[0:04] Call to order the regular meeting of the Belvadier Planning Commission.

[0:10] The first item is open forum. Open forum is an opportunity for any citizen to

[0:15] briefly address the planning commission on any matter that does not appear on

[0:19] the agenda. Comments are limited to no more than three minutes. Matters that

[0:24] appear to warrant commission consideration may be agendaized for

[0:28] further discussion at a later meeting. Is there anyone in the audience that

[0:32] would like to speak during the open forum?

[0:38] Rebecca, is there anyone on Zoom? >> There are no hands raised on Zoom.

[0:42] » Thank you.

[0:46] Reports. Are there any commissioners who'd like to provide a report?

[0:53] staff, do you have any reports? >> No reports.

[0:58] » Thank you.

[1:03] » I'll now move on to the consent calendar. The consent calendar consists

[1:09] of items considered to be non-controversial.

[1:11] Unless any item is specifically removed by any member of the council, staff, or

[1:16] public, the consent calendar will be adopted by one motion. Items removed

[1:20] will be considered in the sequence that they appear on the agenda.

[1:24] Would any member of the planning commission like to remove a consent

[1:28] calendar item?

[1:33] Rebecca, any hands on Zoom? >> No hands raised on Zoom.

[1:38] » Thank you.

[1:42] » I'll move to approve the consent calendar.

[1:45] » Second. >> All in favor? I

[1:49] » I >> thank you.

[1:57] I will um now open the public hearing

[2:05] on item two, design review and demolition to remove an existing pier

[2:10] and construct a new pier in the same location at 43 Cliff Road.

[2:17] Are there any questions from the planning commission of staff?

[2:26] » I do have question. Did you ask? If you have questions for this, if you want to

[2:30] ask staff question, now's the time. >> Don't they present first? No. Do you

[2:34] have a

[2:38] » the staff present first? Questions? >> Did I skip the staff report? Yes.

[2:46] » Yes, I did. Okay. My apologies. >> Fortunately, my fellow commissioners um

[2:53] keep me in line. May we have the staff report? Somehow it disappeared out of my

[2:58] script. >> Of course. Thank you, Chair Cidle and

[3:01] members of the planning commission. For your consideration this evening is an

[3:05] application for design review and demolition uh to demolish the existing

[3:09] pier and construct a new pier at 43 Cliff Road.

[3:15] The site is comprised of a steep steeply sloped 30,000 square foot lot on the

[3:20] western side of Belvier Island. In 1976, the property received design review

[3:25] approval to construct the existing pier which extends into Richardson Bay.

[3:31] The property has an active building permit to construct a new single family

[3:35] residence. The project received the building permit in October 2022 and was

[3:40] assessed a two-year construction time limit. The project is more than 18

[3:44] months over its CTL. Uh the CTL code by which 43 Cliff Road is governed is clear

[3:51] and should a new or amended building permit be applied for and issued. The

[3:55] new permit building permit is under the same CTL timeline as the first permit

[4:01] that was issued.

[4:05] The project proposes to demolish the existing 712 foot pier

[4:12] and construct a new 450t pier in the same location. The proposed pier would

[4:18] maintain its existing length of 88 ft while reducing the walkway width from 8

[4:23] feet to 4 feet. The project would remove the existing pilings and install seven

[4:29] uh 18-inch diameter steel piles as well.

[4:35] The pier would be constructed at an elevation of 13 feet above mean lower

[4:39] low water line. This height is a 4ft increase above the existing pier's

[4:44] elevation.

[4:47] Uh these images from the pier at two cliff road show the intended look of the

[4:51] 43 cliffs pier. Uh colors and materials include light transmitting wood decking,

[4:58] 2-in diameter aluminum posts, and 1-in diameter stainless steel tube railings.

[5:03] The steel pilings would be wrapped in a highdensity plastic in a black color.

[5:11] The project is located in a vicinity of eelgrass, which are considered essential

[5:16] fish habitat for special status aquatic species. Staff recommends that the

[5:22] analysis in the adopted 2018 initial study and mitigated negative declaration

[5:29] by the regional water board uh adequately addresses the environmental

[5:34] impacts of the proposed project and offers appropriate mitigation measures.

[5:42] Um, the ongoing construction project has exceeded the CTL by over 18 months,

[5:48] resulting in construction related impacts uh, citywide and within the

[5:53] surrounding neighborhood. However, the planning commission's consideration this

[5:57] evening is to the required design review and demolition findings which are not

[6:01] necessarily contingent on the project CTL status. Staff is working with the

[6:07] applicant to encourage timely completion of the project and anticipates

[6:11] construction of the pier will occur concurrently with completion of the

[6:16] residence. The applicant has indicated that issuance of the building permit for

[6:20] the pier will not extend the overall construction schedule and that both

[6:25] improvements are expected to be completed within approximately two

[6:29] years.

[6:33] Uh with that staff recommends that the required findings can be made to grant

[6:37] design review and demolition permit of the pier. The project will reduce the

[6:41] pier's square footage within the same location thereby minimizing its overall

[6:45] massing and potential view impacts. Materials are compatible with waterfront

[6:50] properties in Belvadier and the 4ft pure height increase will not appear

[6:54] excessively large or attract attention to itself. With that, Rebecca and I are

[6:59] happy to answer any questions.

[7:02] Now with the planning commissioners like to ask questions.

[7:06] » Yeah. Um just um some clarification about the CTL

[7:13] which my understanding is the project >> Yeah. I'm sorry. The the the the limit

[7:19] now is October 2024. And there's a note here that says if the

[7:27] uh permit is approved for this pier before then it it could be

[7:33] assigned the same CTL

[7:38] which would be October 24th, 2024. What does that

[7:45] do for us? I mean is there you know it's it's

[7:52] um

[7:56] one I guess is that reasonable in all cases which is to say

[8:03] I would say suppose the the building permit comes

[8:08] you know a month before the project is completed the rest of the project

[8:15] Um,

[8:19] it is it still assigned the same backdated

[8:24] CTL. I mean, is it really are we just

[8:29] it all feels a little bit like a gentle fiction that is we're we have this

[8:33] outdated now or or longgone CTL. We all understand that the project simply takes

[8:40] a long time and the dock will take, you know, to get it all done. Gosh knows

[8:45] what, you know, El Nino Palooa is going to do this winter. So, it could take

[8:51] even longer than anybody would imagine at this point. But I'm I'm just saying

[8:56] what is the in this case kind of what's the value of the

[9:01] CTL and why why do we care what the doc is

[9:05] assigned at this point since it seems rather random.

[9:11] Well,

[9:16] » and does it matter? >> This is the process. I mean, you know,

[9:19] caring is different than sort of what our code says, right? So, the the way

[9:24] that our code was written, right? because this is under an old CTL code is

[9:30] that in the in the way that um it's described at a pre-construction meeting

[9:35] and the way that we communicate with applicants and contractors is here's

[9:40] your main building permit. It's assigned this CTL. Any subsequent amendment to

[9:46] that permit or should it warrant a a new permit, it's all tied to that

[9:52] » first building permit number. It's it's all

[9:56] retroactive to that initial building permit

[10:00] CTL date. So the the onus is on the applicant and the contractor, right, to

[10:06] you know, they know that coming into this. And so I think it would behoove

[10:10] them to do the, you know, not apply for something that would prolong the

[10:15] project. >> Sure.

[10:17] » Right. But yeah.

[10:20] » Yeah. If I may, Commissioner, if I could just add a little bit more. In a way,

[10:24] you may be asking why was this information shared with you about the

[10:27] CTL? Is that >> Well, I assume ordinarily that isn't

[10:32] under our purview anyway, right? >> Yeah. So, CTL's Well, I guess in the

[10:37] initial design review approvals, there is a CTL assigned to the project. So,

[10:40] that is normally sort of present in your in the context that you're considering.

[10:45] And I think staff felt the commission should be aware of where this project

[10:49] does stand with respect to its current CTL guideline as just context that you

[10:53] should be aware of. Uh in some ways we felt like it wouldn't be appropriate not

[10:57] to tell you about that background as this project comes before you.

[11:03] Um so we felt it was important to share I mean it is an important facet of the

[11:08] project to just let you know what the project status is because

[11:12] you know this is tied to that original approval from way back when. So you know

[11:18] we certainly felt it was just important for you to understand those facts. Okay,

[11:22] good. I might come back to that later. >> Okay. Of course.

[11:27] » To continue on that. Um let's say if a project takes 10 years um ongoing, would

[11:34] we just let it go for as long as it takes and then at the end of the project

[11:39] we go and assess whatever we need to assess or there is a timeline that we

[11:44] would ask the applicant to get a new permit, ask for a extension or

[11:53] what is the rule? just let them go forever or for as long as they wish and

[11:58] then at the end of the project we address that.

[12:03] » Yes. Yes. >> We would at the end of the project we

[12:06] would address it. Um and that's why we've amended our code,

[12:11] right? Because if you're waiting 10 years and you're accumulating a fine

[12:14] every day, it's a very large fine. We've amended the code sort of in a

[12:19] pay-to-play model, right? you want an extension, you come to council, you then

[12:24] it's based on your building permit fee and you're paying at that point.

[12:29] So you would never give a stop work to a project just because it is too lengthy

[12:34] or exceed ex exceeded the time limit beyond reasonable amount. I'm not saying

[12:40] about this project in in general. >> Um we wouldn't give a stop work order

[12:44] for CTL violation or we haven't and I don't think that's in our previous code.

[12:50] Right. We have it under the older version of the code that applies to this

[12:53] project, but as Rebecca alluded to, you know, there are some downsides to that

[13:00] old older codise, we move to the newer one, which is essentially they have to

[13:04] come back to get more time on their building permit to proceed with a

[13:07] project. So, you don't end up in the situation where

[13:11] perhaps some builders, some owners feel like they almost are willing to pay the

[13:16] fine to get more time. Um the city's priority in respect to all these

[13:20] construction timeline matters is obviously we do want projects to finish

[13:24] on time as originally intended. You know that is always the city's focus and I

[13:28] know that staff is always trying to work with people to make sure that they do

[13:32] finish on time. So we certainly don't turn a blind eye to projects that take

[13:35] years and years and years to go on which going back to Commissioner Shinsu's

[13:39] question you know that's why we wanted to bring this up because we didn't want

[13:42] you to be unaware of these facts.

[13:52] Did you have a question? >> I have a question. Uh following up also

[13:54] on the construction time limits. Uh the resolution and also the case report

[13:58] refers to the peer uh it pins the permit issuance date. Um it says if a permit is

[14:06] issued after um the main project's done, would it then follow under a different

[14:11] construction time limit? I mean, if they're applying now for the permit and

[14:15] it doesn't get issued prior to the main project being

[14:19] finished, uh, would the pier have its own construction time limit?

[14:25] » Are you asking >> if the the current building permit is

[14:29] final and complete? >> Well, I don't the conditions and the

[14:33] staff report says um should the building permit for the pier be issued oh prior

[14:39] to the completion of the existing project? uh the existing construction

[14:44] time limit applies to the pier. So I guess I'm wondering if for some reason

[14:49] the permit for the pier is issued after the completion of the main project. You

[14:54] know if it takes them so long to get through all the other agencies, would

[14:57] the pier have its own construction time limit then in that case? Okay.

[15:01] » Yes, it would. It would be a new Yeah. >> Okay.

[15:04] » Yes. >> On the timeline, one more thing. Um

[15:09] Sammy said you are working with the applicant on the um completion date of

[15:15] this project. Do you have a date now from them? What is the completion date

[15:20] of the current project? >> Well yeah no nothing in concrete but we

[15:26] did during this review of this project there the contractor's here and he's

[15:30] indicated two two more years. you know, we don't have anything, you know, in a

[15:37] contract, but I'm sure he'll answer questions about that as well.

[15:42] If you have >> I have questions

[15:47] about the timeline if you ask. >> Yes, but not about the timeline. If we

[15:51] are done with the timeline, I want to move on. So, I have a question about the

[15:56] report um that um let me get the report. The report that Merkel and Associate

[16:05] provided does not belong to this project. I wonder what it is. It is

[16:09] about 46 cliff road. This project is 43 Cliff Road. And the explanation at the

[16:16] beginning is that this report is provided because the applicant at 46

[16:21] Cliff Road had a notice of violation and because of that violation they needed to

[16:26] do this report and monitoring and mitigation and all that. So, am I

[16:32] missing something here?

[16:38] » No, you're not missing um something. The the report that we received, it showed

[16:43] the eelgrass were present in the vicinity where the pier is as well. And

[16:48] actually, Sean can speak on this more. Uh so the fact that there was eel grass

[16:54] present required the uh environmental review but

[16:58] you're right it is 446 and not 43 uh but it's in the surrounding area where the

[17:04] pier was but >> and I think their scope of work was um

[17:09] to mitigate that notice of violation not really a new permit and whatever report

[17:15] we requiring. So >> to me this is not a complete application

[17:21] but let me know if >> basically we are missing a report for

[17:26] this project. >> Okay.

[17:33] Yeah, I think commissioner, you know, to the extent that um the applicant or the

[17:37] applicants consultant is available, I think you should certainly feel free to

[17:41] probe to what extent this report for initially for 46 cliff is applicable to

[17:46] 43 cliff because obviously that is a determination this planning commission

[17:50] would need to be comfortable with to approve this project.

[17:54] » Thank you.

[17:59] Are there any other questions? Okay. Would the applicant like to make a

[18:04] presentation?

[18:16] » Uh, good evening. My name is Mark Swanson. Uh, thank you commissioners for

[18:20] your time. Thanks for your time visiting this site. Thank you staff. thanks to

[18:25] members of the public and um I just wanted to Sammy did a fine job talking

[18:31] about the details of the project and so I'm going to try to not duplicate what

[18:35] he said. We kind of have similar presentations. There's sort of only so

[18:39] much to talk about with a an old tired pier tired pier. So this this pier is

[18:44] about 50 years old. Um, and as you've probably seen, it's in severe disrepair.

[18:51] And when we have storm surges like we just did this past winter, uh, you know,

[18:57] I go to bed at night wondering if it's going to be there the next morning. So,

[19:00] I I I do feel uh that this this is an important matter to take care

[19:05] of the pier. And I I think this is good material conversation about well, what

[19:10] happens if you do something with a month left on a CTL? And that's a great

[19:15] question because what does happen if a a pier that looks good washes away and you

[19:20] have to get a new permit and you have a month left on your CTO, but it takes

[19:23] three years to get approvals from all the agencies and and the building

[19:26] permit. So, um I think those are good questions to have. Uh we've been

[19:30] spending years and years to to work through this process to get this pier

[19:35] approved. And um as Sammy mentioned, the background is the current pier is 88 ft

[19:40] long. We're going to stay at that length, but we're reducing the piles

[19:44] uh in half and we're reducing the width in half and we're reducing the head size

[19:49] about 15%. And so uh to speak to the approval

[19:55] process as Sean, our environmental consultant is here as well and and

[19:59] please he's has a wealth of information about eel grass and fish and all kinds

[20:04] of good things like that. I'm the builder and I can speak quite a bit to

[20:08] any of the construction questions. the CTL 43, anything you'd like to talk

[20:12] about regarding that? But there are multiple agencies involved with getting

[20:17] a pier or anything in the water approved and essentially anything 100 ft above

[20:21] the mean, mean high water mark. Um, the one we always talk about and hear a lot

[20:25] about is BCDC and they're sort of the and I I might misspeak and Sean could

[20:30] correct me, but they're kind of the umbrella of all this. Um, and uh, Marin

[20:35] County or whoever kind of owns the land is is also involved. And so Merin County

[20:39] owns water land out in Richardson Bay and so does the state off the like the

[20:43] Gans properties, the lava house that's stateowned. So there's all these sort of

[20:47] different agencies and the county requires a lease and we have that we so

[20:51] we've we've got an approved lease with the county. Um the regional water

[20:55] quality control board has issued their permit, their what they call an

[20:59] overwater structures permit and on some water projects they might be the last

[21:04] one to issue their permit. You just never know. It's kind of anyone's guess.

[21:09] Um, the Army Corps of Engineers is another agency involved in this project

[21:14] and they're generally good with things like this, but they consult with the

[21:19] National Marine Fisheries and the National Marine Fisheries has asked for

[21:23] a biological assessment, uh, which is unusual. It's not common, but again, you

[21:29] know, we we you get to pick your battles. And so, uh, Sean and his team

[21:33] have, you know, taken care of this atypical request and we're addressing it

[21:37] and they have some means and methods questions that that we've resolved and

[21:41] think they're going to be happy with. So, once they get that back, they have

[21:46] it could be a month, it could be six months for them to turn that around.

[21:50] Unfortunately, this national agency, the the marine

[21:54] fisheries is one of the agencies hit hardest with the layoffs in the federal

[21:57] government. You know, their staffing has been greatly reduced. So, we're a bit at

[22:02] their mercy. But, you know, if you get on the right person on the phone and and

[22:06] you know, you have a relationship, you can typically move things along a little

[22:09] bit quicker, but there's no guarantees. BCDC would be the next agency that

[22:15] issues sort of the permit that we attach to the building permit, and they're

[22:19] essentially approved. Um, although they need all the other agencies to be

[22:24] approved. So, they kind of tie back to two different uh agencies. again the

[22:29] core of engineers who's waiting on marine fisheries and the city approval.

[22:34] So the planning commission approval and then the um the army core of engineers

[22:40] approval via the fisheries approval would be next on that. So, um, let's say

[22:45] we got approval tonight. That would be one check for them for BCDC, but then

[22:50] we'd still be on this three to six month timeline for for fisheries. And BCT

[22:55] would not BCDC would not issue the permit um or we couldn't begin the work

[23:00] until the building department issued the permit. And I if we were to receive

[23:04] approval here, I would then get all of our structural drawings together, submit

[23:08] them to Brian, and I, you know, I would guess Brian's two to three months out on

[23:13] issuing a permit for this. Um, the reason I bring this up is because we

[23:18] also have limited windows of opportunity to build in the water. Uh the current

[23:25] window right now is June I want to say June 30th. Let's see is uh June 15th to

[23:33] October 30th. And sometimes they give you permission to go to November 30th.

[23:38] So if we were to get all this dialed in by like the 1st of September, I would

[23:44] probably demolish the existing pier. That way we don't go through the winter

[23:48] worrying about the pier washing away and being a hazard and getting caught up on

[23:52] West Shore Road. If we don't get that, then we'd wait for the following

[23:57] building window of June 15th would be our next opportunity. We do demo and uh

[24:02] rebuild of the pier. That process is like 12 to 14 weeks. So I'm confident

[24:07] that we could do that within our window. I also am confident that we would do

[24:13] that within the current timeline of finishing 43 cliff which I currently

[24:19] have as um the November of 27. So it's not quite two years. Anything could

[24:26] happen with weather and unforeseen conditions but you know so those two

[24:31] things would sort of be within the same envelope. Um,

[24:40] I think that for everybody, um, you know, performing the work now

[24:46] instead of waiting until the 43 is finished and then the CTL stops and then

[24:52] applying for a new building permit. I think that that's sort of a backwards

[24:56] way to approach this, assuming we get all the permits. um you know the pier's

[25:00] a hazard and when you're overlapping manpower and supervision and logistics

[25:05] and general conditions things just are less um obtrusive and they go quicker

[25:10] and it shortens the duration and timeline. I will also say that you know

[25:15] I I get and I'm very sensitive to uh projects taking a long time and

[25:23] neighbors and we do our best to accommodate neighbors. I I don't know

[25:27] any neighbors, contractors, homeowners, or anybody that really likes a project

[25:31] to take longer than it needs to take. I think we're all really on the same page.

[25:35] We just want to get our jobs done and move on to the next one.

[25:39] And thank you for uh the time that you let me stay up here. I think it went

[25:43] over a little bit. Appreciate that. >> Okay, that uh I think there are probably

[25:49] going to be some questions from the commission.

[25:54] Okay, I have um many questions. Uh let's start by easy one. The um the structural

[26:01] engineers drawing says that the um survey that is shown on their drawing is

[26:07] done in 2019. Is that a mistake or was it done in

[26:13] 2019? The eel grass.

[26:16] » Uh so I'm going to bring Sean in because that would be an environmental related

[26:20] question and I think he can best explain. Um so let me ask you then the

[26:25] other questions that has >> start with the hard one first like

[26:28] » yeah no I'll ask the questions that the hard ones are about the environmental

[26:32] and all that but the um the one that is related maybe to the um

[26:40] the pier itself uh the aluminum on the railing and um are

[26:49] are they going to be painted? No, we leave that natural stainless steel

[26:54] natural aluminum similar to the other peers that are nearby.

[26:58] » It is a steel or it is aluminum. >> Stainless steel and aluminum.

[27:02] » So they are all stainless steel remains and stainless steel.

[27:06] » Correct. No paint. Yeah, stainless doesn't take paint. Well,

[27:11] » yeah. the the structural drawing says alo expose the steel to be coated with

[27:19] the paint. It it explains what the paint is and it

[27:23] says to be covered by the paint. >> I don't know if that's referring to the

[27:28] pilings, but if it's referring to the railings, that's just an error. The the

[27:32] the railings are going to be as shown in the image and and noted on the uh

[27:38] on the application. So it says all exposed steel. So railing I guess would

[27:43] remain. What about the steel? All exposed steel. That is a structural

[27:48] member and they want it to be painted. What color paint is that?

[27:52] » Okay.

[27:58] Um then

[28:03] then going back to the timeline. Um you are you talked a lot about that

[28:11] applying for this permit takes a long time. So you started the project

[28:19] with a timeline of two years. You are one and a half years beyond that. Three

[28:24] and a half years later why do you apply now?

[28:28] » Oh I I applied years ago probably three if not more years ago. It's a long

[28:33] process of working through the different agencies.

[28:36] » So which ones you have approval from the agencies you applied?

[28:41] » Which ones do I have approval from? So um we have approval from the

[28:52] we have approval from the core. Well that's pending the national marine

[28:55] fisheries. We have approval from the county of Marin. We have um approval

[29:01] from BCDC except they just need the core of engineers to give them their approval

[29:07] and they need the planning commission to approve and we have approval from the

[29:11] regional water quality control board.

[29:16] » So you just have one approval then because the rest are pending others. No,

[29:20] we have the county approval >> and the regional water quality control

[29:25] board approval and the other two of the other three would approve, but they're

[29:30] waiting on the marine fisheries. >> Got it. Thank you.

[29:34] » You're welcome. >> Yeah, the rest would be uh for me um

[29:38] from the report.

[29:45] » I'll uh thanks. My name is Sean Avant. with Sunset Ecological Solutions. I've

[29:50] been working on uh the 43 cliff project, not throughout the whole project, but

[29:55] for most of it. So, I can answer a lot of your environmental questions and some

[30:00] of even your um design questions if you have them because I have the history on

[30:04] the project there. Um going back to the permits, I'll Thank you. Going back to

[30:10] the permits, I'll say that we also do have a BCDC permit in hand. It just has

[30:14] a condition that says we also need the army corps permit for it to be valid.

[30:20] » Um okay. So to start the as I mentioned the structural engineer drawing says

[30:25] that the report um is in from 2019. Is that a mistake or the report is from

[30:31] 2019? What report do they refer to? >> I am not sure what text you're referring

[30:35] to on those engineering plans. >> Yes. On the structural engineer drawing

[30:41] it says shaded area. Um, >> oh, for the eelgrass.

[30:45] » Yes, for the eel grass. >> Ah, yes. Uh, that's a um a baywide

[30:49] eelgrass survey that the engineer put on the plans that was available in 2019.

[30:55] Uh, the other report that you held up earlier that was also for 46 cliff shows

[31:00] the eel grass at the time of the application.

[31:03] » Right. So, the 2019 is not valid anymore as we know. It needs to be one year old,

[31:08] two, three years old. Uh but the new one whatever which we don't even see it but

[31:14] structural engineer I guess had it and put it there. Um the report that we have

[31:19] in hand as I mentioned does not belong to this project. It is because of a

[31:24] notice of violation. Can you explain that violation what it is and how is

[31:29] that going to mitigate and how is that related to this project?

[31:33] » Sure. So, another biological consultant was on the project prior to my being on

[31:37] the project way back when for 46 cliff. And that report um was generated for the

[31:43] 46 cliff project, but it also included all adjacent areas. Inside those

[31:48] adjacent areas was also 43 cliff. So, he captured the data that anyone that would

[31:54] have created a survey would have done for 43. He just didn't write a separate

[31:59] report for that. So couldn't you have them to generate a

[32:04] new report for this project which I think we should ask for it. They they

[32:08] have all the data. They can provide a report for this project.

[32:13] » Yeah, we can talk to that uh consultant at that time. Yeah,

[32:20] it'll show the same exact data. It'll just be a separate report titled 43

[32:24] instead of 43 46. And how they are how are they going to mitigate the um

[32:31] the disturbed ill grass or or can you explain how

[32:34] » the 43 cliff? >> Yes.

[32:36] » They don't anticipate any disturbances. Um part of the um national mean fishery

[32:41] service uh permit or or their their consultation with the US Army Corp of

[32:46] Engineers is that you must follow the CMP which is the California Eelgrass

[32:50] Mitigation Program and we have proposed to do that. Um the the way to do that is

[32:57] uh within 60 days of starting the project, you need to do another eelgrass

[33:02] survey to document the baseline conditions prior to construction. After

[33:06] the project is finished, you need to again do another survey within 30 days

[33:10] after the project to determine what impacts the project had on the eelgrass.

[33:15] From that differentiation you can determine if eelgrass was affected and

[33:19] how much and then um mitigation will be imposed.

[33:25] » Are there any mitigation uh required for 46

[33:31] the report? >> Yeah.

[33:37] Um so 46 Cliff Road was a project that's was approved um started I think in like

[33:44] 2015 and it was before my time when I began

[33:48] work on that project the the building permit was uh just issued and the set of

[33:53] plans and drawings and permits were issued and a condition that the planning

[33:58] commission and um maybe staff I I don't want to speak out of line put on that

[34:04] project and that was agreed to was that project would be completely built

[34:07] completely from the water and that was a real firm condition that they had. So I

[34:12] lined everything up. We had a BCDC permit and we had everything appeared to

[34:16] be in order in the drawings and I started building that house from the

[34:19] water. It was the only way that was allowed to be built and one agency uh

[34:25] came up and said, "Hey, we we actually don't have uh the right permit for you

[34:29] to build from the water." So then that became back to the planning commission

[34:35] in the city and it kind of created um some complexities and we came up with

[34:40] all new plans and had to build the house from the land and not the water because

[34:44] we weren't allowed to build from the water. But while building from the

[34:47] water, one of the barges had tur uh crop thrust and they in their prop thrust it

[34:54] affected some of the eelgrass. And so we agreed to plant restore the eel grass,

[35:00] but we've restored it by you know uh multiple factors uh and we planted some

[35:07] out in the Richardson Bay. We planted restored it in the general area in front

[35:11] of the house and it's I'm happy to report is growing like real happy eel

[35:16] grass. So the person that's been doing uh surveys of this and it the next

[35:22] surveys I think it finishes next year the surveys that we had to do we were

[35:26] doing five years of surveys he's sidescanning and scanning all of this

[35:30] area and he's actually doing all the restoration out in Richardson Bay where

[35:34] the anchor outs were. Uh so while I mean I I could we could request maybe a note

[35:40] from him as a condition of approval saying hey Keith uh can you note that

[35:45] your work is also applicable to 43 cliff but it's it's such an umbrella of work

[35:50] he's done all over you know the general area that's why I I understand why

[35:54] you're saying 46 but the consultant work and the scanning he did was all in that

[35:58] general area and that's why we have that big overlay map of of the work.

[36:04] Did that answer your question about that?

[36:07] » Um, yes. Thank you. >> You're welcome.

[36:17] » So, can I if nobody else has any question, can I ask another question

[36:21] from the applicant? Um,

[36:25] so can you address the the delay on the project? explain a little bit how um we

[36:34] received a letter from one neighbor that is very concerned about the the time

[36:39] that this project took. uh the um condition of the road that is um

[36:46] deteriorated and um extension another extension of um

[36:55] two years which would I think brings the total penalty on the project about

[37:03] beyond a million. So can you address that and

[37:09] » well you know I I am happy to provide a sort of a more detailed list of reasons

[37:15] of why projects like this take a long time. Um a couple examples we had some

[37:21] health issues on the project. We encountered uh a real lot of imported

[37:27] gravel and fill in the whole rear of the property that had to be removed and

[37:31] offhauled before we could have a a substantial foundation for the pool. Um

[37:36] houses now have they're much more intensive to build than they used to be

[37:40] even a few years ago with the new energy codes. For instance, you have to

[37:43] insulate the inside of even headers now in homes to to meet the environmental

[37:48] requirements. So instead of it being sort of one step after the other, you

[37:52] find yourself very often doing uh incremental steps insulating one side of

[37:57] a shear wall and then coming back and and re-sharing the other side and then

[38:01] before you can take the next step. So houses have just become much more

[38:05] complicated and complex. We're dealing with two different structures, one down

[38:08] at the water side, one up above and you know and we have limited access and you

[38:15] know we had a heavy winter with rains at different times. So there's just a

[38:19] number of reasons and I have others as well sent over

[38:28] and it sounds like you think you're

[38:34] maybe a little more than halfway through the project and it's expected to go on

[38:38] for several more years. So I heard staff say something along those lines.

[38:44] » Well, I'd say inside of two years at this point. That's why in November of

[38:47] 2027, so that would be a year and a half

[38:51] range, but um so I I would say I'm more than halfway through the project for

[38:59] sure. Okay. Um and this may be a question for staff. I am Am I correct in

[39:05] assuming Cliff Road is a private road in the vicinity of these houses? It's not a

[39:11] public Belvadier Street. >> That is correct. Okay.

[39:17] » And I have offered to work with the neighbor on on the area in front of the

[39:21] property. We've got dialogue right now and I've committed to some things and he

[39:26] also finished his project and he had has a responsibility to maintain some of

[39:30] that as well. I just don't know the details and he's offered to. So we are

[39:34] talking. I'm not we don't have a perfect solution yet, but we are

[39:37] » Well, I'm I'm happy to hear that and I I know private roads are complicated

[39:43] things to >> Yeah. You know, if you go two houses

[39:47] down, the roads even worse, but I I'm not I'm not interested in having a

[39:53] conflict. I'm interested in a resolution, and we're working towards

[39:56] that. >> Yeah.

[39:58] » Thank you. >> Other questions?

[40:03] Um, I just want to follow up also, uh, maybe it's a duplicate question, but

[40:08] again about the, uh, the letter that we received from the neighbor about, uh,

[40:12] construction equipment, um, being stored or just sitting in the roadway, that

[40:17] sort of thing. Uh, you know, the resolutions that we have in front of us

[40:20] also have conditions about the construction management program. Um,

[40:24] which I'm sure the original project has the same conditions. And so just want to

[40:28] like moving forward um just kind of understand from your point of view how

[40:32] how you expect that'll be addressed if it'll be addressed differently.

[40:36] » Sure. Well, I'm happy to report that we just removed two pieces of equipment

[40:40] that we were using on the property and so they're off the site now and we have

[40:44] two small machines that that can fit in on the footprint. We've

[40:49] cleaned out in front of the house because we had a lot of material staging

[40:53] there. And so we don't anticipate storing anything in the street over the

[40:57] long term, but sometimes if we have to use a forklift or something, we bring it

[41:01] in the the night before, the day before, and then we use it the following day to

[41:05] unload and offhaul things, and then we we take it off the property. So there's,

[41:11] you know, we we are mindful of um what the building department has asked us to

[41:17] do, which is leave at least 10 ft of pathway. And we're also mindful of the

[41:21] fact that neighbors don't want to look at, you know, construction equipment.

[41:25] Um, the majority of the pier will be built from the water. Um, so I don't

[41:30] think those two things overlap, but I I understand at the same time the

[41:35] sensitivity of the things in the road. >> Okay.

[41:37] » Yeah. >> And and I have a second question. Uh,

[41:40] it's a smaller detail on the plans. Uh, the I notice the square footage that's

[41:44] described on the on these plans. Um it's measured from the um bay side of the

[41:50] mean high water line. Um but the overall footprint of the pier is slightly larger

[41:54] because there's a portion of the pier on the other side of that line. Um

[41:59] » I just wonder why and just forformational purposes why is it

[42:03] measured Oh thanks you can answer. >> It's okay with Sean. Yeah.

[42:09] » The reason that the engineer measured it from the mean high water line is the

[42:12] DCDC jurisdictional line. >> Okay. That's the uh the delineation

[42:17] between the shoreline band and the bay and we have to separate those two areas

[42:22] for BCDC and that's why they did that. >> Okay. Thank you.

[42:33] » Okay. Uh any further questions? No. Okay. Are there um any comments from

[42:39] members of the public on this item?

[42:45] Becca, do you see anyone online? >> I have um Ben Jacobe um online

[42:51] and he's joining the webinar as a panelist.

[42:58] » Hey everybody. Um can you hear me? Okay. >> Yes, we can.

[43:03] » Great. Um I guess a a couple things. Um, I thought I heard the applicant say that

[43:11] they're going to construct the majority of the pier from the water, but the

[43:17] application I read said it will be constructed in totality from the water.

[43:23] So, I'm not sure if if you're able to answer questions real time or if you

[43:27] would just like me to answer the series of my questions or or to provide the

[43:32] series of my questions. You can just continue because Okay, fair enough. Um,

[43:39] so that so we're and I should back up. We're the neighbors at 30 Cliff Road

[43:44] that you know, for better or worse, we're right across the street. Um, we

[43:50] started our project construction in 2022. We finished our house in uh in

[43:57] November of 24. We got our our certificate of occupancy.

[44:03] 46 Cliff, which is owned by the same uh individuals as 43 Cliff, has been under

[44:12] construction since 2019 and it's still not done. And our experience with that

[44:18] project and it seems like with this project is there's just a series of

[44:23] requests which end up extending the construction timeline and then we're the

[44:28] ones that suffer for it because we have to deal with this um every day, right?

[44:34] Except fortunately the weekends. Um so I think with 46 cliff they added an ADU.

[44:43] They tore out their parking pad. They put in a new parking. They widened the

[44:49] road, which we own down there. It is a private road. They widened the road

[44:52] without our permission. Uh unfortunately, the portion of the road

[44:56] that we own. Um, so it hasn't it hasn't been um you know I I guess I could

[45:03] safely say it hasn't been a a seamless uh relationship uh unfortunately

[45:09] uh with with the construction crew um with 43 cliff um you know the pier has

[45:16] been a hazard since 2019. So I think to say that they need seemingly for an

[45:22] incomplete application as I think some of the council members noted to need the

[45:28] the uh the planning permission now and to have the reason that uh that the

[45:34] existing pier is a hazard seems to be a little bit of a misstatement because

[45:39] it's been in its present condition uh for a very long time and really I think

[45:45] what the the issue that we have is it just seems like this project is going to

[45:51] go on forever. I mean, I think day before yesterday, they had trucks down

[45:56] here and they're still doing civil work and pulling dirt out and there's just no

[46:01] um there's there's really no oversight or no guard rails to prevent them to

[46:08] keep on going on forever. I think this the CTL rules, you know, theoretically

[46:14] pose a limit, but I think all of our experience with

[46:18] that is once you get to the end of a project like this and you're facing the

[46:23] kind of penalties that they face, I mean, will do those get paid or not? So,

[46:29] um, so I I'm not sure, you know, what to think of a project that's already, you

[46:35] know, uh, uh, you know, 2 years over or 18 months over its 2-year limit asking

[46:42] for a permit modification to embark on another project. And here, you know, we

[46:47] as the neighbors are kind of holding the bag in terms of the nuisance. Um, I

[46:52] think my wife Deborah has some questions she wanted to note as well. Um, yeah. I

[46:58] wasn't Oh, hi. Um, I wasn't clear again going along with why you're showing us

[47:04] the picture of the 46 pier area instead of the 43 pier area. It's just not

[47:11] really clear. And I'm also wondering, do you have approvals from the water board

[47:17] in hand that you can show the board and BCDC or is that like not real? Like is

[47:24] it pending? I actually would like to see evidence of those approvals before,

[47:31] you know, Belvadier um approves this. Um I also feel like the road, there's just

[47:40] dust on our road that just filters. We have a brand new house and it's a mess

[47:46] because of this project and it's I'm sorry it it's a private road but I feel

[47:51] like it's just every day it's so dusty and I've asked them to please just pave

[47:57] a little strip like where the trucks park where there's just there's no road

[48:01] left and it's so it's so dirty and I'm I'm I it's we have to live next to this.

[48:08] I live here and I it's been years and I just you know cars come up and down and

[48:14] trucks and and yes we we did have you know our project and you know that was

[48:21] that was a year and a half ago and it's but the the dust from this project right

[48:26] now is just overwhelming. Um okay I just have a couple practical light um

[48:31] questions about the pier if you could be so kind. There's a flashing light at the

[48:36] end and we just want to know which side the flashing light's going to be on.

[48:40] » I think I think we have a question as to whether there will be a flashing red

[48:44] light at the end of the pier. There presently is not one. Um and then one

[48:49] other uh question or comment I wanted to make in part in response to Mark is he

[48:55] said there's not construction materials stored in the road. True, there's not

[48:59] equipment anymore. Um, there have been two enormous olive trees which take up

[49:04] the roadway that have been there for over two years. These are giant olive

[49:09] trees in in boxes in in the road on the side. And it doesn't seem like an issue

[49:16] in a vacuum, but what happens is all of the subcontractors come down and they

[49:23] stack all of their trucks along the side of the road because they won't park

[49:27] elsewhere. It's um I'm just gonna u I want to point out that there is a time

[49:33] limit on these comments and so I've granted each of you three minutes. Um

[49:40] » so I think um if you have a summary you if you want to make a quick statement to

[49:44] wrap it up. Um we appreciate your comments.

[49:47] » Okay. my my my I to for me I really want the road to be paved even if it's not

[49:54] perfectly paved just where there's dirt there's loose dirt and rubble to get out

[49:59] of my driveway to go to work or to go to you know to the store every day I'd

[50:04] really like it if that could be paved um and then I just want to make sure that

[50:09] the pier is the same size as they are stating and that it's not larger or

[50:14] longer or anything >> and that The pier is fully constructed

[50:19] from the water and no construction materials for construction of the pier

[50:24] will be stored in the street. >> Okay. Very good. Thank you. I appreciate

[50:29] your comments. >> Thank you.

[50:30] » Thank you. Appreciate it.

[50:35] » So, so I um so I I heard a couple questions out of there that I would like

[50:40] answered. One is clarification on construction by land or sea.

[50:46] Um, did I didn't hear you. Did you say you're asking if how are you going to

[50:51] construct the pier? By by sea, which obviously has some of the environmental

[50:56] considerations that my colleague brought up, versus by land, which has more

[51:01] neighbor considerations. >> Sure. Great, great question. So, the

[51:04] pier is is um just about completely constructed by on

[51:10] the water side. There's no real other way to do it. When I was saying the

[51:14] majority of of it will be constructed by the wateride, um it's 95%. All I'm

[51:20] saying is if we needed some cables or somebody needed to carry paint down when

[51:24] the barge is gone, we needed to couple boards are coming up or we needed to to

[51:29] bring some boards down there, we would do that. There's no intention of having

[51:33] any equipment on the on the property side. It's just, you know, I I just

[51:38] don't want to get into some situation where, you know, I I said it would be

[51:41] 100% from the water. However, there, you know, we we got to touch up, fine-tune,

[51:46] do things like that. >> And the red light

[51:50] » flashing, not flashing. >> I'm not aware of the red light to be

[51:53] honest with you. >> On that side don't have flashing.

[51:56] » Yeah, I to cliff may have had that. I don't know. I'm not certain about that.

[52:01] Um, that's in the image that that's part of the presentation, but I'm not aware

[52:05] of that. might be a thing that the Coast Guard requires if you go a certain

[52:09] distance out, but I have no no knowledge of of the of the light. Um, unless I've

[52:15] overlooked it. We can all look at the drawing. It's it wouldn't be any

[52:17] different than what's on the drawing. I I don't know about that. Do you?

[52:21] » No. >> But to be clear, the only reason you

[52:23] would have one is if it were required. >> Yeah. Navigation age or something.

[52:27] Absolutely. Yeah. We we have no interest in putting a light out on the end of the

[52:32] pier.

[52:35] Yeah, >> thank you.

[52:37] » I have a question also um and following up uh how about the demolition of the

[52:41] existing um pier. Would that also be from the water? Can you describe that?

[52:47] » Yeah, so we bring in a a a barge with a a machine, a crane excavator type

[52:52] grapple on it and it pulls out the pilings and everything gets loaded on

[52:55] the barge and then goes away with the barge.

[52:59] Yes.

[53:03] Um, one more question for me. Um, do you acknowledge the penalty that you owe to

[53:09] the city that they all talk about? >> I I absolutely acknowledge there's a

[53:15] construction time limit penalty on the project.

[53:21] » Okay. If we are um done with questions, um, thank you.

[53:26] » Thank you. Um, I'll close the public hearing and bring this matter back to

[53:31] the commission for discussion. Um, Don, you sort of live over on that

[53:37] side of the island. You start. >> You know, I'm not going to have any

[53:41] problem making the findings tonight. Obviously, the

[53:44] » uh as I see it, the footprint of the of the pier is going to be smaller than

[53:48] what's there. Uh, you're going to be letting light through. You're going to

[53:52] be uh uh using fewer pilings. I think from that sense, we're not talking about

[53:57] a bigger dock or even a replacement dock. We're talking about a somewhat uh

[54:02] uh less uh invasive dock than is there now. So, I don't have a problem with

[54:06] that. Regarding the the egrass, um having gone down that road with a

[54:11] consultant for a while for our own dock, um I can just say that, you know, that

[54:17] that's beyond I think what I'm prior to appine on. Uh uh I know the kind of

[54:24] alphabet soup of jurisdictions that actually have to sign off on this. Um I

[54:30] figure we're sort of the least of that. But from a design review standpoint,

[54:34] I'll have no problem making the finding. Uh that said about the uh the

[54:39] construction and clearly the you have a neighbor who would like some more

[54:44] attention paid to uh uh their needs and they uh uh and their right to have the

[54:51] project be less intrusive I guess than they feel

[54:56] that it is right now. Um, I don't know exactly what our role is to talk about

[55:02] uh differences of opinion as they pertain to a private road. Um, and how

[55:10] much of that is something we talk about and have the standing to talk about or

[55:15] not at all. Um, I'll be curious to hear what my colleagues say. Um, other than

[55:20] it's, you know, I assume that everybody's primary incentive that this

[55:26] project be over as quickly as possible, uh, and that everybody is interested in

[55:32] having that happen for maybe slightly different reasons. I assume the the

[55:37] sheer fact that the overall incentive is the same for everybody. Um, we'll make

[55:43] sure that this happens as quick as humanly possible. So, with that, I can

[55:47] make the findings. Thank you, Miss Zelda.

[55:53] » Um, yeah, thank you for all the extensive information tonight. Um, I I

[55:57] think one of my uh bigger concerns is the um the impact uh that project is

[56:04] having on all the neighbors. Um and then also specifically the construction

[56:07] management plan. As I said earlier, I know that uh you know it's incorporated

[56:13] as a condition. >> It's incorporated as a condition of

[56:16] approval.

[56:21] Um and um I'm just not sure how it could be improved moving forward. Um but um

[56:30] um but given that um you know as far as the environmental concerns with the eel

[56:33] grass, you know, procedurally, I think that it's it's quite extensive the

[56:38] requirements from the other agencies. Um so it sounds like that will be uh all

[56:42] the requirements will be met with that like the pre-construction survey and

[56:45] mitigation monitoring, that sort of thing. Um I do have just another fine

[56:49] detail. Um I wanted to for the resolutions just that this uh we're

[56:54] being asked to approve a do pier of 450 square ft but there is the additional

[57:00] square footage on the other side of the mean high water line.

[57:05] Yeah. And so just want to talk about uh just modifying some of the language in

[57:10] the resolutions to reflect that you know wherever it says the project is a 450

[57:15] foot pier as me maybe adding language that says as measured from the mean high

[57:21] water line um it's just so specific in the resolution. So

[57:27] that's all. Thank you.

[57:33] So, um for me, um the um original, you know, intent of

[57:42] demolishing a pier that doesn't work and building a new one on a site that is um

[57:50] valuable for um you know, having that dock is absolutely the way to go. We

[57:56] don't need a dock that is uh broken and we want that property that is um for

[58:02] enjoyment of that um dock to have that dock. However, I don't think the

[58:08] applicant did their due diligence right. The the report does not belong to this

[58:13] project. Um and um I I would say I don't know if we could potentially approve in

[58:22] the condition that they provide the appropriate um report meaning the um

[58:29] Merkel and Associate provide a report for 43 um Cliff Road and um note

[58:36] whatever they they think has to happen there. I'm not a specialist. If they

[58:40] think it is the same, they copy the same thing. if they think it needs to be

[58:44] other things, they would include that. That would be one condition I would say.

[58:48] And another condition I wonder um could be um that the applicant who

[58:55] acknowledged that they owe the penalty, they pay the penalty to date to the city

[59:00] of Belvadier um and then the the remaining of it would be assessed at a

[59:06] later time when the project will be done. Um I think that is a um way of um

[59:14] having or um you know just these extension of the time are not

[59:20] meaningless and then um the neighbors who have to deal with you know the um

[59:26] hardship of a construction see that this is a real thing and if you take four

[59:31] years extra on on a two-year construction it you you pay the

[59:36] penalties. So I would say um and then I don't think on a um at a and you

[59:42] mentioned that you are working with the neighbor as a to um

[59:48] to do the um the road. I don't know if that is something that we can um are you

[59:54] willing to do the the road for them? Is that in the works?

[1:00:04] » Hello. I actually I I need to reopen the public hearing if you're going to speak.

[1:00:08] Um so I will reopen the public hearing if you'd like to answer that question.

[1:00:12] » But could that be a condition? >> Uh well, I I I don't know how you

[1:00:16] condition something like that, but I'm here to tell you that I'm working with

[1:00:20] the neighbor on addressing the road. And I could I have correspondence I could

[1:00:25] show you that you know would provide reassurance but and and I will I have a

[1:00:31] reputation to protect and it's been pretty good for a long time since 2000

[1:00:36] around here. So yeah >> maybe I'll ask the city attorney is that

[1:00:41] something that we could condition >> I'm sorry I'm trying to keep track of

[1:00:45] the condition. So it's the condition about

[1:00:48] private road >> the private road to be repaved. they are

[1:00:52] willing to do it. Is can it can that be a condition of the approval?

[1:00:57] » No, I'm not willing to repave the road until the project's done, but I'm

[1:01:02] willing to work with the neighbor. And I'm in process of working with the

[1:01:05] neighbor on getting the road to a place where everybody's comfortable. And I've

[1:01:09] already told the neighbor I would do that. And as I mentioned, he also has

[1:01:14] some ownership of that road. And so we're working towards a resolution.

[1:01:18] » And what is that that you are willing to do? Um, I I'm going to there's a strip

[1:01:23] against the retaining wall where people park that we're going to put um concrete

[1:01:28] down like we've done in other areas and that'll last for until the end of the

[1:01:32] project. And then there's some cracked broken areas out in front of uh his

[1:01:36] house that either he or I are going to address. But as I mentioned on his

[1:01:41] project, he had a a deposit, a road deposit, and I just don't know where

[1:01:45] that stands with Okay. the building department.

[1:01:48] » Thank you, Mark. Yes, you're welcome. Uh, I'll close the public hearing again

[1:01:54] now. >> So, if I could respond to the

[1:01:58] commissioner's questions. So, the conditions that the planning commission

[1:02:02] can impose on this project have to be related to the project as is before you.

[1:02:07] So for example, I don't know if others are going to raise this issue uh but the

[1:02:11] applicant's representative did raise I think conditions that he would be

[1:02:16] amendable to such as demolition of the pier needs to occur from the water. Uh

[1:02:23] any construction equipment used to construct the pier would also be from

[1:02:26] the water. Things along those lines. Um the light issue that was mentioned by

[1:02:31] Commissioner Shinsky in public comment, those also relate to the pier. So those

[1:02:36] would be appropriate conditions, but the condition at the end of the day needs to

[1:02:40] relate to the project before the planning commission tonight.

[1:02:43] » How about the penalty payment? Is that related to the project

[1:02:47] » to be? >> I guess I'm not quite clear on what

[1:02:49] we're asking for. So >> that they pay their penalty to date,

[1:02:53] meaning from the um the date that their um their permit expired to today. How

[1:03:00] many days is that? How much they need to pay for that?

[1:03:03] Um, I don't even know what that amount is, Commissioner. I

[1:03:07] » Is that possible to be calculated? And

[1:03:14] » is it possible now to calculate it? Is that what you're asking?

[1:03:16] » No. No. Not the amount that they would pay from the expiration of the building

[1:03:21] permit to date that we are approving this because it is conditioned to it to

[1:03:26] be paid by today. So it will be calculated at a later time how much it

[1:03:31] is and they would pay and then they would apply for a building permit for

[1:03:35] this. We can do that calculation. >> Right.

[1:03:41] » You know again the conditions need to relate to the projects that are before

[1:03:44] us. So maybe a slight modification would be you know the and I I believe the

[1:03:51] applicant said this that he does not believe that this additional scope will

[1:03:56] lengthen the time for the project and certainly Mr. Swanson can respond if

[1:04:00] that's not accurate. >> But there is no time for the project.

[1:04:03] The pine time is already expired that it is the time that he

[1:04:09] creates on his own. There is no really time limit,

[1:04:12] » right? But perhaps an acknowledgement that he will not challenge any

[1:04:16] additional penalties imposed attributable to any additional time

[1:04:21] required by this project that he's seeking approval of tonight. you know,

[1:04:25] again, something tied to this project as opposed to things that are not before

[1:04:29] you tonight, but I don't know if Mr. Swanson Russ wants to respond to that

[1:04:33] subject of the chair's permission. Well, um

[1:04:40] I I think I'd like to have a chance to to speak if if I may. Um

[1:04:50] this is uh you know, a complicated project. That's where I want to start.

[1:04:55] Um, we've seen several doc projects come through and um, I think it's a pretty

[1:05:03] rigorous uh, process between the city and the state and all the jurisdictions.

[1:05:10] And what I gather from this is that there's going to be ongoing monitoring.

[1:05:14] There's going to be new overlays for the eelgrass.

[1:05:18] I do feel like um, there's a lot of safeguards in place. So everything I've

[1:05:24] read in the reports I'm satisfied with. I think if we wanted

[1:05:29] to add a condition that the eelgrass report

[1:05:34] be modified to specifically reflect the address of the site, I think I'm fine

[1:05:40] with that and it's probably a relatively easy um change to make. Um,

[1:05:48] as far as design review, you know, obviously the new dock is going to be a

[1:05:53] big improvement on the derelict thing that is there. And so, you know, I'm for

[1:06:00] one, I'm pretty happy to see applicants come through who are willing to go

[1:06:04] through the process and upgrade these structures that are out over the water.

[1:06:09] It needs to be done. um and the old ones cleared away for a variety of reasons.

[1:06:16] Um so for those reasons among other I'll be in

[1:06:22] favor um of granting design resol design review and demolition.

[1:06:31] Um, I personally feel like, um, I want to strongly encourage the

[1:06:38] applicant to work with the neighbors. I think it's outside of the purview for us

[1:06:45] to get involved in in a private road as this application stands. Maybe if the

[1:06:51] road was part of the application, we could have some input on that. We don't

[1:06:56] have any drawings of the road. We don't have knowledge of the specific

[1:07:00] conditions. All we know is that there is some existing tensions, you know,

[1:07:06] between the neighboring properties. So, um I think under the circumstances, the

[1:07:12] the position that the planning commission can take is just to encourage

[1:07:17] the neighbors to work sincerely together and resolve their issues. That's kind of

[1:07:23] where I would leave the road. And personally, as far as the CTL goes, I

[1:07:29] think it's a rather technical issue and we're dealing already with multiple

[1:07:35] versions of the code because this is sort of grandfathered under a previous

[1:07:39] version. Um, I would prefer to leave it in the hands of the staff. Um, and I I

[1:07:50] don't really think the CTL is so much the purview of the planning commission.

[1:07:54] So that's that's where I would would be on this.

[1:07:59] » Sheriff Cidle, I'm sorry to interrupt. I did get um a message from Ben Jacobe

[1:08:04] since the public hearing was opened. He would also like an opportunity to speak.

[1:08:09] » He wants to speak again. >> Yes, he does.

[1:08:11] » Okay. Uh I'll reopen the public hearing. >> Mr. Jacobe,

[1:08:16] » I'm going to promoting him to panelist right now.

[1:08:19] » Okay.

[1:08:23] Hi everybody. Can you hear me? Okay.

[1:08:28] » Hello. Can you hear me? >> Yes, we can.

[1:08:30] » Okay, great. Thank you. Um, yes. So, just a couple quick things. Um, so the

[1:08:36] the question of the road, so just to be clear, the road that we're talking about

[1:08:41] is owned by 43 Cliff. So it the road is part of of the applicant's real property

[1:08:50] and therefore it's subject to whatever permit that applicant has in front of

[1:08:56] you of which today essentially they're asking for a modification. And so when

[1:09:01] we see, you know, I'm just the business person, but when someone comes to me for

[1:09:06] a modification for a deal that they already cut, where they already agreed

[1:09:09] to a two-year limit, it gives rise to the opportunity to see how they're

[1:09:15] performing and behaving otherwise in the deal. And so we're we're uh um

[1:09:22] demonstrating to you here that the road is an issue. Mark has said to me

[1:09:27] specifically that he does not want to repave the road until his project is

[1:09:32] done, which makes sense, right? Because he doesn't want to spend money now only

[1:09:35] to have to redo it later when when the home is put up for sale. Again, these

[1:09:40] are homes that will be sold uh most likely whenever they're done. So, I

[1:09:45] think you do have jurisdiction of the road. I think the fact that they're

[1:09:49] asking essentially for a permit modification

[1:09:53] gives rise to for you to impose whatever conditions you deem necessary based on

[1:09:59] their behavior to date. So we would like you to consider uh reconsider the

[1:10:04] position on the road and make them do something today and not make us wait for

[1:10:10] another two years before the road could be fixed to uh to uh you know an

[1:10:16] acceptable condition. Thank you.

[1:10:19] » Thank you. I will close the public hearing again.

[1:10:31] So, um is there any further comment or

[1:10:36] discussion from the commission before we um think about making motions on this

[1:10:44] project? Anybody have

[1:10:52] Okay. Um, would anybody like to take a stab at

[1:10:59] making a motion?

[1:11:07] » I can start the motion. Um, do you normally make a motion like one

[1:11:11] resolution at a time? Okay. Yeah. So, I'll start. Uh

[1:11:17] uh the first motion is let's see.

[1:11:30] So, motion one is to adopt the resolution approving the initial study

[1:11:35] mitigated negative declaration for the proposed project at 43 Cliff Road.

[1:11:44] Second. >> All in favor?

[1:11:47] » Isn't this the one that we are uh conditioning to provide a new

[1:11:50] » Yeah, let's talk about which one um >> because this is it says approving the

[1:11:55] initial study for the project at 43 which we don't even have.

[1:12:03] So, uh, I think this is probably

[1:12:10] maybe we need to ask staff. So, I believe the suggestion here is

[1:12:16] that it should be conditioned that the

[1:12:23] eelgrass report be modified to reflect the actual

[1:12:29] address of the project. Right? that we can we can do that.

[1:12:35] » The motion to do it on >> Yes, that's correct.

[1:12:39] » Does that seem right to you as >> Yes.

[1:12:42] » Okay. All right. Thank you, chair. >> Okay. Um, so we have a motion. Can

[1:12:47] » I'll second that. Second that with the amendment to the motion.

[1:12:50] » Okay. All in favor? >> I

[1:12:56] » Okay. And then the second motion is to adopt the resolution granting

[1:13:01] design review to construct a new pier at 43 Cliff Road. Um it refers to

[1:13:07] attachment too. Um and then maybe we need to discuss if there's any um

[1:13:12] » uh did you want to add a um condition related to as measured from

[1:13:20] that that the area >> Yeah.

[1:13:22] » reflects the measurement from the mean high tide line.

[1:13:25] » Yeah. And I'm I'm looking at the resolution, the draft resolution in our

[1:13:29] pack commission packet. I only I see two references to the 450 foot.

[1:13:34] » Um so just clarify that it's a 400 fair 450 square foot pier as measured from

[1:13:43] the mean high water line. >> Yeah. And and I think that's certainly a

[1:13:46] fair comment. I'm not sure if it would be really conditioned. We just need to

[1:13:49] update the language of the resolution. Okay. There you go.

[1:13:52] » To clarify that issue. Thank you, Commissioner.

[1:13:57] Is there a second? >> Second.

[1:13:59] » All in favor? >> I

[1:14:01] » I.

[1:14:06] » And the third motion is to adopt the resolution granting demolition permit to

[1:14:11] demolish the existing 712 square foot pier at 43 Cliff Road.

[1:14:18] » Second. I

[1:14:22] » I

[1:14:25] » Okay, thank you everyone. The meeting is adjourned.

[1:14:29] » I have one other thing. We didn't >> Sorry, the meeting is not

[1:14:33] » We didn't adopt Do we adopt the draft minutes from the April meeting?

[1:14:37] » It was part of the consent calendar, I believe.

[1:14:40] » Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Meeting adjourned. Thanks.

Planning Commission Meeting: May 19, 2026

Agenda

Transcript