Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the July 2nd, 2026 Planning Commission hearing. I'll call the meeting to order at 1 p.m. Ms. Carman, can we please have roll call?

Thank you, Chair Boss. I'll begin with Chair Boss. Present. Vice Chair DiLuccio.

Here.

Commissioner Barnwell.

Here.

Commissioner Peterson. Here. Commissioner Wardlow. Here. And Commissioner Wiscombe. Here. We have quorum. Thank you.

We'll get started with preliminary matters. The first topic on our agenda today is the request for continuances, withdrawals, postponements, or ex-agenda items. Ms. Arciniega, do we have any? Thank you, Chair Bost. We do not. Thank you. Do we have any announcements or appeals? Thank you, Chair Bost.

We do not.

Okay. Moving on to Item C, review consideration and action on the Draft Planning Commission minutes from two hearings, May 21st and June 4th. We'll take these as two separate actions, noting that one includes a resolution. First, are there any Planning Commissioner comments on the May 21st minutes?

I just wanted to say those minutes were really well put together. That was on State Street, I believe, and it captured everything we had to say, and I thought it was really well done. So if I can, I'd like to move those minutes when the time comes.

Second.

I think we just had a motion and a second. Can we please have a roll call vote?

Thank you, Chair Boss. I'll begin with Commissioner Wardlow.

Yes.

Commissioner Peterson.

Abstain.

Commissioner Barnwell? Yes. Commissioner Wiscombe? Yes. Vice Chair De Lucia? Yes. And Chair Boss?

Yes.

Motion passes. Thank you.

All right. And are there any planning commissioner comments on the June 4th minutes? Or the resolution?

I'll move those when time comes.

Thank you. And I apologize. I forgot to ask for public comment on the first. I don't see any public here. But are there any public speaker comments on the June 4th minutes or resolution?

There are not. Thank you. Thank you.

All right. Did we get a first? I'm sorry.

I'll move those. Second.

Thank you. Ms. Carman, can we please have a roll call vote?

Thank you, Chair Boss. We'll begin with Commissioner Wardlow. Yes. Commissioner Barnwell.

Yes.

Commissioner Wiscombe. Yes. Commissioner Peterson. Yes. Vice Chair DeLuccio. Yes. And Chair Boss. Yes. Motion passes. Thank you.

All right, moving on to item D, comments from members of the public pertaining to items that are not on today's agenda. Ms. Carmen, do we have anyone in person or remote who would like to give a public comment on items that are not on today's agenda?

Thank you, Chair Vos. At this time, I don't have any speaker slips for in-person public comment for under general. We don't have any participants online with us, but I will just acknowledge that we received written correspondence from Lori Rafferty, Scott Wins on behalf of Cars Are Basic, and Susan Levin. I'll give it back to you.

Great. Thank you. We'll close general public comment and move on to the new item, 3245 Cliff Drive. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a coastal development permit, parking modification, front yard modification, and CEQA determination. We have staff here to provide a presentation who will introduce themselves during the presentation. Ms. Brodison, the floor is yours.

Good afternoon, Chair, boss, and commissioners. Kelly Brodison with Community Development. And the project I'm presenting to you today is located at 3245 Cliff Drive. It's located in the A1 single family residence zone and also in the appealable jurisdiction of the coastal zone. There's a vicinity map here showing the location of the project just off of Cliff Drive, a little bit west of Arroyo Borough County Park. This slide here shows an aerial photo of the project there highlighted in blue. And you can see the structure towards the middle of the site and then the area where the avocado trees are and the bluff to the bottom of the slide. The project description today, as Chair Boss described, is to remove the bluff top decks and the unpermitted jacuzzi, install landscaping, as described in the attached biology report, attached to the staff report, removal of artificial turf that was installed not to code, legalize to as-built storage sheds, potting sheds, and construction of uncovered parking on the site. The required discretionary approvals, as listed in the staff report, are a coastal development permit for the work in the appealable jurisdiction, parking modification to allow uncovered parking, a front yard modification to allow the as-built structures to the sheds to remain located within the front yard and outside of the front setback, and also make a CEQA determination the project is exempt per 15301 existing facilities of the CEQA code. To give you a little background on this project, at some point in the early 2020s, an enforcement case was created regarding the construction of a new deck on the, I guess it would be the southwestern section of the property. Abatement of this work required a CDP, because in the bluff top, that's a very sensitive area, and removal of decks, even installation of plants, triggers a coastal development permit. During the review of the application, additional unpermitted structures were identified, including a second bluff top deck to the eastern section of the property, a jacuzzi, two storage sheds, and parking within the front setback, and installation of artificial turf on the bluff. This slide is showing the site plan, and it's oriented. The north is to the right of the slide, Cliff Drive. And on the bottom to the left of the slide is the two decks and the jacuzzi. And then in the middle of the slide, you can see the two sheds that are as-built and probably have been there for decades. And then parking is shown here. Number 10 is where the proposed parking will be, outside of the front setback. This slide shows the existing decks. I think I got it backwards earlier. The western deck is the one that has been there longer, and then this one is the newer deck, the eastern deck, which is more recent. And this slide shows the jacuzzi, which we all know what jacuzzis look like, but I thought I'd just add that in there. The coastal development, as I stated, in the coastal bluff top area, Plantings and demolition are considered development, so that again triggers a coastal development permit. The project also, to repeat myself, includes removal of the decks and the jacuzzi and installation of pervious artificial turf to replace the impervious, and again for uncovered parking spaces. To get into a little technical language about the turf, The turf was installed fairly recently without the benefit of an inspection and so it's considered impervious by the city. Per the contractor, it was installed with four inches of compacted road base and holes every six inches. The code requires impervious, the code calls that impervious as the road base is not washed and open graded aggregate is not acceptable in permeable installations. due to the significant amount of sand and fine clay and dust mixed in with the rock. In order to be considered pervious, the city building inspector must be able to verify the following. The subgrade soil is either uncompacted or compacted to no more than 90% max. No filter, fabric, or weed barrier is used. A minimum of three inches of washed, open-graded aggregate is installed beneath the turf product. And the turf product itself is permeable. A manufacturer's cut sheet would be required, demonstrating that the infiltration rate is typically required on the, we would require that on the plan. So unfortunately, because of the installation of turf was not done with an inspection, and it was also not done to code, the applicant had three options in order to move forward. Either remove the turf, which would leave it basically just unfinished dirt, count the area as impervious, impervious service surface which would trigger some pretty strict swim compliance measures for the bluff top site or he could remove it and reinstall it to be per code and The applicant has chosen this third option as part of the project today Also, the project is requesting a parking modification the project site is non-conforming to parking with one uncovered space and they will be providing three additional uncovered spaces and Because those parking spaces are set so far back from the public right of way, they won't be visible. And they would provide guest parking on a site where there isn't really a lot of street parking. Staff is supportive of this parking modification and finds it unnecessary to secure an appropriate improvement on the site. And then regarding the as-built sheds, normally accessory structures are not allowed in the front yard. But as you can see, when we visited the site and on the site plan, Basically, the whole site is front yard. So there's no other place to put these sheds. And again, they've been there for quite a while. They're not visible. They're significantly screened by the existing landscaping and vegetation. So again, staff is supportive of keeping these sheds within the remaining front yard, and they are out of the front setback. So that's the front yard modification that I just described outside of the 35-foot front setback. Staff did do a review of the LCP to verify that the project was consistent We reviewed and it's also described in greater detail in the staff report the project's consistency with the land use and development policies biology Stormwater management scenic resources and coastal hazards and the project was found to be consistent with the local coastal plan We noticed that when we were reviewing the conditions of approval we did call out the focused biology report prepared by Bruce Reitherman, and we required that the project comply with the recommendations in this report. However, we inadvertently left out the specific biological measures that were laid out in the report, so we've added those as a revised condition of approval to be included. And that is on page, let's see, page 16 of the packet. We're going to add those to the design review section of the conditions and also page 18 so that they're listed in the section, a new section, a new number E1 so that they will be part of the construction requirements. And you can see on the slide here that it's listed exactly what the biologists required. The project qualifies again as a category exemption per section 15301. which allows for removal and demolition of small individual structures. The project was reviewed by the consent calendar design review and was found acceptable. It's not visible from the street. It won't impede anybody's public views. So with that, a summarizing of the staff report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the project, make the findings as provided in the staff report, and subject to the revised conditions of approval, as I described earlier in my presentation. I do have the project owner, Mr. Zerlin, here. He's able to make a brief summary of your project and how you want to move forward. If you'd like, you could stand at the podium and just turn the microphone on there.

Okay. Well, Kelly, I want to thank you for all the hard work you've done and for presenting this. It was a very thorough presentation. I mean, I think you pretty well summarized the situation, but I just want to clarify a couple of things. As far as the decks are concerned, we purchased the property, I think it was around 1990. I don't have the exact date, but the one deck, the southwest deck was there when we moved in. I don't know when that was constructed. It was sometime prior to us buying the property. The southwest east deck, there was a rudimentary structure that was grown over with foliage, and we just chose to improve it. So there was something there already, but it was pretty grown over. But I understand the rationale for needing to remove the decks, and it's OK. I'm OK with all that. As far as the turf is concerned, there was a lot of turf there to remove, and that's a major undertaking. And I would like to know for sure that that is not compliant, because I did check with the landscape architect who installed it, and he said that he thought it would be. Now as far as what's underneath it, maybe that could be taken up and changed to whatever is compliant. But the turf itself, how do we go about determining if that can be considered compliant? Would somebody come out and inspect it? Or if I have the name, can somebody make the determination if this would be acceptable? That's my question.

Thank you. I think we can ask and answer those questions during our deliberations period.

Okay. Very good. But I mean, everything else seems acceptable. I don't know what else I would mention. If anyone has any questions, I'm happy to answer them. Great. Thank you. Yeah. You're welcome.

And I know we received the single family design board's minutes, but did we have any comments or anything from them? OK. All right. Then that takes us to comments from members of the public pertaining to this project. Ms. Cartman, do we have any?

Thank you, Chair Boss. At this time, we don't have anyone in the room with us. We don't have anybody online, and we didn't receive any written correspondence. So I'll give it back to you. Thank you.

I'll open it up to fellow commissioners for questions. Commissioner Wiscombe.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to check. When we were on the site visit, this is for you. I didn't get your last name. Surlin. Surlin? Okay, Mr. Serling, do you want to step back up here? When we were at the site visit, Ms. Broderson mentioned to us that you provided the Creeks Division with a detail of the installation of the material. Is that correct? The material for the artificial turf, a section that showed exactly what the contractor did.

Okay, and do you have that verbal written description?

Okay, if you could pull that up or read that to us or whatever. Because I think the issue here is the base. And you can't have a compacted that has a lot of fines in it because it binds up and then it doesn't drain through.

Yeah, I understand.

Yeah, so, and you said you consulted with a landscape architect on this?

Yes.

A licensed landscape architect?

I believe so.

Hmm, okay.

Ms. Barteson, yeah. A chair boss, Commissioner Wiscombe, it was installed per the contractor installed with four inches of compacted road base and holes every six inch.

Okay, yeah.

So that's actually the issue.

And unfortunately, four inches of compacted road base or even three or two underneath the turf would be unacceptable for drainage purposes. And it would be deemed impervious. Right. from my understanding, and I'm a retired landscape architect. Oh, very good.

Yeah. Well, I mean, that's doable. I mean, we could pick up the turf, remove, you know, the underlay, and then, you know, install whatever is appropriate. Right.

And you have a detail on the plans that were submitted. Is that detail acceptable to the Creeks department?

I don't know. I could, I mean, I can contact the the contractor who installed it and find out the specifics. I don't have that.

I think before you proceed with that, if we do approve the project here, before you proceed with that, make sure you check with them on that detail. The detail looks like, to me, looks like it's acceptable because it talks about washed base. So without the fines in it that would bind it. So if you would do that, I think that would be that would be something that would be good for you to do. I think those of us on the site visit were, you know, hoping that it wasn't a compacted road base so that it could be deemed pervious. I understand. Okay.

I think before the next question, I have a comment from Ms. Arciniega.

Thank you, Chair Voss. I just wanted to draw your attention to that point. Yes, one of the conditions of approval is that the artificial turf should be reinstalled to qualify as a permeable surface, and that would be checked, so the details on the plans would be checked by stormwater requirements prior to final project design, prior to design review approval.

Yeah, I'm just advising him that he should definitely check in, that that detail that's on the plans is acceptable to Creeks and to Creeks.

And if it isn't acceptable, then our stormwater division would show you a detail that is an installation method, and then that's what you would choose to install instead.

Who do I get in contact? Is it James?

Rumbly, correct. Okay. Just for the commission, we did ask Mr. Rumbly to join today, but unfortunately he had a scheduling conflict and he couldn't, nor could his manager, so. We did talk with him and confirm that but they work with app owners all the time and making sure that their details and it's both the material itself and then the installation method in terms of like how compacted it is and what type of materials are being used and to the thickness and so on and so forth. So there's a few factors that are required for it to qualify as permeable.

So would somebody come out and inspect it? As it's being done and correct.

They inspect it like step one They come and check that make sure it's the right base if you will and then come back out and make sure the second layer Etc.

Yeah, once once you get your Building permit that this will all get triggered and okay, but miss Broderson can work you through the steps before you get to that stage So yes, okay Great. Okay.

Make sure what's gonna get additional questions, correct? Okay.

Yes Okay That's, I'm all done with that. Okay, thank you. Okay, so we don't need to go over that. Okay, on the site plan, there's a landscape note. Area of removed west deck shall be replanted with drought resistance plants, i.e. jade plant and agave plants. Yet the... scientific analysis was that, let's see, C of A page, conditions of approval, I guess on page four, Uh, yes. C1 states, uh, that, that any plants that are succulents that have effective weight bearing shall be removed. So, and I know that there are some succulents out there, so I just think it's worth clarification before the work goes forward that first of all, if, if the, that we're not replacing that Western deck area with succulents. Um, be that the scientific analysis already said was, you know, potentially too heavy for, and that we use. Um, so that's something that I think needs to be checked with, with them and maybe corrected in the conditions of approval. Um, commissioner wisdom. Yeah.

Can you clarify for me one more time? So you're seeing that there's a plant species. proposed that is not consistent with that condition? Is that what I'm understanding?

Yeah, if there's installing jade plants and agave plants, they're succulents. So I think they're succulents. So they're heavy plants. I know jade plants are heavy plants and agaves are too, I think. So I'm just thinking the analysis said they were less concerned with the western deck, that it didn't look like there was any... there wasn't any, when it was evaluated, there wasn't any note of erosion on that western deck. So it sounded like that deck could be more squishy in terms of what it gets replaced with than the eastern deck, which is definitely, they named the plants that should go on the eastern deck But I just think it's important, since this is on the plans, it says jade plant and agave, that we check and make sure that scientifically that is, you know, it's okay in that area.

Thank you for that. And can you draw my attention to where you're seeing that on the plans?

Where are you? Let me just see here. Yeah, okay, C1, this is on page 16 of 70 or page four of the C of A. All existing succulent plants that add weight to the bluff and or contribute to erosion shall be removed in a manner that does not disturb the root system and replaced with appropriate plant material in a manner that does not increase the rate of erosion.

Correct, and then on the plans, where are you seeing Jade and?

Well, I don't have the plans in front of me, but it's on A1.1, which is the site plan.

Chair, boss, and Commissioner Wiscombe, I will verify that when we move forward, the plans will be revised to match.

Yeah, here's the plan. So I think it's on A1.

Right here.

It's right here.

Okay. Where's my mouse?

Oh yeah, yeah, there you go. Yeah, under landscape, no. Perfect, thank you for that. Yeah, so I just think that needs to be checked to make sure we're not doing something that we're not supposed to be doing since it has to be replanted anyway. And then we covered the artificial turf. And then on page four of 10 again, 16 of 17. Oh. No, that's OK. I think it's OK. Removal of minor improvements is required. And I guess I'm asking who re-evaluates that, because it's in the C of A. But I guess that will be done by the building department under inspection, right?

Who evaluates?

Removal of minor is required when

Is the top of page 16.

Oh, no, I'm looking at that. No, this is the one that Commissioner Barnwell always, he's always confused about this too, and I am too. So who is responsible for evaluating whether this needs, whether these things need to be removed after so many years? In other words, are we putting a little note in our calendar to go out there?

No, and I think through the chair, Commissioner Wiscombe, I think at our last discussion we had landed on it's kind of self-imposed of the owner at this point. Okay. Okay. Well. They're signing the conditions, but we don't have it.

We should probably take it out if it's self-imposed, but okay. And then I think my last question was on conditions of approval. There's one correction in here just to note. And that is, I think, somewhere in the C of A. I think at the very beginning it talks about us reviewing this plan in June. It needs to be changed to today's date. Yeah, okay. I don't know where it was. I didn't write it down. And then on 6 of 10, under E1F, The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased. The duties shall include holiday and weekend periods. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the air pollution control district prior to land use clearance. Do we have to do this? Does he have to do this for map recordation? This seems like it's not applicable, but I just... I don't know, because it's... No, I don't think so. I mean, I think this is a standard condition of big projects, not a condition of, you know, doing some remedial work here to correct violations. Agreed. I agree. That condition is... Okay. I could probably strike out half of this C of A, but I'm not going to waste your time. But I did see that, and I just thought that that looks a little bit over the top for this. So if it's acceptable to remove it, that would be great. It's being non-applicable. Okay. And I think that's it. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Any other questions from commissioners?

On the 20-year removal thing, after 20 years, didn't we come up with some language recently on a different resolution that we passed to address that? I think there was some language that we had come up with. I don't know if maybe you can reference that back when we finalize this resolution today.

Yeah. Is what?

If needed or something, yeah. It was modified when this had come before us before. And also, thank you for going through all these conditions in such detail. And actually, when I was going through it, I found a number of things that probably didn't belong in here, but I'm not going to cite them all right now. I mean, maybe it's better to have more than not enough, but I just felt like it was sometimes when you have all this in here, it's like it does get kind of like, what do you focus on?

Are there other questions from commissioners? I'll move to deliberations, but I think to start out with that, I'll note I think the revisions that we've heard, if that's helpful. So the revisions to the conditions of approval in a few different places. One, adding the biological resources information. Page 1 of the conditions of approval lists the June date, so changing that to July 2nd. Page 18E1F, revising that. And I think that was it for conditions of approval, but I also had a note to make sure to check the plans for the plant type. Were there other comments? That was A1.1. Yes, Commissioner Peterson.

Can I ask just a clarifying question? Going back to what Commissioner Wiscombe said, 12D, page 16, what do we mean when we say the approval of minor improvements is limited to a maximum of 20 years? What are those minor improvements? What might those be? And what would it mean to remove them?

Commissioner Peterson through chair boss so the local coastal plan in general allows requires most development 99.9% of development to be behind a coastal bluff edge development buffer meaning that we find the bluff edge we find the appropriate distance or buffer for that particular particular geology of that site, and then development needs to be beyond that point. The exception is minor improvements are allowed within that zone, if you will, so closer to the bluff edge, as close as 10 feet. So this is our security fences, low hedges, landscaping, and then landscaping like flat, whether it's native grass or DG or pavers and stuff that are easily removable. So the idea is you can have landscape improvements that you could pick up and move. So pavers themselves would be acceptable. Whereas a patio that's formed concrete where you're digging up is not acceptable because that is not easily removable by hand, but you could, um, kind of pick out, you know, a paver or a tree or something like that. So, um, This is where the artificial turf kind of plays in. Generally, our artificial turf can be kind of rolled back piece by piece and scooped out. It doesn't require heavy machinery. So that's allowed in that zone. But all of these are considered minor improvements. The idea is it's minor things, landscape improvements, that can be picked up and taken away. And so it's when we're allowing those kinds of things in this zone, the idea is that the bluff is going to erode naturally. and that you would pick up your stuff and move it out of the way as the bluff is eroding when it's getting close to that point so that those little pieces are not falling down the bluff face so that we're not having pavers, even though they can, they're minor, we still don't want them falling down the bluff face. So the idea is as it erodes back, you pick up, you remove those things every 20 years, there may be a change. So it's not intended to be full demo of structural things because structural things should not be in the zone.

Right, so it's not minor improvements in addition to what we're approving today. It's saying that the artificial turf is a minor improvement. Correct. And we're only approving it for 20 years.

We're saying that if within 20 years it starts to erode to the point of, then they need to take out the portions that are... Yeah, well, it says it shall be removed unless we reevaluate it. Right, so it needs to stay... I think the intention, and this is where the wordsmithing could be much, I think, better, and we're learning why and what we'd want it to say. Right now it matches verbatim what the coastal LUP policy says. But we can massage a condition and still be compliant. We just need to kind of understand what the ask is. I think the intention is you wouldn't necessarily need to remove all the artificial turf, but you would remove the portions that are starting to be closer than 10 feet. the portions that are starting to possibly fall off the bluff in 20 years. Then you take those things away. If it keeps eroding back, you keep taking things away. That's the intent as I understand it.

So could we reword the second sentence? How do we feel about this? We could reword the second sentence. So instead of it saying, when the permit term ends, the minor improvements shall be removed unless reevaluation of the site shows the minor improvements still meet the standards. to when the permit term ends, the minor improvements shall be removed if, instead of unless, re-evaluation of the site shows minor improvements, shows the minor improvements do not meet the standards of conditions. Instead of still, move, change it to do not, unless, change it to if. So it's more of the negative. If we're not meeting the standards of conditions in 20 years, then these things shall be removed.

Did we take the word shall out? Because shall, that's what triggers it here. That's an absolute thing that after 20 years, it would need to be removed if you leave the word should or shall in there.

We're saying it should be removed. If it doesn't, what we can keep shall in there and change it to it shall be removed if it doesn't meet the standards of conditions.

And did you say the end of the permit after 20 years, or did you use that word?

When the permit term ends.

Oh, because the permit doesn't, this permit doesn't end, I don't think. This is, there's no expiration date on this permit. Is that correct, Steph?

Say that again.

There's no expiration date on the permit, correct?

Correct. We don't.

Okay, so then take out the.

Well. This portion is an exception. So we don't sunset the entire CDP, but this condition is putting a time limit on these minor improvements.

I like Commissioner Peterson's take on it. I think it's a little more flexible than what's in conditions listed in the coastal development permit.

No longer. And it says above, as listed above, and C is what's telling you you can't be within, sorry, five feet from, no longer.

And can we take out the, will they need a new coastal development permit if that's the case, if they have to move the minor improvements in 20 years? Okay, so we'll leave the...

I just want to, now that we're in this C, I think has a typo. It says minor, it says improvements. Removal of the minor improvements is required when erosion reaches less than five feet from the improvements. That doesn't make sense. So I think it should read removal of the minor improvements is required when erosion reaches less than five feet from the bluff edge. or if the improvements are otherwise deemed unusable or unsafe. Just wanted to add that to the list.

So can I read what I'm understanding D to be now? Correct. OK. So D would read, the approval of the minor improvements is limited to a maximum of 20 years from the issuance of the Coastal Development Permit The minor improvements shall be removed if reevaluation of the site shows the minor improvements no longer meet the standards and conditions listed above and a new coastal development permit is approved to retain the minor improvements. But are we saying that...

So that's where we also took issue last time was requiring a whole new CDP if they continue to meet... Yeah, they have to apply for CDP. I think maybe it should be an OR a new CDP is approved.

Would it be helpful if, would we be able to continue this to next week so you could do that cleanup? Or you want to move forward on this today?

I think we'd like to move forward, but you'll be reviewing these conditions in minutes, so I would, so we will take the comments and then you guys would just. Okay, perfect. Thank you. I just want to be sure. Yeah.

So you want, did you want to change and a new coastal development permit to, or a new coastal development permit? Sorry. Right. Understood.

Ms. Arciniega understands the intent. Understood. So when we see the draft minutes, we can make sure that we...

I'm going to make that edit, and then you guys can... review and vote on it. Yes. Thank you. Or it has to be part of your motion, sorry.

Would it be helpful to see the change to the Edgewater condition on the screen to see, because are you trying to match that exactly or just changing it a little bit to fit this?

If I may, I think we struggled with this condition at Edgewater and we made an improvement, but I think we didn't quite Fix it enough. And so I think these are a little bit better clarifications.

I think this is much better What Commissioner Peterson's put forward I agree.

So Thank you. Yeah, I will review the Edgewater one regardless just to make sure we're consistent, but I do appreciate the thought because We want the conditions to be understandable for the applicant and what the intention is I do the policy does say in and a new CDP is required, but in my read, if development continues to be consistent with the approval, you would not do a new permit. You would only do a new permit once something is changed that is no longer a part of what you've gotten approved, and it's a new ask, right?

Okay, I'm happy to wait until next week.

Thank you for that.

Thank you.

Any other comments? Commissioner Westcomb.

Yeah, just to move this along, I appreciate the applicant being here today. I'm sorry about the turf, but I think all of us are, but I think you understand probably where the problem lies. So I'm agreeable to approve, make the findings and approve this project and move it along.

Commissioner Barnwell.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm 100% behind the approval. I would suggest to the property owner that, based on your comments, you might want to take a little snippet of that artificial turf to a landscape architect and say, is this considered permeable turf? Because that's the issue you're talking about. do you have to replace all of the artificial turf or not? But I think that so you sleep better at night, I think you can find that out before any permitting process gets anywhere near completion. Also, I want to say I was a surveyor, licensed surveyor for four years in Tennessee. And the discussion of top of bank is... unending and I when we use that phrase here and we talk about top of bank and five feet from top of bank etc etc I got to say that's a ghost and and then when we compound that with this 20-year far in the future requirements without any governmental verification just on the you know the land property owner and also then imply that if it falls out of compliance, a new permit needs to be initiated. Of course I'm going to vote yes on this thing, but we shouldn't have that kind of language and stuff that we're making an official statement about, because it's unenforceable. It's preposterous. If I go back 20 years in my life right now, my professional college age graduate daughter is four years old and hasn't gone into kindergarten yet. That's how long 20 years is. And why are we making an official statement about it? So I'm just saying I've been troubled by it before and I'm troubled by it now. I don't know how we clean that up, but it doesn't sound something like what a city ought to just come down on because it's too loosey-goosey. But I'm looking forward to you finishing that. We were all troubled when we went out to the site. What a terrible view you have. We wish you well to try to. learn to live with that. Gorgeous spot, and I wish you well. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Are there comments specific to this project, Commissioner Wiscombe? I'm sorry?

Yeah, I just wanted to respond to Commissioner Barnwell's comments. I was on the committee that updated the local coastal program. there were a lot of controversial projects that came down because of Top of Bank. A couple of them on my street and I think went to court and everything else. But since that time, the Coastal Commission, and correct me if I'm wrong, Ms. Arciniega, has implemented LIDAR. So they have basically, so there's no more argument about where the Top of Bank is. They have a Top of Bank, and if you want to, If you want to stray from that, you have to go through a pretty stringent process to do that. And the LIDAR was, I think, implemented after the local coastal program update or during it. I can't remember.

As part of it. So just to kind of clarify for everyone, yeah. So before it used to be site-specific, a geologist would look at the topography of a site. and it would kind of vary. With their current LUP, the Coastal Commission Institute, LIDAR, among other GIS tools, there's about three mapping tools that were overlaid with very fine precision and mapped the coastal bluff line and then that line is now certified in our LUP. So now that is the line and in order for that line to be changed, you have to go through a process. So the line is not only mapped from LIDAR, but then it's on our GIS and we provide that to the applicants and then they put that with their topo surveys and draw that line on their plans. And then their geologists now, their job is to take that GIS and data locator and then do their analysis based off of that line that the Coastal Commission has certified. So it's the line, the question of the location of the bluff edge is no longer UP FOR DEBATE. IT'S NO LONGER A GEOLOGIST CALL. IT'S A COASTAL COMMISSION CERTIFIED LINE.

MADAM CHAIR. MR. BARNWELL. SO DOES THIS LINE GET MARKED ON THIS PROPERTY?

NOT PHYSICALLY. GENERALLY.

SO HOW DO THEY KNOW WHERE THAT IS? IF YOU'RE SUGGESTING THAT THEY, YOU KNOW, CERTAIN PULLBACKS AND CERTAIN EROSION, IF THEY DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT LINE IS, THEN HOW DO THEY KNOW?

YOU'D HAVE TO HAVE A SURVEYOR PUT IT OUT ON THE PROPERTY

But it isn't a, so we're making, I don't want to get too deep. We're making requirements of this applicant that he be aware of a line that we are now calling top of bank. And that then becomes the benchmark line for certain things he has to do in the future if there's erosion, et cetera. But that line isn't on the ground. And you're suggesting that he has to get a surveyor at some later point, I guess, to determine the line. Shouldn't, if that line is important, which it sounds like it is with some of the things we're talking about, then why wouldn't we have a surveyor put a couple of pegs on the ground so this fellow knows where those are so he can go out in three years and go, oh, there's those pegs, and I see we're getting close to them. Because otherwise, it's, again, unenforceable.

I understand. I like the idea, frankly. I think it would be an interesting... condition to consider as a standard condition for all bluff top projects, especially when you have minor improvements in this no man's land, if you will. And it's something we can consider adding because the time that you're having surveyors out there is now when he's doing the turf removal and that's already paying for that. They're already out there. So staking it now is also when it makes sense and for any other redevelopment on a bluff top property, frankly. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. I'll ask Ms. Brodison to bring up, I think it was slide 20 with the recommended actions for today. And we'll open it up to, we'll open up the floor for a motion once we have that displayed.

Ms. Brodison, I think it should be open in the PowerPoint. If you scroll down to the bottom, all the way down to the bottom.

I believe it's page 11 of our staff report as well. Environmental review, coastal development permit, parking modification, front yard modification.

Chair Boss, if I can while she's bringing that up, it would be good to clarify if the commission would like to add Commissioner Barnwell's suggestion to the conditions of approval that a survey line be added.

Would it be quiet to this one, Ms. applicant?

Well, you're going to have surveyors out there anyway on this project, right, or not?

They already had the survey, so I couldn't support that.

Yeah, okay. I don't know that this project is one in which that is applicable, but we might consider doing it on other projects. Okay, thank you. Thank you.

Yes, Commissioner Wiscombe. Yeah, okay. Yeah, the recommended findings are on page 10 and 11 of the staff report. So the first one is, and I can move the findings. The first one is environmental review, determination of exemption. Second one is coastal development permit, policies consistent with the Coastal Act and the Coastal Land Use Plan. And the project is consistent with all applicable policies of the city's local coastal plan. Third one is the parking modification. Providing additional parking on-site is logistically appropriate and provides safer access for visitors to the property. And D, front yard modification, which is to keep the two sheds in the front yard. They're out of the setback, which we've determined. So they're in the front yard. So I'll move the findings and make a motion for approval.

I'll second.

And clarification, do we need to note the revised conditions of approval in the motion as well?

Yes, probably. Chair Boss, you want to read those?

The biological resources language. The page one, correcting the date, page 18, a correction to E1F, and page 16, 12C and D up at the top. So revisions to each of those sections.

In the 12C and D, that's the one where Ms. Arciniega is going to work on the language? Correct. Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, so we have a motion and a second. Ms. Carman, can we get a roll call vote?

Thank you, Chair Baas. I'll begin with Commissioner Wiscom.

Yes.

Commissioner Barnwell. Yes. Commissioner Peterson. Yes. Commissioner Wardlow. Yes. Vice Chair DiLuccio. Yes. And Chair Baas.

Yes.

Motion passes. Thank you.

Thank you. And this action is appealable for 10 calendar days. So we'll close that item and move on to the administrative portion of our agenda. Thank you both for your time today. Committee and liaison reports. First, staff hearing officer.

I don't have one today. There hasn't been a meeting for a month. I don't think 5-10 was the last meeting, I believe.

June 10th.

Yeah.

Any other committee or liaison reports? Any discussion on subcommittees and workshops? I'll note here, I know we didn't say it during the announcements, but I believe for Ms. Arciniega, there is some of the items that we've requested for discussion under subcommittees and workshops will be discussed during a joint meeting between Planning Commission and City Council in the coming months.

Yes, thank you, Chair Boss. So we don't have the agenda yet for your joint meeting, but it is our understanding that housing downtown, which was one of the four items, two of the four items, is going to be part of those discussions. So that is a special joint meeting. We should remind you all it's on a Monday, not a Thursday. And that's not, we don't have the agenda yet, but it'll be coming out soon.

Great. And I think Commissioner Barnwell had a comment on this item.

Thank you. I just want to be sure that we're we recognize that any discussion of housing is also a discussion of transportation. So when we get into this discussion, I don't want the general public to feel that they weren't adequately noticed, that we aren't just gonna be talking about housing, but we're gonna talk about the transportation, parking, et cetera, that's associated with whatever that housing conversation is about. Because it's a transportation conversation as much as anything.

Thank you. Through the chair, Commissioner Rundwell. So I'm not framing the argument, but I'll pass that comment along to those.

Because I don't want to find ourselves in a conversation. I don't want to find myself in a conversation about housing where I feel it's essential to talk about parking downtown. And then we haven't noticed the public that it's going to be that kind of a talk. Both. Okay. Thank you.

Great. Any other comments on this item? Okay. It is now 1.55, and that concludes our July 2, 2026 hearing, and our next meeting is tentatively scheduled for Thursday, July 9. Thank you all.