Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

[music] Heat. Hey. Hey. Hey.

[music] [music] [music]

Good evening. I'm calling this uh meeting of the planning commission to order. May we have a roll call, please? Yes. Good evening, planning commissioners. Uh Commissioner Moyer here. Commissioner Van Antanworp here. Commissioner Lefvers here. Commissioner Benfield here. and Sher Allen here. Uh, please join me in the pledge of allegiance. [clears throat]

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 uh introductions, presentations, or announcements? I do not have any for you this evening.

Okay. Uh now is the time for public comment on matters that are not on our agenda but within our jurisdiction. Uh I have two speaker slips so far. Um Alan Cope Now I'm on. Good evening, planning commissioner, chair, and commissioners. Um, this is my third time. I think I'm making a general comment uh in front of you all. Uh I think I had my previous ones were in I have in front of me back in August where I shared with you some uh surf liner in environmental impact uh adverse impacts that we uh my wife and I submitted uh on behalf of uh the notice of what do they call it? Notice of P what? Notice of

transpiration. Thank you. Um, and then I came back uh on uh October 6 to talk to you a little bit about the Walker study update and uh the days that they that they selected to have uh uh account of the usage of all the parking in the downtown T. Okay. Now, those those two are clearly underneath the jurisdiction of the planning commission because you'll be seeing that sometime down the road when when the surf line in gets to you gets to uh you all for your for your review. Uh tonight I I have I have a related item. It's just an FYI uh in the sense of the Surfliner uh project and it it's related to uh another review process that's going on sort of in parallel with the traditional community development department under Nick's uh purview and and Mindy who's who's the lead planner on on that uh you know everybody understands a you know completed app application comes in ARB. Okay. E EIR if it is you know ascertained that that should be done planning commission and then the city council but really a Surfliner in also has a sort of a business review process going on to supporting that. Okay. uh it sort of starts with with with a you know an an RFP and if you find if you if you find a partner that that you want to go forward with it goes to the exclusive negotiating agreement and the LDDDA and subsequently if the project su successfully gets through this development process and and the council approves the signing of a

55-year ground lease. So So that's sort of like the business review. Um back in uh April of this of this year, um the the community development uh department was do sent an RFP out to do an environmental analysis about the Surfliner. And uh I was here as as a guest uh public guest and I was just blown away by uh the response from from the consulting group who replied and who was top candidate coming coming up from the development department uh and to recommend city council to approve it. Uh there was a lot of analysis, a lot a lot of detail and that sort of just set a little bell off where I said I don't recall anything similar to that related to an RFP for a developer group that would come in not only to build a hotel but to operate the hotel for 55 years. So, I I just went back and dig did a little digging

and uh Mr. Ko, you've had about four minutes now. So, I'd like you to wrap it up if you could within.

I I will I will. So, I just did a little digging there and basically um there was there was not any kind of documentation. There was requested documentation to to be sent in in a certain format. The list is is included on the RFP and uh you know I could not find anything. I I been in communication with the city manager over over the last eight months and they actually confirmed through like a freedom of information request nothing. There's nothing they didn't have anything. Bottom line being if you look at the staff report I appreciate the extra time chair Allen if you look at the staff report recommending to the city council to select the timer group the only thing that was there in the discussion and it's it's it's attached to the email I sent I sent yesterday is that there's a willingness to work with the city to further analyze a hotel on parking lot three. So it it just it just amazes me that that uh you know they spent a lot of money on the RFP. They didn't use any of it. But I understand at the same time they wanted to come up with a developer who could help them further define the project also at the same time. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh the next speaker slip I have is uh from Nathan Pratt Pratt. Good evening. I'm here to um looking this over. I'm here to recommend that you be sure to all lot yourself enough time to really process this project. Excuse me. If you're addressing the project on Maple that's coming up, this is the time. I'm Oh, sorry. I didn't uh the Surfliner project. Sorry.

Okay. Thank you. Um, like uh the previous speaker, I uh got interested in what was going on and I went to the city clerk, Brian, and asked him what I could get on the file and there is almost nothing in the file. That is correct. So, um, and as you know, you did do a very extensive RFP and it requires a lot of information to be gathered for your use to analyze this project and whether or not you want to approve it or not. So just looking it over, I'd say you have at least three months minimum to gather the information that's in the RFP because the only thing that you've gotten is basically a very preliminary. You got, you know, you got your architectural stuff and all that kind of deal, but other than that, you got nothing. No performas, no estimates. Your transaction terms are very thin and the lease that was written up, I don't know who prepared it, but it looks like it's very tenant friendly. Um, you know, to really if you really want to capsulize what happened here, I mean, I I got a note from Brian saying that the RFP process evolved and I think it collapsed would be a better word for it. He just the RFP was just kind of pushed to the side and I don't know how this exactly got through. I asked for copies of the approval process. He said there was a meeting, two meetings between a group of which there are no documents to support that what happened in that meeting or how the approval was granted or how that all happened. You know, this project raises just as many questions as answers. So, I think you're going to need at least three months because you got December off, got January, February minimum to gather all the stuff that's supposed to come in the RFP. Then you need 30 days for you guys to review it. Then you come back to staff with more questions, more clarifications. give them 30 days to give you what you want additionally to clarify that. Then you need another 30 days for final review and then you're going to have to go to a vote to approve or disapprove the project. And I I count that up as 6 months minimum to get this

project resolved. And one thing I want to throw in very quickly. I hear fear that people say, "Well, if we don't approve this project, there's going to be a lawsuit by the potential developer." And uh I'm looking at the RFP and there's a paragraph right there saying city reserves the right to alter the selection process in any way withraw withdraw deem proposal nonresponsive postpone selection make a new RFP do whatever you like. So I would say the the concept of any fear by developer action is minimal and would be if anything just abusive and would actually open them up to liability if they did try and sue you. So I don't think there's any fears there. It really the the the thing that just you know you cannot look at this stuff this stuff takes time to look to look at and you need the time to do it. Staff can't give you something a day or two ahead of time and go here let's vote it on on Friday. You know what I mean? I would give yourself 30 days every step of the way back and forth. That's what you really need to go through all this stuff correctly. And there's so many missing elements that you're going to need a lot and staff's going to need to do a lot. You might need to hire outside third parties to do stuff. I don't even know if staff's qualified to do all this stuff. And uh you know I just wrote a list of you know you got your financial impacts you got your EI you got operating perform your capital performance you got your parking analysis got your land use analysis you know and that's not even bringing in issues about why there was no biders on this project this is prime prime real estate and to have no biders is really questionable and the way the paperwork looks like it was pushed around you had one straw bidder that wasn't really a bidder to make it look like there's two bidters. This kind of thing happens all the time in development. You bring in a straw bidder if you're having an inside pocket deal, you put in your offer, you bring in a second bidder who disappears and you become the bidder and then you have sole negotiating rights and you're controlling the process. So I think you guys need to be aware of that as a potential and uh you know act accordingly and just give yourself time

to go through this. Do not be rushed. Do not let staff say we're short or whatever. give them all the time they need to figure all this stuff out and get you the information and you guys need to take the time to really review it and analyze it and then come back with further questions because there'll be something missing. You know, you're going to ask for a pile of stuff and they're going to give you almost all of it but not quite and just go through it all. So, that's all I'm here to say. Good luck. Thank [laughter] you. Are there any other members of the Did you want to ask a question, Commissioner? Question. Yes. Yes. Question for me. If you're willing, [laughter] I'm available. Yeah.

You mentioned um that you spoke with a Brian who who's a city clerk. Oh, okay. Thank you. That's all I That was my question. He was the Well, I I came to building or planning and they said, "Well, all that kind of stuff is city. Talked to this guy." So, I talked to him and he's been my contact for information. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Are there any other members of the public present who wish to address us? Okay, seeing none, is there anyone online? If you would like to make a public comment, please raise your hand.

There's not public comment at this time. Okay. Um, thank you. Uh then we move on to the uh consent calendar which is the uh minutes of our last meeting which was November 3rd. Any comments? Anyone ready for a motion? I make a motion we accept the minutes. Is there a second? Second. All in favor? I I

Okay. Uh we're moving on to the uh new public hearing which is uh uh our second look at the Burgess Burke residential resident remodel and addition. Uh this is a time for disclosure of exarty communications. Um I have uh some to disclose. Now this is the time when um commissioners should reveal anything that they know that other commissioners might not know. so that uh both the other commissioners and the public uh and applicant uh know uh what we know uh so that it's a a fair hearing and there are no surprises. So um um these maybe go a little bit usually we just say we went by the project but because of the nature of this hearing I I think I should be a little more specific. Um, first I did go to the address. Uh, I, uh, went into the, um, you know, rightway section of the of the of the driveway so that I could look and see what the view was on both sides as you back out, uh, of that driveway. Um, you know, I noted uh that you could see oncoming traffic to the right as you backed up to a point. Then the tree blocked it and a couple three feet further you could again see. I also noted that uh if there was a parked car uh in the uh um driveway that blocked visibility more than uh the tree did. Um I'd also like to disclose I've got a tree at the same location in my driveway which is larger diameter. It is a wider driveway. Uh so whether I am that close to a tree depends on whether there's a car in my driveway. And then I drove around uh Konchaloma and Caillio and observed locations where visibility was similarly impaired by uh largely by

hedges along there to the street edge. Uh and uh the fact that along Kyocha there are no uh uh no sidewalks along that area. So those are things that I just think I should um disclose as part of the framework for my review. Okay, we all all of us do it. Go ahead. You want to start? I went to the property twice. I took pictures. I don't know if I should give you this picture now or later to show the width of a very large car and that there is [music] plenty of room there. Um, I also to the neighbors

Excuse me. Probably you should show the photo now so that we have it and we'll pass it around and also to staff. Um, the neighbors came out to talk to me. I don't know who they were. So, I did speak with some neighbors. Um, I can't think of anything else except I've been there, checked it out, and have a very strong opinion about it. So, that's it.

Commissioner, I visited the site again and observed the tree. I also um did a tour of some of the similar streets in the city just to see what um typical driveway interferences were with uh street trees. Oh yes.

I did the same thing. So, I I went by for a second time and um spent quite a bit of time looking at the driveway, looking at the tree, noticing the size of the tree, whether or not there were any exposed roots of the tree. Uh I saw a lot of succulents and things like that that had been planted there, but that was about it. Um and then I ended up walking up and down the street to look at the other jakarandas there. Uh similar sizes. Uh they were healthy. I looked at the trees and they were healthy. Um, and similarly, uh, I spent some time, um, as I was going around the neighborhood the last over Thanksgiving weekend looking at trees that size in the neighborhoods um, and saw quite a few. And, um, that's it. That's

what I observed. Commissioner Meyer.

Yeah. I I drove Maple Street. I was more concerned about the condition of the rest of the trees and where potential uh new trees could be planted in lie of this tree being taken down. So, and uh I was interested that the trees on the [clears throat] be the east side of maple, they don't look as healthy as the ones on the other side. And I I was wondering about that why they they're the ones on the east side are are small, a lot of them, and don't have the foliage that the ones on the other side have. So anyway,

okay. Um, thank you. Now is the time for the uh staff presentation, please.

All right. Good evening, um, Chair Allen, members of the planning commission. We are here again for the uh, Bergusburg residence uh, one month later. Um yeah, it's a it's interesting situation with uh after the planning commission last time I I learned some of the wise from from the public works department about um the history of the of of their conditions for the tree removal. So, um, just to refresh your memory, um, on November 3rd, you guys reviewed the project to construct the 1,836 ft of additions to the existing 997 ft single family residence for a total size of 2,833 ft with additional first floor living space, a new garage, and um, entirely new second floor. Um, the maximum height would have been 21 ft and 10 in above grade. New landscaping and hardscaping, the new driveway off of Maple Avenue and removal of the street tree was part of the project we reviewed last time. And then uh also included the conversion of an existing onecar garage to a storage room. So the history is the public works initially reviewed the project and conditioned the project to uh allow they allowed the removal of the street tree um and to replace the street tree and to um have the new driveway meet the current driveway standards and that was in the very beginnings of like you know March of this year. Then the ARB reviewed the project and one of their comments was that the driveway should be realigned to help keep the jackaranda street tree. And then last month the planning commission reviewed the project and approved it with an additional condition of approval to retain the current driveway configuration and thus preventing the removal of the of the jackaranda street tree. Following

that meeting, public works clarified that the tree removal was necessary for vision clearance. So, here we have the street tree and the driveway. The existing driveway, by the way, is only 10 ft wide. Um, we didn't have a scale at the last meeting. I think that came up as one of the questions. It's actually 10 ft wide, not 12 ft wide like we thought. Um, but here's the site plan. The new driveway would have an apron that would meet the city standards for driveways and um and then the tree would have to be removed. Um, and John Lawson's here to answer questions about that. Um, but it was the backstory of how those conditions of approval came to be that I was not privy to until after the meeting when I went to ask them about how to make the driveway entrance, the the apron, if that was going to work, the existing one. Um, so here's photographs of the existing driveway. I took these this morning, actually. So, here's the tree in question, and you can see it's right here, right next to the driveway, the existing 10 foot wide driveway. Here's uh if you're in the driveway like backing out. I took this picture. So, right here is where you know it blocks the view. There were no cars parked here when I took the pictures obviously, but you know if a car was parked here um that would be additional blockage. And then here's looking um south at the tree here. You can see this truck here. Um and there's another car down there. But you can see how it's it's right there next to the street in the side of the driveway. And then here's looking um north the other way. And you can see uh there's that truck that was in the other picture that's just on the other side of the driveway. So you could see backing in or out, it would be a additional view blockage. So, um when the project was before you, uh last time without this new information about why public works was um supportive of having the tree

removed, um you guys approved the project with additional condition of approval um to maintain the existing driveway access in its current um location with minimal expansion to avoid damage to the tree and that um the plans needed to be reviewed for compliance for this condition. So, now we're back here again today asking you to um revise the conditions of approval to eliminate this added condition based on the new information that we gleaned from public works following the planning commission hearing and um essentially reapprove the project as it was originally presented on November 3rd um without this condition of approval and with the uh removal of the jackaranda street tree and expansion of the driveway. um to meet the uh current apron standards. With that, our action options tonight are uh number one, which would be to adopt the resolution, rid the revised conditions of approval, which is staff's recommendation. Or alternatively, uh number two, you direct the applicant to revise the project and return it to future meeting. Or three, conceptually deny the project and direct staff to return with findings for denial to a future meeting. And that concludes my presentation.

Okay. Um I have a couple questions uh which may I'm asking first because uh may guide our our consideration bit. Uh and the first is procedural. Uh should we not accept the recommendation? Uh what would the procedure thereafter be? Is there an automatic appeal to city council? Is there I mean I have never in quite a few years here uh seen a situation which you're inviting us to consider one way or the other uh where uh potentially we might not agree with a condition put on a project by public works or or any other entity that typically independently put conditions

on projects. So what what happens should we not agree? Well, in our standard condition, um, in all projects, we have, um, I think it's 29 in this one, um, we have a standard condition that, uh, minor changes can be approved by the city manager or the development, um, the community development director, Nick, in this case. Um, but major changes require filing of a modification application to be considered by the planning commission. So, when this new information came to light, um Nick and I discussed it and we decided due to the amount of discussion that happened at the November meeting about this tree in the driveway that it warranted coming back to you to revise the conditions of approval.

Um, and I'll let Nick elaborate on the nuts and bolts aspect of that. Okay. I'll ask one other question for Nick as well. uh this went to hearing before the ARB which also recommended retention of the jackaranditry and between that time and this we we did not hear uh at our last meeting we did not hear a position from public works so I don't know that that's a question so much as a comment and maybe it deserves comment maybe it doesn't I'll leave that to Nick

um the the it was new information after the meeting when I reached out to public works after the planning commission hearing to have them look at the existing driveway apron and to see if that was going to be adequate for them. At which point, and John's here to elaborate on this, um I was informed that part of why they were supportive of the removal of the tree and the expansion of the driveway with the new design was because they felt the tree was um a an obstruction to the to the ingress and egress for the vision site distance. Okay. So, I'm not sure I understand. So after our action was when public works was contacted to take basically another look at it.

Um yes it's more of a clarification but yes cuz we we showed the project to them initially when it first came in when it had the 16ft wide driveway and the tree to be removed and then it went to ARB and they narrowed it down to the 14t wide driveway with the tree to be removed and then the project was approved with a condition to retain the existing driveway. and then going back to so it was new information the the why was apparent from public works after we already had the hearing if that makes sense. Okay. Um questions uh from commissioners do you want to start? Was it a 32 vote at the ARB?

Let me double check the minutes through the chair. That shows there's a lot of conflict. Let's see. I think it was it was a 32 chair at the ARB meeting, but as I recall from the meeting, and it's I'm not going to read through all the minutes here. Um, there were also a couple of the uh board members that had concerns about the history of the property and the um the the long-term maintenance of the property and the landscaping. Um, which I that also played into that vote, I suspect.

Okay. Thank you. When you read the maintenance commission fevers, any questions to staff?

I guess I mean I I almost hate to ask this question. I I would like to hear from our public works um fairly soon here on this project, but the I'm curious um the applicant at our last meeting received approval of the project with the conditions that were specified by the planning commission and then if I'm interpreting it correctly, um public works conditions were added that were inconsistent. Um, so I I my question really is does the applicant have the ability to accept the uh approval as it stands and um from the planning commission without moving removing the tree or is that just put us into this um question that commission that chair Allen asked about where there's perhaps a conflict between jurisdictions here

through through the chair. I'd like to maybe take a stab at providing a little bit of clarifying information here and then we can hand it off to to John Lawson to talk a little bit more about it from a public works standpoint. Um, but to Commissioner Lef Fever's question uh or comments. So, I want I want to first clarify that the public works condition to remove the tree had u been proposed as far back as at least February. So I think initially at the time we interpreted it, we meaning staff planning staff interpreted that condition as being in response to the proposed plans that called for widening the driveway and there was no way with the widening widened driveway to accommodate uh the tree being preserved. Um and and so we didn't really question it at that time. It was just accepted, you know, if the if the driveway gets widened, the trees got to come out. That's what public works reviewed. public works agreed that the driveway should be widened and thus they conditioned the removal of the tree and and left it there. And so then um at the last month's hearing when it came up with your commission that you wanted them to try to modify their driveway design to preserve the tree in place, uh we accepted that thinking and and the applicant accepted that thinking that that was feasible. And so then after the fact when we started working on that in more detail with the applicants architect and public works that's when it came to light that no this really isn't feasible to do because the existing driveway is so tight on that tree that we can't even necessarily keep the existing driveway cut and modify it to meet current standards in terms of like the radius turns there into the driveway because if you soften that radius turn even that's going to encroach further onto the the root zone. of that tree. Um, and then John also clarified that there was other safety considerations with wanting removal of

that tree for line of sight. And so really there's, you know, I think just more more nuance and detail that came to light after the meeting that we weren't privy to or hadn't, you know, had reason to dig down into prior to last month's planning commission hearing. And with that, I'll hand over to John to maybe give you any more details about the ins and outs of the designs and why the tree doesn't work for that location. Thank you. Thank you, Nick, Cindy, uh Chair Allen, uh planning commissioners, uh just like uh my colleagues have uh reported to you when the the public works department initially for review, which was in January and public works department prepared a condition of approval memorandum in February. It was at that time it was proposed for removal. So it um for clarification it um the conditions or the uh what the AR arillary review board has conditioned the project it was after the fact and this is how uh public works department I I myself is here before you and also I wanted to point out in the conditions of approval yes it says removal of tree but it also says plant a new tree so we remove and replace a tree and it's up sub subject to the approval of the polar director And uh I could go into uh again the the tree itself and based on the technical or the the technical feasibility of what was what is proposed as far as the driveway apron that particular tree in in in our opinion that is going to be compromised. And at the time we had an in-house um arborist uh Tiffany Smith. Uh she's no longer with the employee with the city, but it was she was consulted because she

was part of she was part of the public works department. And I I recall that uh this particular tree was looked at. No, an arborist report was not prepared. However, it was looked at at the time as like yes, if you were to uh cut these roots or make these improvements that would cut these roots, yes, that tree would be compromised. And then that's what Nick would just mention. Okay, let's look at this a little bit more. Um, let's look at the disposition and that's where I come in in terms of traffic safety and as you're also your city traffic engineer as uh for the designated city traffic engineer. So I looked at this particular disposition of the tree and this is not typical. This is not ideal to put a tree right next to a driveway apron and you have ingress, egress, sight distance issues that I see. And you saw photo you're seeing a photograph of the of a front view, but there's also photographs of side views. If Warren wanted to egress from the from the from the property, you would have that sites. I I just like you, Chair Allen. I I did my uh OB uh site visit just did a quick turn or reversal. I like that's I'm for me it was hard to see. And so I physically went there myself and did the did the turns. So we have a particular tree that it's not ideal location. is a beautiful tree and we try as far as public works departments go we try to preserve every tree we maintain every tree but in every removal we have replacement and replacement is must be con must conform to our street tree management plan and uh I believe that as far as a traffic

safety perspective is this is not ideal to have we analyze sight distance um all the time in public works department. Um, and it it warrants a removal in my opinion and but it we we could also plant another tree in that regard and that would be we could either condition it as u as part of the project or public works part we're we're we're planting trees uh as part of our work our scope of work um we did I did um confer with uh Cindy in regards to also the fire department requirements. I believe they have particular uh width uh requirements as well and that would affect the width of the driveway apron. So the tree uh if if the project is going to go forward with what is proposed, what I what I reviewed as proposed, a driveway apron of 14 ft wide, that tree would be compromised. And for your information as well, uh being that this particular tree does have that does pose a potential traffic safety issue, uh per the municipal code, the director of public works has the authority to remove any tree, any street tree that would pose public safety hazard. Then as I understand your last comment, irrespective of what action this uh commission takes, you're you would have the authority to essenti excuse me, Mr. Chair, I didn't mean to cut you off there, but uh it it is the municipal code that the polar works director has the authority to remove a tree, a street tree that would pose a

public safety, public um safety, public health risk as well. Mhm. Uh it's not exercised all it's not exercised all the time, but it has it has to be a special circumstance or a circumstance where something uh would potentially pose a threat or

and [laughter] one other question is when you talked about the tree roots being compromised, what was the assumption as to under the approval that the planning commission gave? behave assuming the uh that our uh condition stood and it remained at this width and then followed the contour that we proposed. Uh are you have you looked at that and and as I understand it the driveway would not widen until it was a distance uh quite a few feet further than where it is now located. In other words, if it's now two or three feet from the edge of the driveway, with it curving in to accommodate entry to the garage, that curve wouldn't take it any closer to the tree than the existing driveway is. So, I I guess I'm asking how how would that compromise the tree anymore than it's compromised right now?

Uh, Mr. Chair, count u council, excuse me, Mr. Chair, planning commission, uh, I believe I following you. Um I'm imagining what you are describing. I know this is not you don't have privy to the particular information I have in my hand but it appears to be a a concept from the designer of record that shows the particular radius of the curbs for the driveway similar to that that's being modified. And I think I understand what you're saying. Kind of skew the driveway apron to

it would curve as you enter the driveway after passing the tree. It would curve to the right a little bit to allow entrance to the garage. Technically that could happen. That could work. Um it's it's seems to me it's no close it would be no closer to the tree than than it is now. less. In fact,

I'm just looking at the one issue of tree roots and

Mr. Chair, planning commissioners. So, this is something I'll need to analyze with the designer of record, but I think I see what you're saying. Yeah. Okay. I was just getting at I hear that the tree root issue and I I don't know that that's part of our consideration really, but Right. Okay. Um I have a question for John. Commissioner Benfield, can you uh do another slide that shows that tree more clearly that we Okay. Wait, which one?

The other one. Yeah. See all that debris at the bottom of the tree which does in impair vision. You can cut all that off. Those are just little spur things that shoot out. That would make a lot more space. Not to Oh, never mind. I won't go into that. But that might help a little.

Yeah. Commissioner Bfield through the chair. I see what you're saying. Mhm. Yes. Let's clean it up.

Uh the diameter of the of the tree, mature tree still is that particular sight distance issue. We could uh trim the tree um the topping of the tree and or the top of the tree, not topping of trees, but top of the tree. That particular debris that you're mentioning, yeah, that could that could be removed. what I'm referring to in terms of my perspective or my opinion of the sight distance is the actual um diameter um of the trunk. So it maybe in

there's so many trees that are in the way of driveways. Are we going to rip them all out? Because it's it doesn't track for me. Commissioner Favorites. Um, okay. I'll go that way. I wanted to I'm I'm concerned about the fire department. What's the fire department say about it?

Yeah. um through the chair, Commissioner Moyer. I did reach out to Mike Lemon Monaco over at our fire department and I asked him about the driveway and he said since there's a hydrant close enough that they would not need to drive their engine into the property in the event of, you know, a fire. Um and so he said that the width of the driveway as it is now is fine not meeting. Right now it's 10 ft wide. their standard is 12 feet if they need to get an engine in, but since um they don't need to pull an engine and he said it was fine remaining at the 10 foot width.

Great. Thank you. And then I have one um one one more thing I'd like though is the issue with the site uh the tree being in the line of sight is really secondary because there people are parking their car right and they they want to get as much parking spaces as they can. So I can just [cough] [clears throat]

Can Can you pick up Commissioner Meyer's comments on the feed? Uh, Commissioner Meyer, Commissioner Meyer, I I think you have to either get a mic or come back here to speak because it can't go on the record if you're over there like that. Okay, here we go. So, go back to that one image where you're in the street looking at the property there. Okay. So, now to to really to really address the issue of visibility, you need to paint that curb there red.

And that doesn't happen anywhere in carpentry. And mainly I would assume it doesn't happen because you don't want to have to discount street parking. Am I right? Because it's a if there's like I have this situation over on and uh [clears throat] where the the trucks a line of trucks park right next to the outlet that I use and you you can't see. I mean, it's the truck that's the visibility problem. So, I'd just like to throw that in. Thank you,

Commissioner Lever.

Um, yeah, if I could just go back to um staff's comments uh about feasibility here. So, um I think at our last hearing it was the consensus of the commission that we keep the driveway in its current location at its current width, which I've heard a couple numbers, but I think I heard 10 feet tonight. Um and um so my question is, is that feasible to do? Can can we can you know are is are we are we um uh violating some of our standards by not upgrading the apron to the current standard configuration. I mean in this lot there's it's already conditioned to have non-conforming uh setbacks and other other conditions. So I I think um perhaps what some of us are struggling with here is that we recognize that you know a wider driveway would be typical for a new redone construction and under different circumstances it would perhaps be preferable for all of us to have that. I think the question is I if we want to stick to the project that we already approved um I are is it infeasible to do that and and this is aside from the um sighteline issue. I think that's been addressed by others. I'm just talking about the feasibility of the driveway existing width if the you know if the apron has to be rebuilt. Is that feasible to do? um through the through the chair. Um the public works well two things are going on, right? So the public works

conditions say that um you know improvements will be some improvements at a minimum will need to be made to the driveway uh apron off the street to um better comply with today's standards which on the right hand side in this photograph uh to get more of a sweeping curve would obviously impact the tree because it'd be moving the curb closer to the tree. Um the other thing that um John was saying and if um he can elaborate on this is that the situation of the tree is that now that it's um been brought to his attention um more predominantly um is that the tree might end up being removed no matter what whether this project moves forward or not. So he can elaborate on that to clarify but it's it's it's blocking the view. So, it's it's um

Yeah, thank I realize there's other other criteria here and I I accept that. I I appreciate that. I'm just I'm just asking about the driveway itself as as we had envisioned it. Is is that is there some reason why we can't that that's not feasible to do? Can we hear what they're saying? Are they speaking to microphones, please?

Uh, he was just asking me the minimum width per our code for a driveway, which is 10 ft, which is what this one uh is, is mostly 10 ft, except for that one little spot where it's like 9 ft 11 in there. Okay. Thank you. I don't have any more questions. Commissioner Atworp, do you have any questions of staff?

Well, I'm I'm not so sure it's a question, but I'm seeing, you know, thank you public works for bringing this information forward, but I'm seeing it still is more of an opinion. I'm not seeing any new evidence. Um, I'm not seeing that the condition is unworkable. Um, I don't believe that uh the applicant has met the burden of uh changing the direction of the planning commission's um decision from last month. I don't see it. I don't see anything.

This is more in the nature of our discussion, but yeah, that's good. Um, are there any further questions of staff? Anyone? Okay. Well, then I'm going to open the public hearing and ask if the applicant or applicant's representative wants to address us at all on this this issue. [laughter] I we all understand the applicant was willing to go forward as it is. So you can

well and again we took the information back to the city because as we drew it out we didn't see it being possible and so we were looking for what the options might be because replacing the sweeps on the driveway and I don't know can I show you what was drawn out so you can see it. Make sure the green lights on when you're back there, please.

I'm sorry.

Uh, it is on. So, you know, again, we the architect started that same night working on drawings. We were there the next morning, 7:00 a.m. doing measurements and trying to figure out how to make it work, but and looking at it and again with the change of the sweep, it's cutting into the base of the tree. It's not again it we it's not something we came back trying to get rid of the tree. We went with the intent to try and figure out how to make it work. But we're not seeing a way to make it work without damaging the tree to a point that it's unlikely to survive because we have to replace all the curbs. and replacing the curbs with the tree being that close. We just don't see how it could work because we got to replace the curbs and the gutters.

Well, thank you very much. So, that's pretty much it for me. Okay. Thank you. For me that raises a question of staff uh that I'd like to ask at least I see the design. Is this a something that you had that you were were reviewing earlier?

This is the um preliminary design that they brought in as the discussion item um after the meeting on what December 3rd was the meeting. So December 4th, I think it was, they brought this by, which is what started the conversation with public works about uh them wanting the tree to just be removed rather than uh to try to retain it. Okay. So that's that's when the conversation started about uh Okay. So I have a

it's it's the same that that we had during our conversation. I have a question for John. That um uh more standardized sweep the entrance to the driveway. I understand that that would be a standard kind of curve if you will as opposed to what is existing. But um in terms of flexibility that city public works may have uh Recognizing that of course safety and and and turn radius and all that sort of things are at issue, but also recognizing that this driveway has been in that configuration for many many years. Uh would there not be some assuming the commission wishes to proceed with this and and and given that I think you know in that case we'd all want to see the tree survive. Uh couldn't public works uh alleviate the requirement that the curve be that uh that great or extensive?

Mr. Chair, yes that uh we receive polar respire we receive many times design exceptions. Uh this is this would be a design exception to the standard. Okay, that's that's what I was inquiring about. Thank you. Um and uh did that open up any questions that commissioners had? Okay, Commissioner Meyer. Yeah, there they said that uh then the last meeting they said that they uh they were going to install a sidewalk. Is that correct,

Commissioner Moyer? Through the chair, that I believe is a condition of approval from the polar. That's a standard condition of approval. Oh, because I've got this letter here from uh Well, before you ask that question, let me just ask uh is I haven't been considering this a uh a hearing denovo of the entire project. Could you clarify that for us, Nick?

Thank you, chair. I'm glad you brought that back up. I didn't have a chance to discuss that previously. So I think the way that I procedurally the way I would consider this hearing to sort of fit into the process given uh you know the approval granted at the last hearing is that um if your commission were to approve the project tonight in some revised configuration that would supersede the approval. If your commission does not approve a revised project tonight, uh then the previous approval would still stand. Does that get to your your question?

So, um I you know, I don't consider it a fully denovo hearing where your action today would, you know, would would uh set the stage going forward necessarily. And I asked that because I I didn't really consider the sidewalk issue to be on the table again or

It isn't. It's something that came up again uh after last month's hearing when uh Miss Short who submitted the letter had contacted the city to say, you know, what's this? I hear about sidewalks going in. We had an agreement with the city council going back, you know, decades that we would never do sidewalks here. Uh, and so I explained that that's, you know, kind of standard boilerplate condition language that public works places on projects that an applicant's responsible for whatever required frontage improvements are necessary. So typically that's curb, gutter, sidewalk in a traditional situation. Uh but to to John's point with design exceptions, right, we have any number of neighborhoods where maybe that isn't quite the standard like in parts of Conaloma or parts of the beach neighborhood where there aren't sidewalks, there aren't plans to put in sidewalks. And so, uh what I had told Miss Short is those types of decisions in in terms of what the required frontage improvements will be is typically something that gets ironed out later in the process when we get into the engineering permit. And that's when right public works would be working with the the architect or the civil engineer to say, "Hey, this is the driveway design we use in this neighborhood or this is the sidewalk design or in this case maybe we don't require sidewalks, right?" And I don't know that those kinds of decisions have been fully ironed out at this point. So the the condition language in there fall within as Mr. Lias and has uh said within public works exceptions as they look at the sidewalk.

Right. Yeah. Okay. Um, that helped John understanding. Yeah. What's I live in a neighborhood without sidewalks and I don't want them either. So, I mean, that's that's a got a lot that's a big signature thing about what Carperia small beach town's all about. And this is this seems to be a discretionary uh judgment here that we're going to make. Um, and uh, I've I've come to I'm a tree hugger tonight. I think that that tree is going to stay. Yeah. Anyway,

more. Well, we aren't in deliberation yet. Um, so are there any more questions of staff that have come up with this discussion? If not, I'll continue with the the public hearing which I opened earlier. Uh, and I do have uh one uh new speaker slip uh again from uh uh no Mr. Pratt. Nathan, didn't mean to speak on this. Didn't even know about this,

but um I have moved in many big trees like bringing in 20 30 trees onto a property, 10 foot, 12ft boxes, cranes, the whole bit. So I've had some experience with the tree thing. I think you're happy compromise of opening the radius a little bit if you wanted to try and create a little more of egress in into that driveway. You could do that very simply. You're not gonna be going that deep on your curb cuts and on your new curb pores, maybe 18 inches down maybe kind of a thing. So I think if you wanted to round it out a little bit, leave it, you know, fairly square but give a little more curve to it, you could do that quite easily. But on the other hand, to be frank, I mean, how much traffic is in that on that street? You know, I mean, right, this is a, you know, this is not a hight traffic zone. I think the concept of line of sight doesn't really apply here. This is not a, you know, signalized intersection or something like that. And I think that the value of the tree, I mean, to go buy that tree is about a $50,000 tree. It's no joke. So, uh, if I was if I was a property owner getting into a project, I would not want to open the can of worms like, is my project approved or not approved again? over a $50,000 tree. And by the way, you want to buy that tree plus have it put in, you know? I mean, I think you can work out a resolution and keep the tree. It doesn't seem to be like a gigantic issue really. I mean, I know that public works has their, you know, standards and you everybody wants to do things by the book and, you know, but I think that the traffic level on that street, I don't know if there's a traffic study. Has there been a traffic study at that location?

Okay. Whatever. Anyway, just, you know, have a dialogue with staff. It's Thanks. It's not a biggie.

Thank you. Are there any uh further comments? Yes. Come on up. [sighs] Forgive me, chair. I came unarmed. Um and commissioners, thank you and staff. Uh Patrick O'Conner, resident in in uh district 5, also member of the ARB. I did review this project and I did speak at the last meeting. Um, I just want to bring up a point that is probably out of the bounds just based on the the denovo discussion that we just had, but I think there's a bit of an elephant in the room. Um, the reason that this tree is a problem and the driveways in that location is because the rest of the property is and the project is non-conforming with respect to setbacks on the other side and that back building. So, I would really urge the owner to consider the right thing versus what he can do, but what he should do. put the driveway on the south side of that property, run it into the back to serve both the back building, and redesign the house for the garage on that side that's needed for the fourth garage spot. And be kind to your neighbor and get that threecar driveway easement back to the neighbor. That's the elephant in the room and it's reason why we're standing here making all these crazy things about this property. It's really not a good project at all. Thanks.

Thank you. Are there any other members of the public present in the room who would like to speak to this project? Okay, seeing none, is there anyone online? If you would like to make any public comment, please raise your hand. Okay, Dylan Chappelle, I'm going to allow you to talk. Okay. tell him. Uh, your mic is on now, so you can talk.

Yes.

No, his No, his mute but button is off. Um, if that doesn't work, you can go out of the call and then coming again. That usually works. Try going out and then joining to the meeting again. I will allow you to talk again. Okay, he's rejoining. In the meantime, chair, I'll just acknowledge for the record that we also received the one written public comment from Linda Short that we've already sort of gotten into about the sidewalk.

Yes, we have all received that Go ahead and try again with his unmuting of his uh Okay, now you can talk. I don't want to speak for the owners, but um you know, is our intent to save that tree. it's not on our property and um you know so I think we have an issue with with public works. It was my understanding that regardless of the apron improvements to the driveway, the location of the tree and the obstruction of the sight line was a safety issue. And so even if we did no improvements, the recommendation from public works would be to remove the tree. Um, you know, so if there's if there's a design exemption for the frontage improvements from public works that the sidewalk would not be required, I mean, there's no other sidewalks on that street. um the the updating the radius of the driveway would not be required. Um then then the tree could remain. Um

I think in support of public works the safeties and concerns are their life safety and health um that he's concerned about and there is a lot of existing nonconforming situations in Carpandria and it's why we love it. Um, and we do try to retain those situations a lot of times. Um, this one just happens to be a life safety uh issue for that area of the street. There's not much traffic there. You know, I think that it would be a closed and shut case if if it was a busy intersection. Um, but there still is people on that street walking around and people pulling in and out of the driveway um to to consider as well. I mean, that is a big beautiful tree. Uh, I would love to keep that tree. Um, but if somebody got hurt due to a car backing up out of that driveway, um, no matter who that is, I would I would put their safety above that tree. But it's really I don't think it's the applicant's choice. It's not the design choice. It's really what is the public works department going to allow? And I I think I heard John say like essentially no matter [clears throat] what we decide here today he has the power to remove that tree because it's a safety issue. Um and that's that's not a choice any of us

can make except public work. So, um, you know, we're here to to work with with you guys and and help figure out whatever we can. Um, it seems like a a gray area, but uh, that's all I have to say and we're here to answer any questions if needed. Who is this speaking? I'm Dylan Chappelle, the architect. Thank you. Have you finished your comment, Mr. Chappelle? I'm done. Thank you you guys. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Uh there's no one else online wishing to speak.

Um if anyone else would like to make a public comment, please raise your hand. There is no more public comment at this time.

Okay. Uh then I'll bring it back to the commission for uh deliberation. Would you like to start, Jane? You raise your hand. I'd like to start because I have a lot to say about this. I've done some research and it's a it's a topic that really unnerves me that is cutting trees down. I've always loved jackaranda trees although we say hakaranda and if you can say that we had a huge one in our yard and we never entertained the idea of chopping it down. Used as street trees, they provide a beautiful shade canopy, decidedly a positive public benefit. They serve so many purposes that it's criminal to destroy them. The lifespan of a jackaranda tree is 50 to 75 years, but they live to be 100 if the they're taken care of. And these trees are not under stress. So 100 years and they don't all drop dead at the same time either. So this tree will probably last a long time. But now we have a proposal to kill the tree for no other purpose than a dubious driveway widening. The actual driveway can accommodate a huge Jeep SUV with room on each side to open the doors. I had a picture. I don't know what happened to it, but I took took a picture with that in mind. Uh further, why on earth can't the driver enter through the easement in the rear and pull forward to their new house? They might have to move a couple of things, but they have all that back parking and access to the property through the back. You say the tree is a visual obstacle preventing uh safe exit. I don't think that's true. There are several driveways that back out on maple with no problems. Importantly, the bottom of this tree can be pruned pruned to establish a much cure clearer view. and most cars have backup warnings and

cameras. The applicant has not been a good neighbor, cutting the tree down as a cherry on the top. The house stood empty for 30 years, cited by the city and overgrown with weeds and debris to the consternation of the neighbors. And now the final blow before you build any build this overly large house is to cut the tree down. I feel differently if it was necessary, if it was reasonable, if there was an actual safety issue. I believe this wrote judgment is incorrect. I say again, the applicant have plenty of rear access, safe, and with spaces for three cars plus the house's driveway. There's no hardship here. Remember, these trees provide a lot for the they they provide a lot. Reasons to deny the tree are this is public property. The trees in the right of way are public assets maintained with taxpayer resources. And you just heard this gentleman say they cost they're worth around $50,000. And putting two new little sproutlings in there won't do the job. Uh most jurisdictions have adopted urban forest management plans, tree canopy goals or climate action plans that prioritize maintaining or increasing canopy. Removing the tree contradicts the adopted policies and sets an undesirable precedent. Street trees provide shade and cooling, storm water management as they uh deal with reduce the runoff, air quality benefits and wild half life habitat for mainly hummingbirds. These are the uh the street trees significantly contribute to the visual character, property values and curb appeal of the entire neighborhood. My observation is that there of the I think there are like 15 trees of

jackaranda on this street, many are close to the driveways, no different than this applicant. Allowing removal for the convenience rather than the necessity invites similar requests. Staff commission must maintain consistent application of tree protection policies to avoid claims of arbitrary approval. If the tree is healthy, structurally sound, and non-invasive, there is no legitimate arbor cultural good word justification for removal. Planting bodies usually take the tree down when there is a disease tree or it's a major public safety issue. Neither of these apply. Alternatives available are the applicant can redesign the driveway to fit the tree, shifting the alignment or using alternative paving. Site restraints do not rise to the level of requiring a public tree to be removed. Even if the applicant pays for the removal, the city suffers loss of long-term tree value, ongoing maintenance uh savings lost. Replacement trees take years to provide an equivalent canopy. Right-of-way trees may be removed only when there is no reasonable alternative. And there is a reasonable alternative here. Driveway expansion is not a necessity, only a preference. Residents view street trees as community assets. Removing the healthy public tree for private desire undermines the trust that may be viewed as inequitable use of power. Now I have a whole more but I'm not going to stop there. I mean I really basically covered everything and now I'm going to start repeating and then I'm going to start getting agitated. So I think what I'll say is there's no way I'm going to prove this change of condition.

And for the record, when trees come in, I'm going to be looking at them with laser vision because we can't just keep cutting trees down. So that's my thought. And I'm no vote. Thank you. Uh, who'd like to go next?

John. I I I'm [clears throat] I've started off viewing this more as a safety issue, but after listening to all the presentations, I think it's a more of a discretionary situation. And uh I I would just leave the curb alone. We don't need a sidewalk there. And you could just keep the curve radius. that's worked this far and leave the tree alone. I mean, even even taking the the surface down 18 in is going to have an effect on the tree. And I think they just should be left alone and uh and deal with it. Uh that's that's my feelings.

Thank you. Uh, next.

Sure, I'll go. Um, I'll try to be brief. I I I I don't believe we should change any conditions of the previously approved project. I'd like my preference would be the conditions stand as they were. And I would agree with others that uh we would ask staff to work with public works to look at the apron the radius uh in a way that um avoids the bulk of the roots from the jackaranda tree um such that the tree could be retained. um you know we're we're just you know our purview is the project itself. Um and um so so that's that's my preference that the the drive you know there's this project you know is is is an upgrade of the existing facilities. we're, you know, we're extending the life of of um the the the use the, you know, the non-compliance on the property. And I I support all of that. I and I also support keeping the driveway in its at least the apron in its current location. I don't think that's an unreasonable request. Um and so I'm not exactly sure how we do that. I mean, we're not My request is we don't approval already stands the way it was and that staff work with public works. I will comment that I do not challenge the authority of the public works department and the director to make decisions with regards to street trees and other uh other items within city property and rightways. So, I think that's a completely separate matter and should be handled separately. Um, for us it's the project and that that's

my request that we work try to work the driveway around the tree. Okay. Alexandra, any comments?

Yeah, thank you. You know what bothered me the most about this was that it did seem to me um that it was sort of a situational removal. if uh is the only phrase I can really uh come up with when I read this uh that it was an ad hoc type. I'm not saying that the decision makingaking process was um not thought out from public works and staff, but you know, we have these policies and an entire committee that reviews a valuable public asset and I believe there is an annual review of the street trees unless I'm I can be corrected there. Um, and so I I I really wanted to make sure that we don't make a decision about a street tree that by the way from what I remember the jackaranda is considered um like one of the I I saw several graphs in uh some of the research I did on city sites uh our city site that showed that species of tree is is preferred. It is it's one that we have used a lot. Um and and we weren't able to say there there's a there's a process for all of this. So this particular um issue in front of us um you know I think that there are we do have policy uh but it was not demonstrated to me uh

this evening. Um we are going we do have an aging tree population. Uh I believe that there has been some discussion at city council just even a few months ago um by public works that discusses this. Um and that's really that's really where those decisions need to be made not on an ad hoc basis. Um so I I believe there's no necessity or change circumstance from when we reviewed this last month. And so, um, I also want to make sure that we protect, we understand that trees, um, there there's actually a value. I wish I had the chart in front of me. I don't that shows how valuable um, a resource it is. It's a financial. It's a pie chart and it shows it. It's right there. So, I I can't repeat anything. Jane did an excellent job. John did to Glenn in uh desri explaining why this is such an important issue. So again um it's not something that uh I will be looking to change at this hearing.

Okay. Thank you. Um my comments are I guess first that I agree with my fellow commissioners. Uh um second I'd like to simply say as I think I said at the beginning I I can't recall a question when I and situation in many years when I uh you know even approach questioning a public works condition or anything like that and I hope that uh this isn't perceived as that. Safety is always a paramount concern of of us all and certainly of public works and I know that that's what was you know was was a consideration but then as as we've discussed there are balancing considerations and there always will be because you know if if if safety was your only criteria there are many things that we couldn't do couldn't allow and we would approach many things resource permitting differently I mean, for example, obviously, uh, or maybe not so obviously, but, uh, cars parked along those curbs, as somebody pointed out, you know, create a a worse vision obstruction, and they can legally be parked there than the trunk of the tree. And it is a judgment call. And as I said at the beginning when just disclosing my personal observations, um you can see oncoming traffic and people assuming there are no parked cars uh as you start backing out the driveway and it's only for a short interval. I think the trunk diameter is 20 in, something like that, that you do have visual obstruction which moves as you back out and and well before the back of a standard size vehicle is, you know, into the street in a travel lane, you can fully see. Again, assuming there are no parked cars obstructing your vision. And and then the other consideration going back to how you just balance

things and what you'd have to do to be fully safe is there are so many examples of visual obstructions like this uh uh that exist uh throughout the city uh and and you can't red curb everywhere and you can't take care of them all and you wouldn't want to. you you have to also balance those considerations with people do need to care for their own safety and people in general appreciate the value the public value of street trees and they're a very important value in our community. So, balancing the two, I agree with my fellow commissioners and uh as has been said, I'm hoping that public works can um you know, make the exceptions with the uh with the curb cut and uh and uh um and that this project may uh proceed as as originally conditioned. So, that's where I am. And I have one question of staff of Nick. Uh none of the three options as drafted fit our circumstance. So uh how about doing a motion for us where we keep the uh the uh the project as as conditioned at our last hearing.

Chair simply to state just that if you wish but what I would recommend is is just that the the commission make a motion to conceptually deny this resolution and then um you know typically we would have to then come back at the next meeting with a formal resolution for denial. But after you conceptually deny the resolution, then the applicant could, if they're, you know, immunable to it, just request to withdraw this request to revise the conditions of approval. And so then that would just put it to rest if that makes sense.

Okay. Well, I'll invite a motion from a member of the commission, Alexandra, or whoever. Glenn. So it would just be a motion to conceptually deny this resolution and direct staff to return with findings for denial of this particular request at the next meeting. So moved. [laughter] Second. I'll second to move us along. [gasps] Okay. Then um uh the applicant has heard this uh this representative has heard this this motion. Would you wish us to proceed as staff suggested? Again, for our from our standpoint, we didn't see a way to comply.

You need Yes or no? Point, we simply didn't see a way to comply with the requirements as they were presented to us from a driveway with the Yeah. Again, if we can leave the curbs as they are, I my preference would be all the curbs and not put a sidewalk in. Our concern is again we want the tree to live if the tree is going to stay. So we just want to avoid damaging.

Okay. I I think in this procedural situation the commission can't assure all of that. But in this position if you don't want us to return to another hearing you need to. and we're we're fine as as long as it's something we're not going to have to come back because we cannot comply because of the requirements. That's Yeah. I again So yes, Nick, would you like to restate the where we are right now [laughter] so it's clear

through the chair? So, if if it from what I'm what I think I'm hearing right, is is you're agreeable to to going back to what the planning commission approved at the last meeting of keeping the driveway more or less as it is and and preserving the tree in place and and you're comfortable with that so long as public works will work with you on granting you the design exceptionally way to accommodate that. Correct. Um, so then I don't want to be bound falling back and forth without the ability to move forward and

and I don't want us to be in that situation either. Uh, and so if the commission conceptually denies this revised project tonight, um, you know, then, um, we would traditionally come back at the next meeting with the updated resolution for them to make that denial official. However, if in the intervening time, you send Cindy a note and say, "Hey, you know, we're fine with uh adhering to the project as originally approved at the November hearing. We withdraw a request to revise the conditions of approval." Then that would just put the whole thing to rest and we don't need to come back here to hash this out any further. And that's fine. Thank you.

Okay. I hope this works out well for everybody. Okay. Okay. So, I think we have the motion from Commissioner Lever. We don't have a vote yet. Let's do a roll call vote. Need a second, I think, still too unless it Okay, we have motion and second. Should we do a roll call vote? Sure. Uh, Commissioner Moyer, [clears throat] I'm sorry. Was that Yes. Yes. Sorry. Uh, Commissioner Van Antworp? Yes. Commissioner Lefvers? Yes. Commissioner Benfield? Yes. Is yes the right vote? and chair Allen. Yes.

Motion carries 5-0. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. And thank you. Okay. So, uh we are now on to the u other business. Is there any other business? I have nothing for you under other business. Okay. Are there any matters to be presented by commissioners? Any commissioners have a report they want to make or question comment? I have a question on the calendar yet. Um, well, we can do that when we get to the calendar, I guess. I I have some Oh, okay. Go ahead, Alexandra.

Um, two things. First, I wanted to I I attended uh the Beacon meeting last week, I think it was. And um I believe one of our council a member of the city council at the last city council meeting also talked about this. Um but there was an amazing presentation at the last beacon meeting um from the California Beach Resilience Plan from Dr. Charles Lester of University of California, Santa Barbara, Ocean and Coastal Policy Center, and Dr. Kiki Patch, if I'm saying her last name correctly, of California State University, Channel Islands, Department of Environmental Science and Resource Management. And it was amazing um on beach erosion, sea level rise, um how from a planning long range planning perspective and even now we're learn look learning it's much more short range than we thought um things that both the city council and I believe the planning commission um should be looking at. And so I was just hoping that it's something Nick, I'm not sure quite how to do this, but to request as well uh along with uh city council person Julia Meyers that that we we bring this presentation in front of the planning commission in some form. So that was one comment that I had. So I'm not sure if uh that's one and then I can move on to my second item if that's okay.

But go ahead, Nick, if you had something to say about the beacon.

Uh through the chair. Thank you, Commissioner Vanerp. Um I haven't seen this particular presentation, but we could certainly uh reach out to the beacon folks and see if they recorded it. And if they did, maybe we could at minimum at least make it available to all the planning commissioners or somehow figure out a way to, you know, put it out there more widely to the to the community if there's interest. I I don't know if we're a big enough draw to get Dr. Lester or Dr. Patch here to to make a personal presentation to us, but I suppose we could we could ask about that as well. Um, and then while we're on the topic of sea level rise, I did just want to mention that this is something that's addressed specifically in our general plan update. So, there's a whole brand new element or chapter to the general plan that will be uh looking specifically at coastal hazards. And that was, you know, one of the big uh reasons for doing the general plan update was to to kind of create the policy basis for that. So that then we can follow on that action by actually crafting regulations to start uh looking at how we plan for and account for sea level rise in future development decisions in the city. So it's, you know, it's an iterative process. It's going to take years to get there, but it it is in the works.

Right. I'd like to hear that. Excuse me. You had another item. Yeah. But [cough and clears throat] did Oh, well, no. You could go forward. Finish your comments. Okay. I thought you had something else. I had one other completely o Yeah. Nothing that had nothing to do with Beacon. Well, that [laughter] you want me to go ahead with Yeah. Yeah. You were speaking, so finish is all I'm

saying. Yeah. Well, this is this is one of the things that one of I brought this up before and I know that there are some folks this evening that brought up the review planning commission review of the Surfliner in for the project. And I am also concerned that as we get closer to this hearing, there's actually a lot of information that will not be included of course in the EIR that stand outside of the EIR. And it seems to me that because there have been a couple of um there have been several people who have brought forth to our attention that there may be some process issues that go back quite some time ago. Um and this would include the original RFP and the scoring um ENA and amendments. That's the exclusive exclus ex I'm sorry exclusive negotiating agreement um the LDDA and how that sort of set the pace for the public only really looking at that land the land use as an inn or a hotel. So I have some concerns that we never really had an opportunity. my understanding it's never been in front of the planning commission before that we've never really had an opportunity to take a look at alternate land use um alternate ways to use that land and how it would benefit the city. Um, I understand that that will be part of

SQUA and the EIR to a point, but there's a lot more that's gone on. Um, so I actually have a list of noneir materials that I think are very important that [clears throat] the planning commission be able to review. And my biggest concern is that this is going to be a a hearing that um has there's been a lot of community input over the years and that it's going to be a lot for us to understand and assimilate because the the information um the full procedural history of the project a fiscal public benefit I think this is public planned and uh I I want to make sure that we have a grounding in understanding how this has unrolled to where we are and and the processes. So, I wanted to bring that up now because I didn't want it to come down to like 72 hours of, [laughter] you know, suddenly we've got a list, a stack like this to go through. And I'm just wondering if there's a way to um to piece this out so that we do get this information

and and I can be more more I can give you uh a little more detail about what I'm looking for. Could be now or another time. through the chair, Commissioner Vanerp. Um, you know, thank you for that and, you know, I appreciate your concerns and I recognize that there's a good number of folks in the community who share some of those concerns and I don't want to dismiss them, but I do want to make clear here, right, that in the case of the Surfliner project, the city as an organization is is wearing sort of two hats, right? They're wearing the hat of being a landlord, which is being managed through the city manager's office, which is um addressing some of the things that you're talking about, right? The ENA, the LDDA, some of these different steps and processes that were went through to select uh a developer, an operator, and to enter into some sort of agreement with them. And then there's separately the city's hat as land use authority as you know being responsible for reviewing the project that's before them and making a decision on whether the project is or is not consistent with city policies and regulations. And so uh you know to the state right we've tried to maintain kind of this firewall where planning is responsible for the land use portion of the project and the city manager's office office is responsible for the landlord pieces of of this arrangement. And so when this project comes before the planning commission in the future someday, uh your role is really going to be on those land use matters, right? Does this project comply with the city's zoning requirements? Does it comply with the city's uh general plan and land use regulations? It doesn't mean that those other concerns out there aren't valid. It's just that they aren't necessarily within the purview of the planning commission. And so if if folks want to uh discuss those other those other kind of elements of this project or of this

agreement, the proper venue for doing so in that case would be through the city council, right? And so when this comes before your commission, we're going to be more narrowly focused on the the project itself. And then um if folks want to want to debate or question those other elements of the project, it's likely going to be appealed to the city council where that kind of higher level policy discussion can take place.

Yeah, I think I think in this case um it's a public private partnership and it is a land use issue. Um and I'm even going into things like well we just talked about sea level rise. I mean, we're we're we will need more of that information. I I can't get in, you know, I don't want to get into it too in too much detail here tonight because it's not agenda. It's not something we should not discuss it ourselves right now. I don't mean you can't say more, but I don't want to see a deliberation among among other members of the planning commission.

Yeah. I mean, we could certainly revisit this with our, you know, our legal counsel, but that's kind of been, you know, sort of our our strategy and arrangement with this project from the get-go is is that there needs to be this firewall and it's sort of handled through two different parts of the city uh so that the planning process can remain objective and not be uh influenced or steered by, you know, kind of these other more landlord tenant uh you know, type considerations. [snorts] Okay. Well, I I think we do need to have further discussion, but thank you so much.

And I and I would just finally add right that for anyone who's interested, planning commissioners or members of the public, a lot of the information about the ENA process, the LDDA process, and so on is on the city website. It's all available there on the Surfliner project information page. So folks can go and pull up those old staff reports and read through those materials if they're interested in learning more about the history of this of this project.

Okay. Uh any um commissioners have uh any reports they want to make? Okay. Uh, I'll just simply note that uh today is the first day of the city ordinance uh closing uh the beach uh in the area of the um seal hall out and rrookery um basically from Tarpets uh beach jelly bowl uh east and down to the Higgins ramp going down to the ocean there uh including the pier area. So um uh for 6 months of the year the city uh officially closes the beach and for the rest of the year uh harbor seals are on the beach all year round uh unless they basically unless they are disturbed and the most common cause of disturbance is people walking on the beach and that's also usually the cause of the most severe disturbances where all or almost all flew into the ocean. So, we encourage people, we by we I mean uh those who are involved in protecting the seals, such as Seal Watch organization, we encourage people to stay off that section of beach all year round because if you walk it, you won't see the seals and nobody else will be able to either. Um which is too bad for uh the public's enjoyment. Um so that's my

I have a question announcement. We there's a [clears throat] Nick, there's a scheduling of the general plan update committee on this next calendar for the 15th. I don't think we're we have a reason to meet. Uh Jane, that's maybe a good segue if there's no other matters by planning commissioners into the director's report. Let's go on with the director's report.

Never get it in the right place, but [laughter] you know. So, so in this month's director's report, you received a copy of the minutes from the September 25th ARB meeting, a calendar for the month of December, and activity reports for planning and building permits for the month of November. Um, and so to Commissioner Benfield's point, there is a a placeholder, a recurring placeholder for the GPU meeting that shows up on the city calendar, but we are not anticipating holding the GPU meeting in December. We're we're right now uh working with the consultants to get started on the EIR process for the general plan update. And so that's going to keep us busy here for the next few months. And I I don't anticipate us needing to convene the GPU here while we're in that in that initial process. Uh, and then you also received uh I think Lorenna gave you all the proposed schedule of planning commission and ARB meetings for the 2026 calendar year. And that concludes my director's report unless you have any questions.

Any questions? Okay. Then we'll move on to the last item, which is attendance of commissioners at the next meeting. I should clarify, I'm not I don't think we're going to be having the January 5th meeting. It's we don't have anything ready and and that's going to be coming up right after we're uh coming back from holiday break when city hall's closed. So I'm anticipating that hearing is likely to get cancelled which would make our next planning commission meeting February 2nd I believe. Okay. What are the dates just for if anybody's still watching of uh city hall closure?

Yeah. So, City Hall will be closed to the public beginning on December 24th and then reopening on January 5th. January what? Monday, January 5th. Okay, thank you. Okay, attendance January 5th and well, maybe February 2nd if anybody knows. Yeah, I can't. Looks like we all expect to be at all those meetings, both those meetings.

Okay. Okay. And with that we are adjourned. Thank you very much Nick. [music] You are dead. [music]