[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.