Call to order the regular meeting of the Belvadier Planning Commission.
The first item is open forum. Open forum is an opportunity for any citizen to
briefly address the planning commission on any matter that does not appear on
the agenda. Comments are limited to no more than three minutes. Matters that
appear to warrant commission consideration may be agendaized for
further discussion at a later meeting. Is there anyone in the audience that
would like to speak during the open forum?
Rebecca, is there anyone on Zoom? >> There are no hands raised on Zoom.
» Thank you.
Reports. Are there any commissioners who'd like to provide a report?
staff, do you have any reports? >> No reports.
» Thank you.
» I'll now move on to the consent calendar. The consent calendar consists
of items considered to be non-controversial.
Unless any item is specifically removed by any member of the council, staff, or
public, the consent calendar will be adopted by one motion. Items removed
will be considered in the sequence that they appear on the agenda.
Would any member of the planning commission like to remove a consent
calendar item?
Rebecca, any hands on Zoom? >> No hands raised on Zoom.
» Thank you.
» I'll move to approve the consent calendar.
» Second. >> All in favor? I
» I >> thank you.
I will um now open the public hearing
on item two, design review and demolition to remove an existing pier
and construct a new pier in the same location at 43 Cliff Road.
Are there any questions from the planning commission of staff?
» I do have question. Did you ask? If you have questions for this, if you want to
ask staff question, now's the time. >> Don't they present first? No. Do you
have a
» the staff present first? Questions? >> Did I skip the staff report? Yes.
» Yes, I did. Okay. My apologies. >> Fortunately, my fellow commissioners um
keep me in line. May we have the staff report? Somehow it disappeared out of my
script. >> Of course. Thank you, Chair Cidle and
members of the planning commission. For your consideration this evening is an
application for design review and demolition uh to demolish the existing
pier and construct a new pier at 43 Cliff Road.
The site is comprised of a steep steeply sloped 30,000 square foot lot on the
western side of Belvier Island. In 1976, the property received design review
approval to construct the existing pier which extends into Richardson Bay.
The property has an active building permit to construct a new single family
residence. The project received the building permit in October 2022 and was
assessed a two-year construction time limit. The project is more than 18
months over its CTL. Uh the CTL code by which 43 Cliff Road is governed is clear
and should a new or amended building permit be applied for and issued. The
new permit building permit is under the same CTL timeline as the first permit
that was issued.
The project proposes to demolish the existing 712 foot pier
and construct a new 450t pier in the same location. The proposed pier would
maintain its existing length of 88 ft while reducing the walkway width from 8
feet to 4 feet. The project would remove the existing pilings and install seven
uh 18-inch diameter steel piles as well.
The pier would be constructed at an elevation of 13 feet above mean lower
low water line. This height is a 4ft increase above the existing pier's
elevation.
Uh these images from the pier at two cliff road show the intended look of the
43 cliffs pier. Uh colors and materials include light transmitting wood decking,
2-in diameter aluminum posts, and 1-in diameter stainless steel tube railings.
The steel pilings would be wrapped in a highdensity plastic in a black color.
The project is located in a vicinity of eelgrass, which are considered essential
fish habitat for special status aquatic species. Staff recommends that the
analysis in the adopted 2018 initial study and mitigated negative declaration
by the regional water board uh adequately addresses the environmental
impacts of the proposed project and offers appropriate mitigation measures.
Um, the ongoing construction project has exceeded the CTL by over 18 months,
resulting in construction related impacts uh, citywide and within the
surrounding neighborhood. However, the planning commission's consideration this
evening is to the required design review and demolition findings which are not
necessarily contingent on the project CTL status. Staff is working with the
applicant to encourage timely completion of the project and anticipates
construction of the pier will occur concurrently with completion of the
residence. The applicant has indicated that issuance of the building permit for
the pier will not extend the overall construction schedule and that both
improvements are expected to be completed within approximately two
years.
Uh with that staff recommends that the required findings can be made to grant
design review and demolition permit of the pier. The project will reduce the
pier's square footage within the same location thereby minimizing its overall
massing and potential view impacts. Materials are compatible with waterfront
properties in Belvadier and the 4ft pure height increase will not appear
excessively large or attract attention to itself. With that, Rebecca and I are
happy to answer any questions.
Now with the planning commissioners like to ask questions.
» Yeah. Um just um some clarification about the CTL
which my understanding is the project >> Yeah. I'm sorry. The the the the limit
now is October 2024. And there's a note here that says if the
uh permit is approved for this pier before then it it could be
assigned the same CTL
which would be October 24th, 2024. What does that
do for us? I mean is there you know it's it's
um
one I guess is that reasonable in all cases which is to say
I would say suppose the the building permit comes
you know a month before the project is completed the rest of the project
Um,
it is it still assigned the same backdated
CTL. I mean, is it really are we just
it all feels a little bit like a gentle fiction that is we're we have this
outdated now or or longgone CTL. We all understand that the project simply takes
a long time and the dock will take, you know, to get it all done. Gosh knows
what, you know, El Nino Palooa is going to do this winter. So, it could take
even longer than anybody would imagine at this point. But I'm I'm just saying
what is the in this case kind of what's the value of the
CTL and why why do we care what the doc is
assigned at this point since it seems rather random.
Well,
» and does it matter? >> This is the process. I mean, you know,
caring is different than sort of what our code says, right? So, the the way
that our code was written, right? because this is under an old CTL code is
that in the in the way that um it's described at a pre-construction meeting
and the way that we communicate with applicants and contractors is here's
your main building permit. It's assigned this CTL. Any subsequent amendment to
that permit or should it warrant a a new permit, it's all tied to that
» first building permit number. It's it's all
retroactive to that initial building permit
CTL date. So the the onus is on the applicant and the contractor, right, to
you know, they know that coming into this. And so I think it would behoove
them to do the, you know, not apply for something that would prolong the
project. >> Sure.
» Right. But yeah.
» Yeah. If I may, Commissioner, if I could just add a little bit more. In a way,
you may be asking why was this information shared with you about the
CTL? Is that >> Well, I assume ordinarily that isn't
under our purview anyway, right? >> Yeah. So, CTL's Well, I guess in the
initial design review approvals, there is a CTL assigned to the project. So,
that is normally sort of present in your in the context that you're considering.
And I think staff felt the commission should be aware of where this project
does stand with respect to its current CTL guideline as just context that you
should be aware of. Uh in some ways we felt like it wouldn't be appropriate not
to tell you about that background as this project comes before you.
Um so we felt it was important to share I mean it is an important facet of the
project to just let you know what the project status is because
you know this is tied to that original approval from way back when. So you know
we certainly felt it was just important for you to understand those facts. Okay,
good. I might come back to that later. >> Okay. Of course.
» To continue on that. Um let's say if a project takes 10 years um ongoing, would
we just let it go for as long as it takes and then at the end of the project
we go and assess whatever we need to assess or there is a timeline that we
would ask the applicant to get a new permit, ask for a extension or
what is the rule? just let them go forever or for as long as they wish and
then at the end of the project we address that.
» Yes. Yes. >> We would at the end of the project we
would address it. Um and that's why we've amended our code,
right? Because if you're waiting 10 years and you're accumulating a fine
every day, it's a very large fine. We've amended the code sort of in a
pay-to-play model, right? you want an extension, you come to council, you then
it's based on your building permit fee and you're paying at that point.
So you would never give a stop work to a project just because it is too lengthy
or exceed ex exceeded the time limit beyond reasonable amount. I'm not saying
about this project in in general. >> Um we wouldn't give a stop work order
for CTL violation or we haven't and I don't think that's in our previous code.
Right. We have it under the older version of the code that applies to this
project, but as Rebecca alluded to, you know, there are some downsides to that
old older codise, we move to the newer one, which is essentially they have to
come back to get more time on their building permit to proceed with a
project. So, you don't end up in the situation where
perhaps some builders, some owners feel like they almost are willing to pay the
fine to get more time. Um the city's priority in respect to all these
construction timeline matters is obviously we do want projects to finish
on time as originally intended. You know that is always the city's focus and I
know that staff is always trying to work with people to make sure that they do
finish on time. So we certainly don't turn a blind eye to projects that take
years and years and years to go on which going back to Commissioner Shinsu's
question you know that's why we wanted to bring this up because we didn't want
you to be unaware of these facts.
Did you have a question? >> I have a question. Uh following up also
on the construction time limits. Uh the resolution and also the case report
refers to the peer uh it pins the permit issuance date. Um it says if a permit is
issued after um the main project's done, would it then follow under a different
construction time limit? I mean, if they're applying now for the permit and
it doesn't get issued prior to the main project being
finished, uh, would the pier have its own construction time limit?
» Are you asking >> if the the current building permit is
final and complete? >> Well, I don't the conditions and the
staff report says um should the building permit for the pier be issued oh prior
to the completion of the existing project? uh the existing construction
time limit applies to the pier. So I guess I'm wondering if for some reason
the permit for the pier is issued after the completion of the main project. You
know if it takes them so long to get through all the other agencies, would
the pier have its own construction time limit then in that case? Okay.
» Yes, it would. It would be a new Yeah. >> Okay.
» Yes. >> On the timeline, one more thing. Um
Sammy said you are working with the applicant on the um completion date of
this project. Do you have a date now from them? What is the completion date
of the current project? >> Well yeah no nothing in concrete but we
did during this review of this project there the contractor's here and he's
indicated two two more years. you know, we don't have anything, you know, in a
contract, but I'm sure he'll answer questions about that as well.
If you have >> I have questions
about the timeline if you ask. >> Yes, but not about the timeline. If we
are done with the timeline, I want to move on. So, I have a question about the
report um that um let me get the report. The report that Merkel and Associate
provided does not belong to this project. I wonder what it is. It is
about 46 cliff road. This project is 43 Cliff Road. And the explanation at the
beginning is that this report is provided because the applicant at 46
Cliff Road had a notice of violation and because of that violation they needed to
do this report and monitoring and mitigation and all that. So, am I
missing something here?
» No, you're not missing um something. The the report that we received, it showed
the eelgrass were present in the vicinity where the pier is as well. And
actually, Sean can speak on this more. Uh so the fact that there was eel grass
present required the uh environmental review but
you're right it is 446 and not 43 uh but it's in the surrounding area where the
pier was but >> and I think their scope of work was um
to mitigate that notice of violation not really a new permit and whatever report
we requiring. So >> to me this is not a complete application
but let me know if >> basically we are missing a report for
this project. >> Okay.
Yeah, I think commissioner, you know, to the extent that um the applicant or the
applicants consultant is available, I think you should certainly feel free to
probe to what extent this report for initially for 46 cliff is applicable to
43 cliff because obviously that is a determination this planning commission
would need to be comfortable with to approve this project.
» Thank you.
Are there any other questions? Okay. Would the applicant like to make a
presentation?
» Uh, good evening. My name is Mark Swanson. Uh, thank you commissioners for
your time. Thanks for your time visiting this site. Thank you staff. thanks to
members of the public and um I just wanted to Sammy did a fine job talking
about the details of the project and so I'm going to try to not duplicate what
he said. We kind of have similar presentations. There's sort of only so
much to talk about with a an old tired pier tired pier. So this this pier is
about 50 years old. Um, and as you've probably seen, it's in severe disrepair.
And when we have storm surges like we just did this past winter, uh, you know,
I go to bed at night wondering if it's going to be there the next morning. So,
I I I do feel uh that this this is an important matter to take care
of the pier. And I I think this is good material conversation about well, what
happens if you do something with a month left on a CTL? And that's a great
question because what does happen if a a pier that looks good washes away and you
have to get a new permit and you have a month left on your CTO, but it takes
three years to get approvals from all the agencies and and the building
permit. So, um I think those are good questions to have. Uh we've been
spending years and years to to work through this process to get this pier
approved. And um as Sammy mentioned, the background is the current pier is 88 ft
long. We're going to stay at that length, but we're reducing the piles
uh in half and we're reducing the width in half and we're reducing the head size
about 15%. And so uh to speak to the approval
process as Sean, our environmental consultant is here as well and and
please he's has a wealth of information about eel grass and fish and all kinds
of good things like that. I'm the builder and I can speak quite a bit to
any of the construction questions. the CTL 43, anything you'd like to talk
about regarding that? But there are multiple agencies involved with getting
a pier or anything in the water approved and essentially anything 100 ft above
the mean, mean high water mark. Um, the one we always talk about and hear a lot
about is BCDC and they're sort of the and I I might misspeak and Sean could
correct me, but they're kind of the umbrella of all this. Um, and uh, Marin
County or whoever kind of owns the land is is also involved. And so Merin County
owns water land out in Richardson Bay and so does the state off the like the
Gans properties, the lava house that's stateowned. So there's all these sort of
different agencies and the county requires a lease and we have that we so
we've we've got an approved lease with the county. Um the regional water
quality control board has issued their permit, their what they call an
overwater structures permit and on some water projects they might be the last
one to issue their permit. You just never know. It's kind of anyone's guess.
Um, the Army Corps of Engineers is another agency involved in this project
and they're generally good with things like this, but they consult with the
National Marine Fisheries and the National Marine Fisheries has asked for
a biological assessment, uh, which is unusual. It's not common, but again, you
know, we we you get to pick your battles. And so, uh, Sean and his team
have, you know, taken care of this atypical request and we're addressing it
and they have some means and methods questions that that we've resolved and
think they're going to be happy with. So, once they get that back, they have
it could be a month, it could be six months for them to turn that around.
Unfortunately, this national agency, the the marine
fisheries is one of the agencies hit hardest with the layoffs in the federal
government. You know, their staffing has been greatly reduced. So, we're a bit at
their mercy. But, you know, if you get on the right person on the phone and and
you know, you have a relationship, you can typically move things along a little
bit quicker, but there's no guarantees. BCDC would be the next agency that
issues sort of the permit that we attach to the building permit, and they're
essentially approved. Um, although they need all the other agencies to be
approved. So, they kind of tie back to two different uh agencies. again the
core of engineers who's waiting on marine fisheries and the city approval.
So the planning commission approval and then the um the army core of engineers
approval via the fisheries approval would be next on that. So, um, let's say
we got approval tonight. That would be one check for them for BCDC, but then
we'd still be on this three to six month timeline for for fisheries. And BCT
would not BCDC would not issue the permit um or we couldn't begin the work
until the building department issued the permit. And I if we were to receive
approval here, I would then get all of our structural drawings together, submit
them to Brian, and I, you know, I would guess Brian's two to three months out on
issuing a permit for this. Um, the reason I bring this up is because we
also have limited windows of opportunity to build in the water. Uh the current
window right now is June I want to say June 30th. Let's see is uh June 15th to
October 30th. And sometimes they give you permission to go to November 30th.
So if we were to get all this dialed in by like the 1st of September, I would
probably demolish the existing pier. That way we don't go through the winter
worrying about the pier washing away and being a hazard and getting caught up on
West Shore Road. If we don't get that, then we'd wait for the following
building window of June 15th would be our next opportunity. We do demo and uh
rebuild of the pier. That process is like 12 to 14 weeks. So I'm confident
that we could do that within our window. I also am confident that we would do
that within the current timeline of finishing 43 cliff which I currently
have as um the November of 27. So it's not quite two years. Anything could
happen with weather and unforeseen conditions but you know so those two
things would sort of be within the same envelope. Um,
I think that for everybody, um, you know, performing the work now
instead of waiting until the 43 is finished and then the CTL stops and then
applying for a new building permit. I think that that's sort of a backwards
way to approach this, assuming we get all the permits. um you know the pier's
a hazard and when you're overlapping manpower and supervision and logistics
and general conditions things just are less um obtrusive and they go quicker
and it shortens the duration and timeline. I will also say that you know
I I get and I'm very sensitive to uh projects taking a long time and
neighbors and we do our best to accommodate neighbors. I I don't know
any neighbors, contractors, homeowners, or anybody that really likes a project
to take longer than it needs to take. I think we're all really on the same page.
We just want to get our jobs done and move on to the next one.
And thank you for uh the time that you let me stay up here. I think it went
over a little bit. Appreciate that. >> Okay, that uh I think there are probably
going to be some questions from the commission.
Okay, I have um many questions. Uh let's start by easy one. The um the structural
engineers drawing says that the um survey that is shown on their drawing is
done in 2019. Is that a mistake or was it done in
2019? The eel grass.
» Uh so I'm going to bring Sean in because that would be an environmental related
question and I think he can best explain. Um so let me ask you then the
other questions that has >> start with the hard one first like
» yeah no I'll ask the questions that the hard ones are about the environmental
and all that but the um the one that is related maybe to the um
the pier itself uh the aluminum on the railing and um are
are they going to be painted? No, we leave that natural stainless steel
natural aluminum similar to the other peers that are nearby.
» It is a steel or it is aluminum. >> Stainless steel and aluminum.
» So they are all stainless steel remains and stainless steel.
» Correct. No paint. Yeah, stainless doesn't take paint. Well,
» yeah. the the structural drawing says alo expose the steel to be coated with
the paint. It it explains what the paint is and it
says to be covered by the paint. >> I don't know if that's referring to the
pilings, but if it's referring to the railings, that's just an error. The the
the railings are going to be as shown in the image and and noted on the uh
on the application. So it says all exposed steel. So railing I guess would
remain. What about the steel? All exposed steel. That is a structural
member and they want it to be painted. What color paint is that?
» Okay.
Um then
then going back to the timeline. Um you are you talked a lot about that
applying for this permit takes a long time. So you started the project
with a timeline of two years. You are one and a half years beyond that. Three
and a half years later why do you apply now?
» Oh I I applied years ago probably three if not more years ago. It's a long
process of working through the different agencies.
» So which ones you have approval from the agencies you applied?
» Which ones do I have approval from? So um we have approval from the
we have approval from the core. Well that's pending the national marine
fisheries. We have approval from the county of Marin. We have um approval
from BCDC except they just need the core of engineers to give them their approval
and they need the planning commission to approve and we have approval from the
regional water quality control board.
» So you just have one approval then because the rest are pending others. No,
we have the county approval >> and the regional water quality control
board approval and the other two of the other three would approve, but they're
waiting on the marine fisheries. >> Got it. Thank you.
» You're welcome. >> Yeah, the rest would be uh for me um
from the report.
» I'll uh thanks. My name is Sean Avant. with Sunset Ecological Solutions. I've
been working on uh the 43 cliff project, not throughout the whole project, but
for most of it. So, I can answer a lot of your environmental questions and some
of even your um design questions if you have them because I have the history on
the project there. Um going back to the permits, I'll Thank you. Going back to
the permits, I'll say that we also do have a BCDC permit in hand. It just has
a condition that says we also need the army corps permit for it to be valid.
» Um okay. So to start the as I mentioned the structural engineer drawing says
that the report um is in from 2019. Is that a mistake or the report is from
2019? What report do they refer to? >> I am not sure what text you're referring
to on those engineering plans. >> Yes. On the structural engineer drawing
it says shaded area. Um, >> oh, for the eelgrass.
» Yes, for the eel grass. >> Ah, yes. Uh, that's a um a baywide
eelgrass survey that the engineer put on the plans that was available in 2019.
Uh, the other report that you held up earlier that was also for 46 cliff shows
the eel grass at the time of the application.
» Right. So, the 2019 is not valid anymore as we know. It needs to be one year old,
two, three years old. Uh but the new one whatever which we don't even see it but
structural engineer I guess had it and put it there. Um the report that we have
in hand as I mentioned does not belong to this project. It is because of a
notice of violation. Can you explain that violation what it is and how is
that going to mitigate and how is that related to this project?
» Sure. So, another biological consultant was on the project prior to my being on
the project way back when for 46 cliff. And that report um was generated for the
46 cliff project, but it also included all adjacent areas. Inside those
adjacent areas was also 43 cliff. So, he captured the data that anyone that would
have created a survey would have done for 43. He just didn't write a separate
report for that. So couldn't you have them to generate a
new report for this project which I think we should ask for it. They they
have all the data. They can provide a report for this project.
» Yeah, we can talk to that uh consultant at that time. Yeah,
it'll show the same exact data. It'll just be a separate report titled 43
instead of 43 46. And how they are how are they going to mitigate the um
the disturbed ill grass or or can you explain how
» the 43 cliff? >> Yes.
» They don't anticipate any disturbances. Um part of the um national mean fishery
service uh permit or or their their consultation with the US Army Corp of
Engineers is that you must follow the CMP which is the California Eelgrass
Mitigation Program and we have proposed to do that. Um the the way to do that is
uh within 60 days of starting the project, you need to do another eelgrass
survey to document the baseline conditions prior to construction. After
the project is finished, you need to again do another survey within 30 days
after the project to determine what impacts the project had on the eelgrass.
From that differentiation you can determine if eelgrass was affected and
how much and then um mitigation will be imposed.
» Are there any mitigation uh required for 46
the report? >> Yeah.
Um so 46 Cliff Road was a project that's was approved um started I think in like
2015 and it was before my time when I began
work on that project the the building permit was uh just issued and the set of
plans and drawings and permits were issued and a condition that the planning
commission and um maybe staff I I don't want to speak out of line put on that
project and that was agreed to was that project would be completely built
completely from the water and that was a real firm condition that they had. So I
lined everything up. We had a BCDC permit and we had everything appeared to
be in order in the drawings and I started building that house from the
water. It was the only way that was allowed to be built and one agency uh
came up and said, "Hey, we we actually don't have uh the right permit for you
to build from the water." So then that became back to the planning commission
in the city and it kind of created um some complexities and we came up with
all new plans and had to build the house from the land and not the water because
we weren't allowed to build from the water. But while building from the
water, one of the barges had tur uh crop thrust and they in their prop thrust it
affected some of the eelgrass. And so we agreed to plant restore the eel grass,
but we've restored it by you know uh multiple factors uh and we planted some
out in the Richardson Bay. We planted restored it in the general area in front
of the house and it's I'm happy to report is growing like real happy eel
grass. So the person that's been doing uh surveys of this and it the next
surveys I think it finishes next year the surveys that we had to do we were
doing five years of surveys he's sidescanning and scanning all of this
area and he's actually doing all the restoration out in Richardson Bay where
the anchor outs were. Uh so while I mean I I could we could request maybe a note
from him as a condition of approval saying hey Keith uh can you note that
your work is also applicable to 43 cliff but it's it's such an umbrella of work
he's done all over you know the general area that's why I I understand why
you're saying 46 but the consultant work and the scanning he did was all in that
general area and that's why we have that big overlay map of of the work.
Did that answer your question about that?
» Um, yes. Thank you. >> You're welcome.
» So, can I if nobody else has any question, can I ask another question
from the applicant? Um,
so can you address the the delay on the project? explain a little bit how um we
received a letter from one neighbor that is very concerned about the the time
that this project took. uh the um condition of the road that is um
deteriorated and um extension another extension of um
two years which would I think brings the total penalty on the project about
beyond a million. So can you address that and
» well you know I I am happy to provide a sort of a more detailed list of reasons
of why projects like this take a long time. Um a couple examples we had some
health issues on the project. We encountered uh a real lot of imported
gravel and fill in the whole rear of the property that had to be removed and
offhauled before we could have a a substantial foundation for the pool. Um
houses now have they're much more intensive to build than they used to be
even a few years ago with the new energy codes. For instance, you have to
insulate the inside of even headers now in homes to to meet the environmental
requirements. So instead of it being sort of one step after the other, you
find yourself very often doing uh incremental steps insulating one side of
a shear wall and then coming back and and re-sharing the other side and then
before you can take the next step. So houses have just become much more
complicated and complex. We're dealing with two different structures, one down
at the water side, one up above and you know and we have limited access and you
know we had a heavy winter with rains at different times. So there's just a
number of reasons and I have others as well sent over
and it sounds like you think you're
maybe a little more than halfway through the project and it's expected to go on
for several more years. So I heard staff say something along those lines.
» Well, I'd say inside of two years at this point. That's why in November of
2027, so that would be a year and a half
range, but um so I I would say I'm more than halfway through the project for
sure. Okay. Um and this may be a question for staff. I am Am I correct in
assuming Cliff Road is a private road in the vicinity of these houses? It's not a
public Belvadier Street. >> That is correct. Okay.
» And I have offered to work with the neighbor on on the area in front of the
property. We've got dialogue right now and I've committed to some things and he
also finished his project and he had has a responsibility to maintain some of
that as well. I just don't know the details and he's offered to. So we are
talking. I'm not we don't have a perfect solution yet, but we are
» Well, I'm I'm happy to hear that and I I know private roads are complicated
things to >> Yeah. You know, if you go two houses
down, the roads even worse, but I I'm not I'm not interested in having a
conflict. I'm interested in a resolution, and we're working towards
that. >> Yeah.
» Thank you. >> Other questions?
Um, I just want to follow up also, uh, maybe it's a duplicate question, but
again about the, uh, the letter that we received from the neighbor about, uh,
construction equipment, um, being stored or just sitting in the roadway, that
sort of thing. Uh, you know, the resolutions that we have in front of us
also have conditions about the construction management program. Um,
which I'm sure the original project has the same conditions. And so just want to
like moving forward um just kind of understand from your point of view how
how you expect that'll be addressed if it'll be addressed differently.
» Sure. Well, I'm happy to report that we just removed two pieces of equipment
that we were using on the property and so they're off the site now and we have
two small machines that that can fit in on the footprint. We've
cleaned out in front of the house because we had a lot of material staging
there. And so we don't anticipate storing anything in the street over the
long term, but sometimes if we have to use a forklift or something, we bring it
in the the night before, the day before, and then we use it the following day to
unload and offhaul things, and then we we take it off the property. So there's,
you know, we we are mindful of um what the building department has asked us to
do, which is leave at least 10 ft of pathway. And we're also mindful of the
fact that neighbors don't want to look at, you know, construction equipment.
Um, the majority of the pier will be built from the water. Um, so I don't
think those two things overlap, but I I understand at the same time the
sensitivity of the things in the road. >> Okay.
» Yeah. >> And and I have a second question. Uh,
it's a smaller detail on the plans. Uh, the I notice the square footage that's
described on the on these plans. Um it's measured from the um bay side of the
mean high water line. Um but the overall footprint of the pier is slightly larger
because there's a portion of the pier on the other side of that line. Um
» I just wonder why and just forformational purposes why is it
measured Oh thanks you can answer. >> It's okay with Sean. Yeah.
» The reason that the engineer measured it from the mean high water line is the
DCDC jurisdictional line. >> Okay. That's the uh the delineation
between the shoreline band and the bay and we have to separate those two areas
for BCDC and that's why they did that. >> Okay. Thank you.
» Okay. Uh any further questions? No. Okay. Are there um any comments from
members of the public on this item?
Becca, do you see anyone online? >> I have um Ben Jacobe um online
and he's joining the webinar as a panelist.
» Hey everybody. Um can you hear me? Okay. >> Yes, we can.
» Great. Um I guess a a couple things. Um, I thought I heard the applicant say that
they're going to construct the majority of the pier from the water, but the
application I read said it will be constructed in totality from the water.
So, I'm not sure if if you're able to answer questions real time or if you
would just like me to answer the series of my questions or or to provide the
series of my questions. You can just continue because Okay, fair enough. Um,
so that so we're and I should back up. We're the neighbors at 30 Cliff Road
that you know, for better or worse, we're right across the street. Um, we
started our project construction in 2022. We finished our house in uh in
November of 24. We got our our certificate of occupancy.
46 Cliff, which is owned by the same uh individuals as 43 Cliff, has been under
construction since 2019 and it's still not done. And our experience with that
project and it seems like with this project is there's just a series of
requests which end up extending the construction timeline and then we're the
ones that suffer for it because we have to deal with this um every day, right?
Except fortunately the weekends. Um so I think with 46 cliff they added an ADU.
They tore out their parking pad. They put in a new parking. They widened the
road, which we own down there. It is a private road. They widened the road
without our permission. Uh unfortunately, the portion of the road
that we own. Um, so it hasn't it hasn't been um you know I I guess I could
safely say it hasn't been a a seamless uh relationship uh unfortunately
uh with with the construction crew um with 43 cliff um you know the pier has
been a hazard since 2019. So I think to say that they need seemingly for an
incomplete application as I think some of the council members noted to need the
the uh the planning permission now and to have the reason that uh that the
existing pier is a hazard seems to be a little bit of a misstatement because
it's been in its present condition uh for a very long time and really I think
what the the issue that we have is it just seems like this project is going to
go on forever. I mean, I think day before yesterday, they had trucks down
here and they're still doing civil work and pulling dirt out and there's just no
um there's there's really no oversight or no guard rails to prevent them to
keep on going on forever. I think this the CTL rules, you know, theoretically
pose a limit, but I think all of our experience with
that is once you get to the end of a project like this and you're facing the
kind of penalties that they face, I mean, will do those get paid or not? So,
um, so I I'm not sure, you know, what to think of a project that's already, you
know, uh, uh, you know, 2 years over or 18 months over its 2-year limit asking
for a permit modification to embark on another project. And here, you know, we
as the neighbors are kind of holding the bag in terms of the nuisance. Um, I
think my wife Deborah has some questions she wanted to note as well. Um, yeah. I
wasn't Oh, hi. Um, I wasn't clear again going along with why you're showing us
the picture of the 46 pier area instead of the 43 pier area. It's just not
really clear. And I'm also wondering, do you have approvals from the water board
in hand that you can show the board and BCDC or is that like not real? Like is
it pending? I actually would like to see evidence of those approvals before,
you know, Belvadier um approves this. Um I also feel like the road, there's just
dust on our road that just filters. We have a brand new house and it's a mess
because of this project and it's I'm sorry it it's a private road but I feel
like it's just every day it's so dusty and I've asked them to please just pave
a little strip like where the trucks park where there's just there's no road
left and it's so it's so dirty and I'm I'm I it's we have to live next to this.
I live here and I it's been years and I just you know cars come up and down and
trucks and and yes we we did have you know our project and you know that was
that was a year and a half ago and it's but the the dust from this project right
now is just overwhelming. Um okay I just have a couple practical light um
questions about the pier if you could be so kind. There's a flashing light at the
end and we just want to know which side the flashing light's going to be on.
» I think I think we have a question as to whether there will be a flashing red
light at the end of the pier. There presently is not one. Um and then one
other uh question or comment I wanted to make in part in response to Mark is he
said there's not construction materials stored in the road. True, there's not
equipment anymore. Um, there have been two enormous olive trees which take up
the roadway that have been there for over two years. These are giant olive
trees in in boxes in in the road on the side. And it doesn't seem like an issue
in a vacuum, but what happens is all of the subcontractors come down and they
stack all of their trucks along the side of the road because they won't park
elsewhere. It's um I'm just gonna u I want to point out that there is a time
limit on these comments and so I've granted each of you three minutes. Um
» so I think um if you have a summary you if you want to make a quick statement to
wrap it up. Um we appreciate your comments.
» Okay. my my my I to for me I really want the road to be paved even if it's not
perfectly paved just where there's dirt there's loose dirt and rubble to get out
of my driveway to go to work or to go to you know to the store every day I'd
really like it if that could be paved um and then I just want to make sure that
the pier is the same size as they are stating and that it's not larger or
longer or anything >> and that The pier is fully constructed
from the water and no construction materials for construction of the pier
will be stored in the street. >> Okay. Very good. Thank you. I appreciate
your comments. >> Thank you.
» Thank you. Appreciate it.
» So, so I um so I I heard a couple questions out of there that I would like
answered. One is clarification on construction by land or sea.
Um, did I didn't hear you. Did you say you're asking if how are you going to
construct the pier? By by sea, which obviously has some of the environmental
considerations that my colleague brought up, versus by land, which has more
neighbor considerations. >> Sure. Great, great question. So, the
pier is is um just about completely constructed by on
the water side. There's no real other way to do it. When I was saying the
majority of of it will be constructed by the wateride, um it's 95%. All I'm
saying is if we needed some cables or somebody needed to carry paint down when
the barge is gone, we needed to couple boards are coming up or we needed to to
bring some boards down there, we would do that. There's no intention of having
any equipment on the on the property side. It's just, you know, I I just
don't want to get into some situation where, you know, I I said it would be
100% from the water. However, there, you know, we we got to touch up, fine-tune,
do things like that. >> And the red light
» flashing, not flashing. >> I'm not aware of the red light to be
honest with you. >> On that side don't have flashing.
» Yeah, I to cliff may have had that. I don't know. I'm not certain about that.
Um, that's in the image that that's part of the presentation, but I'm not aware
of that. might be a thing that the Coast Guard requires if you go a certain
distance out, but I have no no knowledge of of the of the light. Um, unless I've
overlooked it. We can all look at the drawing. It's it wouldn't be any
different than what's on the drawing. I I don't know about that. Do you?
» No. >> But to be clear, the only reason you
would have one is if it were required. >> Yeah. Navigation age or something.
Absolutely. Yeah. We we have no interest in putting a light out on the end of the
pier.
Yeah, >> thank you.
» I have a question also um and following up uh how about the demolition of the
existing um pier. Would that also be from the water? Can you describe that?
» Yeah, so we bring in a a a barge with a a machine, a crane excavator type
grapple on it and it pulls out the pilings and everything gets loaded on
the barge and then goes away with the barge.
Yes.
Um, one more question for me. Um, do you acknowledge the penalty that you owe to
the city that they all talk about? >> I I absolutely acknowledge there's a
construction time limit penalty on the project.
» Okay. If we are um done with questions, um, thank you.
» Thank you. Um, I'll close the public hearing and bring this matter back to
the commission for discussion. Um, Don, you sort of live over on that
side of the island. You start. >> You know, I'm not going to have any
problem making the findings tonight. Obviously, the
» uh as I see it, the footprint of the of the pier is going to be smaller than
what's there. Uh, you're going to be letting light through. You're going to
be uh uh using fewer pilings. I think from that sense, we're not talking about
a bigger dock or even a replacement dock. We're talking about a somewhat uh
uh less uh invasive dock than is there now. So, I don't have a problem with
that. Regarding the the egrass, um having gone down that road with a
consultant for a while for our own dock, um I can just say that, you know, that
that's beyond I think what I'm prior to appine on. Uh uh I know the kind of
alphabet soup of jurisdictions that actually have to sign off on this. Um I
figure we're sort of the least of that. But from a design review standpoint,
I'll have no problem making the finding. Uh that said about the uh the
construction and clearly the you have a neighbor who would like some more
attention paid to uh uh their needs and they uh uh and their right to have the
project be less intrusive I guess than they feel
that it is right now. Um, I don't know exactly what our role is to talk about
uh differences of opinion as they pertain to a private road. Um, and how
much of that is something we talk about and have the standing to talk about or
not at all. Um, I'll be curious to hear what my colleagues say. Um, other than
it's, you know, I assume that everybody's primary incentive that this
project be over as quickly as possible, uh, and that everybody is interested in
having that happen for maybe slightly different reasons. I assume the the
sheer fact that the overall incentive is the same for everybody. Um, we'll make
sure that this happens as quick as humanly possible. So, with that, I can
make the findings. Thank you, Miss Zelda.
» Um, yeah, thank you for all the extensive information tonight. Um, I I
think one of my uh bigger concerns is the um the impact uh that project is
having on all the neighbors. Um and then also specifically the construction
management plan. As I said earlier, I know that uh you know it's incorporated
as a condition. >> It's incorporated as a condition of
approval.
Um and um I'm just not sure how it could be improved moving forward. Um but um
um but given that um you know as far as the environmental concerns with the eel
grass, you know, procedurally, I think that it's it's quite extensive the
requirements from the other agencies. Um so it sounds like that will be uh all
the requirements will be met with that like the pre-construction survey and
mitigation monitoring, that sort of thing. Um I do have just another fine
detail. Um I wanted to for the resolutions just that this uh we're
being asked to approve a do pier of 450 square ft but there is the additional
square footage on the other side of the mean high water line.
Yeah. And so just want to talk about uh just modifying some of the language in
the resolutions to reflect that you know wherever it says the project is a 450
foot pier as me maybe adding language that says as measured from the mean high
water line um it's just so specific in the resolution. So
that's all. Thank you.
So, um for me, um the um original, you know, intent of
demolishing a pier that doesn't work and building a new one on a site that is um
valuable for um you know, having that dock is absolutely the way to go. We
don't need a dock that is uh broken and we want that property that is um for
enjoyment of that um dock to have that dock. However, I don't think the
applicant did their due diligence right. The the report does not belong to this
project. Um and um I I would say I don't know if we could potentially approve in
the condition that they provide the appropriate um report meaning the um
Merkel and Associate provide a report for 43 um Cliff Road and um note
whatever they they think has to happen there. I'm not a specialist. If they
think it is the same, they copy the same thing. if they think it needs to be
other things, they would include that. That would be one condition I would say.
And another condition I wonder um could be um that the applicant who
acknowledged that they owe the penalty, they pay the penalty to date to the city
of Belvadier um and then the the remaining of it would be assessed at a
later time when the project will be done. Um I think that is a um way of um
having or um you know just these extension of the time are not
meaningless and then um the neighbors who have to deal with you know the um
hardship of a construction see that this is a real thing and if you take four
years extra on on a two-year construction it you you pay the
penalties. So I would say um and then I don't think on a um at a and you
mentioned that you are working with the neighbor as a to um
to do the um the road. I don't know if that is something that we can um are you
willing to do the the road for them? Is that in the works?
» Hello. I actually I I need to reopen the public hearing if you're going to speak.
Um so I will reopen the public hearing if you'd like to answer that question.
» But could that be a condition? >> Uh well, I I I don't know how you
condition something like that, but I'm here to tell you that I'm working with
the neighbor on addressing the road. And I could I have correspondence I could
show you that you know would provide reassurance but and and I will I have a
reputation to protect and it's been pretty good for a long time since 2000
around here. So yeah >> maybe I'll ask the city attorney is that
something that we could condition >> I'm sorry I'm trying to keep track of
the condition. So it's the condition about
private road >> the private road to be repaved. they are
willing to do it. Is can it can that be a condition of the approval?
» No, I'm not willing to repave the road until the project's done, but I'm
willing to work with the neighbor. And I'm in process of working with the
neighbor on getting the road to a place where everybody's comfortable. And I've
already told the neighbor I would do that. And as I mentioned, he also has
some ownership of that road. And so we're working towards a resolution.
» And what is that that you are willing to do? Um, I I'm going to there's a strip
against the retaining wall where people park that we're going to put um concrete
down like we've done in other areas and that'll last for until the end of the
project. And then there's some cracked broken areas out in front of uh his
house that either he or I are going to address. But as I mentioned on his
project, he had a a deposit, a road deposit, and I just don't know where
that stands with Okay. the building department.
» Thank you, Mark. Yes, you're welcome. Uh, I'll close the public hearing again
now. >> So, if I could respond to the
commissioner's questions. So, the conditions that the planning commission
can impose on this project have to be related to the project as is before you.
So for example, I don't know if others are going to raise this issue uh but the
applicant's representative did raise I think conditions that he would be
amendable to such as demolition of the pier needs to occur from the water. Uh
any construction equipment used to construct the pier would also be from
the water. Things along those lines. Um the light issue that was mentioned by
Commissioner Shinsky in public comment, those also relate to the pier. So those
would be appropriate conditions, but the condition at the end of the day needs to
relate to the project before the planning commission tonight.
» How about the penalty payment? Is that related to the project
» to be? >> I guess I'm not quite clear on what
we're asking for. So >> that they pay their penalty to date,
meaning from the um the date that their um their permit expired to today. How
many days is that? How much they need to pay for that?
Um, I don't even know what that amount is, Commissioner. I
» Is that possible to be calculated? And
» is it possible now to calculate it? Is that what you're asking?
» No. No. Not the amount that they would pay from the expiration of the building
permit to date that we are approving this because it is conditioned to it to
be paid by today. So it will be calculated at a later time how much it
is and they would pay and then they would apply for a building permit for
this. We can do that calculation. >> Right.
» You know again the conditions need to relate to the projects that are before
us. So maybe a slight modification would be you know the and I I believe the
applicant said this that he does not believe that this additional scope will
lengthen the time for the project and certainly Mr. Swanson can respond if
that's not accurate. >> But there is no time for the project.
The pine time is already expired that it is the time that he
creates on his own. There is no really time limit,
» right? But perhaps an acknowledgement that he will not challenge any
additional penalties imposed attributable to any additional time
required by this project that he's seeking approval of tonight. you know,
again, something tied to this project as opposed to things that are not before
you tonight, but I don't know if Mr. Swanson Russ wants to respond to that
subject of the chair's permission. Well, um
I I think I'd like to have a chance to to speak if if I may. Um
this is uh you know, a complicated project. That's where I want to start.
Um, we've seen several doc projects come through and um, I think it's a pretty
rigorous uh, process between the city and the state and all the jurisdictions.
And what I gather from this is that there's going to be ongoing monitoring.
There's going to be new overlays for the eelgrass.
I do feel like um, there's a lot of safeguards in place. So everything I've
read in the reports I'm satisfied with. I think if we wanted
to add a condition that the eelgrass report
be modified to specifically reflect the address of the site, I think I'm fine
with that and it's probably a relatively easy um change to make. Um,
as far as design review, you know, obviously the new dock is going to be a
big improvement on the derelict thing that is there. And so, you know, I'm for
one, I'm pretty happy to see applicants come through who are willing to go
through the process and upgrade these structures that are out over the water.
It needs to be done. um and the old ones cleared away for a variety of reasons.
Um so for those reasons among other I'll be in
favor um of granting design resol design review and demolition.
Um, I personally feel like, um, I want to strongly encourage the
applicant to work with the neighbors. I think it's outside of the purview for us
to get involved in in a private road as this application stands. Maybe if the
road was part of the application, we could have some input on that. We don't
have any drawings of the road. We don't have knowledge of the specific
conditions. All we know is that there is some existing tensions, you know,
between the neighboring properties. So, um I think under the circumstances, the
the position that the planning commission can take is just to encourage
the neighbors to work sincerely together and resolve their issues. That's kind of
where I would leave the road. And personally, as far as the CTL goes, I
think it's a rather technical issue and we're dealing already with multiple
versions of the code because this is sort of grandfathered under a previous
version. Um, I would prefer to leave it in the hands of the staff. Um, and I I
don't really think the CTL is so much the purview of the planning commission.
So that's that's where I would would be on this.
» Sheriff Cidle, I'm sorry to interrupt. I did get um a message from Ben Jacobe
since the public hearing was opened. He would also like an opportunity to speak.
» He wants to speak again. >> Yes, he does.
» Okay. Uh I'll reopen the public hearing. >> Mr. Jacobe,
» I'm going to promoting him to panelist right now.
» Okay.
Hi everybody. Can you hear me? Okay.
» Hello. Can you hear me? >> Yes, we can.
» Okay, great. Thank you. Um, yes. So, just a couple quick things. Um, so the
the question of the road, so just to be clear, the road that we're talking about
is owned by 43 Cliff. So it the road is part of of the applicant's real property
and therefore it's subject to whatever permit that applicant has in front of
you of which today essentially they're asking for a modification. And so when
we see, you know, I'm just the business person, but when someone comes to me for
a modification for a deal that they already cut, where they already agreed
to a two-year limit, it gives rise to the opportunity to see how they're
performing and behaving otherwise in the deal. And so we're we're uh um
demonstrating to you here that the road is an issue. Mark has said to me
specifically that he does not want to repave the road until his project is
done, which makes sense, right? Because he doesn't want to spend money now only
to have to redo it later when when the home is put up for sale. Again, these
are homes that will be sold uh most likely whenever they're done. So, I
think you do have jurisdiction of the road. I think the fact that they're
asking essentially for a permit modification
gives rise to for you to impose whatever conditions you deem necessary based on
their behavior to date. So we would like you to consider uh reconsider the
position on the road and make them do something today and not make us wait for
another two years before the road could be fixed to uh to uh you know an
acceptable condition. Thank you.
» Thank you. I will close the public hearing again.
So, um is there any further comment or
discussion from the commission before we um think about making motions on this
project? Anybody have
Okay. Um, would anybody like to take a stab at
making a motion?
» I can start the motion. Um, do you normally make a motion like one
resolution at a time? Okay. Yeah. So, I'll start. Uh
uh the first motion is let's see.
So, motion one is to adopt the resolution approving the initial study
mitigated negative declaration for the proposed project at 43 Cliff Road.
Second. >> All in favor?
» Isn't this the one that we are uh conditioning to provide a new
» Yeah, let's talk about which one um >> because this is it says approving the
initial study for the project at 43 which we don't even have.
So, uh, I think this is probably
maybe we need to ask staff. So, I believe the suggestion here is
that it should be conditioned that the
eelgrass report be modified to reflect the actual
address of the project. Right? that we can we can do that.
» The motion to do it on >> Yes, that's correct.
» Does that seem right to you as >> Yes.
» Okay. All right. Thank you, chair. >> Okay. Um, so we have a motion. Can
» I'll second that. Second that with the amendment to the motion.
» Okay. All in favor? >> I
» Okay. And then the second motion is to adopt the resolution granting
design review to construct a new pier at 43 Cliff Road. Um it refers to
attachment too. Um and then maybe we need to discuss if there's any um
» uh did you want to add a um condition related to as measured from
that that the area >> Yeah.
» reflects the measurement from the mean high tide line.
» Yeah. And I'm I'm looking at the resolution, the draft resolution in our
pack commission packet. I only I see two references to the 450 foot.
» Um so just clarify that it's a 400 fair 450 square foot pier as measured from
the mean high water line. >> Yeah. And and I think that's certainly a
fair comment. I'm not sure if it would be really conditioned. We just need to
update the language of the resolution. Okay. There you go.
» To clarify that issue. Thank you, Commissioner.
Is there a second? >> Second.
» All in favor? >> I
» I.
» And the third motion is to adopt the resolution granting demolition permit to
demolish the existing 712 square foot pier at 43 Cliff Road.
» Second. I
» I
» Okay, thank you everyone. The meeting is adjourned.
» I have one other thing. We didn't >> Sorry, the meeting is not
» We didn't adopt Do we adopt the draft minutes from the April meeting?
» It was part of the consent calendar, I believe.
» Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Meeting adjourned. Thanks.