Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We're going to go ahead and start with our convening start for our planning commission and for today. Cindy, we can have a call to order, please. I'm sorry, no, roll call.

Good afternoon, Commissioners. Commissioner Bealey. Commissioner Curran.

Here.

Commissioner Lind.

Here.

Commissioner Monroe. Here. Commissioner Sandoval. Here. Commissioner Stepanisic? Here. Commissioner Morales? Here.

Great. We're going to go ahead and if anybody has any comments, I would like to move the minutes for last meeting that happened on July 27th. Are there any comments, questions, or would like to motion?

I'll move the minutes.

Okay. Commissioner Stepanichat makes the first motion. I'll second. And Commissioner Lin seconds the motion. Minutes from last meeting have been approved. Now we're going to go ahead and move to any communications from the commissioners.

I do have one non-agendized question, which is I'm hoping we could ask for an update, and I'm thinking it might be soon, on the short-term rental ordinance implementation.

If I may, Julia Krog, Deputy Director, Planning Services. Yes, I think that's something that could be done. Right now, the department is... just hitting that point of a couple years into the implementation of the short-term rental ordinance, and we'll be working on an update and analysis of sort of how the program's working. So I don't know that we have a tentative date yet, but I think certainly we can put that on the list.

Thank you. I've been getting a lot of questions about it, and it's definitely of interest to a lot of folks out in our district. So thank you very much.

Perfect. I do have a few communication announcements. First, I've been asked to remind everyone that this Wednesday from 5 to 7, there is a broad act training to make sure you follow the link that was sent to you via email. In case you do not have it, please contact Cindy. Again, this will be for this Wednesday, September 2nd from 5 to 7 via Zoom. Second, we will need to take a break at 2.55, whatever we are in the project. There's one of our commissioners that needs to step out, so we're taking a five-minute break from 2.55 to 3 to make that transition. And last, also I've been asked that all the commissioners, we really need to do a bigger effort on communicating to Cindy if we'll be in attendance or not in attendance to a meeting so they can prepare for quorum in events. Perfect. So thank you. And we're going to go ahead and move to item two, which is the director's report. We'll have Sarah Jones, who's the director for the Community Development Agency, joining us remotely today. So Sarah Jones.

Yes, thank you. Can you hear me?

Yes. Nice and clear. Great.

Okay, thanks, and thank you all for accommodating my need to be remote today. I had some family issues to address, so I'm kind of multitasking here. I wanted to join today to kind of pass the baton over to our new Deputy Director of Planning Services, Julia Krogh. You had the chance to meet her just a little while ago in a little casual meet and greet that we had. And I hope you all had a chance to connect. But we are really thrilled to have Julia here with the county and with Community Development Agency. She has a terrific experience. over 12 years in Mendocino County with planning and building services, most recently as a director of that department, but I actually started there as a planner one. So it looks like something cut out. Am I still going?

Yes, you are.

Okay, great. Thank you. So, you know, really bringing essentially a full career embedded in planning at the county level in a coastal county, you know, some really strong experience with planning. many, many of the issues that we address at Marin, but bringing different ideas, different perspectives, and different strategies. So our whole department, particularly, of course, our planning services team is focused Really excited to be working with her. And one of her most important roles, of course, is to support this commission as executive staff. And so she will be a very, very strong partner for all of you. So I just wanted to turn it over to Julia and give her that introduction.

Well, thank you so much, Sarah, for the very warm introduction and good afternoon, commissioners. I'm Julia Krog. I'm the deputy director of planning services in my fifth week of employment with Marin County. And so for today's director's report, I just had one item to update you on, which is really a brief update regarding a recent board item. So at the last board meeting, which was August 25th, a workshop was held on the off-site objective design and development standards that were previously presented at this commission on July 27th. During that meeting, the board gave direction to staff regarding the standards. Staff will next incorporate that feedback from the board, and it's anticipated that those off-site objective design and development standards will return to the Board of Supervisors for action in October or November, right around that time frame. And with that, that's my one update item for you. And I am available to answer any questions that the commission may have.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. And it's great to have you on our team. Welcome to Marin County. Pleasure to meet you. Welcome.

So I had a question. Yes, go ahead. So those standards are not coming back to the commission?

The standards there may be a an update sort of presentation But my understanding is the next step in the process is for an ordinance to be prepared and that to be considered by the County Board of Supervisors You speak into your microphone, please

I THOUGHT THE LAST WORKSHOP WE HAD, WE WERE TOLD IT WOULD COME BACK TO US.

SINCE I AM STILL NEW IN THIS RULE, I WILL CONFIRM INTERNALLY.

THAT WAS MY IMPRESSION. WE NEVER TOOK AN ACTION ON IT. WE GAVE SOME ADVISORY COMMENTS, BUT WE DIDN'T TAKE AN ACTION ON IT.

I WILL ALSO LOOK TO MY COLLEAGUE NEXT TO ME FOR ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS HE HAS.

Thank you, Commissioner Lin. Manny?

Manny Barakat. No, actually, we did say it wasn't coming back to the Commission as a workshop, and there were two items at that time, one of which related to Title 22 or the planning code, and your Commission adopted a resolution to modify the form-based code, and then the workshop was continued with your INSTRUCTIONS AND FURTHER REFINEMENT TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. WHAT WE DID SAY, THOUGH, IS THE NEXT PHASES, THE RURAL AND THE COSTAL CODE WILL BE COMING BACK TO YOU.

I'M SORRY. I MISSED THAT. THAT WE WEREN'T GOING TO TAKE AN ACTION ON THOSE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

BECAUSE IT IS ON TITLE 24, THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS NO AUTHORITY.

I SEE. SO THOSE WERE COURTESY BRIEFINGS THEN.

CORRECT. EXCUSE ME. SARAH JONES WILL BE SPEAKING IN ONE SECOND. Thank you.

Yes, I just wanted to clarify, you know, Mr. Baraket is, of course, correct that there is not an action for the Planning Commission. There's not a further action for the Planning Commission to take. However, when we went to the Board of Supervisors, you know, following the input that we got from this commission, we did bring some strategies to address some of the issues that emerged around ways to achieve some flexibility and ways to make sure that we were going to end up with streets that achieved the safety goals we needed to, but gave a way to get there in some different ways, particularly when a developer would maintain the street as a private street. So we introduce some new concepts in how this might be structured at the board. And so as Julia mentioned, we did discuss that it would likely be of great interest to bring them back to this commission, time permitting. We are under something of a time crunch to get some standards in place. So we are still working together with the Department of Public Works on how we might find an opportunity to bring a further informational presentation to the commission to sort of show the additional work that's been done on this.

Thank you, Sarah. Are we good? Okay. Perfect. So we're going to go ahead and move on unless there's other comments. Okay. Item three, open for public expression for items that are not related to what's already on the agenda. Okay. So we're going to go ahead and move to item four, which is the development and the development code update. And we have... Manny Barak on the topic. Thank you.

Sure. So thank you very much. So in front of you today are development code updates primarily to establish some consistency with changes in state law. And Manny has done a significant amount of work on this and really done a great job putting together these very sometimes challenging state laws to be able to implement on a local level. But with that, I'm going to turn it over to Manny and let him go through his presentation.

Thank you so much. PowerPoint, please. Good afternoon, commissioners. Good afternoon, members of the public. And thank you for being here. Today we will be asking your commission to recommend a set of amendments to the Planning Court to the Board of Supervisors. As you may... As you may recall, back in April, Anna Lianza had brought before your commission a very wide comprehensive set of amendments for your consideration in a workshop. SO TODAY I AM CONTINUING ON THAT WORK AND WHERE ANNA HAD LEFT OFF. BUT BETWEEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN APRIL AND TODAY, HCD HAS SENT A LETTER TO THE COUNTY INFORMING US THAT OUR ADU ORDINANCE IS OUT OF COMPLIANCE AND THAT OUR SB9 ORDINANCE ALSO NEEDED TO BE REWORKED SLIGHTLY. SO WHAT WE'VE DECIDED TO DO IN RESPONSE WAS REVIEW THE ENTIRE DEV CODE THAT IMPLEMENTS STATE HOUSING LAWS AND TO MAKE SURE IT'S CONSISTENT WITH ALL THE DIFFERENT STATE LAWS. THOSE INCLUDE THE STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW, THE ADU ORDINANCE, THE JUNIOR ADU ORDINANCE, AB 2011, SB 35, AND OTHERS. THE INTENT, WHEN REVIEWING ALL THOSE LAWS, WE FOUND THAT MOST OF OUR CODE HAS NOT BEEN UPDATED SINCE 2024. BUT THE STATE LAW HAS MOVED SO FAR TO A POINT THAT THESE LAWS NEED TO BE UPDATED. SO WHAT WE DECIDED TO DO IS BIFURCATE LAWS INTO TWO SET OF AMENDMENTS. TODAY BEFORE YOU IS A VERY NARROW SET OF AMENDMENTS THAT IMPLEMENT THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF STATE LAWS. and also propose two new amendments, two new sections to the code to make it clear and sort of housing related. And the intent is to make it easier for the public, for the applicants, for the commission in implementing these laws. I'll treat this as a workshop because it's pretty dense and I'll stop along the way to ask questions and there will be decision points for the Planning Commission and I will engage you in making decisions. FIRST, LET'S TALK ABOUT THE ADU ORDINANCE. SINCE WE LAST UPDATED IT IN 2024, THE STATE HAS IMPLEMENTED FOUR DIFFERENT TYPES OF DIFFERENT LEGISLATION. CUMULATIVELY, THOSE LEGISLATIONS HAVE ESSENTIALLY RENDERED OUR CODE NONCOMPLIANT AND ESPECIALLY IN TWO AREAS. THE COUNTY CODE REQUIRES SETBACKS THAT ARE GREATER THAN FOUR FEET AND THE STATE LAW CLEARLY SAYS IN NO CASE CAN YOU REQUIRE A SETBACK OF GREATER THAN FOUR FEET FOR ANY ADUS ATTACHED OR DETACHED. THE SECOND SET OF CHANGES IS THE NUMBER OF ADUS ALLOWED IN CONJUNCTION WITH A MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING. THE CODE CURRENTLY READS THAT ADUs in multifamily housing is only allowed in instances where there is an existing multifamily housing. The state law has now changed to say it's worth proposing existing. That's one. And two, has increased the number of allowable ADUs with multifamily housing. And we need to amend our code to comply with the code. AT THE LAST COMMISSION HEARING, YOUR COMMISSION HAD ASKED STAFF TO LOOK INTO WHETHER OR NOT SHORT-TERM RENTALS WOULD BE PERMITTED IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN ADU. AND WE DID NOT CLEARLY GIVE YOU A DIRECT ANSWER. AND WE'VE DONE SOME MORE RESEARCH. WE LOOKED AT OUR SHORT-TERM RENTAL AND OTHER THINGS. SO WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING BEFORE YOUR COMMISSION TODAY IS THAT ONE, IMPLEMENT THE STATE LAW IN ORDER TO BE CONSISTENT, BUT ALSO THE DECISION POINT FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS THE STATE LAW DOES ALLOW THIS. WE'RE PROPOSING A PROVISION THAT WOULD SAY NO SHORT-TERM RENTAL SHALL BE ALLOWED WITH ANY ADUS. THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL ORDINANCE DOES SAY ADUS THAT WERE CREATED PRIOR TO ESSENTIALLY 2022 CANNOT, AFTER 2022, CANNOT ALLOW SHORT-TERM RENTAL, BUT WE WANT TO IMPLEMENT IT SO IT'S CONSISTENT. AND THIS IS NOT REQUIRED BY STATE LAW, BUT IT WAS INTEREST OF THE COMMISSION, ESPECIALLY COMMISSIONER CURRENT HAD ASKED FOR THAT WE COME BACK WITH THIS, AND THIS IS ONE OF THE DECISION POINTS. AND I'LL STOP THIS IN CASE THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS. Yes, Commissioner Lund.

So could you please clarify, is that meaning that you can't have both an ADU and a short-term rental on one property? Or does it mean that you cannot convert an ADU into a short-term rental?

You cannot use an ADU for short-term rental purposes.

But you could have an ADU and a short-term rental on the same property.

Correct.

Provided that the ADU was a regular residential property.

Rented for greater than 30 days or owner-occupied.

Correct. Thank you.

IN TERMS OF SENATE BILL 9, THE STATE HAS PASSED THREE LAWS IN THE LAST THREE YEARS. ONE OF THEM IS THE MOST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE. IT IMPACTS WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAD PREVIOUSLY STRUGGLED BUT ACCOMPLISHED OR ADOPTED. THE CHANGES THAT SB 450, IT SAYS THAT WE CANNOT REQUIRE SETBACKS, ZONING STANDARDS THAT ARE DIFFERENT OR NOT EVEN FORMALLY APPLIED FOR THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT. THAT'S ONE ISSUE. THE SECOND ISSUE IS IMPLIED IN THERE IS YOUR COMMISSION HAD PUT IN A CAP OF 1600 SQUARE FOOT FOR UNITS CREATED THROUGH SB 9. So this could potentially create a conflict. If the underlying zoning allows greater than 1,600 square feet, you are under state law, you must allow greater than 1,600 square feet. So what we've done, the way we've written it is that comply with the underlying zoning district or 1,600 square feet, whichever is more permissive. So this would be consistent with the state law. And again, keep in mind, once your commission adopts the Senate Bill 9, it will be submitted to HCD for approval and certification. I'll stop here as well and ask if there are any questions.

Commissioner Lynn?

Yeah. I had underlined the text on page four of the staff report.

Can you speak into the microphone, please?

First of all, before going into questions, I do want to say that this is a really excellent staff report. I really appreciated how well you've dealt with such complex technical detail and made it really very understandable. And I do have a few clarification requests, but not too many compared to sometimes. Anyway, so... I was confused about this language, number two, where it says local addictions may impose only those standards on lots that relate to parcel design or physical improvements such as lot size, access, and grading. So what exactly does that mean in terms of parcel? What else is there?

That was lifted directly from the state law. But there are other things. For instance, we cannot take into consideration slope anymore because we have restrictions based on slope.

Okay, so slope would be an example.

Access would be another one.

Access and?

Easements, required easements could be another one. Okay. And that's the main issue really is easements. As you know, under the state subdivision, Law owners a property owner cannot grant themselves in easements for recorded deed and We try to place conditions of approval, but we created with that process creates creates a conflict So that's the state's attempt to cure that issue Okay, I could see that slope could be a significant change and

Okay, then I also had a question in the sentence prior under number one. It says local jurisdictions may no longer impose standards on secondary primary dwelling units that, this is the phrase, that do not apply uniformly to all development within the underlying zone. So that means that anything that Anything that the state has already preempted, we have to use. And we can only use any other features we may have where the state has not preempted.

As long as it's uniformly applied. Right. Yes.

OK. So that would be like floor area ratio, perhaps, or percentage of lot coverage, or things like that, where the state statute is silent. Correct. OK. OK. It doesn't mean existing development. It doesn't allude to existing standards of what may now be nonconforming structures on the property. I'm just clarifying that.

No, it doesn't. What it does mean is laws and objective standards that are in effect at the time the application is submitted.

Okay. I think that's an important thing for everyone to understand, particularly for the public, because people have the expectation that consistency means consistent with what's there on the ground, and that is not always the case. Correct. Okay.

Manny, can you please repeat that? So it only applies for the applications that will be coming in or the ones that are already on?

IT APPLIES THOSE STANDARDS, IT APPLIES TO, YOU COULD ONLY APPLY EXISTING LAWS, REGULATIONS, ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY AT THE TIME THE APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED. SO IF SOME, IF IT'S AN EXISTING CONDITION, MORE COMMON IN MILL VALLEY, SMALL HOUSES, SMALL LOTS. AND HOUSES ARE RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE WITH HUGE SIDE BACK AND FRONT AND REAR. That cannot be the requirement going forward. The requirement going forward for SB 9 is whatever is written in the code at the time they submit the application.

Got it. Thank you.

But just to clarify that, if the code were to allow some kind of an averaging or some codes do that, we could have an approach like that as long as it met the minimum required by the state.

As long as it was subjective and complied with state law. However, we don't have such a thing.

Okay.

Do you have more questions, Commissioner Lynn?

That's all I have on SB 9.

Thank you. Go ahead.

Continue. AB 2011, Assembly Bill 2011, this is essentially state law that passed a few years ago that allows commercial properties to be repurposed for residential and mixed use without rezoning, without general plan amendment, and also by right subject to objective design standards. The state has amended it twice since it was adopted, and the set of amendments we are proposing is essentially to align it with the state law. We are not introducing any new text, new language, or new provisions. It's strictly compliance with the state law. THE SAME THING WITH SENATE BILL 423, COMMONLY KNOWN AS SENATE BILL 35. THIS IS THE ORIGINAL MINISTERIAL BY RIGHT APPROVAL PROCESS THAT THE STATE APPROVED. THIS HAS BEEN AMENDED FEW TIMES. IT WAS SET TO EXPIRE IN 2025 BUT HAS BEEN EXTENDED BY ANOTHER 10 YEARS AND HAS BEEN EXPANDED TO APPLY TO COASTAL ZONES NOW. THE COUNTY IS NOT SUBJECT TO SENATE BILL 35 AT THE MOMENT, BUT THE MID HOUSING CYCLE EVALUATIONS ARE DUE NEXT YEAR. WE MAY BE, WE DON'T KNOW, BUT FOR NOW WE'RE NOT SUBJECT TO SENATE BILL 35. THE SET OF AMENDMENTS WE'RE PROPOSING HERE IS INTENDED TO STRICTLY ALIGNMENT WITH THE STATE LAW AND NOTHING ELSE. FOR THESE TWO LAWS, I'LL PAUSE HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. Yes, Commissioner Lind.

So my question is about the statement in the staff report on page five at the end of paragraph two that says the bill narrows local discretionary oversight by eliminating review authority by the Board of Supervisors and the County Council while allowing the Planning Commission to conduct limited review focused solely on compliance with SB 2011. I COULDN'T FIND THAT TEXT IN THE CODE AMENDMENT SECTION.

BECAUSE WE NEVER ADOPTED IT.

WE DON'T HAVE IT. SO THAT WOULD BE NEW UNDERLINED TEXT SOMEPLACE?

IT WOULD NOT BE A SUBJECT. IT'S NOT A NEW TEXT. SO WHEN WE ADOPTED IT BACK IN 2024, I BELIEVE, WE DESIGNATED, WE MADE NO DESIGNATION WHICH BODY WOULD REVIEW, WHETHER IT'S CDA DIRECTOR OR THE PLANNING COMMISSION. WHAT THIS NEW LAW DOES SAY IS THAT SOME JURISDICTION HAS HAD DESIGNATED CITY COUNCILS AND MOSTLY TO BE THE REVIEWING AUTHORITY THROUGH A PUBLIC REHEARING PROCESS AND NOW THEY TOOK AWAY THAT ABILITY. WE NEVER DESIGNATED THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AS THE REVIEWING AUTHORITY IN THE FIRST PLACE SO WE DON'T HAVE TO MAKE CHANGES. HOWEVER, AT LATER STAGE IN THE EDITS, THIS WILL COME BACK, THAT WE ARE ESSENTIALLY DESIGNATING YOUR PLANNING COMMISSION AS BEING THE REVIEWING AUTHORITY INSTEAD OF STAFF.

SO IT'S INSTEAD OF STAFF. I WAS NOT UNDERSTANDING THIS, BECAUSE TO ME, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT MINISTERIAL REVIEW, THAT'S A STAFF-LEVEL REVIEW. SO WHAT WOULD BE THE INSTANCES WHEN IT WOULDN'T BE? COULD STAFF REFER IT UP TO THE COMMISSION AT YOUR DISCRETION?

IT HAS TO BE QUALIFIED IN ORDER FOR YOUR COMMISSION TO REVIEW AND ADMINISTER A REVIEW PROCESS. THIS BILL DOES ALLOW THE PLANNING COMMISSION, JUST AS THE SB 35 ALLOWS YOUR PLANNING COMMISSION TO BE THE DESIGNATED REVIEWING AUTHORITY. BUT YOUR REVIEW IS VERY LIMITED TO WHAT IS OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS.

But we don't have that trigger in our local development code? The state law allows it, but we have not implemented it?

We didn't have it until now.

I see. I'm still confused about when it would occur. What would trigger that?

IF SOMEONE WERE TO SUBMIT AN SB35 NEXT YEAR, IF SOMEONE WERE TO SUBMIT AB2011 GOING FORWARD, IF YOUR COMMISSION APPROVES THIS AND THE BOARD ADOPTS IT, THE PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD BE THE REVIEWING AUTHORITY.

INSTEAD OF THE STAFF.

INSTEAD OF STAFF, CORRECT.

I SEE. OKAY. So we would have to make, then, the SB 35 consistency findings and any other consistency findings? Correct. OK. I understand. Thanks for that clarification. I might have one of them. Let's see what's on this page.

Court page are you on?

I'm on page six, right underneath the chart, AB 2011. It's the reference to only having a limited or restricted right or easement access. This has to do with the definition of freeway. What would be a limited restricted right?

That is state highway definition. And I don't have Department of Public Works staff to help, but we mapped it out. The 101 corridor qualifies for SB 35, AB 2011 consideration, as does parts of Highway 1 or Shoreline Highway. But the vast majority of Highway 1, as you go uphill, does not qualify.

Well, I understand the part of the sentences that says abutting lands have no right or easement of access. What I'm not understanding is the second part of the sentence that references only limited or restricted rights. So what would be an example of a limited right?

SHORTLINE HIGHWAY HAS DRIVEWAYS THAT ABUT DIRECTLY TO THE FREEWAY, WHEREAS ON 101, THERE IS NO SUCH THING. IT'S JUST A FREEWAY. RIGHT.

THERE ARE FRONTAGE ROADS EVERYWHERE. I UNDERSTAND THAT FRONTAGE ROAD SITUATION. I'M ASKING ABOUT WHY LIMITED RIDE? WHAT IS A LIMITED RIDE? THIS IS STATE LAW.

THIS IS STATE LAW.

THAT'S SOMETHING YOU COULD GET BACK TO US ON.

I'd be happy to or maybe later on if the Department of Public Works.

I don't understand that language.

If the Department of Public Works is listening to this hearing, please come forward.

Yeah. What would a limited easement be? You can have cars but no trucks or something like that?

I think it has to do with driveways and then the number of access has nothing to do with capacity.

I see. Okay.

No? No.

Okay.

Thank you, Commissioner Lin.

Go ahead. Oh. That was it for that section.

Thank you, Commissioner Lin.

I have to check my notes.

The state density bonus law. Yes. By our count, since 2017, it's been amended by 14 bills. In the last four years, it's been amended by one, two, three, four, six laws in the last two years. And then there are two pending at the moment. At least, well, I should have said this in the beginning. We cannot discuss any pending applications due to, obviously, Housing Accountability Act, Brown Act, and other things. But I'll mention this. There are two applications. TWO APPLICANTS OR APPLICATIONS THAT WE BELIEVE HAVE CONTACTED HCD TO OUTLINE THAT OUR IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCE OF THE STATE BONUS LAW IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE, BUT WE'RE NOT THE ONLY ONE. MANY CITIES AND COUNTIES ARE. IT'S SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE LAW BEING AMENDED EVERY YEAR. LEAGUE OF CITIES PETITION REQUESTED THAT HCD DRAFT A SAMPLE TEMPLATE FOR CITIES AND COUNTIES TO ADOPT FOR STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW. HCD HAS ISSUED ONE LAST YEAR AND FORWARDED THAT TO US FOR CONSIDERATION FOR ADOPTION. The Bay Area Council of Governments has also created a template for its members for adoption. It's more or less the same in mirrors. So what we are proposing your commission does is REPEAL OUR EXISTING ADU ORDINANCE BECAUSE IT DOES NOT OFFER ANYTHING BEYOND WHAT IS IN THE STATE LAW. IT IS ESSENTIALLY IMPLEMENTING THE STATE LAW AND THAT WE RECOMMEND YOUR COMMISSION ADOPT THE VERSION THAT'S BEEN DRAFTED BY THE SJCOMS BAY AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENT. IT'S LARGELY CONSISTENT. THE MAIN DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT HCD HAS PROPOSED AND WHAT THE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS HAVE PROPOSED AS THE LATTER CLEARLY OUTLINES THE REPLACEMENT PROVISIONS, WHEREAS THE HCD SIMPLY REFERS TO THE STATE LAW. IT'S BEEN OUR EXPERIENCE THAT HAVING OUTLINED THE REPLACEMENT PROVISION HAS BEEN HELPFUL IN LETTING THE APPLICANTS AND THE PUBLIC UNDERSTAND THAT IF YOU REMOVE HOUSING IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN APPLICATION, YOU HAVE TO REPLACE IT AS OUTLINED.

and the state law.

This came into, this came before your commission with that project in Point Reyes, downtown Point Reyes, where there were two units. The applicant's argument there was those were unpermitted units, therefore they did not have to replace them, whereas the state law just says existing units. So we want to make it clear that replacement is required, whether permitted or unpermitted. I'll stop here and see if you have any questions.

Sorry, can I just make an observation on that chapter? Yes. I just wanted to call out, actually, let's see here. It's in the application requirements, 22.

Can you read to a page at the bottom, please?

Yes. So in the actual text, it's... 30-49, or Roman numeral III-49, so section 22.24.40 . Number three. And I just wanted to applaud this paragraph. It feels very important and valuable. For each concession or incentive requested, the applicant shall identify and provide reasonable documentation, et cetera, which will allow for the performance of the review mentioned in 22.24-.050. So just wanted to point that out, and if you have any other thoughts on that. But that seems very valuable.

I do not have any thoughts on this. This is one of the areas that often we struggle. We ask the applicants to provide proof that the results are actual cost reduction. And reasonable documentation is widely, though it's reasonable to you, may not be reasonable to me. But that's an area where we've had problem with the previous code.

So could I ask a follow-up about this exact point? So previously we were advised that the county did not require economic analysis. So this would change that?

So previously we were told the previous code required pro forma.

Right.

Again, we were told we can no longer require a pro forma, but the state law does allow and we can require a reasonable documentation. And a reasonable documentation could include but does not exclude a pro forma or some other form of analysis or documentation to demonstrate there is an actual cost reduction.

I see. So it's no longer a professional pro forma that's done per a formula typically, but instead could be reasonable information about the cost factor of certain features that were requested for for a reduction, for example, the cost of providing open space or the cost of providing additional landscaping. This is not waiver. This would be concession territory. Yes, correct. And so how would that be verified then?

Once it's submitted, we do have in our code to allow peer review, for instance, or to send it to, depending on what code, the county code they're requesting a waiver or concession from, send it to that department for review and input and comments.

Okay, that's good. I agree this is a big improvement. I'm very glad to see this language because I had questioned that previously, but we were advised that we could do nothing. So this is definitely an improvement.

Yeah, I'd like to agree this is really an important improvement for us to consider this in the future. So again, thanks for that addition.

MOVING ALONG ABOUT HOUSING COMPLIANCE REVIEW. YOUR COMMISSION RECOMMENDED THE BOARD ADOPTED ADMINISTER REVIEW PROCESS FOR HOUSING COMPLIANCE REVIEW. HOUSING COMPLIANCE REVIEW IS A FANCY WAY OF SAYING ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL. IN THE COUNTY THERE ARE THREE TYPES. ONE IS THE HOUSING ELEMENT SITES THAT THE COUNTY VOLUNTARILY DESIGNATED SITES AND ALSO CREATED A PROCESS FOR. THE OTHER ONE IS SB 9, IT'S A STATE MANDATE. AND THE OTHER ONE IS TYPE, AND THE OTHER ONE IS SB 35. WHAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING WE DO IS ONE WHERE IT SAYS SB 35, JUST LIMITED TO SB 35, EXPAND IT TO SAY TO ANY HOUSING PROPOSED UNDER STATE LAW. shall be subject to this process. So it's no longer just limited to SB 35, but it could include, say, AB 2011 or any future laws that may come into effect. SB 9 is what it is. It's state law. And then for the type 1 is the housing element sites that we've created. Part of the text, we have Well, let me put it this way. In the last three years, we've learned quite a bit, some painful, some pleasant, some ugly. We have attempted to process these applications as if they were discretionary review process, working with applicants, deferring certain submissions or certain compliance to conditions of approval or to feature submittal dates. BUT BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A DISCRETION TO DO THAT, HCR BY DEFINITION, MINISTERIAL REVIEW PROCESS BY DEFINITION HAS TO MEET THE CODE AS WRITTEN. YOU MEET THE CODE AND YOU GET APPROVAL. IF YOU DON'T MEET YOUR CODE AND YOU DON'T GET APPROVED. THIS HAS BEEN A STRUGGLE WITH APPLICANTS. THAT'S ONE ISSUE. THE OTHER ISSUE IS WHEN WE ADOPTED THE HCR PROCESS, WE NEVER HAD ANY FINDINGS APPROVED, QUALIFIED. So we've been trying to do it on an ad hoc basis, trying to work with different reviewing agencies and trying to come up with the sort of, if you will, for lack of a better term, conditions of approval. But it's been problematic and some applicants have FLAGED US SAYING YOU ARE EXERCISING DISCRETION WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE DISCRETION, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE'VE DESIGNATED HOUSING ELEMENT SITES HAS BEEN BY RIGHT THROUGH ADMINISTERIAL REVIEW PROCESS. WE'VE COMMITTED TO THE STATE AND WE'VE HEARD APPLICANTS AND ATTORNEYS SAY THIS TO YOU RECENTLY, YOUR STAFF IS EXERCISING DISCRETION EVEN THOUGH YOU REPRESENTED TO HCD, THIS IS BY RIGHT APPROVAL. I'M REFERRING TO A PROJECT SOMEWHERE IN LUCAS VALLEY ROAD. So to cure that issue, we are recommending we do three things. One is implement indemnification clause, common sense. And two is require that all applications get their approval only once they comply with all applicable county codes, whether it's objective design standards, Title 22, the fire code, DPW code, unless modified through the state density bonus law. And then within there, it says type 3. Those are SB 35, AB 2011, or any housing application submitted pursuant to state law that shall be reviewed and approved only by the Planning Commission, as long as that review is limited to objective design standards. Lastly, part of the issues we've part of the issues we've come before us is that projects get approved and we have These applications involve multiple applications. It may be HCR and then has a subdivision application. It also may have three removal permit or something else. So we want to say all of them are one application. We've been told they are. You can't bifurcate. There is a segmentation issue. But review them as one application. PROCESS THEM UNDER ONE APPLICATION AND THEN HAVE THEM REVIEWED BY THE DESIGNATED AUTHORITY DEPENDING WHICH AUTHORITY IT IS. BUT THE INTENT IS TO MAKE IT CLEAR TO APPLICANTS AND MAKE IT EASIER FOR OUR STAFF TO APPLY THAT IN ORDER TO GET HCR APPROVAL, YOU MUST COMPLY WITH ALL THEIR RULES AND CODES THAT ARE IN EFFECT OR THAT APPLY. I'LL PAUSE HERE FOR A SECOND. I SEE HANDS RAISED.

Commissioner Lynn?

Yeah, I don't fully understand this. For one thing, I think an argument could be made that all approvals are done under state law at this point in time. I mean, there's the Subdivision Map Act. There's various state authorizations. I think it could be argued that this really expands to the point where you would only have discretionary review if there were a variance or maybe a development agreement which you're proposing later in the package or something like that. I don't know that that's consistent with the intent of the housing program of HCD. So I'm not sure what exactly is being captured when you use the phrase captured in all applications. And I couldn't really, I mean, I'm only concerned about the type 3. I'm not concerned about type 1 and type Well, the section's 2264020 on this chart, but 2264020C, I think it broadens it too much. And I understand the problems that you've, I was trying to listen carefully to the problems, and I can understand some of those problems, but I'm not sure that this remedy is the best thing. I MEAN, CAN YOU GIVE US AN EXAMPLE OF WHEN WE WOULD NOT HAVE MINISTERIAL REVIEW?

AN HCR APPLICATION DOWN THE ROAD SOMEPLACE WHERE THE APPLICATION INCLUDES CONCURRENT APPLICATIONS. IT WOULD INCLUDE A SUBDIVISION APPLICATION, ONE. IT WOULD INCLUDE A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT. would include a design review for an excessive retaining wall. So we have, yes, you have HCR, the lead, but then you have multiple applications that are clearly either through state law or through our code discretionary.

Those are pretty minor features of a development. And those things don't require subdivision. So this is very broad. I think we just need to be aware that this is very broad. And we're basically doing all development that involves housing. as ministerial review with this change, when it's not required by state law. So this goes beyond. I mean, I think we need to have further discussion of what the current law requires.

So are you referring to Type 1 or Type 3? Type 3. So Type 3, those are state-mandated housing types. We're referring to SB 35, AB 2011, or any successor or future legislation that may require mandatory approvals. THE HOUSING ELEMENT IS TYPE ONE, AND THOSE ARE NOT, WE'RE NOT RECOMMENDING YOU DO THAT. THE PURPOSE OF DESIGNATING YOUR COMMISSION TO REVIEW THOSE SB 35, AB 2011, OR ANY TYPES OF HOUSING MANDATED, MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING, IS TO TAKE IT AWAY FROM STAFF, HAVE A PUBLIC PROCESS, PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS, WHERE THERE IS TRANSPARENCY AND THAT WE ARE APPLYING THE CODE AS IT'S WRITTEN, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, HAVE GIVEN THE PUBLIC AN AVENUE FOR PARTICIPATION. YOU'RE RIGHT, WE DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT. IT'S NOT REQUIRED, BUT THE LAW DOES PERMIT YOUR COMMISSION TO EXERCISE THAT AUTHORITY AS LONG AS IT'S TRULY MINISTERIAL. unless you're having a problem that we're removing. Right now, it's limited to SB 35, and then we're expanding it to include other types of state mandated housing laws. If that's the problem, this is a decision for the commission.

Maybe I am incorrect, but I think there is a distinction between using objective design standards and ministerial review. The standards relate to the findings and discretion about certain aspects of design. But ministerial review is a presumed approval when the standards are met.

So I agree with you. In a different way, to put it this way, a design review requires someone to exercise discretion whether or not this component fits within this code of laws, right? Whereas ministerial is, does it meet the code check? Does it not? No. It literally is a consistency analysis. AND WHAT YOUR COMMISSION WILL BE TASKED IF IT EVER COMES TO IS WHETHER OR NOT SB 35 AB 2011 OR ANY OTHER APPLICATION MEETS THESE CODES WILL OUTLINE TO YOU THIS IS THE HEIGHT LIMIT THIS IS THE MINIMUM SETBACKS DOES IT MEET THE CODE OR NOT WE WILL NOT BE ASKED TO EXERCISE DISCRETION THAT WILL BE CONTRARY TO THE VERY PURPOSE OF THESE LAWS

I'll have to continue to think about and digest this. This is not a final decision today, right?

We would like you to make a decision, but we can talk about it at the end.

Okay. I have a question. I'm wondering if, it seems very broad also for me, so expanding the applicability, I'm wondering if you guys or the staff has thought about any implications with the state law So ongoing changes and what might that look like in the upcoming months or so.

We have, and that's part of the reason why we're doing this. Part of the state expansion of state laws or encroachment into taking away local control is that you have to do a checklist analysis. The checklist doesn't meet the code, it doesn't meet the code. All we're changing, introducing in here is rather than staff doing the checklist analysis is that it be done publicly. We're not trying to thwart, impede, stop housing. This is simply an attempt to inject public oversight into the process. If the commission has a heartburn on this, we can certainly remove it from the code.

But eventually we'll need to revisit because it's part of the state law that these things need to be amended, correct?

If in the future the state says the Planning Commission can no longer review SB 35 AB 2011, then we will come back to you and have it removed, correct? But at this time it doesn't say that. In fact, it says it removed it from the board and city council level, reduced it to a Planning Commission.

Got it. Comments, questions? Do you have more in your presentation? I do, a couple more. Okay. Should we move on or are there questions right now? Let's move on. Oh, you have questions. Oh, yeah, yeah, we'll deliver it after, yeah. Go ahead, Manny.

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS. THIS IS A COMMONLY USED TOOL IN CALIFORNIA. WE DON'T HAVE THAT TOOL. AND TO YOUR COMMENT, COMMISSIONER LIND, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS WOULD ALLOW THE COUNTY AND THE APPLICANT TO AGREE TO A SET OF PROPOSED PROCESSES, IF YOU WILL. YOU'RE RIGHT. IF A LARGE HOUSING PROJECT WERE TO COME INTO THE COUNTY, DESIGNATED AS HCR AT THE MOMENT, WE WOULD BE SUBJECT TO HCR. HOWEVER, IF IT HAS OTHER COMPONENTS SUCH AS SUBDIVISION APPLICATION, we have conflict and we think that having a tool such as this would be able to allow the county and developers to agree to some sort of some set of processes or A PATH FORWARD AND RETURN THAT HAS TO BE A PUBLIC BENEFIT. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS BY STATE LAW COULD ONLY BE REQUESTED BY APPLICANTS, BUT YOU HAVE TO HAVE IT AVAILABLE FOR THE PUBLIC. I THINK THERE'S A PUBLIC INTEREST, PUBLIC BENEFIT TO QUALIFY THE STATE LAW IN OUR CODE SO THAT THESE COMPLICATED HCR PROCESSES OR APPLICATIONS CAN BE, CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS PROCESS. Again, this is nothing new. It's simply lifted from the state law.

I think this is a really good provision to add. It's a very useful tool.

VERY USEFUL. I AGREE. TODAY WE'RE ASKING YOUR COMMISSION TO MAKE RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD FOR ADOPTION. PARTS OR ALL OF IT. OR REMOVE THE DOZEN PARTS OF THE PROPOSAL OR ENTIRELY. THE REASON WE'RE RECOMMENDING THAT YOU DO THAT IS WE NEED TO RESPOND TO HCD AS SOON AS WE CAN AT LEAST IN TERMS OF ADU, JUNIOR ADU AND SB 35. I'm sorry, not SB 35, SB 9. And the intent is so we can be in compliance with the state law. Sometime in the fall, we'll come back to you with the more comprehensive stuff that we left out from the code for your consideration. And that fall amendment will also include the new laws that will take effect in January of next year. AGAIN, AFTER YOUR PLANNING COMMISSION IS HEARING TODAY, WE HOPE TO GO TO THE BOARD SOMETIME IN NOVEMBER, AND THEN AFTER THAT WE WILL GO TO SUBMIT IT TO HCD FOR APPROVAL, THOSE PORTIONS THAT REQUIRE SUBMITTAL. AGAIN, WE RECOMMEND THAT YOUR BOARD APPROVE PARTIALLY, ENTIRELY, OR NONE OF IT. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER.

I WANT TO CLARIFY, THERE'S TWO RESOLUTIONS. ONE OF THEM IS RECOMMENDING IT TO THE BOARD AND THE OTHER ONE IS AMENDING THE ORDINANCE, RIGHT?

THERE'S ONLY ONE RESOLUTION, BUT YOU CAN MAKE CHANGES TO IT. THERE'S ONLY SINGLE RESOLUTION HERE, BUT THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. YOUR COMMISSION COULD AMEND THE RESOLUTION.

OKAY. I DO HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION. SURE.

GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER LIND.

THIS IS ON AB 2694, ON PAGE EIGHT OF THE STAFF REPORT AT THE TOP. where it says, number one, changing how density is calculated for senior housing, not solely by dwelling units. So how is it calculated? I didn't see that any place in the analysis, or I couldn't find it in the code because I didn't know which number to go look under.

Currently, under the previous density bonus law, it used to be one unit. Right.

We had that in a recent case, for example.

Correct. Now it's per square foot. It doesn't have to have a kitchen.

So it's not just by kitchen.

It's been broadened.

So what other factors would you use then? Have you...

You have to accept whatever the applicant proposes.

So floor area ratio?

F.A.R. is one. Kitchen is one. And also number of bedrooms is one. But it's now been broadened in the benefit of applicants.

So that would still be subject to negotiation then?

What they propose we would have to accept unless we can demonstrate it's not in compliance with the state law.

They could ask for waivers and concessions.

Correct. And the burden has shifted to the county.

Okay. I just didn't see that any place in the documentation. We are getting a number of those, so I think it's important for the public to be able to understand how density is calculated for them because it is a different type of land use. It's its own category in certain respects.

as a different type of category. And I imagine if I were consulting with someone, I would tell them to apply using FAR as that would yield the largest number of units.

Right. And then in such a kind of project, because it's freed up about the space and the interior and the kitchens, upon redevelopment or reconfiguration of certain sections of a project, as long as they stayed within those original parameters, they would be able to come in and do that. Would that be correct?

Just make sure I understood.

Like combining units. combining two units into one? Would they come under the replacement requirements of the state law?

I would argue they would come under replacement. That's reduction in units.

Yeah. They would always come under that. Correct. To the extent that they didn't reduce the number of units, they would be able to make various configurations.

They would be able to make interior configurations as long as the overall number of units doesn't decrease.

Within the building envelope, the approved building envelope. Okay. I understand that. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Linden. Before we deliberate, I would like to open time for public comment for this specific item.

Oh, Commissioner Curran has a question. We're going to come back. Sorry. Commissioner Curran has a question.

I didn't see your name. Go ahead, Commissioner Curran.

I just had a question a little bit about 2280, the development agreement section of this. And I just want to make sure I understand it, that it would Would, obviously this is a voluntary thing on the part of the applicant. Would all of the current state requirements regarding number of hearings, is it really like a clean slate? I mean, that those things are no longer governing voluntarily by the applicant? Or are some of them still governing?

In the samples that we've seen, it's essentially resetting the process. So they're getting into an agreement to do a different path, different track of approval. So moving away from the state to five hearings or some other way of doing it.

All the other requirements. Correct. So it's really development agreements, as some of us have known them for a long time, in the planning area in the state of California. But it's really just giving the county access to that process that it hasn't heretofore had. But otherwise, it's kind of the same process that's existed for a while?

Correct. And also, in return, the applicants have to agree to greater benefits than what is required by code.

I think it's marvelous to be adopting that as a tool. So I think that's very good.

Thank you, Commissioner Curran.

Commissioner Monroe? Thank you. Two questions, one micro, one macro, on sections that weren't reviewed on the applicability section, which is Roman numeral 3-26, so 22.22.020. The micro is just kind of a funny typo. Actually, it's the following page. The affordable housing income range, I think it's range, just While you're doing tidy up, it's on the following page, 3-29. Lots of rage out there, but I think you mean range.

And then... Do you see it? Can you...

Okay.

Okay.

Oh, I see.

Okay, yes, thank you.

Yeah, no problem. Okay, so Table 3-4A, the macro question is, when might we propose, consider the possibility of increasing these minimum affordability percentages? I note that later in the document for the mixed-use commercial developments with residential, there's a 30%. affordable housing floor with 15% as very low income. And I think that a lot of the struggle we've experienced with some of the big projects would be alleviated if we could increase these percentages to say 30%. Is that something we could contemplate in this process or does it need a much larger review?

That's a much larger conversation. It requires all kinds of financial and economic analysis. It's not something we could do in vacuum. It's not something that's been contemplated within this, but it's been something we've discussed internally. Okay.

Okay, thank you. Well, I'd just love to put it on the record that that, I think, is something we should evaluate, is increasing those percentages.

Comment noted. Thanks. One follow-up question.

Go ahead, Commissioner Spencer.

I like the idea of trying to increase the percentages, but one problem I think I see here, and I'm wondering, Manny, if this is an issue, would be that nonetheless, the density bonus law is going to be triggered at the lower percentage, right? So when so many of the state law requirements come in just at 20%, in other words, getting a developer a right to develop at that level?

The way THE WAY IT'S BEEN REVISED, NOT WITH THIS REVISION, BUT WITH THE PREVIOUS REVISION THAT YOUR COMMISSION APPROVED, BECAUSE IF YOU RECALL, IT USED TO BE A FLAT 20%, VERY LOW INCOME UNITS, AND THEN IT WAS REVISED TO ITS CURRENT STATUS TO INCENTIVIZE HOUSING. The state density bonus law, for instance, is if you do a 5% of very low income, you qualify. But we have somewhere in the code, it does say you still have to comply with it. Cumulatively, it has to be 20%. That 5% will qualify for density bonus law, but it doesn't bring you into compliance with inclusionary ordinance. So you still have to comply with the inclusionary ordinance.

I see.

Yeah, no, I would agree.

I think it'd be a worthwhile topic, a good one for us to discuss. But I can understand there's a need for a lot more analysis for us to be able to really address that issue.

Good. It's also, I have to say, it's also one of those things that unites developers against any discussion related to increasing fees.

Thank you, Commissioner. I want to tackle on with what Commissioner Monroe was saying about increasing some of the percentages for the affordable housing requirements. In regards to the income or price sales, is that something that the county looks at, too, or is that a federal income guideline?

It's based on federal income guidelines. It's not something that local jurisdictions have control over.

Does the county have any provisions? And the reason why I say this is because, in my experience, when there's affordable housing available, it doesn't necessarily encapsulate for the people that it's needed for because of the income guidelines.

I'm not sure I followed that question.

Let me try to put this in words. Yeah, so are there any different guidelines that the county can follow for this?

Julian may have a better answer.

Thank you very much. I think really the way that it has been structured is so much is based upon what's been provided through federal in terms of the income levels that you're looking at. So I don't think there is a lot of flexibility. It's certainly something that we can look into, but to my knowledge, there is not. flexibility at the local level.

Thank you. Commissioner Lynn?

I just wanted to clarify that it is based on county or local median income. So the actual numbers vary from place to place, but because we have high median income here, the qualifying percentages are pretty substantial. And I can understand your concern about lower income people being excluded from some of the housing that's provided through these programs that are rolled out as being supportive of affordable housing. but that's just the way the formula works and there's really no way to change that you know and i also wanted to follow up on your comment about the incentives they still have to meet the incentives but the incentive requirement is included within these these bonus percentages these state bonus they're not it's not on top of the state bonus percentages correct um

It's not on top. The top is the cap side. The inclusionary requirement is 20, but the state density bonus law is below 20% on average.

I see. So we do raise it. In certain instances, we raise the percentage with our local inclusionary policy.

Correct.

But that's not across the board.

I think it's two out of three categories we do.

So that's important. That addresses your concern to some degree.

Thank you for raising my concern as well, Commissioner Lin. Any other questions?

Well, if I may also, if we are doing an in-depth examination of the affordability requirements in the inclusionary components of the code, if you include higher levels of very low income brackets, you can't change the categories, but you could change those levels, correct? So that's, I think, how you would address the, or you would achieve the intended outcome.

Thank you, Commissioner Monroe. Manny?

I think, getting back to what Julia said, the structure comes from the federal government, and our ability is very limited. I was involved when we, during COVID, when we did, we redid the entire, now it wasn't just county, but even cities, when we did, through SB2, we did a feasibility analysis for the inclusionary units that got adopted by everyone else. We ended up at the high end of the proposal, not at the low end. My recollection was 12% was it came in at the low end, 22 was at the high end. And what we ended up adopting was closer to the high end. And I don't know what it would take to revisit and redo the analysis. That study cost close to a million dollars, just to put it in context and perspective.

Thank you. Any other questions? OK. I think we can go ahead and to go to open comment specifically for this item. So are there any comments? OK. I would like to go ahead and close the time for public expression for this item. And we'll go ahead and deliberate as a commission. Commissioner, who would like to start?

Commissioner McGill.

Commissioner Lynn, can you turn on your microphone, please? Thank you.

I'm okay with all of it, except that one issue that I didn't fully understand. I think that issue requires more discussion. It would be on page six, table four, under type three. I don't know if others share my concern. Can you speak to the mic, please? I just don't fully understand it. It may be fine, but I need some more explanation of that to really understand all of the factors involved and all of the types of applications as they would combine together.

So what page are you reading?

I'm on page six. the line to capture all applications submitted through... I believe she's on page nine. I think, for example, at a minimum, it might be... It might be useful to have a footnote that recites all of the bills. That's problematic because they keep changing them. I understand that.

That's not a good idea.

I just want to make a correction really quick. But some tighter language that can't be interpreted more broadly.

Can I suggest we go right to the text itself? It's on IV-65.

My name, I'm sorry, just maybe, it's page 9 that she's talking about, not page 6.

I'm talking from the staff report.

Page 9, sorry. Thank you. Commissioner Stepanisic?

But it would also be helpful to reference the actual code section.

So it's on page IV-65.

Got it. Thank you.

So it would be chapter 22.64. And just under applicability, C, type 3.

May I ask, what would be the implications for you as staff if we were to reject the general language under type 3 and just retain the specific authority of SB 35? My understanding of this is it's a catch-all so that as the legislative session proceeds, we don't have to go back and fix it. But what are the other implications if we were to? REJECT THAT SPECIFIC PROVISION.

NOTHING WILL REVERT BACK TO THE COURT THAT'S IN EFFECT AND STAFF WOULD CONTINUE TO REVIEW THESE TYPES OF APPLICATIONS INSTEAD OF YOUR PLANNING COMMISSION.

I THINK I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THIS BECAUSE IT'S BRINGING IT TO THE COMMISSION AS OPPOSED TO THE STAFF.

Commissioner Stepanis?

Yeah, I think that's how also I see this, because it seems to me it's a The advantage of this is that it does give the Commission a chance to review these mandated Approvals and right now that would be reviewed by staff and I understood this staff's objective here is provide greater transparency and this review process So even though our discretion is very limited at least it's being done out into into the public forum and can watch deliberate deliberation take place and I think it is a IMPORTANT TO GO BEYOND SB 35 BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHER PROVISIONS THAT HAVE MANDATED APPROVALS. SO I DO SEE THIS PROVISION AS GIVING US MORE AUTHORITY AND TO MAKE THE PROCESS MORE TRANSPARENT. SO I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERNS, COMMISSIONER LYNN, BUT I DO THINK THIS IS A GOOD CHANGE THAT I WOULD SUPPORT.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. Commissioner Lin?

Would it be possible to reference the government code section that gets amended frequently to eliminate an interpretation that there were other mandates outside these housing.

We would have to list every single one of them in the code, and they change often.

Yeah, they do change too often. I can certainly understand the bill numbers. We don't want to list those. But most of the changes are to certain sections of the housing code, of government code. It's not too many.

Can I defer that to Kate Stanford to respond?

Yes, I mean, we could refer to the specific government code provisions. I think the concern Manny's highlighting is that, you know, once a new tool is adopted to advance the development of housing, we may see the same language added to another government code section that we didn't originally reference in our development code updates. So I think that's why I assume, and Manny and I didn't specifically speak on this issue, is that why he used sort of that term of art, the streamlined ministerial approval process. which is referenced in SB 35 and SB 423, because that term of art is being developed and is being used as a tool or a threat to incentivize compliance with the housing laws.

Correct. Can I also draw your attention to IV 6, table 4-1, page IV 6, table 4-1?

Can you repeat that page number, IB?

IB 6-6. And then there's table 4-1. Yeah, she's found the citation here. So on that table, Commissioner Lind, we have put the director or staff as a body making recommendation to your commission and the commission making the decision on type 3 HCRs.

Okay. I see it in the actual code amendment, so I'm okay with this language. Thank you for that.

Thank you for making that reference, ma'am. Thank you.

on page section IV 70. Yes.

Okay, perfect.

Are there any other questions or deliberation comments?

Are we ready to move then? I think we are good, comfortable with making a decision to recommend this to the Board of Supervisors to adopt the proposed development code.

Yes, I would move to adopt the resolution recommending that the Board of Supervisors adopt amendments to Title 22 of the Marin County Code.

Commissioner Stupanichis makes the first motion. Who would like to second the motion? I'll second the motion. Commissioner Curran? Thank you. And Bronco?

Commissioner Curran?

Aye.

Commissioner Lind? Aye. Commissioner Monroe?

Aye.

Commissioner Stepanisic?

Aye.

Commissioner Morales?

Aye. Okay, perfect. So that item is closed. We're going to go ahead and move to item five. So just give us a couple of minutes to do the shift. Thank you. Perfect. We're good to go. So we're going to go ahead into item 5, which is an appeal of the morning phase LLC, where we have project planner Megan Alton here with us to lead us into the project. Go ahead.

Great.

Thank you.

I also just want to note that we have a couple of staff members available on Zoom for questions. We have Michelle Levinson. And we also have Hugh Davis from the Department of Public Works available. And then in the audience today, we have other members of the Department of Public Works available if you have questions afterwards. OK, I will start with my presentation then. Great. So the project site we're discussing today is located in Bolinas. The site is accessible via Brighton from Crescente and Cliff Road, and the property is surrounded by other adjacent private properties. The project site is an irregular 4,938 square foot lot. The lot slopes steeply down from Cliff Road. There is an existing structure that sits at the far south end of the property, and portions of the existing structure do extend over the property line. SO THE DEPUTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR APPROVED THE MORNING PHASE LLC COASTAL PERMIT, COASTAL VARIANTS WITH CONDITIONS ON JUNE 25TH. THE PROJECT INCLUDED THE MODIFICATIONS TO A PRE-1930 STRUCTURE, A NEW 800 SQUARE FOOT DETACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, THE REMOVAL OF ONE OREGON ASH TREE, AN ELECTRICAL PLATFORM AND OTHER ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS. So this is a picture of the site plan. On the left screen is the existing residence. And on to the right is the proposed accessory dwelling unit. And on the bottom side would be Cliff Road. On July 8, 2026, Una Radcliffe submitted the timely appeal of the morning phase coastal development permit and coastal variance. The appellant asserted that the project lacks analysis and compliance with the California building code and related fire code and non-conforming structure compliance. The appellant also asserted that modifications to the existing structure would violate the private easement agreement between the two subject properties. So this is a survey that was included within the plan set showing the existing encroachments and structures on the property. This is the building elevation. So we have the existing building elevations on the top and then the proposed graphics on the bottom. And this is showing the north and the southern elevations. This is the eastern and the western elevations. And this is just of the existing structure. This does not include the ADU. This is a picture of the existing structure, and this would be looking from the center of the property towards the house. This would be looking from beyond the fence from Cliff Road. Again, this would be up towards the top of the property near Cliff Road. The appellant points of appeal are insufficient to overturn the deputy zoning administrator's conditional approval because the county's building and safety division would review this project for compliance with the California building code upon the applicant submitting to the building division. This application was just to review the compliance with Title 20 for the Coastal Development Code. Additionally, private easements and boundary disputes are a civil matter between the parties involved and are not enforced or regulated by the county. And so in all the, and as discussed in the resolution, all the necessary findings for the coastal development permit and coastal variants have been made. So with that, I will hand it over for the next, or any questions, or I could hand it over for the next presentation.

Thank you, Megan. Any question from our planner?

Commissioner Curran? I just didn't hear the last thing you said. Any questions before you what?

Hand it over to... Oh, so the next presentations by the appellant and the applicant.

Oh, so moving away from staff.

If you had any questions.

Well, I guess I'll hold my question until after people speak. You can take your questions now. Well, I just think we have... We have a memo. It's kind of a procedural one. We have a memo here that looks kind of like a staff memo, but it's a memo from the appellant. And I've been kind of reviewing it sitting here since it was new to us today. But procedurally, this is introducing a different basis for, if I understand it correctly, a different basis for the appeal than what was, in fact, in the appeal. And is that permissible to shift the grounds like that? I don't recall encountering this situation before.

Before we go into it, this is a memo that we just got on our today. So I don't think many of us have a chance to review it. So if you can give us some context and answer her question, that would be great. Thank you.

Or we can let things play out and then you can speak to it afterwards.

I was going to say, I think if we can proceed with some of the other presentations as well from the appellant as well as the applicant, that will also give our... a chance to take a look at it as well. Because really, I think you're getting at more of what is more of a legal question about what is the- Yeah, it's kind of a procedural question.

Absolutely, yeah.

And generally what I will say is that with appeals, the appeal has to be, staff has conducted their analysis based upon the information that was submitted in the appeal as it was filed timely. I THINK I'LL WAIT TO ALLOW LEGAL COUNSEL TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT THEY CAN INTRODUCE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AS PART OF THEIR PRESENTATION AS TODAY'S PROCEEDINGS. OKAY. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. THERE'S A FEW QUESTIONS. COMMISSIONER STEPANICZ, FIRST.

Yes, just one question on the portion of the main building that's being modified. Is the actual part that encroaches to 87 Brighton, is that being modified in terms of its dimensions at all? Or is it, it looks like otherwise, it looks like there's a window being changed, but are the general dimensions of that or footprint of that encroachment the same?

Yes, so it's an existing non-conforming structure, and it is not being modified in the sense would it be expanded.

Thank you. Is that it? Okay. Commissioner Monroe?

Thank you. I sent an email to Megan yesterday, and it is printed for you, but I think just these were my questions that I was going to ask, so I may as well go ahead and share them so that everyone is aware of some of the things I had in mind. The first question I had, which felt like an important contextual question, was... Whether the review of a variance occurs or has been, if there's examples of a denial of a variance per Coastal Zoning Code 20.70.150 . And I'll just read since you all don't have it in front of you. But these are the decisions and findings on variance. Item four is granting the variance will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the county or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zoning district in which the real property is located. So that feels like an important point of review. And I have your email here in which you said you're not aware of coastal variances being denied pursuant to that provision. Is there anything else on that?

Yeah, correct. I consulted with Michelle and her and I both were not aware of any. Okay, thank you.

My second question was the recommendations of Coastal Commission staff, Julian Honey, regarding first that the CDP include requirements per land use policy C-DES-9 regarding native planting. We can come back to that, but that felt important to me, particularly given what I saw from their landscaping plan, which had very few native plants on it. And then also the coastal hazards section. I know this is much more difficult, but the provisions, this is the kind of like forward-thinking coastal hazard restrictions that I think are really appropriate where there's not yet, there wouldn't be a taking. This is very future forward, but it would be terrific if we can incorporate any of those provisions. I know there's some limitation on the nexus, but sorry, I don't want to put words into your mouth.

Yeah, so I did go back through and per your email, kind of did review what the Coastal Commission said versus our applicable sections in the LCP. And as I indicated in the email, if your commission would like, special condition of four, the waiver of liability could be added, and that is what we call a special condition of approval, but it is kind of in a list in our standard conditions of approval that could be added. And then the rest of those hazard conditions are often requested from the Coastal Commission, again, but it is up to the applicant if they... want to impose them as a condition of approval on themselves or a condition for themselves.

I'm sorry. The final question I had was just to reference the condition of approval. I appreciate that there's the geotechnical oversight, but specific to the requirement that there be coordination with the road repair that is occurring. So I just wanted to call that out.

Yeah, and I think part of it is, too, we don't know when construction would be occurring. Yeah, thank you so much.

I think just to the extent that there can be a requirement for communication and coordination, that would be ideal. Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Monroe. Commissioner Lynn, can you turn off your microphone, please? Thank you. So any other questions before we move on to the next presentation? Oh, you did? Okay. I'm sorry. Go ahead, Commissioner Lynn.

My question is about the statement in the appeal about adhering to non-conforming use provisions. I didn't see anything addressing that in the staff report. The staff report does Can you speak into your microphone, please? List it on page three under describing the appeal. So it's not completely new information, although it's certainly augmented in this memo we received today. But what was the staff response to this statement about it doesn't adhere to non-conforming use regulations?

So it was, I guess, are you asking why that the structure is existing non-determined?

Yeah, I didn't see that in your staff analysis as to why that was not a valid basis for appeal.

Okay, so the architectural history report provided by the applicant indicated that the structure was built between 1924 and 1931. And so the structure predated the Coastal Act. And then further on that, the multiple building permits have been issued on the structure. The first as early as 1948, and then again in 1979 and 2010. And building permits as early as back as the 1984 building permit did indicate While we don't have a site plan, there's written notations that the structure is at the property line or over the property line. But it was indicated as early as 1948 that the structure was, we'll say, not complying with today's setbacks.

So the non-conformity is a side setback issue?

Yeah, so the nonconformity is that the entire structure, well, it doesn't comply with any setbacks and is over the property line.

Is it over the property line?

According to the surveys, it is.

So what's the resolution of that issue?

The appellant and the applicant have an agreement about the structure for its non-conformance status.

If I may, I think there's discussion in the staff report and staff memo around this as well, that there's an existing easement that is covering the existing home. And the work that's being done is not necessarily encroaching beyond that existing footprint. So there is still this underlying, and you see that in the appeal documentation as well, this underlying concern from the adjacent property owner regarding the fact that the house is built over the property line and in an easement area, that it sounds like they're having some civil discussions around the width of that easement and the allowed uses within that easement area.

I see, but that is not the area that's being changed in the building envelope?

It is not the area where the ADU is being constructed, but there are some modifications being made to the residential structure that's within that easement area.

I see.

Are we good, Commissioner Lynn? I think we can go ahead and move on to the appeal. Go ahead. I'm sorry.

If I may, through the chair, I just want to respond to Commissioner Curran's question earlier. So in looking at the code under the appeal of a coastal development permit decision, it states that at the public hearing, the appeal authority may consider any issue involving the matter that is the subject of the appeal in addition to the specific grounds for the appeal. So I hope that answers it sufficiently.

Thank you for that information, Julia. Okay, we're going to go ahead and move on to the appellant's presentation. If you can come up, please. And just for the record, could you state your name?

I'm Stephen Ratcliffe.

Thank you.

Would you do it for me? Okay, I'm going to just call out slide.

If you could just lift the microphone a little bit so you can speak to it. Thank you.

I understand I have 10 minutes to read this. Is that right? Yes, that is right. Okay. I HAVE AN EDITED VERSION OF THE DOCUMENT THAT YOU MAY HAVE, AND I'M GOING TO HAVE TO READ QUICKLY TO COVER ALL THE SALIENT POINTS.

SO... GIVE ME JUST ONE SECOND. DO WE HAVE AN ACTUAL PRESENTATION? YEP, WE DO. OKAY, PERFECT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GO AHEAD. UNA RATCLIFF IS UNABLE TO BE AT THE HEARING TODAY, SO I WILL BE READING THIS ON HER BEHALF. SLIDE ONE. SLIDE TWO. The purpose of the memorandum, this memorandum supplements the appeal submitted on July 8th, 2026, and responds directly to the staff report's recommendation that the appeal be denied. Appellant kindly asks that the commission apply to the appeal Title 20 of the Marin County Code, the Coastal Zoning Code, and focus on the following Title 20 provisions. I'll just read these numbers. 2070.03.0, 2070.07.0, 2070.08.0, 2070.1.6.0, which is nonconforming uses and structures, and 2064.1.10, and other provisions of Title 20. Slide four, please. This is not a boundary dispute. It's an undisputed documented fact of nonconformity that the applicant record never analyzes. Slide five. Appellant is asking the commission to recognize a fact that is established by the applicant's own submitted survey performed by Muir Consulting in 2022 a fact that was corroborated by the developer's property manager and shared directly with appellant before the application was filed. The physical structure at Forty Cliff Road occupies more of the neighboring parcel than the operative recorded instrument describes. Neither the DZA decision nor the staff report findings analysis engages with what that fact means under Title 20's nonconforming structure and legal interest provisions. A, the applicant's own surveyor documented the discrepancy. The boundary and the topographic survey of Forty Cliff Road prepared by Muir Consulting and submitted as part of the application record states as a survey note, quote, the recorded The record location of the building's easement agreement, doc number 210, does not fit the resolved boundary line, the resolved boundary. The location of said easement has been moved to show the intent of said easement. See document for restrictions on new construction, unquote. Slide six. This is not appellant's characterization. It's the applicant's own licensed survey's statement filed with the application. It establishes as a surveyed fact that the encroachment as it exists on the ground does not match the encroachment as legally described. Slide seven. The developer's own comparison exhibit shared directly with appellant qualified the discrepancy. Slide eight. During a series of private email exchanges and video conference meetings between appellant and the developer's property manager requesting a lot line adjustment, appellant was provided with several exhibits prepared by Sutro Architects on behalf of the developer. One exhibit directly compared the pre-survey and the post-survey condition and labels the two states, quote, before 30 square foot easement, after 65 square foot easement. Slide nine. Another exhibit lays out three concrete options. One, adjust the property line to the previously assumed location. Two, adjust the property line to the southern wall of the building footprint, eliminating the need for any easement. or three, adjust the property line to the existing fence. These options were designed specifically to cure the nonconforming condition of the updated survey revealed. In the developer's own words, quote, A recently completed survey determined that your property is larger than the encroachment easement previously suggested. The updated PL has created a non-conforming condition with our southern windows. Please review the three possible property line adjustment solutions." None of these options were pursued to completion. No lot line adjustment was recorded, and the coastal development permit application did not disclose this history, propose any of the three cure options, or otherwise address the nonconformity. The historic resources evaluation, the geotechnic investigation, and its supplements and the plan all proceed as though the 2010 easement agreement and not the updated 2022-2023 survey fully described the site's legal boundary condition. This sequence matters under Title 20. It shows that the applicant had actual contemporaneous knowledge that a legal nonconforming condition existed at the very location where the project proposes to remove existing wall assembly and construct a new opening and balcony, and chose to proceed to CDP approval without ever asking the county to make the findings Title 20 requires for work on non-conforming structure. Title 20 independently requires the finding The findings, the record is missing. Slide 10. Section 2070.030, Filing and Initial Processing. An applicant must establish its legal interest in the property on which work is proposed. Coastal development permit applications are only properly, quote, deemed to complete when the application accurately establishes the property to be developed and the applicant's legal interest in it. No completeness review ever addressed which parcel the southern wall of the residence actually sits on. B, Section 207070, required findings. Several of the findings adopted by the DZA and recommended for the commission are presupposed facts about, quote, the existing residence that are not accurate as to the southern wall. The resolutions finding F and finding L under Section 2070.070 describe, quote, the existing residence as a fixed known object. Neither finding acknowledges that a defined portion of that residence, the portion the plans identified as encroaching, sits on a different legal parcel than the remainder of the structure. Slide 11, Section 2070.160, Nonconforming Uses and Structures. Slide 12, Title 20's nonconforming structures provisions exist precisely for circumstances like this, a structure that because of the later established or later clarified boundary does not conform to current development standards on a portion of the site. The DCA decision does not identify the southern wall as non-conforming, does not analyze the proposed alterations against Section 2070.160's standards for altering a non-conforming structure, and does not determine whether replacing the existing window openings with a larger door and balcony increases the degree of nonconformity. That exact analysis belongs at the CDP stage under Section 2070.160, not at the building permit stage. Slide 13, section 2064-110. The resolution's findings G adopted under section 2064-110 does not reach separate community development concern raised here. Orderly development under a settled and legally accurate description of the parcel being developed. A community development finding premised on an inaccurate account of which parcel the southern wall sits on is not supported by substantial evidence as to that portion of the project. Slide 14. Slide 15, requested action. Appellant respectfully requests that the Planning Commission ONE, GRANT THE APPEAL IN PART AND REMAND THE MATTER TO REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO, A, DEMONSTRATE ITS LEGAL INTEREST UNDER SECTION 2070030 IN THE AREA NOW SHOWN BY THE UPDATED BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY.

I'M GOING TO NEED YOU TO WRAP UP. PLEASE. THANK YOU.

I HAVE JUST TWO MORE POINTS, IF I COULD. Please wrap it up. There are three requests. Deny, decline to adopt findings F, G, and L as currently drafted. And three, in the alternative, condition any approval on resolution of section 2070.160, nonconforming structure analysis and confirmation of legal interest under section 2070.030 as a prerequisite to issuing building permit for work. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you. If I can go ahead and the applicant come forward and state your name and you have 10 minutes as well. Thank you.

Megan, will you put up that presentation deck? Do you have that handy? Pointers here. Got it. Okay. Thank you. My name is Stephen.

Just one moment. Thank you. Just give it a moment. Thank you. Sure. Thank you. Okay, perfect. Go ahead. Go ahead. You may introduce yourself. Okay.

My name is Steven Sutro, and I'm the architect for this project. If I could go to slide one, please. So... I prepared some points that I'll talk about that respond to the paperwork of the appeal, because the appeal that was filed was predominantly about fire code separation and about the right to improve the building in the area of existing nonconformance. So I have points all about that to talk about. But this talk about the... ENCROACHMENT ITSELF AND WHETHER IT'S LEGAL CERTAINLY IS A PRIVATE MATTER, BUT IT'S VERY WELL DOCUMENTED THAT THERE'S A RECORDED EASEMENT FOR THAT BUILDING TO EXIST. AND IT'S BEEN LONG STANDING. AND IF YOU'D LIKE, MAYBE IN A QUESTION THAT YOU POSE AFTERWARDS, I CAN READ YOU THE ENTIRE LANGUAGE OF THAT PRIVATE AGREEMENT OF THE EASEMENT. BUT IT SIMPLY SAYS, AND IT WAS RECORDED IN 2010, IT SAYS THAT THE ENTIRETY OF THAT PORTION OF THE BUILDING IS ALLOWED TO STAND THERE. AND IT SAYS APPROXIMATELY 4'10". APPROXIMATELY 17 FEET LONG. IT SAYS IF EITHER PARTY WISHES TO HAVE IT FORMALLY SURVEYED, WE CAN DO THAT TOGETHER COMMUNALLY, IT SAYS IN THE AGREEMENT. AND IT SAYS THAT IT'S ALLOWED TO STAND THERE AND BE IMPROVED. IT SAYS THAT IF IT'S EVER DESTROYED ENTIRELY, THAT'S NOT OKAY AND IT CANNOT BE EXPANDED. AND WHAT WE'RE DOING IN THIS PROJECT, IN THIS PROPOSAL, IS NOT A DEMOLITION. WE'RE NOT DEMOLISHING ACCORDING TO THE STANDARDS OF THE MARIN PLANNING CODE. neither in that area nor the whole structure. We're cladding it with new wood like for like. We're replacing windows predominantly in place. We've done a calculation about how much is being demolished of the structure. It's somewhere in the order of 17%. It's nowhere close to the 75%. In the area of the legal existing encroaching served by this easement, we are replacing all the cladding, repairing it in place, The part that we're modifying is there's a roof line that slopes down. In the area where we seek to make the window larger, we're pushing it back, kind of like in a reverse dormer in the slope. And so the only modification volumetrically to the structure is making that part of the slope that is in the area of easement smaller by pushing it back towards the subject property. So I have all of the language of the easements here handy. Megan advised us that that's a civic matter or a civil matter that's not adjudicated by staff or by you all. But if you want to hear about it, I'm happy to read you the language of the easement. But there's no disagreement about the easement. I mean, there might be a misinterpretation on the other side, but it's very clear from our perspective. And we're not violating the easement, and there's nothing that's fuzzy about that. OK, thank you for having that up. So I'll just tell you a little bit about the project and kind of address the fire concerns and things like this. So the proposed project is a renovation of a very small 600-square-foot main house and the addition of an 800-square-foot ADU. The lot slopes downward significantly from Cliff Road. And one of the concerns in this area and with the landslide that just happened is that are all the neighbors in for a penny, in for a pound to help participate in the remedy of the landslide that is not related to this property in terms of it's not adjacent. It's away from this property. But the property owner, who is not a developer who wishes to use this house for themselves and improve it for their family, has already signed on to pay their share of of the costs of the repair of the road or the engineering or whatever happens next. They're in for the community for that. And the improvements at this site will put in place, if it proceeds, a series of landscape walls that are kind of curvilinear and will buttress up the hillside in a way that it is not currently shored up. So if anything, this improvement will improve the safety of the road. It also will not injure the public in any way in that there's no more bulk and mass of the structure. There's no change in kind of predominant use of the structure other than the addition of the ADU, which has its own kind of circumstances in California of trying to provide additional forms of housing. There's a small electrical platform that I can show you if you like, if anyone would like to ask a question about that. But it's underserved by utilities. And because it's so severely downsloped, there's no place on the lot for a person by code to stand in front of an electrical panel and work. So we're doing a small platform with a transfer switch or some kind of gear for the power to be upgraded to serve the property. And that was kind of a subject of discussion at the last round of review. Let's see. If you could go to slide two, please. Or maybe even three, please, the next one. So the area of encroachment is the portion of the structure that's on the left of this diagram with a jog. And that's the portion of the existing main house that has an easement recorded for it. And it's a single story portion with existing non-rated series of glass skylights. And there's a lot of talk in the appeal about how the project does not comply with fire separation standards. I've been a licensed architect in California for 20 years. We know how to do rated construction within three feet of a property line. And so everything in this area will have a fire rating, a one hour rating. Skylights will now are single pane, vulnerable, non-rated skylights. They'll be replaced in the same way SPOT WITH RATED SKYLIGHTS. SO THERE'S A ONE HOUR AVAILABLE ASSEMBLY FROM MANUFACTURERS TO USE SO THAT FIRE WON'T TRANSFER AS EASILY BETWEEN PROPERTIES. LIKEWISE, THE WINDOW THAT IS CURRENTLY NOT RATED AND IS PROPOSED TO BE MADE LARGER WOULD BE A RATED ASSEMBLY AND NOT OPERABLE SO THAT IT WOULD HAVE A FIRE RATING TOO. All of these things I know really are not. I mean, we want to know that there's a conceptual solution. We want to design something that's not going to be possible. But we will provide those details at the building permit submittal and adhere to fire separation standards. There was also a concern raised. that construction is going to be difficult in this area. And there's no doubt that on a steep site that it's hard to manage and things like that. So we submitted a construction management plan. where the builder proposes to build a platform off the road to stage materials and a limited amount of parking, parking for two or three trucks. And the plan for this is not solidified, but they would figure out some kind of carpooling where they would have a transfer spot where subcontractors can park. and then the general contractor would shuttle them to this position. And so the idea is that this platform that is built off the roadway would serve so that trucks can unload in a way that would be safe so that emergency vehicles and neighbors can get by on the road while that activity is happening. But I think with care and diligence, this project would be no different than many others on Belvedere Island or places where the access is difficult and windy and small. I think I've gone through the points that I wanted to talk about. So I'll yield my time, unless anyone has any questions that they'd like to discuss.

Thank you. Are there any questions for the presenter? Go ahead.

Thank you for the presentation. In your plans, is there a portion of the project that is, I'm trying to understand, I guess it would be the south side of the main building. Is there a portion of it that is on the public easement? Like the new deck? Is the deck reaching out over the public easement?

The deck exists there. You're pointing to that tiny little triangle space. It exists there, yes, and it's proposed to be replaced in kind in place with new decking. And there's an encroachment permit for landscaping and stuff like this, but if that were of concern, we certainly could modify it to be a tiny bit smaller so that it did not right there.

So, yes, the deck is on the public, isn't it?

Yes, you can see the little triangle where it extends beyond. That's an existing nonconforming condition, and there's no encroachment permit or anything to speak to that. Okay, thanks.

Thank you. As I mentioned at the beginning of the meeting, we need to take a break as one of our commissioners is stepping aside. So we'll be right back with more questions for you. Okay. May I just ask one question? Please, Commissioner Curran.

Yes, thank you. I'm sorry. I'm the commissioner that has to leave. Excuse me.

Can you speak into your microphone, please? Thank you.

I apologize for that, everybody. I'm still a little confused, and I hope we get to the bottom of it, of exactly whether this is in any way increasing the degree of nonconformity. I'm not asking you to respond. We're moving on to a different stage. But you'll, I'm sure, be asked, as will anybody else who can answer, whether this is in any way increasing the degree of nonconformity. And I am concerned about what Commissioner Monroe raised as well of if something is non-conforming, to demolish it and replace it is questionable, like really questionable in my history of that subject, that you don't generally, in a broad sense, get to tear something down that's non-conforming and replace it with non-conforming. When you tear something down, you replace it with conforming. That's how conformance happens over time. But those are some of my concerns, but I apologize, but I have to go.

Thank you, Commissioner Curran. We'll be just two minutes, and we'll be right back, and you can answer that. Thank you.

Got it. Okay, thank you.

Yes, you know what, this is actually a good time if you park in the two-hour zone. It is not the two-hour mark for a meeting, so if you need to move your car, five minutes, we're taking five minutes. If you need to move your car because it's parked in the two-hour zone, this is a good time to do it, and we'll convene in five minutes. Thank you. All right, we're going to go get ready to convene our meeting. Go ahead, Mr. Sutro, when you're ready, if you can. If you have any to answer to what our last commissioner point out, we'll be happy to hear that.

OK, terrific. So let's see. I think you might have to help me restate the question. But one was, is there an intensification of anything, of use or of any non-conformance? And there is, that I can see, and I spoke with Megan offline in between in the recess, I don't think that there's anything that's being intensified, meaning the building is being rehabilitated with finishes in place with no volumetric change, no change of use. It's a single family residence now and intends to stay that way. The encroachment is not getting bigger. The setbacks are not changing. The FAR is not changing. There's nothing that is changing. So I don't see that there is an intensification of use or an exacerbation of the existing nonconformity. And I'm sorry that I can't remember her second question. Oh, I think she said, In our experience, and I sit on the Ross architectural review board too, and if someone is building a house, we seek to make it in better conformance at least or in total conformance if we can. This is not a demolition of this structure by any stretch. All of the studs and rafters and joists are staying. And it's easy to do the calculation to show that that's WELL BEYOND THE CODE AS IT RELATES TO DEMOLITION. AND SO WE'RE NOT BUILDING A NEW STRUCTURE NOR ARE WE DEMOLISHING THIS ONE. I GUESS THAT'S THE SAME THING. SO THAT'S NOT THE CASE. SO I DON'T THINK THAT APPLIES HERE.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER STEPANISIC?

YES. BASED ON THE SURVEY WORK THAT APPARENTLY WAS DONE BY YOUR CLIENT, Yeah. In the last couple of years. So did that indicate, though, that the current structure actually goes outside the limits of the easement?

The easement is not mathematic. I can read you the easement says we both acknowledged that this house extends approximately 4'10 and approximately 17 feet. And that was the wording they used in 2010 because they had no formal survey. So they were doing their own math. And that's why they also said in the easement documentation to each other, they said, if either pottery ever wishes to have a formal survey, GREAT. I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY MENTION THAT, BUT THEY DO. I GUESS FROM A LEGAL COVERAGE STANDPOINT, I WOULD SURMIZE THAT THAT MEANS IF WE FIND THAT IT'S FIVE FOOT TWO, THAT'S COOL TOO. IF WE FIND THAT IT'S GREATER THAN 17, THAT'S OKAY TOO. THEY WERE SAYING WE DON'T KNOW THE MEATS AND BOUNDS OR THE EXACT PRECISION OF THIS AND WE DON'T WANT TO PAY THE DOUGH TO HAVE A SURVEYOR AT THIS TIME. THEY'RE SAYING THIS ENCROACHES AND WE'RE OKAY WITH THAT. WE'RE ACKNOWLEDGING THAT AND IT'S ALLOWED TO STAY THERE AS LONG AS IT'S NOT MADE BIGGER. That's what the thing says. So our surveyor said, yeah, gosh, this thing's about four foot six or five foot two. I don't know what it is. We can look at the documentation. But he just kind of corroborates what it says in the easement documentation, but puts precision to it according to his professional standards.

Thank you. Commissioner Lynn? How much out of the easement is the structure based on the new survey? Okay.

You mean how far does the existing house extend beyond the property line?

Beyond the easement. Zero.

The answer to that is zero.

Based on the new survey.

The answer to that is zero because the easement does not decree a certain distance.

So the previous testimony said that the survey had a different result. This is smoke and mirrors.

I think he's trying to just make this difficult for us.

Do you have a document that shows that?

That shows how much it extends?

Yes. Yes. Where the house is relative to the existing easement.

The easement is not a recorded distance, so that's not a thing.

But you designed around it.

We know where the property line is, and we know that the house extends beyond that property line, and we designed knowing those facts.

Does the staff have the language of the easement?

No, I don't know if Megan ever asked for it because it's a civil matter.

It's in the plan set.

Oh, we recorded it in the plan set. Where is it in the plan set?

It's sheet A1.07.

Oh, it's in the big plans. I was looking at those.

It's 81.07, Commissioner.

Okay, why don't you go ahead with other questions. I'm going to look at this for a little bit.

Okay, good. Commissioner Monroe, do you have any questions at the moment? Okay, just give us a minute. Thank you.

Michelle would like to make a comment. Yes, Michelle.

Good afternoon. Hi, Michelle. Sorry, I was looking around.

Hi, Michelle. Michelle Levinson, principal planner. I'm at home with COVID. Go figure. It's still a thing. But I did want to direct your attention as you're reviewing that easement language to a specific portion of it. And it does talk about the ability and the right to the property owner to repair and maintain the encroachment at their expense. So as the architect has described, the portion of the structure within the easement isn't getting bigger. Essentially, the nonconformity isn't exacerbated with this project. They're repairing and maintaining the portion of the structure in the easement.

Thank you, Michelle.

I could answer. Ms. Lin's question a little bit, too, with some language that I found in the easement, if you'd like.

Certainly. OK. Go ahead. Thank you.

So the easement says, in a portion of it says, the encroachment, in quotation marks to identify, is approximately four feet in the north to south direction and 17 feet in the east to west direction. And we find that the surveyor sees that it is 17 foot 2 inches long and it is 3 foot 11 wide. So it's approximately the same, but also they use the word approximate in the recording of the easement language.

So it's a difference between the length is not the issue, it's the width, correct?

Can you speak into your microphone, please? Oh, I'm sorry.

It's on. The length is not the issue, it's the width. So 4 foot and 3 inches.

Four foot zero versus three foot 11. It's actually three foot 11.

So we're talking about an inch. Is that correct?

From language to what we see in the field, yes. It seems like in 2010 when they approximated the language, or when they approximated it, they were off by about an inch, right?

OK. That was the answer to my question. OK. I see. Yeah. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Lynn. Yes, Commissioner Monroe.

So I guess one of the key points that the appellant was making was that it's actually the updated survey that is the changed condition. Is that correct?

I don't know what changed means in this context.

Well, they've included and they showed in the slide that their formerly understood property line meant that a smaller portion of the building was included in the easement. And now their property line has been established to have moved. Could you perhaps just tell me or tell us your understanding of the property line survey that has occurred so we can?

Sir, sure. When we started the design of this project just a few years ago, we hired Muir Consulting, who's a wonderful surveyor that we know and trust and love. And I think he does a great job. Because we had an old survey document that was from I don't know when, some number of years ago, 10, 20, 30 years ago. We didn't have everything we needed on it. It didn't have topography information. It didn't have utilities properly identified. It just was not a proper basis for design. So we asked for a real deal new survey to make sure. And we weren't trying to shape anything about this easement, just where is everything, please, so that we can design properly. And I think that he's mentioning that that old survey had it slightly differently depicted. But I don't see how it's germane when the encroachment says, not according to this exhibit of survey, it says it encroaches approximately 4 feet and approximately 17 feet. And indeed, that's what the surveyor found that it does. This neighbor group has not asked for anything particular relative to the design of this project, I'll point out. It just seems that it's... RESISTANCE TO CHANGE, WHICH I CAN UNDERSTAND, BUT THEY'RE NOT SAYING, HEY, COULD YOU PLEASE DO THIS OR THAT? COULD YOU PLEASE NOT DESIGN AN ANTENNA OR MAKE IT BLUE OR COULD YOU, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE PARKING OR THIS OR THAT?

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER STEPANISICAS?

WITH RESPECT TO THE BALCONY ON THE SOUTH SIDE THAT ENCROACHES, IS THAT BALCONY THE SAME SIZE PROPOSED NOW THAN CURRENTLY EXISTS?

It's the balcony, even where the windows are. One second.

No. Thank you.

Yeah, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't going to misspeak. Sorry. But that's a fixed window. When we originally designed it schematically, we thought it would be cool to have an operable window there, push the roof back, so not make the volume bigger, but make an occupiable terrace. Then my architect in my office said, We can't do that. That doesn't work with fire code. And so we made it a fixed piece of glass. So it removes a little bit of volume by making the roof line a little bit less. The window itself is actually on the subject properties, but still would be fire rated. But it has to be fixed by fire code.

But there's no balcony? No balcony at all. I thought someone earlier had said there was a balcony, so I just wanted to clarify that.

Yeah, and that was our mistake for representing that in early designs.

Thank you, Commissioner Monroe. Did you? No.

Okay. Any other questions?

Before we go into public comment, I want to see if the staff have any feedback for us regarding the supplemental. Thank you, Steve. If you had any information for us regarding the memorandum that was submitted today.

If I may, I think I'll just address from the procedural perspective. I referenced there's a section of county code that covers the appeal of decisions of coastal development permits. And so just a reminder to the commissioners that it does say at the public hearing, the appeal authority may consider any issue involving the matter that is the subject of the appeal in addition to the specific grounds of the appeal. So you certainly can consider any of the information, any of the project that's in front of you today. And then I'll look to see if staff has anything additional that they wish to add for the record.

I THINK IT WOULD JUST NOTE THAT I GUESS THE MARINE COUNTY CODE SPECIFICALLY THE DEFINITIONS DOES INCLUDE DEFINITIONS OF REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE AND A DEFINITION OF DEMOLITION. AND THE CODE DOES ALLOW FOR THE REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE OF EXISTING NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES. AND THAT'S WHAT IS PROPOSED AS PART OF THIS PROJECT.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS? YOU'RE FINE? We're good? Okay, so I would like to go ahead and open this time for public comment. If you can go ahead and state your name, please, and you'll have three minutes. Is it three minutes or two? Sorry, three minutes, three minutes to speak.

Hello, my name is Nancy Zachar. I'm a co-owner of 83 Brighton Avenue. And originally, 83 Brighton went all the way through to Cliff Road. And Mr. Walker divided the property two years before my grandfather purchased it, because he built a house up on the Little Mesa. It was an old barn that was there before, and then the cement platform. it encroaches on our property. And we have been contacted to change the property line. We're really kind of like this, because they want the property line changed. And then people have found out. We've never known who owned this house. I always thought, and my sister and brother did too, David Salazar did. It's a co-founder of Airbnb, Joe Gibney. He's worth $7 billion. And he has just been working through all these people, and they want us to change the property line. Well, people in Bolinas are saying, wait a minute. And so we're kind of torn right here. Also, just hearing about the platform, the Pincus platform, which you probably all know about, was causing a 2.47 earthquake. And my daughter lives right in the area. And all the houses all around, they finally eliminated this equipment. And I learned in 1968. The couple who own the property, the road going down with Cliff Road behind Cliff Road, they could never build on that property, they were told, by the county because the hill was too unstable. 83 Brighton was knocked off its foundation in the slide that destroyed the house behind 87 Brighton and also destroyed the house at the curb. So the house has already been knocked off. its foundation once. And that's why we have a sunken fireplace. It's because my grandfather was going to cost as much to raise the fireplace as to build a whole new foundation for the house. So I'm concerned about this platform being built on a very unstable soil. Alturas Road evidently is failing. because I heard Little Mesa people talking about it, because of all the trucks now, some are not being allowed up there. And so that's my big concern. And my sister's concern, she's sick, that's why she's not here, has been, will there be a slide occurring? Who's going to pay for it? Does the county, because you all now know, you know how unstable this hill is, will you be held accountable? Because I know there are lawsuits galore going up on Little Mesa. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? I'd like to go ahead and close the time for public comment. But he's the appellant. He had his time. He spoke already. He's the appellant. Sorry, you already had your time. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Any questions, comments, or are we ready for deliberations?

Yeah? I have a question for the appellant.

Go ahead, Commissioner Lynn. Thank you.

So I'm still struggling to really understand the lot line and the easement. So can you tell me if the easement were drawn now based on the new survey, How wide would the new easement need to be compared? Is it bigger than the existing easement? What is the question again?

If it was drawn now?

Yeah. If the easement were based on the new lot line, does the lot line get closer to the house or farther away from the house?

Closer to the house. The lot line got further into the property. Further into the property. Into the property. The Forty Cliff Road property. It went further in.

So a bigger easement would be needed now.

Pardon me?

If you were going to solve the problem, the non-conforming structure problem with an easement, and you were doing it now, you would need to do a bigger easement.

It would have to be granted a larger easement.

Right. And how much larger would that easement need to be?

I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY. I WANTED TO SAY ALSO THAT THERE WAS A DISAGREEMENT ABOUT THE EASEMENT. I THINK THE OTHER GENTLEMEN SUGGESTED EVERYTHING WAS AGREED UPON. THANK YOU.

I'M SORRY, YOU ALREADY HAD TO TURN AND YOU JUST NEED TO ANSWER COMMISSIONER'S LAND QUESTION.

OKAY.

THANK YOU. ARE WE READY TO DELIBERATE? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

Was the point you were going to make pertinent to the easement, or it's an unrelated point? I believe it was. I'm sorry, Chair. Would it be OK if I would love to hear that?

Commissioner Monroe, you can ask him a question.

Yes. Can you please tell us what the point regarding the easement, the follow up on Commissioner Lin's question is? Yes.

There were two, the original easement was granted by Una Ratcliffe's mother, my wife, Ashley Ratcliffe, and it gave a certain amount of encroachment onto her property to allow the then owner of the property, Wayne Frick, this was in the 1980s, to build the little extension onto his house. And in that easement that was written by attorney in Bolinas, Jack Seidman, Ashley Ratcliffe put in the language saying, if there is ever reconstruction or change of property, change of building, the easement will be revoked. Now, the easement that the county has accepted into their RECORDS IS A LITTLE BIT, IT DOESN'T INCLUDE THAT. AND SO IT SEEMS THAT THE STAFF HAS DETERMINED THAT THE EASEMENT CAN EXIST AND THEY CAN DO WHAT THEY WANT. BUT I APPRECIATE COMMISSIONER CURREN'S POINT THAT IF THERE'S A NONCONFORMITY, DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO DO RECONSTRUCTION IN THAT NONCONFORMITY? THAT SEEMS That's what they're proposing by, you know, he mentioned those windows that it was sent back, but the windows are much larger.

OK, thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Lin? No, I'm Commissioner Monroe?

So I have one other question. There were some public comments that referenced the parking spaces that are utilized on the private Cliff Road. So I'm hoping either staff or the Project proponents could describe the role, if any, of the both parking spaces that provide access for the residents and also the parking for construction. I am very familiar with this stretch of the road, and it is less than 10 feet. It is very narrow. Access is incredibly difficult. I am very aware of that. So if you could just kind of lay out that element as it pertains to the appeal.

I could also have the Department of Public Works come up here and speak. Are you asking more about the requirements?

Both the requirements and the impacts of the proposed project. And a sort of related question is, what is the requirement for the actual private parking spaces? And do they have a relationship to the project itself? So there's kind of two parking questions, the construction parking and the resident parking.

I'll have Alicia Stamps from the Department of Public Works answer those.

Hi, Alicia Stamps, senior civil engineer with the Department of Public Works. So for the existing parking, the applicant's not proposing to change the parking. And we're not allowed to ask for parking for an ADU. So the parking for the existing home remains as it is, which is on the shoulder. And then on the construction management, I hadn't seen the construction management plan that was discussed during the applicant's presentation, but there is a requirement as a condition of approval that they submit a construction management plan prior to approval of the building permit that'll address contractor parking access for both the workers and equipment throughout the duration of the project.

Thank you. Do we have any future more questions, Commissioners to benefit?

Yeah, maybe I could. Add a couple points here, just looking at the terms of the easement and where we stand right now with this current structure. And this has become a little more complicated than I first thought it was going to be. But what seems to be the case here was this easement was agreed upon after the structure had been built. So it seemed that the parties realized that this was an encroaching structure. And they then demanded that this be resolved. And there was an easement entered into. with an approximate description of what the improvements were. And I think a key factor was that it says that the encroachment, which exists at that time, which is now the current structure, the encroachment cannot be extended or expanded. So I think it seems to me the parties accepted that the structure that exists right now was being accepted as being a permissible encroachment. And that does seem to me to exist regardless of a later survey that shows different dimensions. Because again, this really was a resolution of a dispute at that time. So therefore, it seems to me that the encroachment that now exists IS VALID, AND BECAUSE ONE ISSUE TO ME WOULD BE THAT CLEARLY IF THIS WAS BEING EXPANDED, THE PROPERTY OWNER WOULD HAVE TO, THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO SHOW TO US THEY HAVE A LEGAL INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY THAT THEY'RE ENCROACHING INTO. BUT AT THIS POINT IN TIME WHERE THE BUILDING IS NOT BEING EXPANDED OR EXTENDED OR INCREASED IN HEIGHT BUT IS SITUATED WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE EXISTING EASEMENT, I'M NOT SURE THERE'S ANY MORE THAT WE CAN DO AT THIS POINT IN TIME ABOUT THAT. from a legal perspective. And then I think it becomes a question of, okay, whether or not this non-conforming structure is being changed in a way that takes away the non-conforming rights. Because I understand what staff is saying is that this falls within the scope of repair and maintenance. And that has been the staff conclusion that this is not a replacement of the structure. Likewise, easement itself refers to a demolition of the encroachment or the replacement on the applicant's property of the structure itself. But that's not being replaced. It is simply being modified at this point within the existing footprint. So that's where I'm curious what everyone else's read on this is, but that's where I have come out with respect to trying to interpret this building and whether or not it is further encroaching or is becoming a greater nonconformity.

So thank you, Commissioner Lynn.

I agree with what you just summarized, but I have a further question about the ADU. So is the ADU also located entirely within the property or within the easement?

I can answer that. It's entirely within the property. It's not within the easement.

But it's in a different part of the property. Correct. I just want to clarify that for the record. So we're only talking about the house that the easement was negotiated about in the past prior to the current survey.

The discussion surrounding the easement and repair and maintenance.

That's correct. Which the staff has determined falls into the definition of repair and maintenance. Okay. I understand.

Thank you, Commissioner Lin. Commissioner Monroe? So thank you, Commissioner Stepanisic, for laying that out. I agree with the points as you very clearly described them. And I think I also agree with staff that as pertains to the easement and the encroachment, that is a civil matter that needs to be resolved in a civil court. But the connectivity for our decision today is whether our decision on the variance for the electrical platform would in any way prejudice their resolution. And we haven't really talked about the electrical platform. I'm hoping I can get maybe a review of the necessity of that platform. I did read that it could only be located in a spot that requires a variance. But is there anything else you could share with us about the implications of the electrical platform? on the overall project.

So from my understanding that the electrical platform was designed in compliance with the PG&E standards. I could look up, but there's only a very, very small portion of this property that would not be within any setback. The coastal code also does not have that same flexibility as that we see in the interior code for detach accessory structures within setbacks. So for example, Title 22, we have more flexibility and it could probably approve with a design review application. But in the coastal zone, the coastal code does not have that and it just states that no structures over a certain height, maybe I think it's 36 to 48 inches, are allowed to be within the setback. And there's very few exemptions. And so there is only a very small triangular portion of the property that is not fully encumbered by the setbacks of the subject zoning. Sure.

Okay, thank you very much. Okay, so a question raised by Nancy Zachar who spoke with us. Can you speak to the liability that would incur should there be a slide during construction? If the slide, I mean, it's a difficult thing to speak to, but anything you can say share with us about the assurance that there is perhaps even a bond that could be taken out to address the possible repair because it is a pretty significant slide that has occurred 200 feet uphill.

Yes, Commissioner Monroe, I'm happy to speak to that. So with these development projects, there'd be indemnification from the applicant. And I mean, and a slide is, you know, a challenging thing, right? Like causation. But, you know, for anything connected to this particular project that unfolds, the county would have indemnification from the applicant as a condition of approval.

Commissioner Stepanisic?

Going back to the electrical panel, when I looked at the application, 11 feet tall seemed very tall for something like this. And what I was gathering from the testimony was that is that required only because the steepness of the slope requires that the panel go up to grade of the street so that it can be read by a PGA. And so is that the reason why it's so tall?

Yeah, so what happens is the grade goes down very steeply. So what is actually, you know, the panel itself is seven foot tall, but we measure from grade below. And so, for example, from Cliff Road, it would only appear to be seven feet tall. But we measure from grade below, and so that's how the height is increased to, you said, 11 feet. Okay, thank you. Thank you.

Commissioner Monroe?

Well, I think that we've reviewed these issues fairly thoroughly. And I think that if we can incorporate the three points that I shared in my email into conditions of the permit, I am willing to move forward with the permit. I don't know what the procedure would be if this requires Another round of revision and return or if you can do that and ministerially right now so that those those conditions would be that I One, there's the incorporation of the requirement related to native plantings. Two, any provisions you can incorporate from the Coastal Commission's recommendation regarding coastal hazards. And then three, just affirming that there is that coordination component with the road repair.

Yes, if you would like those incorporated as conditions of approval, that can be done.

And from a procedural standpoint, that would be affirming the approval but modifying it, which require votes by all four of you in favor of that.

Can we have roll call, please?

OK, so I will change that into a motion. Is that right? Yes. I move to accept staff's recommendation, deny the appeal with modification of the adoption of those conditions.

I'll second the motion.

Commissioner Monroe motions, and Commissioner Stepanich seconds the motion. And if we can have roll call, please.

Commissioner Lind?

Yes.

Commissioner Mauro? Yes. Commissioner Stepanisic?

Yes.

Commissioner Moraes?

Yes.

All right. We all done?

Yes.

That's it. All right. We are all done. We have adopted the staff's recommendation. Meeting adjourned. Have a good afternoon.