh, Chair Moyer, I have two that I wouldn't mind uh sharing here. Um, first up is to let the community and your commission know that later this week on Thursday, May 7th, we'll be kicking off the environmental impact report process for the general plan and coastal land use plan update. So, as you know, we've started work on the general plan update going all the way back to 2016 2017. got stalled out there for a couple years during COVID and uh picked up recently in the last two years. And the next step in that process is to prepare an environmental impact report that would look at the potential impacts of the uh land use map changes and land use policy changes contemplated in the general plan update. And so that process will start with the release of what's called the notice of preparation uh this Thursday on May 7th. And that will that will initiate a 30-day public comment period that'll run through Friday, June 5th. And the intention of that 30-day comment period is for folks to let us know what sort of issue areas to take a look at in the environmental impact report. Uh consider project mitigation measures or project alternatives that they might want us to take a look at as part of that EIR. And during that 30-day public comment period, we'll also be holding a public scoping meeting. And that'll be um an opportunity for folks to get an overview of not only the general plan itself, but also what the EIR process looks like. And it's another opportunity for uh interested citizens to give us uh verbal feedback or written comments on uh what they want us to take a look at in that environmental impact report or EIR for the general plan update. That scoping meeting will be held here in the council chambers on Monday, May 18th at 5:30 p.m. It'll also be broadcast on Zoom. And later this week once that notice of preparation goes live, we'll have all the information on

the general plan update project page, which if you go to the city's homepage, which is carpriaca.gov, gov and scroll all the way down to the bottom of the homepage under hot topics. You want to just take a look for the coastal land use plan general plan update button. And later this week once that information goes live, you'll find links right here on this page to the notice of preparation and the additional materials related to the EIR kickoff. So again, that that process will start Thursday, May 7th of this week and run through June 5th. And scoping hearing, public scoping hearing will be Monday, May 18th at 5:30 p.m. here in the council chamber. Um, while we're on the city website, I also just wanted to mention to your commission uh that we recently launched a housing law FAQ or frequently asked questions page. And the intention of this again was to uh help folks learn a little bit more about some of the state housing laws that apply to the various housing projects that come before your commission and or the city council. And so again, if we're starting at the city homepage, head right back down to the bottom there under the hot topics and click on the housing button in this case and uh down on the left hand side here, housing law FAQs. If you click on that link, it'll open up a new page. And we've got some introductory questions related to housing law, housing element, and the city's regional housing needs allocation or arena. And if you click on any of those drop-own buttons, you'll get, you know, some bulleted points that gives you more information about those housing laws and links to where you can find more information on on the various state laws. So, this is something new that we just got launched uh earlier in April, and we'll be continuing to build it out as we get feedback on either uh questions that we're hearing from the community that they want answered or new laws that get passed by the legislature

that we feel are important enough to to include here on the FAQ list. But again, this is another kind of educational and outreach resource to provide to the public to help educate uh folks on kind of what's going on related to housing here in Carperia. And that's it for introductions and announcements from me. Thank you. And I think that's a really good idea. Yeah, I think it's great. It's good for us, too.

Add one thing that I don't understand too well is um compliance. What does that mean in terms of the general plan? Because people don't know. I mean, we're not in compliance or we are. I don't know if we are or not, but if we're not, they can do the builder's remedy, right?

Uh, Commissioner Benfield, I think you were referring to um a time when we were not in compliance with our or our housing element had yet to be certified, but that that has since passed. We've been certified for now well over a year and we've closed the window on the period during which we were susceptible to builder's remedy applications. So, we we did get a couple in during the period when we were vulnerable to them, but that window has since been closed. Good. I What are those two?

It's the um proposed housing project next door on the Tea Time property um otherwise known as the farm residences and then the other one is the proposed apartment complex on Oen at the Frontier Communications Building. Great. Thank you. Ready to move on. Oh, the consent calendar. There isn't one. So, we'll pass that. Comments.

Yeah. Oh, that comes first. Now's the time. This time on the agenda provides an opportunity for the public to address the planning commission on items within jurisdiction of the commission and not listed on other sections of the agenda. Please limit comments to no more than five minutes. Depending on the number of speakers wishing to make comments, the chair may further limit the time available to each speaker to control the amount of time spent. And I have two people. The first is Alan Kush. It's on. Good. Good evening, planning commissioners, staff, and members of the public here. Um, tonight uh I did send a an earlier email in uh to the uh commissioners and the general public comment uh email address. Uh I want to make some main points tonight. Um, and it's great that I have 5 minutes. That's a little bit more than what we have at the council meeting. Um, the main points, uh, this is involved the Surfliner in project. Okay. Um, and what I'm trying to wrap my mind around on the project is the fact that there are two phases to this project. this phase one in the in the sense of implementation phases to build a new parking lot and then and then you once you have that parking lot there then you could start construction on the surf liner on parking lot 3. So uh over the past

several years and my involvement here uh I believe I have come up with uh what I'm going to be calling a definitive and decisive major conclusive finding. Okay. And this is a draft description. Um something that I'm I'm going to be probably working on over the next several months. We'll bring forward to the planning commission and and the city council. So, here's a first draft. The city's proposed lot number four is not a viable option for a downtown and beach replacement public parking lot. That's pretty much the umbrella um on that. So just to kick it off in in a sense of background, the conceptual plan that is currently in the Surfliner project that evolved with the public works department putting together the Walker study. I think it was back in 2019 was a study and now they're coming forward with specific plans to implement uh recommendations from that. Okay. And that was selected independent of the hotel applicant. Uh the hotel applicant, they're involved in it and but they're involved in it in the sense of funding it and building it, but if you put the hat on, the applicant is really the public works department. So I I think that that's a distinction that needs to be understood uh by this decision-making body. Okay. Uh so that's one point there. The the other the other sort of point is that we've gone through two steps of the process so far. The ARB and the draft EIR. Um

just some observations there around that. Uh the ARB gave it a preliminary approval of the Surfliner in back in December of 24 including a comment on further study. Okay. The staff led the discussion around the the structure of hotel but not really the lot number four. I mean the only structure there was a was the relocation of the new rest restroom. uh the ARB completed the deliberation of the review and uh you know I you know there's there's there's minutes of the meeting there which includes the comment on further study of parking lot 4. So there was really nothing done except the staff report had a whole section there about parking and traffic. So that was kind of confusing. Now, now we come back to the draft EIR and public here gave two comments the notice of preparation period. I can't remember June of last year and and now the draft EIR and in in the report there was there's a section called transportation environmental impacts. Uh we had an environmental review committee chaired by the director of the community development department Nick. Uh and and it was heavily attended. Um there also there was a lot of discussion there and there was some confusion there about the traffic also. But if you if you read if you read some of the uh article from the coastal view

news around that there was speaker after speaker describes the parking lot for proposed access as hazardous because of the proximity to the rail rail crossing heavy pedestrian activity near the spot restaurant and the mix of bikes cars and visitors and that's C that's a CVN staff article um and what was what was sort of a little bit of interesting there at the same time was going back to my previous comment that the public works is in my view the applicant of parking lot 4. the public works director sat on the environmental review committee and we got the minutes of the me of the meeting today from from Mindy Fog the principal planner and that was a little bit uh just I don't know awkward strange I'm not sure how to how to really put it there but the city h the city is the applicant there the city is reviewing it through the ER process process and we and we have the applicant director there sitting there and when you look at the minutes of the meeting he had no questions that's okay uh I'm conflict of interest is too strong I'm just sort of getting conclusion here that during these first two phases the transportation impact of lot number four primarily on Lynden and the design of that lot is still outstanding. Uh but there's going to be help. Um quote from from Mindy. Staff would take a harder look at the transportation discussion and in intended to bring more traffic and parking calculations valuation to the planning commission.

Ellen, you're you're up against fire. Okay. So again, I'm I'm just making some observations here on that uh that that you know, the staff has a lot of work to do uh to complete the the actual to get a final EIR to you all for certification and I think the last we heard is probably not until the end end of the year here. Thank you for time. Appreciate the opportunity. Oh sh Lesie Gasone is Gascoin. What? Gascoin. Oh, thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening everybody. I'm kind of piggybacking on um what Allan was talking about. Um I'm Leslie Gascoin and I'm here tonight because this microphone won't stay down. Um, I believe the Surfliner DEIR is incomplete and insufficient. It does not address several issues that were commented on during the NOP process and at the ERC meeting on February 18th, 2026. And I sent all of you um, planning commission members a copy of my comments on March 1st, 2026, and I resent them earlier today. So hopefully you got a chance to read them. Um, here's a brief summary of my transportation comments regarding parking and safety issues. One, a new comprehensive traffic and parking study is necessary to explore other options and mitigate assumptions that all of the transportation impacts are class three impacts, which means less than significant. Um, two, section 3.14.3 of the DEIR's thresholds of sign significance should be re-examined due to proposed parking lots. Number four is awkward location, poor design, and the single ingress egress onto busy Lynen Avenue. Three, the potential for increased hazards and inadequate emergency response is huge due to proximity to railroad tracks, heavy pedestrian and bicycle traffic, and location within a tsunami zone. Four, with the increase in nearby food and beverage establishments, a loss of parking is inevitable, especially for beachgoers in the summer. Under the Coastal Act, public access to the shoreline is a protected right and any development typically requires a coastal development permit. In addition, Amtrak launched a new

expanded commuter service today. Loss of parking may negatively affect its success at reducing congestion on Highway 101. Thank you for listening. And we have one more. Uh, Nathan Pratt. Is that correct? Yes, it is. Okay. Thank you.

I wanted to talk about um I attended the environmental review committee meeting and I think there's a conflict of interest here that needs to be addressed. I'm not sure if it's a city council meeting, city council issue, or a planning commission issue, but to have members of staff on the board that's approving their own report that they wrote or sponsored the writing of seems like a direct conflict of interest. Two of the four people that were at the meeting were city employees. Your public works person, you had Nick there. I just think that they should not be voting members of any committee that's approving any report that the city puts out. If the city's going to put out a report, that's fine, but the people reviewing that report should be independent from city staff. So, I think that any approval of any report by that group should be revoked and should be reviewed and you should get new members to make it a totally volunteer review committee. Thank you.

Thank you. So, I have a question to staff. Do these do these comments get read into the record in terms of the EIR process?

Uh, thank you for that, Chair Moyer. So, we do make note of these comments and they become part of the minutes and we we can, you know, work to make them part of the the record for the Surfliner End project when that comes before your commission. So, uh, how do these citizens become part of the discussion about the EIR approval or how it's written? Uh, Commissioner Moyer, the next opportunity to do so will be when the EIR comes before your commission along with the project. Okay. Right. Thank you very much. Through the chair.

Sure. Um, two members of the public commented on uh concern with uh the um ERC committee. Um, perhaps it might be an idea for um the city attorney to um be asked to comment on this so the public understands the process. Thanks. I will take that under adisement and pass that along to council. Thank you. We're done with that part. Now we're going to move on to

chair Mo. Sorry, just before you do move on, I just wanted to acknowledge for the record, you also received a written comment from Emrida Psalm. That would be part of the general public comment. I move on to uh item number two, Marquez duplex addition and remodel for unit A. There's uh people on Zoom who have their hands raised. Uh for public comment. Yes. Oh, okay. I'm sorry.

Oh. Um at this time, if you would like to make a public comment, please raise your hand and we will allow you to speak. Um Gary, uh uh Gary, your microphone is on. Uh go ahead and speak. hear me? Hello? Can you hear me? Yeah, we can.

Okay, great. This is Gary Compiano. Um, I'm a resident of Carpa since 1970. Tonight, I'd like to address some faulty analysis and omission and omissions that appeared in the draft environmental impact report for the Surfliner Inn. I'm concerned about the blocking of significant views of the Sanz mountains, scenic vistas, and ridge lines. Impact 3.1-1 asks asks, "Does the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Faulty analysis number one, the consultants failed to study the adverse effect on scenic views when story poles were in place. At the notice of preparation meeting June 21st, 2025, I spoke to this effect and left staff with four photographs exhibiting the scenic vista and ridge lines that would be blocked for many walkers, drivers, people's weight, people waiting for a train and passengers on the trains. Carpenturans are serious about saving scenic vistas which are emphasized in our general plan and the land use plan. According to these documents, conservation and open space element, the city supports view corridors and scenic vistas throughout the city. City of Carpa staff 2025. Some local streets provide views of the coastline, Carpria Bluffs, and the Santes Mountains. Local transportation corridors that do not have official scenic designation but are considered by the city to provide scenic views include Lynen Avenue from its intersection with state route 192 foothill road to its terminus at Carperia City Beach provides

both mountain and ocean views. I believe that the consultants errored in classifying this as a class three impact. This is a class one or class two impact and needs to be analyzed. Faulty analysis number two, the study in part relied upon photographs taken from unusual locations and on a day that fog blocked the Santenez mountains and the ridge line. Faulty analysis number three. The photos the photos in the draft EIRI do not accurately portray the true impact of the hotel on the visual heritage of our town because of where the photos were taken and the lens used in the camera that was used to take the photos. Where where a photo is taken uh affects how large or small or how far away an object in a photo or rendering appears to be. The lens of the camera also affects this faulty analysis. Number three, the renderings of this project are not accurate because of the vantage point from where the renderings were made. For example, the rendering looking down Fifth Street towards Lynden was taken at Elman Fifth. If if you walk a half block toward Lynon and the hotel blocks everything, including a view of Lynen Park. In rendering 3.1-9, the artist or program has fogged in the ridge line of the Sanz Mountains so that we see gray instead of the mountains as shown in illustration 3.1-11. In rendering figure 3.1-11, showing the Lynden face of the building from across the street, the vantage point appears to be higher than the average person would see it. The location of where the person was standing appears farther back than a

real person could stand. I feel that the draft R de the draft EIR for the Surfliner should reclassifies views as a one or two impact. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Anybody else? Uh Amriita, at this time your microphone is on. Go ahead and speak. Um, I'm attaching my comments. Can you hear me? Yes.

Okay. Thank you. I'm attaching my comments that I sent in regarding the draft EIR for the Surfliner project since five minutes would not be enough time to cover all the concerns I have about the missing analyses to various sections of the DEIR. The safety issues related to both parking lot number four and parking lot number three. The location of the proposed project. The aesthetic section. The lack of biological analysis. Giving no alternative location. Removal of m mature trees. The inappropriate use of conjunctive parking. ignoring the comments made by ARB members and city council members at the joint meeting about density of the proposed hotel and not lot number three at that meeting and other meetings. Please see my comments especially page pages 3 through five. Hopefully the final EIR will address some of these issues. Unfortunately the draft definitely didn't answer them. Thank you for your time. Thank you. All right, I think we're done. Are we done?

Uh, at this time there is no public comment.

Great. All right, so now we'll move on to item number two. Chair, before we get there, I just wanted to note since we have a couple of folks in the audience that are interested in item three, uh we did get a request just earlier today from the applicant on item three asking for continuance. And so I don't know if you want to, you know, just um take those out of order to grant that continuence or if you want to uh you know, if if the folks that that speaker slip on item three still want to speak, we can, you know, certainly keep it on the agenda. But I just kind of wanted to put that up there in case you didn't want to sit through a hearing tonight. Yeah, let's move it.

So up to you. So that's So do you need a motion for continuence on this? Yes, the requested a continu and it is to uh June 1. Correct. I so move all in favor. I so passes till June 1st. Thank you.

Yeah, we'll take care of it. Your bad. Um, you too, Pat. So, now we'll move on to number two, the Marquez duplex edition and remodel for unit A. And we have a staff report. Cindy,

we do. Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the planning commission. Um, this is a project that most of you saw um back in December of 2022. Um but some circumstances occurred during construction. So we are back before you again for a revision to the conditional use permit. Um so the uh original unit A is an 847 square foot uh unit with an attached twocar carport. Um the revised project includes reconstruction of the entire existing 847 foot unit in the same footprint plus the uh previously approved 258 square ft uh bedroom and bathroom addition and then the new front entry porch which was uh structural alterations to the front of the house. Uh and as I mentioned the prior project was approved by your commission on uh December 5th, 2022. uh a building permit number 14153 was issued on September 4th of last year for that initial scope of work for basically the addition to the house and then some structural modifications and alterations to the interior and exterior. Um on September 23rd of last year, um the uh during construction, right, everything starts with the foundation. So they shored up the framing of the house and they were lifting it to uh redo some of the foundation and pour some new footings. And when they did that, um you know, the house was built in 1949, so it's, you know, nearing the end of its economic life. um some of the the the framing started to lean. So, we got a call from the neighbor saying, "Hey, the house is leaning." So, the building inspector immediately went out there and put a red tag and marked it unsafe until the structural engineer

could go out. The structural engineer went out. He looked at everything, all the existing um the uh framing, the joists and the um walls and the all the connections and whatnot and determined that um it was suited for a demo and rebuild. So, the structure engineer made the call during construction that um some of those members were not adequate to to carry on. Um and that gets us to why we're here today for the conditional use permit revision to uh reconstruct the portions of the existing uh unit which are considered legal non-conforming now because about 143t of the existing uh 847 foot cottage is in the front yard setback which you'll see more information of in just a second. And then just to recall, this is what the house that used to be there. It is now, you know, you drive by now and you see the green fencing in the in the construction occurring. And here's the site plan. So, um, it is a a front house back house situation. So, the blue is the existing 847 ft duplex with the 200 something 258t addition. This is the existing carport. Back here, this gray is the um the back unit that was constructed in the in the 80s. It's a two-story back here. Um the red line is the setbacks and the green line is your property lines, the current setbacks in red here. So, you can see that this little this is the little part of the house right now that is within the currently required front yard setback. um that is the subject of the conditional use permit revision to reconstruct this portion of the house in the front yard. And if you look at the site plan, you can see um this is a shared driveway with the the property next door. So this area here is a drive aisle and then for ingress and egress to these garages and these garages and then

the backup and turnaround as well. So there's nowhere else to really reconstruct it on the site. Um so that's why um we're asking for to be just retain the existing footprint um because and there's no other site on no place on the site that's not in the setbacks that would be feasible um for this one. And then here's the proposed floor plan just a little more focused version. This yellow area is the portion of the house that is in the front yard setback. This blue outline is the footprint of the existing cottage which is going to be reconstructed um pending the revision gets approved of course. And then this red here is the area the uh addition that um was previously prove approved by your commission and previously also um for the remodel of the main part of the house. Your commission did approve you know the structural alterations in this area and the creation of this new little entry porch here in this area. And then u basically this is an exercise to show you that nothing's going to change on the elevations but um there were a couple changes in between when the project you know the project went to the ARB and then it came to you for a decision in December 22 and then before we could approve the building permits it had to go back to ARB for final. And in that um there were a couple comments from the ARB to add um stone around the base just to break up the elevation. And then um they wanted these two front windows to be more symmetrical. So they um this is what you looked at back in December 2022. And this is what's before you today, but this includes the ARB's comets from from before. So, um, the windows are now symmetrical and they have the cobblestone base around. And then again, essentially the same just with the cobblestone base.

West elevation essentially the same with the co the cobblestone base. And then the rear, which you really can't see because the back unit's in the way, but you can see this little part which essentially has not changed has not changed. uh colors and materials are still proposed to be the same um with the blue trim and then cream uh windows and and trim and dark uh gray roof. And then here's the renderings again also did not change from the prior approval because they're just proposing to rebuild the original cottage uh as in the same exact footprint as it was before per this uh prior approval. There's these supervision or the renderings and um we didn't do a big policy analysis in the staff report for this one because we referenced the policy analysis from the prior approval um because you all the same policies um still apply to this project. Um so we've got our um land use element to encourage remodeling and revitalization of neighborhoods. um objective CD2 from the community design uh element that architectural designs based on historic regional building types should be encouraged. Um main entrances to homes should be oriented to the street. The um the house initially the the front door was off to the side. So this project actually made the front door be at the front of the house, moved it over to the front. Um and then um the low walls, low fences and hedges should be encouraged along the frontages. Um right now the the the um the little uh pickup fence is proposed along across the front of the house now to uh enhance and then there's that covered entry facing the street per that policy.

And so um we're still um you know still um a non-conforming legal non-conforming structure. So we have the conditional use permit findings um that have to be made for the continuation or upgrading the residential unit or units will not have an adverse effect on the surrounding neighborhood. The hab habitable capacity of the unit or units will not be increased beyond that previously existing and the shortage of aggregate housing within the city justifies the continuation of the non-conforming use and authorization to make improvements necessary to upgrade the living conditions in the unit or units. and uh staff feels that these findings can be made and we have the following actions options and recommendation recommendations and staff's recommendation is number one to adopt the resolution PC26003 and approve the project.

Thank you. And that concludes my presentation. U now I'll move to commissioners questions. Just a a easy one. Um, how did we vote in 2022? Was it unanimous? I believe so. Let me check. I put it in the staff report. Remember that many thousand years back? It was unanimous. Okay. Thank you. That's all I needed. Do you have any questions? Yes. Five vote. So now I believe we have a

Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Chair Chair Moyer. Uh, typically we would invite the applicant or their representative to speak first if they if they would like to. Is that Would the applicant like to speak? No. Okay. Thank you. Go ahead, Pat.

Thank you, Commissioner Moyer, and and the rest of the commission and staff. Um, I I did review this back in 2022, I think. Um, I was a newly minted um ARB member at the time. I missed the first meeting and I attended the second meeting. Um, I sort of developed a lot of thoughts about these kinds of cases since then. Um, while I support the project and don't intend to disrupt the process, I do want to make some observations and point a few things out because this is just yet another emblematic, you know, situation of non-conformance in Oldtown and the kind of snowball effect that occurs. Um, so a few observations, one is the work is ongoing and and substantially complete with respect to the issues that you're facing. So the project just moved on which you know that's um I'll just leave that as an observation. Um the other observation is that the structural integrity that led to this you know the situation that you're deciding on was cited several times in the staff or the the project or excuse me the the the street files for both the existing house and the house next door. So these have been deteriorating for some time and it was acknowledged by inspections both at change in escrow change control back in the early 2000s and prior to that. So it just seems odd to me that you proceed that far along knowing that you know you got a project that isn't going to work. Um and we've seen that in several cases recently. Um so the the notion of of approving a significant project that requires you know structural integrity to be in place to make additions to you know do these different things um sort of leaves the dilemma if it doesn't work what do you really do in this case we're allowing it to continue with a complete rebuild um and I don't think that's the intent

um those kinds of in my view those kinds of like forlike policy decisions are really really geared around natural disaster you know, the flood conditions that we had in Monosto and other places, those were all instituted to allow people to rebuild as a result of damage, not because of aging and the mistake of not understanding the aging by the time it occurs in the development process. The other thing is that that this project, like others we've seen in downtown, relies on easements. There's a shared driveway that has apparently a reciprocal easement between the two neighboring properties. Those two properties were developed by the same person. If you look back at the history of the recorders and the deeds, those two properties were built at the same time in 1949. And the additions, the two twotory additions on both of those lots were done at the same time by the same owner. And it brings to light the other thing that's been pointed out a number of times is that in the mix in there somewhere it changed from single family zoning to multif family zoning. But the record doesn't show that it ever got a development approval for a multi- family configuration on these two lots that li rely on an easement agreement between the two that doesn't show up in the deeds that I've been able to find. So again, I think it's it's a bit of a snowball effect, you know, of the intent is to accommodate, you know, property rights and what people want to do on their property. Certainly support that, but it's the oddness of these non-conformances and the sequencing of these decisions that we make that I think leaves, you know, the consequences are different than the intentions, I guess, is what I would say. So, um, yet another, you know, carpenterism

on the, uh, the conflict of zoning and and development. So, thanks. Thank you. Else that would like to speak, who have anybody online? Uh, at this time, if you would like to make a public comment, please raise your hand and we will allow you to speak. At this time, Chair Moyer, there are no public comments. Right. We'll bring it back to the commission for deliberations. Who'd like to start?

I'm happy to start it. I don't have much to say, but is it true that they built this, they continued to build this even without the permits and the approvals uh through the chair? Uh because the owner was fearful of losing her contractor if they absolutely just stopped work. Uh Nick agreed to let them and rid the building inspector's you know input of course uh agreed to let them continue construction at risk um

until uh we had this hearing to secure the the approval of the new design. So, yes, they've been proceeding with construction, but it's at risk. And um it was described as finished, but it's very far from being finished. But they do have the the plywood up on the sides now and the framing. Thanks, Cindy.

No, comments. just um Cindy and Nick, if you can I think Patrick brought up a couple of good points. Um, not to not to not to stall this project at all, but uh, in regards to Patrick's comments, what can we do to how could we have changed the outcome through the chair, Commissioner VanTour? This has come up a few times on, you know, past projects that find themselves in this kind of situation, right, where the the scope inadvertently grows during construction. You know, what turns what starts out as a remodel or addition turns into a a full rebuild. And we've tried over the years to identify some of those situations upfront and and ask for more information as part of the initial review, right? To ask for an assessment from a structural engineer or an architect to say, right, show us that the structure is actually sound and and that it can stay standing. Um, sometimes we've succeeded in getting that information, sometimes we haven't. Ultimately, it's at the applicant's risk, right? And so if if they say, you know, I'm doing a remodel and I'm moving forward and then they end up in a situation like this, right? Then the recourse is to bring it back before the commission and and seek a permit revision for essentially a different project. So I mean that that is the fail safe here is is that right if they exceed their scope then it triggers a rehearing of the project. We try to head those off where we can, but we can't always do so. Either because we just can't tell from, you know, kind of a

windshield survey that the that the house has bad bones, uh, or um, you know, we're we're running into some some real uh resistance or reluctance by an applicant to go and do an extensive, you know, structural assessment of a property. Um, and it's not something that, you know, is technically listed in our application requirements that we can demand, right? So, we can ask for it, but we can't demand it. And so, there's kind of this delicate balance there of of trying to trying to work with folks, uh, you know, to anticipate when these sorts of things might come up, but we don't always we don't always have an opportunity to find them or or identify them before they happen. I think in this case this was one that we did not anticipate ending up in this kind of situation. So I I don't believe we asked for any kind of you know structural assessment ahead of time.

Okay. Yeah. Thank you. I think I'm just mainly concerned about safety features like sprinklers, things like that. Right. So not not to I'm for this project in these situations when the scope increases uh right in a case like this the project has to then be brought up to current code requirements in terms of things like fire sprinklers and structural safety. So ultimately what gets rebuilt is a safer uh product that meets current safety and building standards.

Thank you. It's it's hard to really assess the structure because it's covered and who knows, you know, you could you could take one section of stuckle or siding off one section and it looks good and then two feet down there's nothing left. So, it's really hard to to make an adequate assessment. Uh I think uh this is a tale, a sad tale because there's a lot of uh residences in carpenter just like this. You know, I I've been riding around looking and making my own little assessments of places and there's really quite a few of them that would fall into this. Uh, and then you know they they they put the money into rebuilding this house which is a small beach town cottage. This is like textbook, you know, and I I applaud them on that. I applaud them for saving this house and uh and really doing their part to keep this a small beach town community, you know. Uh, and there's going to be a lot of this. We got to re rejuvenate our housing stock. It's it's just paramount important. So, uh, if we have a motion, we can get out of here. Well, well, not for the reason that I want to get out of here right away, but because I do support uh the project moving forward for all the reasons that have been discussed and uh um certain it was a great disappointment to run into the problem we ran into, but I'm glad we're moving forward. So, Cindy, could I have the um uh proposed motion up on the

board so I can refer to it? Uh thank you. Thank you. I move that we adopt resolution PC2603 approving project 20-2057 CUPR CDP to allow the reconstruction of legal non-conforming duplex unit and the uh proposed 250 foot 8 foot square foot addition accept the SQA edition and adopt the findings for approval in exhibit one attachment A and conditions of approval in exhibit one attachment C. Second all matter um roll call. Commissioner Vanorp approve. Commissioner Allen I. Vice Chair Benfield

I. And Chair Moyer I. Motion carries 40. Good deal. Just one thing. You say 1949 like that was a long time ago. You know when I was to see my presentation. I was like, people gonna get off. But yeah, the life of a structure is around 80 years. Oh, I'm doomed. Structures, not people.

So, now moving on to other business matters presented by commissioners. Nope. uh director's report.

Thank you, chair. In your director's report this evening, you have the I think the I think the agenda is supposed to say the calendar for the month of May. Uh and then you have the planning activity report and the building permit activity reports for the month of April. I do have a couple of items on there I wanted to highlight for you if you'll indulge me for a few minutes. um on the uh Varal town homes residential project. Recall this is the 96 town homes proposed at the former Loganas mixeduse project site. Uh that application was resubmitted to the city in early April and it's due for an application completeness determination later this week. From talking to Cindy, it sounds like that application will be deemed complete later this week. And so once that determination goes out, we'll move on to the next step, which is the consistency analysis for that project. Uh couple updates on the Carpenter Avenue uh farm project next door proposed for the tea time property. Uh the applicants hosted a community openhouse event back on April 9th to uh share their proposed project with the community and to gather community feedback. Uh it's our understanding that it was very well attended with over 150 interested community members there uh sharing input and gathering information about the project. And then also uh regarding the same farm residential project, the city council awarded a contract to ESA to assist staff in preparation of the environmental impact report. And so we'll be kicking off that effort soon. And I anticipate that we'll be releasing the notice of preparation and holding the scoping hearing on that project uh probably sometime in June Julyish. We don't have an exact date yet, but we'll

we'll get that out to you as soon as we know it. Which project?

This is for the the farm residences project proposed next door at the Tea Time property, 5885 Carpenter Avenue. Uh, also wanted to just provide a brief update on the Chevron decommissioning project. Um, most of the on-site decommissioning activities there are on a temporary pause while Chevron waits for final approval of their soil remediation plan from US EPA. So, this is something they've been working on for a little while, but they got farther ahead than the EPA is. So, they're kind of stalled out until EPA catches up. Um, in the meantime, they'll be continuing to do endangered species monitoring out there for things like nesting birds and what have you and making sure that all of their various uh best management practices and mitigation measures remain in place in the event of a storm or a windy day or anything like that. Um, they'll also be continuing with some of the preparation for the offshore decommissioning work. So, you'll continue to see uh boat activity out there offshore as as they're doing survey work on the pipelines and getting getting ready to do the removal of that work later this year hopefully. And then also uh scheduled for potentially the last week of this month uh so last week of May, SCE will be out working along the railroad tracks adjacent to the pure parking lot there to replace the power pole uh over there that's needed to separate power for the pier from the rest of the onshore plant. And so again, tenatively scheduled for the last week of May. Once that date firms up, we'll be sure to let the community know since there might be a a temporary detour uh for that little section of the trail there that runs between the parking lot and the railroad tracks over by the Seal Overlook. Um, also just wanted to highlight uh some activity here with some new businesses in the downtown.

May I interrupt for a second? Just wondered if there's any um any estimate or any idea how long EPA may take to uh reach its uh conclusion. I assume what they're doing is reviewing the remediation plan that Chevron has proposed. So, um, we don't know at this time how long it's going to take. Essentially, uh, the the piece of the review process that's, uh, yet to be completed is some of the consultation with other resource agencies. So, EPA in turn has to do consultation with other resource agencies uh, before they can approve the soil remediation plan. And so some of those consultation efforts are still ongoing or have been delayed from occurring.

Any information whether First Nations are involved in that tribal only that one of the consultations that has yet to occur is with the state office of historic preservation but beyond that I don't I don't know the nature of why.

Um I did want to highlight some activity in the downtown. Uh this was reported out to the council recently, but we've had a couple of recent businesses business openings in the downtown, including Coyote's Market, which opened at uh 4945A Carpenter Avenue uh right next door to Limos. They opened in early April, and then Arie's rooftop bar, which is the uh second floor tenant at Lynen Square, opened just a couple weeks ago. And then we have a couple of additional businesses that'll be opening here in the coming weeks. Those include uh the larder which will be the second location of Field and Fort which has a restaurant over there in Summerland. They'll be taking over the former food liaison space in Shephardd's Plaza shopping center. Uh Skyhop Skyhop Coastal Goods which will be a little retail space uh taking over the former Christian Science reading room there next to the Nugget on Lynen Avenue. uh Ringcon Rooms, which is the uh six room hotel component of the Clinton mixeduse project, should be opening soon. And then finally, uh Ringcon Design Surf Shop will be making a return to their space on Lynden Avenue, and they're targeting an opening by this summer. And then last but not least, I just wanted to share that we're making great progress on our transition to our new online permitting platform. So, uh, back in December, the city council approved a contract for us to work with a company called Govwell to move all of our permitting. So, this is building permits, engineering permits, and so on onto a new, uh, web-based platform where folks can apply online, can get issued their permits online, um, and really kind of pay online. It's really streamlines the process for hopefully everybody for, you know, staff and the public. And uh we've been working with the Govwell team since January and we've actually got the building permit part of

the module up and running now kind of on a on a soft trial basis. And so we've been inviting um applicants on a kind of a one-on-one basis to apply for their next permits through this software so that we can see how it works, work out the kinks and and stuff before we go live with it for for everybody. But um the team's really excited about it. It seems like it's a big improvement and so we're looking forward to building out additional permit types eventually and hopefully by later this summer having all permit types for both planning permits, building permits, and engineering permits all go through this platform uh by the end of the summer. And that concludes my director's report. Great. Sounds great. Oh,

go ahead.

Back to the director's report really quickly. Can you give us an update on the Verizon um situation with the county and through the chair, Commissioner Vanourp? I haven't heard much. I I need to circle back with Verizon and and find out how things are going. Um, I know just recently we did have another downtown property owner express interest in possibly hosting the site. So, we were going to pass on that information to Verizon. Um, we've had another we've had now two downtown property owners besides the proper proposed location at Sushi Terry uh express interest and so we've we've handed off that contact info and tried to make those introductions, but we haven't heard much recently from Verizon. One of those people evidently was never contacted.

Yeah, it sounds kind of weird. Anyway, I have to speak. What do we do? Um, I suppose you can open up public comment on the director's report and invite Mr. Okconor up to to speak. Okay. One and a half minutes.

One and a half minutes. Thank you um staff and commission. I just came to mind as as u we're going through the report. The farm project um has an interesting sequence underway with the ER report going on or work going on before ARB and before plan commission review. Not unheard of but a bit unusual. I think what that intuitively means is going to it's going to move along quite a bit in a design context before it moves into that normal process which is I think all warranted just given the complexity and the and the you know significance of the project. What I wanted to propose, you know, as a a bit of a provocative suggestion, recognizing that it's under builder's remedy and it's limited to five public hearings and the out of order sort of thing, the provocative thought is combine planning and ARB for the purpose of this project and integrate these reviews to allow a bit more intellectual input without being so time crunched. The thing that kind of spurred the thinking about it is the Verizon project, completely different context, but it had a time limitation on it, too. And we burned a lot of a lot of that effort in ARB only to find that there was more significant issues elsewhere. So, it's a thought. Got no idea. I didn't do the homework. I just came up with the idea. Got no idea how you would go about doing that from a, you know, legal or otherwise standpoint. But if you pull us together, I think we can do more. Thanks.

If if I may just just comment, I think that idea has been floated and we'll see. The decision isn't with the planning commission, of course. So, Mhm. Okay. I think we're done. How many people attendance for the June 1st meeting? June 1st. I'll be here. I'll be here. I'll be here. All right. We're all here. Great. Thank you. All right. Good job, John.