Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the August 13th, 2026 Planning Commission hearing. I'll call the hearing to order at 1 p.m. Ms. Carmen, can we please have roll call?

Thank you. We'll get started with preliminary matters. And the first topic on our agenda today is the request for continuances, withdrawals, postponements, or ex-agenda items. Ms. Arciniega, do we have any?

Great. Was that announcements included? Nope. Do we have any announcements or appeals?

Great. Thank you. All right. We'll move on to item C, review consideration action on the Draft Planning Commission minutes and resolutions from two hearings. We'll take them separately, beginning with the July 2nd hearing. So I'll ask, are there any comments on the July 2nd minutes and resolution?

Okay, thank you. And I'll ask my fellow commissioners if there are comments. I see Commissioner Wiscom.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just would like Ms. Arciniega to bring up, we had asked her to revise the one section in the conditions of approval, and so if she could bring that up, and this would be our first chance, I think, to actually review it since she's called it to our attention that she's put it in language. Thank you.

Commissioner Wiscombe? Yeah, I like this a lot. I think this is perfect, and I feel it's what our commission was looking for, especially the part about a new coastal development permit may be required for plantings or site work subsequent to the removal. I think that's exactly what we wanted. That's from my standpoint. Thank you.

Are there other questions or comments? That's my standpoint, too. That got me going about having to get a new permit. So I'll move these minutes. No, second. And the resolution also, I guess.

Yes. Apologies. The minutes and the resolution. Ms. Carbin, can we have a roll call vote? Or I'm sorry, is there any public comment on the July 2nd minutes or resolution?

Okay. Now we'll move on to the July 9th minutes and resolution. Are there any public speaker comments for these minutes or resolution?

Great. Then do we have any commissioner comments or questions on these minutes or resolution?

Okay. Then a motion would be in order to approve the July 9th Planning Commission minutes and resolution. Okay. Ms. Carman, can we please have a roll call vote?

Thank you. It takes us to item D, comments from members of the public pertaining to items that are not on today's agenda. Do we have anyone in person or remote who would like to give public comment on items not on today's agenda?

Great, thank you. We'll move on to our new item, One Hot Springs. The purpose of this hearing is to consider action regarding a mitigated negative declaration and monitoring reporting program and a recommendation for city council regarding local coastal program amendments. We have staff here to provide a presentation first. They'll introduce themselves during the presentation. Ms. Plummer, the floor is yours.

Thank you. And do we have a presentation from the applicant as well? Okay, please.

And do you have a statement as well? Please.

Great. Thank you both. That takes us to comments from members of the public pertaining to this specific item. Ms. Carmen, do we have anyone in person or remote who would like to comment on this item?

Great. Thank you. I'll now open it up to my fellow commissioners for questions, and then after that, we'll move to deliberations and comments. Commissioner Wiscom.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a couple, hopefully, quick questions. Some relate to the plans. I think the first one I'm just going to go to, because I'm confused about, and maybe I see Ms. Pujo there, the mitigation, the monitoring and reporting program matrix for Bio 1 tree replacement and for the removed oak tree. It talks about trees, condition of the subject trees to evaluate the replacement success and then should any tree of the tree plantings exhibit poor declining health below the recommended replacement requirements. I'm just asking, are we doing this just for the oak tree, or a

So is this one just going to the oak tree, or is this one going to all of the native trees on site that get planted? That's my main question. Or will you have other policies that apply to the native trees, and this should be specifically revised to apply just to the oak tree, the new oak tree that's getting planted, the 48-inch box oak tree? Do you follow what I'm saying? Because it's confusing. It talks about Tree replacement for removed oak tree, and then it says the monitoring effort will consider growth, health, and condition of the subject trees. So it's plural. So that's where I'm confus

Okay. Then we should probably revise the title of Bio 1, right? Tree Replacement for Removed Oak Trees. Are we removing other native trees? I remember we saw that the first time we saw this. I can't remember. Are we removing other native trees and replacing them?

For removed native trees or newly planted native trees? Because this is what we're doing is monitoring the new trees for five years. So I think the title should change to reflect that.

That would probably cover it. And then my follow-up question is what's our ratio? Because I think we saw that last time, but I didn't see anything in the documents about how many native trees we're removing and what's the ratio of removal to replacement?

It's usually two to one, but, and it looked from the landscape plan like there were lots of trees, new trees, but. Okay.

I believe it's in Exhibit C. Oh, is it? Yeah. Okay. That's what it talks about. I read it yesterday. Let me find it. Tree protection. The whole thing on trees, it's like it says one-to-one.

One-to-one. Yeah. Okay. Isn't our policy normally two-to-one?

Oh, okay. I missed that section. I apologize.

It does say 1 to 1. Then it says this standard can also be increased up to 10 to 1 depending on the type of the tree removed. Yeah. lot size and size and expected survival rate of replacement trees. That's in BIO on page four of the conditions of approval.

Okay. So we should go, okay. We just want to make sure that's in there somewhere in terms of the requirements when it's there. Okay. And then I had a question on the trash enclosure. It's seven feet high with a landscape screen. And then I just wondered, is it also screened on the Cabrillo Boulevard side? I couldn't see that in there. Ms. Plummer, maybe you pull up... the landscape plan which might be slide 23 it's the slide before slide 24. because i see where the oh so and oh it is it is screened on that side okay i want to say that the uh cabrillo boulevard project will also be having a ret

Okay, you should come up here just because this is public record, so.

Okay. And then I would just want to make sure Mr. Holland, right? Yeah. I just want to make sure when you come back, if you've changed the unit mix, that you are still going to do 10%. Yes. Okay. You're committing to that here at this hearing? Great. Okay. Thank you for that. I think that completes my questions. Thank you. You're welcome. All right. Thank you, Vice Chair DiLuccio. Okay.

Are there other questions from commissioners? Commissioner Bauke.

I've got a question for the applicant or the architect. I'm trying to understand sort of this is a very long and windy process that we have here that you're going through, and I did take the time to view the September 2015 25 HLC Presentation and discussion and I was looking at your plans and the question is This what we're seeing at least in our package now seems to be very very similar to What they saw in 25?

And honestly, the minutes were pretty nice, honestly. They were a little bit more clear and direct, especially 3, 4, 5, 3, 4, 6, and 7. It's very, very soft language. But they were very, very clear of some need for some redesign. Is there a package of redesign that's been done yet? Or is that yet to come?

Okay, because it seemed like they were very clear of being supportive of the concepts on a general level, and I believe we were, too, when we saw it last time. It's the devil's in the details now in the architecture after we get past this next point, so I just want to make sure you're on that page.

Okay, thank you. vice chair delugio you have a question maybe it's for the applicant and the city attorney will tell me if i can't ask the question but um first i'm glad that bill the remedy went away okay um but these are going to be for sale no before they were going to be for sale always for rent rentals uh always for rent okay so now so you went from four to two uh low income

Okay. Thank you for clarifying that for me Any other questions?

I have one I just forgot, which was at the HLC meeting. There was a discussion at the very, very tip point of the triangle, I'll call that, about the use of the park area or was going to be a play area. I wasn't sure if that's been resolved on your side, Mr. Holland.

Thank you. I have a question for the city attorney or for staff. Is the applicant entitled to use state density bonus in this project? Do they have the ability to?

Can I just ask the applicant why you chose to go through the local planning and not state density bonus?

And then my second question is, why did you choose rental and not ownership, say condos?

All right. I just have a question for staff. I'm trying to understand how or why the process takes two years. So we voted to initiate this just shy of two years ago today. And even after this, it goes to city council, coastal commission, planning commission, HLC, and then permits. So I assume that will take another couple of years and just trying to understand why it takes so long.

Thank you. Great. Thank you. I appreciate it. We'll move now to Commissioner deliberations or comments related to the recommended findings and actions. I believe this is on pages 1 and 2 and 9 and 10 of our staff report. It was also slide 27. Any Commissioner deliberations or comments?

Someone did in front of me. I commend the applicants on the project and also the sticking to it. I know it's a long process. I think the fact that this is long-term income for the cemetery is very appropriate. That's a public asset we have here and I think that this project is perfect for that area. And I'd also, again, just like to commend the applicants for the two units of affordable housing. Most people, a lot of developers run away from it. As soon as they don't have to do it, they run away from it. But I think that it shows it's the right thing to do. And I think it will work out well fo

I agree with the chair about streamlining. That's a whole other issue but there's so many steps that applicants have to go through and the city keeps saying they're going to address it so hopefully they will start addressing that. I want to commend staff. You guys did a great job sticking with it. And the environmental document is really great. And also, the mitigation monitoring report in MMD is to the letter. And I know that you may have to revise some, tweak it a little. And I do want to commend the applicant for the work you've done on this and to volunteer two low-income household units u

Oftentimes, when we're up here, developers or those building housing just do the minimum amount of affordable units, and you've gone above and beyond, and I know it's only two, but it is significant, and I'm appreciative of that, and I think we're all appreciative of that up here. I also echo the comments that anything we can do to move projects along quicker will help us get more housing in this place. Thank you.

There'll be a little bit of a reverb here that I agree with all the comments my fellow commissioners have. And I definitely want to appreciate Mr. Holland for you getting together with the cemetery. I've been in this town for a long time, and I never even knew that piece of property existed. And I still, when I drove by it a couple days ago, I was like, where is this site? And so it's interesting that there is these sites of opportunity around town that we have yet to come about. And I definitely would support the actions that we have before us, but do clearly express that Listen to your folks

Thank you. I'll layer it on as well. Just really appreciate that you retain some affordability, which is really critically needed in our community. So it goes with the spirit of how you initially were approaching this project. So thank you. Also for staff. I appreciate knowing that I'll move forward quickly. So maybe not another two years. Maybe another year I did have a comment about the land use plan policies This come up in past projects, but I am not certain that all of them that are listed actually apply so for example policy 2.1 dash 1 increased densities for affordable housing and The g

Isn't the plan showing just one replacement tree?

Oh, okay. Because the landscape plan I thought I saw was clearly marked oak tree replacement. and showed a location for it, but okay. So there's three oak trees, okay. And then a number of native trees, right?

So maybe we could confirm that then just in the final before we actually put Bio 1 in there and what the title should be. Thank you.

Well, we have the staff recommendation up on the slide, so I will open up the floor for a motion.

I'll move the staff recommendation as outlined in slide 27.

I'll second that. Great. Any further discussion on the motion? Okay. Ms. Carmen, can we please have a roll call vote? Yes.

Yes. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. And I believe this is non-appealable jurisdiction. Is that accurate? Okay. Thank you. All right. Well, thank you all. Appreciate your time and work. And hopefully we'll see you before two years again. We'll close that item and move on to the administrative portion of our agenda, beginning with committee and liaison reports. We'll start with the staff hearing officer liaison report.

Okay, we'll give one today. There was a meeting on 8-5, August 5th, and they actually did have a rehearing to reinstate a property at 2501 and 2509 Medcliffe Road. Initially, it was stated that it was in a non-apparelable... Coastal Commission, but it is appealable to the Coastal Commission So it was a lot line adjustment to allow the property line between the two properties to be relocated Said I had to come back of for rehearing because it wasn't stated correctly about a parable a parable A parable versus non appealable to the Coastal Commission. It is appealable to the Coastal Commission. I

Great. Thank you. All right. Any other committee or liaison reports? I have another one. I'm sorry.

I've been watching a lot of these meetings. HLC had a really, well, they had a meeting, was it yesterday, I believe, on the Macy's building with Yachty. And they looked at the exterior about converting it to Yachty's corporate headquarters. And also some commercial on the bottom also. I think they're going to also have a community room within the bottom and some little bit of retail. And that was received well. That was a conceptual review. So it's moving along. So it'll continue. It's not going to have to come, I believe, to this commission. Has that been decided yet?

Yeah. And also on the 29th of July, that was a really interesting HLC meeting. I don't know if you watched it, Commissioner Wiscombe. They started with the Better Building Ordinance. That was presented by staff, and there was very little discussion about it. Pretty much the discussion had to do with the name. And also, there was concern with HLC that they would lose some responsibility under that program. But at the time, the program didn't have, the staff report was very brief. It's more fleshed out now, the staff report. When it went to sustainability on the 29th, or whenever it went to sust

Thank you. Any other committee or liaison reports? All right. discussion on subcommittees and workshops. So a reminder the intent of this agenda item was to make space for discussion about active work products such as programs and policies but not specific housing projects that are under the purview of Planning Commission that will need to be agendized. So to that end commissioners can request information for future items for discussion immediately prior to adjournment. So under this item I'll also note that some of our questions or requests I think will be covered during Monday's joint meetin

I just have one question, and this is the council. As we're getting into the time period, the state of California starts changing all the laws again with the September deadlines. Are we looking at some kind of update as to legislative update sometime in, like, October or something?

Yes, please. I think we'd appreciate that. Thank you.

All right. Well, then, with that, it is 1.57 p.m., so we will adjourn to Monday the 17th for the special joint meeting with City Council. Thank you all.