Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Anyway, it is. Yes. Thank you. Thank you.

All right, thank you. Good evening, everyone. We are going to get started. And I would like to call to order this regular meeting of the City of Ventura Planning Commission for Wednesday, June the 24th. The time is 5.31. The City of Ventura acknowledges that we are gathered on unceded Chumash land and the full text of the city's land acknowledgement policy can be found on the city's website. Will the clerk please call roll at this time?

Thank you, Chair. Commissioner McCarty? Here. Commissioner Winninger?

Here.

Commissioner Lagerquist is absent. Commissioner Abbey?

Here.

Commissioner Comden? Here. Vice Chair Zucker is absent. Chair Boussa?

Here.

Five members are present. We do have a quorum.

Thank you. We will now move to public communications. This is the portion of the meeting for members of the public to address the Planning Commission on matters related to city business that are not on tonight's agenda and are within the commission's jurisdiction. The Planning Commission cannot take action on items that are not listed on the agenda. However, commissioners may briefly respond and ask clarifying questions consistent with the Brown Act. Clerk, do we have any speakers for public communication this evening?

Thank you, Chair. We do have one speaker for public comment. Glenn Overley, you'll have three minutes.

Thank you. Welcome, Glenn.

Good evening, Commissioners. Appreciate the opportunity to speak to you tonight. I'm frustrated. I'm frustrated because you guys worked very hard to get these properties through here and entitled, and then they sit vacant without being developed. Now we keep screaming about how we need housing, housing, housing, and we're here tonight on several other items, but the entitled properties that you guys approved are sitting vacant and we're losing out on tax money, we're losing out on housing. I don't get it. And so I think I'm asking you, I know you're powerless in reality. It's up to you to talk to your council members that appointed you and have them make some issue about this and get community development to find ways to push these developers that were so hot and heavy to get in here and get these things entitled, that now they're just eating up energy. And I can think of three, I'm in what we call Midtown, but I think it's really, Midtown is probably should be called infill city. because all the infill seems to be within our area. So I notice it even more, but on Thompson between Sanjone, I may not say that correctly because I've only been a transplant since 2016, and Seaward, there are like three that you guys approved and they're really lovely projects. I mean, they're nice. One's an apartment, I think. I think the other two are condos. but they were really done well and one in particular came back before you guys a couple times and got super improved and i was like really excited but then the fact they're not building it i go like you got to be kidding me so if you could talk to your council members and ask them to maybe push a little bit heavier on community development to get them to move actually i guess they would push on the city manager because that's their employee And he would have to go to his community development director and have her get the ball started. Or perhaps maybe the city attorney's office would find avenues that they can push this. But again, appreciate the hard work that you guys have done. Unfortunately, I guess the arena numbers that are just empty. Let's work on this. Thank you for your hard work.

Thank you, Chair. That concludes public comments.

Thank you. Does staff have any comment to the public speaker?

I'm sorry, this is the first time I've sat up in the new dais at this position, hello. For the record, Maru Hochland, say I'm the Assistant Community Development Director. Post entitlement, let's do a real high level, a project entitlement or approval is good for a couple years. And that allows the developer to get their construction level documents together, to get financing together, sometimes upon value engineering within that plan check process, Cost change they need to revisit the design so it does take a length of time after approval Especially if there's maps associated with it. There's another recordation process involved with that so but you know we hear the feedback from the public and if Mr. Overly would be so kind about the properties that he's noting in Midtown we could look into what their status is and provide an update to him but ultimately We are eager to see those come to fruition as well, but a lot of that is out of our control. It's subject to their , their financing, their contractors, materials, a variety of elements. But would love Mr. Overly to connect and let us know and we can follow up with those properties and applicants and get a status update.

Thank you, Commissioner McCarty.

Yeah, I wanted to ask a follow-up question for clarification. So typically, it's a two-year entitlement. And if the developer does not proceed after that two-year mark, is the entitlement at that time rescinded? Or what actually happens?

So we have a couple different thresholds of entitlements, and I can defer to the planning manager if we want to get a little more into the weeds. Coastal development permits have a 12-month threshold. Other permits have two years. Use permits have three years. There are time extensions allowed for all permits for a subsequent year. So they can go beyond the threshold that is allowed within the entitlement, but then they would have to come back for a new approval if they exceed those time extension applications. Ms. Farley, did you have anything else to add?

That's correct. And we've had examples of permits expiring. So we don't have a necessary recension action. We don't have to come to Planning Commission to rescind that permit. They automatically expire if they don't come back to us with an extension. We administratively issue that extension with justification. Oftentimes they're working through building permit or construction or financing concerns. And that's often been the problem lately. It's usually financing concerns with our economy. There are reasons for a project that would have unlimited extensions. That's usually related to a larger legislative act. So we might have a project with a development agreement or a very large project. In those cases, state law allows those to be extended up to 10, 20, 30 longer periods of time under a development agreement. But those are typically not things that we're seeing. We're seeing something that's gonna be for two, three, four, or five years.

Thank you. Commissioner Winninger?

Ms. Farley, do you know any of these? I know we don't know the exact addresses, but some of the ones I think he's talking about we're familiar with. Do we know any circumstances that they've come in and said that they want to redesign it or they can't find financing? Do we know any circumstances?

The specific ones that Mr. Overly is speaking of, I don't know the particularities of those, but there are some projects more in the downtown that are moving forward that have been sitting vacant. The Ventura Housing Project, the 211 Project, the Anacapa Courts Projects, all projects that have been entitled several years ago and are working their way through the process. Most have asked for extensions to keep them going. The Ventura Housing Project, which is at Santa Clara and Figueroa, I think, that's near the 211 Project, didn't actually have an expiration, and so that's one of the unique situations where there was not an expiration on it, but they are working on their development permits right now as well.

Do you know what is going on with the site that's near Baskin Robbins?

That currently is proposed to be and was entitled to be a four or five story office building. They are working on that. They have gone back to council to get a parking agreement with the hospital to take parking out of the parking structure that's built behind it. My understanding is they are moving forward on their construction plans right now.

Thank you. Commissioner Condon.

Thank you, Chair. Glenn, I too share your concern. There's a couple of lots downtown, the one adjacent to the mission where the top hat was. That's been entitled for years and years. I believe it's been sold. There's a couple of projects just out of downtown. It looks like people are getting entitlements and then looking for buyers who will then develop it, and those are sitting fallow. The giant lot that used to be the school administrative buildings on Thompson across from Topa Topa Winery, Topa Topa Beer, I call it a tumbleweed factory. We're 10 plus years into that, and while I respect that if there are agreements made with, you know, the state or what have you, it can go on and on. I would very much like for us to be able to recommend to council that they look at setting some kind of limits so that either you do what you're gonna do or let someone else do what they need to do. But these empty lots are not helping our downtown, they're not helping our tax rolls, they're not supplying more housing that is much needed. When is enough enough? Thanks.

Thank you Commissioner Condon I would just like to add this into just in terms of context we do have some properties that have grandfathered into further longer terms than the two years that currently is set in place so it is something that our staff has actively worked on a changing into the future but there are some sites that just have grandfathered in from priors that we just unfortunately cannot do anything about but it is definitely something that the staff talks about it's actually also brought up oftentimes in staff communications under director diamonds has given us updates and we've asked for that and I believe that is information that we have asked to come back to our staff so those would be reports that would come back through us as well so so change stays tuned for that and thank you for continuous engagement and concern of making sure things things get developed and It is a lengthy period of time. A lot of factors come into play when it comes to development and it comes to cost, even most recently with everything happening over the last five years. I mean, going back to COVID and the cost of lumber going up and then global economic political changes that have impacted availability of supplies also impact those developments from taking place too so a lot of things out of the control uh from from what our staff can do but they are it is it is a focus so thank you for for bringing that up and that will conclude our public communications I will now move on to the consent calendar. Tonight's consent calendar includes one item, our approval of the draft minutes from the June 17th Special Planning Commission meeting. Commissioners, are there any requests to pull or comments on this item? Commissioner McCarty?

Yeah, so this includes the approval of the meeting minutes for May 27th?

This is just the meeting minutes from June 17th.

June 17th, okay. Yes, I do have a comment. Consent item number one in the draft meeting minutes lists me as a yes vote on approval of prior meeting minutes and Commissioner Winnegar as an abstention. I was the abstention and I believe Commissioner Winnegar was the other yes vote. So that just swapped that. That's my comment.

Thank you.

Okay.

All right. Any other requests at the moment? No. Any members of the public wish to speak on the consent calendar?

Thank you, Chair. No, they're not.

Okay. Seeing as there are none, I would entertain a motion on the consent calendar. I'll move. Commissioner Whitaker, motion?

And I will second.

Commissioner McCarty with a second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. To approve the minutes, you can now enter your vote. All votes have been entered. 4 ayes, 1 abstention. Motion carries.

Thank you. All right. We will now move to our formal items, starting with Project 26-1128, regarding the proposed amendments to the Victoria Avenue Corridor Development Code-related General Retail and Banking Drive-Thru. The recommendation is to continue this item to date certain...

Yeah, look, it's just 26-11-29.

Got it. Thank you. My apologies. We will move on to project. I guess you have a question forthcoming at the end of the night. Project, let me get my notes here. 26-11-29, citywide public notice procedure ordinance amendments. All right. uh we this item is a legislative code amendment regarding public notice requirements the purpose is for the planning commission to consider and make a recommendation to the city council regarding amendments to the local coastal program implementation plan and title 24 of the standpoint of ventura municipal code and staff is here to provide good evening planning commissioners my name is aj bernhardt and i'm a senior planner with the planning division and i'll be presenting the agenda item before you tonight

Today's project include amendments to the San Buenaventura Municipal Code and the Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan, specifically chapters 24560 and sections 24105-300 and 24515-100. The intention of the amendments is to consolidate and streamline our public noticing procedures, establish consistent noticing requirements, update cross references throughout the implementation plan and the municipal code, and remove a courtesy notice requirement. A bit of background on the proposed amendments. As you note in the project description, our noticing requirements are spread across multiple code sections. Second, the notice distances for, the noticing radius for each notice is described by different permit types. A majority of our projects are noticed in accordance with state law and a 300 foot noticing radius. There are a few exemptions. Specifically in the hillside area, variances to hillside height require 1,000 foot notice to property owner and tenants. Additionally, parking determinations and approvals require a 500 foot tenant notice radius. Additionally, coastal development permits include a requirement for a 100 foot tenant notice radius. Third, our post and notice standards are currently inflexible and relatively costly to install. A good example of this is the photo on the right where we have a four foot by eight foot sign board where we have pretty prescriptive material requirements and they're often anchored using wood posts. These are not only costly to install, our standards are inflexible and oftentimes we are left with abandoned sites resulting in code enforcement and often city action to try and remove these signs. Finally, our courtesy notices describe projects that often change throughout the review process, which can create frustration with the public. Oftentimes, we provide the courtesy notice and the project changes before the hearing substantially. To summarize the amendments before you today, I've highlighted a summary of the amendment on the left, our existing requirement in the middle, and our proposed requirement on the right. As it pertains to coastal development permit notices, the noticing requirements are spread across multiple code sections. We currently include a 100 foot notice radius for tenants and a courtesy notice is required. Our proposed requirement would streamline those or simplify the noticing requirements into a single code section. We would expand that radius notice to 300 feet for tenants and eliminate the need for a courtesy notice. Secondly, as it pertains to courtesy notices, notices are mailed at the application submittal or within 30 days of the application submittal and we're proposing to eliminate the requirement. as it pertains to the hillside height variance notices and our parking approval and parking determination notices. We currently require a 1,000 foot radius notice for the hillside height area and a 500 foot notice for tenants impacted by a parking approval or parking determination. To make it consistent and standardized, we're proposing a 300 foot notice radius for each. Finally, as it pertains to posted notices, we currently require a four foot by eight foot sign with really prescriptive text and material requirements. We're proposing to change that to a two foot by three foot sign that will standardize our sign processes which we currently use in some more urban areas where we do have site constraints such as the downtown area or the midtown corridor and then utilize director approved templates for the language. We did quite a bit of research looking at surrounding and comparable jurisdictions and wanted to summarize the research for you today. As it pertains to coastal development permit notices, the survey jurisdictions generally utilize a 300 foot notice radius. As it pertains to courtesy notices, most survey jurisdictions do not require a courtesy notice. For hillside height and parking approvals, the permit specific noticing radius is unique to Ventura and we weren't able to find any specific noticing requirements based on permit type in the survey jurisdictions. For posted notices, the posted notice size requirements vary significantly, vary by jurisdiction. However, Ventura currently aligns with the largest sign requirements and is by far the most prescriptive. On the bottom of the screen, you see the jurisdictions that we surveyed, including Oxnard, Port Hueneme, Santa Barbara, Carpinteria, Thousand Oaks, Simi Valley, Camarillo, the County of Ventura, Ojai, and Moore Park. We have received significant public comment on this item. As of 2 p.m. today, we had over 48 comments. To summarize the themes on the left and then our staff response on the right as it pertains to Transparency there is general concern that fewer residents will learn about our projects I want to reiterate we're not changing our public hearing processes and our public hearing notices will continue Additionally since adoption of our noticing procedures there's additional online resources that are available for the public most notably the city maintains a development map that provides current status updates on projects that would be required to go to hearing. Also, there's an ability to sign up for any agendas that you wish to sign up for, so there's an automatic notice when an agenda item is set before each decision-making body. As it pertains to courtesy notices, there's general concern that residents will receive notice later on in the project. What staff has found is that projects often substantially change during the initial review. And we really want to focus this notice on hearings and decision points while reducing staff time and administrative costs. Given the significant amount of public comment specific to this item, staff's deliberated internally and we do have some proposed alternative solutions that we'd be happy to discuss during your deliberation. As it pertains to notice distances, there's general concern that impacted residents may not receive notices. In response, staff feels that we are trying to create consistency across permit types. This really makes it easier for staff to communicate the noticing procedures to applicants that are gonna have to have their projects noticed, as well as to the public, so they understand when notices are going to be sent out. Also, the 300 foot noticing radius aligns with what other neighboring jurisdictions are doing. As it pertains to posted notices, there's a general concern that notices will be less visible. The amendments before you today are intended to provide some greater flexibility based on site conditions. For example, installing a four foot by eight foot sign on an urban site can be difficult to install. Also, it reduces costs in abandoned signs as we mentioned in the example on slide two. And finally, we feel that posted notices are really intended to alert the public of a project. It's really difficult to read even at a four foot by eight foot sign when you're driving down the road. but it provides a notice that an action will be occurring there and it encourages the public to do further research. Second, in conclusion, we currently allow for two foot by three foot notices in some areas of the city and this proposed change would kind of align with what we're doing elsewhere. Finally, as it pertains to public participation, there's general concern that opportunities for engagement would be reduced, and I want to reiterate that our public hearing process remains unchanged, and we always welcome public comment. In summary, the proposed amendments before you today really simplify and consolidate our noticing requirements, reduces confusion regarding notice procedures and timing, creates consistent notice and distances across all permit types, They better align more closely with our neighboring jurisdictions, reduce costs associated with posting notices, and would hopefully reduce abandoned notices signs and related code enforcement issues. Staff found that the proposed amendments were exempt under the common sense exemption of CEQA. In conclusion, staff recommends that the commission conducts a public hearing and adopts a resolution with the aforementioned amendments. With that, we'd be happy to answer any questions your commission may have.

Thank you. All right, commissioners, questions for staff on this item? We'll put you in order here. Thank you for using our technology. And first up, Commissioner Comden.

Thank you, Chair. Thanks for the presentation. So you speak about costs. Who incurs the costs when these notices are put up? Is it the applicant or is it the city?

The applicant covers a majority of the costs. However, the costs are a flat fee, and so when a project requires three hearings, we're probably coming pretty close to washing even on it. Relatedly, there's administrative staff time and costs related to conducting the notices appropriately.

Sure. So let's talk about the signs. Can you give us some idea? I mean, my calculation is the suggested sign size reduction is 81%, which is notable. Any idea how much it costs? I mean, yes, it does cost more because you probably have to have a truck instead of a car to put a two by three sign up. But what kind of costs are we talking about to install a sign?

We really haven't priced out the sign costs in totality. From examples that we've worked with on the city on a recent Main Street Moose project, the four foot by eight foot signs cost about 260 bucks per sign. However, we didn't have to utilize the wood bracing and brackets. That adds additional costs. Oftentimes where there's unique soil conditions, sometimes they have to pour concrete and anchor accordingly. And so there's costs hiring a qualified contractor to actually install the signage appropriately to make sure it doesn't fall down in the wind.

And yeah. Is it city staff that installs this or do you contract out?

The applicant is responsible for the posting and working with a qualified sign vendor to post appropriately.

Interesting. You place it upon them. Correct. Therefore, is there no regulation that requires that? I mean, abandoned signs, that's the first I've heard of something like that, but I could see how it would be a problem. You know, you leave the side of a house up. Although, if it were my parcel, I'd probably take it down. I would think that you would build into the matrix that this must be, you know, disposed of in some way. Is that not the case?

So in the past we've had quite a bit of a problem. We used to require a $500 deposit when you would come in for a discretionary permit. The intent of that was that you would install your sign and at the end of the project get your $500 back. We had numerous folks that it was cheaper for them to abandon the $500 deposit and leave the sign up. which resulted in quite a few code compliance. We did proactively go out about a year and a half ago and remove about 15 to 17 signs, and that required that we remove those when they were accessible to the public. There are signs posted out there that you can currently see that are maybe 10 years old that are behind private property fences and are inaccessible, and so we need to go through our legal channels to actually get those removed. The $500 was not enough to encourage those to be removed.

Wow, interesting. Okay, any idea how many signs are posted of this larger size annually, a wild guess?

I would guess that it's every single item that goes to a public hearing, so anything that comes to the Planning Commission, the City Council for a discretionary hearing, or the Director hearing, and those items that are going to Design Review Committee and Historic Preservation Committee. So you will see signs that stay up for two to three years as they move through that process. Sometimes they fall down in the wind, have to be put back up, but they will stay up on the site throughout that design review and approval process.

So quantify, 100, 300, more than 300 annually?

On an annual basis, I would have to guess that it's probably between 20 and 50.

OK, that's not unmanageable. Mike? Can you define what a courtesy notice is, please? Is that a postcard?

One more time, I'm sorry, Commissioner.

A courtesy notice.

Yeah, absolutely, I can show you a sample. It is a postcard that's mailed within 30 days of the application submittal. Here's a sample for you on the screen.

Okay, and again, the postage and printing of this postcard is paid for by the applicant or the city?

The applicant.

Okay. Those are my questions right now, thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Comden. Commissioner Whitaker?

I have a lot of questions. Sorry. I'm probably, I'm assuming maybe my assumption's wrong, but I think I'm the only person on this dais that actually has had to do, as an applicant, has had to do noticing this exact type of noticing, representing my applicant. um so my question first of all is that if we if we do the two by three um sign is it on is it envisioned that it will be also on poles required to be on poles or can it be on a wall can it be on the side of a house side of a commercial building so typically if it's an existing building for example in the midtown area or the downtown area

They would place it on the front edge of the building, which abuts the public right of way. In a development where there's no development and no construction, that's a fix to either the fence or they'll have to put poles up at the property line. They're allowed to put it within 10 feet of the front property line so it's visible to the public without trespass. But when there's no building, they would have to place it on a pole or a fence.

And this will be for anything that has a public hearing or a public decision, like a director's level decision, correct?

Correct. Anything going through a public discretionary body. So that would be the design review committee, historic preservation committee, director hearing, planning commission, or city council.

OK, thank you. Can we go back to the original one about the 100 feet and all of that? Do you have this slide?

This summary, is it this slide?

Yes. Okay, and for coastal, so these notices that are up here, I feel like this table's kind of incomplete, if you don't mind me saying that. When we say 100 foot notice radius for tenants, are we saying courtesy notice radius for tenants? Are we saying hearing notice?

This is a hearing notice radius. And so on our coastal zone, we're required to mail notice to property owners within 300 feet of the property and tenants within 100 feet of the property. In the context of the proposed amendments, we're actually expanding that. And so that tenants would now be noticed within 300 feet of the property.

That was my question. So normally it was 300 feet owners and 100 foot tenants. In the new one, it would be 300 foot notice for tenants and 300 foot notice for owners, correct?

That's correct, and then to further clarify, our courtesy notice is sent to property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the property.

And so, so help me here. In the proposed requirement, it's gonna be 300, 300 for courtesy and for public notice, from public hearing notice.

Correct.

Okay, a second one. Courtesy notices, so, but this one says you're gonna eliminate the requirement now. for courtesy notices?

So the recommendation before you in the staff report is to eliminate the requirement. Because of the concern raised by the public over the last few days, we are open to talking about some options that might keep the courtesy notice in a different fashion. Right now, under the draft that we've proposed, it is eliminated and only would rely on the decision-making body hearing notices that would be sent out before those meetings.

Okay, so, sorry, let's go back to the coastal development permits. The proposed requirement is going to be a 300-foot notice to the tenants and a 300-foot notice to the owners only for the public hearing.

Correct, if they are getting a coastal development permit, which triggers a hearing, then they would have notice if you're within 300 feet, whether or not you're an owner or a tenant, both of those would receive 300 foot radius notices.

And only for the public hearing?

If it's just a coastal development permit triggering a hearing, correct.

So no courtesy notice at this point. Okay, and then go to the hillside variance, the 300 foot notice radius. since we're going to eliminate the curtis notice that's what's on the recommendation to eliminate courtesy notices the 300 foot notice radius would only be for the hearing notice of the variance Correct. OK, thank you. And then the parking approval, same thing, 300 foot notice radiance. Are parking approvals and parking determinations, are they public hearings?

They are typically included with another discretionary hearing. Unless they are only requesting that, then that would be a director hearing. We've not actually processed one in the last few years. We currently have one hillside height variance that's in process that would be coming before the director in about a month or so. But they aren't used very often. They are pretty rare that they're used. The parking approval is in specific districts, specifically in the downtown or parking district three, which is near the hospital. And a lot of those properties fall within AB 2097 and don't require parking anymore. And so I think that this will be something that will be rarely used and it will be only that parking district near the hospital that would be using it.

Okay, and then the, I think you already explained the wall, so I appreciate that. Let me see if I have any more, and then I'll pass it on.

And Commissioner Winninger, while you're looking at that, just to make it clear, the 300-foot radius is per state law, which is why we surveyed other cities to see if they went beyond state law. but all the communities within our county and surrounding areas all use 300 feet because that's based in state law.

Okay. I just wish this table had put what the owners, especially for CDP, like owners and tenants, I just wish that would have been on this, you know, like the parking and privils, parking determinations. I'm sure that the 300-foot notices are the radius for the tenants and the owners, I'm assuming.

Correct. The ordinance is worded to have that be tenants and owners, 300 feet.

Okay. I'll pass it to another planning commissioner. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Whitaker. Commissioner McCarty?

Thank you, Chair Busa, and thanks for your presentation. Could you go to slide eight, please? Which is the one with key themes from public comment.

I apologize, our keyboard is sticking.

So let me, while your keyboard gets unstuck. So my question is, there were 48 public comments received as of 2 PM today. Correct. Were any of those, what number of those 48 were supportive of this proposal?

I would say in reading through those, they were all against the proposal.

Thank you. For the, under the item posted notices, bullet number two, reduces costs and abandoned signs if we go to a smaller posted notice. So my gut feeling is that with a smaller sign that a greater number rather than a smaller number would be abandoned. What is the reasoning that leads you to conclude a smaller sign will contribute to a fewer number of abandoned signs?

A smaller sign's easier to remove is the general gist behind it. So at two foot by three foot, there might be options to install in a manner that's more conducive or easier to install rather than actually anchoring into the ground or wood footings. And so therefore, it'd be easier for property owners to remove it at the end of the appropriate period.

OK.

Additionally and in those areas where we allow the two foot by three foot sign they are often Constructed of just the sign attached to a building and so those often don't receive any complaints and are removed voluntarily Or by staff because they're within the area of the right-of-way The majority of the signs that have been abandoned in the public and in these projects have all been larger four by eight signs on wooden posts where staff couldn't remove those without a Liability issue and so we did require those be removed by the property owner.

I

So you mentioned that there's a deposit of $500 required for the four by eight foot signs. Correct?

There previously was. That was removed from our fee schedule a few years ago because it was not actually requiring and not encouraging people to remove it. We no longer require that $500 deposit.

For any signs at all?

Correct.

My response to that would be that the deposit was set too low. Was that, was a consideration of a larger deposit, instigation of a larger deposit made or considered at that time? Instead of just throwing your hands up and saying let's just leave the abandoned signs in place?

We did discuss and I believe we had a discussion with our finance team and our city attorney team The problem with holding onto funds that don't belong to us is that we have to then maintain them and report them and eventually need to report those funds back to state agencies or try to give them back. The amount of admin time to track that small amount of money for the deposit was proving to be very difficult and when people are abandoning those signs rather than following through the procedure, we would still need to go through the code compliance effort. We felt that the fee was not appropriate because of that and most cities don't require a deposit for these signs when we looked into it a few years ago.

OK. Are you able to share with the commission what what the genesis of this proposal was. What was the seed that sprouted this this idea.

So there's quite a bit of work that goes into getting an item to a decision making body that starts from the beginning to the end. One is making sure that the public understands the project and when they come to us at the beginning and that project is in flux, it's really difficult for us to give that transparency and consistency to the public when that project may change or maybe even be abandoned. A lot of our projects sit on our project list for two or three years without much work and then become either withdrawn or abandoned. And so to us, it might be more appropriate, and this is an option that you guys might consider, if a courtesy notice is still sent out, instead we send that notice closer to the decision making hearing maybe once the application is actually found to be complete, so that we're actually giving a more accurate view to the public about what that project might be. Some projects may change significantly in type and scale throughout one to two years, and oftentimes that's confusing to the public. They get a courtesy notice and then don't hear about it for another two years. That is very confusing to the public, and so bringing that notice period closer to when decisions are actually occurring, when it is appropriate to talk to decision makers, the planning commission, the city council about the project, oftentimes we're spending a lot of time talking about projects that never go anywhere and often become abandoned. And so we would recommend if a courtesy notice was to be retained, it be closer to the decision-making process and when a project is more complete to make sure that the public isn't sort of wasting their time looking at projects that never really go anywhere.

Okay, thank you. Could you go to slide 14, please?

And Commissioner McCarty, your last question, I'll go to Commissioner Abbey and then I can come back. This is my last question. Okay, thank you.

It's more an observation than a question. So total estimated costs for courtesy notices, $17,000. So my mind goes to the place which says the city of Ventura's annual budget is over $500 million. To me, this courtesy notice total cost for the year is almost an infinitesimal amount out of the overall city budget. Any comments or observations or concerns?

Yeah, and I think looking at it kind of in kind of a micro scale, that is one cost. There is quite a bit of time that goes into our noticing every week. Our staff spends a significant amount of time, hours to do that. And we've tried to estimate that there. This is just one of the notices of many that we send out. So the courtesy notice is the first one we send out. We send out mailed notices for each of the hearings. depending on how many times they go before a body, they may need multiple hearing notices, as well as newspaper notices that get sent out, and those cost several hundred dollars as well. And so although AJ noted that sometimes the cost is covered by the fees that are paid by the applicant, which are shown on the screen, oftentimes cases that take a lot longer to get through the process, that fee is not actually accounting for the actual costs. And if the mail fees go up or we have a larger radius with more homes in it, that fee can go beyond what they're paying. So there are times when cases get through and this covers all those costs, and there are a lot of times where we would estimate that we're actually paying for that service when the applicant's fees have not covered it.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. I had a staff three, was there an advert? Nope, I'm gonna go on to Commissioner Abbey.

Thank you, Chair Boussa. Let's see, I wanted to ask staff, Adams, Mr. Bernhardt, the slide on page, seventh slide, comparable jurisdictions, I was just curious why that was not in the staff report. So that we and the public could see that prior to this meeting.

It was in response to public comment.

Okay, all right. And Ms. Farley, you had mentioned that courtesy notice options, you mentioned one of them. If we were not to go, if we wanted to explore other options, I'm not saying I do, but what would those other options be?

Thank you, Commissioner Abbey. So there could be a variety of different options. Upon hearing these comments and having deliberations with our staff and city attorney, if we were to keep a courtesy notice, staff would suggest that we align the courtesy notice with a more appropriate time in the development review process when an application is deemed complete. Under state law, we need to notify an applicant when their application is either incomplete or complete after a review. We have 30 days to do that. For the most part, we go through several rounds of review where an application stays incomplete, where an applicant has to come back, revise their plans, talk to their their design team about changes or even after HPC or design review. Sometimes they're not complete at that point. So we would suggest if the courtesy notice was desirable to keep, we move that timeline instead of within 30 days of paying their fees at the beginning to when they are deemed complete by staff, where we know that the project has settled to a point where we know the project isn't going to change too much. We can share with the public what we expect, what the environmental review, and tell them what the tentative hearing schedule will be. Oftentimes when we hear about the application, we don't know if it's gonna be done within six months or is it gonna take three years to get through the process. So it would be more identifiable at a complete application that a project is serious about moving forward if you are inclined to keep the courtesy notice and recommend that to the council instead of elimination.

Okay, thank you. I wanted to ask some follow up on that. So right now you mentioned it's 30 days after application that courtesy notices go out. Correct. Okay, so what is the average or the mean time, you know, roughly, what's the difference in timing between 30 days after application versus having a deemed complete application?

It really varies depending on the focus of that applicant and how quickly they turn around their project. I would say most projects are not deemed complete the first time around. Some can be complete within 60 or 90 days if they're very proactive and skilled and don't have a lot of mistakes. We have other applications that remain incomplete for several years. And so it really depends on that applicant, their motivations, their financials on whether or not they're gonna move a project through quickly or not. But there isn't probably a mean other than doing some analysis that it takes some time for the most part.

OK, so you mentioned 30 days after application. You mentioned deemed complete application. And the other one that you mentioned as an option would be some time period that's more settled. How much later would that be than a deemed complete application?

I believe in what I'm trying to present would be deemed complete would be our recommendation. so that once an application is deemed complete, staff is required to send a letter to the applicant indicating they've met all the statutory requirements of our application checklist, that they can proceed through environmental review and then to hearing. And at that time, we give an estimate of how long that's gonna take and what their dates of hearing might be. So at that point, staff would then trigger that notice to send out within a timeframe 10 days after that 30 days after that that time you could determine and make a recommendation but typically a 10-day notice is what we're customarily sending out in these 300 foot radiuses before a hearing is 10 days so i would recommend a 10-day notice meaning after it's deemed complete within 10 days we send that notice out to the neighbors

And if I could just expand, it can take, if there is no environmental document with, or environmental, yeah, like an MND, I'm sorry, a mitigated negative declaration, an EIR, environmental impact report, so it's an exempt project, it can take a couple months to get to hearing. So more than that 10-day notice. So you'd get that completeness notice if we're entertaining that, and then that subsequent notice ahead of that 10-day public hearing. If the project has an environmental document, that timeframe expands drastically. It can be six months, even a year, even a year and a half if it's an EIR. So the completeness threshold, that time when it gets to hearing can vary depending on the environmental review.

And maybe to piggyback on that a little bit, if it goes through environmental review and we do prepare a draft MND or EIR, there are other notification requirements per state law that we need to share with the public, that draft document for public comment with the public and other public agencies. That ranges from 30 to 45 days before that document is deemed complete, and then there's time after that. So there are other noticing options that come into play when we have environmental review that we didn't notice here as part of our standards. They're per state law, but that's another place where noticing occurs with these larger projects.

OK. Can I ask another question? In the past, until very recently, and I saw this from one of the letter writers from the public, There used to be on the line new project listing. So it was very obvious. It was like in red. So when anyone wanted to look, you could say, oh, these are the new projects. So it was nice. You'd have that, and you'd have the courtesy notices that would go out to the affected people. So my understanding from the letter writers, is it true that there no longer is online a very easily to get to area that shows all the new projects, or do you have to dig for it?

So if you go to our city planning page, which is cityofentura.ca.gov, it does have a number, 432 and then backslash planning, or just navigate to the page on the screen on the left, we have a development review map. So any project that goes before a hearing body will be listed on this map. Anything that's at a staff level would not be on this map unless there was a reason to put it on the map. So these are all things that would go through some sort of public hearing process. One change that did occur, and I believe this is where that suggestion was, is we previously had a color that was red when an application was submitted, but before they paid for the application to be reviewed. And so there could be times where an application sits in that process for six or eight months or even never comes in and pays for their application. Staff does not start reviewing that until they've actually paid for the application. And so we've made a determination not to list those on this map until they've actually paid to be in the process. and are an active application. To staff, those are not real applications until they've actually paid for those applications, and so we don't map those anymore until they've actually paid.

Okay, and there was one letter writer that mentioned that right now the public gets the courtesy notices, and so they've got a decent heads up on the project. Part of the process is, CERTAIN PROJECTS, SOME PEOPLE ARE SOMETIMES PLANNING DEPARTMENT, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ENCOURAGES APPLICANTS, THEY DON'T HAVE TO, BUT APPLICANTS TO GO REACH OUT TO THE PUBLIC, MAYBE TO PEOPLE IN THE AREA, MAYBE TO A COMMUNITY COUNCIL. CERTAINLY I'VE SEEN THAT IN MY AREA OF TOWN WITH PROJECTS COMING IN FRONT OF COMMUNITY COUNCILS. But there's a big difference between that timeframe of what we do now versus when one letter writer said, well, we'll get, might be that we see a project 72 hours in advance. So basically the bare minimum, that's the minimum for an agenda item to come to the public and have them be aware. What is your reaction or comments on that?

Sarah Silver, To clarify that the 72 hour posting is when we post the agenda to the public website we posted on a wall outside the building. Sarah Silver, And and make those public notifications of the actual agenda when the staff reports are ready that state law we follow that and we post them 72 hours before. In addition to that, per state law and our local regulations, we send out notice cards to neighboring residents within the radius as described in the staff report 10 days before. So although the staff report isn't published on the website quite yet, there is a notification that there's a hearing about to happen, a brief description of what the project is, contact information for the planner with their phone number and email address. so that you can reach out to them. Those are mailed to individuals, and so folks that receive mail will receive those 10 days before. We also do newspaper notices for certain things that go to certain types of hearing bodies, and so although it's a little bit archaic, I know a lot of people don't look at newspapers anymore, but that's an additional way that we do notification. So the 72 hour is our posting of the agenda and the staff reports.

Okay, all right, thank you. Those are my questions for right now.

Thank you, Commissioner Abbey. All right. Any other questions? I have a few. As it regards to the two by three proposed sign link, is that in alignment with other signs? Like I'm thinking the alcohol use permit. Why two by three?

Correct. We currently use a two by three sign in some of our urbanized area. The downtown specific plan allows it because there are buildings that are right on the frontage. and it makes more sense to have a smaller sign that's not affixed to the ground. And outside those areas, then we use these larger signs. There still might be the discretion if you recommend to recommend certain discretion to the director in certain larger projects, but as recommended, we're recommending the smaller signs so that they are easier to put up and take down, and they may be able to do other types of notification beyond that, but we are recommending that smaller size to align with the current more urban infill sign size.

Thank you, and then the formatting and fondant administrative templates have y'all considered qr coding to link to this, as you put a post up.

We have been talking about that on a variety of our forums to create a system to have qr codes include imagery we had worked on a draft sign that might have some imagery. site plans so as we create this more flexible standard where the director can create that template then we could have a little more flexibility in showing different projects a little bit differently right now based on the code we're stuck with the rigidity of that code description thank you and this map I was going to bring this up this was going to be one of my questions is how does the public get notified and of projects today whether they're in the the noticing area or not So this is one tool that you can go in. You can navigate by searching by address. You can zoom in and out. So if you want to look at your neighborhood and see where projects are, their statuses are color coded. The orange shows applications that are under review. So that's typically once they pay the fee until they're deemed complete will be under review. Once we determine what their next steps are and they're going through a hearing process, we change them to blue. Once they've been approved or entitled, they're changed to purple. If they were denied, we'd also make them purple. And then if they're under construction, they're changed to green. So you can check this on projects that are a little bit older, still under construction, and be able to find the contact information for the planner, be able to contact and find some information. We're starting to add more pictures to that map. There's also the opportunity to sign up under our Notice Me option in the city. That allows you to go in and pick and choose which agendas you want to receive.

can receive only planning commission only design review committee you could receive all of the committees and you can choose to receive those and those would be emailed to you that's an additional option not required by state law or codified that's just one additional option for the public thank you while i was working at the city it was practice and guidance and heavily recommended by staff to applicants of large projects that they connect in with city community meeting or community groups is that still practice

We definitely recommend that. When they come in for a pre-application, we recommend it. When they're giving just consultation with our appointments, we recommend that. Reach out to your community. If you don't reach out to the community members and the community councils, reach out to your direct neighbors so that you open that communication. Not every applicant is doing that, but a lot of them do, and I think it's very successful when they do that.

And those are my questions at this time. OK. Great. All right. Seeing as there are no more questions from the commission at this time, we will be open for the public hearing. I will open it up at this time. City Clerk, how many speakers do we have this evening?

Thank you, Chair. It looks like we have about 13 speakers on this item. So each speaker will have three minutes. Our first speaker will be Bob Guthrie, followed by Ursula Britton.

I'd prepared a nice speech based on the staff report, but based on hearing that there's some flexibility, I think I'll just short circuit that. I do want to say that, to me, the staff report was more of a sales pitch than a lot of facts. That's just the way it read. Strictly my opinion, but that's what I felt. I also want to say that over the last five years, I've been told repeatedly by staff that getting involved early is important. because it's a lot easier to affect change when you're in at the front end. It's less expense, less time. Make the changes while they're still changeable. And then I'm just going to skip over the rest of it, but I did want to talk just briefly about sign size. The current sign is four foot by eight foot, full sheet of plywood. And it's being proposed to make it two feet by three feet. The current sign is 32 square feet. The proposed sign is six square feet. And David, you've already done the math on that. That's less than one fifth of the current signage. And the purpose of the sign is to notify the public And now you're going to take all this information that's on a big sign. It's kind of like taking what's on a eight and a half by 11 sheet of paper and jamming it onto a couple of post-it notes. If the intent's to notify the public, making it 80% smaller just seems counterintuitive to me. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Ursula Brittain, followed by Mary Ann Beevener.

Hi. I submitted comments in writing, so I won't reiterate all of those. I just want to say that I think this is a terrible idea. The emphasis should be on more public engagement, more transparency, letting the residents of this city know what's going on. This proposal reminds me of the 1950s when Ford Motor Company came out with the Edsel, and we know how that worked out. This is the Edsel for Ventura, and I would ask that you reject it, because it's just a terrible idea. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Marian Beavener, followed by Patty Overly.

Hi, I'm Mary Ann Beavener, Midtown Thompson and Seaboard Corridors. You may have heard me say this before, but I'm a huge fan of maps ever since I learned how to read them when I was in the second grade. And I did put these comments in writing, but I came today for some background. So I'm requesting that the municipal code also be changed to require the posting of the hearing information on the Argus Development Map, which is a map you've been seeing on there. not later than 15 days prior to the public hearing which is exactly the same information and time frame for the posting of those signs additionally i think we should also codify when the development projects are listed on the development it's a really really great map and it's available to many more people than just people 300 feet away um and mailing to those people or billboards So the project documents that the staff puts together, which are great, include the vicinity maps, but it's the neighbor's input that gives the firsthand information on the contextual effect the project has on the neighborhood, bad or good. This is not a criticism, because I think the department's doing a really great job, but in the last two months alone, I've found three projects in my neighborhood, this is within a half mile radius, without the upcoming hearing information posted on the Argus map, which is what I rely on. And I contacted the individual planners, and there was three different ones, and they responded immediately, and I was really impressed by that, but again, it's not up to date. I can give you specific examples, but I'll give you just one right now. And that's that there were no written comments because it wasn't posted. Well, anyway, the posting. But two people that normally don't come to meetings came to the meetings, neighbors, and spoke. And they actually, the committee member uh... said that those speakers broke the deadlock and uh... in recommendations in favor of the applicant so the Argus development map is the best source of information because it lists projects until completion you get a quick overview you get a list of all the hearings that have gone before and these you can go and see these discussions and you can see the previous hearings and you understand the reasoning behind the decisions and you can make a decision not to come and comment just for me personally because i've read this you haven't had the city's not had to listen to me for 15 minutes or read probably half an hour what i would write thank you our next speaker is patty overly followed by wendy sauter

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Patty Overly, and I'm a Midtown resident. I'm here to speak against two pieces of this proposal. One is the courtesy notice that lets property owners and tenants within a 300-foot radius know what's happening at the point of the application. I would like that to remain. I may be wrong, but one example was the Vista Del Mar project. I don't believe that application was complete before it went to DRC. Maybe you guys can correct me on that. So how would that work? The residents wouldn't, because that was a special process that was being done for that development. So residents and other property owners wouldn't have known about that up until the minimal amount of time. It isn't a lot of money, please keep that. I've personally gotten those notices and I find it helpful. And I have reached out to staff. It takes a couple of minutes when we call. It's not a big time crunch for you guys. I have a bigger concern about this notification signage reducing that. And also leaving the text, the font, up to the discretion of one position on staff. I mean, at least make some standard requirements. I mean, that staff member changes, a new person comes in, and the signs start looking different. So that didn't make any sense to me. But reducing the notification signage to two by three feet with smaller text, which it will have. Thank you for pointing out the 80%, Commissioner Condon. creates an accessibility barrier for visually impaired residents, elderly neighbors, and anyone with a physical disability who cannot easily approach a small sign to read that smaller print. So I have a big concern there. You're eliminating people in wheelchairs potentially, people with visual issues, maybe people who can't get out of their car and are trying to read it from their car. so as commissioners please reject these proposed changes as written and instead request our community development department to continue with early notifications and printed signage that all community members can easily read the city has already implemented many things and we keep going down this path limiting public input. Here is just another example to try to reduce. And each time, it just seems like a small thing that's being chipped away. But it continues. In the 10 years I've lived here, it just keeps continuing. The DRC is a great example. You're referring to that as a meeting? That's been removed. We saw that at City Council. That's coming up. And HPC has been drastically reduced. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Wendy Sautter, followed by Kelly Dorsey.

Good evening. Residents need to be aware of a project in decisions that may impact their daily lives. Most people are not familiar with the city review process. This is why you should not eliminate courtesy notices. Residents need time to understand and absorb implications of a proposed project. to expect that they can become proficient in the process, then get access to and understand all the pertinent information in just 10 days is unreasonable. Just learning where to find information on the city's website, getting help reading plans, or understanding reports takes time, especially if a resident has never done this before. For this reason alone, courtesy notices to me are imperative. The staff report doesn't mention it, although we did hear it tonight, that according to the 2025 fee schedule, the cost to send courtesy notices is only $450 and is charged to the applicant. To me, this is a minimal amount of money. Please do not eliminate them. Another proposed change that should not be made is reducing noticing sign distances. 300 feet may be sufficient for minor projects like façade changes, but it is very inadequate for large projects such as multi-storey, under-parked buildings in a single-family neighbourhood. In the coastal zone or on the hillside, a project far away can impact neighbors due to our somewhat unique topography. By reducing the notice radius to 300 feet, you will be excluding many impacted residents. If consistency is the goal, extend the radius to 1,000 feet for all projects. It would be better to extend the notice radius on projects that don't really need it than to reduce it on ones that do. Finally, cutting the posted size of signs from four feet by eight down to two by three is a dramatic reduction. Many residents learn about projects by driving by, walking by, seeing a sign from the distance. Please, retain the sign sizes and fonts so residents can actually see them. Currently, sign size is an objective standard. The proposal would make it subjective and it would allow one person to determine font size. We talk about objective design standards being objective. It's important to be objective. Thank you for your time tonight.

Next speaker is Kelly Dorsey followed by Glen Overley.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Kelly Dorsey, and I'm a resident here in Ventura. I want to speak from personal experience why reducing public noticing is the wrong direction for this city. For the Thompson Court Apartments, I did not receive a courtesy notice, nor did any of my neighbors. because of that we were forced to put major parts of our life on hold just to catch up to with this project already going further along in the project and going to hearing we requested an extension so we could have a meaningfully meaningful review of the plans and participate in good faith that request was denied by the planning department and this commission as a result we're still discovering documents that critically that give us critical information even as the hearing approached and happened. And now we've gone to appeal and we're costing even more money to the city. That experience has showed us exactly how essential early and reliable notice is. Without it, residents are left scrambling and important issues can go unnoticed. In our case, we identified the possibility of significant errors in the Thompson core departments, including a potentially miscalculated base density and a misapplication of AB 2097. These concerns will be addressed at a future hearing, but the fact that residents, not staff, had to find them underscores why public involvement is critical, and it strengthens the project, not reduces it. The proposal before you would, not streamline public involvement, but limit it. They make it even harder for residents to know what is happening in our own neighborhoods. Right now, our planning department is still working to demonstrate consistent understanding of the state laws, neighborhood impacts, and even guardrails needed for responsible development. Until that improves, reducing public notices is premature and harmful. and would actually cost more money to the city. There's no state mandate requiring you to do this. You have full discretion. You can choose transparency, you can choose accessibility, and you can choose to preserve and even strengthen the public's ability to stay informed and be engaged. I urge you to reject these measures in public noticing and reaffirm Ventura's commitment to meaningful community involvement. Thank you very much.

Next speaker is Glenn Overley, followed by Pete Freeman.

You know, we're a charter city for a reason. the voters many, many, many years ago decided to be a charter city and not a general law city. Because we're a charter city, I wanna applaud what city council did within the last couple years where they increased their notice from the Brown Act of the 72 hours to about a week. That gives citizens time to prepare. Now if council's willing to do that, perhaps planning and the development director should be considered doing that. I brought a little show and tell. So this is a typical sign that you would see a candidate running for office would have one of these bad boys. This is Haley Point, by the way. Three of you were on the commission at the time Haley Point went through. Here's your two by three. I don't know about you, but I'm wearing glasses lately. Even when I play golf, I wear glasses because I can't see that well. When Haley Point was happening, there was a large four by eight sign. And there was a resident that decided, he went through and he read the municipal code and figured out that because of the size of that lot and because there were two streets that serviced that lot, that the city had to post on both sides of that lot because there was a C word spur that was not posted. And then where it was posted, several streets in that neighborhood never went by there. So they wouldn't even know the project was happening. Pat and I were relatively new to the city. One of the neighbors came by, said, hey, what do you think about what's going down on the lower street there? And I said, like, I don't know anything about it. So walked down there and luckily I saw the sign and then we started to get involved. But the point is, is that, you know, more information for citizens is better. And to me, whenever staff wants to bring in other cities that they surveyed. I don't live in those cities. I live in this city. And we have certain expectations as citizens and as residents paying taxes and as citizens going to restaurants and other services within our city that we have a higher level of expectation for the way that we run. We're not being run that way right now. Several commissioners brought up great ideas. Here's one of mine. So if you know the fees for the signage is low, you should be coming back to council, not the commission, but to council to wanna increase those fees appropriately. You have the data, everything is driven by data. Follow the data, increase the prices. This seemed like a lot of work to get out of work. The DRC doesn't exist anymore. You have more time on your hands. HPC has been limited. You have more time on your hands. Please use it wisely.

Our next speaker is Pete Freeman, followed by Eileen Shaw. Pete, did you want me to bring you a mic? No.

Hello, Commissioners. Sorry. To start with, I'd just like to say I'm opposed to noticing changes that are being presented tonight. But I'd also like to focus on one, the size and reduction of posted signs. How will this reduction in sign size help to consolidate, clarify, and streamline public notice procedures or to establish consistent noticing requirements across entitlement types? There is only one ordinance that deals with noticing signs, which is very clearance specific, which currently allows for smaller signs of a four by eight can't be installed, requires applicant to maintain the sign, and includes removal of the sign. According to the ordinance, noticing signs are the responsibility of the applicant, so staff time and city costs are minimal to non-existent. Making the change to a smaller sign does not meet any of the suggestions or needs presented by staff. The current size distinguishes the sign from all others posted around town. It instantly tells the public that there is a proposed project for the location. A smaller sign could easily be missed or confused with other signs. The current 4 by 8 sign is unique to proposed developments and instantly lets the public know that something is happening here. Imagine if you live just over 300 feet from a proposed project. You wouldn't get a courtesy notice or meeting notice. But the unique sign which has no distance limitation would inform you that something is happening. This would be a tool used by community near a project but out of the 300 foot boundary to learn about proposed projects. At the January 14, 2076 Planning Commission meeting, you, the commissioners, expressed concerns about lack of noticing for ministerial projects. Noticing signs were suggested by many of you. This is your chance to follow up on those concerns and recommend against these changes. At one point, staff even suggested they could provide mailed notices regarding ministerial projects, showing that noticing is an important issue. As brought up by Commissioners Busa and Abbey, in the past, the development map had a new application category where new projects were shown in red. This category has been eliminated, and now the public has to search the entire map to find anything new. This change, along with the reduction in the size of posted noticing signs, elimination of courtesy notices, and reduction in noticing distances, all lead to reduced opportunities for public partition, not preserve them. I respectfully request that you reject the proposed changes to the public notice ordinance.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Eileen Shaw, followed by Amy Cherry. Eileen Shaw, you've been seated timed, so you'll have six minutes.

I promise I won't take up six minutes. My name is Eileen Shaw, as you've heard. I'm speaking as a private citizen, not on behalf of any organization. I'd like to begin with a question, and I think it was asked previously by one of the commissioners. Have we stopped to ask ourselves why these changes are being proposed in the first place? Who initiated this effort, and what problem is the city actually trying to solve? The staff report repeatedly uses words like streamline, clarify, and standardize. Those are worthy goals. But when we look beyond the terminology and examine the actual amendments, every significant change reduces public notice and public awareness. I think the fundamental question before you tonight is not whether the code can be simplified. The question is whether simplifying the code should come at the expense of public participation. The staff report states that these changes preserve meaningful opportunities for public engagement. Yet many residents first learn about projects through courtesy notices or through the large posted signs placed on project sites. Once those tools are removed, the public's first opportunity to learn about a project may come only days before an important decision-making hearing. I am especially concerned about the proposal to reduce hillside variance noticing from 1,000 feet to 300 feet. The staff report provides no evidence that the existing standard is problematic or that 300 feet is sufficient. I can speak to this personally. I live in a hillside neighborhood above Poli. Following the Thomas fire, residents received notice regarding the proposed rebuilding of the Hawaiian Village Apartments. Not opposed to building that project, okay. My property is not within 300 feet of that project, but it is within 1,000 feet as are hundreds of homes in our hillside community. Because of the notice requirements then in place, my neighbors and I learned about the proposal early and became involved in the review process. We were opposed to Community Development Director Peter Gilley's decision to allow the project to exceed the city's hillside height ordinance because of its significant visual impacts on surrounding hillside properties, public streets, and view corridors. The project has a direct effect on views enjoyed by residents living hundreds of feet away from the site, as well as thousands of residents and visitors who walk or drive up there on their way to Grant Park and the Sarah Cross, which is the number one most visited spot in the city. Had the proposed 300 foot notice radius been in effect, many of the residents most affected by that project would never have received notice. That is exactly why the current 1,000 foot standard exists. It recognizes that hillside projects often affect far more people than those living immediately adjacent to a property line. Before reducing public notice requirements, I respectfully ask that the Commission consider whether staff has demonstrated a genuine need for these reductions. I support code simplification. I support clarification. I support consistency where appropriate, but I do not support reducing public awareness, public transparency, or meaningful public participation. I respectfully ask that you retain courtesy notices as is, retain the 1,000 foot hillside notice radius, retain existing parking notice requirements, and retain four foot by eight foot posted notices for major projects, coastal projects, and projects requiring public hearings. Ventura residents deserve more information about projects affecting their neighborhoods, not less. Thank you.

Next speaker is Amy Cherry, followed by Adrienne Coulter.

GOOD EVENING, CHAIR, COMMISSIONERS, STAFF. LET'S FACE IT, MOST PEOPLE IN TOWN AREN'T DIEHARDS LIKE US. THEY ONLY CARE WHEN IT'S IN THEIR BACKYARD. OR WHEN THEY GET A COURTESY NOTICE. So their busy lives and their jobs, all of a sudden that little postcard comes in the mail. That courtesy notice is everything. It lets them have plenty of time to call staff, figure out what the municipal code is, what are their options, possibly meet with developers if it's a big project, get the community involved to make it a better project for everybody. and this this is good so these changes that may come before it gets to a hearing hopefully their community um inspired and they won't get as much fight when the hearing does come up I've heard it's more in line with other cities but we're a historic coastal city and the county's seat we shouldn't just have to lower our standards to be like everybody else this is a little truncated version of what i emailed to you guys hold on i have a little side note um okay so let's just say that uh even though you get a courtesy not a courtesy notice we're jumping forward to hearing notice you might get the hearing notice 10 days mailed 10 days prior you get it six days prior the staff report still doesn't come out until 72 hours in advance So for people that didn't get a courtesy notice, the first time they actually have project information is 72 hours before the actual hearing. So I'm just going to read through my 10-point list. Hopefully you'll remember what the full explanations were. Early notice creates better projects. ELIMINATING COURTESY NOTICES TAKES THAT PROBLEM SOLVING WINDOW AWAY AND FORCES EVERYTHING INTO ONE LATE HEARING. IT IMPACTS TRAVEL FAR BEYOND 300 FEET. RENTERS, WORKERS AND COASTAL USERS ARE EASY TO MISS. LARGE POSTED SIGNS ARE THE EARLY WARNING SIGN. ENGAGEMENT AND EQUITY GOALS REQUIRE MORE, NOT LESS. COASTAL DECISIONS AFFECT THE ENTIRE PUBLIC. Using the smallest radius is inconsistent with the spirit of the Coastal Act. Why not make everything to the maximum? Have 1,000 foot notices, courtesy notices, and hearing notices. Stronger notice builds trust, fairness, and mutual respect. More notices now, fewer conflicts later. Efficiency cannot trump participation, and today's choice sets the standards for decades. If you lower the noticing now, it becomes a new baseline. Ventura will never regret reaching too many people, but you will absolutely hear from those you didn't reach.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Adrienne Coulter, followed by Christine Campbell.

We're seeing an alarming consolidation of power by an unelected body, the planning department. First, they came for the professional oversight of proposed projects. At the last city council meeting, despite overwhelming public comments against their proposal, the staff pushed through the elimination of the design review committee. A body filled with licensed design professionals with the ability to understand plans and their potential effects upon their surroundings. Now you will be stuck holding the bag even if you can't read plans anymore than you can read Sanskrit. You will have to depend on the planning staff who can't tell a plaza from a parking island and who will be using a design for dummies objective standard to justify your rubber stamping of projects that suit the council member who brought you to this party. And now they're coming for those annoying public comments. They're going to eliminate courtesy notices, the gold standard of communication with 100% effectiveness. Why? Because the staff said they provide limited value. Not only is this comment disrespectful, but it eliminates our ability to comment at a critical early stage before projects become solidified and more resistant to change. We will be left with standard notices 10 days before what might be the only hearing on projects that are essentially done deals. And what about newspaper notices? The Ventura County Star only reaches 17% of our population. And those big signs, they're going to whittle them down so most people can't notice them. They will tell you that courtesy notices and signs cost money. Well, so do gas stations. Sinclair is costing the city over $4 million at this point. But you don't see the planning department proposed banning them. They cherry pick other cities like Santa Barbara. Oh, they don't have courtesy notices. Well, they do have a design review committee that they are keeping. I propose that you not only keep courtesy notices, but you make them more useful. They should include instructions on how to directly link to the project on the planning development map, and they should also be translated into Spanish. If different limits are hard for people to deal with, make them all 1,000 feet. This attempt at quelling public comment is gonna backfire as bad projects start to crowd into neighborhoods and people feel they aren't getting a chance to comment. There will be discussions of corruption as they connect the dots between certain developers, city council members, and the planning department and you. We ask that you support the messiness of democracy and reject this nonsense proposal outright. Thank you.

Our final speaker is Christine Campbell.

commissioner city staff my name is christine campbell first of all i want to tell the commissioners how much i appreciated their insightful questions for city staff and for previous speakers they've just about covered everything i wanted to say um i'm a lifelong ventura resident i've seen a lot of changes here i remember the The air park, I remember when the Ventura Keys went in, I remember the Broadway Mall and all its iterations, HiHo, burgers, everything. There have been so many changes over the years, most of them good, change is painful, it can be difficult. The rejuvenation of downtown to look like Santa Barbara was different too. But the thing that affects me and I find the saddest within the last decade, it seems that Ventura has become kind of an open buffet for developers. And this is affecting the way the citizens look at our city. And our input about the direction we want to see our beautiful historic beach town go, it's not being heard. Everything that we have, all the rights that we have have been whittled away and whittled away. I encourage the commission to Disregard these proposals. Please keep the courtesy notices as they are now. They're such a vital part of getting the information out. Please keep thousand foot notice radius and please keep the signage intact as it is now. If it's too much cost for the city, charge the developers, the applicants should pay these fees. And as on a personal note, this is a different situation, city staff, but I live in Midtown Ventura. We found out that a neighboring property owner who lives out of town was going to build an ADU next to our modest little bungalow. We found out when those owners sent a little letter out to the immediate property owners. that's how we found out we put a lot of time several years of energy into fighting the project and it's four different iterations we were ultimately had our appeal denied by the city council but at least we had a chance to fight for our little slice of heaven in midtown now we have a lumbering building that's blocked our view reduced reduced our views um our property values, but at least we had a chance to get in there and put our input in. I'm asking that for all the citizens in Ventura. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Chair. That concludes public comments on this item.

Thank you, and thank you to everyone who has spoken this evening. All right, seeing as there are no more public comments, we will now close the public hearing. Commissioners, we're going to bring this back for discussion and deliberation, and I will ask us to keep it into discussion and deliberation, as we already had our questions earlier. So with that, I will bring it back to Commission, and if we could use our— electronic system to keep me organized, I'd be grateful. All right, we will start with Commissioner Whitaker.

Permission from the chair to ask the staff one question that was brought up by the speakers. Thank you. How up to date is that website of the projects?

Commissioner Winninger, staff is required to update that every few days to update it to the status. There's not a particular day that they have to do that. Before they go to a hearing and change the status from set for hearing to approved or from application under review to set for hearing is the requirement our staff is supposed to update them a few days before the hearing. But we don't have a specific standards in our code that says you have to do it at a particular time.

OK, thank you. And also, can you explain further for us, the commission, and also for the members of the public, why you would take an application that was received And take those off of the map. As opposed to, you know, the ones that are complete, you do have on there, but the ones that you just received, you have taken off that map. So can you explain. For the public and the commission, why you. Why this planning staff has decided to do that. Sure, no problem.

So we had been listing every single application that gets submitted through our electronic portal on the map in a red color to show that application had been submitted. Many times those cases sit for weeks or months before the applicant chooses to pay or they never choose to pay. We felt that the application was not actually active nor considered an active application until they make that submittal with the payment. So that was the determination by our department to take them off of the map until they've actually paid and are being processed actively. Effectively, they've submitted an envelope to us that we don't process until they've made that application fee.

Okay, thank you. So that's the end of my questions, but I do want to have some comments. I just want to, for the record, as somebody that has had to do noticing signs, the four by eights, the cost to developers is about $900. And it's about $400 for the developer to have them removed. And so I've had to, when I've gone and paid the sign company, I've paid for the $900 for the sign and I've paid for the $400 to have them removed in one lump sum. So it is very costly, especially if the project changes. However, I do, you know, I hear what the residents are saying as far as, you know, it's large. It's very large and you see it. I don't believe you can see it from a car. I don't think you can see those letters anyway. You have to get out of the car and actually walk up to the project to actually see the sign. But I do think that I've seen those signs abandon so many plate like as a responsible developer we've paid for the removal of those signs but I have seen those signs by many in many other areas of the city not you know I know the hearing's over, because I was at it. I was at the Planning Commission hearing, and the hearing's been well over, and the signs are still there. Specifically the sign by the project by Baskin-Robbins. I think it was there for a good eight months. just sitting there, post-hearing. So I have the one on Wells, post-hearing, been there for months. So I don't know what the solution is. Maybe we can find it in the Planning Commission. I do believe that maybe we could maybe come to a happy medium of a size of a sign that's more easily removed by the developer. and maybe not so much of an owner's task of having somebody else having to remove it, like posts. And then the other part is I really do, I don't I'm not too sure if I actually do have to agree with staff in the sense that the courtesy notice which I do feel like we need to keep the courtesy notices but I do feel it should be at the complete stage of a project having sending out a courtesy notice for somebody who is let's say a restaurant change, the Denny's restaurant change, maybe it's gonna be a Coco's, I know that's not, I'm trying to think, but it's gonna be, Denny's is gonna be in the Coco's, they come in, and you think it's gonna be a Coco's, but then it's not, because then now somebody else is gonna come in, and somebody else is gonna come in, somebody else is gonna come in for that. And then finally, when somebody actually with teeth comes in for a project, And it's deemed complete by the planning staff. I do believe that that's that's when the courtesy notice should be sent out so those are my initial comments, but I do I I I think we do need to keep the signage and I do I think we need to keep the courtesy notice, but maybe at a different level. But I do agree with the noticing. I think I'm leaning towards staff's recommendation for the noticing of the 300 feet. Those are my comments. Thank you, Commissioner Wenger. Commissioner Comden?

Thank you, Chair Boussa.

May I also request asking staff a question? Thank you.

We have a wonderful map online. Do you have any metrics on how many unique visitors go to it?

Thank you, Commissioner Comden. No, that's an interesting metric that we did not pull on this. I do know from speaking to the community that there are several community members that use this on a daily or weekly basis.

Yeah, yeah. So in a perfect world, we live in an electronic age. It would be lovely to be able to Let residents know that they can sign up for those email notices, as I have and many others have. But most people don't do that. And frankly, a lot of people don't care unless it's within 1,000 feet of them. They drive by things. But we live in an electronic age, and there are things such as geofencing and other methods of reaching people. I get notices when a gray Nissan is going down the highway with child in it or something so there are ways that we can permeate neighborhoods etc and those should be explored now and in the future I don't want to be intrusive on people's lives but you know if people say yeah it's okay to let me know if something's happening in my neighborhood I'm gonna be straight up with you I don't like much of any of this because we have a neighborhood and by the fact that we have these people here they really care it is a historic city and people care about not only their own backyards but those in attendance to here they care about the whole city so it's not a thousand feet to them it's 10 miles just you know we want to keep what we have intact so i'm I'm not really clear why I would say yes to much of anything here other than the point that was made by Commissioner Winninger, which is the completion phase. It makes sense to me if we have, and again, I'm gonna ask you for a metric, how many that are submitted do not get to the completion phase as a percentage? 25%? More?

I don't have a metric off the top of my head, but we do see sort of a consistent pattern of projects taking quite a long time to get through completeness review. Smaller businesses use permits that aren't doing a lot of work on a building, often are complete within 30 or 60 days and would be in and out of the process within a few months. The larger projects are the ones that often take quite a bit longer to become complete, some of which have been abandoned or have we have a couple of projects that have sat for several years without becoming complete. So it isn't every single case that takes a long time, but we do have quite a few that are sitting in that phase of either not paying their fees, and we are going to have to tell them that we're no longer going to process their application, or they become significantly

Incomplete and we need to have them withdraw or we are going to discontinue their application But it is a good number of applications that come in that don't move anywhere Yeah, I appreciate that and I appreciate not wanting to burden everybody with everything Especially those that aren't going to move forward by the same token If I were going to vote towards the completion phase concept I would ask for some written stipulation that says a hearing would not occur within 90 days of that notification because the thing we don't want is for the community to say, I've got 15 days to, I just became aware of this. I can't turn on a dime like that. So I would, I'm not adverse to that suggestion, but there must be a minimum time before the notice goes out upon completion and the first hearing. Because this community wants to take time, and there are people in here that delve into things deeper than I thought possible on what's legal. With a community rallying, making suggestions, communicating with the developer, these things take time. So that's the one area that makes sense to me. It's funny, I drive down the street and I find pennies on the street all the time because I look, I'm a very careful observer, but the person in the passenger's seat with me doesn't see those giant signs until I say, hey, did you... So it's a busy world, and I think the size of the sign is important. So I'm not really interested in going down 80% in the size of the sign for the sake of ease or costs. These costs, which I view as minimal in the development process, inconsequential compared to the other fees and expenses that they incur but letting the community know making sure and you know there's three kinds of consumers those that don't care and those that only care about their immediate radius, and then those that care about everything. I want the latter two, frankly I'd like all of them to be involved and cognizant of what's going on, but that's not possible. But the size of the sign does matter, and I can just tell you that as big as they might be, you know, they're black and white. There's not a color, there's no lights on them or anything like that. You have to be aware to see these things. So the size of the sign I don't think should change. I'll let someone else speak now, thanks.

Thank you, Commissioner McCarty.

Thank you, Chair Boussa. One of Glenn Overly's statements struck a chord with me. He said that more information for citizens is better. In that light, I have a couple of observations about what's gone on so far this evening. In the spirit of deliberation, I'd like to present my observations and ask for solicit feedback from the rest of the commissioners if you feel like that. And the first observation is in response to some of the public comment, staff surveyed other nearby jurisdictions, comparable jurisdictions, with regard to their procedures for signage and notification. And it turns out that it was noted that Ventura's current procedures are much stricter or more stringent than those of our comparable jurisdictions. To me, that makes Ventura better than those other jurisdictions. So it was not, in my mind, it was not a proposal to take a look at other jurisdictions and perhaps we should align with them. But I found that we as a city are better than the other jurisdictions because of the procedures we have in place. I am curious if anybody has any comments on that observation of mine.

I don't know that I would, I mean, obviously I think Ventura's the best city in the world. I don't know that that is due particularly to our requirements. I do, just from a perspective of being in economic development, this is what I deal with professionally every day, the comparison across the county or to other folks within our region in terms of our processes and procedures and us being more strict while it does preserve a lot of our unique characteristics or seemingly does so it also creates a less attractive for investment into our into our region I mean you have you've I've dealt with families who 80 year old woman wants to put windows on our house and the process that that takes to go through she's not going to do it so she's losing out on the efficiencies gains because of The process in which we would we would make the the person go through We have seen so I mean just in general when you say that comment like our our process and procedures because we're so strict make us better I would say from a lot of perspectives whether it's a single-family residential investment into your home or something larger that would bring larger investment that can often be actually seen as a deterrent and um though um as it comes to our signages i think you know for particularly uh speaking i i don't know that that's having um any any sway in terms of the the betterment of our projects just would be my feedback okay thank you anybody

I have to echo what Chair Busso says. It is a quandary. I mean, there are a lot of people that, you know, that the more regulations we have, is going to make it so that things aren't improved over time either. So especially in economic development speak and for people that just end up having sometimes, that's why the ADU regulations have been streamlined in so many cities and ours as well and the housing laws because So many people, it was so onerous to get a permit for a granny unit, so they just did it illegally. So it is a balance, but I would say that something like the courtesy notices that aren't done in the city of Oxnard and other cities is something that is unique to the planning department in the city of Ventura. And it's something that, you know, maybe we do want to keep as I actually, Amy had a really good point at the end, and Amy comes to a lot of our meetings. But in the end, the more people know about a project, the easier it's gonna be for us, because they've already talked to the developer, they've talked to the project. So I do think that something like a courtesy notice does help the public have more information and maybe even talk to their neighbors in a better you know in a neighborly way hopefully so i do agree with that thank you

I have a second observation to make and I again I request your your Thoughts on this on page three of the staff report At the bottom and there's a sentence which reads the proposed amendments are consistent with the general plan and certified local coastal program because they improve the clarity and administration of the city's public noticing requirements while maintaining and maintaining meaningful opportunities for public participation. And that sentence came right after the list of the current and proposed changes to our regulations. The word maintaining opportunities for public participation struck me as the wrong word, and I would substitute the word degrading. I would say it the proposed amendments degrade meaningful opportunities for public participation. So I'm curious as to whether or not there's any feeling from the other commissioners as to whether this sentence as written in the staff report rings true to you or is maintaining meaningful opportunities for public participation. Is that true or not in your mind?

Commissioner Evie, yes.

Yeah, thank you, Chair Bruce. Commissioner McCarty, when I saw that in the staff report, I had to read it twice. And I looked through the rest of the report, came back to that statement, and I was like, I understand the intent. We're trying to... Streamline we're trying to make things easier. We're trying to make things more logical but are we are we at the conclusion I Didn't see that the case had been made for that conclusion, so I agree with you on that point I

I will just add to the feedback. I think any time where we can make the consistency and clarity piece easier, that's great. I understand the intent with the 300. That seemingly helps clarify and make things a little bit more simpler. I will also say that to the extent that we can do that, I think it helps. It helps the applicants. It helps our staff. So I would just say that. I don't know that I would say that that leads to meaningful opportunities for public participation to your specific question.

Okay.

Thank you.

Commissioner Condon.

Thank you, Chair Boussa. I think in visual terms, and so 300 feet to me, I live in a neighborhood where most lots are 50 feet wide. So that's six houses in either direction. It's a half of my block, which is pretty close. I mean, you can walk it in two minutes. So when we're talking about reducing from 1,000 feet to 300 feet, that's a market change, and I think all of us would suggest to those of us that live in neighborhoods with lot sizes like my neighborhood, six houses away is pretty close. It's not on top of you, but it's very close. So a thousand, you know, you have to think spatially. I was doing the math. This room is probably about 76, 78 feet. So it's three and a half of these rooms, and that's pretty close. So look, I haven't done the math on the hillside and how many homes that would be separating, but I always default to, I'd rather be guilty of over notification than under notification. And so the size of the signs and when the notifications go out and the distance that people might be affected by, I'd rather default to overly cautious as opposed to more restrictive. And that's why part and parcel with all of these, with the exception of that one that I mentioned where something has been deemed complete, I'm just going to say no, I don't like any of these.

Thank you, Commissioner Comden. I'm going to go back to Commissioner McCarty, because I was up into him, and I was, you're seeking feedback, so I want to get the other hand.

Yeah, so I wanted to say thanks to all of you for your feedback. I'll have a more comprehensive statement to make at the end, but I'll turn it back over to you, Chair Busse.

Thank you, Commissioner. And Commissioner Abbey, you are up next for comment.

Thank you. Are we on final comments or we're a step ahead of that?

We're still in deliberation if you had to. I haven't quite asked for final, but I'd get there.

Could you go to slide six, please? Okay, so we have one, two, three, four, five essential proposals. So the question was, has the case been made for these changes? Another way of asking it, have there been compelling arguments been made in favor of these changes, these proposals? So coastal development permit notices, I don't see a compelling reason to make the change. Courtesy notices, eliminating the requirement, that definitely goes in the wrong direction. I would be interested in hearing more about courtesy notices along the lines of what Mr. Comden has said, but I'm actually more interested in just keeping it as is. I don't see a compelling need to make that change. Hillside height variance notices. I was on the planning commission when we made that Hawaiian Village decision. There were neighbors who were worried about the top of the Hawaiian village being too light and having that light bounce off and into them, having that information from other residences 1,000 feet away or more, was invaluable. We needed that. I don't know if we would have gotten the same response if it had only been a 300 foot notice. So I don't see the compelling need to make that change. Posted signs. Going from 32 square feet to six square feet, I don't see the need. Those are my preliminary assumptions. I've got final thoughts in a moment. Thank you.

Thank you. And Commissioner Comden for not final thought? Nope, that was okay. Commissioner Whittaker, are you on final or, no, because I have some comments on final.

I just want to point out to the commission that the proposed requirement for the CDP notices, except for the eliminate courtesy notice, is actually increasing the notice. So I was letting Commissioner Abbey know that.

Thank you. I'm glad you caught that. Thank you.

Thank you. Just some comments before we go to final comment. I will just say, if we had that map back up, the development map, I was an original creator of that map. And having those, that was during when we were going through the matrix reports updates and finding improvements to our process and bringing better visibility to our community was part of that. I would at a very minimum we need to notice we need to like a strict on this map that this does either not include applications that have been received but have not yet paid so people understand that that if they're if there's something not on here that hey I've seen something well they haven't paid yet that's that can be an asterisk or bring those back and make that note as well because having that I can't tell you how many calls as staff. I'm sure you guys dealt with it. I dealt with it with people calling, say, I see this. And to be able to have that reference on the map was incredible, super valuable. And I would also echo, as much information that is available can possibly be added to the hearing dates, yes. literally everything. If you should be able to go to this site and find all the information that you could possibly want about a project because we have it all within our systems, it can be linked within this database from which this is being pulled. So that's those are just some general comments around that. This should continue to be a place that we are consistently going out to our community to tell them you know I mean literally every community meeting you should start with this map making sure everybody is familiar with it so that this is a sole source of consistent information and again echoing back to whatever noticing has should also be linked back to this which was something tried to do years ago as well in terms of the radii. I just think something consistent. So pick a number and let's be consistent with it. There's too many errors that we have from noticing. I mean we are. There was one tonight. So I mean I don't know that's maybe five within the last year year and a half. That's also a bad experience as well. So we want to make sure that let's do something consistent so that that can be just well known, it would be my preference. Again, in my experience in this, in my role when I worked at the city, I can't tell you how many calls that I would field for complaints about signs just being up and not, like, why is this sign still here? This project, nothing's happened with it. Oh, it didn't go to, I mean, the staff time that's not put on that sign that tells you the cost is how much time they've spent feeling phone calls around what's going on with the sign. Why is the sign still here? This is a public nuisance now. This is blight. I mean, a lot. So I mean, I remember also wanting to increase the fees and make it a requirement that the city took it down with the increased fees through Public Works. So because it became such an issue with those signs being up. And then tagging. I mean, we've all seen those get graffitied throughout the city as well. So they do become blight. But they also provide a lot of really good information for people. And they also are very helpful to be able to identify where a project is and what is going on with it. And I really... The size of the sign, again, I don't know that I'm indifferent about the size. I just think it needs to be something visible that people can read and get information and get access to. Quite honestly, it feels like a bunch of word salad right now. Again, it's like there's a lot of good information, but you have to stop and really, I mean, to be able to digest it, that's, again, like, QR code access to be able to quick information as well as the pertinent related information so people can visually see it. And those are my comments at the moment. And Commissioner Winninger, are you up next? Yes.

I'll refrain from asking staff something. I'll ask the commission first. But I would like staff to chime in if it pleases the chair. For the posted notices, for the large signs, the four by eights, I'm noticing that a lot the requirement in the code is that this four by eight sign has to be the public hearing notice and like you said it is a word salad there's a lot to it and i'm wondering if it's something that um that maybe we could come back to take it out of the this um recommendation all completely and have it come back to us you know and as a four by eight i i don't really have a problem with the size of it but maybe Maybe it is too, there's too much information there because it is a notice of a public hearing versus an informational sign. That's just something that I thought about because the code, requires a public hearing sign and that's why you know it has every single last thing in it as opposed to you know as an informational sign that this is coming to a public hearing with a QR code and this is how to find more information and those types of things that just kind of struck me that if we keep it in the code this way it's gonna continue to be a word salad it's gonna continue to be you know the big posts that are gonna be graffitied all around town and maybe we let staff come back to us with some some variables that we can look at

Commissioner McCarty, you were next.

Respectfully, I'm kind of surprised at your reaction to the sign, an example of which is we're currently looking at on screen right now, and also a little bit confused about the characterization of it being a word salad. When I look at this sign, I see a pretty much well-designed perfect example of information that the public needs. There's a paragraph which explains what's proposed on this site. There's the informational part of it. When, where, the reviewing body, the city contact, and the applicant contact. So I just wanted to express my surprise and confusion about my fellow commissioners' reaction to this sign. well-designed, applicable, and does the job very, very nicely in its current size.

Appreciate the dialogue and the conversation. I always felt that the contact information could change, and so that sometimes would get confusing to people when they listed a name, it wasn't there, they couldn't reach out to somebody. So having a generic, just general info contact would limit that size of the sign. And to the extent that's proposed on the site, it's just a lot of text. But I mean, again, if it doesn't bother anybody else, it doesn't need to bother anybody else. I think being able to cite the project name, it just feels like a lot of text, so. And then the contact information that was something that would be that was shared Constantly was that the contact changed the wouldn't it change and that got confusing to people so having a generic contact Commissioner McCarty, did you have any other as I'll go next in line?

I Was just gonna get in the queue for final comments I

And to Commissioner Comden, then I'll come back to you for final comments. Commissioner McCarty.

I'll start out with a comment on the sign. I don't think it could be a heck of a lot better than it is. I would suggest a QR code. I've witnessed many people look at these signs. just read the proposed on the site paragraph, and others, I can just tell they'd like to know more, but they're not gonna write something down. A QR code, which by the way, 10 years ago almost died, and it's come back with a vengeance, because they really work, would be helpful so that if somebody wanted to, they could just point their camera at that and up come the plans or further description or the map all these possibilities are there in this electronic age we live and let's use it to our advantage because the more information we dispense, the better. The more transparency there is, the more highly people will look towards the leaders and put trust in, which is at a premium right now. Here are my final comments. I am going to suggest that couple things were brought up and and I'd like to address them that currently we're not recapturing a hundred percent of the costs I think that should be written into the code that yeah if there's an expense whether it's staff time or actual hard costs of getting a mailing list and printing a postcard at three cents and mailing it for 74 cents, that the applicant pays for all of those, 100% of it. So the flat fee concept doesn't work unless the fees are consistently flat. So recapturing 100%. There should be a higher retainer for the removal of those large signs. And I would say we try and put a number on it, three months, 90 days after the hearing or something of that sort. I do think there is some value in it being up for a little while longer, but not months and months later. Again, I want to notify everybody, maybe somebody was out of town for a few weeks and they missed it. But I do think there should be some ramification. You're required to put it up. You're also required to take it down. So maybe $1,000 would get someone's attention. I'll remove it for just a couple hundred bucks. The courtesy notice, I would like to suggest that we take staff's advice and do it when the project is deemed complete with the proviso that the hearing is no, sooner than 90 days or 100 days. So that gives the community time to focus on the things that are important, which are things that are truly proposing to move forward, not just pie-in-the-sky stuff, but gives them enough time to respond and react and investigate.

Yes? There are state law limitations on how quickly certain projects need to be brought after the project has been deemed complete. 90 days and 100 is going to be passed the limit for some of those projects. I would put 60 at the bare minimum, probably 30, just to cover our bases.

Could we investigate 60? I think 30 is a pretty fast turnaround.

As a practical matter, I think most projects aren't going to come that quickly, but just to give a little wiggle room, but that's a policy discussion. We can investigate this and put together more precise information when this goes to Council.

Okay. Based upon Council's suggestion, I would like to investigate and put a minimum of 60 days, if possible, to that. Two meetings ago, there was a mention of using the community mailer that has all the activities and all the things. I'd like to suggest that as an ongoing program, that there be a page dedicated to development and things of that sort so that more people, almost every household, if not every household, receives that. So there's 30,000 copies of that go out. And I know there's a way to truncate all the valuable information that's in there now to allow us to use a page. to notify more people in print that we have a development map, that these projects are, you know, what initiatives the city is doing. I'd like to use that more. And my last comment is I would like to recommend to council that we find additional new ways to reach people through geofencing or electronic means or what have you. The more people that sign up for newsletters, the more touches that we'll be able to make in the community. Those are my recommendations. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Comden. Commissioner McCarty.

Thank you, Chair Boussa. So as is my habit when we're presented with projects that come before the Planning Commission, I always read the entire staff report in resolution first before I read any of the public comments, which is what I did this time. And I did a good markup of the staff report, and I made some comments on the different pages. And then I went to read the public comments. And lo and behold, it was kind of like deja vu when I read the submission by the board of directors of Livable Ventura. And my thoughts on this project are mirrored precisely by what was submitted by Livable Ventura. So I can do no better than to take a couple of minutes to paraphrase a little bit of what they wrote because it matches my sentiments exactly. Let me take a couple minutes. I'll paraphrase a little bit. I support efforts to improve administrative efficiency and simplify the municipal code. However, several of the proposed amendments go beyond standardization and clarification. They substantially reduce public awareness of development proposals and diminish opportunities for meaningful public participation in land use decisions. The proposed changes conflict with the fundamental purpose of local city government, that is, to effectively provide essential services and address local needs by ensuring community participation in planning and decision-making processes. The staff report repeatedly states that the amendments preserve meaningful opportunities for public participation, yet every substantive change affecting public notice reduces the amount of information provided to the public. reduces the number of people receiving notice or reduces the visibility of notices. Could we go to slide six please? With regard to the elimination of courtesy notices, there is no factual basis for concluding that eliminating courtesy notices serves the public interest. With regard to reducing hillside height variance notices, The staff report provides no evidence that the existing 1000 foot radius is causing administrative difficulties or that a 300 foot radius is sufficient to notify effective affected residents. The proposed reduction appears to be based solely on a desire for consistency with other entitlement types rather than any analysis of actual hillside impacts. Uniformity should not be pursued at the expense of meaningful notice. With regard to reducing notice for parking approvals, the staff report provides no evidence that the existing 500 foot standard is problematic or that reducing notice would improve the decision making process. With regard to reducing visibility of posted notices, Large signs are highly visible, provide meaningful notice to passersby, and encourage public participation. Smaller notices or administratively determined formats may significantly reduce public awareness. In summary, the practical effort of the proposal is to eliminate early project notification, reduce notification radii for hillside and parking decisions, reduce visibility of posted notices, and replace objective standards with administrative discretion. Collectively, these changes reduce opportunities for public awareness and participation. Ventura residents deserve more information about projects affecting their neighborhoods, not less. Finally, one other submission from the public, which also aligns completely with my sentiment, was submitted by Benedict Young, and his bottom line statement was, I support efficient government and reasonable modernization of procedures. However, efficiency should not come at the expense of transparency, public awareness, or meaningful community participation. In looking at the amendments, the proposed changes to the amendments, I disagree with all of them, and I cannot support the proposal that's on the table.

Thank you, Commissioner McCarty. Commissioner Abbey, you're up next.

Thank you, Chair Boussa. I want to thank staff for putting the proposal together and explaining it. I would like to thank the public. for your letters. I read them all. They're very informative. I thank you for the speakers who came out tonight. And a lot of you I've seen on other nights as well. I know that you're interested in public education and being aware of what's going on in our city. And I share that sentiment. I'm going to start with just a quick thought. Right now, there have been over 200 and plus bills come through the state legislature in regards to development, state mandates, things that take away local control. Well, on these items that are before us tonight, most all of them, fall within our local control, and I'm glad that we do have local control on that. At least that's my understanding. I don't think we should voluntarily give up items that are in our control, as long as they're reasonable items. Some of the questions that I have, has the case been made for these changes? Similar to Commissioner McCarty, I don't see any compelling arguments in favor of these changes. Why do we need to do that? I don't think the case has been made. It's been said before, if we're going to err, well, I'd rather err on the side of more communication to the public, more transparency, developing the public trust, more information for citizens, having an informed public. Having proper notices and the things that we have in place help us do that. The question from Eileen Shaw was, should simplifying the code come at the expense of the public? No, it shouldn't. If we want to simplify the code and it helps the process, that's great. But I don't think the case has been made. How do these changes help the process? The Ventura residents deserve more information, not less. I thought Commissioner McCarty expressed very well in his summary of his position, and I am in full solidarity with that position. I think you made a great case, and I'm in agreement with that. Thank you.

All right, thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner Whitaker? Thank you, Chair Rosa. You know, I do appreciate staff's staff's predicament here on a lot of these issues i'm sure it's it's come up a lot about the size of the signs and trying to get rid of them and uh... i think uh... i know commissioner comden had a couple of suggestions for that but you know maybe maybe the the planner has a call with the developer and the developer says and says you need to remove your sign and if they haven't within you know thirty days then they get billed for the removal of it. But I don't want to see those signs around town with the graffiti on them and those things, but I do see the benefit of them. I would like to see that. So knowing that staff is trying to do some type of streamlining here, but hearing the residents that sent in the letters and for the people that are here today, the residents, We definitely hear you. But I do believe that courtesy notices being sent out for projects that are never going to happen is a waste of staff's time. and a waste of city funds. I do feel like the courtesy notices should be sent at the time that completion when they actually have a project description and they know what the project is and it better informs the public of what the project is going to be and what it is. um so just in order i i can support coastal development permit notices being increased for the 300 foot notice radius of tenants i would like to see the courtesy notices uh still occur at the time of complete a project completion uh the hillside variance notices i Wasn't before I came and read the staff report. I mean after I read the staff report I was inclined to just keep it at the 300 foot notice, but I do now see from the public's testimony that maybe the thousand feet does make sense and the parking approvals I can live with the 300 foot notice as well and Again the 4x8 sign if we keep it and As a recommendation and we reject staffs recommendation I would like to see something from staff at City Council has a plan for the removal of them so that would be mine those would be my objectives and in my My feelings about this project Thank You Commissioner winner Commissioner McCarty

Once everybody has made final comments, I would like to make a motion.

Thank you. Commissioner Abbey?

I just want to tack on just two or three brief comments in response to Commissioner Comden. I agree that not recapturing costs is not a good thing. And so applicants should pay 100% unless staff can come up with a good reason why they shouldn't. There should be a higher deposit or I guess the words retainer for the large signs to make sure that they get completed. Now the issue on courtesy notices being done when deemed complete, there was a question that assistant attorney, city attorney De La Vega mentioned that The lead time for that, he couldn't venture any further beyond 30 to 60 days. And in my mind, that's not sufficient. So if state law says that if we provide courtesy notices, but they have to be 30 to 60 days, once they're deemed complete, I would not be willing to go along with that. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Abbey. Assistant Director Klesi, did you have a comment?

Yeah, I just wanted to opine a bit, just hearing the sentiments of the commission. I think what is important for staff really is, and I think in my opinion of when I was a practicing planner here, the 300 and the 100 noticing conundrum in the coastal area didn't make sense. and i really felt that was like the catalyst for looking at all of our zoning radiuses and how we can make it standardized not only for staff but for the public so as we're leaning towards a motion staff would really benefit for looking at that 300 standard for cdps potentially exploring that for the parking approvals that is a very rare application we get and just eliminates another number from the alphabet or number soup I should say and of course exploring other options with the courtesy notices acknowledging streamlining act as our attorney has stated in full cost recovery as noted by I believe Commissioner Comden thank you assistant director appreciate that

Any other comments at this time? Then I will turn it over to Commissioner Whitaker.

Yes, I just want to make a clarification. Commissioner Abbey said something earlier about the state mandated or state State recommendation, courtesy notices. The courtesy notices, my understanding, is just something that the city does as a courtesy, not recommended by a state agency.

I understand that.

Yeah, OK. I just thought I heard you say something about the state mandate.

OK. No other questions? Commissioner McCarty, then, had a motion.

I just have one comment in response to Ms. Clenze's statement about coordinating all the 300-foot notices. You characterized it as an elimination as a number from the alphabet soup. You know, that's why we have a municipal code, that's why we have different sections of the municipal code, to delineate differences where they may be appropriate. So, I'm strongly resistant to standardizing just for the sake of standardization. I like the idea of a 300 foot notice radius for the coastal development permits. I would agree with that, but I don't agree with crimping down on others just for the sake of consistency. So that's just a comment. I would like to make a motion that the Commission reject adopting the amendments proposed by staff in toto. So my motion is to reject entirely this proposal. If staff feels the need to make some of the changes that we've talked about tonight, I think that they should take our input and come back at a future date with those proposed changes. But for right now, I would move to reject. That's my motion.

Okay, we have a motion on the floor to reject staff's proposal before us this evening. Is there a second or a modification?

I'll second that.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

Chair?

Yes.

May I make an alternative motion?

Okay.

With respect to Commissioner McCarty. I think we can get pretty close to what we're going to recommend. And I'd like to reiterate what I said and have you chime in on whether that's close enough or not. So the points that I made were 100% recapture of costs, $1,000 retainer on the sign removal within, and I welcome any feedback on this, three months of the hearing that was noticed. 90 days, that the courtesy notice be sent out when the project is deemed complete after the city attorney investigates whether 60 days is viable number. I think that would be a minimum in my book. If it were less than 60 days, I might want to withdraw that, but that's that. Oh, geez. Someone had just mentioned something that I liked. And again, using the Community Affairs Mailer just as a suggestion. Additional means to outreach to the community, because we already have those in hand. But I don't think we should, oh, this is the last one. Extending the coastal development permit notice to 300 feet from the 100 to 300. Those are the points I wanted to make as an alternative motion.

Thank you. There is a friendly amendment to the floor.

So I heard that as an alternative motion and not as a friendly amendment.

Oh, sorry.

So I'm happy to do it as a friendly amendment.

No. OK. In that case. I like the idea of recapturing 100% of the costs. I'm amenable to going with the courtesy notice when the project is deemed complete. I'm amenable to the CDP radius change to 300 feet. You mentioned a higher retainer for the removal of signs at $1,000. As we discussed earlier, retainer doesn't sound like the way to go because it creates administrative costs for the city. Chair Boussa you had mentioned earlier a concept in which it's not a retained fee but it is an upfront paid fee for the city to remove the signs which would eliminate administrative burden on staff and it's just another built-in cost. So Commissioner Condon, I would agree with three of your four and make a slight change to the cost of removal of signs instead of making it a retainer, make it an upfront fee which is paid. I would go along with that.

I'm fine with that refundable deposit, refundable, sure.

No, I'm saying not a refundable deposit. I'm saying the developer pays that up front for the city to remove the sign.

But in many cases, I'm told that it's on private property behind fences, which makes it improbable that without some liability, they could do that. When you take an aluminum can back, they give you the nickel. Same type thing here. They prove that the sign is down. They get that deposit back.

Okay, I will go along with all of your friendly amendments to my motion.

Okay, I have, oh, all right. Commissioner Comden, Commissioner Winninger?

Does Commissioner Abbey have to second that?

I was just gonna get to that, why he was signaling. Commissioner Abbey had a question.

Yeah, I had a question. Okay, the 100% cost recapture, I agree with. $1,000 upfront fee, I agree with. Increasing the coastal development notice from 100 feet to 300 feet, I agree. Where I get tripped up or have a little trouble is, again, the deemed complete. Now, I understand that, and it makes some sense to me, but if it's going to make it possibly that there's, if we go with that language, then it triggers a state law that says if it's deemed complete, that according to our assistant city attorney, it might be that we have as little as 30 days, maybe 60 days. It could possibly be more, but he said he felt comfortable with 30 to 60 days. And it depends on the project. And not knowing what projects that applies to, I couldn't agree to that aspect of the of this proposal, so I would like to propose an amendment, if that's appropriate, to this, what do we call this, alternative?

A friendly amendment.

Could we delete the deemed complete language and have I don't know, I'm not comfortable with that aspect of it. The rest I understand, thank you. So I'm not, unless we can make that change, I won't go along with that as a friendly.

Okay, did Commissioner Comden have any comments to that?

I think this is an if then. If it is any less than 60 days, then I would not vote for or recommend that we change that to upon completion of the project before the notice. So it's either 60 days or I withdraw that portion of my amendment.

So the language would be to explore

the city attorney to verify that 60 days would not be outside the boundaries of what state law

and that would be our recommendation to council and provided that that did not meet that threshold then it would go to council with a recommendation that we did not recommend that because that would be part of our recommendation exactly i just want to make sure commission is clear on that so by saying with this friendly amendment that we would explore the 60 days if they can't make that determination then it would not be part of what would get recommended to council from as the commission

Yes. 60 days, in my opinion, is not sufficient, depending on the project. Again, there's some bigger projects, and if we're saying that we only have 60 days to, when I say we, I mean the community, for the community to respond within 60 days, and if we're saying We don't even know if we're not even notifying people on the project map that it even exists until we deem it complete. So then you're saying within 60 days, community councils, the public, You know, again, it depends on what we're talking about. If it was an ADU or, you know, something. Of course, does someone have a comment?

Yes, we have a couple.

Okay. Anyway, I think I've made my point. Thank you.

I have a question, point of order. Commissioner McCarty accepted the friendly amendment and Commissioner Abbey is not agreeing to that. So is somebody else able to second his friendly amendment?

So if we would take them we would take of count on the first motion and the second and see how that passes and then if because the friendly wasn't accepted and then if that if the so right now the motion on the floor is to reject. staff's recommendation and there was a second to that so we would vote to reject staff's amendment or staff's proposal in full and that would be our vote if we all vote in favor then we fully reject staff's proposal if we don't then there would be an opportunity for another motion at the on the um on the floor do i have questions of that mr common and commissioner abby sorry i've got

Mayor Redekopal, you had mentioned much earlier in the evening that it generally takes a couple of months for these so I I kind of want to set the table, this is what i'm asking for is a stipulation of no sooner than 60 days, but the reality is. probably going to be more than 60 days from the time it is deemed complete and the notice goes out, the courtesy notice. Yes, please.

One quick thing. While we were sitting here, I did, and you've got to take this with a grain of salt. I was searching on Westlaw. I used their AI feature and it pointed towards at least one circumstance where it's 30 days. I don't know how reliable that is yet. I need to look into this further. but there is at least some indication that there may be, in rare cases, some projects where 30 days is the threshold.

Right. Thank you, Council. Again, the step here is if it is not at least 60 days, then I'm withdrawing that portion of it because that's unacceptable to me. But the reality, and I want to come back to Maruja, give us an educated guess on from something being deemed complete to the first hearing date, what typically happens?

Well, when we're not dealing with Permit Streamlining Act, And in housing law, as our assistant city attorney noted, we can quickly shuffle and get it on six weeks. It really matters on whether or not there's an environmental document, right? But that's a hustle. That also depends on what the agendas are looking like, if there's any continued items prior to that. But hearing the sentiment in the room, I think that staff, I'll make the call that we're okay keeping the courtesy notice up front. I think that's gonna address a lot of the questions, also the concerns related to the 60, the 30, the 90 days. That might put the staff in a potential legal bind if mailing happens on a business day or a holiday and we're on an off Friday. That, to my opinion, presents a little more chance for error if we're looking at a finite timeframe of when that courtesy notice is sent after X days of completeness. I think it's either at completeness or we go back to how it is within the application submittal.

I'm personally a little confused because so are you saying we could keep it as it is now.

That's that's what you are now kind of coming back to hearing the deliberations comments knowing you know hearing the sentiment the concerns you know it is an existing process at your discretion. Staff is fine keeping it in the front. However we do feel it does lead to some misinformation out there. It can sit can be withdrawn. It doesn't create Super clear information up front Staff has asked questions. They don't know the answer to When you know called in that 30 days however to the point of the public and the commissioners they are aware of it They can check in from time to time about it. It is withdrawn or not but to provide clear concise project information at the completeness phase when it's deemed complete would be, this is not changing, everybody's looked at it, here it is, let's get your feedback. And that feedback would be iterated in that forthcoming staff report as courtesy notice feedback. Here's what we heard from the public once this was issued. Then we have that subsequent public notice as well for that 10-day hearing or 20-day hearing if it's changing the use allowed with the property for planning commission meetings.

Chair, may I ask a question? Sure. Okay, so let's say someone puts an application in, a courtesy notice goes out, and it takes them nine months to get it to completion. What notice happens for the first hearing nine months, 10 months, 11 months later, and what is the timeline there?

If it's going to Planning Commission and it's changing the use or a code use with the property, it's 20 days. If it's a regular discretionary project, it's 10 days prior to the meeting.

So I can see circumstances where we notice people and then it just, boom, it's out of their brain and then all of a sudden, oh, there's something coming up in 10 days. It's on. So it's a delicate balance for me between early notice, but also a false flag, versus this is on focus now and stay with the project. Because if a good percentage of them never come to fruition, then it's the boy who cried wolf a little bit.

That's Stapp's opinion as well.

Okay so I still again I have a motion and a second with the friendly that the friendly get rejected.

I can like maybe I can clarify let me let me restate the motion taking into account the friendly request for friendly amendment and the discussion about courtesy notices. My motion is to reject adopting staff's proposed amendments in toto. with the following stipulations. We need to recapture 100% of costs. We need a higher retainer for removal of signs of $1,000. And we are going to change the coastal development permit noticing to 300 feet instead of 100 feet. The new motion is silent on the courtesy notice.

I just have a point of order. Since we had a motion and a second, do we need to follow through on that, or can this amendment be made?

I heard the seconder of the original motion, where there was a friendly amendment, reject that. So I would believe that we should vote on the original motion as it was stated, and then if we continue, then from the amendment or the motion as amended could then be seconded by another person or just reintroduced.

Okay.

Unless the parliamentary wants to speak.

Please, I just want to make sure.

In the interest of time, perhaps, I have an alternative suggestion. Commissioner McCarty could withdraw his existing motion and just bring a new one.

That's a great idea. I withdraw my original motion, and I would like to propose a new motion. I'll reiterate one more time. I move to reject adopting staff's proposed amendments in toto. three following stipulations. We need to recapture 100% of costs, we'll have a higher retainer for removal of signs of $1,000, and we will change the coastal development permit noticing to 300 feet from 100 feet. That's my motion.

I'll second that.

All right, we have a motion and a second. And we've captured that full motion. Thank you.

Motion and a second on the floor. You can now enter your vote.

I had a motion and a second. And, yep.

Waiting on three votes to be.

Yeah, we had a request to have a deliberation for that.

I mean, we're mid-vote. I think that.

I have no screen. No, I can't. I have no vote.

I don't have.

I don't have the ability to vote on my screen right now.

I have the- Is there a blue button on your screen that you can press?

Okay, there we go. Motion and a second.

Can we have the motion? The chair moved to take the vote. If the parliamentarian wants to chime in and say that we can stop this vote and go back to deliberation, I think that's at his discretion. But you called for the vote and we started it. So I don't know if it's appropriate to stop it and reopen deliberation on this.

I don't have an answer for that. I'm not sure if it's covered by the existing rules. I'll leave it to your discretion.

I apologize. I had not seen the request come in. I had moved forward with the motion. We can move forward with the motion. And if there's...

Thank you. Sorry. Thank you. Can we have the motion read by the clerk into the record, please?

Sure.

So we'll cancel the vote. So this was to request that the, that we reject staff's recommendation, that all noticing with the, and ask that staff return with an amended resolution addressing that all noticing costs are borne by the applicant, that the applicant deposit includes an increased amount, was that a thousand? Was this stipulated? A thousand, and that, and that staff extend the coastal development permits to 300 feet, and I believe that's where it concluded.

Chair? You began by saying that staff would return with this, or that we're just going to make this recommendation directly to council. That's how I understood it.

I'll ask for Commissioner McCarty to.

Correct, correct. The recommendation to council would be reject the amendments proposed, but oh, by the way, we'd like to see those three things happen that you just iterated.

Okay, so this would be a rejection of this recommendation with staff conveying these recommendations to council. Correct. These three.

Thank you.

Thank you for the clarification. Okay, we had a motion and we had a second. We had no deliberation, so we will move on to the vote. Okay. Thank you.

Okay, now into your vote. All votes have been entered. Five ayes, motion carries.

thank you okay all right that is our last formal item for the evening so we will move on to planning commission communications are there any communications from the planning commission at this time i see none okay we will move on to staff communications do we have any updates from staff from the director's hearing

Is this mine? Oh, there it is, it was on. We do not have a director's hearing presentation this evening. We will have one at our next meeting in July. It will be a robust one, because we're catching up all the way from February. We just have a new planning tech on board, and they're assisting with Backdating those approvals for your presentation and your review at our next meeting And hearing the feedback from the public regarding and Commissioner Comden particularly, you know taking the development map on a roadshow To our community councils. It would be my absolute pleasure to do that over the next quarter when I can fit it in I'm a member of the Midtown Community Council I've gone there, you know both for presentations and as a listening member. So I happy to take it around the city and just showcase it ask to answer questions about how it functions um and you know and work with our comms department too to find how we can push it out to the envi uh to the community so that they're aware of it as a resource

Thank you. Thank you for that. I think that would be very helpful. And again, the way we can continuously keep that in view of the public would be great. All right. With no further communications at this time, we will adjourn this meeting at 8.20.