Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We are all set. All right, good evening staff, all the everyone in attendance. Um, welcome to November 13th, 2025 planning commission meeting.

All right, shall we go ahead and begin? I think, um, first we have call to order, which I've done. Okay, on roll call. I think we have a number of specific things today address.

Um first off we have um Commissioner Chang who is still out of the country right now. Um so believe do we have where is Seph here? There he is. Do you have any questions that you would like to ask him or are we all all good? Um, so Commissioner Chang, we have his address on the agenda, so he's fine. Um, but the deputy city attorney needs to ask Commissioner Chang question. Uh, Commissioner Walton questions.

Walton, not Woodson. All right. So, Commissioner Chang, you're in. It's all good. Seth has his hand raised up, so Can we go ahead, Seth? Uh, hi. Can you hear me? Yeah. I I don't know how to make my uh video visible, but in any event, um, Commissioner Walden, I understand you are joining tonight under the Assembly Bill 2449 just cause procedures

of of being sick and likely contagious. I got it from somebody and I've given Yeah. Not great. Very sorry to hear that. Um so you [clears throat] meet the criteria and um can you tell us whether you have anyone over 18 in the room with you at this time? Oh no, sir. Okay, great. And if any if that happens at any point in during the meeting, you you're going to have to let us all know. You got it. Great. Thank you. Okay, so that takes care of the two administrative items. Uh, can we go ahead and do the roll call? Commissioner Walton here. Commissioner Chang here. Commissioner Baron

here. Commissioner Rana. Chair Woodson here. Commission St. Commissioner St. John here. Commission J Commissioner Jacobson here. You have quorum.

Thank you very much. Now this is going to be a very exciting one. Lots of emotion today, commission. It's been a long day for all of us. So, want to hear lots of emotion today, not here. All right. Next up, we have moment of silence and pledge of allegiance. Is there somebody would like to uh Commissioner Rana, would you like to do that for us? flag to the flag of the United States of America

and to all liberty and justice for all. Thank you very much. Okay, next up uh we have are there any special announcements or communications from the floor tonight? U these would be any actual items that are not on the agenda. Uh we do have a new staff member. Phil is here. This is his third day. Third day. So yeah. So that's the special announcement. So to meet you all

I'm happy it's so welcome to Marina. Thank you very much. I'm at a really good time in our history when it comes to planning at least you things have been picking up pace and we still have a lot to do in the next three to four years. So welcome. Um nothing else? No nothing from the group in the audience online. I don't see anything. [clears throat] Yep. All right. Next up is we have exparte communications for quasi judicial matters. Anybody on the commission? Anything they want to raise? No. All right. Moving on on the consent agenda. The only thing we have on the consent agenda for tonight is approval of the minutes from our me last meeting on October 23rd. There any changes or comments on that?

[clears throat] All right. Want to make a motion to approve. Commissioner Rana seconds. Commissioner Jacobson. Yes. [snorts] Commissioner St. John. Yes. Chair Woodson. Yes. Commissioner Rana? Yes. Commissioner Baron. Commissioner Walton. Yes. Commissioner Chang. Yes. Motion passes. There we go. Much more enthusiasm this time around. All right. Next up, we have uh we have two items tonight on our public hearings. Uh first one is our Sea Haven Development Agreement Amendment number three.

And I as hold on as part of that um Commissioner St. John since he lives in Se Haven will need to excuse himself. So you want to sign recuse your right and then we will come get you when this is over. And we do have a special guest. Uh Ishmail is our public works director. He's been here for about Yeah.

He's not new season. Good evening, members of the planning commission. Uh, tonight I'm going to briefly summarize the staff report regarding the proposed third amendment to the Sea Haven development agreement. I'm getting some feedback here. Um, as Guido mentioned, I have just under a year. December 2nd will be one full year with the city of Marina. So, uh, I can answer all your questions regarding um, what we're doing now and and what's before you. If you have any questions about amendment number one, amendment number two, I I wasn't here. I don't understand. It was too much reading. So, uh, Lane Lane is here. He could probably uh answer some of those questions. Uh, the main purpose of this amendment is to transfer the responsibility for constructing Se Haven Park from the developer Trumark Companies to the city of Marina. This change allows the city to better control costs, use value engineering, and ensure the project stays within budget, especially given the increased costs and delays experienced so far. Historically, the project started with a 2004 development agreement, which was later amended in two uh 2018 and 2023 to reflect changes in ownership, budget adjustments, and funding sources. Previously, the developer was responsible for building the park with contributions from impact fees and other funds. However, due to rising cost of uh construction, now estimated at about uh $6.5 million and unresolved differences, the city believes it's in the best interest to assume control of the park's construction. Staff recommends that planning commission approve the resolution to endorse this transfer, eliminate the developer remaining financial contributions related to the park, and support the city's efforts to complete and control the project. Importantly, the environmental review for the project

remains valid with no new significant effects identified. In summary, this amendment will enable the city to proceed efficiently with park construction, ensuring the project meets community needs and stays within budget. And now I'm available for any questions that you may have. Thank you. Thanks. Um, Commissioner Commissioner Jacobson.

Thank you, Chair. Uh, [clears throat] my only question and concern is, uh, you just quoted $6.5 million. Um, does the city have that money now or does that have to be obligated in the future? Uh we have it. So we are um uh to answer your question, yes, we we're we're prepared to fund fund fully fund the park. Um however, uh as I mentioned, and it's in the staff report, we're looking at um ways to get uh same amount of stuff done or very close to it with less uh less costs. So, our landscape designer is is you tightening some things up and making a few changes. So, um and and we'll we'll see a better cost estimate soon.

Uh estimated, you know, groundbreaking and that sort of thing.

So, it it depends. Um the best case scenario and this is the uh schedule that we're on right now. Um the final tweaks to the plans will be done and we can put it out to bid in December. So about a month from now. Um we would leave the bid open for at least 6 weeks because of the holidays. Normally we can put it out for 30 days, but we'll do at least 6 weeks, possibly eight weeks for contractors to submit bids. That puts us in um late January to midFebruary when we would receive bids. We would take an award of bid to council at the first meeting in March. Construction could start as early as April or May. Um it's about an 18, it could be a 12 to 18 month um construction process.

That's good news. Thank you. Sure. Uh, Commissioner Rana, has the city take undertaken this kind of project earlier and is the city sufficiently equipped to take on this kind of project now? Yeah, we we definitely have the staff on in in place to take this on. Um, I've already started working with the landscape uh architect that designed it. Um we have a a a plan in place for construction management inspections. We we're ready to go.

And in future any projects of this nature, will that remain an option that city does it themselves rather than giving to developer?

Yeah, those things are usually taken on a case- by case basis. Um the dunes park is another one that we're we're going to construct on our own. Um, Preston Park we're going to construct on our own. Uh, I've worked with three cities and sometimes it it and I assume that's why things are like this with Se Haven. Um, it's normally better and faster if the developer does it. If he will do what he contractually agreed to. Uh, when he doesn't, then we take it over. So in the in the future, uh it would just be in a case- by case basis.

Thank you. Commissioner Baron.

Thank you. I have a question about one of the numbers. So maybe I'll I'll have to move the question over there. Uh the $900,000. There's a whole development of the how the money grew through the years. Uh you said that um the city has the money. One of the points here is about $900 $900,000 that the city can reimburse. It's not very clear to me. Um I understand that now it's going to cost $6.5 million and there's something about $5.7 million from the developer. So I understand it's like $800,000 difference. But here we talk about on in the document $900,000. So there's some discrepancy that I I don't really understand what's going on with the money.

Yeah, this is Renee Ortega, the city attorney. Maybe I can try to explain. Um, so in 2018, I think the park budget was about $3 million. The developer contribution at that time or still is $2.1 million. And so uh to cover the gap between 2.1 between 3 million and the 2.1 in the agreement there was a a mechanism for the city for for the developer in this case to provide the extra $900,000 and construct the park. The developer would then be uh reimbursed after completion of the park those $900,000. Now the form in which they would be uh reimbursed would be in the form of credits for fees that they still need to pay. So they still need to pay park uh impact fees. That is the $5.7 million. So those so uh because they still have to pay the park impact fees, they would get a credit of $900,000 after completing the park. So it's sort of a little bit of a complicated uh borrowing mechanism for the city at the time. the city didn't have the $5.7 million in park fees that it has today uh in 2018. So that's why that $900,000 sort of funding reimbursement mechanism was created at the time. Uh it was it was further refined in 2023 during the second amendment uh to the development agreement to create a more um clear process as to how that reimbursement mechanism would work. uh now this is all premised on the developer building the park. So now given that the city is going to take over construction of the park that sort of funding mechanism uh is no longer relevant for two reasons. one, uh, the city is going to be building the park,

so it doesn't require the developer contribution, and two, uh, the city has collected, I believe, about $5.7 million in park impact fees, separate and apart from the developers 2.1 million contribution. So, there's there they're different uh I guess they're different buckets of of dollars in which uh that we're talking about here. So, also around I was also around for amendment too. So that helps a little bit. Um so the summary of I guess let me see if I can articulate it back because I think there's still a little confusion and I'll go to the other commissioners. Um back in 2018 we had there was x amount of money set aside and there was y amount of money that was totally accumulated at that point in impact fees. Fast forward seven years, we've now accumulated more in impact fees because they've continued to pay impact fees. So that's why we've gone up in impact fees, if I get it right, and that's why we're currently sitting at 5.7 million in available impact fees in our bank account. [clears throat] And everybody's shaking their head, but I want to make sure I understood it right.

That is correct. Does that make sense? Okay. All right. Um, no other questions. All right. We've got two questions. Um, both from either the commissioners. So, uh, Commissioner Chang, thank you, Chair. Uh, my question is still u I have five question. The first one is the cost. I know the cost has increased to 6.5 million and the city have right now I just heard is 5.7 million. So, how's the city going to cover the $0.8 million and where are the fund coming from? That's the first question.

Uh, the developer still has to pay the 2 $2.1 million. Okay. So, that's enough to cover the 6.5. Correct. That's correct. Right. The second question is the park design. I know the city is taking over now. So I just need to confirm the inclusion of the original design elements, parking, playgrounds and open field etc. Do we have a park design right now that we can present to the commission to look at?

It is the same design that's been worked on for 5 years. Um it's been complete for uh mostly complete for two years. Um nothing has changed. All the same amenities are going to be there. I don't have a uh I have a on my computer I have a copy of the conceptual design. I can send it to Guido and he can forward it to the commission.

Yeah, it's good for the residents to know so that we are not compromising on the park design we take over and um and also the uh questions on the legal and contractual liability. I just think um clarification on the warranty indemnities and release of developer obligations. I don't know legally where we stand is the developer is off right now is we are taking over totally 100%.

You want to answer that Renee? So uh with respect to uh construction of the park uh yes the in addition to constructing the park the developer needed to pay uh $2.1 million. So that obligation has not gone away. No, the the construction risk is it on the city solely on the city or

so the construction risk yes the construction risk is on the city uh but the I think the the staff's recommendation was the city also bears more risk in terms of the amount of money that it will spend um to construct the park. Certainly all the same contractual uh risks with the construction contractor will um you know be covered by indemnity agreements when that contract is entered into with the construction company. All right. So the city assumed the construction risk. Correct.

Correct. So I believe Commissioner Chang if we go and Lane you may be able to to fill this in when we did amendment two and they presented the plan as part of that they would have had to maintain the any of the warranty on the equipment. We would have maintained the park but they would have maintained the warranty on the equipment and any of the landscaping everything else. At this point we will now take over that responsibility. Okay that's good to know. Is that correct? That is my understanding. Yes.

Okay. Totally put him on the spot just because he's here, but I guess it could have gone to anybody. Um, so I think that Commissioner Chang, I think that was addressing kind of what you were talking about is the post care and warranty and liability issues. I know some of it was already supposed to come to the city anyway when it was built. All right, that's good. The next one is a er e the uh environmental aspect and uh can we verify that we are going to compliance with the storm water the habitat and the uh lighting standards for this park?

Yes, the nothing has changed that would affect the e so we don't have to do the environmental all over again. Thank you directors for your comments. And um the last one is how are you going to communicate with your community that engage in this sea haven?

So we we now have a consultant on board tripepeesmith that that is helping us out with uh communications with the public. Um and and there's just tons of social media posts and and things that they're working on as a company that specializes in this and we are going to utilize them to um improve all communications with uh with residents not just this park but with everything that we do. Well, from now to the start of the constructions and do you have a timeline for communicating with the uh community? Uh that is the next thing that we're going to work on. But yes, we will be working on a timeline for that.

All right. It will be on the website. Correct. That is correct. All right. Thank you. That's all I had. Ch. Thank you, Ch.

Commissioner Walton, I think you had your hand up before. Do you still have one to make comment? No, sir. Thank you, chair. I Commissioner Chen asked my question. What's the difference in price uh in how the city all that stuff just got answered, so now I have no questions. Thank you. Okay. All right. Thanks.

All right. Um I don't know where to begin. I guess I'll start with I'm not with the city. I'm frustrated as a resident and as the planning commission and now having gone through this multiple times now with amendments of how do I just want how did we get here? how I mean literally how did we get to the fact that there is now a lack of trust that the developer is going to build this park and I and I reason I want to get to it because we have multiple other things in that that development including their entire greenway right away and commitments that they've made to their future residents and to the city and they've pushed this off for years and to the point that now we're taking this over and I'm concerned that if they do this here what other aspects of the development. Are they still going to push off at this point?

Thanks, Wayne. Great question. Um, and I don't want to talk bad about anyone or any uh developer, but I think from the past history,

you the city was in um settlement discussions for well over two years trying with this developer um with issues with the original agreement trying to move it forward. And so we've had just a long history of struggles and challenges with with this developer. um on this park is just a small issue. Um but we came to the conclusion that that we have got to take some of these things over to get them done and the park is one. The other frustration the residents have is regarding the landscaping that's supposed to be done on Marina Heights Drive. Again, the city has actively we have a path forward on that that we're working on. And so, um, not to say anything bad about anyone, but what we're trying to do is move this project as quickly as we can, resolve the obstacles and and with this part. That's the quickest way and and it just happens to also be the most uh cost effective. Um, as is Ishmail said in the staff report, it typically uh [clears throat] and the the thought originally was the developer is moving forward. They're building all these pocket parks. They have their team in place. They can just build the part, get it done quickly, and you can see five years later, we still haven't been able to resolve it. The good part is, as I said, park design is the same. We have actually already ordered the park equipment, and I think part of it is here, if not all of it. Park Equipment has a lead time right now of 18 months. So the good part is we already have it and so that park will be going in really quick. I think much quicker than 18 months. We have a great design. We have Ishmail moves projects forward really quickly. We have the Wallace group that is helping us on

contract management. So I feel pretty confident. I think the long term most of these issues over time are getting resolved with the developer. Like I said, I'm it's just it's I understand your perspective. I I just it's very it's frustrating to have the developer and have come in and make commitments and and ek out commitments from us to then turn around and we have to come back and we take over this. And I don't disagree that us taking it over will get the park done. It's been this should have been done park should have been built 5 years ago. Um, and I think on the development side, I think that was a good and thanks. I appreciate that, Lane. Um, I think Ishmael, the only the other comment that I have was on the design there were there were this would be the only design thing. I'm just going to throw it out there. There was conversation at the time of putting in there were two tennis courts and the two tennis courts were going to become four pickle ball courts and then they became tennis courts because well the residents wanted tennis courts but the city wanted pickle ball courts. The reality is there was more than enough park space there because there was a lot of green space still. Um the reality is the developer no longer owns this park. We're now building the park and there was a need I think for tennis courts. I think I don't disagree there was but I think there was also a big big desire to have the pickle ball also. Um, is it possible to make any type of minor design look at on this on the city's part to address some of the going back to two three years ago when the community had we provided impact or the community provided input on the design to go back and look at some of those elements that were asked for at the time and see if those are things that given that we are not going to be paying the admin over I mean part of this cost savings is going to be the admin overhead that we don't have to pay

them to manage the project. I mean, so we're keeping 6 to 8% savings just on advent on this. Um, just wondering if we could do that. Also, just because there were a number of design elements that were suggested by the by the local community that at the time we really were beholdened to the developer. I mean, we had to the developer at one point wanted to put a a three-hole golf course there and at least we didn't get that. But I just want to make sure that we're building it for the city and what the city residents want. You want to answer it?

So that Yeah. Uh I I'm not sure. Um right now the amenities are of course the restroom facilities, parking, there's playground for children, there is uh a dog park. Uh there's some open green space that will be turf where uh you know kids can go out there and kick a soccer ball around or throw a football or something. There's some native area. So this park's going to be uh you know it's going to be more than just Yeah. And I think there was still there was still like a sixhole frisbee golf that

there's a nine hole nine hole disc golf will be put in. It it was going to be six and the designer was able to get three more holes. So you have a full nine and uh there was four pickle ball courts. Um with the recent uh feedback that we've received for all other parks, um we doubled that. So there will be eight pickle ball courts at this uh park and uh the tennis court was moved to uh the Dunes Park.

Okay. And the only reason I the reason I bring up the tennis is that and this this is a bigger community thing that really ties back to NPSD is that NUSD needs to have four tennis courts total to be able to support JV and varsity tennis. Now I know that because I my son was doing his Eagle project 5 years ago started it during COVID and that came up as a requirement. So, one of the ideas was to be able to use split the varsity to Los Angeles Park and take the tennis courts at at at Se Haven and be able to use that for the JB. And that way they could we could actually have tennis as an option for the high school um within our community. And now that we've been now we've migrated over to pickle ball um I get it. At the same time, tennis is a really high participation, low impact, lowcost sport for our our high school and our community and something that again builds teamwork. And it would be something that I know it's not on PK's list of of improvements. It's just kind of there, but I know it's something that was a desire of the city or of this of the school of residents, students, and families to have. And so I guess I'd just throw that out there that at some point um again it's not we don't have we don't we're not beholden to MBUSD obviously I mean we're our own city but knowing that that was something they wanted to do and it's something that as a sport they can't do because they just don't have enough courts to that around why I'll just leave that as an open item for you to to just have knowledge about. Um chair chair if I may. Uh I think the public hearing portion I'm not sure if you were going to get

I am because I have one other question but I am going to go to the public. So yeah that works. That's a good breaking point. Thanks. Um we have 15 people on the call today. This is a record. All right. Um do we have public comment on this? I don't see anybody online that's raised their hand. Chair Woodson.

Okay. Going once. Going twice. All right. I tried. My only other comment um I think is let me see if I got it right. Maybe I didn't get to try this right timeline transfer. Yeah, I think I'm good. I'm fine with it. Um, no other questions from the commission. Yes, you absolutely can make a comment.

Um, I had a conversation with some friends in Sea Haven and there is some rumor maybe I should call it, that they think they have to pay for the park. So, if they don't maybe it can be added to the messaging on on the u social media. Uh they also are very much looking forward for this park. So I think they they are paying attention to what's going on with it. So I just want you to know that. All right. Thank you.

Yeah. I mean their impact fees they are paying for it indirectly because their impact fees are paying for it. So, I think that's the answer is yes, they are, but they're paying it through the developer impact fees that that they've already paid in when they bought the property. I think what you're hearing is um the residents there will pay for the ongoing maintenance of the park. That is still in the agreement. So, um they will pay up to $15,000 a month. So, once that development is fully built out, that is what they will be paying for the park is the ongoing maintenance cost.

Okay. All right. Um, oh, I know what my other comment was and this was it's more just an information piece. Totally understand where we stand. This is the right decision to move forward with and that's where the votes going to go, I'm going to assume. Um, at the same time going back to the communications and outreach, I think it's very important to reach out to Patent Place and all the residents over there with the park that's being done. Not because of we're not putting priority on on the building and and re renovations over there and upgrades. More just the sequencing now is going to be a little bit off and that's going to be sequenced our this park will probably be sequenced and break and break ground prior to some of theirs. And we just need to make sure that they're aware that this was an opportunity. this was an opportunity issue driven by the developer and not going against them and and us trying to segment that part of our city population because I know that there is that we all know there's a feeling at times that we don't care about them and so we do want to make sure on the communication side this is this was done for a monetary reason it was in the betterment of the city to get this done faster but because as you point out l because we already have a lot of the materials already on site we're going to be able to sequence this and build this at a faster rate than what normally you'd be able to build a sixacre park. So, um that said, uh we Can you put a motion up thing there? [clears throat] Probably scroll up a little bit. All right. Okay. Um, a resolution of the planning commission recommending that the city council approve the third amendment to the Sea Haven Development Agreement to transfer responsibility for the construction of Sea Haven Park from the developer Trumark Company's LLC to the

city of Marina and find the project is consistent with the environmental impact report number 20003021012 certified ified for the Marina Heights Sea Haven specific plan. I'll second.

Commissioner Chang, yes. Vice Chair Walton, yes. Commissioner Baron, yes. Commissioner Ra. Yes. Chair Woodson. Commissioner Jacobson. Yes. Motion passes.

Great. I am I am going to assume that the city is residents of the city are going to be very happy with this decision and that this will be a great thing forward because that has been a big blank spot in the city on that path on our entrance way into the city for years now. So, this will be great to finally see something broke there. Um, and that's I really think that overall that's going to have a great visual going back to when you enter the city. That's a big that is our that is our number one commuter route and transportation route into our city. So, people outside of it will see this every day as it's being built. So, I am very excited to finally see this being built out. So, thanks Lane. Thanks Ishmael for coming and presenting tonight. All right, you found your way back. Welcome.

Se Haven survived.

Se Haven survived. And the agreement was that you were going to pick up all of the developers costs the $15,000 the 15,000 a year in maintenance costs that come out of your dues. Right. All right. Next up on the list is the LCP. Hold on. title. All right. What? Obviously can't read. I should just say it's the LCP land use. There it is. Um, next one up is the land use plan amendment with local coastal program update from Allison Hunter. Good evening, Chair Woodson, members of the planning commission, members of the public. I'm Allison Hunter, planning manager with the city of Marina. Um, I'm going to just give a quick introduction and then hand it over to our consultants who are going to go through this PowerPoint and then we'll kind of come back together and answer any questions. Um but as you know uh we've been working hard on this comprehensive local coastal program update. It will be for the implementation plan and the land use plan portions of the whole LCP. Those two portions make up the whole LCP. Um, we're going to dive into some details, but I also, speaking of aspects of the LCP, wanted to fill the planning commission in on our exciting late breaking news. Um, the coastal commission just this past Friday approved our coastal hazards and sea level rise amendment. Um, we got about 99% of what we wanted. It was actually

exactly what we expected. Um, the commission would not allow us to fully ban hard armoring shoreline protection devices just outright. They just said, "No, you cannot do it." Um however the way they uh allowed the language to occur and they made some modifications but it made for very very strong policy language and development standards that will result in a practical ban on hard armoring because the ability to uh provide hard armoring is is so such a tiny little pin prick of like fitting into all the boxes that it's going to be very very difficult to for somebody in the future to um install armoring along our coast. So, it's really a win. Um I'm hoping to take the this final final coastal hazards amendment back to the council for acceptance because the commission did make some changes. So, the council has to accept it one more time. uh and then it will be fully certified and then that will be enveloped into the comprehensive plan as one of the chapters uh in the land use plan. So we're excited about that. Um and now I'm going to hand it over to Esme Wall and Anastasia Aziz of EMC Planning. They're our consulting group along with Integral Consulting. Uh and they're going to walk you through our draft land use plan. Thank you, Allison. Uh, chair and commission members. I'm pleased to be here with you tonight with Esme Wall, senior planner, and my name is Anastasia Aziz. I'm a principal at EMC Planning Group. Um, so next slide, please.

So, um, why is the city of Marina doing a comprehensive update of their local coastal program? Um so as you know uh the city of Marina has a portion of the city that's located in uh the coastal zone and subject to the coastal act and part of the um coastal act directed that all cities uh with a coastal zone have to have a local coastal program that regulates the coastal zone and coastal development permits um are the permit uh type that are used to regulate development. So, the city of Marina um does have a local coastal program that was certified in 1982. The coastal act was passed in 1976, I want to say. Um so, um in less than 10 years, good for Marina got that done. There's some jurisdictions here that still don't have a certified local coastal program like the city of Monterey. So, all their coastal development permits still have to go up to the coastal commission. So, good for marina. You're not in that position. you're in the position of updating your um program. Um the coastal commission uh was um had supplied grant funding for this project. Um so that is uh what is funding this project and update and since 1982 um there's been not only new guidance on sea level rise for hazards that has already um come through this commission and council as Allison just mentioned and um been uh was at coastal commission last week. Um but there's new guidance on environmental justice, tribal cultural resources, biological resources, um climate change with the sea level rise and accessory dwelling units uh within the coastal zone and throughout the rest of the city. So there's other things to update as well. Um also the mapping was was older and so we're modernizing the mapping. Um and also uh we're looking just to update the style and format to make it a little more uh user friendly and easier to

read. Next slide. Thanks. So, this graphic just illustrates the process and where the city is. Um, to date, we've had stakeholder and community outreach. We we started this back in October 2023. That's when we started the hazards. Uh, so we consider that part of the outreach and um educating the community about what the plan is and why we're doing this. Um, we came up with some frameworks, um, policy frameworks, building on what the city already has, um, uh, removing some older things that were in there, uh, and out of date, uh, regarding land uses, and then also again integrating some of these new guidance and new, um, topic areas that needed to be addressed. So um we had u multiple field trips. There was a questionnaire um workshops including one that was integrated with the general plan because that's another large policy document moving its way through the city. Um and so now here we are with a public uh draft for planning commission consideration uh before we take it to uh city council. um after city council once the the uh policies are more or less in place and we've also been working with coastal commission staff to make sure that the the policies that uh we're hearing about from the community and city staff the this commission and council. Um we've been working with coastal commission staff to make sure that they're on track and there it it's not veering too far from what the commission might accept. Um so it's been a very much a collaborative effort. Um then we'll uh come back with the implementation plan which is really the the codes to implement these policies and then submit that as a package to the coastal commission and like Allison said once the both the land use plan and implementation plan are approved by council they'll be submitted to coastal commission will go for uh before the coastal commission for a final um certification.

So here again, I already touched on this um but Marina here just graphically depicted is um the city of Marina boundary and then in the blue you can see is the coastal zone. Um it's primarily east um west of Highway 1, but there is some east of Highway 1 and that includes Lock Padden Park, the Marina Landing Shopping Center and a very small residential area. There's not a lot of residential um in Marina's coastal zone at all, only about 32 parcels. Um the uh local coastal program if you see south of Rain dollar Avenue sort of that long um elongated uh portion that um is will be new to City of Marina. It's currently under coastal commission jurisdiction but that was identified in this process to um include that in the city of Marina. Um it's characterized mostly by as you know um environmentally sensitive habitat area, the beautiful and imposing sand dunes that are here in Marina and also wetlands as well. Um so it's a a unique uh uh coastal zone. So the next slide. So the land use plan sections uh that we'll be uh touching on. Um again this is uh the policy document to govern that uh coastal zone area that was just depicted on the map. Um the introduction and framework public access and recreation which is one of the primary public access is one of the primary tenants of the coastal act to make sure that it's accessible to all people um and is not um subject to private uh uh development but that everyone can access it. And we've been trying to look too with accessibility. Sometimes it can be hard to get to Marina's uh coastline to get through those sand dunes, but um the sand dunes are part of what make it gorgeous as well. Um the biological resources, environmentally sensitive habitat area,

marine resources and water quality. Allison touched on the coastal hazards. Again, that was just before the coastal commission last week. Um land use and development, scenic and visual resources, tribal, cultural, and historic resources. and environmental uh justice. So, we will be touching on some of these items uh to give you an overview. And now I will pass it on to Esme and she will talk about uh some of these portions. Thank you Anastasia and good evening chair Woodson and commissioners. So public access and recreation is one of the sections of the land use plan and it is one of the major tenants of the coastal act. Um public access, the ability for all people to access California's beaches is one of the reasons that the coastal act was created in the first place. It was a voter initiative in response to development in the 70s that was cutting private development that was cutting off access to the beach. And so that's part of the reason we have the coastal act today. So what does access look like in Marina? Um most of Marina's coast is in public ownership. So you have state parks who owns Marina State Beach and then there's the Marina um coast water district, the sanctuary beach resort and there is uh required public access easements through the sanctuary beach resort as part of their coastal permit. Um just north of there is the um Monterey Peninsula Regional Parks District uh Marina Preserve and then just north of that is the former Semix site and sand mining was uh seized a few years back and that

property is actually required to be turned over into public ownership. So that whole northern portion of Marina's coast will also be in public ownership. So even with all this public ownership along Marina's coast, access is still quite difficult in some areas to get to the beach just due to the fact that the large beautiful sand dunes create topography um and kind of barriers to access the coast. So, our policies in this draft land use plan um try to strengthen Marina's um ability to create um more accessible access to the coast by collaborating with these public agencies to help um maintain and build new access ways to the coast. So the figure shown there shows the existing um accessways and then in the light blue shows some proposed potential future new access ways that could be developed. Uh thank you. So the next topic that we wanted to highlight is the land use designations within the coastal zone. So the image on the left are the existing land use designations under the current local coastal program and then the image on the right are the proposed land use designations. So you'll see that um the city of Marina is mostly open space and then there's some general commercial visitor oriented commercial public service facilities in a small area of residential. So the one proposed land use designation change between the existing and the

proposed is to remove the coastal conservation and development land use designation that um covers the former semix site which we're now refer referring to as the north dune site. So the reason for this is that the coastal conservation and development land use designation allows sand mining and with the cessation of sand mining um and the requirement for that large property to be put into public ownership, it makes sense to move that into open space so that it can be protected as open space and dune preservation with public access like the rest of Marina's coastline. Um yeah, so we'll discuss next the proposed allowed uses within the open space land use designation. And again, the open space land use designation was almost all of the area west of Highway 1 and then east of Highway 1 lock, pad, and park. So that is what is subject to the open space land use designation. So the current LCP allows public recreation facilities and the open space land use designation but doesn't clearly define what those are. So in this proposed uh LCP update we have included some suggested definitions for types of recreation that are allowed within the open space land use designation. So this includes passive recreation. This is lower intensity recreational uses such as walking trails, hiking trails, boardwalks, picnic areas, interpretive signage, botanical gardens, community gardens, and nature observation areas.

And then active recreation is another type of recreation that could be allowed and it's more moderate intensity uses um can include community centers, bicycle paths, campgrounds and ancillary uses supporting public agencies like parks housing could be an example of that. Um and then finally coastal dependent recreation would be allowed in the open space land use designation. And this is a type of recreational use that requires uh a location adjacent to the sea to function at all. So like a a coastal trail or paragliding related infrastructure. Next, so the um allowed uses in the open space land use designation have been divided between permitted uses and conditional uses. So the the difference is that permitted uses would just need a coastal permit and conditional uses would need a coastal permit as well as a conditional use permit. So there'd be another kind of layer of oversight and findings that would need to be made for uses that are listed as conditional. So this slide is showing the permitted uses and they are the more passive recreation types that I just discussed. um preserved open space, beach access, walking trails. Um and again, this these uses would be allowed um in the open space area west of Highway 1 and also on Lockpad and Park east of Highway 1. Next slide. So, the conditional uses, and these would be required, like I said, to have the coastal permit and the conditional

use permit. Um, and they include more active recreational facilities such as bicycle trails, camping facilities, ancillary uses, supporting public agencies. Um, and again, any future projects in open space would go through the public process and public hearings um require permits in SQA. All right. So, I'll hand it back to Anastasia to go over u Marina Landing. Thanks, Esme. So, this next slide uh depicts on the map um the Marina Landing Shopping Center uh which I think all of you are familiar with. The current land use designation is general commercial and this is within the coastal zone. So it's subject to um the coastal the city's uh local coastal program and coastal development uh permits in addition to other city permits. So this is within the coastal zone. Um so right now the current uh land use designation is general commercial which allows retail stores, commercial shops, um hotels and other uses uh with similar characteristics. So um what's being proposed after a number of um workshops um uh and outreach efforts is retaining it as general commercial but adding an allowed use um and that would be supportive and transitional housing. So that's in alignment with the city's uh housing element to allow that type of um housing use throughout the city. So we're adding that for your consideration. Um and then there was a market analysis that was done by HDL um back in the spring that did support um retaining um it as retail uses and it stated that Marina generally has a strong demand for retail space and that

there are opportunities for fast casual dining, personal services and convenient retail and also demand for hotel development. And I know this has also been discussed as part of the general plan um update um and I think the general consensus coming out of those meetings, but this is before you again for consideration is to retain it as a general commercial with that one exception for transitional and supportive housing. Okay. And next slide. So scenic and visual resources is also an aspect um that the coastal commission gu has guidance for for policies and that is to protect the scenic qualities of coastal areas um because they're considered a resource of public importance and again I just have I love the sand dunes here. They're amazing. Um I think they're visually and and um incredible and a real scenic resource as well. And so many people see them when they enter the Monterey area um on Highway One. It's really like a gateway like welcome to the Mont I feel it's a gateway welcome to the Monterey region here, the sand dunes. So we want to make sure Marina has done a a great job preserving those. So we just have policies in place to make sure that that that trajectory stays the same. Um and then there are policies for marine resources and water quality primarily uh focused on storm water runoff. Those are already state regulations, but we're just integrating them into this document as well uh to make sure that water quality, especially after rain events like today, um is clean before it's discharged. And the next slide. Um so, tribal and and cultural resources um the treatment of those have changed and evolved over time. So, there's new coastal commission guidance on that. um that was issued in 2018 for tribal consultation. And so there are new policies in there to conform with that. Um primarily it's to have tribal

consultation early similar to if you're familiar with AB52 in SQA, it's to consult with the tribes early and often on a governmenttogoment um platform. And then the uh cultural resources and historic resources policies were updated again to reflect the changes in state law regarding protection and and preservation. And environmental justice again is a newer topic uh that is not included in the city's existing local coastal program. Uh but I know that there's been lots of work related to it for the general plan update. So, we're just building on that and also incorporating the coastal commission guidance um to make sure that there is equitable access to the coastline from income and also abilities. And there is a small, you know, portion of this area of your coastal zone that is residential uses, but we're also including the transitional and supportive uses again as an equity aspect um for people living in Marina. Um, and also enhancing civic engagement, which I think the city does a good job at to try to um, have outreach materials available in multiple language in a variety of of outreach methods. So, those are all in that EJ section as well. And then I'm going to pass it back to Esme for a discussion on biological resources. Thank you. So biological resources also commonly referred to as environmentally sensitive habitat areas or ESHA under the coastal act. So this is a coastal act and LCP specific term and it's really any area where plant or animal life um or their habitats are rare or valuable. And so the city of Marina has a whole lot of ESHA. It's pretty much all of the coastal sand dunes. um the wetlands, vernal ponds, and even like

degraded ESHA that has been impacted is still considered ESHA because it still could provide habitat for plants and animal species. Um so even degraded ESHA under the proposed local coastal program is provided these protections. So the um development in ESHA is limited. It's limited to uses that are dependent on the resource. Um if develop like such as a walking trail. Um if development is proposed in ESHA, a biological assessment would be required and if impacts can't be avoided, they have to be mitigated for at a specified ratio and that those ratios will be identified in the implementation plan which will follow. Um so there's one kind of change I wanted to highlight between the existing and the proposed. In the existing land use plan um development within 100 ft of wetlands was prohibited in this um proposed draft land use plan. There's certain allowances for development within 100 ft of wetlands and that that includes restoration activities, nature observation, and also um accessory dwelling units. So the residential within Marina along Mimi Court and Robin Drive is actually within 100 ft of the wetland there. And so those residential properties would still be able to have a use. that's been identified as a a means of more affordable housing within the city. So, I just wanted to go over the outreach and engagement one more time that has taken place to culminate in

this draft before you. Um, there were multiple in-person workshops, field trips to Lock, Paden Park, and Marina State Beach. a few questionnaires were released and um we've been posting all of our summaries and documents on the Marina LCP update website. So that continues to be updated and you can see what's happening um with the project there. And on that website, there's a detailed community engagement summary that goes into detail on the public comment received and the survey results. So, we wanted to open it up for discussion to the planning commission. Um, we're happy to hear all of your thoughts. Two particular things that we know that we'd like to get some feedback on are the thoughts on the open space allowed uses and also um the recommended uh use or land use designation for the marina landing site if that should be retained as is or mixed use. And going back to Allison. Thanks Anastasia and Esme. Uh just to kind of wrap that up and and remind the commissioners that you did receive a few letters from the uh public. Few comment letters were emailed and also I provided hard copies there. Um I'm hoping that perhaps we could go out for public comment like right after our presentation so we can hear what the public has to say. that way it could perhaps inform discussion a little bit further. Um, and that's it for staff report.

Thank you very much. Looking at the attendee list, there is a wide assortment of capable and very vocal people that I'm hoping to hear from tonight. So, we'll go ahead and I think that's a good idea. Um, I'd like to go ahead and I think there's a I guess before I do that or wrap up wrap our head around everything that we've just been in because this is a big document, a big subject and a lot of things to talk about. Um, bottom line is on one side we have just the land use component of it that we need to talk about. It's generically how do we want to look at things from the city and so that's most of what was talked about. We do have the coastal component up. I have a significant question. I do I before I go to the public, I do have one question on that that I want to make sure I understand because I want to make sure the public has that side of it too. And [snorts] then we have a specific on a couple specific blocks of parcels within the city to address also. And what does that look like? And so that said, the only question I I want to make sure I understand going back to the boundaries of the coastal zone for us on the diagram very beginning is I always where is the boundary when we cross over US1 south of B. Now that's a very good question. So that the light blue sliver there is city of Marina. the boundary includes the TAM rightway to the west of the highway. So, and that's existing right now. However, when ord uh was divvied up amongst all of these public entities, the coastal commission retained that area as their own permit jurisdiction.

Right? So with the surf line that was under there and this is why that's why I'm raising this is because when that cut session came up. Yes. The only thing that we were responsible for was the area on the north end that tiny where where highway one goes over the city property. Correct. And none of this was there. So this map is actually changing that.

This map is changing that. And we actually discussed that with coastal commission staff specifically and they encouraged us to you know take ownership of this swath. It it will be uh proposed for open space land use designation of course like everything else along there. Um and it will have no effect on the surf line or any of the M MST project going on right now. But uh in the future that would become under the city's CDP authority

not open that can of worms but just leave it that that is a interesting timing decision and I will just leave it at that. Um there will be a lot of discussion I'm sure that comes out of this overall online and other places when people really get latch on to this. Um, okay. I just wanted to make sure that when I looked at that, that's exactly what I was read and saw and that that's what the Coastal Commission was recommending that it switch. All right, that said, why don't we go ahead and I'm going to open up to public comment first. Uh, we'll start with Jeff since he's got his hand up. add you, Jeff.

Thank you. Can Can you hear me? Yep. We can.

Thank you so much. Appreciate the opportunity to address the planning commission. Uh my name is Jeff Markham. Uh I am a citizen of Marine. I'm also the Ward One Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District director, but I'm going to be addressing the commission as a citizen tonight. Uh I'd like to thank Allison Hunter for taking on the local coastal program update. It's a big project and very much needed. uh and uh just the the important change of the North Dunes area to remove the um coastal development uh uh designation is is worth doing even by itself. And I really like the definition that the consultant had about active recreation. I think it's probably the best uh definition that I' I've seen so far. So, thank you for that. Uh I have written to the planning commission and hopefully you've received my comments about specifically the lockpad and coastal wetlands community park and I emphasized part of the name coastal wetlands. The intent of this park when it was created by the coastal commission I'm sorry by the coastal conservancy uh MPRPD in the city of Marina was to preserve a very unique coastal vernal wetland system. I don't know if you've ever seen the balance hydraologics 2012 management plan which unfortunately was never uh adopted but it pointed out something very unique to me that um the seven pond system that we have here uh in Marina is is one of only three places in the world where this exists here in Marina southern Oregon and South Africa so it's a very unique system and Lock Patent Park is part of that vernal system um some of the language in LCP regarding lock patent discusses active recreation and personally I'm very much against that designation and I would request that the planning commission consider addressing that and potentially recommending that that designation be removed. Um at the time that the 2005

master plan was done um there really weren't a lot of active recreation uh elements within the city of Marine and our parks at the time. And since that time, 2005, we've developed a lot of active recreation areas like a Gloria Jean Tate Park, the new parks that will come online within Sea Haven and also within the dunes area. So we have a lot of active recreation elements now that weren't existing at that time. And one of the things about lock patent park is that it was adjacent to a holiday um in development where a lot of things were u put into lock patent park like a mitigation area to help that hotel be built and some of that bled into active recreation elements that would support that development like tennis courts and there were there was a bunch of stuff in there that I don't really think is is relevant now and so I would suggest that let's leave that very unique coastal vernal wetlands pond system as it was supposed to be as the um coastal conservancy imagined it to be and I think uh as a lot of people residents within marina really want that park to stay which is a very unique you know pond system that we have here and walk around it and and not have a lot of active recreational elements within it. So thank you for that.

Thank you much Jeff. Uh next up is Daniel Hello. Hello. Good evening.

Uh, hi. Yeah, this is Daniel Doan. I'm an owner in the Marina Landing Project. Um, I I'm sure Allison and Guido have told you kind of a lot of the back and forth that has gone on um with our desire to make this site a residential site. I don't want to beat the horse. Uh but you know, I think I think it speaks for itself that we really haven't seen any retail demand on the site or hospitality demand on the site. And um I don't know if there's any way to discuss this other than a you know three minute discussion by me. I think I've expressed my concerns in the past that the market the free [clears throat] market

has spoken. I'm sorry. Can you hear me?

Yeah, you're fine. Uh the market has spoken and offered us no retail options on the site. We've been marketing it for years and there's been essentially none. And I'm just not sure why the wants to impose a use that has no uh economic viability, right? We can all desire whatever we want to desire on the site, but if no if there's no retailers that want to locate there, it's sort of a it's an outcome that will never occur, right? So, it's sort of a fiction. Um, and I, you know, I think housing would be very valuable on this site considering how much of a housing crisis the city of Nina and the entire state of California is in, how many more people it could bring. And of course, we we can allocate a portion of the site for retail, but we need the housing on the remainder of the site to attract the retailers, right? So, those are just some comments, but I I was hoping this time it could be a little bit more of a discussion because I I'll be frank and say that last time we've made these comments, I feel like we were just ignored and the decision was just made regardless of what we had to say. And I'd like to ask for there to be follow-up questions that I can reply to rather than just make a statement in a vacuum that goes north. Um, and also perhaps I can request some clarification on the transitional and supportive housing that is a part of the land use plan and what that entails. And then lastly, is the vote being made and cast today or is that at a later date? Those that's my other question. Oh, sorry, one other thing. Uh if we can't get to some sort of discretionary approval or modification, we're going to proceed with a state law known as AB 2011, which allows by approval of residential projects on commercial sites. It's a little bit more antagonistic and it circumvents the

city's ability for discretionary review and input. It's not a route we'd want to go, but absent any cooperation, that's what we've elected to do. We're we're planning on submitting a pre-application on that within the next couple of weeks depending on how that's those are all my thoughts. Thank you. Does that make sense? Yes. Not everyone is going to resonate. Thank you very much, Daniel. I'll um I'll come back to it in a minute. I got your questions written down. We'll come back to it. Thank you on yours because that actually is that'll be I mean I Daniel overall I've got them documented. I think that'll honestly it's going to be part of the discussion because land use is part of this at Marina Landing. So we will discuss it in more than 30 seconds today. Sounds good. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Thank you.

Sure. Uh Christina, welcome. Hello. Can you hear? We can. Hello.

You can. Okay. Thank you so much. I want to say I had all intents and purposes to um come see you in person. I appreciate all the work that you all do um making your recommendations and and your thoughtfulness. Thank you Allison and staff for for such close attention and um taking the time to really think about where we're going and how [clears throat] we lead with our coastal development. Um that being said, I'm here to sort of echo what the last person spoke about. I represented this area, this side of town for a few years and um I drive by the Marina Landing and I have worked with the and and passed on, hey, there should be this or hey, there should be that. And as I see a hotel go up, as I see things that are, you know, we need to figure out what is going to happen with Marina Landing Shopping Center. um we unfortunately shot ourselves in the foot by putting a ton of uh retail on the other side of town. So when we look at the governor's directive and I am on some committees that we do talk about housing in fact I invite invite you to one

don't care really. Oops.

Sorry. [gasps and sighs] Anyways um I am on some communities where we do talk about re housing from a regional point of view. So I really would hope that we do not march into something without looking at all possibilities for our parcels in in Marina. Um we have exhausted. Canes is open up next week in Selenus. Uh guess what happened? They had an opportunity to come here. We don't have the traffic numbers. I have studied the traffic numbers. I've looked at the traffic patterns. I have counted. I stood on the corner uh believe it or not during race season and really had hoped for something in that piece of property. So I implore you to really not look at the Marina Landing uh space as just what it's supposed to be cuz unfortunately we have put the the that piece of property in a place that it essentially cannot develop into retail. And who's doing retail? That being said, um I think there should be some special considerations. Um and I will implore you to please not allow this to go to litigation. Please have an open mind. And this is the time to do this is have your minds open. Think about what we what we can contribute to the regional needs of Monterey County. So my time is coming close. Um but I I'm here to implore you to really think about the piece of property that is there. I walk it. I see it. I see the trash. I I I'm just really hoping for something that would improve the quality of life across the board for our community. So, thank you all for what you do. I'm sorry I wasn't there in person. [snorts]

Thanks, Christina. I only pointed comment. Where did that comment in the middle of it come from? Did it come from her side or it come from our side? That was from another speaker. And so Christine, I'm going to give you another minute if you have something else you want to say because that totally took you out of your train of thought.

You know, it's okay. Thank you. I'm going to reserve it back to maybe someone else who wants to speak. And unfortunately, um, you know, some things that are happening in our country don't allow us to really think about things in a a really open way. So, I appreciate what you're doing, your open minds, and thinking we have we're all invested in our community and what's best for it. So, let's be creative and let's not be so rigid and now is the opportunity. So, that's all I got to say. Thank you for all of you. Thanks, Christina.

Okay. Um, next up, do we have anybody else? Uh, Chair Woodson said we have no other speakers online.

Sure. We don't have the guest who would like to speak. All right. All right. Um, since no other guest online, uh, go ahead and close public comment at this point and we'll come back to the commission. Um, I've already raised my my first comment. I'll come back to it later. Um, where would we like to start? I mean, we could start in order. We could talk about overall plan, talk about specifics, just be random. I think I'd rather kind of start the general plan and then go some of the specifics on marina landings um and lake patent um separately. So, we got

Okay. So we'll go ahead and uh open it up first and so we'll talk about first Commissioner Chang and Commissioner Walton also is focus on the general plan and any comments on that and then reserve anything on Lake Patton and Marina Landing and we'll come back and address those two areas separately for comments because I think we all a number of us have different comments. I know there are public comments on both those also. Anybody would like to speak first as always I'd be happy to. [laughter] Commissioner Jacobson,

I I um I I found this document uh over overloading. I mean, it was like a a lot of words, a lot of time, but I did pick out a couple of things that I did want to discuss. Um one is is that right off the bat throughout the document, we talk about maximizing coastal access. And [clears throat] I'm assuming that means all the way down to uh where the water meets the sand. And under in today's world with the ADA is that how do we get somebody in a wheelchair or somebody that's disabled from the parking lot or from, you know, Lake Court to the shoreline. that that is pretty much the number one comment and discussion topic that we've encountered through this whole process. Um, a couple of things to consider. The the access to the actual shoreline is through um several mostly public but in one private property as we discussed. So, the ownership state parks and um Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District um it's up to them to actually foot the bill for developing those access pathways. Um the city of Marina is working in concert actually with EMC is helping the city on a totally separate but related uh access grant project through Fort or Beach Fort or Dune State Parking lot uh out on 8th Street which is outside city limits. But because it's an important this is such an important

topic to the city of Marina, we're

working with partners to try to better improve that access. Um, in the planning world, we're very wary of using the term ADA um because it's uh it brings up certain liabilities and things that sometimes cannot be accommodated um when there's a physical barrier like this. Um and the the coastal the conditions the wind happening at all times that's immediately varying um improvements that the state parks put out there. It's they have built there are several boardwalks that exist under the sand um right now because the wind and um just regular climate actions are annihilate you know those trails. um super quickly. So, there are a couple of tools. Um I know Ayamar State Park has those wheelchairs with the big inflatable

tires. Um that could be an option if state parks, Marina State Beach, wanted to pursue that. But even those the slope is going to push those up that slope. Exactly. The slope is, you know, I don't know. I see a ski lift in our future. I don't know. Yeah. So, but this is this literally is the number one topic for sure. The topography, as we all know, is just but what what I'm hearing is is that even though we say this in the document that we're going to maximize that, it's actually not our responsibility. It's state parks.

It is not our responsibility. It is other agency's responsibility. What these policies are doing is for example when state parks comes in and let's say they need to ask the city of Marina for a CDP to build some kind of trail or access our policies are already in place to support that. Okay, that's that's what this whole thing is intended to do.

That that that makes more sense. Thank you. Uh, my next question is around I don't know why I was confused about this and maybe the chair can help me. Dogs are allowed on the beach. Dogs are not allowed on the beach because everything in here says they're allowed on the beach if they're leashed in in our that's the standard policy and it was a standard policy on the peninsula across the board until the last few years. Yeah. when a couple of communities started to have problems with owners, not the dogs, and as a result, a number of the communities have started to ratchet that down. But right now, I believe that's that's kind of the ruling state policy.

Yeah, there are there are unfortunately different rules for different land ownerships. Um, this is state state parks and Monterey Regional Park District Beach frontage allows uh, State Beach does not allow any dogs, I believe. But I think MPD allows on leash, I believe. However, Sanctuary Beach Resort has like I don't think any restriction.

Right. Correct. Um, so obviously dogs are running a muck. Um, I I actually think that the last time I was here, we did that design review for Sanctuary Beach Resort for signs and I think they we did have them install we had them put on leash leash requirements. Um, so that's another tough one because the the rules basically on every single parcel are different. So, you can step in one area and you're okay in the other, you're in violation.

Yeah. And things things over time change. I think the chair might be referring to um clover listing. You know, it used before the snowy clover was listed, nobody cared and their dogs went out and messed with nests and now that's a big uh restriction. All right. So, I'm still So, where can we have dogs on the leash? Uh, I would have to verify, but I think MPD, do you know up there on the Marina Preserve? I'm I'm not familiar with that acronym.

At the very That's the Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District. So, at the very north end of Dunes Drive, that's where their public access property is. I believe you can have dogs on leash there, but there are signs. So, I mean, there's clearly signs at our beach that say no dogs. Yeah. Marina State Beach. Yeah. Okay. So this was confusing. So I don't know whether that needs to be cleaned up or it's okay okay that way but it certainly brought that to my mind that let dogs on leash know. So okay duly noted. Thank you.

Thank you. Um [clears throat] on the uh visitor kind of the commercial land use kind of a thing. Um it talks about visitor serving commercial land and also restaurants, retail, other visitor services. Um where where could that happen? And and w within Yeah. Yeah. So we already have visitors serving commercial on Dunes Drive. Correct. So that's that's the only place it's existing. And and those are hotels and uh restaurants

and restaurants campgrounds. little campground there and we're not proposing any change. Okay. So, we're not going to put up a kite shop or a um I mean, if somebody if if there was a visitor serving business who wanted to go into one of those places, they would be allowed to because that would meet the zoning into one of the places that exist. Yeah. But not on the other side of the street where the sanctuary is only within. Can Guido, can you put up the slideshow, Matt? Sure. [clears throat] Um, the Sanctuary Beach Resort is also zoned visitor serving, but that that is all one big private property. So, right,

it would have to they'd have to like lease space or something probably. Oh, so they have the property all the way to the road. Correct. Okay. All right. That's all I was worried about. I could see all these little shops like in Santa Cruz popping up and not going to happen. I don't think that would be happening. Okay. I think let me see now. Oh, on some of these surveys um where the majority disagree, what how did that impact any of this? Because that actually surprised me when I saw some that said, "Oh, I disagree." And that was the majority.

Well, we need to know the questions. So, we did have the policy framework survey and then a follow-up workshop and we did revise the policies based on the feedback received and some of the um like policy frameworks didn't make it into the draft based on that feedback. Feedback. Yeah. Okay. And the active and passive definitions came out of that feedback as well that we needed to clarify what types of uses are allowed and you know what is recreational uses or what are they? Yeah. Okay. Good. Good. Thank you. I I can often see those people negative. Well, what do they know?

Well, and I will just add to that that sometimes we still need to leave a policy if it's required by the Coastal Act, even if people don't like it. Excuse me. That's That's Yeah, that's I think that's where I was going. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Um let me see. Oh, the recreational facilities that will be allowed around Lock Paddent Park. I think it's you've you've cleared that up now with the what? Active and the We're going to come back to that and the other Oh, that's right. That's We're coming back. Let's come back to that one. disregard that question. Back to you, chair. We'll come back. That's I think a big a bigger question that we want to address.

Yeah. All right. Um did you get all the answers you wanted for now? Yes. Okay. Um All right, Commissioner St. John.

Thank you, Chair. [clears throat] I only have a few and I'll start off with the easiest one on page 6.3 uh urban growth boundary. The second paragraph, it starts within the coastal zone, the farmer seatic site, now referred to as ask the north dunes. I think it's as right. We wouldn't call it ask the north dunes. That's a typo. Yeah, as the north, correct?

Okay, the end of that one. Easy. Yeah, do that just to make sure that you know we're reading it. This is our editor.

I've been edited all my life. Okay. On I'm a little confused on paragraph 6.3 uh policy general LUD2. LUD2, it talks about new residential, commercial or industrial developments and it says in the middle that the city shall design public infrastructure including water, sewer, storm water management, etc. a whole list of things that whoever needs to make a development, the city will take care of all of this hugely expensive infrastructure. Don't we usually have the developer put in a lot of this infrastructure and then the city takes it over the maintenance and uh and use thereof. I didn't know the city had so much money.

I I believe that this is referring to actual city public infrastructure and all of those things. So these would be things that the city is, you know, on behalf of the city in general, not not necessarily relating to an individual project or development. Well, maybe we need to take a little more dig a little deeper on the wording because it could be could could be contentious when somebody develops something and said, "Where is my water connection or whatever?" And maybe that they're right, but anyway, just take another look. Got it. Okay. On page 611, 6-11. see the city a potential long-term goal for this area is to repurpose the city's corporation yard as state parks state parks housing or other supportive use and to convert the residential uses to recreational facilities. Is this the four or five houses that are currently there? That's the residential usage. Yes, this that is referring to Lake Court. Um that whole area on the east side of Lake is currently planned in zone public facilities. So those

existing four residences are legal non-conforming. And is it the city's intent with this paragraph to convert those you units to recreational facility to condemn them as a home and not actively the city is not planning on actively doing that. However, over time, if say state parks comes in and wants to purchase those properties from those individual owners to create their corpard over there, for example,

um like move the move the facility that's currently on reservation road very close to the uh Marina State Beach. Eventually, they're going to need to move that. Um, so we have had very high level discussions with them about future purchase of our the city's courtyard and those houses someday. Um, these policies would just again like I was describing to Commissioner Jacobson would lay the framework for that to occur. Um, keeping in mind that there's currently no public water or sewer available to those houses.

Yeah, I understand that. I'm aware of that. Uh, would the would the actual process be something akin to imminent domain? That would be one tool available. Not the not the only tool.

Okay. All right. Okay, the next couple of paragraphs I was just I just put a big question mark on what were the plans for it, but I guess that's getting too deep into the woods. Let me see. I'm almost finished. Uh, I was a little taken aback on 7.1. This is a scenic and visual resources that the the the first uh paragraph it says the for instance the coastal dunes high rise high on the west side of highway one virtually eliminating the view of the ocean in some areas. I agree in some areas if we drive towards San City or Monterey Peninsula we the dunes let us see through but in the section of Marina it's there are I I can't remember one that lets me from highway one see through the dunes there maybe if we're in a triple decker bus or Oh, flying kite. We could see through the dens, but you can't see through the dens.

So, are you suggesting to remove the word virtually? Because that sentence is saying exactly what you're saying. Well, eliminate. It's just eliminating the view in some areas. Well, in some areas along all of Highway One, but in all areas of marine. Okay. Removing the ocean. I think it's a little misleading that there's only a some areas that you can't see the water. Got it. I wish there were more areas, but anyway, that's all I got.

Sorry, Todd. Commissioner Walton.

Thank you, Chair. I'm going to be I'm glad. I don't know. I don't think you guys could forget me anyway. I'm too loud. Um I I just really want to um a I want to give a shout out um and some appreciation to the members of the public who um participated in the surveys and the studies and the um uh field trips. um the I your feedback and um suggestions. I I just want to say thank you so very much to the public for for that hand and and helping uh guide the staff and the consultants and uh giving us something that um the the citizens of Marina want. So that was that part and then um somebody can correct me if I'm wrong. the the dunes out there in the event of a tsunami. Can somebody just one of the staff just just walk us through the importance of those dunes even though we can't see through the ocean for and and I'll land there?

Sure. Yeah, thanks uh Commissioner Walton. the in there. The coastal hazards and sea level rise amendment actually goes into great detail on uh tsunami hazards and the effect of the dunes. Um because of the height of the dunes, there's really only the reservation road little slot that goes through there and then under the freeway is the only uh potential over topping area that could pose some hazard for in the event of a tsunami. But, uh, Commissioner Walton, I definitely recommend that you dive into the, uh, the technical studies for the, uh, hazards amendment if you're interested in learning more about that.

I I did I just wanted to highlight some of it through your um, um, expertise and show it off. That's all. Thank you. Thank you. Before I go to Commissioner Chang next, I I do want to correct that because I believe now this goes back to it. We I mean it was raised before then and we discussed the LCP and that we were not responsible for pass through the street under pass. We are now going to be responsible for that because that's now going to come underneath us because the coastal for coastal planning purposes

planning purposes. will now have a second we'll now have a second route that comes in because we we discussed it during the draft review knowing that it wasn't there but there was something that could in impact the city even though it wasn't in city responsibility. Yes, it's now going to be in city responsibility. That's interesting because it would have still been under city's jurisdiction just not coastal jurisdiction. Right. So that is an interesting point. Um, Mr. Chang caught you mid drink there. [laughter]

Well, is is a glass of a cup of coffee. [laughter]

Uh, anyway, thank you, chair. The uh my questions is to um Allison's and the consultant is um I I just a suggestions. It would be very helpful if um we could have a sideby-side comparison of the 2011 and 205 bio and P policy so that we can identify the weaker or omitted languages and uh and comment on it. And um the second thing I want to mention is the biological resources um section 3.3 on page 48 to 55. um appreciate if the um the consultant could read instead of strengthen the u the policy original certified in 2001 under the resolution of number 20001-118 just to ensure that there's clear and enforcable protection of primary and secondary habitats area including mandatory mitigations ratio and long-term habitat management. um if they can um you know get back to 2001 languages appreciate that. And the second thing in the wetland and the vernal point setback policy bio 12 page 52. Um one of the uh public comments saying that the vernal points uh in pendant lock park um is something very unique for marina city and um so I'll suggest that mand language to require mandatory 100 foot setback from the edge of all wet land and burner points

eliminating the discriminations uh language age such as most development shell. That means delete the most development just go straight to shell and um and make it more mandatory 100 foot setback. Um the next one is the uh recreation near sensitive uh habitats policy P 33 P R 34 and BIO 20 and page 38 40 and 54 and clarify that only passive recreations uses such as nature trail, bird watching and education activities are permitted. within and um especially the uh lock pattern park and the coastal vernal points complex. And the next one is um I'd like to add a provision establish a no net loss of environmental sensitive habitats area or threaten specy policy to ensure mitigation occur locally within marina coastal zone no net loss policy. I I like that to be add in. And um and also the uh draft 2025 LUP and LCP um is consistent with the 2045 general plan and just need to confirm that. That's all I have to say. Commissioner Chang, I think you're think I don't think there are any open items that he had my list.

I could answer his last one about consistency with the general plan. Land use policies are only in the LCP. So the general plan although we talked about a particular property multiple times in many public venues associated with the general plan um the final designation for land use and zoning comes through the LCP. So, as far as land use goes, um, and specific coastal policies, they're they're not required to be consistent with the general plan. Obviously, we want them to generally be consistent, but there are a lot of things that are in a general plan that do not exist in an LCP and are not required to exist in the LCP through the Coastal Act. So in cases where if you want safety policies like police and fire safety, those are not in the LCP. So a city would rely on their general plans safety element, for example, for policies having to do with safety. Uh I think uh we took notes and heard um Commissioner Chang's other comments. Several of the items will be fleshed out further in the implementation plan when that comes forward like uh mitigation ratios and things like that.

Okay. Okay. Thanks. Right. Thank you chair. Thank you Ellison. Um Mr. Ron.

Yeah. Thank you chair. Uh my first question is to the consultants. Um the coastal area local coastal area is an important and a very valuable asset for the city. So while preparing this uh update, how much uh input we received from the local commercial entities and also some professional entity to achieve the overarching goals. Two goals that has been listed access and conservation. inputs from a professional that how city can maximize this asset while meeting these two goals because I see the inputs from community local community yes it has been highlighted but uh the commercial aspect of it

thank you commissioner runner for that uh question. Um as you noted there is uh some uh visitor serving commercial and general commercial properties not a lot within the coastal zone and we did have um various uh as we mentioned questionnaires that was distributed to all property owners including these ones here. They're on the website as well. And then we also did have specific uh stakeholder meetings but with the larger property owners and organizations there mainly the um parks districts and the the state parks um and the um uh uh Marina Coast Water District and Sanctuary Beach Resort which is a big commercial owner there. Um so we tried to have various uh ways of of output uh outreach to these uh property owners as well as a larger broader access to workshops and questionnaires. And again there's forums like this the planning commission where we're listening we're seeing the written comment come in listening to the comments uh come in and we'll be listening closely to the planning commission discussion. Um and then in terms of um input on uh professional input on access and it was access and recreation. Yeah. So um like Esme was saying the one of the primary tenants of the coastal act is coastal access. So, um, Esme and I are steeped in that that particular, um, aspect of it and we work with coastal commission staff all the time who are very pointed in their direction on access not only in policies but also coastal development permits. Um, so I would consider we, you know, are very knowledgeable on that um, aspect of it. But again, that is also why we go out to the individual community members and have different types of outreach to listen to the community as well as to what are the issues with access. Um, and as um

Allison brought up and one of your commissioners brought up um what we heard loud and clear is that it can be difficult to actually get to the the coast. It's not a some cities have uh ownership access like if it's all private property, it's it's very much difficult to get to the coast. Fortunately, in Marina, you have it in a lot of like uh state parks or the regional parks district. So, the property ownership isn't necessarily an issue, but it's the topography and we did hear that frequently from um many of the residents here. So, again, um we have policies in there for the city to work closely with those property owners to try to facilitate projects uh that could garner more access. But again, the dunes are, you know, a unique feature. Um, but it does make it difficult to to get to the the ocean there. Um, so I hope that that answered some of your questions.

It does. Um still the part of it remains that uh how is the city optimizing this resource for city city purpose for the residents of city that uh maybe using this resource as a income generation source or something like that. Are you referring to like a tourism campaign or those kind of developing infra infrastructure in such a way that people get attracted and they want to come and spend time and money here?

Yeah. The the goal of this document is to lay the groundwork for hopefully private developers to come in and spend their money developing things. Um, the city has limited rights in terms of developing access since we don't own land along the coast. So, we we can't, you know, if we owned one of those properties, we could build some fantastic access pathway, but we don't. So, we we can't we're not in control of that, right? And uh the next question is uh there's a lot of discussion on affordability and lowcost facilities for the visitors. So whatever commercial activity goes on it is private and they do it for profit. So how does how do we ensure affordability and the low cost facilities whatever we provide does the city subsidize their facilities?

The city would not be subsidizing and that again will come out in much more detail in the implementation plan. This is this is laying the groundwork for um creating that pathway for lowcost visitor serving accommodations. This is a major topic for the coastal commission. Um, for example, the way it will roll out eventually through the implementation plan is if someone wants to come in and build a new hotel or motel in the coastal zone, they will be required through their coastal development permit to come up with some mechanism that dedicates a certain percentage of their rooms to certain income levels. Okay. And then there is some discussion on wetlands wetland development. Okay. Thank you.

Yes. Commissioner Baron, how do you get everybody today? Thank you. Um there is um sewage treatment facility along the green path. Sorry, this light blue path that's still in the hand of Marina and people that try to enjoy walking along that path are subjected to very very false man.

Now the and it's every day. It doesn't matter the weather, the wind is terri so marina does not the land is the coast of land or something. It's not marinas people that go to the beach. Is there any way that Marina can require the county I think it's county to find solution for this really big expousement that is there all the time. Um not as part of this coastal land use plan discussion we're having. But yes, the city I'm sure does have frequent conversations with I'm not sure if that's Monterey One Water Facility or Marina Coast uh water district.

It's not Marina. Well, it's it's one or the other. It's either Marina Coast Water District, which is a separate service district, not City of Marina, but or M1 water. So, we'll bring that up to a different path. not quite connected to what we're talking about right now.

Um the other thing is um the resort the few parking public parking spots in the resort. Um so that it's mentioned in the as as one access point to the beach. It's it's a kind of a very wellkept secret. I don't think anybody knows about it. And but actually my concern is if it becomes too well known then the result will be inundated with uh vis with weekend visitors especially when um the parking lot get filled up. So is there any way to control this? Um the park that those few parking spots maybe 10 parking spots there or 15 will get filled up very quickly on those busy weekends when there's nice weather. Um and once it becomes well known, it will be very busy there. So is there any plan how to control the traffic or anything like that over there?

No. All right. Those spaces are controlled under the coastal development permit that was issued by the coastal commission in the mid90s. So but it's still considered a access point to the beach for marina.

Correct. Okay. Per the general public. Yes. All right. All right. Thanks. All right. I think we've gone through most of the commission except for me. So I have I guess a couple that are driving this which will lead into the next kind of section we're going to talk about which I think you made a key point about the LUP which is this is about setting policies that are protective of our coast and our environment down the road but at the same time how do we spur development and continue it in a responsible way and that is a huge balancing act that sometimes we've we've not been good at in the city sometimes I I think we've done very well at um I think that kind of said um as we move forward with this and kind of get into the website discussions Guido um I separated this off for in three sections for a reason um but at the same time we still have to vote the way this is set up we're we are making a motion tonight that moves forward with the entire LCUP as it is written right now with potentially some additional staff actions that can be attached to it. Um, if we don't have an agreement on certain areas of this guido, what becomes the effect? If we come up with potential staff actions that are significant, can we separate can we separate this off? Can we separate parts of this off or it's it's more for one? I mean it's I I would say that you should adopt the recommended motion and then if there are parts that you can't get consensus on then you know we would just note that in the motion to the the council but okay

I mean the the key motion is identified on the slide and then the three individual questions that are being asked those could be separate submotions or however we want to do it. So, but we would we would want to be able to provide some feedback to the council about those sub issues. Absolutely. Within the larger within the larger motion. So, I I wanted to do that to help understand how that drive the conversation. Um,

all right. Um I don't I think most of the comments generally on the LC on the LUP have been discussed overall and I have small grammatical things but nothing that are really big because we present this multiple times. Um, that being said, I think one of the areas that I do have a question about is um when we're trying to I guess I guess going back to Commissioner um Jacobson's comment about the influence of comments on the public comment period where or or in the planning commission or city council even where we came up and we had specific specifically I think things that went against the initial concept of where we were going at and um I think my comment there would be as we move forward with this from a a publishing perspective is maybe have an FAQ that we have the questions we have it kind of in the back but I think his his point was right of it would be nice to have kind of a crosswalk to show okay this is what really how we're trying to move in a direction I'm not sure what that would look like but I I do think going back to selling this because There are a number of areas within the LUP that are will always be contentious and no matter what community you have, there are things that are going to be plus and minus that people are agree or disagree, but some type of contextual kind of document at the end is part of the the communications plan that explains a little more that just doesn't say we we went through this wave of all these little steps along the way. But what did that mean and how do we how do we explain that? because this has been a year and a half process with 10 12 different meetings between the community and the different groups and it's hard for some people to even me I mean I can look at this and think of all the different things that were raised

here how to bring that all back together so everybody can understand okay this is where we started and this is where we're at right now when I look at some of the letters that were and comments that were provided I think that's one of the underlying themes that I see in that is okay how did we start with plans that we had in the ASIS condition that 2005, 2001, all the original documents that are 20 plus years old and how did we get to today and how did we crosswalk that and sometimes in the comments we it is there if you really read into it and spend a lot of time on it but a lot of times people can't do that and they don't have the time to do it and so maybe kind of in the preface to that section you have a little more context on that and I think it may be my kind of generic comment. Um, okay, moving on to the other areas. I think the two specific areas we wanted to address were um wetlands and vernal ponds. I'll kind of put that into one kind of grouping area and then we'll come back and deal with the land use side. Um, and I think I want to start with marina um landing. So, I'm going to start with that side of it. And um so I'll start with my comment on that that this is a somewhat intractable conversation that we've had for a while that's come back before the planning commission. It's come the council. It's bottom line is we have a set of development that's sitting out there that sits in our coastal development area which makes it a little bit unique compared to other property that we have in the community because otherwise this wouldn't necessarily wouldn't be put into here. Um, so that's what brings it into this plan. Um, that being said, um, on the surface, I am hesitant to make significant changes. I think the the interesting part that one of the comments that came from one of the developers, owners of the property was the definition of what is

acceptable commercial land. Um, Millanary, by the way, is women's hat stores. But I don't think I'm not sure exactly where that is, but I think going back to the wording and this is where I some of the disconnect I didn't understand from the letter um that I wanted some clarification on was that he he cited in the letter specific comments about okay this is the list list A here's all the commercial development but then list B which is what we currently I thought was what was written in the plan the way I read it is everything that was shown up actually on the slide tonight said this is what all the development is this is what commercial is development and And it was much more generic modern day. It didn't go into millinaries, didn't go into terms. It was all retail stores and bookstore. It was it was a much more modern list. So I didn't quite understand that where that initial one came from. So that's my first question.

Can can I answer it? Yes. Yes. Um this has been an ongoing discussion. Um, the owner refers to the existing allowed uses in our 1982 plan over and over again and does not refer to all of this much more modern list of allowed uses that we are actually proposing in the current land use plan. Okay, that's what I thought. I just wanted to make sure that when I read it, I was reading a plan that was from 40 years ago. you correct?

Are we talking about the Marine Marina landing site? Because I I disagree with Allison's. So, so we we are and ultimately this is not public comment time right now. We had public comment before and so this is the commission talking now. That's fine. Is is there an opportunity?

So the answer is yes, there is an opportunity. I actually went out of order and I provide the opportunity at the very beginning provide the public comment leading into it and you had a chance to provide that public comment do it and so if you continue to disagree that's totally and anybody disagrees at anything that comes up with the commission and I would generally this is a general policy not pertain to this specific issue. There are always comments that can come back on the discussions that we have here in New York. Absolutely. And welcome the planning staff with additional comments that would come in off of our meetings. So I think my question is that last time when I looked at the current plan and the way it is currently written in LUP, we have a more I guess modern definition.

Correct. and it gets adopted. The new parag not bulleted language, paragraph language that's written there is what is going to be written underneath wherever it is. Lu is there an opportunity to verbally comment at during this meeting?

Daniel, this is Guido. I'm the staff running this meeting along with the chair. This is not public comment time. Um so I'd ask that you refrain from interrupting the commission. We've had our public comment period and at the end of the commission's del deliberation, it's completely at the discretion of the chair with the will of the commission if he wants to request additional input. But at this time, I would respectfully ask that you stop interrupting the commission. Thank you. Mom always said count to 10. All right, so that was my first question. Um, so my second one that kind of getting into this is, um, and it really is kind of the bigger one. It does tie back to the conversation you were just having about the general plan and that our land use plan and our zoning plans, in this case, our regular zoning combined with our general plan. and then lumping on top of this in this specific case because it's been in the coastal zone or LUP that even though it is best practice to try to synchronize these because they come out at different published dates we cannot always synchronize these with the current guidance that is out there especially with the everchanging guidance that's coming down from the state when it comes to development uh especially development of residential residential commercial or mixed use uh so that when I read through This the way I understand that this is written right now is that the recommendation at this point is to basically remove the LUP from the decision-m loop of how to decide where we want to go. We're going to fall back on other guidance. So right now we have the guidance written in here. We have the recommendation for the development

which is to leave it where previous discussion has been which is on residential because it's been raised at general planning meetings. It's been raised in public hearings. There is a body of precedent in our discussions over the last 18 months of this is where we want to go. We can change that in the LUP and we can request staff action that would override those conversations. However, if we are going towards best management practices, and this is what I'm the way I'm viewing this right now from a best management practice, if we want to synchronize this, we don't want to have three different bodies of work saying three different things. And we would it would be better to a a method that we could discuss here would be to leave this as it is and which would allow this the discussions there to default back to other documents and other places that are more that are also pertinent. If if I'm understanding you correctly, the decision on what the land use designation for this property is going to be is the land use plan for the LCP. It is not the general plan.

Right. So the main one should be made here. Correct. Okay. That's what you need to know. So this is the overall this becomes the primary guidance document. Yes. That we should that we should base our decisions off of. Yes. Okay. All right. I have some other comments, but I'm going to save that for coming back after the other commissioners. So, we'll start on the left. We'll start going around the circle again. Commissioner Jacobson. [clears throat]

Thank you, Chair. Um, a couple of things. Um, the recreational facilities that are talked about relative to Lock Paddent Park, what what is that? What is that? What could that look like? What would be allowable, I guess, is my question. Are uh under the definitions for Yeah, I I saw the definitions. What does it actually look like? I mean, what what would what could go there? Do we have a hot dog stand there? You probably could have a hot dog stand there. Okay. Um,

yeah. Well, that is if you've got kids in the park and you Yeah, I mean the the notion of a hot dog stand in the little parking lot there by the restroom would not be inconceivable, I would say. But you don't see any facilities being erected around lock unless they could fit into um the like nature observing bird blind or you know things like that that would fall into the category of either active or passive recreation.

Okay. I I was just want to make sure that's really protected that we've got it locked down that there nobody can create something there that would detract from its purpose. That is the big question of the commission. Exactly. like do you agree with how we've defined things because this is what's going to move on to the council. [clears throat] You know, um interpretive centers do fall under our passive recreation definition the way we've presented it to you. So that's a building, but it's specifically for

supporting the supporting the environment. Right. Right. All right. And um let's let's now if I can can I jump back to the land use of that parcel? Yeah, that's where we were at.

Yeah. Um, [clears throat] I don't see why we would hold back the development of that parcel because we have some policy that says this is what's supposed to go there. It's not the first time that I've heard from planning people that that parcel is really not suitable for commercial development for a number of reasons. One is it's it's not in sight. Nobody can see it. Two is traffic. Nobody goes by there. And so if there is an opportunity to turn that into some kind of a mixeduse environment, aka the prominade or something like that. If there was an opportunity to create some um uh what what do we call it? middle middle of the road housing there or what do we call that? You forgot.

Missing middle. Missing middle.

Missing middle. That's it. Missing middle housing there. Um I I think that would just make sense. I'm I'm a little confused about this whole um discussion about this parcel. If it can't be developed like it was intended, then let's abandon that plan. I certainly don't want to see that big damn open space anymore. End of my comments, sir. Mr. Chang, you're up. I guess I need to get my mic now. He can hear me.

Okay. Thank you, Chair. Was I don't know suddenly it was mute. Uh I I'd like to bring back to my comments again on the 100 foot setback policy. Uh I'd like to hear from the consultant. Why do they change the mandatory setback to most development shell with the phrase? Is there a reason for changing that?

Um, yeah, good question. So there is a coastal act section section 30233 that specifically does allow some development in wetlands and um I won't read the whole section. It's pretty long but that includes restoration, nature study, um dredging if required [snorts] for whatever reason. So the language that outright prohibits any development within the 100 foot buffer of a wetland would also prohibit restoration activities. So that language was aligning with the coastal act. And in addition, we realized that some of the residential parcels on Mimi Court and Robin Drive are within the 100 foot buffer and they're those single family homes are developed within that 100 foot buffer right now. So that would that language would prohibit remodels to those homes or ADUs. So the language is not to just allow development around wetlands. It's the intent is still to be protective of the wetlands um but you know allow redevelopment of existing single family homes, ADUs um that are across the street already from the wetland. And then the the coastal act allowed de um development such as restoration and yeah so that was coach section 30233 if you want to see what the coastlac does allow.

Well if there are houses that have been done um could we just still have the mental reset back for future developments so that no other development would come in within 100 ft. We could propose that in this document, but when it goes to the Coastal Commission for their review and certification, they would likely modify that language as as May just described to remove or or allow it to allow the existing

well to allow uses that are allowed under 32 3023. Yeah, I think I building on to his mine's I think mine goes back to Riparian boundaries I think are a great thing and we need to have that development and there is Robin Avenue is a great example of where it where it can be beneficial and have negative consequences at the same time. um you have no curb line and so you have boundary and you have cars that can park on that side of the street which then can lead to runoff and lead to other issues. If we allow if we put ADUs in or we allow development and and growth along those streets of residential, we could increase those consequences. At the same time, the boundary in the coastal commission, I mean, it's allowable. And do we and do we want to restrict our 30 residents, 40 residents total that are impacted by this in certain areas from being able to put an ADU or being able to develop their house just because they happen to live there and the policies have changed over the last 15 or 20 years or 5 years that they've lived there. Uh it's a very kind of intractable issue I think that Commissioner Chang you're raising that um is difficult because it's very easy to make a decision on that to say no but it has a direct effect on some of our residents. Um it is not equitable. You're right. Um, so that said, that I think is one of my questions that I have kind of if I can build on to his. Um, I don't see any of the other commissioners raising their hand at this point. Um, or you have, sorry, apologize. Um, is

chair I have a second point to raise. Can I Yeah, go ahead and finish yours. All right. Uh would the consultant consider the inclusion of a no net loss of ESH or trackton species standard as part of the citywide conservation framework no net loss policy.

Um I I'll take a stab at that. So, um, yeah, we did we spoke with our biologist, um, about this issue and, um, I'd like to hear the rest of the planning commission's consideration on that. Um, that's certainly something that can be considered to put into the, um, the plan. Sometimes there's an issue if um, you know, mitigation has to happen. Is there enough mitigation area available within the city boundary? So I think that's what you're getting at that any and all mitigation should happen within the city. Um so just the question comes up what if there isn't any left or what if it's already um the available land for mitigation's already been spoken for? Um what what do you do in that in that case? So, is there a a fund that could be put into to help maintain, you know, things other um biological resources or environmentally sensitive habitat areas within the city or can it be broadened out to have include adjacent um jurisdictions as well? One example was brought up that um you know, if someone wanted to a developer wanted to have a mitigation bank up in Hanol County, for example, which is you know, which does seem extreme to me. Um but yeah, that that is something that we consider, but the biologist did suggest uh having some kind of exception if you were the city were to run into that issue where there is no additional land um in the future that's available for mitigation. So that's that's the main consideration. Well, it's just my opinion personally and u that's why the city go back to the city planning again and u we need to identify the u the city uh brand and um identity

and uh when when we trying to work on this um city planning and uh so that we know what we want the city to be like and just like the um the north u west uh highway one I do not know what is the u the long-term plan for the uh cmac side you know from the city point of view u maybe Allison you could um explain to me on that

sure thank you um the the long-term plan is that as a result of the cease and desist order for the the former sand mine. Uh that whole property is to be restored and conveyed to a public or nonprofit agency that would um continue a natural restored area that would include public access. So it's not necessarily going to be owned by the city of Marina, but it could be um conveyed to Marine um Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District, for example. um it's adjacent already to their existing land there at the north end of Dunes Drive. That would be logical. It could be conveyed to a local land trust. Um but it is intended to stay in be restored to and then stay in a um you know a natural type of environment that would allow public coastal access. Um just Commissioner Chang going back to your comments about um uh no net loss um and Anastasia went into some detail on this but you cannot mitigate ESHA impacts where there's already ESSHA. So, um that's that goes to the city of Marina's particular uh challenge in this regard is you saw on the the biological resources map like the whole entire city almost is some kind of ESHA already. So if we're trying to uh mandate this no net loss policy, where where will the people um do their mitigation? It it is very

difficult and this is a difficult um process all up and down the state of California. It's not just Marina, but we do have extra challenges. Thank you, Alison, for the clarifications. I really appreciate it because I think community would like to know that too. Thank you. Mhm. That's all I have. Ch.

Thanks Chang. Um I want to I guess kind of pick up and go back to where I was going back to messenger and and Robin drive. Um I think that we've got that area then we've got like patent we've got active and passive. um I've kind of three kind of discussion points that we've talked about that they circle around and I think they're very different issues within our plan especially like patent versus um the ponzo robin and I think even looking that the challenge that I have with that I'm trying to put through my head is that there different issues there are I mean literally I think it's there's probably 40 35 40 houses between messenger that backs up their backyards back up onto the the ponds and then on the other side of the street you have Robin where there's no curb line but cars park along there and so that it's a different problem if you're on Robin it's it's a parking oil runoff discharge on issue if it's off if it's a house is off of messenger then it's really I guess lake drive some houses on Lake Drive too then what you're talking about are there it's literally this is their property that they own. And if we don't allow them to put an ADU in onto their property or a JADU, then we're impacting that ability. And just because they lived on one side of the it's literally you live on one side of the street, you're okay, and you go on the other side, you don't. Um, and that's so this is why I'm I know that there are a number of comments that came to this issue of we don't want any development 100 ft. And that's great if I'm looking at Lake Patton Park by itself. But as soon as I take this policy and I I scale this policy to all of our our areas, I can't I'm having a hard time figuring out what is the right definition here that protects some place like a like patent with all of its

issues, but at the same time is not taking away the property rights of our owners in the city. And because it's it's they have this and I don't think that any of them I mean there are penalties if I agree if I understand we've got zoning penalties that if they violate or they discharge or they do something illegally and they live off of one of those one of those properties. We have code enforcement currently in place and that's not really a land use issue. That's an enforcement issue that currently is on the books. Correct. Yes.

Okay. And so that's and part of the reason if I understand it right in the way our context I'm really trying to think back to when we wrote the draft the reason that we didn't set the 100 ft repairing boundary as a absolute was because we have specific we have issues that are similar we have some of these issues where we have things like these house like these homes that are sitting within 100 ft and so that's why we're trying to trying to find a balance between the too. And that's why we sit. Hold on. Oh, hang on. Okay. I saw you soon. I saw you. You're not even using the light today. You're just like, raise your hand. When there.

So, I mean, was that part of the the intent of what I I don't I just don't remember what we were talking about when we first started this. Um yeah, that was the intent of the most development was to not preclude the the residential. Um and lock paddin again is zoned open space. So it's a little different. You wouldn't be allowed to obviously develop a house within 100 ft of lock paddin. So it has its own protections under the land use designation. And I think we could try to word smith bio8. This is the one that says the most development shall be set back a minimum of 100 ft. We could I think it's we tried to write it in a way that you know it the city shall preserve and maintain marina's wetlands as protect productive wildlife habitats and protect them against significant disruption. So if there was development proposed at lockpad and park say for uh like a viewing area or a dock, it would have to get a coastal development permit and the city could you know would have the opportunity to have conditions on that to make sure that it's not um disturbing the productivity of the the wetland. So I think it the intent is to write it in a way that's still protective but doesn't prohibit those homes. But

okay that's what I thought and that's and that's what I think and the challenge was we can't at the same time we're not going to go out there and say okay this only applies to Messenger and Robin. We that's not the in charge. That's not what we do in these documents. Yeah. I think the coastal zone is actually just Robin and Mimi Court and Messenger is not in the coastal zone. Yeah. Interesting. Interesting. I did not real I thought that I I'm surprised that the very tip of me the back of Messenger is not I'm pretty sure the back of the homes that back up right against it. I think there's I think there's maybe 10 or 10 or 12 homes I it it splits that road right there. I think we we get you get the point I'm trying to make. We get where you're going.

I think that's my important thing is and Mimi Court would Mimi court is the exact same situation. Yeah. So,

um, so I would prefer that we could do something like clean up the wording on that to make that that clarified because I do think that that again when you read that without understanding the context and we have there is very set context. Now what I also understand is that if anything came forward to the planning to the planning department for development it would have to go through our regular process and because that's in a coastal development zone we as we've already seen but because we've had issues come before the planning commission in the last year and a half it would have to go for some type of permitting even if it's an ADU right now. So until that changes, there's there is a check and balance on the system with the way the wording is set up. Even though you'd have to understand the context and be able to attach A and B together to understand that we actually have a protection in place that covers that wording. Okay, I will turn to you young Pawan. Mr. D,

you you've answered my question because of the A and B. So if there was any development in that area, it would come before us anyway, right? And so that that takes care of me as long as they don't get denied at the initial step because of that. Yeah. I I do want to point out that as we get into the implementation plan, which is the zoning, right? Uh we are going to be pushing for um not to put the cart before the horse, but this is a very important statewide issue. We are going to be pushing for an administrative review for ADUs, for example, coastal

in the coastal zone, which would apply to th those only properties in our entire coastal zone on Mingi Court and Robin Lane. um due to you know state mandates about streamlining affordable housing opportunities etc. Well I don't think that's a problem for me at least. I mean maybe for the other commission to chime in is if they disagree with that but I to me it that's still coming before the plan. It's it's still set of review processes that exist. It's not coming before us. It's just going before you. If it if it goes above and beyond those standards for administrator overview on ADU then it's going to get escalated and come to the competing commission. Correct.

So there is a again there's still a full check and balance on the system. We may change where the the boundary is on where the ADUs get approved from office administr to administrative to planning commission but that doesn't change the fact. Correct.

So um okay so that was my my first one. Um, other questions from the group? Yes. Um, just a couple getting back to where Commissioner Jacobson left off on the park, the uh, recreational facilities. I wanted to discuss a little bit examples of what wouldn't be allowed and maybe what would be allowed in these area that we're we're uh formatting the policy for things that wouldn't be allowed would be like a pickle ball court. That correct? Yes or no? those that would be considered active recreation and would be require a conditional use permit.

Okay. And on what grounds would we deny it? Uh if you couldn't like any use permit, if you can't make the findings, then you have to deny it. So it would have the exact same findings as our use permits have now. So, public health and safety, you know, whatever our normal use permit findings are. Now, it would go through that same process as well as a coastal development permit along. What we would really have to find on it is that it's environmentally un unhealthy the environment. Perhaps that is one of your use permit findings.

Okay. because it wouldn't be unhealthy for the public to play pickle ball. It would be encouraged. That is part of the planning commission's discretionary review. Oh, okay. How about a BMX track for kids to ride their fancy bicycles? I think that would fall under active recreation. Yeah, same process.

All right. So, all right. So that's I I know where he's going with this and yeah I I so I think those are kind of more direct ones. Um, I understand where he's coming from because I have I have concerns about what that would mean too from conditional use because a lot of times when things come before us, we do get our hands kind of hamstrung by just the way the permings are written and sometimes we have by letter of the law. We have to kind of approve things whether we really necessarily agree or not. Um, because the law says this is what we're at. So, I think that that's where one one aspect of where he's coming from. my issue on active because we're now looking at definition of active and passive. Um I know that there is a theory of let's not have anything active and I know a number of the letters came forward and presented that the challenge with no active if I understand it right um basically when you go to wetlands then you go to 303 and you go to um I guess 302.33 is the same way that if we restrict it completely there is nothing we're going to be able to do and so that puts almost a a put a cap if I want to do literally right now we have a monitoring program that goes on at all these if I put zeroactive that actually removes that unless it's driven by an environmental safety issue.

Yeah, I would say something like monitor you know monitoring water quality is probably a low inensity use that could fit under passive. So um so I'm one that is in between and that I know actually played out in seaside at um the west side part of Lebron Park. So the site between uh Delmani and the highway portion of it is that for when I first moved here they allowed RC boat racing. Then for 12 years they didn't allow it and this was a big deal because at that that course that was actually a national level course that they held like competitions at and now they actually allow it with permits. I don't know what the restriction is but I know they've got some type of restrictions but the bottom line is they allow it again at at some level one. Um, so coming back to something like that, which is I think ar I can't argue they would be passive because it's it's like literally active RC boats and they're it's sitting there, but it's low impact and I think that's why well this was a conversation that the CFC site obviously that or I guess moderate they they had because they restricted it. They had it, they restricted it, and now they've redone it, and they've reooked it, and they they've allowed it again with conditions. And so, you can't just go out there on a Sunday and do it, but they can have certain events x number of times a year or whatever the requirements are. So, I I when I come to that and I start looking at this active and passive, to me, it's how do we can we create something that that comes back and and drives people? I mean, we go back to the ide idealistic kind of world of the 1950s, which I think is what a lot of people envision Lake Patent Park is this open area where we've gotten it dredged out finally. Um, dredging itself

is an issue under active and passive. I mean, an absolutely an issue that's going to come that comes up. Then, if we go back to that concept, we don't want to have a lot of development. We want to have it open really true open space. And so, that's one philosophy on this thing. It's just kind of this big open space open. You see the lake, you've got all the open area. And then at the same time, I'm thinking, yeah, and then there are kids or you go to New York and oh, you you've got this in in Central Park and you have the kids out there with their adults with their power boats or their sailboats and they're it's just it's there. It's a low impact generally low impact active definition is how do we what how do we set the right conditions so that I don't necessarily think we want to restrict active because I think that that goes there just a lot of negative consequences that that we're going to have to go against dredging just being one of them by itself but at the same time [clears throat] I don't like he's talking about commissioner um St. John is discussing. I don't think any of us are saying that we want to have tennis courts or raetball or pickle ball courts there.

And so how do we how do we redefine the definition so that we can control that that the risk? Um I do just want to point out that dredging it would be considered development. it's not necessarily a type of active or it's not a recreational use. So that would be I think a a separate

um discussion and be subject to a permit. Um yeah, several permits. Um but yeah, I mean it this is the discussion that we want to hear planning commission about what type what is you know what what do the commissioners think about the you know type of recreational uses to happen at Lock Padden Park you know. Well, what what I'm thinking of, you know, and I guess I was being a little direct, these things come before the commission. Conditional use permits come before the commission and if they are written properly and they have proper guidance from consultants so that they are written very well. The commission has even very few of us have the ability to vote no even though we might not like it. And that's happened to this group right here in the last three or four years two or three times.

Yeah. Even though we don't we we can have all the discussion we want then when it the rubber meets the road we a vote yes because they have a very solid case and even staff says it's a very solid case because staff is going through the rules and right now we're writing the rules and it seems like it's a little weak. I'm gonna have a hard time saying you can't have a pickle ball court because even though you're 100 feet from the the the water,

right? So what we're asking specifically the planning commission, a majority at least if not every single planning commissioner is to tell us um perhaps there should not be any is defined as active recreation allowed at Lock Patent Park and it should be only passive recreation such as a few types of uses that you all agree to not trying to come up with the exhaustive list because we don't like doing that. But now, now you're talking, right? Let me let me ask this. [laughter] Is there anything there that has to be grandfathered?

Well, everything that's currently there would be grandfathered. It could become legal non-conforming if if the rules were to change and you know there was like how much of it I'm

so not not all of Lock Padden Park is proposed or existing open space. the the library parcel, most of it is public facility and there's a public facility strip on the south side of Seaside Circle. So, not the whole entire thing is um open space. I will go out on a limb and say let's not I would recommend not having active recreation and that's exactly what we want to hear from the planning commission if if your colleagues a majority agree with some

but that includes if we do that that includes I mean it's grandfathered in even though they're both or it is in horrendously I mean like unsafe condition that includes the viewing the viewing areas correct So any of the the boardwalks and entry areas that would be considered active. No. Why? No. That that would be considered passive. That's all passive. Well, Guido's got it up on the um Oh, no. He's got the land use. May I ask you a question? And just clarify. Like I said, I have I have a question. This is a general question.

Is that all public land? Okay. So, under what? How does anybody get a permit to use public land for, you know, a retail shop or something? There would be no Well, that is a good point. So, the city could lease or load and park is shared ownership between the regional park district and the city of Marina, which is part of the whole complicating thing. Someone with a hot dog cart, for example, could get a

temporary lease or, you know, some kind of license, mobile food vendor license, for example, to set up their little thing. Would the city or MPD issue a permit for a private developer to build a health club at Lock Padden Park? No. No. No. But but this is the conversation that we want you to kind of work out. So what so I'm with the commissioner here and why don't we just eliminate active entire.

I just want to make sure I understand what eliminating it entails. So I still want to play the play the what if somehat [clears throat]

might help if I read out the definition of passive recreation so you can understand what's allowed under that. So low inensity recreational uses such as walking trails, hiking trails, boardwalks, picnic areas, interpretive signage, interpretive centers, botanical gardens, community gardens, and nature observation decks. So that is what would be allowed in the open space land use designation, which is lock pad and park and um the rest of the open space west of Highway One. And so just to clarify, we're just talking about removing active recreation from Lockpad and Park, not from the rest of the open space land use designation. Yeah, that's a question.

Yeah. So keep in mind that if you remove active recreation, which you could, but it would apply to all of the light green open space on the map, not just lock pad and park because it's those are the uses allowed in the open space land use designation. Yes. Chair, can I say something about the lock pattern park? So if if

Commissioner Baron and then you can Commissioner Chang. If we put the the bottom line can be uh passive recreation with other activities uh can be to the discretion of whatever commission the city or park and recreation can decide because if somebody wants to organize a small concert or a lecture outdoors then they can get a permit and do it. So you keep some flexibility, but the bottom line will be no basketball courts, no noisy activities that scare the animals and um or or activities at night that make some noise for nocturnal creatures and so forth. That's can be

some kind of flexibility flexibility. It's so delicate. No, I I mean I No, I agree with you. I mean, and I think that that's I mean I think Allison, you made a good point that that I think they they saw and then Commissioner Chang, I'll let you write comments also. Um which is that this is when we zone something, we're zoning for everything, not just one area,

right? And so the the contention point for zoning right now historically right now is is Lake Patent, but we're actually creating zoning for we're actually creating the definition of zoning of re we redoing the definition of what open space means. Yes. Yeah. And I withdraw my Well, don't withdraw it. I think it we just have to understand it. And I that's not and I think that's the challenge and you've raised the another kind of valid point about it. Commissioner Chang.

Thank you, Chair. I think for the information of uh fellow commissioner, they u I'm not sure you all know that there's a proposal of the Asian garden um being introduced to the in this lock pattern park. We yes through the chair we we are aware of the Asian community garden. Um, we're not suggesting we call that particular use out as an individual use. However, it would fall under the botanical gardens. That is one of the listed uses under passive recreation

or or it fall under meditation quiet setting. I mean, it could fit under a couple definitions partials, I think. Um, something else you wanted to add, Commissioner Chang? No, I just want the commissioner to know that something is going on there. Yeah, that's it. Thank you. Um, nice. So, I'm add another one. Play my what if game. Uh, what if you wanted to fish? You'd need a fishing license. Okay, got that. And then you have to have fish in the lake. But that fishing in the lake maybe not such a good idea,

but that is all right. So everything said

here's here let me I'll frame again we're talking lake patent but this is across the board it's any open space and our open space techally goes down to the ocean even though it doesn't really because it's so the reason I bring it up is that like many other things even if there aren't fish people still like to fish with their families or their kids and they'll go out there and even if they catch nothing it's not about the it's not about the it's not about catching the fish as much as about the experience. And so and and I know this specifically because this came up at the lake at the Naval Coast Graduate School that for years wasn't stocked and fish,

but a lot of people go out. You only got to six. They had to get 10. You have four more in you. [laughter] Okay, but that's correct. Well, there are rabbits. There are squirrels there and they're coyotes, but

we're not going to hunt. All right, so hunting is out. I'm going to say that one right now. Hunting is active and hunting's out. Um, but I bring up fishing because I did see it and and I and I saw it with families that just wanted to fish in a low environ low stress environment in a lake and it was just about going out there. It wasn't about catching anything. And so just from a definition perspective, even if nobody wants to go out there, fishing to me at that point becomes active. Or am I or am I wrong or would that be passive? I I personally would call that passive. Okay. I mean, if you're on a boat in the ocean fishing for like barracuda or something, that's kind of active. But,

and I guess the So, that said, what I'm now and I'm the reason I brought that up is I'm trying to get to a definitional one instead of an example based definitionally based. Then it's now we're talking it's it's tied to noise. It's tied to activity. It's there's some set of criteria that we're actually tying it to that things then would be bracketed into where instead of giving an example of an exhaust exhaustive list because then what people will come up with is an exhaustive list of things that aren't included. Correct. So what we want to do is we want to have a definition of okay what are the criteria that define open space. If if I might, I think Commissioner Baron was really on a good

No, I agree. Direction just listing things that are not impactful to nighttime wildlife or, you know, like that would those kind of things would be good brackets, right, to get to where we start with that where she's at and then can we add a noise component to it? Would that be acceptable that we said that it's below 70 what? 70 dB. We we could I would recommend since these are policy documents and these are intended to be very high level in general.

I would save those kind of things for the implementation plan because that's when you're getting down into the nitty-gritty standards for things and like operational standards. I think um taking this passive recreation definition that we have right now and finish the sentence with and other uses not impactful for wildlife or uh creating noise impacts or you know Yeah.

Okay. And I'm fine with that. And I'm fine with not setting the criteria, just saying noise impacts, whatever. Again, a strategic level, which is what we're doing. I'm okay with that. Which then eliminates active, but it expands passive to allow us to incorporate other things that are low risk, low impact to to the community, and to the environment. And I think that that I mean that gets that kind of addresses both a number of the challenges that that came from comments I think a number of challenges that we all have with it which is that I mean I have a the the concern that I think commissioner St. John raised is a valid one. We have had many things that come before us over the years that because our policies we get we get pretty good at writing policies that that can also hang us at the same time. And we don't want to create a new zone zoning area that ends up creating a problem for us three or four years from now that we're going to have to address because somebody comes before us with some wild exception.

Yeah. Yeah. And all of a sudden we're going to be stuck, you know, between a rock and a hard place. So I I believe that we all the three of us have a really good idea of where you're going with this passive recreation definition and if it's the will of the whole commission to just delete active recreation as the definition of it and as an allowed use under the open space. That would be your recommendation to the council. They might not go along with it, but that's what the commission I'm fine with that moves forward. I I internally I'm going to just drop all of it

open space from the sand all the way down. Commissioner Walton and Commissioner Dang, do you two agree with that that course of action? Yes. Mr. Chen's just staring at me now. I'm just staring back at him. He's smiling. He's like, I am halfway around the world. All right, hold on. I Yeah, I got it. I agree with you. And the two of you okay with that? Yes.

All right. So, on that [clears throat] covers the wetland vernal ponds. We've covered that area and we've got that. So, we've got the main plan covered. We've got the the wetland area and we still we started to discuss it but we didn't finish up on the landing. So let's go back and finish that and I think that'll be the last thing that we need to finalize. So where we left off was that the landing area right now we this is the primary document that will define what the zoning is for there and the other documents would be nice they follow in with it but this is the primary place to state it. So that's the base is do we want if this is the base document do we want this to stay where it sits right now which is 100% commercial or do we want to look at switching to something that is more of a mixed use because I don't think it's obviously it's not going to residential so it would have to be some type of mixed use and that would be the recommendation that we're moving towards is to allow them to relook at this and say we want that so I think that's the question at And so I'm going to go out to the commissioners and I'm just I this one I'm just going to go around start you have perspective on that. So you what would you guess what

I forg the issue of the general plan say we separated from the general plan but the idea of what to do in that area also came from the general uh advisory committee and included the whole picture of not of this far. So we can't put it separately from the planet. I I don't think we should separate all the other years. We should take it out of context what I mean. So I think we should um Commissioner many questions.

Uh, Commissioner Walton, I'm going to apologize. I think my s my bandwidth is low or something. The last couple of things. Can you even hear me? Yeah, we can hear you fine. So, I I can recap. So what um

so Commissioner Baron is her feeling is that it should be we should keep with commercial only with the idea that um the local community as part of the long-term general plan committee groups meetings. They looked at this area specifically and as a whole as a city felt like that's their recommendation coming through the general plan and that's what the community wants to see in the area. So that's where she is leaning towards is that it should stay commercial only which is what it is right now. Uh Commissioner Rana is looking at it and saying okay we already have mixed use that we're looking at across the city with the prominade being an example of that. And so he is leaning towards looking at that as as being a mixeduse area and allowing it to change our zoning.

Uh thank you. Thanks for the recap. And I don't know, you you're coming in loud and clear with without any Matrix style um EBG, but call me. I don't want to be

um I'm leaning toward that makes you shopping and housing as well. Um I think it's a good area for it. I I I know that the the idea of just the commercial only. Um but with our arena numbers, I think it would be very helpful. Um I think it's a good spot for it, especially if the Walmart is going to stay situated where it is. Um and and I think that it gives also for a lot of people that um get on and off the highway because they don't live where they work. um that access is is pretty decent. It is uh so that's where I stand on it. I I'm I'm for the mixed use shopping and housing.

Okay. Thanks. Uh Commissioner Chang,

he's not moving. He's frozen. It's gone on too long. It's gone three hours. This is a long meeting. Um It is three hours, right? Three hours. Commissioner Chain, do you have any input that you wanted to provide to this? Oh, sorry. I didn't turn on the mic. Yeah, I think it's I'll go along with the general plan. If it's is assigned for commercial use, I'll go for it. All right. Uh, Commissioner St. John, I uh I'm on the side of the mixed use.

Commissioner Jac, as I made myself clear earlier, mixed use.

All right. Um Char, I think as we look at this, we obviously have a split commission on this. It's a it is an intractable issue. Um, on my side of it, I'm actually leaning towards leaving it commercial for the same reason that was was raised by Commissioner Baron is that it's been a lot of community outreach over the years um, and that have consistently wanted this to be that way. At the same time, the reason that I am that I have hesitancy a little bit is I'm thinking about what I'm seeing built right now, it's not in Marina, but it's seeing built over off of Lake Fighter

and the new town houses between between second and

or General Jim Moore. And it's not the town houses because that's residential. What is annoying me to no end is the fact that those town houses are going in there and they're pretty it's great for it'll be great for the prominade because that's be the nearest shopping center nearby and so I think that'll benefit the city of Marina tremendously. M [clears throat] um at the same time um what is frustrating is that there is literally the old PX complex post exchange complex that had a pizza place and a Subway and a furniture store and a barber shop and it had this capability of commercial literally right next door and the military decided to just close all those up and not develop those instead of trying to subleasase those out

to the city of Seaside to be developed. And I know specifically that the Subway and the pizza place were doing phenomenal. Then those owners did not want to leave. The military forced them out. Um so that said um that mixeduse side I think does have a very valid issue that when you have communities and if we're looking at at a mixeduse development then we're providing an opportunity to the northern part of the city that actually goes along with the other development that we're building at the very northern And and just because we're favoring a brand new developer that's putting in 1,400 homes and mixed use and has land watch and everybody else's approval does not mean that we shouldn't allow somebody who's been here for years and invested in our community that same opport that same opportunity to develop. What it doesn't provide is it doesn't provide a single guarantee that he is going to be able to build anything off of that by doing it. Um but that's not my concern. um as a developer, if he can't get along with with potential buyers and everybody else, well, that's that's on him. Um so that's I mean where I'm leaning right now overall. And that was why Guido, when I came back to this, I wanted to kind of look at the overall guidance of how we present this to the the council because I think in the end, we'll probably go through this, we'll vote for this, we'll vote to pass this through. Um but we have three kind of specific things. So on the main plan I and so the way I would wouldn't like to do this if there's no more comments then um I guess what is the right way to do this? What I would

so so to the chair I so just so we can get out of here at decent hour. That's what I want to do right now. Uh my my recommendation would be to adopt the recommended motion and hopefully you can get a majority for that and then for the three individual sub questions you can just have a separate motion for each of those and then we can just tabulate you know for each of the separate items what was the will of the commission. So we can just have have a very clear direction that we got from commission to council. That would be my recommendation to the commission,

which is where I would was hoping we could go to, which was basically have an overall motion and then three kind of subset questions that we're answering that I don't nec I don't even necessarily know they need to be motions. I think you could do it under one resolution. Yeah, I think we can we can have I I think the other way around would be let's figure out what the answers are to the three questions, roll those up into the motion because those are the guidance that we're providing. because like on the on the first one we'll go we'll start with I I I just because we've been dealing with one of these subset questions for over four years I need to have a very clear record of what the commission's recommending so that there's no ambiguity about

well I think that's it's going to have that it's just going to be in one motion. So the first one to me would be the first question and we'll just start with we'll start in reverse order. First question is marina landing and do we want to adjust the land use of marina of that piece that parcel from commercial to mixed use? Could I just Yes. point of clarification.

You can leave all of these uses that are already in your draft and simply add mixeduse development as in addition to all of these. I wouldn't like nyx this whole entire paragraph. I would just say, you know, general commercial indicates lands designated for a broad range blah blah blah and mixed use in suitable areas or I would just build those two words into the I'm fine with that. So the question one is what to do with the Maria landing site and and the answer would be that that we're do we addit do we add

do we add do we add to use mixed allow mixed use development into the current definition yes okay I'm going to go around the commission so I'm going to start with I know I just did this I'm going to do it again Jacobson yes let's add it so yes and yes is mixed use commissioner St. John. Yes. Mixed use. Commissioner Chang. Yes. On adding mixed juice. It's like I'm done with this three hours committ. Don't smile. Answer me. Yes. Yes or no.

I don't know why I keep on milking. Just my answer is yes. Okay. Thanks, Commissioner Walton. Yes. Okay. Commissioner Baron. Okay. Commissioner Rana and I will say yes. So it would be what? Six. One, two, three, four, five, six. Six. Six. Yes. And one no. Yes.

Okay. So that would be the first. The second question is on definition of open um open space and the answer is that the two parts. The first one is do we want to remove the definition of active [clears throat] from open space. So around the room yes or no. Yes. Yes means that you want to remove the definition. Active recreation. Active recreation. So yes would be you're removing it. So, Commissioner Jacobson, yes. Commissioner St. John, yes. Commissioner Chang, yes. Commissioner Walton, yes.

Commissioner Baron, yes. Commissioner Rana, yes. And I'm Yes. So, be seven. Okay. The second part of the open space is to modify the definition of open space to passive use with what was the wording that we noise index. No, it wasn't totally. It wasn't just noise. Nighttime wildlife. Yeah. Other uses that do not impact wildlife or noise. Nighttime noise.

Yeah. Okay. So, yes means that you agree to the revised definition of passive. Commissioner Jacobson, yes. Commissioner St. John, yes. Commissioner Chang, yes. Commissioner Walton, yes. Commissioner Rana, yes. We'll leave that backwards. Commissioner Baron, yes. And I'll be yes. Okay. Third is third question is do we agree on the overall LUP with the exceptions that we just described in questions one and two [clears throat]

commissioner base motion at the end of the slide. Sorry chair this is the motion right? Well, so do we just so the question is do we do that as we do that do we just leave [clears throat] those two questions it is and then make the motion as is like that. Yeah. I think what you've done is just taken kind of straw polls of all the component parts and now you do the motion as amended by the Yeah, we we have the motion here. Right. So I I just make sure that's fine with me too. We could have just done the third question and done it or we can just roll the third question back up into the main motion as long as we do it. As long as it's the same thing.

Yeah. So the third motion, the third question is going to be the motion itself with the two ex with the two exceptions or two amendments. Amendments. Two amendments. That's the right three, right? Three. There's three. Yeah. Three. Three amendments. Oh, because one question has two subs. [clears throat] Yes. Okay. So, you've already done it. Yeah, I've already done it. Would somebody else like to make a motion? I can read it. Okay. Commissioner Baron,

it's right on your screen on the bottom. I move to adopt DC resolution 2025-16 recommending that the city council approve the draft land use plan portion of the city local postal program update subject to finding and squa exemption 211080.9 and 15 251 F And with three amendments within three with three amendments. One second.

Sounds good. Um, do you want me to take roll call? Commission chair. Yes. Um out here. Yeah. Uh, Commissioner Rana seconded it. Great. Thank you. Commissioner Chang. Yes. Commissioner Walton. Yes, Commissioner Baron. Yes, Commissioner Rana. Yes, Chair Woodson. Yes, Commissioner St. John. Yes, Commissioner Jacobson. Yes. Motion passes.

All right, that finishes up our [laughter] public hearings. Um, so we have informationational items. Guido, I think you have us a quick announcement on that. Uh, yes. Yolanda is going to give an announcement. Okay.

Good evening, Commissioners. Sorry for the long meeting, but um I'm just going to go over the 2026 planning commissioners academy conference. Registration will be open um early December. Um the conference provides city officials with information about the roles and responsibilities of planning commissioners, offers a basic legal and practical framework and the conference will be held at the Sherin Park Hotel in Anaheim um March 11th through the 13th. So I would like you know if you everybody can just let me know um who would be interested in attending and then we can get registration ready by the last week of November so we can be prepared and be on time because I know the slots go very quickly in the beginning of December. So I we will all be in contact and I will share more details with you as I receive them.

I am yes because I actually can go this year. Okay. So, got it. I would like you to as well. What's that? Commissioner W I think says yes too. I know it's tax season, but uh I'm going to It's a chance to break away for three days. Yes, I know. All right. And the rest of them will get back to you once they test now. Um any other so by the by the last week of November maybe beginning of December we can you know discuss um and have our list of who will be going and there's you know there's the time to register but

there are three slots correct? Yes. Three slots. Everybody else is gone. It's my turn. All right. Um, thank you so much. I haven't. You and I, neither of us have gone and so we should go. Um, exactly. You should go. I was last time. See, she's gone. There you go. All right. Announcements. None. Correspondence. Journment. I want to go home.