[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[7:40] First, start the meeting. So, Anne Marie, can I get a roll call vote, please?
[7:46] Council member Jones. Here, council member Kim. Here, council member Wailing.
[7:52] Here. Mayor Pro, Tim Orgill. Here. Mayor Renoggae. Here.
[7:56] And then we will have council member Jones, lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.
[8:23] Close session announcements. City Attorney, do you have any close session announcements to report at this time?
[8:29] Thank you, Mr. Mayor, the City Council can be in the close session pursuant to items one through five on the close session agenda all five council members were present with respect to item number one the City Council did not discuss that item and with respect to
[8:46] item to be Councilmember Jones,
[8:50] recuse herself from participation on the item,
[8:53] due to a contribution to her campaign
[8:58] that was an excess of $250.
[9:02] And with respect to the remaining items,
[9:06] no reportable action was taken.
[9:08] Perfect, thank you.
[9:09] And then so now we're going to have,
[9:12] we have a recognition for our public's
[9:15] Department for the 2024 Project of the Year for the American Public Works Association Best Award.
[9:22] So congratulations on that.
[9:23] So we're going to have, and this is for the, in the drainage water and wastewater category
[9:28] for the Bluebird storm drain outfall and diversion structure rehabilitation.
[9:34] So tonight we're joined by Pat Summerville, the American Public Works Association to tell us
[9:39] more and present the award to public works.
[9:41] Thank you.
[9:43] Thank you, Mayor.
[9:44] Good evening, Council members.
[9:46] I am Pat Summerville, past president and awards committee chair for the Southern California
[9:51] chapter of the American Public Works Association, known as APWA.
[9:55] Our chapter cover is Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Counties.
[9:59] We are the...
[10:00] The fifth largest chapter in the U.S. with nearly 1,400 members. Our mission is to promote public works, professional excellence, and awareness through education and advocacy.
[10:10] As part of that mission, the chapter recognizes the top public works projects of the year as part of our highly competitive annual best awards program.
[10:19] I'm pleased to announce that the City of Laguna Beach was selected for the Bluebird, Stormdream Outfall and Diversion Structure Rehabilitation Project, Gradulations.
[10:28] A few highlights of this project, the Outfall and Diversion Structure at the end of an 84-inch pipeline that collects over 400 acres of runoff.
[10:38] The structure captures transport and recycles all dry weather urban runoff.
[10:43] The diversion prevents trash debris and non-storm water from reaching the beach.
[10:49] The redirected runoff is sent to the South Orange County wastewater authority to treat
[10:53] and distribute this part of the recycled water system.
[10:57] Limiting runoff during the summer also maximizes the usable beach space and eliminates
[11:01] a physical barrier created by the storm of runoff.
[11:06] Construction was scheduled in the fall and winter to minimize public inconvenience, but because
[11:11] So that it also made construction even more complex because the contractor had to divert
[11:16] stormwater runoff during the wet season, as well as build a copper dam around the construction
[11:21] site to prevent the coastal tight impacting the construction site.
[11:26] The design integrated aesthetic features and coastal landscaping to incorporate it into the
[11:30] surrounding natural and developed elements.
[11:33] The project diverts over 4 million gallons of non-stormwater runoff from the ocean annually,
[11:38] improving water quality and quality life for the residents, visitors, and see life.
[11:43] So on behalf of APWA, congratulations to the City on your award.
[11:54] And we'll have the public works team come up for a picture.
[12:36] Oh, really?
[12:37] Okay, good.
[12:41] Thank you.
[12:42] Okay, so now the City of Laguna Beach is proud to recognize and celebrate our full-time
[12:46] employees who have reached milestone years of service and employment with the City during
[12:49] the fourth quarter of the 2024 calendar year.
[12:52] So after I call your name, please remain up here for the group photo.
[12:55] So, let's start off from the City Manager's office, we're going to recognize Gerald Bama
[13:02] Dred, Digital Communications Coordinator, one year of service,
[13:12] Aaron Fabian, Administrative
[13:13] Analyst, also one year of service, congratulations Aaron,
[13:25] and then from Community's Development
[13:27] Jonathan Rousy, who's a building plan checker, one year of service, congratulations.
[13:40] From Public Works and Utilities, Yanyan Lee, who's a project manager, one year of service.
[13:46] And
[13:55] then, now we're moving on to five years of service from Marine Safety, David, David
[14:02] Brunner, Marine Safety Lieutenant, five years of service
[14:11] from Transit and Community Services,
[14:15] Michael Ichir, Director of Transit Community Services,
[14:23] and then from our fire department, Grant Brady,
[14:26] five years as a fire engine, paramedic, was grant.
[14:40] And then the final group celebrating 20 years of service
[14:43] with the city, so also from our Fire Department,
[14:45] Chip Gilmore, Fire Captain's Hermetic,
[14:57] and then from Public Works and Utilities, Pat Nick.
[15:00] Local senior equipment engineer 20 years of service.
[15:54] At this point, we're going to be receiving an update
[15:57] from Chief King in response to the tragic fire that's going on in Los Angeles and Chief
[16:06] Calvert as well. So if the two of you want to please come up and provide an update to the council
[16:13] to the community.
[16:27] Good evening, Mayor. Members of the Council, the Equal King and Fire Chief,
[16:32] joined with Chief Calvert, our police chief this evening, and we're both here to provide an
[16:36] overview of the recent wildfires that have devastated Los Angeles County. These events have
[16:43] significant implications for our own wildfire preparedness and response strategies on Laguna Beach.
[16:51] On January 6, the Laguna Beach Fire Department was informed by the National Weather Service
[16:57] update that notify the red flag warning for the Orange County Coastal region.
[17:02] In this activation sets into motion several activities with our city staff.
[17:07] We increase our staffing levels with the police department, the fire department,
[17:11] our marine safety as well as public works.
[17:14] An additional dispatcher is placed on duty.
[17:17] We have community-wide communications to notify a high fire danger that's given
[17:22] through multiple channels with reminders of what actions to take in the event of an emergency.
[17:28] Have you equipment a stage for the emergency use in other construction projects that will
[17:31] be traffic or create a fire risk is stopped?
[17:35] Our community emergency response team as well as our red flag patrol volunteers deployed to
[17:39] keep an eye on the open space surrounding our city for any reports of smoker fire.
[17:45] An additional active action practice is assigning one of our fire engines to a county-wide
[17:51] strike team of engines, they assemble, and they can be immediately deployed in any direction
[17:56] upon request.
[17:59] On January 6, the National Weather Service updated its forecast for the Los Angeles County
[18:05] indicating a significant wind storm.
[18:08] They warned that the winds would accelerate to dangerous levels, beginning on the afternoon
[18:13] of January 7, lasting through the early January 8th.
[18:18] They described the event as potentially life-threatening and anticipated it to be the region's most destructive windstorm since 2011.
[18:30] At 215 p.m. on January 7th, the Palacades Fire started.
[18:35] The automatic aid resources are Orange County Strike Team with Laguna Beach Fire Engine 302,
[18:41] where immediately launched to the reported location on Pacific Palacades.
[18:46] At 340 on January 7th,
[18:48] the Eaton Fire started near Altadena and Pasadena.
[18:54] At four or five PM on that same day,
[18:57] the Hurst Fire started just north of San Fernando.
[19:02] On January 7th, during our update and changing conditions for the better
[19:05] in the Goon of Beach, in the extreme disaster that firefighters were facing in Los Angeles,
[19:10] the decision was made to allow the Goon of Beach,
[19:13] but we as engine joined the battle in the Pacific Palacades.
[19:17] Our firefighters at the Palaisade fronted an unprecedented
[19:21] confluence of extreme weather in fire conditions.
[19:25] The Ferocia Santa Ana winds, relentless heat, and critical low humidity
[19:29] created a firestorm that rapidly outpaced containment efforts.
[19:34] The intensity of the blaze forced firefighters to pivot from suppression to a
[19:38] singular focus, saving lives.
[19:41] The infernal spread with such speed and ferocity that many crews were forced
[19:45] to abandon traditional tactics and prioritize evacuation rescue efforts over direct fire engagement.
[19:54] This crisis underscored a harsh reality for the professional fire service, the scope and
[20:00] Of such incidents are outstripping traditional approaches. The Pacific Palace aid fire exemplifies the need to shift the conversation.
[20:08] Instead of attempting to provide quick solutions to this growing problem, it's essential to step back, reassess and fundamentally rewrite the problem statement.
[20:18] What is clear is that the system of place, while robust, are being tested beyond their design.
[20:25] Within 24 hours the number of fire resources requested in the single county reached a historic peak.
[20:31] Overwhelming even California's renowned master mutual aid system.
[20:35] The system, one of the largest and most practiced in the nation, struggled to meet the demands of simultaneous large-scale emergencies.
[20:44] Despite best efforts, highly trained personnel, the sheer volume of need exceeded capacity,
[20:49] forcing difficult decisions about resource allocation and response priorities.
[20:55] At the heart of the response firefighters relied on their core priorities,
[20:59] life safety first followed by property protection.
[21:03] This unwavering commitment provided a guiding principle in the chaos,
[21:07] but it also highlighted the immense challenges posed by challenging,
[21:10] changing climate and escalating fire risks.
[21:14] To move forward, the fire service must confront the reality
[21:17] that these types of incidents are not anomalies, but the new norm.
[21:22] This requires a collective effort to rethink strategies, policies, and resource allocation
[21:27] to prepare for our future of increasingly extreme events.
[21:32] As the fire chief, I'm appreciative of the support of both Council and the community.
[21:37] In the past couple of years, our department has been able to accomplish our standards of
[21:40] cover study, completed our strategic plan, which I'll be happy to present in the coming weeks.
[21:46] And has taken the initial steps at enhancing staffing both in our administration and with our suppression resources.
[21:54] We are all anxious and willing to take a closer look at our efforts to make sure we are on the right path
[21:59] and to make sure that our work is impactful.
[22:04] Lastly, six of our dedicated firefighters operating two engines have been assigned to assist with palacid fire
[22:11] joining the valiant efforts of crews from across the Western United States, Mexico and
[22:17] Canada to combat this unprecedented incident. While these individuals represent our
[22:21] department on the front lines of this historic event, I want to take a moment to recognize
[22:25] the extraordinary commitment of the professional workforce I'm honored to lead. Here at home,
[22:31] our firefighters have stepped up in every way imaginable, willingly taking on extra shifts to ensure
[22:37] going to be each remains protected while their colleagues are deployed.
[22:41] This speaks to the spirit and dedication of our team, the professionals who are not only
[22:45] anxious and willing to answer the call when they need to rise this but who also remain committed
[22:49] to our community and their public service.
[22:53] Their action is a testament to the resilience and professionalism and it should be give every member
[22:58] of the city confidence and the strength of our department.
[23:01] While we contribute to mutual aid efforts beyond our borders, we continue to provide the highest
[23:05] level of service to the residents in our own city.
[23:09] I'm going to head it off to the police team.
[23:16] Good afternoon, Mayor.
[23:17] We're a city council, Jeff Calvert, your place chief.
[23:20] I've been in law enforcement now for over 30 years
[23:23] and the devastation that we're seeing in L.A.
[23:28] is unparalleled and heartbreaking.
[23:32] I started with a beach police department in 1996
[23:34] and the emotional and financial impacts of the 1993
[23:40] looking at each fire were still very real and evident
[23:44] and our community and the anxiety of that catastrophe is still felt today.
[23:51] LA has a long road ahead of them.
[23:55] And it makes me very proud to see our community come together
[23:59] to provide material and financial aid.
[24:02] During a wildfire event, the primary mission of the Police Department is a protection of life by facilitating massive accusations of people in the impacted areas.
[24:17] In 2018, I had the opportunity within Mayor Bob Whalen to visit the city of Paradise following the destruction caused by the campfire.
[24:26] This was an opportunity for me to evaluate the management of the paradise campfire evacuation
[24:32] and the challenges they faced were eye-opening and chilling. It was a surreal scene.
[24:41] They had a robust evacuation plan in place. How many personnel in each intersection?
[24:46] How many cones in each intersection? But they weren't able to execute it.
[24:51] Because the speed of the fire, limited personnel, utility poles falling across roadways, power loss.
[25:00] And the evacuation of the dispatch center. Public works literally had to use heavy equipment, like an LA to move live power lines and vehicles from the roadways. So people could escape and allow emergency responders to enter the city.
[25:17] You could actually see large holes in the asphalt, where the cars burned into the payment.
[25:24] The City Council created the wild land fire mitigation and fire safety subcommittee led by
[25:30] council members, Bob Whale and a Sue camp, and to date the city has invested more than
[25:34] $25 million to improve our mitigation efforts.
[25:39] One of the recommendations from the subcommittee was the contract with KLD engineering
[25:44] to conduct an evacuation study.
[25:49] The study helped us understand how long it will take to evacuate our city, accounting for variables like time a day, road closures, access and pair of neighborhoods and contraflow.
[26:02] The study revealed that under normal roadway conditions, with no roadway hazards like solid vehicles,
[26:11] trees or power lines blocking the road, it will take 4 hours and 20 minutes to evacuate our community.
[26:18] If Laguna Canyon Road and North Coast Highway are rendered unavailable, you can add four hours to that calculation.
[26:27] Just to put it into perspective, the devastation that occurred in Lahina Maui, City of Paradise, and the Pacific Palacades took place within four hours because of the high winds.
[26:40] Like Laguna, each of these communities have limited evacuation routes.
[26:45] Our current city of evacuation plan breaks the city into 20 evacuation management zones.
[26:52] The maps of these zones are located on the city website along with the evacuation routes.
[26:59] Please go to the website.
[27:01] Know the name of your zone.
[27:03] Have a go bag.
[27:04] So when you receive an evacuation warning order through our alert and warning systems like
[27:10] sexual, wireless, emergency alert or social media,
[27:14] you will be prepared to leave.
[27:17] What's the difference between a warning and an order?
[27:20] A evacuation warning means there is a potential threat
[27:24] to life or property.
[27:25] And you need to start making preparations
[27:27] for an evacuation order.
[27:30] If there's an evacuation order, that means
[27:32] there's eminent life to threat of life and property.
[27:36] people in these areas need to gather their essential needs and start leaving.
[27:44] We utilize our evacuation plan during the 2018 Aliso Fire and successfully evacuated and
[27:50] repopulated two of the zones which had approximately 15 hundred residents.
[27:55] One of the lessons learned during this evacuation, like we witnessed in LA, is that several residents
[28:01] to not take essential needs, like medication, medical devices, and pets with them.
[28:07] We had to redirect essential personnel to drive them back to their homes.
[28:13] In L.A., they were quickly overwhelmed with these requests and just stopped assisting.
[28:21] We also use this plan in the 2021 Emerald Fire and the 2022 Coastal Fire.
[28:27] During the 2021 Emerald Fire, we issued an order to evacuate Emerald Bay, North Laguna,
[28:33] and Irvine Cove, following the announcements I did a windshield survey with Council
[28:39] Member Sue Camp and the City Manager, and to our surprise, the roadways were eerily
[28:45] empty and residents were not leaving.
[28:49] If you are ordered to leave, be a good community partner and be the first one out, not the last.
[28:58] Time and time again, we see people wait until the last minute, thinking they're going to save their home with a garden hose, and they become trapped.
[29:06] We understand the importance of your home, but it's not more valuable than your life, your family, or the life of the emergency responder who may have to save you.
[29:18] During a evacuation, we'll be relying heavily on outside of the agency assistance.
[29:23] We have outstanding relationships with our mutual aid police partners who will be assisting
[29:27] us with evacuations and traffic control.
[29:30] We also created mutual aid agreements with Newport and Irvine to utilize the Emergency Operations
[29:35] Center.
[29:37] If we have to evacuate City Hall and we are currently creating an alternate EOC location at
[29:43] community and recreation center. I've said it before publicly. One of the
[29:49] single greatest threats facing our community is our above ground utility
[29:53] poles. This is evidenced by the fire in the Hina Maui, the city of Paradise
[29:58] Campfire and the Lugin.
[30:02] All of these cities have limited evacuation routes, and because the above-ground power poles, either ignited, fell on the wind, or burned, it limited their ability to push out mass notifications, crippled escape routes, and hindered ingress for emergency responders.
[30:19] almost 200 people perished in the Maui and Paradise Fighters combined, causing more than 20 billion
[30:27] dollars in property damage and economic loss. Sadly, 24 people in counting have died in the
[30:34] LA fires and the cost to restore those communities may break new historic records. I appreciate
[30:41] Council Member Boylan's leadership back in 2018 to measure P placed on the ballot. This would have
[30:47] increase our sales tax by 1% to fund undergrounding.
[30:52] I did a little math and based on the projections, the city would now have $36 million
[30:57] to underground our utilities.
[31:00] But the measure did not receive 2-thirds of the votes needed for special tax.
[31:05] It's not if, but when a fire will happen again,
[31:11] and preparation is critical to mitigating property loss and preventing deaths.
[31:16] We have been proactive as a city to invest in wild land fire mitigation measures, but the question we should be asking ourselves is how can we afford not to address the threat of our overhead lines.
[31:31] Unfortunately, it takes a catastrophe to make disaster preparedness a priority. Let's not be that community.
[31:38] And closing, I want to thank the men and women of our police department who have taken time away from their families to upstaff during red flag days and high winds and the fire watch team and serve who have helped the troll our wilderness areas.
[31:53] Thank you.
[31:56] Well said, and thank you both.
[31:59] I'm going to have some comments that I'll save for after we are from the public and general public comms, but are there any specific questions to either of the chiefs right now?
[32:12] First of all, thank you both for excellent presentations.
[32:15] Chief King, I just had a question.
[32:16] Do we know how long our engines will be deployed?
[32:19] And will at some point they change out the cruise?
[32:22] The commitment is 14 days from the date of deployment.
[32:27] And we'll look towards rotating those cruise if they're kept.
[32:30] We know that they're hanging on all the resources right now,
[32:32] because of the second wind event that they're going through.
[32:34] But we should start to see hopefully the release of some of the resources.
[32:39] in the coming days.
[32:42] Yeah, do we have, you know, I was looking at the weather report, do we have any predictions
[32:47] for high wind here?
[32:50] We don't over the next couple of days, they're still predicting the red flag, high winds,
[32:54] an inland orange county and of course LA and north of there and venture county, but it's
[33:00] not impacting orange county coastal.
[33:02] Okay.
[33:04] Good report, you guys, thanks very much for doing that.
[33:09] I want to echo what you folks are saying that was an excellent presentation, but also just
[33:15] think both of you for your leadership of these teams. I can feel how dedicated you guys
[33:20] are to keeping all of us safe and I thank you for that. Chief King, can you talk a little bit about
[33:27] the priority if it is a priority of under-rounding power lines that might not be on roads,
[33:34] right? Like I'm thinking about the the fire road between archbiche heights and top of the world
[33:38] would that be a priority? Is it is it important?
[33:42] It is important. That's a place where the high winds are going to have an impact, not only for
[33:47] an ignition, but if we had to use the fire roads for egress and emergency grass and access
[33:54] for emergency equipment. Yeah. Thank you. And Dave, I think this is more a question for you. Can
[34:01] you give us just a quick update on under running over the canyon road? Sure. So we're progressing,
[34:07] have been progressing with the design plan that involves both the restructuring and redesign
[34:14] of the road with the utilities placed underneath them. That of course requires right now, at least,
[34:22] a relinquishment of the road by Caltrans.
[34:26] Caltrans does not allow my policy placement of
[34:30] utilities underneath its facilities. So I also think it's something we should do to talk
[34:36] take advantage of this opportunity and see if we can get
[34:39] count transit changes mine and say can you keep the road and put the
[34:42] but the utilities underneath it. But the most recent
[34:46] activity there we the public works team and I met with
[34:49] count transit talk about what they would give us in terms of revenue
[34:53] for a state of good repair in advance of their
[34:56] equation of an effort, so that's perceived.
[35:00] The meeting as well as the design finalization which will come to you soon for the recommended design for the road, which includes underground utilities.
[35:11] Thanks.
[35:14] I just want to share, I mean, in light of the chief, chief Calvert's comments, you know, since we're on the top of it, I was going to hold this, but there's an article in the early times today about the potential causes, and of course they say it will take months to pinpoint the exact causes.
[35:30] But there were some quotes from Dean Flores, who was, he, he is currently a member of the California Air Resources Board, and he's a former state senator, and I just thought his comments so encapsulated what I've been saying and others here at the city have been saying for so many years, and here's what he says, the past is taught us that utility equipment is a leading cause of California's deadliest wildfires.
[35:55] This historical pattern cannot be ignored when discussing preventative measures, he said.
[36:02] The real issue here isn't just how these lines, fires might have started, but how preventable
[36:07] they might have been.
[36:09] Then he goes on to talk a little bit about the public, the PUC, the California Public Utilities
[36:14] Commission, has undercut the wildfire prevention strategies by reducing funding for programs
[36:20] to put power transmission lines underground.
[36:23] Yes, undergrounding is expensive, he said it 3 million to 4 million per mile, but it
[36:28] pales and compares into the catastrophic cost of wildfires, like those devastating
[36:32] Los Angeles County, which can easily exceed 500 billion in damages.
[36:38] He said he believes the CPUC has inadvertently allowed these risks to persist by favoring
[36:44] quote, lower cost, less effective strategy, such as insulated wires, and vegetation management
[36:49] while deep prioritizing undergrounding.
[36:53] The Utilities Southern California Edison and PG&E have made some progress in reducing
[36:59] fire risks by undergrounding some of the lines, but the CPUC's funding cuts have forced
[37:06] utilities to reduce these efforts, and that even SE's modest plan to put 100 miles underground
[37:12] this year is at risk because the PC has to approve these undergrounding, the funding for
[37:19] is under grounding by the utilities.
[37:21] So I couldn't agree more with what the chiefs have said that, you know, we've been here
[37:27] locally talking about this for years now and hopefully with this tragic event and, you know,
[37:36] the two of the three fires now being potentially being investigated for potential utility
[37:46] caused being the cause of the of the fires.
[37:49] As a community, we just are going to need to really take a serious look at this.
[37:55] It's going to cost money.
[37:56] It's going to be expensive.
[37:58] But if you as as florist says here,
[38:02] it pales in comparison to the cost of the destruction that could ensue from a fire.
[38:07] And we've had the emerald fire.
[38:09] And we had the fire behind the ranch, coastal fire.
[38:13] We had the fire in 2015, we've had lots of warnings and you know we've been fortunate that you know
[38:21] through a good efforts of our fire department and frankly some lucky breaks with wind that
[38:26] it hasn't been completely catastrophic here.
[38:30] But sooner or later one of those is going to come along.
[38:34] So later tonight I'll be proposing the Council consider an agenda item to reactivate the
[38:41] our mitigation and fire safety committee that Council Member Camp and I started and as Chief
[38:47] King said, I think we just need to re-look at everything. We just need to re-look at everything
[38:52] and all the rules and all the assumptions and put everything back on the table and not all the
[38:58] solutions are going to be, you know, attractive to everybody, right? But we just need to, we just
[39:10] have to do.
[39:12] You know, Bob, along those lines, I was reading, and I don't remember what area it was,
[39:16] but when they do the PSPS shutdowns, as they re-energize the lines, they're finding multiple
[39:21] faults.
[39:22] That's another reason to get them underground, because they can't just turn about people
[39:26] got really impatient.
[39:27] I got a lot of text messages, people who were out of power.
[39:30] But, you know, if they turn them back on, they're going to have another possibility of a fire.
[39:34] So that's just another another data point to highlight why these lines need to be underground.
[39:40] Yeah, I'll just I was going to give comments now, but since everyone else is all just do the same.
[39:46] I joined the City Manager and Chief King to visit our firefighters out there and I asked a lot of questions and one of the striking things that that for me was was very interesting.
[39:57] It's we talk about undergrounding in the context of
[40:01] And that's a good reason why we need to underground. And you know, Bob, just mentioned the reasons for that. But what was striking is they described fighting two different fires, one of which was in a neighborhood that was not undergrounded and one was in a neighborhood that was undergrounded. And in the neighborhood where the utility poles were above ground, they had no idea whether or not the lines were energized, which meant that they had to make the assumption that it was energized, and that it could explode as they were famed.
[40:29] So it's significantly undermined their ability to fight the fire, because they were having to focus on the line, and that's not to mention all the evacuation impacts.
[40:40] So I think we really need to come up with a plan not only for undergrounding.
[40:43] We're going to came in a bit streamlining the approval of our assessment district so we can get the whole, I think we're around in the 70% range for our neighborhood assessment district.
[40:52] So if we can get that to 100% that's something that we have to do, and I totally agree with my colleagues that we need to throw out all the assumptions.
[40:59] about what has been and figure out what do we need to do to adjust to the new normal to keep the
[41:03] community safe and like Bob said it's not going to all be easy decisions it's going to
[41:07] there's going to be a cost but I think the cost of inaction is a lot higher than that cost so
[41:14] anyway it'll be a future something that an ongoing conversation that'll hopefully come back very soon
[41:19] about how we can continue our progress and implement these critical investments so thank you again
[41:25] you, Calvert, Chief King, and thank you of course to our firefighters who are literally risking
[41:32] their lives to protect.
[41:33] The people of Los Angeles, but also who are protecting us every day, so thank you.
[41:39] I'm going to take a moment and thank Bob and Sue since 2019, the efforts that they've made
[41:47] with the fire mitigation.
[41:49] We can always do better and Bob, you answered a question that I was going to ask, you know,
[41:54] start this conversation on what we can do better, but I don't want to underscore the progress
[41:59] that we've made since 2019, and I really have to commend you guys for all that progress.
[42:05] Thank you.
[42:06] Thank you.
[42:07] I totally agree.
[42:09] Okay.
[42:10] Any other questions or comments?
[42:11] We're good.
[42:14] Okay.
[42:14] Well, thank you.
[42:15] Thank you both.
[42:22] So at this point, City Manager, are there any additions or deletions to the council agenda?
[42:29] No, but one comment.
[42:30] And I think Megan, by the time we get to the agenda items 15 and 16 will be kind of combining
[42:38] that conversation for everybody, that's about the ADUs or the ADU or Netsus, but I don't
[42:43] have other changes.
[42:46] Any, so at this point, we're going to take public comments on non-negenda items.
[42:50] Each member of the public will have three minutes, and we will have public comments for
[42:54] total of 45 minutes.
[42:55] If you want to please line up for public comments on non-negenda items.
[43:03] Good evening, Billy Fried executive director of KXFM Radio in a tough week.
[43:10] I'm sure we're all feeling a big range of emotions, luck, despair.
[43:17] And I think that the fire chief and the police chief put it so succinctly.
[43:21] It's not a question of when it's a question of when.
[43:26] And I just want you guys to know what we're doing at the station to be a community partner
[43:32] and try to keep people safe, as soon as we heard the news, some of our volunteer hosts contacted
[43:37] city officials and asked them to call in specifically Chief King and give us an update which
[43:43] we then recorded and ran every single hour until I had an interview with Chief King later on
[43:50] in the week and went into greater detail. And he's been on my show three times now and I learned
[43:56] something new every single time. There is so much information to impart to keep us safe.
[44:03] And nobody at the station knew that there was a sequencing
[44:08] to our evacuation where we would find out
[44:11] what neighborhood we lived in.
[44:13] It just demonstrates that there's a lot,
[44:15] there's a death of information that's being disseminated.
[44:18] We intend to be that community partner to you guys.
[44:21] That's our role, that's our charter.
[44:23] We had 20 people in the station today
[44:25] going over protocols.
[44:26] How we broadcast, two-week contact,
[44:28] how they contact us
[44:30] and building out our own web page that would link to your web page to give people that zoning
[44:37] information, bug out back. And we're not the only ones that should be doing this. Everybody should
[44:42] be doing it. Whatever information we can provide, it's heartbreaking to see that, you know,
[44:47] it's just inevitable and have this destruction can do to people's lives and livelihoods. And I just
[44:53] want to say yes, please underground those power lines. This is no longer a political issue.
[44:59] Um, I...
[45:00] We have to disagree with the above and one thing that power lines aren't the cause. It's climate change. And it seems to be we've
[45:06] abdicated our fight against that and now we're only going after the symptoms. That's the power break or the winds or all these things, the extreme weather.
[45:16] These guys are overwhelmed. It's just unbelievable to hear what these firefighters have to go through.
[45:22] And, you know, the blame game that goes around the afterwards and
[45:26] politicization because, you know, there's no fighting against 100 mile per hour wins in that dry condition.
[45:32] So, we will continue to broadcast for you guys.
[45:35] We want you all to know what's going on.
[45:37] You have our commitment.
[45:38] We have a backup generator generously provided by you guys.
[45:42] We went over how to use that, how to activate everything.
[45:45] So, any information that you wanted to disseminate.
[45:47] We'd like to invite you guys on the show.
[45:49] Let's keep the temperature high on this so everybody knows what to do when we have an emergency. Thank you
[45:57] Thank you
[46:04] You're a local gas fly
[46:06] As the members of the council know I sent an email today yesterday
[46:13] Based on an Washington Post article saying that
[46:16] People in Los Angeles
[46:18] various sectors of Los Angeles had asked for evacuation drills, which were not carried out
[46:25] in palaces, and which obviously would have been very useful because, among other things,
[46:31] cars were abandoned on the roadways, which then blocked access of fire emergency vehicles,
[46:37] and people ended up dying because ambulances could not get to them.
[46:42] And in our city, where the average, the median age is 15 years higher than the rest of the
[46:48] state, we're talking about people who do not move fast, many of whom are homebound.
[46:55] So I have been looking into this little brother and see that the Topanga Collation
[47:00] Coalition for Emergency Preparedness is a non-profit non-government
[47:06] association up there in Topanga. I don't know anything more than what I've read
[47:10] about them, but obviously what they've done is created a community organization that is funded
[47:18] by donations as well as by government to create a data preparedness for evacuation, not just
[47:25] for wildfire earthquakes and all of that kind of thing.
[47:29] I think that it's really important when the police chief kind of makes us the residents into
[47:35] enemy by saying we don't cooperate, you know, the issue is to create a sense of community,
[47:40] and a sense of understanding where we are and what we should be doing and how we can
[47:47] react under these kind of circumstances. If the wind changes, where do we go? If it's coming
[47:52] from there, where do we go? If it's to pangas, I'm giving, can you notice the block? Where do
[48:03] community block captains and they need people knocking on doors and saying,
[48:09] Hi, I'm your neighbor.
[48:10] This is what we're doing.
[48:12] If you need to know what's going on, you come knock on my door.
[48:15] That's how we can expedite our activities and evacuate the city when we need to do so.
[48:24] I'm willing to be part of that because it's going to take money to do these evacuation drills.
[48:31] We need to pay for just eating the volunteers and organizing the staff, but I think it's worthwhile
[48:40] because under that circumstance we create a sense of community and we also make it possible to deal with any kind of disaster in an expeditious manner.
[48:50] Thank you.
[48:52] Thank you.
[48:54] Next speaker.
[49:02] Hi.
[49:02] very, very long power shut-offs over the last several days.
[49:06] I'm actually not here to complain about that,
[49:09] but I did want to alert you to the fact
[49:11] that we also lost cell service completely
[49:15] for all of that period of time.
[49:17] So that meant that we could not only not monitor
[49:22] potential fire activity in the area,
[49:25] we could not respond to any evacuation order.
[49:29] And I want to emphasize that
[49:31] As citizens, we could not respond to a pending evacuation order if it occurred.
[49:40] So you also probably know that the California Utility Commission had required cell phone providers
[49:46] to provide at minimum of 72 hours backup generator power for every cell tower in a high risk area.
[49:56] Well, that is clearly not being...
[50:00] Being done appropriately in this area. Archbite's loss power, we lost cell service, top of the world,
[50:08] lost power, some people up there lost cell service. This crossed cell service providers. It was
[50:14] not a single provider that was at a problem here. It was all of them. So I'm here to ask you
[50:23] help us as a neighborhood comply with evacuation orders by ensuring that we can get information
[50:31] about evacuations when they occur. I have a go bag. I know where I'm supposed to evacuate,
[50:39] but if I do not get an order, I can't comply and we're all at risk here. So thank you very
[50:47] Thank you.
[50:50] Hi.
[50:51] Good evening.
[50:52] Thank you for your service at this serious time.
[50:54] I really appreciated Chief Nico and Chief Calvert.
[51:00] On the preventable side of this issue, I see ADUs being the Achilles tendon here because they have no fire code.
[51:07] Maybe we should address that.
[51:10] On other issues, I see that, you know, as I've been a proponent of bearing blinds,
[51:14] But I want to know how it's paid for and I'm not crazy about the
[51:20] Jerry Mandarin of our town and into these different districts where everybody has a different tax rate
[51:27] I think as a city we should have issues that we're able to tackle together and
[51:32] on an even enforcement an even
[51:35] Payrate.
[51:39] I want to talk about safety in Laguna meaning they're walking around town
[51:43] Glinary cross streets
[51:47] crosswalks. There was a guy that had an incident in front of a sky loft and I know
[51:51] it's a big deal. I appreciate our planning and I would like to propose an X
[51:58] crossing at Thalia and X crossing at Oak in an X crossing at Cress. I would like the
[52:05] cars to be six feet back from the crosswalk. Some guy was playing with me today and
[52:11] brand is Ford F250 right up to the line just to play with me and it's like dude, I almost
[52:20] get hit every day, it's not a joke.
[52:24] So those are my main issues, the EDU issue is serious, it affects my CC and R, the views and
[52:33] fire standards are my priority. I'll yield the rest of my time thank you. Thank you.
[52:41] Next speaker please. Good evening Mr. Mayor City Council. My name is Michael Morris.
[52:47] And first of all I did want to acknowledge the tragedy that's been happening up north and our
[52:53] hearts go out to all those folks and I'm so proud that our city has been able to through the mutual
[52:58] a late agreement, play a part in helping to mitigate some of the danger in the damage,
[53:04] but obviously it's still continuing.
[53:08] I appreciate that Bob is going to suggest reconstituting the wildfire group on a future agenda.
[53:18] And I think there are lots of good ideas that will be hearing from both the professionals
[53:22] and as residents. One thing that's concerned me consistently in my neighborhood with the title
[53:29] wave of construction that's been going on for the past five years is, and as Mr. Orgel
[53:36] can attest to, the neighborhood is constantly littered with construction equipment. And that's
[53:44] not just the heavy equipment that comes regularly on 53-foot flatbeds, but daily for the past four
[53:50] years, dozens of pickup trucks take up virtually every street parking that is available near
[53:58] their projects competing with residents.
[54:02] So I'd make a modest proposal, a low-cost, simple proposal, to expand the red flag alert
[54:10] procedures to include a restriction of on-street parking by construction-related vehicles
[54:19] during red flag periods. I believe that we average 5 to 10 red flags per year, so it's really
[54:26] a very minimal request.
[54:31] And the construction crews, if they organize themselves, they could
[54:35] certainly carpool and drop off, but they just need to clear the roadways with just the endless
[54:43] numbers of vehicles that they currently have. I had some photographs that I took this morning,
[54:49] There were every spot on Lower Skyline, Mystic Way, which is only 27 feet wide and on a good day, the trash trucks.
[55:00] Can't get through. Every single available streetside parking space was taken up by construction
[55:08] crews and residents. And I think that we might consider limiting construction activities during
[55:15] red flag periods. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please.
[55:20] Hey, guys. Thanks for having me here. I'm Mary and Kagan with the Art of Fitness. I had a whole agenda
[55:25] talk about parking, but quite honestly I feel in tears because I had a friend staying with me
[55:30] from California. I have very good friends who lost four houses and Pacific Palace saints.
[55:39] So, this parking thing to talk, I can talk about it later. I did send you guys all the email
[55:44] on it so you can read it when you have a time, you know what you wrote in Leisure. But I do want to
[55:49] save it 15 years ago, our neighborhood was underground and it gives me a lot of sense of security
[55:54] because there's a lot of trees around there.
[55:57] And so it's just nice and everything's underground.
[55:59] I think it's significant to protect our community.
[56:03] I've been a part of this community for a long time.
[56:07] So I'm on board with everything that they said.
[56:10] I think that our department, our fire department,
[56:12] they do a fantastic job.
[56:14] So thank you guys for that.
[56:15] I really, really appreciate it.
[56:16] And we can talk about this later.
[56:18] I think, oh, one other thing.
[56:20] And we do have, at the art of fitness, we do have food that we're collecting, we're collecting
[56:25] clothes, we've opened up our services to first responders.
[56:31] So anybody wants to come in and just, you know, have a break on us.
[56:36] Just let us know and thank you.
[56:37] Thank you, guys.
[56:38] Thank you.
[56:42] Good evening, Mayor Runaqi and Council.
[56:45] My name is Elena Eater and I am the Education and Leadership Manager for the Laguna Ocean Foundation.
[56:50] I wanted to personally introduce myself, but also to provide you all with some updates and to sincerely thank you for all of your support of our efforts throughout Laguna Beach.
[57:03] We are, once it oversees the type of education at eight different sites across Laguna Beach and whether it's providing marine protected area rules to visitors or offering ocean awareness activities to students out at field trips or
[57:19] or even a share in our passion for the tide pools.
[57:25] As long as people will let us talk about it
[57:28] and they'll listen, we are there at the tide pools.
[57:32] And outside of the tide pools, though,
[57:35] we are working on efforts for our beach cleanups.
[57:39] And one that we partner with the city on
[57:42] is the California Coastal Cleanup,
[57:45] which I think a few of y'all also attended
[57:47] and showed your support at which I appreciate.
[57:49] We partner with the police department for that event and we're also partnering with the Laguna Beach Chamber of Commerce on seven other beach cleanups throughout the 2025 year.
[58:02] So we held our first one on January 4th and within one hour we collected 20 pounds of trash, so we're just excited to continue these efforts throughout the year.
[58:13] And we also are looking forward to our health best event,
[58:17] which we hold annually out at the cobblestones every summer.
[58:20] And we also recently partnered with the Laguna Beach High School for their flow program,
[58:26] which we are providing mentorship for the 11th grade students that are focusing their
[58:32] film production on an ocean theme.
[58:34] So we're offering assistance and encouraging them to choose topics that affect us and impact us locally here,
[58:42] so that they can better understand our environment
[58:45] and how they can help make a difference
[58:47] within the community.
[58:50] And lastly, I'd like to mention our amazing partnership
[58:54] with Rich German, with Project OF Foundation
[58:57] and the Caribbean South Coast Theatre.
[59:00] We've recently been working with them
[59:03] for bringing students from Compton Unified School District
[59:06] down to Laguna Beach for the day.
[59:08] So their field trips starts at the theater
[59:10] And they get mesmerized by Rich's videos and his stories,
[59:15] but this is a lot of the students first time to the beach,
[59:19] and we're able to provide that in thanks to your hard work and dedication
[59:23] in protecting these resources.
[59:25] So thank you for everything you do for the city and supporting our efforts.
[59:29] I look forward to continuing this partnership.
[59:31] And these are for y'all.
[59:35] Thank you. Next speaker, please.
[59:37] Good evening, Council. And Kristoff.
[59:39] I just wanted to mention that I'm so happy that you are going to reconstitute that committee.
[59:46] And I would suggest that you also look into water systems that could be enhanced for fire protection.
[59:55] And I'll send you all a photograph of a village that I visited.
[1:00:00] In Japan, where they have historical Japanese farmhouses with fetched roofs and surrounded by a mountain, with lots of vegetation on it, and they decided for sure they did not want these houses to burn, and they have a robust system of water cannons that they can turn on at the sign of a possible fire.
[1:00:27] and it just occurred to me,
[1:00:29] aren't our houses just as precious
[1:00:32] and shouldn't we be doing the thing
[1:00:34] that we know is gonna work best
[1:00:36] which is to get them wet in the face of fire.
[1:00:40] And so I'm hoping that you will strongly
[1:00:43] consider that civic association
[1:00:46] sent a number of years ago
[1:00:49] a plan of a reclaimed water system
[1:00:53] reservoirs that would go from the Lisa Canyon
[1:00:55] to molten metals to top of the world and then work its way north.
[1:01:02] And those reservoirs could be at the ready at all times, not part of the domestic system,
[1:01:11] but would be available in an emergency and also to water and irrigate the edges of the
[1:01:25] not then be going out to see.
[1:01:28] So these systems, I think, will be expensive.
[1:01:32] I heard that John Pete said they would cost $30 million,
[1:01:38] but that's only six houses in today's economy.
[1:01:43] And if we lost any of them, it would be such a great tragedy.
[1:01:49] I'd also like to bring to your attention
[1:01:51] that the hospital is seems to be phasing out without saying anything, and if we don't have
[1:02:00] our hospital functioning, that's a huge link in our ability to respond to emergencies.
[1:02:10] The other thing that's been noticed of South Dakota seems to be the place to face things
[1:02:16] without telling anybody, the South is going to post office, had that sign disappear
[1:02:24] about six months ago. Now it's flag has disappeared. And the other last week,
[1:02:32] somebody was in the parking lot and the post office was locked, no explanation, no sign.
[1:02:39] and so I'd like to request that you put the weight of the City Council behind figuring that out.
[1:02:48] We don't want to lose that post office.
[1:02:50] It's really an important community asset.
[1:02:53] Thank you.
[1:02:53] Thank you.
[1:03:04] Matt Lawson and to quote a former Chicago mayor,
[1:03:08] let's not let a good crisis go to waste.
[1:03:13] In any case, I think we need to take a hard look at what we're doing
[1:03:18] not doing here. A few days ago, I read a very interesting article that was kind of an opinion piece
[1:03:24] in the Wall Street Journal. It was written by a fellow who's a professional author. I think
[1:03:28] a screenwriter who lived in a little street up in Pacific Palisades called Paso Amiramar. I lived
[1:03:34] on that street for the first seven years. I lived in California. And it's substantially identical
[1:03:39] to where I lived now and I'm in Crestview. What happened in Paradise? What happened in La Heina?
[1:03:46] These are hundreds and thousands of miles away.
[1:03:49] What happened in Pacific Palisades is about 50 miles away or 60.
[1:03:53] And an environment that's substantially identical to where we're standing.
[1:03:58] There are a bit for the grace of God, period.
[1:04:01] Whatever we know what to do, we know how to reduce our fire risk.
[1:04:05] The fact is that wildfires in a coastal desert climate that we live in are inevitable.
[1:04:11] They will inevitably get worse as our climate is changing and it's not changing for the better.
[1:04:16] What is not inevitable are these wildfire disaster incidents where dozens or hundreds of people
[1:04:22] lose their lives and thousands, tens of thousands of people lose their homes and the difference
[1:04:29] that we can make there is rather substantial.
[1:04:33] We need to implement as quickly as possible the recommendations from the standards of
[1:04:38] cover and study that was completed about a year, I think about a year ago, and presented
[1:04:43] last June, we need to move forward with under grounding as rapidly as we can, the U.S.
[1:04:49] Forest Service to the study, and basically identify 32,000 wildfires, not all of them
[1:04:55] Disaster incident spiny means but 32,000 wildfires
[1:05:00] Sparked by above ground utilities in a 28-year period, ending in 2020. That was when the study ended.
[1:05:08] So I mean, it's a very common occurrence. We've seen it here about four times in the last dozen years.
[1:05:14] Any one of those incidents could have destroyed the city. Every single above ground utility line you see is a potential loss of the city, period.
[1:05:22] And we have to treat them that way. They're mortal threats.
[1:05:26] And last, so when it comes to things like emergency circulation, we've got to take this seriously.
[1:05:30] Now I heard Mike Morris make us a gestion and I don't disagree with it at all, but I think we need to broaden it.
[1:05:36] The fact is that we've had a pilot program in Diamond Crestview now for 10 years.
[1:05:40] We're supposed to be a model for the rest of the city.
[1:05:42] It's red flag parking restrictions period across the board on these narrow streets.
[1:05:48] And it could make the difference between losing a few homes and losing two or three hundred of our residents in a wallfark.
[1:05:54] because they can't get out.
[1:05:56] And lastly, if you can't get so your data,
[1:06:00] which is a totally regulated by the federal government,
[1:06:02] the city can't do a blessed thing about it.
[1:06:05] There is nothing that prevents you from just leaving.
[1:06:07] No one ever burned a death in a city
[1:06:09] where they weren't physically present,
[1:06:12] just be somewhere else.
[1:06:13] Thank you.
[1:06:14] Have a good evening, and I want to congratulate our police
[1:06:16] and fire for all that they do, and thank them.
[1:06:19] And thank you for all that you do.
[1:06:21] Thank you.
[1:06:22] Thank you.
[1:06:27] Good evening.
[1:06:28] Council.
[1:06:29] My name is Scott Martin.
[1:06:31] I'm addressing something that seems to be completely off topic, but since the city converted
[1:06:41] from waste management to CRNR, the multi-family rates, at least mine, have increased
[1:06:48] tenfold and I have not been able to get any results.
[1:06:55] any information, the lady that you put us in touch with Miss Bureda has not responded to emails, calls, text messages,
[1:07:10] and we continue to pay the original amount that we were paying with waste management before the changeover, they are not crediting it to our account, they are saying we are paying nothing.
[1:07:25] And I would like to see if we can get this matter investigated.
[1:07:31] Thank you.
[1:07:32] The city manager has, I think, will I respond to that?
[1:07:36] Yeah, that's coming to the castle in February.
[1:07:39] I thought it was coming tonight.
[1:07:41] Oh, no.
[1:07:42] No.
[1:07:44] Thank you.
[1:07:45] The first meeting or the second.
[1:07:47] I think Mark, you were not seeing it all the sudden.
[1:07:52] the CC and our CR and our update.
[1:07:55] We have it on the first.
[1:07:59] Yeah.
[1:08:00] Hold that thought.
[1:08:01] We'll make sure we get.
[1:08:01] Okay.
[1:08:02] Right now is the 11th of the 25th.
[1:08:04] We have a little bit of homework to do to finish up.
[1:08:07] All right.
[1:08:07] Thank you.
[1:08:09] Okay.
[1:08:09] This is our final speaker for.
[1:08:11] Okay.
[1:08:12] No.
[1:08:13] Are there any other speakers you want to speak?
[1:08:16] I'm sorry Mr. May I have a correction.
[1:08:17] That's January 28th.
[1:08:19] That is coming.
[1:08:19] Okay.
[1:08:20] January 28th.
[1:08:20] So the next meeting.
[1:08:21] Thank you.
[1:08:24] Good evening, Mayor Rinaughe and Council members.
[1:08:27] Thank you for all your hard work.
[1:08:29] Thank you to our fire department and all the servant leaders in this room.
[1:08:34] I'm here to ask for help.
[1:08:36] What is going on with the fires is not a joke.
[1:08:40] I don't feel we're prepared, so we are organizing a volunteer committee, which is called
[1:08:47] the Green Ribbon Project.
[1:08:49] It was named last night by Dale Geer, who is a fantastic community leader who donate succulents to our nonprofit, and he is the Vice Chair with Chris Spitalary, who actually stopped the Emerald Fire.
[1:09:06] I first began volunteering, before our mayor was born, with the fire in, I think it was 93.
[1:09:14] I'm a mother of three. I've lived here for 35 years, and I'm all about holistic wellness,
[1:09:22] which is prevention over pharmaceuticals. And I think we're living at a time where we have to live more in harmony with nature,
[1:09:31] And we have to be preventative as a city and we have to find ways to work with nature in a healthy manner.
[1:09:40] So our project is to create a 50 foot thick fire break made of succulent plants.
[1:09:48] And it's not a fire break, as Chris said, it's a fire stop. It will stop the fires.
[1:09:53] It will support what's going on right now with our fire department.
[1:09:58] and it can be...
[1:10:00] The multi-generational volunteer and activity for mental wellness that leads us to nature while we're working together, hopefully off of our telephones.
[1:10:11] Also, I wanted to say that it's going to take your help. It's going to take everyone in this room. It's going to take this city council, all of you.
[1:10:22] So, we can work with OC Parks because we're going to need permission, so Alex, or Mayor, it might take you asking Katrina Foley to help us.
[1:10:32] It might take some philanthropists to help us.
[1:10:35] It's not really about money.
[1:10:36] I think that we can get the succulents donated, and I'm fearless about asking for help.
[1:10:42] And that's why I'm here.
[1:10:43] I think we're all here at a really special time for us to learn together how to work in harmony with our environment.
[1:10:51] And again, thank you.
[1:10:54] I wanted to add two more things real quick.
[1:10:57] I am a gratitude teacher.
[1:10:59] I'm a certified teacher.
[1:11:01] And I was misquoted in an article.
[1:11:04] Gratitude is actually for emotional mastery,
[1:11:08] for substance abuse prevention.
[1:11:10] And I will put a attraction in for that article.
[1:11:13] And lastly, thank you all for all the idea.
[1:11:17] Thank you.
[1:11:19] Our final speaker.
[1:11:21] My name is Chris Bittalary.
[1:11:23] I thank you guys for your potential support.
[1:11:28] We've had an animal rescue sanctuary for approximately 50 years
[1:11:33] and from the very beginning, the fire department essentially said
[1:11:37] because of our geography, of our situation.
[1:11:40] They would not be able to help us in a while or very little
[1:11:44] fed all in a wildland fire so that made us have to have a solution to save the animals so we
[1:11:52] created a basically a fire stop fire break which stops the fire. We had trees, certain kinds of
[1:12:02] trees that they catch the embers and the act as a heat shield and all those embers and with
[1:12:08] winds it drops down into the succulents with different rows and pathways so that the embers
[1:12:16] get caught up in there so the wind can't blow them up and out and they just go out because
[1:12:21] succulents were the most part don't burn and then we had other pasture areas that help slow
[1:12:29] the fire down and cactus rings around the whole area so in the 93 fire the animals weren't
[1:12:38] most of everything survived,
[1:12:43] and no fire guys were up there at the time. In fact they were
[1:12:47] halfway down the street, and at the end the fire chief and other fire officials said our
[1:12:54] sanctuaries stopped the fire, which saved the neighborhood on that side. The other side of the hill
[1:13:00] where there wasn't a fire stop. There was 60 houses burned, they came right down to the fire guys,
[1:13:07] which, which cool they put out the fire there, so that, and, and, and, and, and again, I don't want to put any fire guys at risk. So I totally understood them not being able to go up there and I wouldn't want them up there because it is risky. So that's why we created that system and in the emerald fire. So the fire guys that were up there after the fact and, and just, as it, we, we couldn't evacuate in time. At that, in four, three or four in the morning, the fire was right on our sanctuary.
[1:13:37] right there, the fire guys came up and evacuated. I immediately went to the hillside because I knew it was a
[1:13:43] safes. And basically the fire stopped there, they had fire dropping water away further back,
[1:13:54] but it helped. And the fire guys said, our situation, we weren't lucky, they were impressed with our
[1:14:01] system that it worked. So it worked in the 93 and it worked in the Emerald Fire, so
[1:14:07] and there's millions of gallons of water going out through the sewer system, mile out
[1:14:13] offshore. Some of that could be implemented around Laguna, that water source, and create
[1:14:19] these succulent gardens and overtime. You don't get any more water.
[1:14:24] There's just something to think about. Thank you. Thank you.
[1:14:27] So now we're going to bring it back to Council and staffs of Ann Marie your report.
[1:14:33] Yes, thank you, Mayor. I appreciate it. First, I would just like to say that with the focus on fire prevention, I hope more people sign up for certain.
[1:14:43] But that's not what I need to say.
[1:14:45] Applications are currently being accepted for openings on many committees such as the design review board and environmental sustainability committee heritage committee housing and human services.
[1:14:56] PTC, REC, and View Restoration Committee.
[1:15:00] But the deadline is for 430 this Friday, so please get your applications and if you're interested in serving on any of those committees, the applications available on the website or you can just contact me and I'll send it to.
[1:15:14] I also want to draw your attention to the digital number display that is on the dias people in the room or viewing on YouTube have commented that it's hard for them to know what item were on.
[1:15:28] So we're going to try this out, see if it works and people like it, so that's all I have.
[1:15:36] Thank you, Ann Marie.
[1:15:38] City manager, do you have a report?
[1:15:41] I don't, because I think council mayor Wale and wanted to ask a question about the sewer
[1:15:46] spill.
[1:15:47] I'll wait for that.
[1:15:50] I can ask you now.
[1:15:51] Well, I think we're in safety chief.
[1:15:54] Kai Bond was going to come up in response.
[1:15:55] Right, yeah, I think a lot of people know there was a sewer spill last week as molten
[1:16:03] Miguel into the creek, into a lease of creek, and I think, you know, Chief Bond has some
[1:16:10] updates on that.
[1:16:12] Good evening, Mayor, NC Council.
[1:16:15] Yeah, just to provide a little bit of a background on January 10th in the morning and approximately
[1:16:20] in the 9.45 AM, there was a sewage spill that was adjacent to Laguna-Nigal Regional Park near
[1:16:28] their lift station. And sewage spilled, and it was a molten-Nigal water district, a forced
[1:16:35] main, and it discharged into sulfur creek, and then just shortly after into a liso creek.
[1:16:42] So, as part of the resolution, the spill was stopped that approximately 130 pm that same day,
[1:16:48] And immediate mitigation included damning at the Arizona crossing and redirecting the flow to the coastal treatment plant.
[1:16:59] So, multi-gal water district initiated containment and pumping operations after that period.
[1:17:06] And soqua coordinated to authorize emergency pumping to coastal treatment plants within 15 minutes of that request.
[1:17:13] So the actions were swift,
[1:17:17] and everybody was cooperating
[1:17:18] as far as dealing with this issue.
[1:17:22] So as far as the environmental monitoring
[1:17:24] goes in the biological assessment,
[1:17:27] the biological assessment started on January 11th.
[1:17:30] So just the day after they started doing tests,
[1:17:34] sample was conducted by SOCWA, BIMALT, and the GAL
[1:17:37] at multiple sites throughout the creek.
[1:17:39] I think there's over 12 sites.
[1:17:43] However, unfortunately at this point, even though we have kept the berm intact and built up
[1:17:50] some sand, we did get a call from Orange County Health stating that there is going to be an
[1:17:56] ocean closure from Table Rock Beach all the way to North Treasure Island Beach. So there's a
[1:18:04] closure that was initiated this evening for that area, and what we'll do is we'll continue to
[1:18:11] monitor the area to assure that the closure does mean intact and in the meantime what molten
[1:18:17] the gal is done is they're sending four pump trucks down to remove some of the water that's
[1:18:22] putting pressure on the berm side of the creek on the east side of the creek. So there's mitigation
[1:18:28] efforts that are ongoing. City staff will continue to monitor the area keep the area closed and then
[1:18:35] what's the next step? Well, there's testing every day by the Orange County Health Department to
[1:18:40] sure that we can notify the public when that area will be opened.
[1:18:45] Thank you, Chief.
[1:18:48] I just wanted to thank our public works department and the Marine Safety folks.
[1:18:52] I mean, we were right on top of it.
[1:18:54] We did our part and this wasn't a city caused event, but we wanted to be a good partner.
[1:19:00] And I think we've really done what we needed to do to mitigate the impact on the ocean.
[1:19:06] and unfortunately as you say Chief Bond, it got for some of it permeated through, but I'm sure
[1:19:12] it was much mitigated due to our actions, so thank you both for that.
[1:19:19] When was the last time that there was a spill upstream, you know, how often it might happen
[1:19:25] when the last time was?
[1:19:26] Not that I'm aware of this one seems to be a little more significant than maybe others in
[1:19:32] the past.
[1:19:33] And I can get that information.
[1:19:34] There are no other containment basins upstream.
[1:19:38] The berm is it.
[1:19:39] That's the only choice that we ever have.
[1:19:42] As far as close to our area, I think that is the answer.
[1:19:46] However, I'd have to rely on information
[1:19:48] from either public works or software to get
[1:19:51] that more specific information.
[1:19:53] Thank you.
[1:19:57] Thank you.
[1:19:57] Thanks, Chief.
[1:19:59] Other.
[1:20:00] For the city manager, someone from the public raised the question of the CPUC requirement for backup cell generators. Can you guys look into that, whether that's whether it work with cell carriers to see if that could be implemented. If that exact, the law sounds good. Okay, city attorney, do you have any updates?
[1:20:26] I have a couple of things, one is, so on the cell, cell coverage, somebody from, I think
[1:20:33] she left, but from Archbishop Chage commented on the lack, so we had a power outage, you
[1:20:38] know, a number of power outage, the second one was Thursday, I think it was, we had 2600
[1:20:44] But what's happening is, like at top of the world, Victoria Beach, up where I live, which is, you know,
[1:20:51] south part of Archbishop Chines and Archbishop Chines, have very limited self on service.
[1:20:56] So a lot of us use our, when we use our phones, we use it over the internet.
[1:21:00] So when the power goes out, the internet goes out, you can't use your phone.
[1:21:04] So I think we just need to get very urgently, get the carriers to get it, get over here and make sure
[1:21:09] we have adequate coverage, because when I lived in Victoria Beach for a while while I was working
[1:21:12] on my house. And I was married at the time and we had a problem and I had to run up to coast
[1:21:17] highway because the power was out to talk to somebody. So this has become the safety issue
[1:21:22] because a lot of people just have cell phones now. They don't have the cox phones or internet
[1:21:25] phones. So that needs to be addressed as quickly as possible. And in some ways, we're our
[1:21:30] own worst enemy because we get all particular. Well, we don't want to sell site here.
[1:21:33] We don't want to sell site there. We just need to get the coverage intact because it's more
[1:21:38] important than worrying about whether or not you have a poll somewhere. So we need to get
[1:21:42] over ourselves on that and get that fixed because that's a big safety issue.
[1:21:48] I think I don't know if this is possible Dave, but also when we had the PSPS email alert that
[1:21:55] they were going to shut down on Thursday, they said we're going to turn down the acre circuit.
[1:22:01] And nobody knows what's on the acre circuit. I don't know how many circuits we have, but it would
[1:22:05] be good if when we get these announcements, but we can also communicate to the public who is going to
[1:22:11] affected by the acre circuit, because it was like archbites, it was part of Woods Co., it was
[1:22:18] some part of Bluebird, I don't know, a very odd. Probably historically old infrastructure
[1:22:23] in the way they put it together, but it's very confusing to people and you don't know what to
[1:22:28] expect until your power goes off. The next thing I was going to mention is when we had the insurance
[1:22:37] commissioner here, office here at the end of August, we had a packed room, the reason
[1:22:43] was packed, because people haven't trouble getting insurance. I mean, that's by me. Almost
[1:22:47] everybody's on the fair plan. Fair plans underfunded now, because the wildfires in LA,
[1:22:53] there's underfunded by a lot of money. And when we had the insurance commissioner here,
[1:22:59] one of the things they said, and so we can be ready for this, is that they're going to start
[1:23:05] doing this catastrophic modeling this year.
[1:23:07] So if you want to get insurance,
[1:23:09] they're going to look at your house from above.
[1:23:10] If you have clearance around your house, around your house,
[1:23:13] your neighbors, so that they set even as simple as five or six
[1:23:16] neighbors, five or six neighbors have clearance around their house.
[1:23:20] They consider that a fire safe community,
[1:23:22] and they'll give you insurance.
[1:23:24] So I think people need to get,
[1:23:26] we also need to get religion here about our vegetation around our house
[1:23:31] because we're going to end up not getting insurance.
[1:23:32] And not only does that put your own house at risk,
[1:23:36] but it puts the community at risk.
[1:23:37] So we need to start thinking about our responsibility as residents,
[1:23:41] and what we need to do to protect our home,
[1:23:44] that along with modernizing our homes
[1:23:48] in terms of building codes and things like that.
[1:23:50] So we just kind of need to be very cognizant
[1:23:53] when Bob and I seeming the council points are subcommittee.
[1:23:56] That's something I really want to work on.
[1:23:58] So I also did some driving around town
[1:24:01] because my power was out, and I wanted to see what was happening.
[1:24:04] So I drove around a little bit and I saw some things that we need to put on our list.
[1:24:09] I think it would be helpful.
[1:24:10] I think Michael Morris made this.
[1:24:11] I saw from blue, but they're undergrounding the lines up in blue,
[1:24:14] but they're still working on, they had the trucks up there today.
[1:24:17] So I've had exactly the same plot as on red flag days.
[1:24:22] We shouldn't have any construction.
[1:24:23] We don't have that many, so it's not like it's a big hardship.
[1:24:26] And we get advanced warning, so we should be doing that as well.
[1:24:31] And, you know, I have, I got a bunch more things for our list.
[1:24:34] Some of the things don't cost for him.
[1:24:35] I'm like, which is the good news.
[1:24:36] Other things cost a lot.
[1:24:38] So, anyway, that's my report.
[1:24:40] Thank you.
[1:24:40] Councilmember Willon.
[1:24:42] Just, just one more quick thing kind of following on, on Councilmember
[1:24:46] Camp's theme there.
[1:24:47] We've had, you know, I, more than a dozen,
[1:24:50] great suggestions that come in from the community already via email.
[1:24:53] And we've heard some of them tonight, but not all of them.
[1:24:55] And we're, we're keeping a running list.
[1:24:57] So if anybody either here or let's...
[1:25:00] Listening, you know, has an idea that would be appropriate for this, you know, mitigation plan. As I said, everything's on the table. So, please email into the council and, you know, it will be considered as part of this ongoing effort. So, you know, we've got a really thoughtful, creative community and some of the ideas, you know, we've heard a couple tonight have been really practical and really, really good. So, I'm sure there are more out there. Thank you.
[1:25:31] And they are pro-town.
[1:25:34] And nothing to report, I'll just run through my communications list, Greg Vivian, Marylander
[1:25:40] Sin, Monica Fathcher, Ali, Joel from the Chamber, Catherine Yerke, we Paul Freeman,
[1:25:52] Mike Mariner, Senior and Junior, Karen Phillips in, parents, sheckler, I hope I got that
[1:25:57] and Christophe Larry Nokes, Mark Christie, Dave Ship, Todd Whalen, Chris Moore, and Ed Almanza.
[1:26:06] And then we did have a couple of meetings over the last several weeks, Coastal Greenbelt Authority.
[1:26:11] We had a prominent meeting both with the retail group and the restaurant group and revenue enhancement meeting.
[1:26:20] And I would like to wish Karen Phillips and a happy birthday.
[1:26:25] it's her birthday today. So happy birthday, Karen.
[1:26:30] And I have no report at this time. So at this point, we're going to take the consent calendar.
[1:26:39] So are there any items that members of the council or members of the public would like to pull?
[1:26:43] I'll pull number 11. I want to pull 11 as well.
[1:26:47] Any other items? No. Members of the public.
[1:26:52] So, if then I will take a, is there a motion?
[1:26:56] Move the balance because it's a consent column.
[1:26:58] I'll second that.
[1:27:01] All in favor.
[1:27:02] Hi.
[1:27:03] Four.
[1:27:04] And then we have one abstention from the Mayor Pro Tem.
[1:27:07] So now let's, is the number 11 that's Community Development Daven?
[1:27:11] Sorry.
[1:27:12] Did we have to read an ordinance there?
[1:27:14] Emberie.
[1:27:15] Oh, yeah.
[1:27:19] Is it nine?
[1:27:20] I think it's nine.
[1:27:23] Yes, she needs to read the title, the ordinance.
[1:27:41] Hit that one in there.
[1:27:43] An ordinance of the City Council of the City of
[1:27:45] We're going to be to California,
[1:27:46] I'm mending chapter 10.02,
[1:27:48] driving regulations of the
[1:27:49] We're going to be to municipal code by establishing
[1:27:52] Prima Fascha speed limits on various roadway
[1:27:56] segments throughout the city and
[1:27:57] finding set action exempt from the California
[1:27:59] environment of quality.
[1:28:02] Thank you.
[1:28:03] So should we re-vote on it?
[1:28:04] So the motion was made by Council Member
[1:28:07] have a nice second to it. All in favor of approving the balance of the consent calendar.
[1:28:13] 4-0.
[1:28:16] So now we'll hear from David and Anthony on item number 11.
[1:28:20] Mark can come back.
[1:28:23] Where do you go?
[1:28:25] Mayor, did you have questions for staff or would you like us just to provide an overview of questions?
[1:28:33] We should wait for Mark.
[1:28:35] Let's take a two minute break.
[1:28:36] .
[1:30:00] We're back from our break. So, David, do you want to ask your question first and then?
[1:30:07] Well, there was a council like I have some questions, but would you like a reporter?
[1:30:11] I think a report would be nice. Sure.
[1:30:13] Do you want to give us a report on where how we're doing with the backlog?
[1:30:16] Yeah. Sure. Thank you, Mayor. David, a contraris director, a community development.
[1:30:22] So, staff report provides, I think the big question at the last meeting we reported, which was in November,
[1:30:28] was, when it will be, when it will be, will be, excuse me, when it will, the team be out of the
[1:30:36] backlog, now what is that projected day? And I mentioned at that meeting that it would be sometime
[1:30:42] in this spring. We were targeting early spring and the staff report provides we're targeting
[1:30:48] April 15th, at that point would be sort of, we determined to be out of that backlog. The backlog,
[1:30:55] what is a backlog and we're defining the staff report which provides that the backlog is
[1:31:03] in essence zoning applications that have been in the works for over multiple months
[1:31:10] including projects that were already submitted in 2013. But as I've been speaking with staff
[1:31:19] and asking more detailed questions about the backlog in the sense of how far back does
[1:31:26] this go beyond 2013. And even today's staff told me that in 2018, 7 years ago, is when there
[1:31:37] was a shift in staffing, and they began to see that backlog start to build up. So this
[1:31:43] something that's been playing the division for a very long time.
[1:31:51] And as a staff report provides, we've identified several initiatives and several strategies
[1:31:58] that we've put in the plan to last six months to help us achieve that target date.
[1:32:04] The staff report is pretty lengthy.
[1:32:05] I can go into details, but in essence, the big picture is that we are moving the needle.
[1:32:11] We are making progress.
[1:32:14] There's still some time that we're going to need.
[1:32:16] And that time is between now and April.
[1:32:19] So with that, we'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.
[1:32:23] Yeah, thank you David. So I have some questions.
[1:32:29] So are we, when we say we're doing better, are we, are we just,
[1:32:37] I'm trying to comply with the Permit Streamlining Act, and I know we're out of compliance.
[1:32:44] Yes, so that is the goal.
[1:32:45] The goal is by April 15th that we would be at that place where we are conducting 30-day reviews on applications.
[1:32:53] So if I was an applicant, yeah.
[1:32:56] Okay, so based on your report now, if I was an applicant, would my perception be that we're processing better or faster?
[1:33:04] is any, would I see it a appreciable improvement?
[1:33:09] The answer is yes. We do have some staff members that at this time are processing the first
[1:33:13] reviews within 30 days and that's actually already occurring although it's not showing up in the numbers
[1:33:19] currently. The numbers I believe we have in this report ran through January 5th.
[1:33:30] So, when I look at this, so this to me is a very high-level report, I get it, I get it, but what I'd like to see is
[1:33:41] where when an application comes in, where is most of the time being spent?
[1:33:47] Like, I want to see the more granular data.
[1:33:51] So, what I want to be able to understand is, where are we holding it up, and for what reason, and where is the applicant holding it up?
[1:33:58] So for example, if we're waiting, you know, the applicant makes a submission, we send back corrections, and we don't get it back for three months, let's say, I want to make sure that that data point is captured, so we know like, okay, that is enough, that's the applicant.
[1:34:13] So that we can explain to the community with data, why things are happening the way they're happening.
[1:34:20] And I think we just, I don't know if you have that data here in the process of collecting it, but I think, in terms of me as a council member, understand it kind of where you are, how you're doing in your improvements, that's the kind of thing I'd be interested in seeing.
[1:34:35] So, that data is not provided in this report that is manual data that we'll have to put together for the next update.
[1:34:43] But I can't tell you in speaking with a staff that there is a lengthy timeframe from a time that we release first at a comments to when the applicant's resummit.
[1:34:55] And that's the timeframe that you're looking for, which we don't have tonight.
[1:35:00] Do you want to talk about how ENERGVE plays a role in being able to report that better and tell the community a little bit more about ENERGVE?
[1:35:06] Sure, so ENERGVE will be rolling out tomorrow. We'll be going along with the live with ENERGVE. ENERGVE will be the online portal that allows folks from their offices to submit plan checks directly into the city via the portal.
[1:35:19] It's an online portal that requires registration.
[1:35:24] If for those that are interested, we have training that's been set up to help folks register
[1:35:30] and understand how to upload their projects into the system.
[1:35:35] With respect to the tracking, intergable be a live system.
[1:35:39] So at any time folks can log in and see the status of their plan check and see what their project is in the process.
[1:35:45] So would that, would Intergov give us some of the data I referenced?
[1:35:50] Yes.
[1:35:51] It will allow for us to track the project entering into the system.
[1:35:56] When those comments were released, when the project was resimitted,
[1:36:00] and then the overall time every view for the project.
[1:36:03] So another thing I noticed in here is on page three,
[1:36:07] the third bullet we were at fourth bullet where you talk about use of AI to do the draft.
[1:36:12] Have we done a pilot yet on that?
[1:36:15] We have tested several projects.
[1:36:20] In fact, we tested it with all of the planners conducted training for all the planners
[1:36:25] to initiate AI to see what speed AI would provide to the staff for the first draft of a staff report.
[1:36:34] And these are staff reports that would be for design review.
[1:36:39] board. These reports are quite time consuming, as you've been made aware, but it's the same
[1:36:46] time as part of the AI testing. We also tested the applicant's providing specific project
[1:36:55] information that we would then feed into the AI, which would then result in computing a draft
[1:37:01] section of a staff report for the staff. So when you tried it, what was the result like? It was
[1:37:06] It depends on the project, but overall we did have success with several of the reports.
[1:37:14] And when I say it just depends on the project, there's a difference when you're
[1:37:18] imputing data for a brand new single family home and the findings that are required
[1:37:23] to versus a decadition or a swimming pool.
[1:37:28] But nonetheless, we are still continuing to use AI.
[1:37:31] Okay, let's have a quick question.
[1:37:32] Following up on two questions, we'll just clarify the permits.
[1:37:36] So I think we have a sort of a different definition of getting
[1:37:38] of following state law, including the backlogs.
[1:37:41] I see them as two different things.
[1:37:43] We always should follow state law.
[1:37:44] That's what we have to do in the state of California.
[1:37:47] And really the question before is, how do we,
[1:37:49] that sort of should be the minimum?
[1:37:51] And then how do we make it where our residents can have
[1:37:54] quick review?
[1:37:55] And so the Permit Street Monning provides for 30 day, 30 day, you know, review where you have to say whether the application is complete or provide comments.
[1:38:06] Is that accurate?
[1:38:06] That's correct.
[1:38:07] So in the desired time, the goals here, we have on the city side, because I agree, I don't think it's almost irrelevant how much time is spent on the side of the applicant, the architect, in returning there.
[1:38:20] that's their promise on our problem, but on the city side, that's what we can control. The
[1:38:24] desire time is 105 to 135 days. That's four submittals. Do we really need four submittals
[1:38:33] as our goal when every time you have to do a submittal, that means that the planner has to go and
[1:38:40] you know, review everything. It seems that the goal should be how do we move make it where we're having
[1:38:45] less submittals by either providing comprehensive comments or maybe, you know, bringing in the
[1:38:50] We can't do it around table discussion, so I guess the goal here that I see is how do we
[1:38:59] reduce the amount of time that the city has it processing and so I guess that's my question
[1:39:02] is do we really, is our goal for some itals?
[1:39:06] We plan for a once a middle review.
[1:39:09] Okay.
[1:39:09] If the project is complete and everything is submitted with that review, something that we encountered
[1:39:14] in the last two months of just conducting analysis of the reviews that are going out.
[1:39:20] and the resumittals, we have found that applicants
[1:39:22] are not responding to the correctionalists
[1:39:25] that has provided the first time around.
[1:39:28] And I will also dug into at least five projects
[1:39:30] where we're at three plan checks in.
[1:39:32] And the planer is still asking for this same information.
[1:39:37] So that causes a third and a fourth review.
[1:39:42] In other words, we cannot clear the project
[1:39:44] and prepare a staff report until that data is provided.
[1:39:48] So I conducted a review at least five projects where I found that and it wasn't just one architectural office, it was spread across the handful of architectural offices.
[1:39:58] So that's one element.
[1:40:00] That adds to that additional time frame and those are the numbers that you're looking at here. So we, if, if applicant submit a complete application on the first time that the plan to review is that's going to be a very short list of corrections that are coming back.
[1:40:15] And David, that has happened, right? You do get some that we like to get more but where you do have the full turn around on the first plan check. Correct.
[1:40:25] But again, with Intergov, that's going to help us identify and it's going to show case of the architects, the timing.
[1:40:32] And it's also going to show case of the property owner as well and not just the applicants of the architects, but the owners of the projects will understand and be able to review the corrections as well.
[1:40:44] Thank you.
[1:40:44] Thank you.
[1:40:47] Will Intergov be able to pick up and complete application?
[1:40:53] So, through the, the submittal of the portal, we still have
[1:40:57] map power on the submittal side, so we do have, I believe, two planners that will
[1:41:03] be set up on the intake side that will review the applications and conduct a
[1:41:09] brief overview of the submittal checklist to ensure that we have enough
[1:41:14] information submitted to conduct a plan check.
[1:41:16] I've heard a couple of stories regarding the other cities that are using
[1:41:20] intergoverned. They were positive for instance up in Fullerton, you know, that it's working quite
[1:41:26] well. I know that we have a more complex system. So will it be able to at some point be able to
[1:41:36] assuming that you're not utilizing it to its fullest extent right now, would that be a correct assumption?
[1:41:42] We are not live. We're hoping to go live tomorrow. But even once it's live, will we be utilizing it to
[1:41:47] full extent? With respect to the project intake, yes. So I would be able to go on there and actually get an
[1:41:54] online permit for some of the fences, decks, things of that nature without visiting or talking to
[1:42:00] anybody from the city. That I'm not sure of. Matt Schneider is managing that process for us in terms of
[1:42:08] what that's going to look like after we initiate the Alliance of Mental tomorrow, but I can come back and
[1:42:13] report that to the council. I think that would be interesting. That's where I'm told that
[1:42:17] the payment everything is can happen online and there's no no communication with an individual
[1:42:25] at the city. For from the minor, you know, kinds of the garage doors, things of that nature.
[1:42:32] Assuming that we can get through without going through DRB for a garage door.
[1:42:37] So, a couple of questions, so, is Intergov optional or will everyone be required to submit the Intergov?
[1:42:48] Eventually, Intergov will be the method for some middle.
[1:42:52] As we launch the system tomorrow, we will still honor the appointments that we have on the calendar.
[1:43:00] And I believe Anthony, we have appointments that are already rolled out into April.
[1:43:07] So second question is, it makes sense to me that if we're doing third and fourth and fifth
[1:43:15] plan checks and we're continually asking for the same information, do we charge more to
[1:43:20] the applicant for that?
[1:43:27] Yes, Council Member Whale in there is a recheck fee.
[1:43:30] The initial fee covers, I believe it's three reviews.
[1:43:34] Okay, thank you.
[1:43:36] And then, and maybe this is a question for the city attorney as well.
[1:43:41] But, you know, these pending staff reports.
[1:43:45] So 39 currently as of January 1, 2025,
[1:43:49] which is down from the peak in November, which is good or October, which is good.
[1:43:54] But I mean, those all staff reports that are pending hearing
[1:43:58] at DRB or Planning Commission. In other words, these applications have, you know, been
[1:44:06] plan check and now they're just waiting here.
[1:44:11] Yeah, so that is a combination of both staff reports for the Planning Commission and the
[1:44:16] Design Review Report.
[1:44:18] Okay.
[1:44:18] But just to follow Bob's question, so it reminds us, the planer starts the staff report at
[1:44:25] at the time that the planner has completed the plan check.
[1:44:30] That is correct.
[1:44:31] So yeah, that's kind of the last step in the planner,
[1:44:34] writes up the staff report,
[1:44:35] and then sets it for hearing.
[1:44:37] So that's kind of going back to Sue's,
[1:44:39] one of Sue's earlier comments,
[1:44:41] which is, you know, this,
[1:44:41] what's the entire timeline look like, right?
[1:44:44] I mean, from application complete,
[1:44:47] which is sort of day one,
[1:44:50] to, you know, if you don't need to hearing,
[1:44:52] you know, you're hearing,
[1:44:53] but for the ones that are needing a hearing,
[1:44:55] When do they get their hearing?
[1:44:56] When do they get their billing permit?
[1:44:58] I mean, is that eight months, ten months, you know?
[1:45:00] That to me is the ultimate target we want to be looking at and shrinking down.
[1:45:05] Well, in our staff report there, that's the six-month target for, again, a more complex project,
[1:45:12] a major removal of new construction that includes at least a couple of plan checks, time
[1:45:19] to prepare the staff report, and then prepare the other mechanics of hearing, which could be
[1:45:29] is what 105 to 135 days, but 180 days, to have your done with design review or done with planning
[1:45:37] commission.
[1:45:39] Now, I understand that's our goal, that's our target, right?
[1:45:42] But in order to measure progress, I suppose we should know where we are currently, right?
[1:45:46] And that's something as David was mentioning, sorry to step in, but David was mentioning,
[1:45:54] we in the team have been talking about gathering that information because we need to set
[1:45:59] bench mark. Sorry, we have our bench mark. We need to say just like you said,
[1:46:03] Councilman, where are we? Where are we? So that's my goal. It's our goal at the next
[1:46:07] time we report to you is we'll we'll get a understanding of where we are. But it's not in
[1:46:14] this staff. That'd be great. That's good. Just to be clear Bob mentioned, I believe
[1:46:21] you were talking about ready to go ready to pull your permit, right? So does that that's
[1:46:26] month include plan check. I mean it depends on how complicated you need to build a plan check.
[1:46:32] Yeah, actually that's better question by. So it does not include plan check just to be clear. I didn't think so.
[1:46:37] No, it does not include the building plan check process. Right. So just to be clear, when somebody
[1:46:44] submits the application and then there's they're returned to the architect with the corrections.
[1:46:51] And then if one or more of the corrections hasn't been remedied, then it will show up again right for that it hadn't been corrected.
[1:47:05] And the client has the opportunity to see that.
[1:47:10] That is correct.
[1:47:13] Highlight it in red, maybe.
[1:47:15] Any
[1:47:19] other questions on this?
[1:47:21] I'm going to open public comment.
[1:47:23] Are there any members of the public who'd like to weigh in on this item before us?
[1:47:34] Good evening, Morris.
[1:47:35] Can you area an architect?
[1:47:37] And I share the frustration and the complexity of the process given staff changes and all that.
[1:47:43] But I think they're on the road to seriously committed to doing something about it.
[1:47:49] And I sincerely believe that.
[1:47:51] I'd like to see them consider that we're not only talking about houses and remodels,
[1:47:56] we're talking about commercial projects.
[1:47:59] And we've got more commercial projects, some under construction, some in the queue,
[1:48:06] they need to be treated somehow differently, I don't know how differently.
[1:48:12] And the other is you have projects under construction that require changes that may or
[1:48:18] back through design review or the planning commission, so can there be understanding that complexity
[1:48:25] of the construction process? Loans, target dates for completion and all that. These are
[1:48:33] some expeditious process that's possible for those projects on the construction, both commercial
[1:48:39] and residential. So you have commercial residential under construction,
[1:48:48] you have commercial
[1:48:48] new help and seven remodels. So there's like three different
[1:48:53] pits there for bins to work on. Thank you.
[1:48:57] Thank you.
[1:48:59] Hello again, Brendan Kregler at 490C view.
[1:49:03] From what I'm hearing the only thing I'm concerned about is the
[1:49:05] streamlining of the process and not checks and balance for the
[1:49:09] existing homeowners.
[1:49:10] The one thing that I have to be concerned about is that I
[1:49:14] bought all in on our fire prevention.
[1:49:17] And I did easily $250,000 in additional fire prevention at my house.
[1:49:24] And now it doesn't matter because you guys are going to do ADUs everywhere.
[1:49:28] It's not fair.
[1:49:31] And in general, AI makes mistakes.
[1:49:34] You know, it picks up the wrong word.
[1:49:35] It sends you to the wrong place.
[1:49:37] Sometimes when I go on your website, launch as me into 2024.
[1:49:41] and it's like a little frustrating to assume that these automated systems work well.
[1:49:49] I appreciate the engineering and wanting to streamline, wanting to make things fair,
[1:49:54] but you represent the people of Laguna Beach, not these projects.
[1:50:00] We voted for you. That's what I'd like to say. Thank you. Thank you.
[1:50:13] And Kristoff, I sent you the letter yesterday regarding experience I had with a design review project.
[1:50:22] And so I'd like to say that I had a lot of discontent with the staff reports. They're very long. They're very detailed.
[1:50:31] but they don't necessarily cover the subjects they need to cover.
[1:50:37] And in this particular case 309 Hawthorne,
[1:50:41] there were five Heritage Candidate Canary Island Palms
[1:50:46] on this property.
[1:50:48] Staff didn't even note them.
[1:50:51] They said that there was nothing significant on the site.
[1:50:54] And that there were no environmental concerns at all.
[1:51:03] So in the previous world, what would have happened is when someone's getting ready to do an application.
[1:51:12] They would have made an appointment to have a site visit with a knowledgeable staff person.
[1:51:17] And I remember doing that with Nancy on one of my projects and she came out.
[1:51:23] And she talked about all the possible concerns that could come up and all the policies that might apply to this particular site.
[1:51:33] And briefed the architect and me and the applicant about things to consider as we were making our first middle.
[1:51:41] Apparently this doesn't happen anymore. And that's a big gap.
[1:51:46] That's a, that's a way for people to understand the policies that they're dealing with up front before they hit a public hearing six months after they apply.
[1:51:58] And so in this case, if the staff had, at least put it in the staff report that these trees by the general plan policy are to be protected.
[1:52:11] They would have started out with a plan for their house that protected the trees, which is very feasible to do.
[1:52:20] But that didn't happen. So it came to the first hearing.
[1:52:24] I came up and talked about it. I pointed out that missing links in the staff report.
[1:52:31] They had a second hearing. Staffs turned in the same staff report. They didn't address that at all.
[1:52:36] Now, that's a mandatory general plan policy that's supposed to be implemented by our planning department and they just ignored it.
[1:52:46] So now they're coming back for a third hearing.
[1:52:49] They're only saving three of the trees instead of all five.
[1:52:54] And they're doing a whole plan, which is, they could have done a plan that kept the trees.
[1:53:00] And I did a diagram of how that could have happened.
[1:53:03] That could have happened at day one.
[1:53:05] But no now it now it's not happening and so we're not getting the kind of results we should be getting from this planning process because these policies are not told to the applicants up front.
[1:53:20] Thank you.
[1:53:22] Thank you.
[1:53:28] Good evening everyone.
[1:53:29] My name is Cathy Yerke.
[1:53:31] I'm ordinarily I would be saying happy New Year but it is not a very happy New Year.
[1:53:36] I was really struck by what Anne was saying about site visits.
[1:53:42] It really hadn't occurred to me that if there is a major project coming forward that there
[1:53:47] wouldn't be a staff member of site visit and, you know, the DRB or the planning commission
[1:53:53] will do site visits when it comes time to evaluate the final version, but I do think it
[1:53:58] makes a lot of sense in sort of coming up with a sense of the possible before you put all
[1:54:04] that work into developing and redeveloping and resubmitting all of the plans.
[1:54:11] I think I tend to agree with Anne that the staff reports are very long, but often very vague
[1:54:20] and my mind not always as keenly attuned as they should be to both the letter and the spirit
[1:54:31] of the criteria for design, of the design guidelines that are being applied.
[1:54:39] And I also wanted to echo the concern expressed about AI.
[1:54:43] I deal with AI a lot in my work at CalTAC, both legitimate and illegitimate uses of it.
[1:54:52] And if you go to AI, an aspirin formation about something that you really know something.
[1:55:00] About you will be astonished by the garbage that comes out. And so I would be very cautious about how we use it in this process. I also think it would be imperative to identify where AI is being used, either a whole report or what sections are, because I think that's information that the public needs to know, whether it's been evaluated by a person who ideally is very familiar with the policies.
[1:55:30] or a machine, and also we should always be cognizant of the tremendous environmental costs involved in using AI.
[1:55:39] Thank you very much for your consideration.
[1:55:42] Good night for a few comments there, Ms. Mayor.
[1:55:44] I'd really appreciate Kathy and Anne's comments.
[1:55:49] A couple of thoughts.
[1:55:51] The AI just helps people in some cases and not all the planners are using them because not all the planners liked them,
[1:55:57] I totally appreciate all of that,
[1:55:59] to start to get the draft of a staff report going.
[1:56:02] Ultimately, it's the planner that's responsible
[1:56:04] for reviewing that and filling in a lot of blanks.
[1:56:09] Because I picture it like, if you're an author
[1:56:12] and you just want to get some words on a page
[1:56:14] and that to start you off, that's pretty much
[1:56:17] what AI is helping us do right now.
[1:56:19] It links to our policies, it links to our general plan.
[1:56:23] It puts writing on the paper so that the planner
[1:56:25] and can further edit it.
[1:56:29] And I really appreciate what Anne said too about folks like Nancy and Monica who had such
[1:56:36] a long history with us.
[1:56:37] And I'm so thankful they're still helping us in their retirement,
[1:56:42] but I'm equally thankful
[1:56:43] for the long-term planners that are with us like David and Anthony and the team that
[1:56:49] stuck with Laguna Beach because this is a challenging place to work under that pressure.
[1:56:54] And I can't replicate easily through, unless I have years and years of training, people
[1:57:02] like Nancy, because that's just not how the workforce field is right now.
[1:57:09] I'm loving that we're able to keep the staff, we have Megan and Jane's team have been
[1:57:14] great about training the staff, we have to get them used to the policies, but this is a darn
[1:57:19] hard place to work. And it's so easy if you want to be a planner to move up. You come to Laguna
[1:57:27] and you maybe stuck, sorry that's my word, doing residential projects your whole career.
[1:57:33] Where if you go to Irvine or San Juan or Newport, you can work on advanced planning efforts too
[1:57:39] with a lighter touch to residential planning. So we need to keep Laguna being an attractive
[1:57:45] to place to work. And that's the struggle I have. And as Laguna, as Laguna faces new state
[1:57:53] law and things like that, we're going to have those conversations about how that may change
[1:57:57] with the planners do. But I can't turn back the clock and I wish I could but I can't. Again,
[1:58:05] all that stood noted, I do appreciate the comments in this sincere way in which they're offered.
[1:58:10] Thank you.
[1:58:11] Thank you.
[1:58:12] Thank you.
[1:58:12] Regarding the commercial projects Morris brought up, I just want to mention that it has
[1:58:19] been a conversation, and I believe we're going to possibly touch on it on the 31st on
[1:58:26] how best to process some of the commercial projects and keep folks that are interested,
[1:58:33] some of the retailers, for instance, that are willing to fill our vacancies, how
[1:58:39] to encourage them to stay on the hook and make an investment in the agenda.
[1:58:46] Any other comments?
[1:58:47] Just one quick one.
[1:58:49] Maybe not so quick, but either for David or Anthony.
[1:58:53] Going back to Anne's comment, I do remember some of that process and I wait back when I was on the planning commission.
[1:58:59] Can you describe a little bit what the interaction is between staff and an applicant before?
[1:59:05] You know, and we're going to lose some of that with interview or is it still available?
[1:59:12] Yeah, it's a great question and thanks for the opportunity to clarify that.
[1:59:17] We do still meet with customers at the front counter regularly and we will remain open for business at the front counter.
[1:59:25] Whether someone is doing early due diligence and just comes with questions or wants to know what they can do with a property.
[1:59:32] for example, want someone to guide them through what the application process is like and we're
[1:59:37] going to be able to continue to provide the resources to answer those good questions.
[1:59:45] The online application portal, as the director mentioned, is going to allow applicants to
[1:59:54] skip the line so to speak if they don't want to hold onto their appointment. But for now,
[2:00:00] City is offering both options, and both will be fairly comparable in terms of screening applications, ensuring
[2:00:09] that the quality of the submittal is sufficient so that we can do that comprehensive initial review
[2:00:16] to the mayor's point about ensuring that the first plan check provides a full set of comments to address
[2:00:23] to deem the application complete.
[2:00:27] The public commenters and specific we
[2:00:29] and in Kathy alluded to a process that the city used to have,
[2:00:34] which is the pre-application site visit process.
[2:00:39] There was a requirement in the past,
[2:00:41] specific to certain types of residential projects.
[2:00:45] So if you had a residential development application
[2:00:48] that required perhaps a variance,
[2:00:50] or maybe there was an upper-level addition,
[2:00:53] or the project rose to a new construction or a major remodel,
[2:00:57] that was a requirement.
[2:00:59] Now there were some concerns about that process.
[2:01:01] It was required, which meant it had a backlog
[2:01:04] of it so in often times.
[2:01:06] It wasn't always prioritized because we did have applications
[2:01:11] that were ready to proceed with the entitlement process.
[2:01:15] So we also had to dedicate resources to.
[2:01:18] Now, although that process went away,
[2:01:20] and we no longer generate those pre-site reports.
[2:01:23] All the planners do visit their project sites.
[2:01:30] So I'm glad to hear that we're going to be talking
[2:01:32] about the commercial stuff and because we
[2:01:34] are having a problem with our commercial sector.
[2:01:38] You know, prior to COVID, we used to do open for business,
[2:01:43] remember, if anybody wanted to open a business,
[2:01:45] we'd come to an open open for business session.
[2:01:48] And we kind of vet them and advance and talk about,
[2:01:51] with the city process was, and they have a variety of questions.
[2:01:56] They want to know things like, you know, any similar businesses in town,
[2:02:00] how long would it take me, what are the costs, lots of questions?
[2:02:04] I think we should try to do that again.
[2:02:07] Or we should talk about some process to help potential commercial business owners come into town,
[2:02:13] because we're starting to have a lot of vacancies here,
[2:02:16] and it's impacting our sales tax revenue now.
[2:02:21] any other comments on on this item?
[2:02:23] How do you want to say anything?
[2:02:26] So I thank you for the report, this is just a receive and file and I guess we'll look
[2:02:30] forward to next in the expense report.
[2:02:33] We'll hopefully have the data about the benchmark, is that a really seek-deliverable?
[2:02:39] Sounds good.
[2:02:40] We're going to die trying.
[2:02:41] Okay, thank you.
[2:02:42] Thanks everyone.
[2:02:44] So do we need a break or should we move on or are we ready to go to the next to our regular
[2:02:49] calendar. Council, good, everyone's good. So then let's move on to item 13 who will be presenting
[2:02:59] the staff report. Jennifer.
[2:03:07] Good evening Mayor and city council. One moment while I bring up the power
[2:03:11] points.
[2:03:33] So this evening we are looking at the purchase and sale agreements for the properties located
[2:03:38] at 2, 3, 0, 7, and 2, 5, 3, 5, with good and canyon road.
[2:03:43] Just as a bit of background and catch everyone up, our goals are aligned with city council
[2:03:47] priority number five to pursue artist work, live opportunities in the city.
[2:03:54] With a big picture of the city acquiring these good and canyon properties or assigning the
[2:03:59] acquisition, establishing a community land trust, and then being positioned to support
[2:04:04] other potential affordable housing opportunities in the city. The two properties again are
[2:04:10] 2, 5, 3, 5, we're going to continue to load with 14 units, 2, 3, 0, 7, we're going to continue to
[2:04:16] load with 11 units.
[2:04:20] So far, what we've accomplished is a workshop discussing the matter in November.
[2:04:24] We did have a similar item to the sevenine's item on the December 10th agenda that that was pulled.
[2:04:30] However, we have continued conversations with City Council throughout 2024 and 2025 for the
[2:04:37] purchase and sale agreements for the properties.
[2:04:42] We have an ad hoc committee that continues to work with potential third parties and coordinates
[2:04:48] with City staff on the matter.
[2:04:51] This evening before you, just to clarify, there's four purchase and sale agreements within your
[2:04:57] package.
[2:04:57] And that's due to not only
[2:05:00] They're being two properties, but they're being two entities that own each property. So there's for purchase and sale agreements. The total purchase price between those four agreements would be $8.65 million.
[2:05:14] It includes an investigation period for due diligence set to expire towards the end of February, closing by the end of February with an opportunity to extend.
[2:05:24] The total deposit would be $100,000 unless the city chooses to extend with another $25,000.
[2:05:34] I do want to point out that there is an error in the staff report with the deposit amount.
[2:05:39] The staff report says $150,000 total, but it is $125,000 total should the city choose to extend that closing date.
[2:05:50] As noted in the staff report, we are looking at different funds within the city to fund this effort.
[2:05:56] Those include the open space fund, the parking fund, the vehicle replacement fund, and the insurance fund.
[2:06:04] The recommendation before you includes four main parts to adopt the resolution,
[2:06:10] authorize the city manager to execute the necessary documents.
[2:06:14] We're turned to City Council for assignment and loan documents and then transfer an appropriation for our due diligence.
[2:06:22] On the slide before you are short and diversions of the full recommendation within your staff report,
[2:06:28] except for the first one for the title of the resolution, the underlines clarify that it should include
[2:06:35] trust A, B, and C, whereas the title in the staff report just have B, and C.
[2:06:42] This concludes staff presentation, and we are available for any questions.
[2:06:46] Thank you, do members of the ad hoc committee, Council Members Whale, and our Mayor
[2:06:49] Program, or will you want to add any comments?
[2:06:55] I don't think at this time, I think maybe we'll take public comment, and then we can
[2:06:58] kind of have council discussions.
[2:07:01] So then we'll open up public comment on this item.
[2:07:05] Any members of the public question to speak please line up?
[2:07:08] everybody, Billy Fried, again, from the radio station. I want to just let you know why
[2:07:14] there's a film crew here. We applied for a national endowment of humanities grant to tell
[2:07:20] a riveting story about Laguna Beach, which is the arc of it beginning as an artist colony,
[2:07:26] and sustaining that for many, many years, but being in a place now where prices of real estate
[2:07:31] are basically forcing artists out of our community. And it's an allegory that's taking place
[2:07:37] In many other arts communities, and if we do win this grant, it would be very prestigious
[2:07:41] for our radio station as a storyteller.
[2:07:45] I presented this to the filmmaker William Kirkley who made our sunshine, and he was so excited
[2:07:50] about this project that's been on his mind that he asked if he could send a few student
[2:07:55] cinematographers down here to capture this historic moment, because this is the happy third
[2:08:02] act that you guys are actually doing something proactively, and I can't emphasize enough
[2:08:07] how impressive this action is to demonstrate your commitment to keeping artists in our town
[2:08:14] after all, they are what created our town, sustained our town, we depend on them, we need
[2:08:19] storytellers more than ever now in the face of the crisis around this artist have a bigger
[2:08:25] role to play than ever before, they make sense of the world to us. So I just want to let you know
[2:08:30] so you weren't confused about it and hopefully we will be producing a documentary and partnership
[2:08:36] with William on this historic moment. Thank you. Thank you.
[2:08:44] Good evening council, George Deuben with you again. I have spoken to you many times
[2:08:49] about this, obviously it's something that is near and dear to my heart because it
[2:08:54] affects me extremely. I don't want to get into any redundant conversations I've
[2:09:00] already had with you. What I want, what I want to focus on is a couple of things
[2:09:05] And that is sometimes I hear people talking about a comparison of these properties, who say
[2:09:13] the long, long, long, long, long, long, long project or the, or the, the, one of they
[2:09:20] called part of lots, yeah, well, hold on a second, the sheds.
[2:09:26] That's the one I was thinking of.
[2:09:28] Those two, those both those projects were built in such a way that they do not accommodate
[2:09:33] the kind of uses that 2535 and 2307 currently provide our our community and that being
[2:09:42] industrial use. Both the Dorn and Project and the Sheds are basically kind of any
[2:09:49] projects that do accommodate artists but it's mostly digital artists and artists that don't
[2:09:56] make noise and don't make a mess.
[2:09:59] That's...
[2:10:00] That's the value of 2, 5, 3, 5, and 2, 3, 7, is that they've been in industrial zone, excuse me, the M1AZone. They allow artists to do what they do without restriction, and they're very unique to our community because there is no more of these.
[2:10:18] This is that they were built, as you know, back in the first one, back in the mid-70s,
[2:10:24] the other one in the early 80s, the Mr. Burkhardt for whatever reason had insight as to
[2:10:30] what was needed by our community, and they've been full of artists and crafts people ever
[2:10:35] since,
[2:10:38] and that's what makes them unique, is that artists are who need industrial spaces
[2:10:43] are able to function without restriction,
[2:10:49] without worrying about what the neighbors are going
[2:10:53] to say or about each other.
[2:10:55] One of the things that is happening at the Longi Project is that if somebody makes a little
[2:11:01] bit of noise or they work past seven o'clock in the evening, the phone rings and Lewis gets
[2:11:08] complaints about various activities there.
[2:11:12] So that project, although I was very much supportive of it,
[2:11:15] as you know, has failed in terms of providing the type of industrial space that we need.
[2:11:21] So I really, really urge you to continue to move forward on this endeavor
[2:11:28] for our artists and our community now and for future generations.
[2:11:33] but also I know that the events of this last week has potentially changed a little bit of focus
[2:11:41] but this this has been something that's been ongoing for almost two years now and I hope you
[2:11:45] will continue continuing moving it forward because it's it's it's it's very important to our
[2:11:51] hardest community thank you thank you next speaker please
[2:11:58] okay seeing no additional speakers I will
[2:12:01] those public comment on this item and bring it back to the council.
[2:12:06] Bob, you want to start?
[2:12:07] Yeah, thank you, Mayor.
[2:12:11] So, George's last comments, I think, are appropriate.
[2:12:16] We have received a communication from at least one member of the public about competing, you know,
[2:12:21] monetary demands, right?
[2:12:23] And this is tying up, you know, eight and a half million dollars of city money and wouldn't
[2:12:29] have been better spent on some of the things we talked about earlier, which was fire safety
[2:12:33] and emergency preparedness and so on.
[2:12:36] Well, I think we can do both.
[2:12:38] I think we need to stay the course.
[2:12:41] My personal view with this acquisition here.
[2:12:44] But remember, the plan is that the city is a bridge.
[2:12:48] I mean, where this was never the plan in the beginning.
[2:12:50] It's just how the timing played out, right?
[2:12:52] And the city had a step in and make sure we could preserve these properties before they were sold
[2:12:57] on the open market for other uses and it was apparent through the process, the real estate process
[2:13:04] that there were other purchasers out there who were going to use them for other endeavors.
[2:13:11] So, you know, I think we need to continue along this course.
[2:13:17] We are actively staff has been actively pursuing a couple of entities, non-profit entities,
[2:13:23] that could acquire these with the city just acting as the lender.
[2:13:29] But the ultimate here is, you know, for the community land trust, our community land trust
[2:13:38] to create the financial viability to, you know, to basically acquire these and own these
[2:13:45] and pay the city back as the lender.
[2:13:48] So I hope people are listening.
[2:13:49] I see one gentleman in the back, my friend Dan McInnerney, who's there, who I know is active
[2:13:54] in the community land trust process, you know, that people from the community, we are expecting
[2:14:01] you, we are counting, this is a partnership. We're looking for you to come forward, step
[2:14:05] forward, and, you know, make this community land trust a reality so that the city can do its
[2:14:11] bridge roll and then step, you know, step aside and pursue some of the other things and
[2:14:15] maybe that would be more housing down the road.
[2:14:19] But I think we should pursue this at this point,
[2:14:22] again, Council were just authorizing
[2:14:25] the purchase and sale agreements.
[2:14:27] We have a due diligence period as Jennifer pointed out
[2:14:29] till February 21.
[2:14:31] I know staff's been very active and following up
[2:14:36] on all the due diligence that we need to have,
[2:14:41] including verifying leases and looking
[2:14:43] environmental issues. So I think we're in a good position here, and we should my ask the council
[2:14:53] would be to approve the recommended actions. Thank you, Bob. If I may just add two.
[2:15:00] What you mentioned just a bit to add a little bit of detail.
[2:15:06] There are some potential funding mechanisms, and I know that one at least that minimum would work out.
[2:15:15] So, in other words, what that means is, as soon as the land trust is complete and we're told that we think in another six months, the community land trust should be ready to bring on some board members at that time.
[2:15:27] And then I would expect that it would take them several months to kind of get their footing
[2:15:32] and then start to explore some financing situations to reimburse the city for the majority
[2:15:40] of the cost of these properties.
[2:15:43] So I just want to do expand on the Bob's comment on that.
[2:15:47] And keeping in mind that the artists that do occupy them, there is cash flow on the properties
[2:15:53] currently.
[2:15:53] So between that cash flow and a couple of other ideas that you'll all hear about in the not too distant future
[2:16:00] Some other funding mechanisms. I'm very confident that the the land trust and the board members are going to be able to
[2:16:09] close this gap and make the city hold on this in a
[2:16:13] short period of time
[2:16:14] meaning two or three years
[2:16:19] Thank you any other comments
[2:16:23] I'm obviously relatively new to this. I'm new to council
[2:16:26] and I'm coming into this process late, and I just can't say enough how proud I am of us as a community and of my fellow council members on the staff who've put this together. I think it is critically important for our community to invest in supporting our local artists and I think this is the best way to do it.
[2:16:47] Yeah, and I, you know, I want to really highlight Mark Orgale for bringing this getting this going because I know when this came up we all went out and we got a tour of the two properties.
[2:16:57] For me, it was a little bit overwhelming to think about how we would go about this, but he's
[2:17:02] a smart guy over here, and then he got the other smart guy in Bob working with him.
[2:17:07] So, I totally support it.
[2:17:08] It's very important to our community, and I think it's going to work out just fine.
[2:17:15] Eric, just to have one other comment, which would be, we're not addressing this tonight,
[2:17:21] but I did want to mention it just for Council to consider, because it could come back.
[2:17:26] Now one of the financial analysis section on page four, six year, staff is highlighted some potential funds from which we could borrow money.
[2:17:34] I think there are other alternatives and I've talked with Gavin a little bit about this where we might actually consider capital improvement fund and instead having the city actually borrow short term to replace money's in the capital improvement fund.
[2:17:52] rather than taking these other funds which I'm particularly concerned a little bit about the vehicle replacement fund because we've
[2:18:00] we've already committed to an electrification program and you know.
[2:18:05] So no answers on that tonight.
[2:18:08] I just wanted to mention that as something that we may come back with a recommendation on when we're
[2:18:14] finalizing the funding analysis which I guess would be when is this going to come back to us again?
[2:18:20] The second meeting February, the second meeting February, and Dave, could you include this as part of
[2:18:27] address strategic planning workshop? We'll be looking at a five-year financial plan, right? So maybe
[2:18:32] that this could be considered as part of that to look at.
[2:18:37] Yeah, that makes sense.
[2:18:38] So Bob, what you're saying or recommending for a future discussion would be,
[2:18:43] if there's a capital improvement project that's been funded, but not ready to go, we would borrow
[2:18:48] that money since it's not ready to go anyway, right? Is that correct? Right. And but we could
[2:18:55] also borrow externally like we did for the half the cost of the Recreation Center and then
[2:19:03] just hold that money to fund the future capital improvement projects and take the capital
[2:19:09] improvement money that's currently budgeted but not needed to do this purchase. So just another
[2:19:15] potential alternative I'm not sure that's one we'll settle on but I just want to mention that to
[2:19:20] to council tonight. So yeah I'm not going to add anything I think my colleague's summarized
[2:19:27] this issue very well. Artists are part of who we are in this action moves this step closer to
[2:19:35] addressing that and ensuring that artists can always be a part of we're going to be just moving
[2:19:38] into the future. So is there a motion? I'll make a motion to approve the purchase
[2:19:48] I just close my pages here or approve the recommended action.
[2:19:56] Okay, approve the recommended action. Thank you.
[2:20:01] Can I just clarify, I think that the resolution title is to be amended to include trust, I think
[2:20:07] a reference is only B and C so could the motion include that, that it would also be a
[2:20:12] resolution to purchase from trust A.
[2:20:15] So the resolution, say that you'll amend the motion.
[2:20:18] All amend the motion to include that the amendment to the resolution title to reference trust A.
[2:20:26] amend the motion to reference, trust A.
[2:20:29] Well, staff, we're asking.
[2:20:31] Okay. All in favor.
[2:20:33] Hi. Hi.
[2:20:34] Five of you. Thank you.
[2:20:37] Thank you, Jennifer.
[2:20:41] On this next item, is it fair to ask if you want to staff report on this?
[2:20:44] We put it on the regular business just to give it some other public visibility
[2:20:49] in case people are reading it at home.
[2:20:51] So to say anyone want to staff report.
[2:20:54] Any questions on this item?
[2:20:55] So for the public's benefit, this is the community land trust community engagement plan, which is robust.
[2:21:02] Is the seeing no questions from council?
[2:21:04] Are there any members of the public who'd like to provide input on this item?
[2:21:12] Good evening Mayor Bernoggi and council members.
[2:21:16] My name is Mary Joe Wineportner and somehow I found myself the chair of the housing services committee and I just want to thank you so much for
[2:21:26] We're seeing this through Mark and Bob.
[2:21:28] I know you've worked very hard on getting this going.
[2:21:30] It's been a long process.
[2:21:32] And I have some former committee members to thank for that
[2:21:35] and brings us to this moment here, Jennifer.
[2:21:37] Thank you for your work on this.
[2:21:39] We're so excited that we're going to have another tool
[2:21:41] in the toolbox to hopefully come back our housing crisis.
[2:21:46] And I thank you so much.
[2:21:48] Thank you.
[2:21:48] Any other speakers?
[2:21:51] Seeing that I'll close public comment on this item.
[2:21:53] Are there any questions or comments from the council?
[2:21:56] I just had one comment that I shared with the City Manager yesterday that I mean this is a great robust list of engagement, but then it occurred to me that we should reach out to the hospital and have them offer them the opportunity to participate in this engagement as a stakeholder.
[2:22:16] good idea.
[2:22:19] Do you need a motion to reflect that, or can we, okay, so we have that input given?
[2:22:23] Any other comments or questions on the item?
[2:22:26] It's a receive and file, so if not, we'll move on to the next item.
[2:22:29] Thank you, Jennifer.
[2:22:32] And so for item 15 and 16, Megan, you were indicating that we would combine these into one
[2:22:37] and how we dealt with it.
[2:22:40] Yeah, I would recommend that you take them together.
[2:22:44] There are some questions as to whether you want to make certain changes.
[2:22:47] And if you do that, you likely would make them to both.
[2:22:50] And so it makes sense to have them presented simultaneously.
[2:22:54] Perfect.
[2:22:55] So do a staff report on this item?
[2:22:58] Anthony's running in.
[2:22:59] Oh, sorry.
[2:23:00] Sorry.
[2:23:01] We're going past there.
[2:23:27] And while Anthony gets set up, all this note that we did post a supplemental posting this afternoon
[2:23:33] on to the agenda and it just for the specifically for the urgency item, it updated the urgency
[2:23:43] ordinance to include, it's being handed out right now, this document, which is the full
[2:23:48] stated urgency ordinance instead of an incorporation by reference. So it's the same thing.
[2:23:53] It's just it will make this easier as we go through potential changes.
[2:23:57] Good
[2:24:00] evening, member and members of the City Council.
[2:24:04] I'll start by quickly walking the council in the public through item number 15,
[2:24:10] which is the second reading of the non-urgency ordinance,
[2:24:15] and then I'll give a brief presentation on item 16,
[2:24:18] which is the extension of the urgency ordinance.
[2:24:22] So item 15 is a second reading of a ordinance that you pass the
[2:24:27] introduced and passed to a second reading on December 10th of last year related to the city's
[2:24:34] ADU regulations.
[2:24:37] This ordinance repeals and replaces chapter 25.17 of the city's municipal code
[2:24:44] again related to ADUs and JADUs. One of the reasons why this city is presenting this
[2:24:54] to the Council for Consideration and Adoption is that state ADU law.
[2:25:00] Law has changed as of January 1st.
[2:25:06] At the last meeting, the City Council requested additional information related to two provisions related to pedestrian access and vehicle access and specifically how these two provisions address the requirements of the city's local coastal program and the coastal act.
[2:25:28] The staff report provides an analysis of that relationship and how it implements the city's certified LCP.
[2:25:38] There were various statements, policy statements, goals, and policies in the land use element specifically,
[2:25:48] which is one component of the city's certified LCP, with which those two provisions would relate and advance.
[2:25:58] So stats conclusion was that both the pedestrian and vehicular access provisions, which would apply
[2:26:05] to ADU projects, subject to a coastal development permit, or CDP, are consistent with the city's
[2:26:13] LCP and implement. The policy is about LCP.
[2:26:19] City staff did receive public comments from
[2:26:22] various members of the local design community, the comments were related to an architectural
[2:26:30] standard addressing privacy between neighboring residential properties. The concern is that it
[2:26:39] would prevent the use of clear windows and potentially a significant percentage of ADU projects in
[2:26:46] city due to the city's lot sizes and shapes.
[2:26:51] Now the Council could strike or modify these provisions,
[2:26:55] but it should be noted that this would require re-noticing
[2:26:58] and re-introduction of the non-urgency ordinance
[2:27:03] for a first reading at a future city council meeting.
[2:27:08] The agenda report before you this evening
[2:27:11] does include draft language for your consideration.
[2:27:14] shared the Council want to move in that direction, it would include the complete repeal
[2:27:20] of the provision that some members of the public had concerns with and would also modify
[2:27:28] a related provision in that same section of the ADU ordinance. Essentially, it would narrow the
[2:27:35] focus of that provision to address privacy concerns where the potential impact is the greatest
[2:27:41] which is with respect to ADU windows on upper floors.
[2:27:50] The City Council's options this evening are to either keep or repeal the provisions related
[2:27:56] to pedestrian and vehicular access and similarly to keep or repeal the provisions related
[2:28:03] to property line windows and doors and direct line of site of windows and doors or to modify
[2:28:10] those provisions, as presented by staff. And once more, many changes to the non-agency ordinance
[2:28:19] would require that we return to you for a first reading at a future notice to public hearing.
[2:28:28] Next, I'll briefly summarize the urgency ordinance, which is item 16 on your agenda, and specifically
[2:28:35] it's an extension, an ordinance, an urgency ordinance, excuse me, that you adopted on December
[2:28:41] 10. It also mirrors the content of the non-urgency ordinance. The urgency ordinance is initially
[2:28:50] effective for a 45 day period and therefore we are returning to the this evening to consider
[2:28:57] a possible extension for an additional 22 months and 15 days which would require a four-fifths
[2:29:04] of the city council. As part of your potential action, you would also adopt a 10-day report.
[2:29:13] Should you choose to extend that ordinance? The report describes the measures that are being taken
[2:29:20] to alleviate the conditions that led to the initial adoption of the urgency ordinance.
[2:29:29] Staff did want to report on a meeting that we had this afternoon,
[2:29:33] what the staff of the California Coastal Commission, there are a few important takeaways that
[2:29:39] we wanted to discuss with you this evening. And this is a follow-up to a meeting that we had
[2:29:45] with Coastal staff last week. We would have preferred to have this meeting sooner, but this was
[2:29:51] the sooner that we could meet with our staff to talk through some other more substantive comments
[2:29:58] on the urgency ordinances.
[2:30:00] Specifically, first is coastal staff requested that we hold regular coordination meetings with
[2:30:09] their staff to discuss any pending ADU applications that are going to be processed against
[2:30:16] the urgency ordinance. And we envision that these might be weekly or by weekly meetings. And
[2:30:22] we're happy to meet as frequently as possible to keep projects moving forward. Secondly, coastal
[2:30:28] staff requested two modifications to the urgency ordinance.
[2:30:33] One is a strikeout change related to a new allowance to allow detached
[2:30:41] ADUs associated with multi-family structures.
[2:30:45] What staff had proposed in your December 10th ordinance is we would increase the
[2:30:53] of detached data use, multi-family lots from two to a maximum of eight potentially and that's
[2:31:00] in accordance with new state ADU law. The Coastal Commission requested that we strike that from
[2:31:09] the urgency ordinance and it can be considered as part of a non-urgency ordinance. Secondly,
[2:31:16] they have requested a mandatory language related to provisions that provide pathways to
[2:31:23] legalize unpermitted ADUs and JADUs, and this is also a change that staff
[2:31:30] have proposed to align with state ADU law. What this would do is we would
[2:31:37] keep the construction cut-off date to January 1st of 2018. So essentially, if
[2:31:43] you had an unpermitted ADU that was constructed prior to that date, you would be
[2:31:48] eligible for certain allowances to legalize those ADUs without having to address certain requirements of the building code.
[2:32:00] And secondly, Coastal staff requested that we strike allowances to legalize unpermitted JADUs,
[2:32:09] which is also a new provision in state ADU law.
[2:32:12] That staff had proposed to align with that state law.
[2:32:18] And this is a summary of all the changes that are on your plate this evening potentially based on what was discussed in this staff presentation.
[2:32:28] We do have a track change version of the urgency ordinance that shows all these changes that you could then read into your notion potentially.
[2:32:37] I will quickly switch to a different document here to call those up and quickly walk you through those changes.
[2:32:52] I think the version that got handed out is not track changes.
[2:32:55] It's Morris's, I think.
[2:32:57] No, no, no, that's not Morris's.
[2:32:58] Morris is a nice red ink.
[2:32:59] I get that.
[2:33:00] No, the one staff gave us is not red line.
[2:33:03] No, it's the final, yeah.
[2:33:06] Do you have one on the screen?
[2:33:07] You can put on the screen, Anthony.
[2:33:08] I think this is maybe what was just posted this afternoon, which is just, it previously just referenced the prior ordinance and so we're instead of incorporating my reference.
[2:33:17] We provided the full copy and then after that because of the coastal call they've now readlined it. So I think Anthony has the red line version.
[2:33:24] So you've readlined it against this.
[2:33:25] Okay, thank you.
[2:33:29] So on the screen here is the red line version, there would be a slight change to the title of the Americans' ordinance to indicate that it's being extended with certain modifications.
[2:33:40] applications under
[2:33:49] section four extension, again, an acknowledgement of the modifications
[2:33:54] that are being incorporated with the extension of the urgency ordinance,
[2:34:07] and please do
[2:34:08] pause me if you would like me to spend a little bit more time on any of these changes.
[2:34:15] I have a question.
[2:34:18] State law changed it to say up to eight detached units and then the coastal commission is saying
[2:34:23] That that we shouldn't do that is that what's happening here that is correct
[2:34:30] Well, I'm in the basic question. I have on all these changes
[2:34:34] And I'm just struggling to understand the rationale on what basis does the coastal commission assert they can
[2:34:40] Require us to deviate from state law the ad use statute. That's a great question
[2:34:45] The ad use statute says that the ad use statute is subject to the authority of the coastal act and so in other scenarios
[2:34:53] as we've also seen, I think, the last round
[2:34:56] when you adopted your last 80-year-old ordinance,
[2:34:59] coastal...
[2:35:00] We came back and made modifications and the modifications were to the state law provisions, and there is an inherent tension with coastal and HCV on this point, but the law does allow coastal to effectively say that coastal resources are being impacted and modify our ordinance accordingly.
[2:35:20] So what coastal resource is there in that end?
[2:35:25] With respect to the multi-family, I think that they're saying that the number of ADUs,
[2:35:35] that's being allowed, it has the ability to have a greater impact on coastal resources,
[2:35:39] and so it's not being automatically allowed by coastal.
[2:35:46] I think, for example, there on the, maybe Anthony can probably speak to it more clearly,
[2:35:51] but on the last round of comments when state law had perks prescribes that parking do not require replacement coastal came back and required replacement parking in our ordinance in certain scenarios.
[2:36:02] And so this is effectively the same thing that they're commenting on here in order to protect coastal resources is their rationale.
[2:36:11] So could we get a letter from HCD tomorrow that says you're deviating from state law?
[2:36:16] I think if we get that letter, we will refer them to the coastal commission.
[2:36:22] Sounds good.
[2:36:23] Thank you.
[2:36:26] But what is the underlying analysis that the impact on coastal resources is what?
[2:36:30] This brings more people to town and more people at the beach and it's adversely affecting coastal resources.
[2:36:37] I mean, don't they want people to have more access to the coast, which is what ADUs would
[2:36:42] help provide?
[2:36:44] I think that's a good argument.
[2:36:46] I think that one of the things that they're not willing to allow us to have this in our
[2:36:52] urgency ordinance today, and originally we had heard from the coastal staff that we should
[2:37:00] rescind our urgency ordinance, and so we met staff met with coastal staff today and an attempt
[2:37:06] to try to resolve what they were objecting to and ultimately it was these two provisions
[2:37:14] that they think expand the effect of the EU's impact coastal resources in a way that
[2:37:21] the remaining provisions have either a status quo or limiting impact on coastal resources
[2:37:29] And so in order to proceed with urgency ordinance, they asked for these to be strict in, and we will still, we would recommend still adopting your regular ordinance with these provisions in them.
[2:37:43] And so coastal can have more time and hopefully actually with these bi-weekly meetings or whatever they are, they'll see the effects.
[2:37:50] But they'll have a better visibility
[2:37:52] until you're processing in the city
[2:37:55] and have a better ability
[2:37:56] than to actually review our ordinance,
[2:37:59] our permanent ordinance.
[2:38:01] And maybe think, maybe I'm glad we'll have
[2:38:04] on going discussions with them
[2:38:05] and maybe think about the underlying rationale, right?
[2:38:08] Which is, is it does it make sense
[2:38:10] to provide more housing units in the coastal zone
[2:38:14] so that people come and actually enjoy access to the coast?
[2:38:18] And also unlike many cities where, you know, the coastal zone basically goes what 600 feet in from, you know, the, the, the ocean, we've got the whole city here.
[2:38:30] So I mean, you're, this, these provisions are limiting, you know, ADUs out on El Toro Road.
[2:38:41] Well, maybe that one.
[2:38:42] Can I ask a question?
[2:38:44] So, and I understand your comment, Bob regarding philosophically, you know, doesn't the Coastal Commission want, you know, more access to the beach.
[2:38:54] But are these revisions because they're tied to our general plan in our CDP?
[2:39:05] Is that why they're-
[2:39:06] The two specific revisions that are being asked.
[2:39:09] So when we have the conversation with Coastal and they're making these comments regarding
[2:39:16] is it because they're looking at compliance with our...
[2:39:21] I don't think so. I think that their concern is truly the legislation that was passed
[2:39:29] by the California Legislature as to those two provisions and their...
[2:39:35] The implementation of those in coastal cities and the effect of that on coastal resources, broadly.
[2:39:41] Well, I mean, if that's the case, can we talk about these 80s blocking views of the coastal resources?
[2:39:50] I mean, I don't get, I don't really get how you can pass along the coastal commissions, they while we don't like that you're not doing that.
[2:39:57] I mean, what are cities supposed to do?
[2:39:59] Thank you very much for watching, see you next time.
[2:40:00] Let's follow the law, unless Coastal says, I don't know, it's very odd to me.
[2:40:05] I agree with too, because to me it seems that you would rather have, even though we're having neighbors in single family
[2:40:11] neighbors dealing with two story 80s that are blocking view and violating decades of precedent.
[2:40:17] That's a lot more of an impact on Coastal Resource in terms of views, whereas multi, you know, in the multi family area.
[2:40:23] Those are going to be more likely to be run it out to people who live there, and it's going to have less impact.
[2:40:28] So it's like just interesting what the priorities are here.
[2:40:32] I'm hopeful that the opportunity to talk to Coastal staff about the permanent ordinance will hopefully bring these two provisions back with the various rationale that you've provided tonight, which I think all are good arguments.
[2:40:46] But for this immediacy of the urgency ordinance, this is sort of the position we were left in.
[2:40:56] Any other questions for staff before we open up for public comment?
[2:41:00] I think it's kind of lazy to legislate it to acquiesce the coastal commission.
[2:41:05] Welcome to California.
[2:41:07] No, I mean, in this can I mean, I think it is. I don't understand why.
[2:41:12] You know, it's a strange thing.
[2:41:13] Well, I think what would be better is if they could figure out actually how to deal with some of these issues.
[2:41:16] Yeah.
[2:41:17] Anyways, public, uh, we'll update for public comments at this time.
[2:41:23] Anthony, did you have anything else to add?
[2:41:26] I was going to walk the council through all the track change edits.
[2:41:29] Let's do that after the public comment. Yeah, because the public comments could influence all of them
[2:41:36] No, go ahead
[2:41:37] Yeah, all right. I appreciate what you said at it. I like so it was great and I feel like this
[2:41:43] Experiment that's what it is
[2:41:45] Blacks balance coastal should be here. Why is there not a representative representing the environment representing California?
[2:41:53] Why are you guys so eager to build? I want to be able to recognize Laguna when I'm old
[2:41:58] Thank you.
[2:42:00] Thank you.
[2:42:02] Next speaker, please.
[2:42:08] I like where this is headed.
[2:42:11] I like the purpose of it, the spirit and intent of it.
[2:42:15] It is going to require, as I understand it,
[2:42:18] make it most CD user going to require CDPs,
[2:42:22] which may burden design review,
[2:42:26] as neighbors are noticed,
[2:42:27] and that opens it up to public review.
[2:42:35] What I handed out to you was just a minor clarifications and considerations for you.
[2:42:43] Starts on page 11
[2:42:46] and in B, it says that the junior ADU shall entirely be within the existing
[2:42:54] or proposed single family dwelling and interpretation of that on a project I was working on.
[2:42:59] And I don't do ADUs routinely, but I have two or three of them for prior clients.
[2:43:09] And the comment was that the proposed single-family structure was considered only a new structure.
[2:43:15] If you were doing a new house, and I'd like it to consider the ad proposed addition to
[2:43:23] or new family single-family structure, meaning if you have an existing house and you want
[2:43:28] add 1,000 square feet and under this 1,000 square feet you want to put in a junior ADU.
[2:43:35] That's a part of the proposed single-family dwelling, whether it's an addition or it's
[2:43:41] new.
[2:43:41] So that's something you consider.
[2:43:49] On page 18,
[2:43:54] this is with regard to rent reporting and I agree that if you're going to do an ADU,
[2:44:01] it should be a rentable.
[2:44:01] I mean, that's how, in my mind, why this whole legislation is so poorly-renned, written, because
[2:44:09] it does add units, but it doesn't necessarily make them rentable.
[2:44:14] So we're going to have a lot of extra units, maybe just enlargements for family purposes,
[2:44:19] but I don't know that speculation.
[2:44:21] But it says rent reporting with the building permit application, the applicant must provide
[2:44:26] the city with an estimate of the projected analyzed rent.
[2:44:30] that will be charged for a day to you or a junior radio. And within 90 days, he has
[2:44:37] to file a 90 days issue of affirmative. He has to file a report. Well, what if it's not
[2:44:42] rented? So does he have to speculate what it might rent for? Or is it if it's not rentable
[2:44:49] does he file a rent report? I don't think he should have to. Page 19, 80 use that are item
[2:44:57] a 80-use that are subject to sub...
[2:45:00] First section must conform to the 20-foot front setbacks. I'm interjecting, or that is required in the zone. All zones are in the 20-foot, all zones are not a 20-foot setback.
[2:45:12] There are all that questions. Can you answer two? It could be a 10-foot setback.
[2:45:15] I'm asking a question for you to finish the other ones, so you can keep going.
[2:45:20] Okay,
[2:45:24] more or something that one before you leave that one.
[2:45:26] So 20 foot or what are you 20 foot on the typical front yard set
[2:45:30] back for R1, but on on steep slopes, it can go to 10 feet and
[2:45:35] in R2, the front set back is 10 feet.
[2:45:38] Got it.
[2:45:39] Page 20 item F, no, this is the issue of the line of sight that most people
[2:45:46] have commented on.
[2:45:49] I think you could maybe do F with an option from a neighbor, as a letter, that a cooperation,
[2:45:58] because you're putting a burden on the ADU that's not a burden on any normal addition to somebody's house.
[2:46:06] And what if the lot is only 30 feet wide?
[2:46:09] And so you're talking about projects, adios that are 30 feet from the property line?
[2:46:15] I think you could delete G entirely.
[2:46:22] Page 21, it talks about that you must have two separate meters and two separate utility
[2:46:28] connections.
[2:46:30] I think there's no reason to have two separate unless the property was for sale.
[2:46:35] The ADU was for sale, which we're not allowing.
[2:46:38] So this should be able to go right to the same meter that is on the house.
[2:46:43] What do you mean we're not allowing?
[2:46:44] My understanding is that the 80's or not cannot be separated by
[2:46:50] the redistriction and sold-off is individual units.
[2:46:54] Yeah, you can't sell your 80's.
[2:46:56] Well, up to the city's discretion.
[2:46:58] We don't do that.
[2:47:02] Well, that's a whole different discussion because it will involve CC&Rs.
[2:47:08] I mean, it's like condensation, condomizing.
[2:47:11] Yeah, we don't allow, we don't allow sales of 80's.
[2:47:15] 22, page 22 at the top, I just, the connection is subject to a connection, the connection
[2:47:23] is subject to a connection fee or a capacity charge that is proportional to the burden
[2:47:27] created by the ADU based on either the flora area or the number of drainage fixture units
[2:47:32] for the plumbing code and the fee would be determined by the direct for a planning.
[2:47:39] I think this is way open-ended, it's too complicated and it's too much of a burden on
[2:47:44] planning director. I think you should delete it. Either deleted or put a specific charge on it that's
[2:47:51] understandable. I think that's it.
[2:47:58] Thank you. Thank you, Morris. Very helpful.
[2:48:03] Any other public
[2:48:04] comments on this this item? I guess this is a public hearing, right? So I opened up a public hearing
[2:48:12] seen on. I'm going to close the public, I'm going to close public comments, bring this back to the
[2:48:18] Council, do you want to we walk through the Council how do we should we go through what the
[2:48:24] comments that were just raised and then was the Anthony going to give us the right answer
[2:48:28] did you want to give your red lines
[2:48:49] on the screen here are the track changes edits to the
[2:48:55] allowances for detached ADUs on multi-family lots which would keep that allowance to to detached
[2:49:03] units as of January 1st, state law otherwise allows for up to 8 or the number of existing
[2:49:11] primary dwelling units, whichever happens to be less.
[2:49:26] These changes reflect the track change
[2:49:29] added that were shown as part of the staff presentation related to the objective standards
[2:49:35] for privacy between neighbors and ADU windows. So that would include the repeal of subsection
[2:49:44] G and a modification to subsection F, which again would limit the application of that provision
[2:49:54] to the upper floors of an EDU.
[2:49:58] Question on this one to Morse's point.
[2:50:00] Could we have another clause that said that if you have a letter from a neighbor, your exempt from this requirement or with that be a subjective criteria that would be just a lot by state law?
[2:50:14] That's a great question. So we cannot have subjective criteria as an yes or no.
[2:50:24] Because we're not making them do that. This is the objective criteria.
[2:50:27] that you're getting relief from that objective criteria if you have a letter from a neighbor who's impacted.
[2:50:33] I think so long as the letter, it's just a yes or no sort of letter, right?
[2:50:38] It can't have additional conditions or anything along those lines.
[2:50:41] I think as long as it just says yes, you can wave it.
[2:50:46] But then what would it be waved to?
[2:50:50] that you could have a window go through, have a direct line of sight if the adjoining
[2:50:58] a residential property on her since the letter approving of it.
[2:51:02] I think that would be fine as an objective standard.
[2:51:06] But what happens when the property changes hands?
[2:51:10] Either property.
[2:51:11] Well, that's you'd be buying a property that has this and that would impact the value.
[2:51:22] But I think that that makes sense to me that what what's the so I'm wondering what's the rationale for limiting this to the upper floor or more than 16 feet
[2:51:33] Why would you want a direct line of sight from the bottom floor?
[2:51:38] Shouldn't the second sentence just shouldn't it just be no direct line of sight unless you've got fencing landscaping privacy glass or clear store design?
[2:51:46] That is at the Council's discretion.
[2:51:48] We were trying to focus the code language to the situation that we believe is most likely
[2:51:56] to create a significant privacy impact between the neighbors, which is typically an upper floor
[2:52:02] level that may be looking into windows in an adjoining residential property or into the backyard
[2:52:09] of a residential property.
[2:52:13] I make sense, I'm sure that that's more invasive, but you could certainly, we've had cases
[2:52:20] here before us, where we've had first floor direct, where we ended up changing the windows.
[2:52:28] So that's true, I would do it, I would just leave, I would take out the 16-foot and just
[2:52:36] have them solve it with fencing landscaping or privacy class.
[2:52:48] Next, we have the legalization pathways,
[2:52:52] which are also summarized in the presentation.
[2:52:55] The construction cut-off date with this change
[2:52:59] would change from 2020 to 2018,
[2:53:04] and it would not include an allowance
[2:53:07] to wave certain building code requirements.
[2:53:10] In the case of a JAD,
[2:53:12] we would only apply to ADUs.
[2:53:19] We had a lot of JADUs that want to be legalized.
[2:53:23] Not that staff is aware. Typically, because at JADU, you can also be reviewed as a converted
[2:53:32] ADU. Most properties can have one converted ADU, in the case of a context of a single
[2:53:38] family project. And all likelihood they can instead classify that unpermated unit as a converted
[2:53:44] and still invoke this code provision.
[2:53:58] The Council could consider striking the provisions related to
[2:54:02] pedestrian access and vehicular access if it's so wishes.
[2:54:08] We had feedback on that or recommendations that we do that.
[2:54:15] There have been no public comments on that item.
[2:54:18] Yeah. In particular, the pedestrian access, the fire fire
[2:54:21] access, I mean, like, I think we should have that in there.
[2:54:25] It's already a part of the file of the fire code, though, right?
[2:54:29] Chris, correct.
[2:54:30] That's where they come from, correct, is there a building code,
[2:54:34] standard, or a fire code, I can't recall, but they are required in order.
[2:54:39] And this makes it more clear to both staff and the ADU applicant and the ADU neighbor
[2:54:46] that this is a requirement of an ADU.
[2:54:50] So that there in this came up in the last discussion of this item, so that's why I think it's being discussed now, but in all of instance.
[2:55:00] Or required, but it certainly will help with compliance to state it here.
[2:55:05] Okay.
[2:55:08] And also the vehicular access provision exists in the city's certified 80 ordinance.
[2:55:16] That was implemented in 2023 in substantial part.
[2:55:25] And that takes us through the strike through changes to the urgency ordinance.
[2:55:30] If the council does adopt a modified urgency ordinance,
[2:55:36] we would also make a few small changes to the 10 day report.
[2:56:09] And so with respect to the actions that the city has taken
[2:56:12] to alleviate the conditions that first lead to the adoption
[2:56:16] of this interim ordinance under number one here,
[2:56:21] This would reflect that the City Council desires to make modifications to the non-urgency
[2:56:29] ordinance and is directing staff to reintroduce some modified ordinance for our first
[2:56:35] reading at the next available meeting of the City Council subject to adequate public
[2:56:40] notice in accordance with law
[2:56:44] and number two would also acknowledge the meeting that
[2:56:48] staff had with the coastal staff this afternoon got any any questions it seems like
[2:56:56] there's because like for example Morris raised some good points that could
[2:56:59] be contemplated as we do the next first reading but we don't necessarily
[2:57:02] into incorporate those into the urgency ordinance it seems as the simplest and
[2:57:07] approach is for us to approve the what was Coastal Commission's recommended
[2:57:12] it seems like we have no other choice for the urgency ordinance and then staff's
[2:57:15] come back with a first rating that incorporates this discussion.
[2:57:19] Correct. That's the council's desire. We could come back and we'd like your thoughts on Morris's
[2:57:25] comments to have staff some direction for preparing that. If I think that there was certainly
[2:57:32] where there was feedback on the windows and so if you'd like to include that in your urgency ordinance,
[2:57:38] that particular item, because of the feedback we heard from the design community,
[2:57:43] that may be a hybrid approach for tonight.
[2:57:48] But that was a part of the red line change.
[2:57:50] Anthony has that in there already.
[2:57:53] Although Councilmember Whalen noted he probably has proposed modifications.
[2:57:58] Okay.
[2:57:59] And I would also like to add a recital to be very clear about changes to the urgency ordinance.
[2:58:05] So first are there any questions of staff before we bring back to the council?
[2:58:09] No, so I'll close the public hearing on both items.
[2:58:12] Megan? Okay. And then, um, does that, uh,
[2:58:18] to say when I want to provide comments or, uh,
[2:58:20] a recommendation if how we proceed. Just a question on
[2:58:22] procedurally how we proceed because, you know, I, I think we should go through and
[2:58:26] give feedback on Morris's comments, right? But if they're not included in the
[2:58:30] urgency, then the urgency could be in effect for 22 months, right?
[2:58:36] I mean, because, because we'll come back with a first rating
[2:58:38] Secondary Democratic Coastal, that ordinance won't become effective until Coastal sends it back to us, probably with changes, and then we have to re-adopt, and so I think anything that my guess my point is anything that Morris is raised tonight that I think is substantive, we should address in the urgency, unless you think that's going to get us sideways with the Coastal Commission.
[2:59:00] there. With would we have to have the Coastal Commission we look at if we make any of these changes?
[2:59:07] Potentially that might rip. Yeah, open the door to them again. I think one possibility would
[2:59:16] would be to consider making an amendment to the urgency ordinance at a future meeting.
[2:59:25] And so we adopt this. I do recommend we adopt it tonight, just because the timing is at all expire.
[2:59:31] And make the so that coastal doesn't isn't inclined to ask us to further rescind our urgency ordinance.
[2:59:39] And then we can talk to coastal. I think that is an important step here is to say what other changes we may make to our interim ordinance.
[2:59:49] And just to make sure that they don't have objection.
[2:59:52] And then we'll bring back an amendment to the urgency ordinance with first reading.
[2:59:57] That sounds like a good plan to me.
[3:00:00] So then we wouldn't do the window tonight thing. We'd just leave it, but give direction on it for the first reading.
[3:00:09] Right. Yeah. Oh, give direction on for the first reading and amendment to the urge to ordinate.
[3:00:13] I think the reason that the window came up is that it's sort of a critical design feature that is affecting applications today, which is why it was raised in this discussion.
[3:00:28] But it's ultimately up to the council if you, how you'd like to proceed if you want a way and we bring that back as well
[3:00:35] The ordinance that would be an effect for applications that are received as of now then would be the urgency ordinance adopted tonight. So
[3:00:43] We'd have some bearing rules for a little bit
[3:00:49] But if we were to adopt staff suggestions to the window sections specifically
[3:00:54] than that would provide at least a little bit more consistency with the rules.
[3:00:59] Yes, I think so, and possibly Councilmember Weeland's modifications are not right.
[3:01:06] So I think if we look at staff's recommended changes,
[3:01:14] and any, I think looking at staff's recommended changes to the urgency ordinance,
[3:01:21] taking a little bit of time to review the other suggestions that have come through and then we can
[3:01:27] modify or we can amend the urgency ordinance at a very soon.
[3:01:34] Yeah, I think, yes, that's a good summary. When we come back with the first reading,
[3:01:40] I think that as soon as we can, I think we have to have another meeting with coastal in there.
[3:01:45] But then we would bring back whatever coasts those willing to allow us to put into our urgency ordinance for the amendment.
[3:01:56] Okay, so it sounds like we're so are we all okay with what Anthony put up as it relates to the urgency ordinance for now.
[3:02:06] Yeah, I would just renew my request that we take out the 16 foot and just make the direct line site.
[3:02:12] you solve it with fencing and landscaping or so I'd be supportive of that as well.
[3:02:20] Can I add a recital?
[3:02:22] So I would propose this to me the second to last recital in the urgency ordinance and it would say,
[3:02:28] whereas city staff met with coastal commission staff on January 14, 2025,
[3:02:33] regarding the provisions of emergency ordinance number 1707,
[3:02:39] at which meeting the coastal commission notified the city that certain changes in the urgency ordinance.
[3:02:44] resulting from AB 2533 and SB 1211 are not authorized to be made BN into remordinance without
[3:02:51] coastal commission certification and therefore some of the modifications from AB 2533 and SB 1211
[3:02:58] have been removed in this urgency ordinance but will remain in the regular ordinance proposed for
[3:03:04] coastal certification that work. So do somebody want to make a motion incorporating that recital with
[3:03:12] with Anthony had for the urgency ordinance on the screen and then bobs that change as it relates to
[3:03:20] Line of sight for both first-hand second floor or I'll make that motion before you do that
[3:03:25] What happened to the vehicular or in the pedestrian access does that staying in so it's not being struck out. Let's keep that
[3:03:33] Keep it right. That comes in. It's not a strike. Okay, so I'll amend my motion to incorporate keeping in those two provisions related to
[3:03:41] The fire code was there anything else a Anthony or David that you had a question about before they vote
[3:03:47] No, okay
[3:03:48] What about Morris is comments?
[3:03:50] We're going to get to that about we'll get to that next for the first reading and then
[3:03:55] So I made a motion somebody wanted a second to motion
[3:03:58] Also, and then do we need to for
[3:04:01] Before we vote we need a reading of the urgency ordinance
[3:04:06] And Maria, what do we?
[3:04:09] No, not a first training. Can we go and read it though, just for belts and
[3:04:15] suspenders since this thing's so muddy. Okay,
[3:04:22] let me find the title of it.
[3:04:26] Okay, and the interim ordinance of the City Council of the City of
[3:04:29] Laguna Beach, extending urgency ordinance number 17 of seven and
[3:04:34] mending its zoning code and local coast of Povera and by repealing and
[3:04:38] replacing chapter 25.17 of the City of Laguna Beach Municipal Code,
[3:04:43] regarding accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units to comply with recent
[3:04:49] changes in state law and finding the action to be statutory or exempt from the California
[3:04:55] environmental quality act under section 2108 0.
[3:05:00] 1, 7 of the public resources code.
[3:05:04] Okay, so I made the motion 2, seconded it all in favor.
[3:05:08] Bye.
[3:05:09] 5, 0.
[3:05:11] And then now we're going to give direction to staff to come back with a first reading and then an amended
[3:05:16] urgency ordinance on.
[3:05:19] So I can just go through the list that I have of different items that we have to address.
[3:05:24] on page 11,
[3:05:29] Morris raised the question of the JADUs and in section 5 subsection B, it talked about
[3:05:39] adding in addition to our new, is that consistent with state law managers or...
[3:05:45] Yeah, I was going to mention, I think if I can get your feedback on these, I'm going to have to
[3:05:50] cross check the state law to see which one, if any of them run a foul of the state law, and if they
[3:05:57] don't in your direction is implement and we'll bring it back and if there's a problem
[3:06:01] with state law then we won't make those changes but we'll explain that in the staff report.
[3:06:05] Got it. So I'm supportive of what Morris recommended there assuming that it complies with state law.
[3:06:11] Yeah, I am too. Mayor, I think there's one back on the bottom of ten suggested
[3:06:17] the Minimum's development definition. Oh, okay. That's fine. That's fine.
[3:06:32] We're all
[3:06:33] rent.
[3:06:37] Does this help if the ADU is rented at a lower income level does that help us for a
[3:06:42] arena numbers? Does it just help for the one year that it's rentics is not de-districted?
[3:06:51] Yes. Yes. Because to me that what's the point of making people do that if it's not going to
[3:06:56] actually help us with a arena numbers, it seems like it's just an extra layer of bureaucracy.
[3:07:01] Well I think it does temporarily help us with a arena, but not on all it doesn't necessarily on a long-term
[3:07:07] I also have talked to a lot of people in community who are questioning what ADUs are contributing
[3:07:16] to housing in this community. So I do think that that data is helpful. Yeah, it's helpful.
[3:07:22] Yeah, okay. Well, can you explain your comment, Megan? Well, it's really the mayor's comment,
[3:07:30] But if 80's are not de-restricted for low-income housing purposes, we can't count them
[3:07:39] towards our renaallocation on a long-term basis, but on a short-term basis if there was
[3:07:45] a determination on an annual basis that it qualified as low-income without a de-restriction,
[3:07:50] we could in theory count it temporarily,
[3:07:55] but it's temporary.
[3:07:57] But as long as the lease, it is, I think, to the mayor's point, it is a lot of back-end work in order to track that.
[3:08:06] But to Council Member Jones's point, the data is helpful to the community in terms of how this is benefiting the community.
[3:08:14] So what if we just do every year we do an annual letter to everyone and then you have to, you respond to it at that point as opposed to this, you know, having, I think that'd be easier than what this is where.
[3:08:25] Staff's going to have to track and email and mail send a mail something in the mail in the 90 days after
[3:08:31] Is that an easier approach that achieves the call that counts from your Jones is talking about
[3:08:38] Okay, so I'd be supportive of that
[3:08:40] But tomorrow's this basic point is
[3:08:43] You can't compel somebody to rent their 80. Right, so I mean the the way this is drafted that sort of implies
[3:08:50] You must provide the city with an estimate of the project. The annualized rent that will be charged. I suppose you can just say zero
[3:08:56] Right, but I mean maybe we can clean this language up to make it clear that, you know, if you're renting your ADU, you have to do this.
[3:09:07] And we encourage you to rent your ADU.
[3:09:14] Okay, do you have a direction there?
[3:09:18] And then page 19, or what the 20 foot setback or what is required in the zone, I'm supportive of the recommendation, the change, everyone else in the same page.
[3:09:34] 20, the letter to the neighbor. I'd be supportive of looking into that
[3:09:40] Whether that because you had concerns making about whether it's objective. Yeah, I sort of got there
[3:09:45] But I think it is objective if it's but we'll have to order it in the right way to make it clear that it
[3:09:51] It can't come with conditions or anything and
[3:09:56] It's an upper down and we'll have to think to
[3:10:00] Council Member Jones's point about the effect. Yeah, I'll make sure that it's good with a law.
[3:10:10] Any other comments on that? Page 21 about the required two meters when it's not for sale? What's the kind of basis for that? Anthony?
[3:10:28] It's
[3:10:31] a great question, Mayor.
[3:10:33] It's not so much a, it's really constructed building and construction, so I don't know
[3:10:38] that I have an answer for you this evening, but as part of our follow-up to Morris's recommendations
[3:10:44] this evening, we can report back to the Council on that.
[3:10:48] That was good.
[3:10:48] And then, page 22, I think that would be the connection fee that would be based on the
[3:10:55] the fee mitigation act, right?
[3:10:58] So that would be covered by other laws that
[3:10:59] regulate how much you can charge as a capacity fee.
[3:11:02] So I think that's fine as it is.
[3:11:04] This is a convoluted description.
[3:11:15] These are good upgrades, Morris.
[3:11:23] OK, any other?
[3:11:24] I'm just looking at 22 turn understand it.
[3:11:32] See you got in the prior page, 21.
[3:11:33] You've got ABC to ABC, and then it goes to, oh, I see.
[3:11:38] Is this a subpart of C1 and 2?
[3:11:40] Yeah.
[3:11:48] Megan, do you know what was behind on the separate meter?
[3:11:54] What do you think was behind their request for that?
[3:12:00] I don't know.
[3:12:02] I don't.
[3:12:03] I'm trying to, I don't think it's in state law
[3:12:06] than that required.
[3:12:07] Oh, it's not.
[3:12:08] I don't think so.
[3:12:09] But I'm hesitant to say that right now
[3:12:11] as they have three different laws
[3:12:13] like flying through my head, trying to figure out
[3:12:15] which is which.
[3:12:16] but it
[3:12:22] could have been a result of the law.
[3:12:24] Well, maybe it was a change to the law
[3:12:27] when the 80-year-old changed one or two years ago
[3:12:31] to allow for the possibility of separate commands as previously.
[3:12:34] And I wonder if that, when that change occurred,
[3:12:38] the separate meter came into play.
[3:12:41] So we'll have to look at that.
[3:12:42] It wouldn't send to by someone to rent it, right?
[3:12:45] It would.
[3:12:46] Also, yeah.
[3:12:48] Okay, so do we have a clear direction for staff on the first reading of the ordinance and the amended urgency ordinance?
[3:12:55] So we adopted the amended urgency ordinance.
[3:12:58] And then those are going forward.
[3:13:00] Then the new amended urgency ordinance.
[3:13:03] We will come back with whatever changes we can make under state law for an amended urgency ordinance in a first reading.
[3:13:10] So you have clear direction.
[3:13:11] Clear direction.
[3:13:12] Do we need a motion on that or can.
[3:13:14] I think it's direction.
[3:13:15] Yeah. Actually, can I have a motion based on the comments received? I think since we're not actually taking a second reading tonight, I'd like a motion to come back with a new first reading, just based on the direction to staff.
[3:13:32] So I had moved that staff come back with an amendment to the urgency ordinance and a new permanent ordinance for first reading and incorporating the discussion we just had on comments.
[3:13:44] I'll second that.
[3:13:46] All in.
[3:13:47] We have to include Megan's recital.
[3:13:49] We have to add that.
[3:13:51] On the urgency.
[3:13:52] On the first.
[3:13:53] Didn't we include that?
[3:13:54] We could do that.
[3:13:55] On the urgency.
[3:13:56] Okay.
[3:13:56] Thank you.
[3:13:58] Great.
[3:13:58] All in favor.
[3:14:00] All right.
[3:14:01] Before we put this totally the bad new voter.
[3:14:03] Which is fine.
[3:14:04] I just want to make sure.
[3:14:05] Public.
[3:14:05] Me and Megan and David and Anthony.
[3:14:08] That we can tell the design community.
[3:14:10] What is process when?
[3:14:12] And maybe we're just kind of thinking out loud on this one, but we've got like 24 applications that came in before December 10th and those are going to be processed under the old rules.
[3:14:23] Then we have five at least five that came in after we have more than five now.
[3:14:29] Sorry Patrons.
[3:14:30] Okay.
[3:14:31] Sorry I don't have current.
[3:14:32] Probably five.
[3:14:32] we checked it was about five or subjective that have come in between 12, 10, and
[3:14:39] tonight. So those will be processed under the urgency ordinance rules that
[3:14:45] took effect December 10th. I would think that if it's, yeah, a good question.
[3:14:54] But maybe we could offer them the choice. Yeah. Yeah. Those five applicants.
[3:15:00] Do you want a process of under 12, 10 or 14?
[3:15:05] Yeah, I would think that the applicants generally would want the benefit of that.
[3:15:09] Window or the window change in particular.
[3:15:13] So probably they'll say 114.
[3:15:16] Yeah. Okay.
[3:15:17] All right.
[3:15:19] And then we'll get into the choice.
[3:15:20] Hopefully we'll approve all those, but by the time the new ordinances, it'll be back.
[3:15:25] Okay.
[3:15:25] So in other words, what we're saying is anything that was in before tonight is going to
[3:15:29] get processed under the old rules.
[3:15:32] It's sorry, there's two old rules now.
[3:15:35] So the real old rules that applied before 1210, when we had about 24 of those, when we
[3:15:41] last checked, those are processed under the 1210 and before rules, then there's at least
[3:15:47] five that came in after 1210, December 10, and that we're saying that those people could
[3:15:54] choose to go in the December 12 rules, or they could decide even though they submitted it,
[3:16:03] they could apply under the today January 14 rules.
[3:16:08] I think so.
[3:16:09] I was just going to ask staff if we thought any of them really were triggered by the two changes that
[3:16:14] coastal, or are they J80 use or multi-family, because maybe it's not an issue, in which case we can
[3:16:21] to say the 1-14 rules are going to generally apply to give everyone the benefit of the windows.
[3:16:26] I don't happen to now, 1-14.
[3:16:28] Okay.
[3:16:28] We'll provide an update.
[3:16:31] But just for the design community, that's how we're going to approach this.
[3:16:35] Clear as much.
[3:16:37] Okay.
[3:16:37] So we're going to get on this item.
[3:16:38] I think so.
[3:16:39] And we'll be at this probably next year as well when there's new laws that go into effect.
[3:16:44] Okay.
[3:16:45] So now we're going to move on to item 17, we'll get this one will be quick.
[3:16:51] the organizations and committees represented by city council so why don't we so I'm
[3:16:58] just going to are there any questions before I open up public comment. I'll open up public
[3:17:04] comment on this item can we put put it on the screen for could be an answer is that possible if not
[3:17:12] and we'll just wait for Councilmember Orgel.
[3:17:18] Yeah, you want to do a break right now.
[3:17:24] We'll do a break, a five minute break.
[3:23:48] Item 17, very quickly. First, are there any public comments on organizations and committees represented by city council?
[3:23:56] I don't see any public comments on that. So, we'll bring it back to council. So, what do you want me to just read through each one and then we can.
[3:24:03] Yeah.
[3:24:07] So, that one's good. Okay. So, for city council assignments, okay. Coastal Greenbelt Authority. Mark, you're the, you're the, you want to see there.
[3:24:16] anyone want to take a look at the vacancy
[3:24:27] so how it will be the the first
[3:24:30] fake alternate festival coordinating committee mark that's that's where you are
[3:24:38] join us day. HIV advisory committee. Sue you are the liaison. You're fine. Sue and I
[3:24:48] event book policy community I'd like just to stay and that's okay I'm looking at an
[3:24:53] art museum board Bob here the member you'd like to say mark your the alternate
[3:24:58] like to stay okay
[3:25:02] Liguna Beach seniors, that is Sue and me. I'm fine with what's in how to jump in if there's anything.
[3:25:12] Okay. Liguna Canyon Foundation, that's Sue and then we have an open for the alternate.
[3:25:22] Okay, do you want to be the alternate Sue? Okay, so how will we be the member and Sue for Liguna Canyon Foundation, Sue's going to be the alternate.
[3:25:32] O.C. Vector Control District, Mark, no I think they need you there too, so Mark you'll stick
[3:25:43] with Vector,
[3:25:49] and then Orange County Library advisory committee, there's a vacancy there.
[3:25:54] Before you move on, for the Vector, are we doing one year?
[3:25:58] They always ask me if it's one year or two year.
[3:26:00] One years fine. All right, unless you want to.
[3:26:12] Orange kind of library advisory committee. There's a vacancy there.
[3:26:16] You want to take that.
[3:26:19] Bob, are you fine being the alternate still?
[3:26:21] Yeah.
[3:26:22] South are going to water and sewer committee.
[3:26:24] That does sue in me.
[3:26:25] I'm fine staying there.
[3:26:27] Do you want to stay?
[3:26:28] I know.
[3:26:31] Soquah, Bob is the member you want to say, Bob?
[3:26:35] Yes, sir.
[3:26:37] And then Gavin is in Mark McWiz the alternate,
[3:26:40] so that's good.
[3:26:42] South Orange County watershed management area,
[3:26:47] executive committee.
[3:26:49] Sue, you're the member you want to do?
[3:26:50] I think council members do that, Bob.
[3:26:56] I mean, I think staff.
[3:26:57] Well, why don't we do?
[3:26:59] I mean, I'd be, you know, it may have some some relevance to the
[3:27:03] estuary there and stuff for doing that and stuff for doing.
[3:27:06] So I'll take that, but it's maybe, I don't know, who could be a point.
[3:27:11] I could be that.
[3:27:12] I'll be your alternate.
[3:27:12] You'd be an alternate.
[3:27:13] Yeah, I'll be your alternate for that.
[3:27:16] And then okay, liaison appointments, arts commission to audit
[3:27:24] investment advisory, sue, and then Bob is the alternate.
[3:27:28] I'm just going to read them.
[3:27:29] of interrupt me if somebody wants to jump in.
[3:27:32] EDPC, Bob, and me as the alternate, you're good, Bob.
[3:27:37] Yeah, I'd like to keep that.
[3:27:39] Yeah, environmental sustainability,
[3:27:41] how did you want to take that?
[3:27:43] And then I can stay as the alternate.
[3:27:48] Heritage Committee, Mark, you want to see there?
[3:27:52] Housing and Human Services, Bob, you sort
[3:27:54] of been the member there, and I've been the alternate.
[3:27:56] Do you want to keep it that way?
[3:27:59] Yeah, that's fine.
[3:28:02] So Bob is the liaison, I'll put the alternate, PTCM find keeping that, unless someone else wants
[3:28:09] to recreation and sue.
[3:28:13] And then if you rest, raise your hand.
[3:28:14] Mark, good.
[3:28:16] Okay, so I will make a motion to adopt or to approve the way to second.
[3:28:25] I don't think we got the housing committee right, Bob's the we're just flipping it around on the right
[3:28:32] I don't think it was flipped on this one. Oh, yeah, sorry. Oh, all right real time, huh real time
[3:28:39] So we'll in is the liaison and and run Aggie is the alternate.
[3:28:49] Okay, so I will make I will move approval of the
[3:28:54] Organizations and committees represented by the city council as reflected on the screen
[3:29:00] Seconded by Bob Olenfever.
[3:29:02] Hi.
[3:29:05] So then now we're going to take because Halle is going to miss the last item.
[3:29:08] So let her go home really quickly.
[3:29:10] See if there's future.
[3:29:12] Agenda is for future agenda items that any council members want to bring forward.
[3:29:17] I think Bob you have on.
[3:29:18] Yeah, although, you know, as I said earlier, I want to bring forth the motion to reactivate the wildfire safety.
[3:29:26] mitigation in fire safety committee, but I'm talking with Dave, I guess we're going to do
[3:29:30] ad hoc committees on January 31st, so we're going to appoint them. So can we just make it
[3:29:35] part of that agenda? Okay.
[3:29:40] And let's would you want to bring forward the current report at our
[3:29:43] next council meeting, and then that could be sort of the basis of, and then, so we could have sort
[3:29:49] of a problem. Why don't we just do that part now? Because I have some stuff I want to get on the list
[3:29:53] Anyway, there's some things I'd like to do.
[3:29:54] So you want to bring it to the next meeting?
[3:29:58] Okay. And then you get employed in...
[3:30:00] And then, back, and then appointments at the strategic plan, I mean, okay.
[3:30:05] Does that make sense?
[3:30:06] Yep, yep. Let's go. Your recommendation is to bring forward the 2019 fire mitigation plan
[3:30:10] update it with an ad hoc. Is that right?
[3:30:13] Right. Right. That I guess the ad hoc doesn't exist anymore.
[3:30:16] So, our council to see what an ad hoc comprised of myself and council member camp
[3:30:21] to update the wildfire mitigation of our safety plan.
[3:30:25] Okay. I'm supportive.
[3:30:28] Yeah, you know, and then I have an agenda item I'd like to bring forward. We got the report about the vacancy rate from the chamber and I think there's some soon. I've been talking about some low hanging through ideas that we could bring forward. So it could be a broadly described as streamlining the process for small business.
[3:30:55] Anyone else supportive of that?
[3:30:57] I see. Yeah, we are, but there's just some specific things. So, okay, good. So that's it.
[3:31:10] How are you going to go? And do you want to be before we get to the next item? Do you want to indicate your your accusal?
[3:31:16] I'm
[3:31:20] going to help with the curriculum.
[3:31:23] Councilmember Joseph's recruiting herself from the last item on the appeal, which is the
[3:31:29] last substitute item on the agenda, because she received a disqualifying contribution
[3:31:34] under the Libyan Act from an agent of a party to the application.
[3:31:49] Okay, so appeal A, do we have, so I'm going to
[3:31:55] open the item and open the public hearing and then we'll have a presentation from staff.
[3:32:06] Actually, could I, you know, I'm asking the city attorney this, I don't believe I have a
[3:32:13] living act issue here at all. But our agenda now says that participants should disclose,
[3:32:27] you know,
[3:32:28] you know, made in connection with an item. So before we start the item, I think we should ask the
[3:32:33] appellant and the applicant whether they have anything to disclose. Otherwise, after the staff report,
[3:32:42] we've already started the item. Sure. Yeah, that's a good idea. So could the appellant come forward and just
[3:32:51] firm that you did not contribute more than $250 to my campaign.
[3:33:00] Yes, I can confirm that.
[3:33:01] Thank you.
[3:33:02] And for the applicant team.
[3:33:05] It's both the parties and their agency.
[3:33:08] And their agency.
[3:33:08] Which includes their attorney who's coming to the mic now.
[3:33:14] I did not contribute more than $250 to your campaign.
[3:33:18] Thank you.
[3:33:19] And I, but I can't speak for Mr. Webb. I can fall.
[3:33:26] Can we have a process in the future of the middle of the good side or something ahead of time?
[3:33:30] Yeah, I have an, an Excel spreadsheet that I also cross checked and I didn't see anything for you.
[3:33:38] Good evening, Council. Steve Co.
[3:33:40] I did make a contribution to Halle Jones.
[3:33:44] And I received a refund, which reduced the contribution to 250.
[3:33:52] No contribution to me. My campaign. No. Thank you, Steve.
[3:33:56] You didn't support Bob?
[3:34:00] Yeah, I don't know. I don't know how we want to do it in the future, but I mean...
[3:34:08] It's going to be tricky to implement too, because people can show up during public comment,
[3:34:11] that we will, we'll do our best to figure out a process that's, I did check for the names we
[3:34:18] do in advance.
[3:34:20] Okay, thank you.
[3:34:22] So now I'm going to open the item and appeal a staff presentation from Wendy.
[3:34:32] Thank you.
[3:34:33] Good evening, Mayor Nagee and Council members.
[3:34:35] I'm Wendy John, Principal Planner, and the item before you is an appeal of the approval
[3:34:40] of design reviews 0-285, closest development permits 2-4-0-2-8-4, and a Sequoic
[3:34:47] categorical exemption at 8 Rockledge Road.
[3:34:51] The slide before you is an aerial of the project site in the surrounding area.
[3:34:54] The subject property is approximately 10,800 square.
[3:35:00] For a foot irregular shaped lot that's located on the oceanward side of coast highway. And at the end of
[3:35:06] Rockledge Road, which is a private street, and Rockledge Terrace, a private axis easement. The
[3:35:11] site slopes to the ocean and contains a single family dwelling, two garages, hard scape and landscaping.
[3:35:18] The property is listed on the city's historic register and has a milk contract with the city.
[3:35:23] However, no improvements are proposed to the historic structure.
[3:35:27] A historic analysis was completed and found that the project would have no impact on the historic resource.
[3:35:34] The applicant requests design review and a coastal development permit to construct a new pool,
[3:35:40] spa, hard-skate, and a newly unskate plan at the rear portion of the lot,
[3:35:45] in an environmentally sensitive area due to ocean-front proximity.
[3:35:48] The
[3:35:52] design review board heard this project on April 25,
[3:35:57] 2024, and during the hearing, the board received public testimony from two surrounding neighbors with concerns related to landscaping.
[3:36:05] After discussing the concerns that were raised by the members of the public at the hearing and also written public correspondence received,
[3:36:12] Any value waiting the project's consistency with the design review criteria, the board unanimously voted five to zero to
[3:36:20] conditionally approve the project.
[3:36:22] Subject to the addition of three project specific conditions which are outlined here on this slide.
[3:36:27] The first condition is that the applicants agreed upon conditions as submitted in their letter and email on April 24,
[3:36:33] 24 specifically items 1 through 14 that those being incorporated into the record.
[3:36:39] Number two, that the modification to a condition of approval number one,
[3:36:43] be modified to reference that the plans were submitted on April 24, 2024.
[3:36:49] And number three, that the removal of the wall in guardrail indicated on she a 1.1.
[3:36:57] And appeal was subsequently filed by the neighboring property owner at 7 Rockledge Road,
[3:37:01] indicating three points of contention.
[3:37:06] Appeal contention number one states that in summary,
[3:37:09] that the construction parking will cause a public safety
[3:37:12] impact.
[3:37:13] The board made a design review finding related to access
[3:37:16] and also coastal development findings related
[3:37:19] to access way of public services for the project,
[3:37:22] and they supported those findings by facts
[3:37:24] as summarized within the agenda report.
[3:37:27] Also during deliberations, the board discussed,
[3:37:29] including a condition of approval for a construction staging plan and this was to address
[3:37:35] neighbor concerns as well as safety for the community. At that time staff showed a proposed
[3:37:41] condition of approval in their PowerPoint presentation and for the Board's consideration. This
[3:37:47] is depicted as figure 3 on page 13 of the agenda report and ultimately the Board did not read
[3:37:54] desired condition of approval regarding a staging plan in its motion when approving the project.
[3:38:01] Therefore, it was not incorporated into the resolution or the project.
[3:38:06] Therefore, it is recommended that the city council add the building divisions, standard
[3:38:11] conditions of approval and apologies for the text on the slide, but these conditions are
[3:38:16] stated, recated on page 13 and 14 of the agenda report, and they are also within the resolution,
[3:38:23] specifically Section 4, Conditions 8 through G, on pages 33 to 35 of the agenda report.
[3:38:31] So these conditions of approval, including the staging plan, they're intended to ensure
[3:38:36] that the proposed development, as well as the temporary construction, related activities
[3:38:41] they will not improperly encroach upon any existing public access way that's legally utilized
[3:38:47] by the public during construction and that they'll ensure adequate public roadway capacity
[3:38:52] during construction.
[3:38:54] The PLC intention two states that the projects geotechnical report is inadequate that a soil
[3:39:00] study should have been prepared and a noise-invibration study performed.
[3:39:06] So first, the geotechnical report that's referenced by the appellant in the appeal is the
[3:39:11] geotechnical bluff ed report, and this is included as attachment 12 to the agenda report.
[3:39:17] The city, as well as the California Coastal Commission, have developed procedures, and
[3:39:21] That's to locate the Coastal Bluff Edge and you give it a property.
[3:39:25] And this is to establish setbacks, considered necessary to protect new development and the public from any adverse impacts of erosion and instability.
[3:39:38] Here, the pool is set back beyond the 25 foot Bluff top setback and the hard scape is proposed at the end at the required 10 foot Bluff top setback.
[3:39:48] Based on this report, there are some technical details, engineering, stability analyses that were previously performed, have been updated, and this is to evaluate global.
[3:40:00] As well as, as well as, officials, stability of the existing site conditions. And the results of the analyses indicate that the property and the bluff, including nearby properties, generally have an adequate factor of safety for gross slope stability.
[3:40:15] contained within the Design Review Board Resolution is does state that the city's geotechnical
[3:40:21] consultant reviewed the geotechnical report and they can actually approve the project.
[3:40:26] There are also references that were made that no irrigation shall be allowed within
[3:40:30] 10 feet of the bluff, top-setback and that limited drip systems are allowed for other landscaping
[3:40:36] within the bluff top-setback. Further, no development is proposed on the ocean front bluff
[3:40:42] space, except slope restoration, and that the removal of unpromoted work as required by the California Coastal Commission.
[3:40:51] However, there does not appear to be a condition of approval that requires such restrictions or requires that the development to have adequate slope stability factors of safety.
[3:41:01] So therefore staff is recommending that the city council add additional more restrictive conditions of approval to the project, which are stated on this slide.
[3:41:10] These are also stated on page 15 of the agenda report and in the attached resolution section for conditions H through J on page 35 of the agenda report.
[3:41:22] So during board deliberations Board Member Gibbs did note that the project proposed certain
[3:41:28] setbacks for the bluff top from the bluff top on the property and he noted that it
[3:41:35] was an improvement to the condition of the bluff.
[3:41:38] Further he commented that the technical studies, which include the coastal hazard analysis,
[3:41:43] the historic report, as well as the bluff edge for geotechnical bluff edge report that
[3:41:48] prepared for the project we're thorough and that he did not know any issues with the reports.
[3:41:54] With respect to the soil's report, since this project is located on a coastal
[3:41:59] bluff top, it does require full geotechnical soil's reports to be submitted during the building
[3:42:05] plan check process and this is based on city policy. Although there is not a specific condition of
[3:42:11] approval that requires the geotechnical soil's report within the resolution, the applicant will
[3:42:18] be required to comply with this requirement through its policy.
[3:42:24] Staff is recommending that the City Council consider adding the following more restrictive
[3:42:28] conditions of approval to the project.
[3:42:30] This is related to the geotechnical soils report being submitted during the plan check process.
[3:42:37] They're noted here on the slide and they're also also within the agenda report and similarly
[3:42:42] in section four, these are conditions K and L on page 35 of the agenda report.
[3:42:48] And lastly, as the part of the second contention, the appellants request for a noise
[3:42:53] and vibration study is important to note, this is not a requirement of the municipal code.
[3:43:00] Although there is not a specific condition of approval that requires the applicant to comply
[3:43:04] with the city's noise requirements in the municipal code, and that's specifically chapter 7.25.
[3:43:11] They are obligated to comply with this municipal co-chapter, both during and after construction.
[3:43:19] During board deliberations there was a brief discussion regarding the installation of equipment on the property
[3:43:24] to monitor the improvements.
[3:43:27] And at the time staff suggested adding the building division standard conditions of approval to address this concern.
[3:43:34] So, those conditions are the same ones that I showed previously, which were the conditions
[3:43:40] A through G that are proposed in the resolution that's attached to the report.
[3:43:46] And these would address construction hours on site monitoring by a geotechnical engineer
[3:43:53] during excavation and grading activities, as well as documentation of any ground movement
[3:43:58] and notification to the building official of any such movement.
[3:44:04] The third contention from the appeal that was filed states that the identified
[3:44:10] sequence assumption does not apply. The board's determination that the project was
[3:44:15] exempt from sequa pursuant to state SQL guidelines section 15304 was proper.
[3:44:21] Here there is a pool, spa deck, barbecue, and landscaping, which consists of minor
[3:44:27] private alterations in the condition of land, water, and or vegetation. And these
[3:44:32] to not involve the removal of any healthy, mature scenic trees, except for forestry or agricultural
[3:44:39] purposes, the project will also involve minimal disturbance to the overall landscape. It includes
[3:44:44] excavation of a small, tomato area of soil in order to accommodate the pool that would
[3:44:49] consist of approximately 60 cubic yards. And these changes are localized. They do not require
[3:44:55] of substantial modifications to the project site's use, nor the surrounding.
[3:45:02] I also wanted to note that because the city council exercises its independent judgment and discretion with respect to
[3:45:08] secret determinations, the city council may also find that the proposed project fits within the state
[3:45:31] smaller in scope than some of the other examples that are provided, such as the construction
[3:45:36] of the single family residents.
[3:45:38] Additionally, here there is no evidence of any unusual circumstance, or any unusual or
[3:45:43] special conditions that would result in a significant effect of the environment, building a swimming
[3:45:49] pool and adding landscaping to a single family residence that is located on a coastal bluff
[3:45:54] does not constitute unusual circumstances.
[3:45:57] So this evening staff has recommending that the City Council adopt the resolution to deny the appeal and to modify the design review board's decision to approve the project.
[3:46:09] By adding more restrictive conditions of approval and finding that the action is categorically exempt from seek law,
[3:46:27] And that correspondence has been provided to the council for consideration.
[3:46:31] That concludes my presentation and staff is available for any questions.
[3:46:34] Thank you.
[3:46:36] Thank you.
[3:46:37] You Wendy, very thorough.
[3:46:38] Presentation.
[3:46:38] Are there any questions for staff at this point?
[3:46:42] Seeing no questions, we're going to open public testimony and in terms of the order, we're
[3:46:47] going to start with five minutes to the appellant.
[3:46:51] And then people in support of the appellant can speak at that time for three minutes.
[3:46:54] and then we're going to go to the applicant. We'll have five minutes and then people in opposition
[3:47:00] to the appeal or in support of the project. We'll have three minutes per person. And then finally,
[3:47:05] the appellant will have two minutes to provide rebuttal to the comments made by the applicant.
[3:47:13] So we'll start off with five minutes for the appellant. Go ahead, Brian.
[3:47:21] Thank you, Mr. Mayor, for saving the best for the last.
[3:47:26] Members of the Council, thank you very much.
[3:47:28] My name is Brian Ward, and I am the owner of Number 7 Rockledge, the Appellant.
[3:47:34] I want to start by saying that Rockledge Roads is, as many of you know, historically,
[3:47:41] significant street, and many of the houses on the street date back to 1926.
[3:47:47] There are charming beach cottages on a very historical street.
[3:47:52] The geology and the history of rock legend, my opinion, demonstrates that a bluff edge facing
[3:47:58] infinity edge pool is incompatible and potentially a danger to the surrounding properties,
[3:48:05] and especially my property at number seven rock ledge.
[3:48:09] I, which again, number seven, Rockledge is the original Rockledge Cottage that was built
[3:48:15] in 1926 and at one time owned all the land on Rockledge Road.
[3:48:22] When I purchased the property, I made the conscious decision to approach a sympathetic
[3:48:27] restoration on my property in order to preserve the original structures of my home.
[3:48:35] And many others on the street have done the same thing.
[3:48:37] And so doing eye-hired, a local architect who also owns
[3:48:41] and has restored a historic cottage.
[3:48:45] My landscape architect, many of you know, also lives
[3:48:49] in Laguna Beach and has restored a historical cottage.
[3:48:53] And I did that in order to assure that every step
[3:48:55] that I took was to preserve the original structure at number seven.
[3:49:02] And obviously, I think people need to do more of that.
[3:49:07] The issue here is my home, again, dates back to 1926,
[3:49:15] and the foundation upon which the home is built
[3:49:19] and the retaining wall along the bluff edge of number seven
[3:49:23] is not capable of sustaining any major excavation
[3:49:27] or pile driving into the bedrock.
[3:49:31] And if this pool has any of those types of characteristics it's going to pose a major risk to my property.
[3:49:39] I've asked my geotechnical consultant to come before you tonight to talk about some of the geologic implications that we know about based upon the limited information that we've reviewed.
[3:49:50] The typically a pool like this and an infinity edge pool would involve driving piles into the bedrock that, again, would under...
[3:50:00] I remind the integrity. The way that these conditions currently read, the moment you approve this project,
[3:50:07] I am excluded from the process. And which means that I no longer have the right to review and approve
[3:50:14] any studies that are done on the property from this point forward or provide any input, you know,
[3:50:22] for those studies. I can't have my geotechnical consultant to take a look at it as well, which is
[3:50:29] exactly why I proposed to be a party of the agreement or have you look at this project
[3:50:38] when it's a little bit more advanced and there's technical studies that can address issues
[3:50:42] like excavation, specific excavation and any piles and penetration to bedrock that needs to be
[3:50:49] done. Where my property exists relative to this site is on a direct down slope to the pool area
[3:50:58] that's being excavated for, which means that,
[3:51:01] based upon the configuration of the coastal
[3:51:04] bluff edge, if you draw a line down the slope line,
[3:51:11] it goes underneath my property and right to my retaining wall.
[3:51:15] So, it's only fair that I've been involved in that process.
[3:51:20] But again, these conditions eliminate me
[3:51:22] from the process entirely, and I'll make an example.
[3:51:27] It says here that in your conditions that the geotechnical and genel engineer shall be required to conduct on-site monitoring.
[3:51:38] What it should say is on-site and off-site monitoring.
[3:51:44] It doesn't do that. So typically in these kinds of undertagings, it's not unusual and very common to put off-site monitoring so you can address again adjacent properties.
[3:51:57] I see my time is up, but there's a number of traffic and safety issues as well.
[3:52:02] The parcel map that was shown by staff is not accurate.
[3:52:06] Most of the properties on Rockledge Road and Rockledge Terrorists have street frontage
[3:52:13] of between 30 and 60 linear feet.
[3:52:16] Number eight has less than 15 linear feet.
[3:52:19] It also is directly adjacent to our communities only fire hydrant, so if you park or stage heavy equipment in front of the road and on their property, you block our fire hydrant and you block the the coldest act, which is the only area that our community has to stage emergency vehicles.
[3:52:44] It's a major undertaking. It's way over-designed and not necessary. I believe it's completely
[3:52:52] incompatible with the look and feel of historical, you know, coastal bluff along rock
[3:52:57] ledge. And I recommend that staff support my appeal and deny the project. I'm completely
[3:53:04] fine with the proposed or the existing approved plan on this project. That was approved back
[3:53:12] In 2018, which has a small pool on it, it's a jacuzzi.
[3:53:19] I think that's completely appropriate, and that was appropriate for staff to approve it.
[3:53:25] And that's the plan that I believe staff should support.
[3:53:28] Thank you.
[3:53:30] And so now anyone in support of the appellant you have three minutes to speak.
[3:53:36] Good evening, Mayor and council members.
[3:53:38] I'm David Hansen, a registered G-Tetnik owns near-the-state of California.
[3:53:44] With regards to G-Tetnik concerns for this project, the original report upon which the design
[3:53:51] new board took a look at and reviewed and determining their approval of this project, there
[3:53:58] are actually older reports that it's 2018 and that was a report for the remodel of the house and
[3:54:03] for a small, for a rear yard improvements,
[3:54:07] but the only included concrete walkways,
[3:54:10] paddios, and then a smaller jacuzzi,
[3:54:15] and that jacuzzi was proposed quite a bit of waste
[3:54:18] from the top of the slope.
[3:54:19] So it wasn't much of an issue,
[3:54:21] but the current plans now are for,
[3:54:23] oh, and there was a second report was a bluff edge report.
[3:54:26] The bluff edge determination was, in my opinion,
[3:54:29] spot on, however, that report had stability calculations
[3:54:33] that were based on just the minor improvements that were proposed and that time they didn't
[3:54:37] include the proposed grading and drainage that is now proposed. It also did not include
[3:54:42] any potential loads from this much larger pool that is going to be proposed now. So it's not really
[3:54:48] representative of what the impact that this current proposed construction will have on the
[3:54:55] overall stability of the site, and then...
[3:55:01] With respect to, so the Social Security, in my opinion, can be updated in order to really know whether this new construction is going to have an impact on the overall Social Security.
[3:55:15] The other concern is that this pool is much bigger, it goes from basically across the whole entire width of the existing house.
[3:55:22] So one edge of that pool is coming in close proximity to seven rock
[3:55:26] lage that has existing walls, it has an existing retaining wall that are kind of historic walls
[3:55:33] that they were built back in the 1920s, 26, I think.
[3:55:39] So they're just kind of a rock and mortar construction.
[3:55:42] They probably back in those days, they had really shallow footings.
[3:55:46] So what those old reports don't address is how deep the excavation will be along that side
[3:55:52] the property, how deep it will be, how far it will be from that wall from the existing wall
[3:55:58] and whether shoring is going to be needed along that to protect that wall and to keep it
[3:56:02] from being undermined. And then finally, because of the size of this pool, because it's
[3:56:08] I'm sorry, because it's an infinity edge pool, those kind of pools have to be designed for
[3:56:14] zero settlement, which usually means that the pool is going to have to be on piles that go down
[3:56:20] the bedrock that are deep and the issue with going deep into the bedrock is that the drilling
[3:56:28] of the hard bedrock creates a lot of vibration and also if shortings needed along that side,
[3:56:34] those piles will also cause vibration which is a major concern to the existing house.
[3:56:42] It's a historic building that's on just, it's got raised wood floors, just small little shallow
[3:56:49] had footings, so we're worried about the vibration causing damage to adjacent structures and walls.
[3:56:56] You can.
[3:56:57] Okay.
[3:56:58] Are there any other speakers in support of the appellant?
[3:57:01] If not, we're going to give five minutes to the applicant to provide a presentation.
[3:57:11] Good evening.
[3:57:12] Mayor Ranage and members of the City Council.
[3:57:13] My name is Larry Nokes, and I am here representing Brian Webb, who is probably snowed in some place in the Midwest.
[3:57:22] not a contributor, by the way. He did verify that. He is watching.
[3:57:28] All of these issues that were raised by Mr. Ward were raised at the designer view board hearing and he was heard at that time.
[3:57:39] But I'm not seeing from the appellant is any kind of a geotechnical report saying that the
[3:57:46] geotechnical studies prepared by geos oils or by Dave Skelly, a wave impact and ocean impact studies are flawed in any way.
[3:57:55] The fact is that this project is not contemplate any piles.
[3:57:59] This project is not contemplate any deep foundations.
[3:58:03] It's going to be a self-supporting pool.
[3:58:07] So when we reviewed this in October, there were a number of conditions of approval that
[3:58:17] had been placed into a proposed effort.
[3:58:19] That's the reason that we asked for this to be continued, including Mr. Ward's concerns
[3:58:23] about a tree at his house, things 70 decibel noise limitation, all of those things needed
[3:58:30] to go.
[3:58:31] and now I believe and I want to publicly acknowledge that Wendy and Megan and whoever else
[3:58:42] helped put this proposed resolution together comparing the design review board comments with
[3:58:50] what was actually stated and what was actually approved were absolutely outstanding.
[3:58:55] And the analysis was excellent.
[3:59:01] Well, ordinarily we would say that there is absolutely no basis
[3:59:05] to modify the approvals because it was a 501 approval,
[3:59:10] and all of this stuff was thoroughly discussed.
[3:59:13] And there was no demonstration, there was a mistake of law
[3:59:17] in going through and listening to the hearing again,
[3:59:20] which I try to do whenever I'm involved in one of these.
[3:59:23] And it was pretty clear that the design of the board did reference the handout that is cited in the staff report by Wendy and the provisions that are laid out in the revised resolutions.
[3:59:40] I think their categories is being more restrictive. I think they're really clarifying and I think they're really helpful.
[3:59:48] the clarifying restrictions with regard to the parking plan.
[3:59:54] I think are very consistent with what the design review board actually discussed and what was before.
[4:00:00] Before them, I'm presented at the hearing. And so I don't have a problem with those going into the resolution as being more restrictive. The geotechnical findings.
[4:00:11] We have a geotechnical report. It's attached. Stony Miller did it. It has been peer reviewed by the city and it's been approved. But we don't have a problem with the additional restriction that was cited.
[4:00:27] in the proposed recommendation, and with regard to the CEQ analysis, we think that the
[4:00:35] city attorney, her analysis of the CEQ provisions are spot on, and I believe that Wendy,
[4:00:44] I agree with Wendy that either 15304 or 15303 could be adopted to justify the categorical
[4:00:50] exemption. So with that, I don't have anything further. We do support the denial of the appeal
[4:01:00] and the adoption of the proposed conditions. And we ask that this project will be approved
[4:01:08] tonight. Steve Quaritani is here to answer any questions if you have any with regard to the
[4:01:16] project and again, I want to thank Wendy and Megan and anybody else who worked on this
[4:01:22] because it was a complicated thing to put together.
[4:01:25] Larry, maybe this is a question for Steve, but in your comments you said, you know, there's
[4:01:29] no drilling down in the bedrock this required.
[4:01:32] What's the basis of that?
[4:01:33] I mean, this is structural design.
[4:01:35] This is going to be a hand excavated pool project.
[4:01:38] They're just going to be using shovels, maybe pneumatic shovels, and it's going to be a fairly gentle thing.
[4:01:50] Based on the site conditions that Stony Miller has identified, we don't anticipate that there is going to be any problem at all, but we are not going to do any piles.
[4:02:01] We're not going to do any deep in flittings, we're not going to do any deep case-ons.
[4:02:09] It's structurally a good project and it's not should not have any impact at all on Mr.
[4:02:16] Roy's house.
[4:02:18] So the geotechnical report that you have is not based on the old project, it's based on the
[4:02:25] current project.
[4:02:25] The 2022 report and as I understand it is based on this project, updated for this project,
[4:02:34] not for the old project.
[4:02:36] Is that correct Steve?
[4:02:40] Anything else?
[4:02:42] Thank you.
[4:02:50] So at this point we'll take testimony three minutes each for individuals in support of the
[4:02:58] applicant.
[4:03:02] Okay, then we're going to go back to the appellant, Mr. Ward will have two minutes
[4:03:08] to respond to anything that you've heard.
[4:03:14] Thank you.
[4:03:14] My understanding from my geotite code consultant
[4:03:18] to review those reports was that the report
[4:03:21] that was included in staffs was the old report,
[4:03:26] not a new report.
[4:03:28] And again, that report did not address the design,
[4:03:32] the specific design of the new pool,
[4:03:34] the depth of the new pool to even be able to ascertain
[4:03:40] whether or not foodings would be required,
[4:03:43] how much excavation would be done,
[4:03:45] or exactly how that would be done.
[4:03:47] Again, I fall back on some of the issues
[4:03:49] I stated earlier about the safety
[4:03:52] of staging any kind of excavation like that
[4:03:55] on Rockler at this particular location.
[4:03:59] Again, because of proximity,
[4:04:01] this is our only, this cul-de-sac,
[4:04:03] is our only staging area for emergency vehicles,
[4:04:06] and it just can't be clogged up
[4:04:08] with excavated material and excavation equipment.
[4:04:13] Again, the fire hydrant is directly adjacent to the driveway,
[4:04:19] the garages are pulled forward on the site,
[4:04:21] and there's only 15 feet, less than 15 feet,
[4:04:25] of street front-age for this property.
[4:04:28] It's impossible to do this without violating
[4:04:31] the rules of our community and imposing a health and safety risk
[4:04:35] on our residents.
[4:04:36] Thank you.
[4:04:40] Okay, so I'm going to close public testimony and then questions for, so I guess,
[4:04:51] staff do any responses to anything that you've heard before we have your questions from
[4:04:55] the Council.
[4:04:57] No.
[4:04:58] So, which report I'm sure?
[4:05:01] So there's on page 154, that's not the geotechnical report, right? That's the coastal hazard analysis, which is different than the geotechnical report.
[4:05:11] Where's the geotechnical report?
[4:05:18] So on 168 is the updated geotechnical bluff edge report.
[4:05:25] And that was specifically to identify the bluff edge so that we could determine the adequate or the correct setbacks for the project.
[4:05:33] So, the geotechnical report has not been done because, right, because that, it's not required,
[4:05:41] is that why?
[4:05:42] Well, a geotechnical soils report is required for, when you're constructing a new pool on a property
[4:05:50] that's a coastal bluff, but that, the city has a policy, so it's referenced within the
[4:05:56] general report.
[4:05:56] There's a handout that's on the city's website that's called when a geotechnical report,
[4:06:02] Do you have technical soils report is required?
[4:06:05] And so that's typically submitted during the building
[4:06:08] plan check process.
[4:06:09] And it's peer reviewed by the city's peer reviewer.
[4:06:13] And the question for the city attorney from a SQL perspective,
[4:06:17] if our code could that be an unusual circumstance
[4:06:21] that would make the class three exemption,
[4:06:27] would that be an exception to the exemption?
[4:06:29] I don't believe so. I think that it fits within the exemption and doesn't trigger the exception.
[4:06:37] Are you, are you saying if the rules report?
[4:06:40] If our code says that we need it, that has a requirement for that, is that saying?
[4:06:46] Why is, why is that not a technical study for purposes of sequence?
[4:06:49] It's as I understand that studies that are necessary to make the determination for DRB are considered and having considered for SQL purposes, and that this is a building code provision that is implemented for purposes of ensuring that everything is what needs to be in order to escalate or whatever.
[4:07:16] so it's a building code requirement as opposed to a technical study for the discretionary decision.
[4:07:24] With that said, I mean, it's a little odd. I wasn't really aware of that hand out
[4:07:31] your referencing. But the results of that report could affect the ultimate design.
[4:07:40] It just depends on how far they wanted to take any structural elements that are going to be needed based on the report.
[4:07:50] So I guess if they made a decision after they brought that report in before during plan check and they wanted to make revisions they'd have to go back through DRB.
[4:08:04] If they were substantial changes to the project scope then yes.
[4:08:12] So if it exceeds the scope of the approval, then it will have to go back to derby.
[4:08:24] What's the scope?
[4:08:24] I mean, like the surface area?
[4:08:27] The size of the proposed pool of spot, the proposed grading.
[4:08:34] So there's a statement on page 18 of the staff report.
[4:08:39] So where do we derive this from?
[4:08:40] It says the project will involve minimal disturbance to our landscape,
[4:08:44] including the exclamation of a small to moderate area.
[4:08:47] So, accommodate the pool consisting of 60 cubic yards.
[4:08:51] So, where does that come from?
[4:08:53] So, the quantity of the grading is taken from the project plans.
[4:08:57] There is a project summary table that's located on a title sheet
[4:09:00] that identifies the amount of grading.
[4:09:06] Okay, so, I mean, would this geotechnical soils report
[4:09:11] possibly result in a conclusion that you had to do
[4:09:17] case-ons are drawing in a bedrock,
[4:09:22] not necessarily.
[4:09:24] I'm just trying to understand whether the
[4:09:26] contentions that the talent is raising would respect
[4:09:30] you know possibly going in a bedrock and creating
[4:09:32] vibration in that sort of issue.
[4:09:35] Could occur as a result of the geotechnical
[4:09:38] soils report.
[4:09:40] So hard to say because I'm not an expert.
[4:09:42] Do you a technical expert?
[4:09:44] But my understanding is that when the report is
[4:09:46] paired by a two-technical engineer and then peer reviewed by the city's consultant.
[4:09:51] If at that time there's conditions or modifications that need to be implemented into the project.
[4:10:00] In order to meet the code or the standards, those would be relayed and then at that time the applicant would have to determine if they have to revise their project or modify the kind of the extent of constructing that pool.
[4:10:19] But again, I defer to the geotechnical experts on that.
[4:10:22] Well, let me ask you a different way, because Council further, the applicant has said that it's going to be a hand dug pool, maybe pneumatic shovels, no K-sons,
[4:10:34] so if it came back, the termination came back from the geotechnical soils report that, no, you need more than that, you need shoreing or you need, you know, K-sons and the bedrock or something to support this pool, would that be a change?
[4:10:52] outside the scope of what's already been approved?
[4:10:58] Potentially, I think that there is a condition that's added that says that the project
[4:11:02] is contingent upon the results of the geotechnical report, which must demonstrate the
[4:11:07] development.
[4:11:08] We'll have adequate slope civility factors of safety of 1.5 to 1.2 static to pseudo-satic.
[4:11:15] And I think that if the slope, as I understand that condition,
[4:11:23] that which that
[4:11:24] arrives from the analysis in the Bluff Edge geotechnical report and that in doing this analysis
[4:11:31] that there has to be an added, they have to demonstrate an adequate factor in their geotechnical
[4:11:36] report for growth slope civility of that 1.5. So if the conditions change and they violate
[4:11:43] that ratio effectively, then it will also determine that they need to go back for DRB.
[4:11:51] modification. Well, I guess what I'm saying. I don't know enough about this, but if you can achieve
[4:11:55] that slope stability by creating and putting in 40 k-sons, which would be a massive project,
[4:12:04] I'm making up the number. That's very different than, you know, a pool where you excavate
[4:12:11] 60 cubic yards. So I'm just trying to understand the out of parameters. I mean, I have no issue
[4:12:19] if it ends up being exactly as Mr. Nox described it, which is, you know, no, no K-Sons,
[4:12:27] no boring into bedrock. And the reason I raised it, there have been other projects in town
[4:12:34] where adjacent neighbors have been significantly affected by K-Sons drilling into, you know, a pneumatic
[4:12:43] boom boom and you know these their house next door just
[4:12:47] built I'm not talking about this one but you know built in
[4:12:50] 1930 or something it's starting to do this.
[4:12:59] So that's you know like I say if it goes the way Larry
[4:13:02] described it I mean I have no issue with it but if it turns into a
[4:13:06] you get to support this thing with you know a lot of
[4:13:11] structure in the ground that seems to me to be different than
[4:13:16] what we're all thinking we're approving tonight.
[4:13:23] If I may have clarification, so if there was a change in, you know,
[4:13:29] and rather than using a handshovel, and then they require some additional equipment
[4:13:35] that's larger, that is in something that would trigger it to go back to a designer
[4:13:40] of your board.
[4:13:42] So these conditions of approval that are on page 34,
[4:13:48] sorry, 33 to 35 of the agenda
[4:13:51] report, several of those are standard conditions from the building division and they specifically
[4:13:58] if you look at G on page 34 and it does talk about how that a geotechnical engineer shall
[4:14:04] be required to conduct on site monitoring of the site during excavation and creating.
[4:14:09] And then also that there you have to document this and to provide it to the building official
[4:14:14] if there's any such movement.
[4:14:16] And then if you look at also condition number K, the geotechnical source report shall be subject to approval by the city's building official.
[4:14:25] So all these things would be handled during the building plan check process and prior to building permit issuance.
[4:14:31] And it would be under the discretion of the building official, not the design review board at that time.
[4:14:41] Yeah, I appreciate that. I'm not sure that answers my question,
[4:14:48] though.
[4:14:48] I think the issue when he is at what point does, if it's been sent to the building official, at what point do those report?
[4:14:58] Where does the building official's ability?
[4:15:00] Just say, okay, this pool is approved or this pool is beyond the scope of what was approved by DRB needs to go back.
[4:15:09] Given the testimony we've heard tonight, do we know what the, can we have a clear explanation of what that trigger is based on the project? Is there, you know, we can't, can I throw one other thing into the whole conversation?
[4:15:24] So, if there is a geological report done on it, and then a geo-engineer engineer is the system based on that report, what this is saying here in L, and this is very common, they have geo-technical engineer onsite, doing an analysis and checking, you know, because they just originally do the core samples, and it's not a comprehensive analysis of the whole thing when they do the design.
[4:15:53] So I think by what this might answer your question, if the engineer says I want two more
[4:16:02] caseons over there, that happens in the field.
[4:16:06] He'll do a little change on the plan and submit it to the building official, but that's
[4:16:12] kind of not predetermined because it's not recognized until they're actually excavating.
[4:16:19] Isn't that makes sense?
[4:16:24] That's why they have these site visits.
[4:16:29] Yeah, no, I understand that just it just seems like a 60 cubic yard excavation could turn into
[4:16:39] a much bigger, you know, I must bigger grading and a much bigger excavation and
[4:16:47] shorting, they could look at visual may require a shorting plan. I don't know, I'm just,
[4:16:55] how do we know what's going to happen here?
[4:17:03] Well, I think they answered the biggest part, is procedurally.
[4:17:09] I mean, right, they did the original Geo, and if, in fact, it is a current Geo and not based on old plan, then that's how you usually move forward.
[4:17:17] You move forward based on that data, and then if anything comes up under what, while it's in a construction,
[4:17:26] you just have to alter the design based on the circumstances that are uncovered while it's under construction.
[4:17:33] I don't know the other way to do it.
[4:17:37] The report first.
[4:17:39] No, you do the report, but the report is based on a couple of samples that are taken all
[4:17:48] of the site.
[4:17:49] And then once you really start getting into it, and if the geologist in the engineer says,
[4:17:54] oh no, this is not quite what we thought it was.
[4:17:58] And we haven't hit.
[4:17:59] We thought there was bedrock.
[4:18:00] The report shows bedrock over there, but it fell off, and there's no bedrock here.
[4:18:04] go another 40 feet down until you hit bedrock, or whatever.
[4:18:10] I think that's why the appellant has the anxiety about it, right?
[4:18:16] I understand that.
[4:18:17] I'm just saying that that happens to be a typical way of going about.
[4:18:23] But if we don't have the report now based on the current plans.
[4:18:28] Well, I understand the what I understand is
[4:18:32] So is the report based on the current plans or the old plan?
[4:18:38] So the geotechnical bluff edge report is based upon the current conditions and then also
[4:18:45] based upon the proposed scope of this project.
[4:18:48] But it's not getting, I think, into the level of detail about the appellan is looking for,
[4:18:52] which is something that would happen during building plan check with the geotechnical
[4:18:57] soils report.
[4:18:59] Is this site in the appealable coastal zone?
[4:19:08] And that is because it really just addresses the bluff.
[4:19:16] Correct, because under the board's discretion, what they're there's discretion is with like when they review the project they're looking at the location.
[4:19:24] Right.
[4:19:24] I understand.
[4:19:25] And the size and actually grading is not a design review trigger for this project.
[4:19:32] Um, so typically, or so in the code, it says grading an excess of 20 cubic yards triggers
[4:19:38] designer view when it's outside the building footprint.
[4:19:41] But for swimming pools, when you excavate first room pool, that is in something that triggers
[4:19:45] designer view.
[4:19:47] But the location of the pool was under their discretion.
[4:19:50] Can
[4:19:56] I suggest a potential solution here, which is...
[4:20:00] It's based on the applicant's counsel's representation that this is going to be 60 cubic yards. No, I can't remember exactly what you said to be honest, but we could say that that is the scope period. And so if it exceeds that, then it will have to go back to DRB. And so, and it still has to comply with the geotechnical reports and all the building requirements that are typically required.
[4:20:30] But we will, we can just clearly draw the line in the sand as to what this, what the council understands the scope of the pool to be, so if it is an excess of that, then it will have to come back for further reveal.
[4:20:45] Is there a way for in condition K at talks about how there's the due technical soils
[4:20:53] or for it that's going to be submitted and peer reviewed at the applicants cost to the
[4:20:57] building division?
[4:20:58] I understand that's a ministerial process in this city is building officials making that
[4:21:02] decision but is there a reason why the appellant wouldn't be able to provide input on that?
[4:21:11] we can't delegate our land use authority or our building authority to another person so that's
[4:21:19] why we have our building official make decisions. The building official would still make this decision
[4:21:24] but then if the if the but that decision could be maybe they would get the report from the
[4:21:30] appellant they would just they would say we this doesn't make they wouldn't agree with it.
[4:21:34] I don't know what the process would be though I mean that that that's outside that's sort of outside
[4:21:39] our whole, well, it's a conducive condition,
[4:21:45] but I think if you, it's effectively an opportunity
[4:21:47] for a peer review of a building process.
[4:21:51] Well, I kind of like the idea, maybe we need to ask the applicant, but, you know, setting
[4:21:55] some out of limit on the grading as the scope, and that's because that's what they think
[4:22:01] it is, and that's what everybody thinks it is, and if it comes back, and it's, you know,
[4:22:06] much bigger than that and have another look at it.
[4:22:10] Yeah, I think that's a big, that's great.
[4:22:12] Parade of Percy.
[4:22:15] What would you propose, Bob?
[4:22:17] Well, I mean, I'm just sort of a, I think the applicant needs
[4:22:19] to come up and speak to this.
[4:22:22] But if we state it in here that if it exceeds 60 or maybe
[4:22:29] make it 10% to 66, something cubic yards
[4:22:33] to give a little bit of leeway, then it comes back.
[4:22:37] something like that. Hi again, Steve Boire County. I like Vegas idea of putting a limit on the pool.
[4:22:48] It's contemplated as Larry described to have this as self-supporting. However, the major report and
[4:22:59] mark has the most experience with this happens when you turn in the construction drawings, Bob.
[4:23:05] And there will be more extensive testing and it will be up to the discretion of a building official if the solution that our geologists is presenting is adequate.
[4:23:21] Now if it turns out that this is going to exceed what has been contemplated, two things could happen.
[4:23:31] the pool may not move forward, because we really can't bring any heavy equipment back in there any longer.
[4:23:38] And it may indeed be a spa.
[4:23:40] You know, we don't contemplate that occurring, but if we put a limit based on what the building official says,
[4:23:49] and again, the soils engineer, as Mark has stated, will do more expensive testing.
[4:23:57] staff has decided that the design review board doesn't really have the expertise to review this.
[4:24:05] That's why it's not complete, it's preliminary.
[4:24:09] And when we get to building, then we'll have a much better idea.
[4:24:13] Again, all of our preliminary analysis from the updated report from 2022 indicates that
[4:24:21] the pool will be self-supporting.
[4:24:23] But we will take that limit as recommended by Megan.
[4:24:30] And I wonder if it should go to the board or it should come back to council.
[4:24:37] Just bring in here and just bring it back here.
[4:24:40] I don't know.
[4:24:41] It would be an amendment to the, as I see it.
[4:24:46] And I think it would be an amended deer be, it would be an amended designer.
[4:24:49] I think it has to under our code go to designer.
[4:24:52] I was going to ask if there was an admin avenue here that might streamline it.
[4:25:03] Sorry to put you on the spot.
[4:25:06] So, Megan, the concern is damaged to the adjacent property. Right?
[4:25:13] That's what I've understand, that's the opelence concern.
[4:25:22] I mean, technically, they could hand dig.
[4:25:25] Well, I think you can condition that that wasn't the representation, right?
[4:25:29] You could just condition it on no heavy equipment and then it's all manual excavation and that way if they wanted to dig
[4:25:37] I mean you could dig a 10 foot case on bite a hole without using a drill rig
[4:25:43] It's not fun, but it can be done
[4:25:47] So I would just say that the excavation has to be done by hand and there's no heavy equipment
[4:25:55] What if there are is a need for case ons to eat well you like I said you can technically it depends
[4:26:02] I mean,
[4:26:05] well, then you've got to have to come back, I guess, or yeah, that's where I would, I think we're sort of all a little bit guessing as to what the future circumstances are.
[4:26:17] But that's why I recommend these out our limits, give as much guidance as possible, perhaps give a little leeway, perhaps give the community development director, the ability to allow for minor alterations.
[4:26:31] to try to accommodate minor changes that may need to occur, but give, you know, is what you think to be reasonable in these circumstances based on the evidence you've heard this evening.
[4:26:49] Well, I heard the applicants say they're accepting of the limit on the grading and would agree to come back.
[4:26:56] And does that include the hand digging?
[4:27:00] Yeah, I think, I mean, that's the representation, right?
[4:27:03] So there'd be no heavy equipment and a grading wouldn't exceed.
[4:27:07] I would say it's in here at 60, but you know,
[4:27:10] increase the 10% and say 66 cubic yards and leave it at that.
[4:27:16] That seems reasonable.
[4:27:18] Would you like to give the community development director,
[4:27:22] the ability for a minor modification,
[4:27:23] and then the event that there's something unforeseen related to this.
[4:27:28] Or otherwise, it would have to go back through DRB through an amendment to the DR.
[4:27:33] I mean, something related to the grading.
[4:27:35] Yeah, exactly.
[4:27:37] Greating or, yeah.
[4:27:40] Yeah, I think if it's.
[4:27:42] Well, the minor modification, I guess, was him saying an additional 10%
[4:27:48] That's true.
[4:27:49] Yeah, maybe you've already addressed it with your contingency.
[4:27:54] So I think if we said no heavy equipment and that's a great excavation not to exceed 66 cubic yards.
[4:28:03] And then do we have to have because we could base that off of CDP finding number 5 that the proposed development will minimize the alterations of natural landforms and will not reduce.
[4:28:15] We'll not result in undue risk from geological and original forces and or flood and fire hazards that could be the basis for it.
[4:28:21] because it sounds like we're just doing geology from the diets, but that's what our CDP requires us to do.
[4:28:27] Effectively. Right. So.
[4:28:34] Okay. So we just need a motion to adopt the resolution and add
[4:28:38] this additional condition where
[4:28:46] we can add it to section for as condition m. Condition m.
[4:28:55] And when you did we have anything else we needed to amend in the resolution or work it otherwise.
[4:29:00] There
[4:29:04] was one thing that I noticed that's minor, but I think if we're here and we want to see it for the records.
[4:29:12] So I did notice on page 32 of the gender report section 3, we're discusses SQA.
[4:29:20] It's a referencing section 15304 of the state's SQA guidelines. It's the second sentence in section 3.
[4:29:25] It says existing facilities class 4. It should read minor alterations to land.
[4:29:32] Thank you.
[4:29:38] So would condition MSA something like the scope of the project shall not exceed 66 cubic
[4:29:44] yards of excavation and shall not utilize heavy equipment and connection with the construction
[4:29:52] of the pool?
[4:29:54] to be done through hand excavation.
[4:30:01] Okay, without addition, and when this clarification, I would move the adoption resolution has amended.
[4:30:11] Okay, all in favour. Aye. Aye.
[4:30:21] Thanks, everyone.
[4:30:22] So we will adjourn the meeting to our next regularly scheduled meeting in two weeks.