[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.]

[1:17] All right, let's go ahead and get started, everybody. The time is now 301 p.m. on Wednesday, September 2nd. We'll go ahead and call the Wednesday or today's meeting of the Administrative Community Development Director to order. My name is Bill Rodriguez. I'm a planning manager in the Community Development Department, and I will be the hearing officer for today's proceedings. We do have three items on the agenda today. We will start out with general public comments for any item that is not not an agendized item. And then we'll move into each of the three public hearing
[1:47] matters. What I do want to go over though real quickly is some general ground rules for how the
[1:54] meeting is held and conducted. So when I do call your agenda item, if the applicant team would
[1:59] make their way forward and take a seat at the presentation table in front of me, they will be given
[2:05] up to five minutes to speak in support of their application. After that, I will ask if there is any
[2:10] member of the public present who wishes to speak either in support or opposition to that application.
[2:14] Those members wishing to speak and raise their hand and make come forward to the podium.
[2:18] You will each have up to three minutes to speak your piece on the matter.
[2:22] After that, I will give the applicant team up to three minutes for rebuttal statements.
[2:26] And then after that, it will return to the dius for my determination on the project.
[2:31] In making a decision on the project today, I have a number of options before me.
[2:36] First is that I can approve the application as it has been submitted.
[2:40] I could also approve it with additional conditions.
[2:42] I have the opportunity to continue the item to a future date to request more information.
[2:49] I could also continue it to a date uncertain if we determine that significant amount of additional time is needed to address concerns.
[2:57] I also have the opportunity to forward the project to the design review board.
[3:00] If I fill or the planning commission, if I fill that the issues raised by the project warrant their input.
[3:06] And last, if the project is not consistent with the city's design review criteria or the applicable findings, I do have the ability to deny the project.
[3:14] For any final determination that I make this afternoon, that decision is appealable to the design review board or the planning commission as appropriate based on the filing of a appeal application with the city clerk's office and the payment of a $2,500 application fee.
[3:30] So, with those understandings, we'll go ahead and jump in today's agenda.
[3:33] As I mentioned, a moment ago, the very first item on the agenda is general public communications.
[3:37] So, if there's anybody present who wishes to make a statement that is within the subject matter purview of this jurisdiction,
[3:43] but is not one of the listed items on today's agenda, please raise your hand and come forward.
[3:49] So, seeing none, we'll go ahead and close the public comments section and we will move into the first item on today's agenda,
[3:56] which is for the property located at 2, 6, 6, 0, pal away.
[4:00] This is for design review number 2, 0, 2, 6, dash 1, 4, 2, 7,
[4:05] and coastal development permit number 2, 0, 2, 6, dash 1, 4, 2, 8.
[4:11] This end of recommendation to adopt a categorical exemption,
[4:14] pursuant to sequel section 15303.
[4:17] Staff person on this project is Daniel Latham.
[4:19] He is not with us today, but this is an item
[4:23] that has been continued in the past.
[4:25] So we have heard the summary of what the application is.
[4:31] So with that, I will turn it over to you if you would mind making sure that the microphone there's a little green light that should come on.
[4:37] So if that is on, go ahead and introduce yourself for the record and you'll have up to five minutes to speak.
[4:43] Thank you.
[4:43] Yes, no, is the green light on?
[4:46] Yeah, there, better.
[4:48] I'm Shelley Hartwick, I'm an owner, we've already been here so I don't really have any questions, we're just back.
[4:55] Okay, very good. Thank you. All right. Any
[5:00] Order the public wish to speak on this item, either in support of opposition to the podium, please.
[5:14] My name is Jennifer. I'm the neighbor to 2660 Palaway. I also spoke at the August 5 meeting. So my first question is as the August 5 hearing, the matter was continued to August 26 because questions regarding the lot slope calculation and the 45% threshold.
[5:38] However, the September 2 staff report provides no additional explanation and still lists the
[5:45] slope as 46%.
[5:48] I also saw a letter from the owner from August 25 states that it's approximately 45.2%.
[5:57] So please clarify the correct slope whether the additional calculations was submitted and
[6:03] how the city is addressing the 45% threshold.
[6:06] Also in the staff report, I mentioned attachment number two, denial resolution, but I have
[6:13] not seen that document, so if I could be told where I can locate that document.
[6:19] Question number two is my privacy concern.
[6:23] So this is a picture from the plan that shows the Southwest view from the proposed ADU, but
[6:34] But this picture appears to take him from a grade substantially lower than the proposed
[6:40] ADU floor and elevated deck.
[6:43] And also, this photograph appears to be taken from North East portion of the proposed
[6:49] ADU area.
[6:51] So from this picture, you can see my house is way at the corner over there.
[6:56] So rather than taking a picture from a southwest corner, much closer, closest to my property,
[7:06] this picture provided in the plant is taken from North East and a much lower grade as I mentioned.
[7:14] So a photograph taken from the actual finished floor and deck elevation at the southwest corner
[7:22] is necessary to accurately evaluate the privacy issue and
[7:27] direct view into our main bedroom and the resulting impact.
[7:34] My concern is regarding emergency access and evacuation and
[7:40] other challenges that I brought up at August 5 meeting remain answered.
[7:46] So that's all.
[7:48] Thank you.
[7:49] Could you or is he would you do me a favor and grab the image that she just shared so I can make sure which angle she's referring to? Thank you.
[8:00] I also email the copy to Mr. Lensen and copy his supervisors so they should have an electronic copy as well.
[8:09] Okay. Thank you.
[8:13] Okay. Is there any other member of the public who wishes to speak on this item?
[8:17] Seeing none, Shirley.
[8:20] You have up to three minutes if you'd like to address the comments that you heard or make any final statements for my consideration.
[8:26] I mean, I've been up there at every elevation.
[8:28] You cannot see into her bedroom at all.
[8:32] If you need something from my architect to provide a drawing or plan or cow.
[8:37] We could do that.
[8:43] Okay.
[8:48] You can't even really get to the deck elevation.
[8:56] So the image that I'm looking at here that she's provided, it's also in your plan set.
[9:02] Let's share that, Elizabeth, would you mind handing it on to Shirley?
[9:09] So I guess what I'd like confirmation on is, is that an accurate picture?
[9:15] Actually, I need you to go back to the microphone.
[9:17] Yeah, if you don't mind, thank you.
[9:21] Is that that's that's accurate and reflective of sort of today's conditions it'll be hanging off of that ledge. It'll be further out, but that's a good representation like yeah, you can't.
[9:32] Okay, so that's that's an accurate representation of what's occurring in the upper portions of your backyard.
[9:38] if you're over the ADU is proposed and it's further out so it might be a little
[9:43] off but yeah that's big right because the ADU is projecting a little bit over
[9:48] that yeah it's an overhang you can't get to right out but in that image I see a
[9:55] lot of vegetation but it's on beyond the fence on what appears to me maybe your
[9:58] your property, Jennifer?
[10:00] Is, I guess, my point is that I'm not sure that I'm seeing your house in that image. Yes, please.
[10:10] I just want to make sure I understand what the relationships are that you're concerned with.
[10:13] I'll
[10:23] say it's next door to his house, but that picture is the furthest corner of that
[10:30] EDU, from the northeast, from the other neighbors, basically.
[10:34] And at the north, it's the EDU is going to be much higher.
[10:38] Okay.
[10:39] Okay.
[10:40] Thank you.
[10:43] Okay.
[10:44] Sorry.
[10:44] Shelley, are you concluded with your rebuttal remarks?
[10:47] Yes.
[10:48] Okay.
[10:48] Okay, so
[10:53] this one is, this project contains sort of two separate elements that I have to
[11:00] consider in sort of way.
[11:03] On the one hand, it's a coastal development permit application for the accessory dwelling
[11:08] unit itself.
[11:10] And under the coastal development permit review process, my hands are tied quite a bit.
[11:17] Some of the issues that you're raising particular with the concern for privacy are things that usually we have more leeway to address through the design view process, but under the city's codes, the design view process doesn't apply here.
[11:33] So even though I understand your concern about the privacy issues, that's something that is kind of a little bit too far for my reach under the authority that I have today.
[11:45] The privacy concerns that maybe could apply to the project would back up real quick.
[11:52] The design review aspects which is sort of the connection that we can make to privacy concerns
[11:56] is something that only applies to the 88 square foot deck which is located kind of on the
[12:01] front and the opposite side of the ADU from where your house is.
[12:05] And then given the way that the ADU is designed, it kind of comes at an angle across the front.
[12:12] So it looks like the portion of the ADU that's closest to your property lines up with the outside edge of that deck.
[12:21] So I think if somebody's standing on that deck, their view is looking more forward or
[12:26] perhaps looking a little more in the north-westernly direction and not so much out towards the south or south-easternly direction.
[12:32] So I'm not convinced that there's enough in the record yet to warrant additional conditions of approval
[12:40] will to mitigate a privacy concern from the deck itself.
[12:45] Relative to the ADU, the concerns that are addressed through that are things that are related to the project's potential to have adverse impacts on public coastal resources.
[12:59] And in that regard, a private view is not something that I can address, a private development to another private development.
[13:07] There would have to be an impact that's affecting that coastal resource.
[13:11] In this case, I don't see that.
[13:14] Yes, there is a hillside on the back of the property.
[13:17] Sometimes hillsides can qualify as coastal resources.
[13:21] But in this case, I think the documentation of the existing condition out there clearly demonstrates that that hillside has been graded,
[13:30] It is not in more of a natural state, it has clearly been modified and because of that I think that the level of importance that that hillside holds under the Coastal Act is significantly diminished.
[13:48] And so for those reasons, I'm going to go ahead and approve the design review and the coastal development permit with subject to being satisfying all the city's standard conditions of approval, subject to compliance with certain things that are building and safety department will require through the plan checking process, which is going to include matters that deal with construction staging of materials.
[14:16] ways to get men or the construction workers, men or women into and out of the site, obviously the roadway is narrow the roadway is steep, there are people who drive up and down that to get to their homes to turn the cars around.
[14:29] So there's going to be some coordination issues that have to occur, but I think that through that building permit review process, you'll need to submit those requirements to demonstrate to them how that can all be accomplished in a safe manner.
[14:45] So with those conditions of approval tied to the project, we'll go ahead and approve it in its form that was submitted today.
[14:55] Okay, thank you.
[14:57] So the the action today is
[15:00] Subject to that 14-day appeal period. So anybody who is agreed by the decision could request by filing the application with the clerk's office to have this decision appealed up to the design report and have them take a look at it, if so, desire. Otherwise, if no appeals filed within 14 days, this decision will stand on the 15th day. Okay. All right. Thank you, everybody. We can move on to the next item, which is agenda item number two is for the property.
[15:29] We have one, two, six, zero, and a cap away.
[15:32] And this is design review number two, zero, two, six,
[15:35] death, one, one, one, nine, and categorical exemption,
[15:38] pursuant to section 15301 of the California Environmental
[15:42] Quality Act.
[15:43] Ms. Suarez, you're the project planner.
[15:45] If I could get a brief overview, please.
[15:48] Yes, the applicant request administrative design review
[15:51] for a 244 square foot elevated debt condition
[15:54] on the South elevation of an existing single family residence.
[15:58] Design review is required for elevated decks more than three feet above a just adjacent existing grade
[16:04] pursuant to look in a beach municipal code 25.05.040b3a3 and
[16:12] Staff has not received any public correspondence on this item. Thank you. Okay
[16:18] Thank you mr. Nichole welcome. I built thanks. You have five minutes
[16:23] Yeah, this is just a simple deck addition to an existing deck.
[16:28] It's very similar to just about every other house up and down this street.
[16:34] And I have also not heard from any neighbors.
[16:38] Okay.
[16:40] Hi, would you like to say anything?
[16:44] I think the microphone please switch.
[16:47] Thank you.
[16:48] Ms. Piscan, the owner, just here to be his arm candy.
[16:53] That's all.
[16:53] Very good, thank you.
[16:55] All right, is there any other member of the public who wishes to speak out there in support
[16:57] or opposition to the request for the project to 1260 and a cap away?
[17:03] So you none.
[17:04] We'll go ahead and return it to the applicant team if you have any other final comments.
[17:08] If not, I will go ahead and make my ruling.
[17:12] All right, so there is an existing deck out there, right?
[17:15] This is a fairly small addition to it.
[17:19] It extends it out about a foot or two or so, 18 inches, I think, yeah.
[17:25] And then extends it a little bit further across so that it kind of fills the space occupied by the,
[17:29] is it the living room, family room, kind of the main living area off of that.
[17:35] Looking at the plans, looking at the neighborhood, I think I find it consistent homes to the left and to the right of that property.
[17:42] We also have similar large decks, maybe varying degrees of how far they project out.
[17:48] But I think in looking at if it's to apply kind of a generally apply like a string line
[17:53] to the concept, it seems that the alignment of this projection of the deck is roughly
[17:57] in line with the homes to either side of it.
[18:00] I think the overall square footage is comparable to what I see nearby, obviously given the setting
[18:07] of the property, the way that the neighborhood sort of terraces down the hills.
[18:11] I don't think that it creates any view or privacy issues.
[18:16] And so I am, I find it to be consistent with the city's design guidelines and
[18:20] I think that we can make the findings to support the project and
[18:23] grant you the requested approval this afternoon.
[18:26] So I will formalize the approval of design review 2026-1119 and
[18:31] the adoption of SQL categorical exemption percent to section 15301.
[18:35] Subject to the city standard conditions of approval and the 14-day
[18:40] a appeal period successfully expiring.
[18:42] So, all right.
[18:43] All right, thank you, gentlemen.
[18:45] Have a good afternoon.
[18:50] And the third item on today's agenda
[18:53] is for the property located at 3159C7.
[18:57] Table Rock Drive, this is a recommendation.
[19:01] This is a time extension request.
[19:04] So, is he certain that you are the staff planner
[19:07] if I could get in brief over to you, please.
[19:09] Thank you Bill, the applicant today requests administrative design review for a two-year extension of time for a design review 2023-1764 and Coastal permits 2023-1766.
[19:23] This was approved on July 25th in 2024 and this was for the additions, new ADU, new deck, new pools, spa, elevator, parking spaces and landscaping.
[19:34] Tune in existing single family dwelling in the R1 zone.
[19:37] This is the first request for the extension.
[19:41] Okay.
[19:41] I'm sorry, you said this is the first extension request.
[19:44] So this would be for a two year request.
[19:46] Correct.
[19:46] Okay.
[19:47] All right.
[19:48] Welcome, a few more I'm introducing yourself
[19:50] and speaking in support of your request.
[19:53] Yeah, my name is Dean Skinner, I'm a Jim Conrads office.
[19:57] And we're here to request these.
[20:00] It's taken us quite a while to get to this point, but we are at our third plan check. It went in the beginning of the month, early, early August. So we're right on the cusp of getting the permit. And it's just takes a little bit of time. Okay. So that's what we're at right now. That's why we need the extension. Okay. And my understanding is that I think the, the, the, the, the original entitlement would expire in November of this year. So.
[20:28] So-
[20:29] The-
[20:29] Is that too busy?
[20:31] Oh, the-
[20:31] In regards to the-
[20:33] The permit expire?
[20:35] Yes.
[20:35] Well, the entitlements were granted in July 2024, so two years would be July.
[20:42] But they requested this before that.
[20:43] Okay.
[20:44] Got it.
[20:44] Thank you.
[20:46] Okay.
[20:47] We'll come back to Dean.
[20:49] All right.
[20:50] So any other members of public question to speak on this item?
[20:52] Yeah.
[20:53] Yeah.
[20:53] Okay.
[20:53] Please.
[20:54] to the podium please? Yes. Welcome. Thank you. Good evening Mr. Rodriguez, planning manager.
[21:07] My name is Mo Farshid Namati, immediate southern next door neighbor of this proposed project.
[21:13] I'm here tonight to strongly urge you to deny the two-year extension for design review 2023-1764
[21:22] or in coastal development permit 2023-1766.
[21:26] Furthermore, I ask you to reject the staff recommendation
[21:29] to grant this project a Class III categorical CEQA exemption.
[21:35] The Class III exemption is legally reserved
[21:37] for small low impact residential structures.
[21:40] Look closely at what is actually being proposed
[21:43] on this highly sensitive lot, a 1694 square feet addition,
[21:49] multi-level decks, a new pool, a spa, deep excavation for a structural elevator shaft, et cetera, et cetera.
[21:57] This expands an already massive house into a 7,303 square foot mega compound inside an R1 residential zone.
[22:07] There's absolutely nothing small scale or standard about this, in my opinion.
[22:12] Again, more importantly, this lot possesses extreme geographical and structural anomalies
[22:19] that legally trigger the unusual circumstances and location exception under CQA guidelines
[22:25] 15300.2.
[22:28] First, look at the Western boundary.
[22:30] This lot sits on an active coastal glove with a sheer 100-foot vertical drop directly onto
[22:37] to the Table Rock Beach.
[22:40] Proposing deep subterranean excavation
[22:42] for an elevator pit and a swimming pool
[22:44] on a fragile cliff side face
[22:47] is a major environmental hazard.
[22:50] Under the California Coastal Act development
[22:52] must guarantee long-term slow stability
[22:55] without risking bluff erosion.
[22:58] You cannot rubber stop a timeline extension
[23:00] on a coastal cliff without updated geotechnical data.
[23:04] 2.
[23:05] Look at the eastern boundary.
[23:08] Applicants' property sits within 10 foot of a very old historic home, and whose owners
[23:14] here tonight, with an existing swimming pool.
[23:17] The heavy vibration, drilling and structural underprinting required to build a massive compound
[23:23] on this slope creates an acute immediate danger of lateral soil shifting.
[23:28] It puts my home and the eastern neighbor's pool at severe risk of structural cracking
[23:34] or catastrophic failure.
[23:36] Third, look at the Northern boundary.
[23:38] It runs directly parallel to the narrow walkway used by thousands of beach goers to access
[23:44] Table Rock Beach.
[23:46] Staging massive, heavy machining and construction on a 7,300 square foot compound, immediately adjacent
[23:52] to the bottleneck as a public safety nightmare and threatens to disrupt public coastal access.
[23:58] The applicant has their original two-year clock to run out without pulling building permits.
[24:05] They should not be granted a passive grant.
[24:08] By the way, I may add, the story polls that were there two years ago are still there.
[24:15] They're still on the roof house since July of 2024, despite my complaints to the city and
[24:21] repeated requests that the day be removed.
[24:24] You can imagine the flag polls from two years ago.
[24:27] So this is right, this is $10 million house right on the beach and we have to look at the story polls that I think they're supposed to be taken down two months.
[24:36] I don't know what the law is, but in any case, they've not done their part.
[24:41] So please deny this extension, force the applicant to reapply from scratch through a transparent design review process.
[24:49] Equip with updated Cliffs to Bill it report structure on gender views for
[24:54] shared property walls in a real public safety plan for the Table Rock
[24:58] Access. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Mr.
[25:00] Thank you for your question. Anybody else wishes to speak?
[25:09] Hi, my name is Steve Holmes. I live immediately east of the proposed 31597 property construction. First, note down, the goal posts were moved between 2020 and 2024. As did the 31597 property setback. Any grade schooler will tell you that is both wrong and unfair.
[25:37] Second, in the DRB meeting in 2024, Conrad and I quote,
[25:43] offered to replace the wall between the properties at our cost.
[25:47] I'll say that again, offered to replace the wall between the properties at our cost.
[25:51] Now two years later, Conrad and Azar, the architect and the owner, have shut down,
[25:57] forgotten, ignored, repeated request by me beginning in August 2024,
[26:02] for to state in writing this commitment of Conrad to me personally and to the DRB.
[26:09] This is,
[26:13] if that isn't a clear and blatant change of neighborhood character, I don't
[26:19] know what it is.
[26:19] When neighbors here that a big money new neighbor says one thing in a public meeting and repeatedly
[26:27] shines on their next door neighbor when it comes to putting it in writing, that neighborhood
[26:33] character has changed forever. You only have two criteria to weigh for initially a two-year
[26:40] construction extension followed by a one-year extension. Did the zoning change and did the
[26:46] neighborhood character change to be materially inconsistent with the findings when the DRB initially
[26:52] approved the project? This is a perfect example of too much hat and too little cattle. And we don't
[27:00] have a single neighbor who hasn't just shook their head and discussed upon hearing this.
[27:06] In the more conventional sense of narrowly defined neighborhood character, we currently
[27:12] have two massive new construction or reconstructions, each of which have been underway for over
[27:17] five years.
[27:18] That's five years in the neighborhood and we're sick and tired of this mentionization.
[27:25] Both have one more minute.
[27:27] One more minute.
[27:28] Pardon me?
[27:29] I think one more minute.
[27:30] Thank you.
[27:31] Both of these five year plus projects consist of more than 5,000 square feet and the 31597 project
[27:39] is proposed at over 7,000 square feet, whereas the average square footage in our immediate
[27:44] neighborhood is closer to 2,000 square feet.
[27:47] Street so narrow that the city will neither own them nor traffic manage them.
[27:53] I'll say that again.
[27:54] Street so narrow that the city will neither own them nor traffic manage them.
[27:58] Yet they encourage rampant gentrification, even to the point of readily re-ruling setbacks.
[28:06] Thank you for your time.
[28:08] Thank you, sir.
[28:14] I'm Susan Brown.
[28:15] I live on 31591 Table Rock Drive, and I'm just here to support Mr. Holmes because I was there
[28:25] when Asia made his deal with him regarding the wall and the setback, and I just like to
[28:32] say that Steve has a beautiful home. It was built in the 40s. It was in the architectural
[28:41] digest in the 70s, and it has two bedrooms, but the architecture was designed with the entire
[28:52] property, it's not a fence, it's a wall, all the way around the entire property which
[28:59] enables him to live in the outdoor space.
[29:02] And so that is part of the architectural design.
[29:06] And we're very concerned that we know we can't change things, but the promise that they
[29:14] made to seismically make sure they monitor the wall.
[29:18] So it doesn't move so his swimming pool doesn't end up in their yard and also build the wall structurally that they were going to pay for.
[29:32] And so I think it's very important because Steve is reaching up there and we were talking to the real leader of the house was sold and one next to us is being sold and flipped for the 15th time.
[29:48] And, you know, if he wanted to put his house on the market, how could he do that unless
[29:52] there was an agreement between the property owner who originally agreed, and he who
[30:00] Sure, aye, we are assuring up that wall. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. All right, Mr. Dean, you have three minutes. Rebellion opportunity. First of all, the staking, this first I heard about it, if the staking is indeed up, and it's okay to remove it, then I will put in a request to have that removed. Okay. The timeline, as you guys, anybody who's built in Laguna knows it takes quite a
[30:29] a bit of time to get it from the DR to the building stage, and two years is really cut
[30:38] and it closed, and that's why we're here for the extension, is because of the timeline
[30:43] and the review process, the building process.
[30:48] We are at PC3, which is in, so this will be the final review, as far as the wall goes, and
[30:57] Instructural issues, obviously I come from a building background.
[31:01] The plan, there is a shoring wall that's going to go in there that will hold the neighbors'
[31:09] property at bay.
[31:11] Once that shoring is constructed, the retaining wall that goes in, everything's going to be done.
[31:16] There also is a note that was added into the plan, and I believe it was on the conditions of approval.
[31:24] that the wall be monitored for any structural issues, any damage, anything like that during the course of construction and it be repaired to its original existing look and, you know, the wall itself.
[31:42] So any damage would be repaired.
[31:46] There has been communication with the owner and with Jim Conrad regarding just replacing
[31:52] the wall completely, which would probably be the best idea and to restore it once the
[32:02] shoring and everything is in to its existing appearance.
[32:08] That would be the best.
[32:09] We did get some communication from the owner, he said yes, he would agree, but we do not have that in writing at this point.
[32:19] But the note is on the plan that was requested in the design review to monitor the wall.
[32:25] Okay.
[32:26] All right.
[32:27] Anything else?
[32:28] No.
[32:29] All right.
[32:29] So the item is back before me.
[32:31] I do appreciate the comments that have been heard.
[32:37] As Mr. Holmes noted, my scope of review this afternoon is pretty limited, as I think you know.
[32:44] This is a time extension request pursuant to the code, my only items to consider under
[32:50] that are whether or not the code has changed or whether or not the neighborhood conditions
[32:55] have changed in a meaningful sort of way that it would possibly render the previous decision
[33:00] and mood, if you will, or necessitates a significant relook at this.
[33:07] All of the other items that are concerned, I would recommend or sort of encourage both the applicant team and then the effect of neighbors to stay in communication, obviously if the project continues to go forward and gets built, the project will take many months to occur if not longer depending on the actual scope of it.
[33:27] So, having those good, you know, building those good relations with his neighbor is quite important.
[33:34] But as far as the idea of maybe trying to sort of relitigate the original approval,
[33:43] that is beyond my authority this afternoon, just for purposes of validating or verifying the, for the record,
[33:52] The action today does not change, remove, or add any conditions of approval.
[33:59] The previous resolution would remain in its full force and effect.
[34:05] The concern is about structural integrity, whether it has to do with walls, grading, any of that type of stuff.
[34:11] That is something that is looked at closely by the city's building and safety department as part of the next step in the process.
[34:17] So typically speaking at a high level the planning department when they grant the project approvals we're looking at how the property is used and how the property is proposed to be improved but even after that those conceptual level plans are further refined and the actual construction documents and the construction plan set become much more thick, you know, thicker other professionals become involved with the civil engineers and
[34:47] structural engineers, the licensed contractors, doing the work on the job site, the city inspectors,
[34:54] a lot of other technical details that have to be worked through in terms of water quality and runoff and
[35:00] All of the safety issues that you're concerned about, those are things that are addressed in the building plan check and then in the field. So, they go, they're just kind of that next step after the planning entitlement. So, with those reasons, I feel comfortable in supporting the request for the two-year extension, knowing that this decision is based narrowly on whether or not the code is changed and whether or not the neighborhood has changed substantially.
[35:28] And I don't find that either of those things have happened.
[35:32] So I believe that the two-year time extension request is warranted.
[35:35] In this case, I'm going to go ahead and approve that.
[35:40] And I guess wish you the best of luck in finishing up the building plan check process.
[35:46] Know that for the record, there is only one other potential extension if it came to that.
[35:52] And time goes by fast in this community.
[35:56] So, with that, I will congratulate you on the approval of the two-year time extension
[36:02] and wish you the best of luck.
[36:05] Thank you.
[36:05] Thank you, time.
[36:06] Thank you.
[36:07] So, that now brings us to the end of today's agenda.
[36:11] The time now is 3.36 p.m., and I will adjourn the meeting until our next regular schedule meeting
[36:17] on Wednesday, September 9th, at 3 p.m. in these chambers.
[36:22] Until then, Aloha.
[36:24] Everybody I just hope this doesn't happen to you