1
00:00:02,602 --> 00:00:05,738
You -- august 31st. Hope you all had a lovely weekend. We're

2
00:00:05,738 --> 00:00:11,144
going to start for our planning commission for today. And crin I

3
00:00:11,144 --> 00:00:17,744
did, we can have call to order, please. Sorry, roll call.

4
00:00:18,952 --> 00:00:21,352
>> good afternoon commissioners. Commissioner

5
00:00:22,755 --> 00:00:26,955
biehle. Commissioner cur ran. Commissioner lind. Commissioner

6
00:00:31,164 --> 00:00:34,164
monroe. Commissioner sandoval. Commissioner stepanicich.

7
00:00:43,420 --> 00:00:46,642
commissioner muralles. >> great, we'll go ahead

8
00:00:46,846 --> 00:00:50,249
and if anybody has comments, moving minutes for last meeting

9
00:00:50,249 --> 00:00:55,649
happening on july 27 . Any comments or questions and like

10
00:00:56,923 --> 00:01:00,523
to motion? >> I'll move the minutes.

11
00:01:05,265 --> 00:01:08,865
>> okay, commissioner stepanicich moves motion and

12
00:01:13,740 --> 00:01:17,340
commissioner sandoval seconded. Communication from the

13
00:01:18,812 --> 00:01:22,412
commissioners now. >> I have one non-agenda

14
00:01:24,284 --> 00:01:27,487
question and hoping we can ask for update and I'm thinking it

15
00:01:27,487 --> 00:01:33,487
might be soon on the short term rental ordnance implementation.

16
00:01:36,296 --> 00:01:41,960
>> if I may, julia krog, deputy director planning

17
00:01:43,236 --> 00:01:45,380
services. Right now the department is hitting that point

18
00:01:45,380 --> 00:01:48,441
of a couple years into the implementation of the short term

19
00:01:48,441 --> 00:01:52,512
rental ordnance, and we'll be working on an update and

20
00:01:52,512 --> 00:01:55,381
analysis of sort of how the program is working. So I don't

21
00:01:55,381 --> 00:01:58,184
know that we have a tentative date yet, but I think certainly

22
00:01:58,184 --> 00:02:00,454
we can put that on the list. >> thank you. I've been

23
00:02:00,454 --> 00:02:04,523
getting a lot of questions about it and it's definitely of

24
00:02:04,523 --> 00:02:09,129
interest to a lot of folks out in our district. So thank you

25
00:02:09,129 --> 00:02:11,129
very much. >> chair

26
00:02:18,204 --> 00:02:21,541
muralles: excellent. I've been asked to remind everyone this

27
00:02:21,541 --> 00:02:23,944
wednesday 5-7 there's a training to make sure you follow the link

28
00:02:23,944 --> 00:02:28,810
that was sent to you via e-mail in case you do not have it,

29
00:02:28,810 --> 00:02:34,681
please contact cindi and this wednesday 5-7 via zoom. We need

30
00:02:38,157 --> 00:02:41,270
to break at 2:55. Whatever we are in the project there is one

31
00:02:41,270 --> 00:02:44,830
of the commissioners that needs to step out and we'll take a

32
00:02:44,830 --> 00:02:49,501
five minute break from 2:55 to 3:00 to make that transition and

33
00:02:49,501 --> 00:02:53,305
last, I've been asked that all the commissioners we need to do

34
00:02:53,305 --> 00:02:57,376
a bigger effort on communicating to cindi if we'll be in

35
00:02:57,376 --> 00:03:01,247
attendance or not to a meeting so they can prepare for quorum

36
00:03:01,247 --> 00:03:06,647
in events. Moving to item 2, director's report and sarah

37
00:03:09,922 --> 00:03:12,458
jones, director for the community development agency

38
00:03:12,458 --> 00:03:16,580
joining us remotely today. Sarah jones.

39
00:03:16,596 --> 00:03:20,796
>> yes, thank you. Can you hear me?

40
00:03:21,267 --> 00:03:23,667
: yes, niceralls. And clear.

41
00:03:26,672 --> 00:03:28,875
>> thank you for accommodating my need to be

42
00:03:28,875 --> 00:03:34,480
remote today. I had family issues to address so I'm kind of

43
00:03:34,480 --> 00:03:41,354
multitasking here. I wanted to join today to kind of pass the

44
00:03:41,354 --> 00:03:44,891
baton over to our new deputy director of planning services,

45
00:03:44,891 --> 00:03:50,296
julia krog. You had the chance to meet her just a little while

46
00:03:50,296 --> 00:03:54,901
ago in a little casual meet and greet that we had, and I hope

47
00:03:54,901 --> 00:04:00,440
you all had a chance to connect, but we are really thrill to have

48
00:04:00,440 --> 00:04:05,310
julia here with the county and with community development

49
00:04:05,310 --> 00:04:10,110
agency. She has terrific experience, over 12 years, in

50
00:04:12,985 --> 00:04:15,985
mend mendocino county with building

51
00:04:21,260 --> 00:04:26,660
experience and started as a planner 1. So looks like

52
00:04:28,267 --> 00:04:30,336
something cut out. Am I still going?

53
00:04:30,336 --> 00:04:34,536
>> yes, you are. >> okay, great. Thank you.

54
00:04:36,141 --> 00:04:41,680
so really bringing essentially a full career embedded in planning

55
00:04:41,680 --> 00:04:48,280
at the county level in a coastal county. Some really strong

56
00:04:48,420 --> 00:04:54,420
experience with many, many issues we address in marin and

57
00:04:57,764 --> 00:05:01,366
different ideas and perspectives and strategies. Our whole

58
00:05:01,366 --> 00:05:04,770
department, particularly our planning services team is really

59
00:05:04,770 --> 00:05:11,970
excite to be working with her, and one of the most important

60
00:05:12,178 --> 00:05:15,914
roles is to support this commission as executive staff,

61
00:05:15,914 --> 00:05:23,655
and so she will be a very, very strong partner for all of you.

62
00:05:23,655 --> 00:05:26,992
just want to turn it over to julia and give her that

63
00:05:26,992 --> 00:05:29,128
introduction. >> thank you, sarah, for

64
00:05:29,128 --> 00:05:32,598
the very warm introduction, and good afternoon, commissioners.

65
00:05:32,598 --> 00:05:36,602
I'm julia krog and deputy director of planning services.

66
00:05:36,602 --> 00:05:40,730
in my fifth week of employment with marin county. So for

67
00:05:40,730 --> 00:05:43,900
today's director's report, I had one item to update you on, which

68
00:05:43,900 --> 00:05:47,546
is really a brief update regarding a recent board item.

69
00:05:47,546 --> 00:05:51,817
at the last board meeting on august 25th, a workshop was held

70
00:05:51,817 --> 00:05:55,288
on off site objective design and development standards presented

71
00:05:55,288 --> 00:05:59,240
at this commission on july 27 . During that meeting, the board

72
00:05:59,240 --> 00:06:02,428
gave direction to staff regarding the standards. Staff

73
00:06:02,428 --> 00:06:05,310
will next incorporate that feedback from the board, and

74
00:06:05,310 --> 00:06:08,575
it's anticipated that those off site objective design and

75
00:06:08,575 --> 00:06:11,440
development standards will return to the board of

76
00:06:11,440 --> 00:06:15,917
supervisors for action in october or november around that

77
00:06:15,917 --> 00:06:19,786
time frame. With that, that's my one update item for you, and I

78
00:06:19,786 --> 00:06:24,324
am available to answer any questions that the commission

79
00:06:24,324 --> 00:06:27,324
may have. >> chair muralles: thank

80
00:06:28,796 --> 00:06:31,798
you very much. Great to voter you on the team and welcome to

81
00:06:31,798 --> 00:06:35,998
marin county. Pleasure to meet you. Welcome.

82
00:06:37,604 --> 00:06:40,140
>> commissioner lind: those standards are not coming back to

83
00:06:40,140 --> 00:06:42,743
the commission? >> the standards, there may

84
00:06:42,743 --> 00:06:45,546
be an update sort of presentation, but my

85
00:06:45,546 --> 00:06:52,146
understanding is the next step in the process is for an

86
00:06:52,619 --> 00:06:55,555
ordnance to be prepared and considered by the county board

87
00:06:55,555 --> 00:06:58,555
of supervisors. >> commissioner lind: I

88
00:07:00,761 --> 00:07:04,965
thought the last workshop we had, we were told it'd would

89
00:07:04,965 --> 00:07:07,968
come back to us. >> since I am still new in

90
00:07:07,968 --> 00:07:11,772
this role, if you'd like, I will confirm internally.

91
00:07:11,772 --> 00:07:15,976
>> commissioner lind: I may be mistaken and that was my

92
00:07:15,976 --> 00:07:19,179
impression. We never took an action and we gave some advisory

93
00:07:19,179 --> 00:07:22,382
comments, but we didn't take an action on it.

94
00:07:22,382 --> 00:07:25,652
>> I will also look to my colleague next to me for any

95
00:07:25,652 --> 00:07:30,452
additional comments he has. >> chair mur alles: manny.

96
00:07:35,863 --> 00:07:39,399
>> it was coming back as a workshop and two items at that

97
00:07:39,399 --> 00:07:44,137
time and one of which related to title 22 are the planning code,

98
00:07:44,137 --> 00:07:48,740
and your commission adapted a resolution to modify the form

99
00:07:48,740 --> 00:07:52,412
based code and the workshop was continued with your -- during

100
00:07:52,412 --> 00:07:56,160
instructions and further refinement to the board of

101
00:07:56,160 --> 00:07:59,860
supervisors and what we did say is the next phase is the role

102
00:07:59,860 --> 00:08:04,486
and coastal code will be coming back to you.

103
00:08:07,161 --> 00:08:09,897
>> commissioner lind: sorry, I missed that that

104
00:08:09,897 --> 00:08:13,501
we weren't taking action. >> it's in title 24. The

105
00:08:13,501 --> 00:08:15,769
that afternooning commission has no authority.

106
00:08:15,769 --> 00:08:19,239
>> commissioner lind: I see. Those were courtesy

107
00:08:19,239 --> 00:08:21,239
briefings then? >> correct.

108
00:08:21,374 --> 00:08:25,574
>> sarah jones will speak in one second.

109
00:08:25,578 --> 00:08:30,978
>> yes. I just wanted to clarify. Manny is correct

110
00:08:33,787 --> 00:08:35,789
there's no action for the planning commission. There's not

111
00:08:35,789 --> 00:08:38,392
a further action for the planning commission to take,

112
00:08:38,392 --> 00:08:44,392
however, when we went to the board of supervisors, following

113
00:08:47,667 --> 00:08:50,700
input we got from this commission, we did bring

114
00:08:50,700 --> 00:08:56,700
strategies to address some of the issues that emergeed around

115
00:08:56,275 --> 00:09:01,281
ways to achieve some flexibility and ways to make sure that we

116
00:09:01,281 --> 00:09:05,886
were going to end up with streets that achieved the safety

117
00:09:05,886 --> 00:09:12,426
grade schools we needed to, but gave a way to get there in

118
00:09:12,426 --> 00:09:17,163
different ways and particularly when a developer would maintain

119
00:09:17,163 --> 00:09:23,763
the street as private street. So we introduced some new concepts

120
00:09:24,237 --> 00:09:30,777
in how this might be structured at the board. And so as julia

121
00:09:30,777 --> 00:09:35,248
mentioned, we did discuss that it would likely be of great

122
00:09:35,248 --> 00:09:41,248
interest to bring them back to this commission and time

123
00:09:44,124 --> 00:09:46,926
permitting. We're under a time crunch to get standards in

124
00:09:46,926 --> 00:09:48,929
place, so we're still working together with the department of

125
00:09:48,929 --> 00:09:56,129
public works on how we might find a opportunity to bring a

126
00:09:57,403 --> 00:10:00,407
further informational presentation to the commission

127
00:10:00,407 --> 00:10:07,607
to sort of show the additional work that's been done on this.

128
00:10:13,753 --> 00:10:16,153
>> chair halleluiah especially: item 3,

129
00:10:27,330 --> 00:10:31,437
public comment and not related to items on the agenda. Okay.

130
00:10:31,437 --> 00:10:37,911
we'll go ahead and move to item 4. Which is a development and

131
00:10:37,911 --> 00:10:44,511
development code update, and we have manny barack on the topic.

132
00:10:46,919 --> 00:10:51,119
thank you. >> sure. Why not. So thank

133
00:10:53,727 --> 00:10:58,640
you very much. Primary code updates to establish consistency

134
00:10:58,640 --> 00:11:00,800
with changes in state law, and manny did a significant amount

135
00:11:00,800 --> 00:11:06,873
of work on this, and really dobbs a great job putting

136
00:11:06,873 --> 00:11:10,610
together these very sometimes challenging state laws to be

137
00:11:10,610 --> 00:11:13,800
able to implement on a local level. With that, I'll turn it

138
00:11:13,800 --> 00:11:17,150
over to manny and let immigration judges him go

139
00:11:17,150 --> 00:11:19,419
through his presentation. >> thank you, powerpoint,

140
00:11:19,419 --> 00:11:22,622
please. Good afternoon, commissioners, members of the

141
00:11:22,622 --> 00:11:26,260
public and thank you for being here. Today we will be asking

142
00:11:26,260 --> 00:11:32,260
your commission to recommend a set of amendments to the

143
00:11:32,899 --> 00:11:40,990
planning code to the board of supervisors. As you may -- as

144
00:11:45,779 --> 00:11:48,248
you may recall back in april, it was brought before your

145
00:11:48,248 --> 00:11:52,718
commission a set of wide comprehensive set of amendments

146
00:11:52,718 --> 00:11:58,118
for your considerations in a workshop. Today I'm continuing

147
00:12:04,997 --> 00:12:08,601
on that work where anna left off. Between the planning

148
00:12:08,601 --> 00:12:14,541
commission in april and today, hcd has sent a let tore the

149
00:12:14,541 --> 00:12:21,141
county informing us that our ad ordnance is out of compliance

150
00:12:24,424 --> 00:12:30,963
and sd needs reworked slightly. We decided to review the entire

151
00:12:30,963 --> 00:12:33,900
dev code and state housing laws and make sure it's consist with

152
00:12:33,900 --> 00:12:37,169
all the different state laws. Those include state density

153
00:12:37,169 --> 00:12:43,169
bonus law, ad ordnance, ab-2011, sb-35 and others. Then when

154
00:12:46,846 --> 00:12:49,916
reviewing all those laws, we found that most of our code has

155
00:12:49,916 --> 00:12:56,989
not been updated since 2024. But state law moved so far to a

156
00:12:56,989 --> 00:13:00,461
point that these things -- these laws needed to be updated so

157
00:13:00,461 --> 00:13:07,200
what we've decided to do is bifurcate laws into two set of

158
00:13:07,200 --> 00:13:11,804
amendments. Today before you is a very narrow set of amendments

159
00:13:11,804 --> 00:13:17,804
that implement state -- different type of state laws and

160
00:13:27,687 --> 00:13:30,156
two new sections of the code to make it clear and sort of

161
00:13:30,156 --> 00:13:35,428
housing related, and the intent is to make it easier for public

162
00:13:35,428 --> 00:13:40,228
and applicants and commission and implementing these laws.

163
00:13:43,636 --> 00:13:46,239
I'll treat this as a workshop because it's pretty dense, and

164
00:13:46,239 --> 00:13:52,839
I'll stop along the way to ask questions and decision points

165
00:13:53,179 --> 00:13:58,785
for the planning commission, and impactful engage you in making

166
00:13:58,785 --> 00:14:02,922
decisions. First let's talk about the ad ordnance. Since we

167
00:14:02,922 --> 00:14:07,860
last updated in 2024, the state implemented four different times

168
00:14:07,860 --> 00:14:12,600
of -- different legislations. Cumulatively those legislations

169
00:14:12,598 --> 00:14:15,468
have -- they're essentially rendering our code non-compliant

170
00:14:15,468 --> 00:14:19,939
and especially in two areas. One is the code -- the county code

171
00:14:19,939 --> 00:14:24,543
requires setbacks that are greater than four feet. And the

172
00:14:24,543 --> 00:14:28,810
state law clearly say in no case can you require a setback of

173
00:14:28,810 --> 00:14:33,152
greater than four feet for any adus, attach or detached. The

174
00:14:33,152 --> 00:14:39,425
second set of changes is the number of adus allowed in

175
00:14:39,425 --> 00:14:44,225
conjunction with a multifamily housing. Adus and multifamily

176
00:14:50,102 --> 00:14:55,108
housing only allowed in the existing -- instances where

177
00:14:55,108 --> 00:14:57,843
there's existing multifamily housing. The state law has now

178
00:14:57,843 --> 00:15:00,512
change to say it's proposed within an existing and that's

179
00:15:00,512 --> 00:15:04,850
one. Two, increased number of allowable adus with multifamily

180
00:15:04,850 --> 00:15:10,523
housing. And we need to amend our code to comply with the

181
00:15:10,523 --> 00:15:16,262
code. On the last commission hearing and it has stuff to look

182
00:15:16,262 --> 00:15:20,265
into whether or not short term rentals would be permitted in

183
00:15:20,265 --> 00:15:26,872
conjunction with adu and we did not give you a direct answer.

184
00:15:26,872 --> 00:15:31,877
and we've done re-service connected and looked at short

185
00:15:31,877 --> 00:15:37,283
term tan and other things and -- rental and what we're proposing

186
00:15:37,283 --> 00:15:42,200
before your commission today is that one I want place of

187
00:15:42,200 --> 00:15:44,623
employmented state law in order to be consist but also the

188
00:15:44,623 --> 00:15:49,829
decision point for the planning commission is the state law does

189
00:15:49,829 --> 00:15:56,429
alaw this and saying no short term rannal allowed -- rental

190
00:15:57,303 --> 00:16:02,703
allowed with adus. Adus createed prior to essentially 2022 cannot

191
00:16:08,648 --> 00:16:11,450
allow a short term rannal and want to implement so it's

192
00:16:11,450 --> 00:16:15,254
consist. It's not required by state law but was in interest of

193
00:16:15,254 --> 00:16:20,654
the commission, especially commissioner cur ran cur ran ifs

194
00:16:32,205 --> 00:16:34,605
questions. >> commissioner lind: can

195
00:16:37,100 --> 00:16:40,546
you clarify that's not short term and adu property on one

196
00:16:40,546 --> 00:16:45,551
property or can't convert adu into a short term rental.

197
00:16:45,551 --> 00:16:49,151
>> you cannot use adu for should

198
00:16:51,557 --> 00:16:55,294
short term rental. >> but they could be on the

199
00:16:55,294 --> 00:16:57,294
same property? >> correct.

200
00:16:58,297 --> 00:17:00,433
>> commissioner lind: on the same property?

201
00:17:00,433 --> 00:17:03,436
>> greater than 30 days or owner occupied.

202
00:17:03,436 --> 00:17:06,436
>> commissioner lind: great, thank you.

203
00:17:14,113 --> 00:17:18,785
>> in terms of senate bill 9 and state passed three laws in

204
00:17:18,785 --> 00:17:22,521
the last three years and one is the most significant change and

205
00:17:22,521 --> 00:17:26,580
it'll impact what the planning commission had previously

206
00:17:26,580 --> 00:17:32,580
struggled but accomplished or adapted and the changes that sb

207
00:17:36,200 --> 00:17:40,802
sb450 says that we cannot require setbacks, zoning

208
00:17:40,873 --> 00:17:44,811
standards that are different or not even formally aflied for the

209
00:17:44,811 --> 00:17:47,413
underlying -- applied for the underlying zoning district.

210
00:17:47,413 --> 00:17:50,550
that's one issue. The second issue implied is your commission

211
00:17:50,550 --> 00:17:57,750
had put in a cap of 1600 square foot for units created through

212
00:17:58,690 --> 00:18:03,495
sb-9. This could create a conflict. If the underlining

213
00:18:03,495 --> 00:18:09,495
zone allowing greater than 1600 square feet and must allow that

214
00:18:10,236 --> 00:18:13,639
and what we've done and written it and comply with the

215
00:18:13,639 --> 00:18:19,639
underlines in the district and 1600 square feet and more per

216
00:18:20,246 --> 00:18:26,258
mis-ive. This would be consist with the state law. And gig,

217
00:18:26,258 --> 00:18:30,327
keep in mind, see the commissioner adapt to senate

218
00:18:30,327 --> 00:18:36,927
bill and the submit to hcd for approval and certification. Ill

219
00:18:38,936 --> 00:18:42,607
stop here and if if there's any questions.

220
00:18:42,607 --> 00:18:46,811
>> commissioner lind: yeah. I had underlined text on page 4

221
00:18:46,811 --> 00:18:52,483
of staff report. First of all, before going into questions, I

222
00:18:52,483 --> 00:18:55,820
do want to say that this is a really excellent staff report. I

223
00:18:55,820 --> 00:19:03,200
really appreciated how well you've dealt with I do, and I de

224
00:19:09,566 --> 00:19:16,166
a few clarification requests and not too many. Lot size and

225
00:19:34,525 --> 00:19:41,125
access of grading. So what exactly does that mean in terms

226
00:19:42,667 --> 00:19:47,938
of parcel -- what else is there >> that was lifted directly

227
00:19:47,938 --> 00:19:54,278
from the state law, but there are other things, for instance,

228
00:19:54,278 --> 00:19:58,478
you cannot take into consideration slope anymore.

229
00:19:59,149 --> 00:20:02,219
because we have restrictions based on slope.

230
00:20:02,219 --> 00:20:04,422
>> commissioner lind: slope would be an example.

231
00:20:04,422 --> 00:20:07,240
>> one. Access would be another one.

232
00:20:07,240 --> 00:20:08,291
>> commissioner lind: access.

233
00:20:08,291 --> 00:20:12,229
>> and easements, required easements could be another one

234
00:20:12,229 --> 00:20:18,229
and that's to diminish easements and the state subdivision of

235
00:20:18,635 --> 00:20:24,350
law, owner -- property owner cannot grant themselves an

236
00:20:25,175 --> 00:20:29,179
easement for -- and we tried to place conditions of approval and

237
00:20:29,179 --> 00:20:33,500
we created with that process creating a conflict and that's

238
00:20:33,500 --> 00:20:37,250
the state's attempt to cure that issue.

239
00:20:37,855 --> 00:20:40,857
>> commissioner lind: I could see slope could be a

240
00:20:40,857 --> 00:20:44,861
significant change. Okay. Then I also had a question in the

241
00:20:44,861 --> 00:20:49,467
sentence prior under number one. It says local jurisdictions made

242
00:20:49,467 --> 00:20:54,538
no longer impose standards on secondary primary dwelling units

243
00:20:54,538 --> 00:20:59,209
that this is the phrase: that do not apply uniformly to all

244
00:20:59,209 --> 00:21:04,900
development within the underlying zone. So that means

245
00:21:04,948 --> 00:21:10,421
that anything that -- anything that the state has already

246
00:21:10,421 --> 00:21:16,160
preempted we have to use, and we can only use any other features

247
00:21:16,160 --> 00:21:23,360
we may have where the state has not preempted and state statute

248
00:21:32,420 --> 00:21:34,420
is silent? >> correct.

249
00:21:34,311 --> 00:21:38,511
>> commissioner lind: okay it doesn't mean existing

250
00:21:45,524 --> 00:21:48,658
development and existing standards of what may now be

251
00:21:48,658 --> 00:21:51,195
conforming structures on the property. I'm clarifying that.

252
00:21:51,195 --> 00:21:54,598
>> no, it doesn't. It means laws and objective standards

253
00:21:54,598 --> 00:21:57,868
that are in effect at the time of the application submitted.

254
00:21:57,868 --> 00:22:00,871
>> commissioner lind: okay, that's a important thing for

255
00:22:00,871 --> 00:22:03,700
everyone to understand, particularly for the public

256
00:22:03,700 --> 00:22:07,207
because people have the expectation that consistency

257
00:22:10,681 --> 00:22:13,884
means consist when what's on the ground and that is not always

258
00:22:13,884 --> 00:22:15,884
the case. >> correct.

259
00:22:17,688 --> 00:22:20,688
o: can yourello. Repeat that.

260
00:22:27,498 --> 00:22:30,701
>> only can apply existing laws and regulation of ordnance

261
00:22:30,701 --> 00:22:36,240
of the county at the time the application is submitted. So if

262
00:22:36,240 --> 00:22:41,640
it's existing condition, more common in valleys with small

263
00:22:41,645 --> 00:22:45,490
houses and small lots and houses are in the middle with huge

264
00:22:45,490 --> 00:22:50,540
front back and rear. That cannot be the requirement going

265
00:22:50,540 --> 00:22:55,590
forward. The requirement going forward for sb-9 is wherefore is

266
00:22:55,590 --> 00:22:57,528
written in the code at the time -- whatever is written in

267
00:22:57,528 --> 00:23:02,928
the code at the time they submit the application.

268
00:23:04,468 --> 00:23:07,468
>> chair muralles: got it, correct.

269
00:23:10,730 --> 00:23:11,942
>> commissioner lind: we could approach like that as long

270
00:23:11,942 --> 00:23:15,346
as it met the minimum required? >> as long as objective and

271
00:23:15,346 --> 00:23:19,350
complied with the state law. However, we don't have such

272
00:23:19,350 --> 00:23:21,750
thing. >> commissioner lind: okay

273
00:23:30,628 --> 00:23:32,628
>> chair muralles: questions,

274
00:23:35,320 --> 00:23:36,567
commissioner lind? >> commissioner

275
00:23:36,567 --> 00:23:42,567
lind: that's all I have on sb-9. >> bill 2011, this is

276
00:23:42,573 --> 00:23:45,376
essentially state law that passed a few years ago that

277
00:23:45,376 --> 00:23:48,579
allows commercial properties to be re-purposed for residential

278
00:23:48,579 --> 00:23:54,579
and mixed use. And without rezoning it's alignment with the

279
00:24:11,601 --> 00:24:15,673
state law and no new text, language or provisions. Strictly

280
00:24:15,673 --> 00:24:21,673
compliance with the state law. Same with senate bill 423 and

281
00:24:29,353 --> 00:24:34,561
formally senate bill 35. This is ministerial right of process and

282
00:24:34,561 --> 00:24:38,990
it's been amended a few times and set to expire in 2025, but

283
00:24:38,990 --> 00:24:44,699
has been extended by another ten years. Expanded to coastal zones

284
00:24:50,444 --> 00:24:58,244
and not going for the moment but the next mid housing cycles due

285
00:25:01,722 --> 00:25:04,525
next year and we're not set right now. The set of amendments

286
00:25:04,525 --> 00:25:07,328
we're proposing here is intend to strictly alignment with the

287
00:25:07,328 --> 00:25:14,528
state law and nothing else. For these two laws, I'll pause if

288
00:25:15,402 --> 00:25:19,200
you have questions. Yes commissioner lind.

289
00:25:19,406 --> 00:25:24,206
>> commissioner lind: my question is about the statement

290
00:25:28,150 --> 00:25:32,686
on page 5 into paragraph 2 saying bill narrows local

291
00:25:32,686 --> 00:25:34,822
discretionary oversight by eliminating review authority by

292
00:25:34,822 --> 00:25:39,930
the board of supervisors and the county council while allowing

293
00:25:39,930 --> 00:25:43,893
the planning commission to conduct limited review. Focus

294
00:25:48,702 --> 00:25:55,175
solely on sb2011 and I could not find that text in the section.

295
00:25:55,175 --> 00:25:58,450
>> we don't have it. >> commissioner lind: new

296
00:25:58,450 --> 00:26:02,845
underlined text? >> it's not a new text. We

297
00:26:05,519 --> 00:26:09,256
adopted in back in 2024, we designated -- made no

298
00:26:09,256 --> 00:26:14,656
designation which body would review whether it's cda director

299
00:26:27,475 --> 00:26:31,679
or public review process and we took away that ability. We never

300
00:26:31,679 --> 00:26:34,882
designated the board of supervisors as reviewing

301
00:26:34,882 --> 00:26:40,687
authority in the first place and don't have to make changes.

302
00:26:40,687 --> 00:26:46,687
however, at later stage it'll come back that we're designatinr

303
00:26:49,696 --> 00:26:53,366
commission for the staff. >> commissioner lind: I was

304
00:26:53,366 --> 00:26:58,766
not understanding this because to me talking about ministerial

305
00:27:00,508 --> 00:27:03,577
review, that's a staff-level review so you're -- what would

306
00:27:03,577 --> 00:27:08,382
be the instance when it wouldn't be? Could staff refer it up to

307
00:27:08,382 --> 00:27:11,252
the commission at your discretion?

308
00:27:11,252 --> 00:27:15,389
>> has to be codified in order for your commission to

309
00:27:15,389 --> 00:27:20,189
review a ministerial review process. This allows your

310
00:27:23,197 --> 00:27:27,397
planning commission to be designated reviewing authority.

311
00:27:35,542 --> 00:27:38,412
it's a verne view standard. >> commissioner lind: this

312
00:27:38,412 --> 00:27:41,749
is not in our code? It's not implemented?

313
00:27:41,749 --> 00:27:45,949
>> it's not till now. >> commissioner lind: I

314
00:27:46,153 --> 00:27:49,689
see. What would trigger that? >> if someone were to

315
00:27:49,689 --> 00:27:55,562
submit an sb-35 next year. If someone were to submit ab-2011

316
00:27:55,562 --> 00:27:58,632
going forward. If your commission approves this and the

317
00:27:58,632 --> 00:28:01,635
board adapts it, the planning commission would be the

318
00:28:01,635 --> 00:28:03,504
reviewing authority. >> commissioner

319
00:28:03,504 --> 00:28:06,504
lind ? Nstead of staff 124 >> correct.

320
00:28:07,508 --> 00:28:12,846
>> commissioner lind: I see. Okay. We'd have to make the

321
00:28:12,846 --> 00:28:17,646
sb-35 consistency findings and any other consistency findings?

322
00:28:18,520 --> 00:28:20,452
>> correct. >> commissioner lind: okay,

323
00:28:21,522 --> 00:28:25,192
I understand. Thanks for that clarification. I might have one

324
00:28:25,192 --> 00:28:31,192
other. Let's see what's on this page. Ab2011. Reference to

325
00:28:42,275 --> 00:28:46,130
limited or restricted right or easement access. This is the

326
00:28:46,130 --> 00:28:51,413
definition of freeway. What would be a limited restricted

327
00:28:53,220 --> 00:28:54,821
right? >> that's state highway

328
00:28:54,821 --> 00:28:58,225
definition, and I don't have department of public works staff

329
00:28:58,225 --> 00:29:04,825
to help. We map it had out. 101 corridor qualifies for sb-35.

330
00:29:07,701 --> 00:29:10,701
ab-2011 consideration. As does high 1...

331
00:29:26,520 --> 00:29:28,922
>> commissioner lind: I understand that with the butting

332
00:29:28,922 --> 00:29:31,325
rights and limited easement access. I'm not understanding

333
00:29:31,325 --> 00:29:36,620
the second part of the sentence that references only limited or

334
00:29:36,620 --> 00:29:41,462
restricted rights. What would be example of limited right?

335
00:29:48,608 --> 00:29:51,612
>> shoreway has highways that direct to the freeway and

336
00:29:51,612 --> 00:29:55,820
highway 101, there's no such thing just a freeway.

337
00:29:55,820 --> 00:29:57,418
>> commissioner lind: right, they're frontage

338
00:29:57,418 --> 00:30:00,887
roads. I'm understand that but asking why limited rights. What

339
00:30:00,887 --> 00:30:06,287
is a limited right? This is state law so

340
00:30:14,634 --> 00:30:17,504
>> if department of public works listening to this hearing,

341
00:30:17,504 --> 00:30:19,974
please come forward. >> commissioner lind: yeah,

342
00:30:19,974 --> 00:30:27,774
what would a limited easement be you can have cars but no trucks.

343
00:30:29,383 --> 00:30:31,585
>> I think it's number of driveways and access but nothing

344
00:30:31,585 --> 00:30:34,585
with capacity. >> commissioner lind: I

345
00:30:35,455 --> 00:30:38,455
see. >> chair mur alles: thank

346
00:30:48,137 --> 00:30:50,730
you, commissioner lind. Go ahead.

347
00:30:50,730 --> 00:30:52,700
>> commissioner lind: that's it for that

348
00:30:52,700 --> 00:30:54,407
section. >> chair muralles: thank

349
00:30:55,545 --> 00:30:59,415
you, commissioner lind. >> the state density bonus

350
00:30:59,415 --> 00:31:04,688
law. By our account, for the last since 2017, it's been

351
00:31:04,688 --> 00:31:11,288
amended by 14 bills, and last four years six laws and there's

352
00:31:14,631 --> 00:31:20,631
two pending at the moment. We cannot discuss any pending

353
00:31:24,507 --> 00:31:27,644
applications due to housing accountability act and brown act

354
00:31:27,644 --> 00:31:33,440
and other things, but I'll mention there's two application

355
00:31:34,500 --> 00:31:40,500
applicants that we believe have contacted hcd to outline that

356
00:31:41,458 --> 00:31:46,858
our implementing ordnance is not in compliance. Requested draft

357
00:32:07,160 --> 00:32:10,754
for sample template cities and counties to adopt locally for

358
00:32:10,754 --> 00:32:17,354
state density bonus law. Hcd issued one last year and forward

359
00:32:21,430 --> 00:32:25,635
to us for consideration and adoption. Council of governments

360
00:32:25,635 --> 00:32:32,235
has also created a template for it's members for adoption and

361
00:32:35,778 --> 00:32:41,178
what we're proposing your commission does is review the

362
00:32:42,652 --> 00:32:47,323
existing ordnance and it does not offer anything not in the

363
00:32:47,323 --> 00:32:53,923
state law and that we recommend your adopt the governance and

364
00:33:02,405 --> 00:33:08,405
mainly consist and hcd proposeed and what council of governments

365
00:33:11,614 --> 00:33:16,285
proposed and latter is by provisions and the hcd is simply

366
00:33:16,285 --> 00:33:21,685
referring to the state law. Outlining revisions is helpful

367
00:33:33,169 --> 00:33:35,238
and removing housing in conjunction with application,

368
00:33:35,238 --> 00:33:42,438
you have to replace it as outlined in the state law and

369
00:33:47,316 --> 00:33:51,187
that came before your commission with the point raised downtown

370
00:33:51,187 --> 00:33:54,457
with two units and applicants argument there was those are

371
00:33:54,457 --> 00:33:57,460
un-permitted units and therefore they do not have to replace

372
00:33:57,460 --> 00:34:01,664
them. Whereas the state law says existing units so we want to

373
00:34:01,664 --> 00:34:07,640
make it clear that replacement is required whether permitted

374
00:34:07,803 --> 00:34:13,203
orb permitted. I'll stop here. >> can I make an

375
00:34:17,414 --> 00:34:22,814
observation on that chapter in the application requirements and

376
00:34:29,959 --> 00:34:36,559
in the actual text, it's 30-49 or roman numeral -- section

377
00:34:44,841 --> 00:34:47,241
22.22.40 brks. >> number three? Number

378
00:34:59,255 --> 00:35:02,325
three. I want to applaud this paragraph and it's important and

379
00:35:02,325 --> 00:35:07,197
valuable for each concession or incentive requested and they

380
00:35:07,197 --> 00:35:10,199
shall identify and provide reasonable documentation et

381
00:35:10,199 --> 00:35:16,199
cetera and it'll allow for the performance of the review

382
00:35:18,942 --> 00:35:26,142
mentioned 227.24 -- 250 and just want to point that out and if if

383
00:35:29,419 --> 00:35:33,423
you have any other thoughts and this is one of the areas and

384
00:35:33,423 --> 00:35:37,626
after we struggle and we ask the applicants to provide proof that

385
00:35:37,626 --> 00:35:42,426
the results are actual class reduction and reasonable

386
00:35:42,899 --> 00:35:45,634
documentation is widely though it's reasonable to you and may

387
00:35:45,634 --> 00:35:49,238
not be to me but that's upward mobility area we've had problem

388
00:35:49,238 --> 00:35:55,238
with the previous code. >> could I ask a follow up

389
00:35:55,445 --> 00:36:00,245
about this exact point? This would change that?

390
00:36:13,463 --> 00:36:18,267
>> we were previously told the code required per forma.

391
00:36:18,267 --> 00:36:19,401
>> commissioner lind: right.

392
00:36:19,401 --> 00:36:23,606
>> can no longer require per forma and state law does

393
00:36:23,606 --> 00:36:26,743
alaw and we can require a reasonable documentation and

394
00:36:26,743 --> 00:36:32,143
reasonable documentation does not exclude per forma or other

395
00:36:32,281 --> 00:36:36,485
formal analysis or documentation to demonstrate there's an actual

396
00:36:36,485 --> 00:36:39,210
cost reduction. >> commissioner lind: I

397
00:36:39,210 --> 00:36:45,210
see. It's no longer a professional per forma. Forma ts

398
00:36:45,361 --> 00:36:51,361
done for a formula typically but instead could be reasonable

399
00:36:51,835 --> 00:36:56,635
information about cost factor with certain features. For

400
00:37:00,643 --> 00:37:04,381
reduction and example and cost of providing open space or the

401
00:37:04,381 --> 00:37:09,186
cost of providing additional land scapping and and this is

402
00:37:09,186 --> 00:37:14,257
not waiver and this would be concessions. So that would --

403
00:37:14,257 --> 00:37:20,397
how would that be verified then >> it's submit to have in

404
00:37:20,397 --> 00:37:27,597
our code to allow peer review for instance or to send to

405
00:37:28,605 --> 00:37:32,142
depending what code, county code they request in the waiver and

406
00:37:32,142 --> 00:37:38,142
the recession coming from that department for review and input

407
00:37:40,217 --> 00:37:42,753
>> this is a big improvement.

408
00:37:42,753 --> 00:37:47,553
>> commissioner lind. I had questioned that previously. This

409
00:37:49,826 --> 00:37:52,896
is definitely an improvement. >> I would like to agree.

410
00:37:52,896 --> 00:37:58,502
this was important improvement for us for the future and thanks

411
00:37:58,502 --> 00:38:02,102
for that addition. >> moving along. Housing

412
00:38:10,447 --> 00:38:15,247
compliance going for housing compliance review. Going for

413
00:38:22,126 --> 00:38:25,396
approval and going for three types and one is a housing

414
00:38:25,396 --> 00:38:30,796
elements and going for county voluntarily designated going for

415
00:38:32,936 --> 00:38:38,275
sb9 and state man at a times and going for them and another one

416
00:38:38,275 --> 00:38:45,475
is sb-35 and could we. It's ab housing and proposed under state

417
00:38:55,826 --> 00:39:00,364
law 6789 it's on the process. It's no longer just the sb35 and

418
00:39:00,364 --> 00:39:08,164
going to include 2011. Sb-9 is what it is and state law and for

419
00:39:14,378 --> 00:39:21,578
the housing insights that we've created and part of. Let me put

420
00:39:23,586 --> 00:39:31,986
it this way. This is quite a bit and going for them and we've

421
00:39:32,930 --> 00:39:38,330
attempted to process these applications as if they were

422
00:39:38,401 --> 00:39:42,601
discretionary process with the applicants and certain

423
00:39:42,606 --> 00:39:46,806
submissions or certain compliance to approval and

424
00:39:49,746 --> 00:39:54,685
subsubmittal dates and we don't have a discretion to do that,

425
00:39:54,685 --> 00:39:58,154
hcr by neffy in addition and process by definition has to

426
00:39:58,154 --> 00:40:03,260
meet the code as written and meet the approval and going for

427
00:40:03,260 --> 00:40:07,898
them with the code and don't get approved and this is a struggle

428
00:40:07,898 --> 00:40:11,901
with applicants and that's one issue and another issue is

429
00:40:11,901 --> 00:40:16,440
adopting hcr process and no finding to prove them and

430
00:40:16,440 --> 00:40:20,444
codified and so we've been trying to do that on the basis

431
00:40:20,444 --> 00:40:25,849
and work for different reviewing agencies and trying to come up

432
00:40:25,849 --> 00:40:30,854
with the sort of -- lack of better term condition for

433
00:40:30,854 --> 00:40:36,854
approval and that's problematic going for flag going to exercise

434
00:40:39,262 --> 00:40:44,662
discretion and going for them and we've designated housing

435
00:40:46,136 --> 00:40:49,206
insights for the review process and committed to the state and

436
00:40:49,206 --> 00:40:55,206
we heard applicant and attorney saying this discretion and even

437
00:40:57,800 --> 00:41:03,800
though you represented this by right approval and referred to

438
00:41:04,621 --> 00:41:07,824
the value. Going to secure that issue and going to recommend we

439
00:41:07,824 --> 00:41:13,224
do three things and one is implement identification clause.

440
00:41:14,698 --> 00:41:20,980
common sense, going to require all applications get their

441
00:41:23,574 --> 00:41:27,778
approval objective design standards going for them with

442
00:41:27,778 --> 00:41:33,183
the fire code dpw code and going for them modifying at the state

443
00:41:33,183 --> 00:41:39,389
bonus law going for them and going for type three and it's

444
00:41:39,389 --> 00:41:44,261
going for them on the 2011 and it's going to submit for the

445
00:41:44,261 --> 00:41:50,261
housing application for the state law and going to review.

446
00:41:52,736 --> 00:41:58,736
limited to objective design and standards and it's part of

447
00:41:59,409 --> 00:42:05,214
issues that we have -- part of the issues we've come before us

448
00:42:05,214 --> 00:42:11,214
and projects get approved and we have these applications involve

449
00:42:13,557 --> 00:42:17,157
punishment million applicationings and going for

450
00:42:23,166 --> 00:42:28,566
them with the applications and bifurcate and segmentation issue

451
00:42:29,706 --> 00:42:34,778
and review as one application under one process that under one

452
00:42:34,778 --> 00:42:40,178
application and have them reviewed with which authority is

453
00:42:43,530 --> 00:42:47,257
going to make it clear to applicants and make it easier

454
00:42:47,257 --> 00:42:55,657
for us going to apply that and in order to get hcr approval and

455
00:42:55,732 --> 00:43:00,158
going to have code star in effect and that will apply. I'll

456
00:43:00,158 --> 00:43:04,958
pause for a second and see hands raised.

457
00:43:09,100 --> 00:43:13,900
>> commissioner lind: I don't fully understand this. For

458
00:43:20,311 --> 00:43:24,515
one thing, I think an argument could be made all approvals are

459
00:43:24,515 --> 00:43:28,119
done under state law at this time and subdivision map act and

460
00:43:28,119 --> 00:43:34,119
there's, you know, there is state authorization so it could

461
00:43:37,530 --> 00:43:41,399
be argued that it expands to the point where you would only have

462
00:43:41,399 --> 00:43:47,399
discretionary view if there were a variance or maybe a

463
00:43:52,944 --> 00:43:55,790
development agreement you're proposing later in the package

464
00:43:55,790 --> 00:43:57,148
or something like that. I don't know that's consist with the

465
00:43:57,148 --> 00:44:04,348
intent of the housing program of hcd. So I'm not sure what's

466
00:44:08,560 --> 00:44:12,697
being captured using the phrase "captured in all

467
00:44:12,697 --> 00:44:15,433
applications." I'm only concerned about type 3 and not

468
00:44:15,433 --> 00:44:21,433
concerned about type 1 and type 2 -- well, sections 226-4020 on

469
00:44:24,175 --> 00:44:29,575
this chart. But 2264020c broadens it too much. I

470
00:44:34,319 --> 00:44:40,592
understand the problems that yon carefully to the problems and I

471
00:44:40,592 --> 00:44:47,792
can understand some problems and not sure the remedy is the best

472
00:44:48,800 --> 00:44:55,400
thing. Give us an example of when we'd not have ministerial

473
00:44:58,276 --> 00:45:01,276
review. >> sb -- sorry, not

474
00:45:03,681 --> 00:45:09,810
sb 3535. Hcr application down to where the application includes

475
00:45:09,487 --> 00:45:12,290
concurrent applications and would include subdivision

476
00:45:12,290 --> 00:45:16,490
application 1. Would include removal permit and excessive

477
00:45:21,633 --> 00:45:26,504
retaining wall. We have scr and hcr elite and then multiple

478
00:45:26,504 --> 00:45:31,643
applications that are clearly either through state law or our

479
00:45:31,643 --> 00:45:34,643
code discretionary. .. >> commissioner lind: those

480
00:45:38,583 --> 00:45:43,854
are pretty minor requirements of a development and don't require

481
00:45:43,854 --> 00:45:46,457
subdivisions. This is very broad. We need to be aware this

482
00:45:46,457 --> 00:45:51,857
is very broad, and we're basically doing all development

483
00:45:55,400 --> 00:46:00,200
it involves housing as ministerial review with this

484
00:46:00,271 --> 00:46:03,874
change. It does not require by state law. So this goes

485
00:46:03,874 --> 00:46:07,612
beyond -- I mean, I think we need to have further discussion

486
00:46:07,612 --> 00:46:11,212
of what the current law requires.

487
00:46:11,549 --> 00:46:15,153
>> are you referring to type 1 or type 3 because --

488
00:46:15,153 --> 00:46:17,553
>> commissioner lind: 3. >> type 3 are

489
00:46:19,357 --> 00:46:24,157
state-mandated housing types. Referring to sb35, ab2011, or

490
00:46:25,230 --> 00:46:30,300
any successor future legislation that may require mandatory

491
00:46:31,436 --> 00:46:35,636
approvals. We're not recommending you do that.

492
00:46:41,378 --> 00:46:46,178
purpose of designating your commission to review sb35,

493
00:46:47,384 --> 00:46:51,550
ab2011 or any type of housing mandated multifamily housing to

494
00:46:51,550 --> 00:46:57,550
take from staff, have a public process, public recrew process?

495
00:47:05,136 --> 00:47:08,406
where there's transparency and given to the public code. We

496
00:47:08,406 --> 00:47:13,206
don't have to do that. It's not written

497
00:47:19,830 --> 00:47:24,483
>> it's truly ministerial. Unless it's a problem and going

498
00:47:28,159 --> 00:47:32,163
to move this and sb35 and expanding to include other types

499
00:47:32,163 --> 00:47:35,767
of state mandated housing laws and if that's a problem, this is

500
00:47:35,767 --> 00:47:40,238
a decision for the commission. >> commissioner lind: well

501
00:47:40,238 --> 00:47:46,711
that so -- maybe I'm incorrect but I think there's a

502
00:47:46,711 --> 00:47:50,311
distinction between using objective findings and

503
00:47:59,190 --> 00:48:04,590
discretion about certain aspects of design. Approval when the

504
00:48:12,804 --> 00:48:18,900
standards are met. >> so I agree with you. In

505
00:48:18,900 --> 00:48:25,209
a different way put it this way, design review as it requires

506
00:48:25,416 --> 00:48:29,887
someone to exercise discretion whether or not this component

507
00:48:29,887 --> 00:48:35,287
fitting within this code of laws. Whereas ministerial does

508
00:48:36,160 --> 00:48:41,366
it meet the code? Check. Does it not, no. It's a consistency

509
00:48:41,366 --> 00:48:45,636
analysis. What your commission would be tasked if it ever comes

510
00:48:45,636 --> 00:48:51,508
to is whether or not sb35, ab2011 or any other application

511
00:48:51,508 --> 00:48:54,645
meets these codes we'll outline to you, this is the height limit

512
00:48:54,645 --> 00:48:58,182
and minimum setbacks. Does it meet the code or not? You'll

513
00:48:58,182 --> 00:49:00,984
not be asked to exercise discretion, that would be

514
00:49:00,984 --> 00:49:05,784
contrary to the very purpose of these laws.

515
00:49:09,147 --> 00:49:11,616
>> commissioner lind: I'll have to continue to think about

516
00:49:11,616 --> 00:49:14,685
and digest. This is not a final decision today; right?

517
00:49:14,685 --> 00:49:17,880
>> we'd like you to make a decision. We can talk about it

518
00:49:17,880 --> 00:49:20,688
at the end. >> commissioner lind: okay.

519
00:49:21,626 --> 00:49:27,365
>> I have a question. I'm wondering if it's very broad for

520
00:49:27,365 --> 00:49:32,765
me. Expanding applicability, I wonder if the staff thought

521
00:49:35,373 --> 00:49:38,710
about implications with the state law as ongoing changes.

522
00:49:38,710 --> 00:49:43,515
what might that look like? In the upcoming months or so?

523
00:49:43,515 --> 00:49:47,519
>> we have and that's part of the reason why we're doing

524
00:49:47,519 --> 00:49:54,119
this. All the check analysis is it's done publicly. We're not

525
00:50:14,546 --> 00:50:20,818
trying to impede, thwart, stop housing and this is simply an

526
00:50:20,818 --> 00:50:27,418
attempt to -- and check public insight of the commission having

527
00:50:29,361 --> 00:50:36,561
a heart burn on this and we can remove from the code.

528
00:50:46,310 --> 00:50:51,182
>> the planning commission can no longer are I view sb-35,

529
00:50:51,182 --> 00:50:54,118
ab-2011 then we'll come back and have it rendition of anthony

530
00:50:54,118 --> 00:50:57,322
moved; correct. This time it doesn't say that. In fact, it

531
00:50:57,322 --> 00:51:01,459
says removed it from the board and city council level, reduced

532
00:51:01,459 --> 00:51:06,259
to a planning commission. >> got it. Comments and

533
00:51:11,736 --> 00:51:14,605
questions? Do you have more in your presentation?

534
00:51:14,605 --> 00:51:18,342
>> I do. A couple more. >> shall we move on? Let's

535
00:51:18,342 --> 00:51:24,342
move on. You have questions. We'll dib rat after. Deliberateo

536
00:51:31,423 --> 00:51:33,823
ahead, manny. >> development agreements

537
00:51:34,626 --> 00:51:37,229
and it's a commonly used tool in california and we don't have

538
00:51:37,229 --> 00:51:42,290
that tool. To your comment, commissioner lind, the

539
00:51:42,433 --> 00:51:45,570
agreements would allow the county and the applicant to

540
00:51:45,570 --> 00:51:52,170
agree to a set of proposed processes if you will. You're

541
00:51:52,844 --> 00:51:57,182
right. If a large housing project come into the county

542
00:51:57,182 --> 00:52:01,319
then designated as hcr at the moment and we'd be subject to

543
00:52:01,319 --> 00:52:07,319
hcr. However, if it has other components such as subdivision

544
00:52:09,260 --> 00:52:15,260
application, we have conflict and allowing them to agree to

545
00:52:21,740 --> 00:52:29,346
some set of processes or path forward in return to be a public

546
00:52:29,346 --> 00:52:33,840
weapon fit. Development agreement by state law only

547
00:52:33,840 --> 00:52:35,886
requested by applicants but has to be available for the public.

548
00:52:35,886 --> 00:52:41,286
there's a public interest, public benefit to codify the

549
00:52:43,428 --> 00:52:46,898
state code and primrose indicated hcr processes and

550
00:52:46,898 --> 00:52:53,498
applications can be -- can take advantage of this process. Today

551
00:53:10,121 --> 00:53:12,560
we're asking your commission to make a recommendation to the

552
00:53:12,560 --> 00:53:19,856
board for adoption. Parts or all of it. Parts of the proposal or

553
00:53:20,465 --> 00:53:23,401
all entirely. The reason we recommending that you do that is

554
00:53:23,401 --> 00:53:28,140
we need to respond to hcd as saboteur as we can, at least --

555
00:53:28,140 --> 00:53:36,346
as soon as we can and sb-35 -- sorry, not sb-35, sb-9 then we

556
00:53:36,346 --> 00:53:43,546
can be in compliance with the state law. Sometime in the fall

557
00:53:47,224 --> 00:53:50,694
we'll come back with the state code things that we left out and

558
00:53:50,694 --> 00:53:53,498
with that amendment, will include new laws that will take

559
00:53:53,498 --> 00:54:01,298
effect in january of next year. Again, we hope to go through the

560
00:54:06,577 --> 00:54:13,777
board sometime in november and then after that, we would go to

561
00:54:15,519 --> 00:54:19,791
submit for approval to hcd and we recommend your board approve

562
00:54:19,791 --> 00:54:26,391
partially, entirely, or none of it. Any questions, I'd be happy

563
00:54:27,998 --> 00:54:30,134
to answer. >> two resolutions and one

564
00:54:30,134 --> 00:54:32,937
is recommending to the board and one is the ordnance?

565
00:54:32,937 --> 00:54:35,473
>> only one resolution but make changes. There's only

566
00:54:35,473 --> 00:54:39,343
single resolution here. This is a public hearing and your

567
00:54:39,343 --> 00:54:42,343
commission could amend the resolution. .

568
00:54:47,418 --> 00:54:49,420
>> commissioner lind: I have one more question. This is

569
00:54:49,420 --> 00:54:56,620
on ab-2694 on page 8 of the staff report at the top. Says

570
00:55:01,632 --> 00:55:04,101
changing how defensety calculated for senior housing

571
00:55:04,101 --> 00:55:08,239
not solely by dwelling units. How is it calculated? I didn't

572
00:55:08,239 --> 00:55:12,443
see that any place in the analysis or -- I didn't -- I

573
00:55:12,443 --> 00:55:17,266
couldn't find it in the code because I didn't know which

574
00:55:17,266 --> 00:55:22,660
number to go look under. >> currently under the

575
00:55:24,941 --> 00:55:28,780
previous density bonus law was one units.

576
00:55:28,780 --> 00:55:30,790
>> commissioner lind: we had that in a recent case for

577
00:55:30,790 --> 00:55:32,140
example. >> correct. Now it's per

578
00:55:32,140 --> 00:55:35,351
square foot. Does it not have a kitchen.

579
00:55:35,351 --> 00:55:40,751
>> commissioner lind: it's not just by kitchen? What other

580
00:55:42,759 --> 00:55:45,361
factors would you use then? >> you have to accept

581
00:55:45,361 --> 00:55:50,300
whatever the applicant presents. Far is one, kitchen is one, and

582
00:55:50,300 --> 00:55:56,572
also number of bedrooms is one. But it's now been broadened and

583
00:55:56,572 --> 00:55:59,420
given the benefit of the applicants.

584
00:55:59,420 --> 00:56:01,644
>> commissioner lind: that would be subject to negotiation

585
00:56:01,644 --> 00:56:03,579
then? >> with the proposed we'd

586
00:56:03,579 --> 00:56:07,490
have to accept and demonstrate it's not in compliance with the

587
00:56:07,490 --> 00:56:08,918
state law. >> commissioner lind: ask

588
00:56:08,918 --> 00:56:11,254
for waivers and concession. >> right. The burden

589
00:56:11,254 --> 00:56:15,454
shifted to the county. >> commissioner lind: okay

590
00:56:20,196 --> 00:56:22,332
I didn't see that any place of the documentation and we're

591
00:56:22,332 --> 00:56:24,800
getting a number of those so it's important for the public to

592
00:56:24,800 --> 00:56:30,800
be able to understand how density is calculated for them.

593
00:56:34,770 --> 00:56:38,614
because it's a different type of land use and its own category.

594
00:56:38,614 --> 00:56:40,950
>> I imagine notifying or consulting with someone and tell

595
00:56:40,950 --> 00:56:47,423
them to apply using far as that would yield largest number of

596
00:56:47,423 --> 00:56:48,758
units. >> commissioner

597
00:56:48,758 --> 00:56:53,830
lind: right. In such a kind of project because it's freed up

598
00:56:53,830 --> 00:56:59,830
about the space and the interior and the kitchens of

599
00:57:05,508 --> 00:57:08,778
redevelopment and certain sections of the project and

600
00:57:08,778 --> 00:57:12,314
staying in the original parameters and they'd be able to

601
00:57:12,314 --> 00:57:18,914
come in and do that. Would that be correct? Combining units?

602
00:57:20,924 --> 00:57:22,792
would they come under replacement requirements of the

603
00:57:22,792 --> 00:57:25,610
state law? >> I would argue they'd

604
00:57:25,610 --> 00:57:29,861
come under replacement. That's reduction in units. Yep..

605
00:57:32,402 --> 00:57:34,870
>> commissioner lind: come under that to the extent they

606
00:57:34,870 --> 00:57:37,874
didn't reduce the number of units, they'd be able to make

607
00:57:37,874 --> 00:57:40,874
various configurations? >> make configurations as

608
00:57:41,611 --> 00:57:45,615
long as the overall number of unit crease.t increase.

609
00:57:45,615 --> 00:57:48,284
commissioner lind: within the approved building envelope.

610
00:57:48,284 --> 00:57:51,884
okay, I understand that, thank you.

611
00:57:54,490 --> 00:57:56,759
>> chair muralles: thank you, commissioner legend. I want

612
00:57:56,759 --> 00:58:02,759
to open time for public comment for this specific item.

613
00:58:02,965 --> 00:58:05,965
>> commissioner curran has a question.

614
00:58:07,570 --> 00:58:11,770
>> chair muralles: go ahea curran.sioner curran.

615
00:58:12,709 --> 00:58:15,311
commissioner curran: I had a question about 2280 and I want

616
00:58:15,311 --> 00:58:23,111
to understand it. That it this is voluntary on the part of the

617
00:58:27,256 --> 00:58:32,595
applicant, would all the state requirements regarding number of

618
00:58:32,595 --> 00:58:38,595
hearings, is really a clean slate or some are still

619
00:58:46,542 --> 00:58:49,542
governing? >> in the samples we've

620
00:58:49,545 --> 00:58:56,745
seen, they get to reset the process. So moving away from the

621
00:59:07,290 --> 00:59:09,765
state requirements of doing things.

622
00:59:09,765 --> 00:59:11,567
>> commissioner curran: some of us have known

623
00:59:11,567 --> 00:59:16,839
them for a long time and we've been in the planning area? At a

624
00:59:16,839 --> 00:59:22,839
time of california but really giving access to the county.

625
00:59:31,721 --> 00:59:34,123
>> correct. Turn out to agree to greater benefit than

626
00:59:34,123 --> 00:59:36,725
what's required by code. >> commissioner

627
00:59:36,725 --> 00:59:43,925
curran: it's marvelous to adopt that as a tool. I think that's

628
00:59:44,267 --> 00:59:46,267
very good. >> chair

629
00:59:47,603 --> 00:59:51,203
muralles: commissioner monroe. >> commissioner monroe: two

630
00:59:52,875 --> 00:59:58,875
questions, one macro and one micro. Two sections not reviewed

631
01:00:00,550 --> 01:00:05,950
on applicability section so 22.22.020. The micro is a funny

632
01:00:09,358 --> 01:00:14,758
typo. It's the following page, affordable housing income rage,

633
01:00:14,897 --> 01:00:18,701
I think it's range just while you're doing tidy up it's on the

634
01:00:18,701 --> 01:00:25,901
following page, 3-29. Lots of rage but I think you mean range.

635
01:00:33,783 --> 01:00:37,653
>> I see it. Thank you. >> commissioner monroe: no

636
01:00:37,653 --> 01:00:43,653
problem. Table 3-4a. Macro question is when might we

637
01:00:56,806 --> 01:01:01,811
propose the document for the mixed use prudential and 30%

638
01:01:01,811 --> 01:01:07,811
affordable housing floor with 15% as very low income. I think

639
01:01:10,486 --> 01:01:13,222
a lot of struggle we've experienced with some of the big

640
01:01:13,222 --> 01:01:18,227
projects would be alleviated if we could increase these

641
01:01:18,227 --> 01:01:23,627
percentages to say 30%. Does that require a larger review?

642
01:01:29,590 --> 01:01:32,793
>> that's a much larger conversation and requires all

643
01:01:32,793 --> 01:01:35,196
kinds of financial and economic analysis. It's not something we

644
01:01:35,196 --> 01:01:40,000
could do in vacuum. It's not something that has been

645
01:01:40,000 --> 01:01:43,871
contemplated within this but something we've discussed

646
01:01:43,871 --> 01:01:45,871
internally. >> commissioner

647
01:01:48,341 --> 01:01:51,780
monroe: thank you. I would love to put on the record that's

648
01:01:51,780 --> 01:01:54,681
something we should evaluated is increasing those percentages.

649
01:01:54,681 --> 01:01:57,681
>> comment noted. >> commissioner step niche

650
01:02:21,842 --> 01:02:25,513
stepanicich: it's getting a developer a right to develop at

651
01:02:25,513 --> 01:02:30,313
that level. >> -- it was a flat low 20%

652
01:02:43,997 --> 01:02:49,136
and low income and revise to the current status to incentivize

653
01:02:49,136 --> 01:02:55,750
housing. State density bonus law is 5% at very low income and you

654
01:02:55,750 --> 01:02:58,546
qualify. But we have somewhere in the code saying you have to

655
01:02:58,546 --> 01:03:03,484
comply with the cumulatively has to be 20%. That 5% would qualify

656
01:03:03,484 --> 01:03:08,222
for density bonus law, but doesn't bring you into

657
01:03:08,222 --> 01:03:11,222
compliance with the inclusionary ordnance.

658
01:03:17,231 --> 01:03:20,831
>> commissioner stepanicich: I agree. It's a

659
01:03:21,568 --> 01:03:25,105
good one to discuss and a need for more analysis to address

660
01:03:25,105 --> 01:03:28,642
that issue. >> it's also one of those

661
01:03:28,642 --> 01:03:32,513
things that units developer against any discussion related

662
01:03:32,513 --> 01:03:36,113
to increasing fees. >> chair muralles: thank

663
01:03:38,318 --> 01:03:41,321
you, commissioner stepanicich. I want to talk about what

664
01:03:41,321 --> 01:03:46,121
commissioner monroe was saying about increasing percentages for

665
01:03:47,794 --> 01:03:51,994
the affordable housing requirements and regard to

666
01:03:52,332 --> 01:03:54,602
income or price sales and is that something the county looks

667
01:03:54,602 --> 01:04:00,200
to or federal income guideline? >> it's the base of

668
01:04:18,826 --> 01:04:22,426
guidelines and there's affordable housing available.

669
01:04:22,562 --> 01:04:25,232
>> chair muralles: it's not necessarily encapsulated for the

670
01:04:25,232 --> 01:04:29,432
people needed because of the income guidelines.

671
01:04:30,370 --> 01:04:33,370
>> not sure I followed that.

672
01:04:40,914 --> 01:04:43,517
>> chair muralles: any different guidelines the county

673
01:04:43,517 --> 01:04:46,252
may follow for this? >> she may have a better

674
01:04:46,252 --> 01:04:47,788
answer for this. >> thank you. I think

675
01:04:47,788 --> 01:04:51,324
really the way that it has been structured is so much is based

676
01:04:51,324 --> 01:04:57,324
upon what's been provided through federal in terms of the

677
01:05:04,604 --> 01:05:06,140
income levels and to my knowledge, there's no

678
01:05:06,140 --> 01:05:10,340
flexibility at local level. >> chair muralles: thank

679
01:05:11,110 --> 01:05:14,611
you. Commissioner lind. >> commissioner lind: I

680
01:05:17,170 --> 01:05:21,421
want to clarify it's based on county or local median income so

681
01:05:21,421 --> 01:05:26,293
it very -- the actual numbers vary from place to place, but

682
01:05:26,293 --> 01:05:31,565
because we have high median income here, the qualifying

683
01:05:31,565 --> 01:05:34,968
percentages are pretty substantial, and I can

684
01:05:34,968 --> 01:05:39,768
understand your concern about lower income people excluded

685
01:05:46,246 --> 01:05:49,115
from these programs rolled out. But that's just the way the

686
01:05:49,115 --> 01:05:55,115
formula works, and there's really no way to change that.

687
01:06:01,995 --> 01:06:05,799
and your comment about meeting incentives but that's included

688
01:06:05,799 --> 01:06:09,336
in the bonus per sen tesla and metas. It's not on top of state

689
01:06:09,336 --> 01:06:14,736
bonus percentages; correct? >> it's not on top. Top cap

690
01:06:15,876 --> 01:06:20,346
side -- inclusionary requirement is 20 and state bonus density is

691
01:06:20,346 --> 01:06:23,217
blow 20% on average. >> commissioner lind: we do

692
01:06:23,217 --> 01:06:27,487
raise it in certain instances, we raise the percentage with our

693
01:06:27,487 --> 01:06:29,887
local inclusionary policy. >> correct.

694
01:06:30,957 --> 01:06:32,226
>> commissioner lind: that's not across the

695
01:06:32,226 --> 01:06:33,894
board? >> I think it's two out of

696
01:06:33,894 --> 01:06:37,498
three categories we do. >> commissioner lind: that

697
01:06:37,498 --> 01:06:41,980
addressing your concern to some degree.

698
01:06:44,637 --> 01:06:47,641
>> chair muralles: thank you for raising my concern. Any

699
01:06:47,641 --> 01:06:50,641
other questions? >> commissioner monroe: if

700
01:06:51,178 --> 01:06:54,448
we're doing in-depth of affordability in the

701
01:06:54,448 --> 01:06:58,518
inclusionary components of the code, if you include higher

702
01:06:58,518 --> 01:07:02,923
levels of very low income brackets, you can't change the

703
01:07:02,923 --> 01:07:07,723
categories but could change those levels; correct? That's

704
01:07:17,700 --> 01:07:20,670
how you change thees intended income.

705
01:07:22,342 --> 01:07:25,342
>> chair muralles: thank you, panelny.

706
01:07:26,880 --> 01:07:30,170
>> the structure is federal government and our ability is

707
01:07:30,170 --> 01:07:34,104
limited and I was involve during covid when we did -- redid the

708
01:07:34,104 --> 01:07:41,304
entire county -- not just county but even cities when we did

709
01:07:59,729 --> 01:08:04,600
through sb2 and and ended up catapulting closer to the high

710
01:08:04,600 --> 01:08:09,600
end. I don't know what it would take to revisit and redo the

711
01:08:09,600 --> 01:08:13,100
analysis. That's costing close to $1 million to put it in

712
01:08:13,100 --> 01:08:16,610
context and perspective. . >> chair muralles: any

713
01:08:22,485 --> 01:08:30,285
other questions? I think we can go ahead and go to open comment

714
01:08:31,940 --> 01:08:34,300
specifically for this item. Any comments. I would like to go

715
01:08:34,300 --> 01:08:37,901
ahead and close the time for public expression for this item

716
01:08:37,901 --> 01:08:43,901
and we'll go ahead and deliberate as a commission. Who

717
01:08:49,846 --> 01:08:54,650
would like to start? Commissioner lind, turn on your

718
01:08:54,650 --> 01:08:56,453
microphone, please. >> commissioner lind: I'm

719
01:08:56,453 --> 01:09:04,253
okay with all of it except that one issue that I didn't fully

720
01:09:04,594 --> 01:09:06,597
understand and I think it requires more discussion. It

721
01:09:06,597 --> 01:09:13,797
would be the -- on page 6, table 4, you should type under type

722
01:09:19,476 --> 01:09:22,345
mike: I don't fully understand it. It may be fine,

723
01:09:22,345 --> 01:09:29,218
but I need some more explanation of that to really understand all

724
01:09:29,218 --> 01:09:35,818
of the factors involved and all the types of applications as

725
01:09:41,498 --> 01:09:46,169
they combine together. Page 6 and capture all applications

726
01:09:46,169 --> 01:09:49,769
through page 6. That's problematic. Some tighter

727
01:10:07,256 --> 01:10:11,456
language that can't be interpreted more broadly.

728
01:10:12,395 --> 01:10:17,133
>> can I suggest we go right to the text itself on

729
01:10:17,133 --> 01:10:19,533
iv-65. >> chair muralles: manny,

730
01:10:20,403 --> 01:10:23,403
sorry. Page 9, not page 6. >> commissioner

731
01:10:23,672 --> 01:10:27,900
lind: talking from the staff report.

732
01:10:27,900 --> 01:10:30,609
>> chair muralles: okay. Thank you. Commissioner

733
01:10:32,214 --> 01:10:34,214
stepanicich. >> commissioner

734
01:10:34,818 --> 01:10:38,888
stepanicich: would be helpful to reference the actual code

735
01:10:38,888 --> 01:10:41,288
section. . >> on page iv-65.

736
01:10:47,764 --> 01:10:51,300
>> commissioner stepanicich: okay, got it. Thank

737
01:10:51,300 --> 01:10:56,100
you. Chapter 22-64 under applicability and c type 3.

738
01:11:16,192 --> 01:11:19,262
>> commissioner monroe: what would be the

739
01:11:19,262 --> 01:11:23,266
implications for you as staff to reject the type 3 and maintain

740
01:11:23,266 --> 01:11:26,536
the authority of sb-35? My understanding is it's a catch

741
01:11:26,536 --> 01:11:29,500
all so as the legislative session proceeds, we don't have

742
01:11:29,500 --> 01:11:35,500
to go back and fix it. What are the implications?

743
01:11:41,818 --> 01:11:44,554
>> nothing reverts back and staff continue to review these

744
01:11:44,554 --> 01:11:48,691
types of applications instead of your planning commission.

745
01:11:48,691 --> 01:11:50,560
>> commissioner monroe: right. I think I'm

746
01:11:50,560 --> 01:11:52,162
comfortable with this because it's bringing it to the

747
01:11:52,162 --> 01:11:55,762
commission as oppose to the staff.

748
01:12:04,240 --> 01:12:06,776
>> commissioner stepanicich: that's also how I

749
01:12:06,776 --> 01:12:10,513
see this. Seems to me is that the advantage is it gives the

750
01:12:10,513 --> 01:12:15,318
commission a chance to review the mandated approvals and right

751
01:12:15,318 --> 01:12:19,322
now reviewed by staff. I understood the staff objective

752
01:12:19,322 --> 01:12:22,792
is provide greater transparency in the review process so even

753
01:12:22,792 --> 01:12:29,392
though our discretion is very limited, at least it's in the

754
01:12:30,866 --> 01:12:33,603
public forum and can watch deliberation take place. It's

755
01:12:33,603 --> 01:12:37,139
important to go beyond sb-45 because there's other provisions

756
01:12:37,139 --> 01:12:40,276
that have mandated approvals so I do see this provision as

757
01:12:40,276 --> 01:12:45,760
giving us more authority. I understand your concern,

758
01:12:58,428 --> 01:13:02,232
commissioner lind. But I think it's a good one to support.

759
01:13:02,232 --> 01:13:04,632
>> chair muralles: commissioner lind.

760
01:13:05,350 --> 01:13:08,972
>> commissioner lind: would it be possible to reference the

761
01:13:08,972 --> 01:13:13,172
code that gets changed frequently? The interpretation

762
01:13:15,244 --> 01:13:18,844
of other mandates outside theed housing.

763
01:13:23,987 --> 01:13:26,456
>> we'd have to list every one in the code and they change

764
01:13:26,456 --> 01:13:28,657
often. >> commissioner lind: too

765
01:13:28,657 --> 01:13:30,593
often. I can certainly understand the bill numbers we

766
01:13:30,593 --> 01:13:33,930
don't want to list those. If -- most of the changes are to

767
01:13:33,930 --> 01:13:39,930
certain sections of the housing code. Government code. Not too

768
01:13:44,222 --> 01:13:47,222
much. >> I'll defer to kate.

769
01:13:48,226 --> 01:13:51,163
>> yes, we can refer to specific government code per

770
01:13:51,163 --> 01:13:54,165
visions and the concern that manny is highlighting once a new

771
01:13:54,165 --> 01:13:57,835
tool is adopted to advance the development of housing, we may

772
01:13:57,835 --> 01:14:00,505
see the same language added to another government code section

773
01:14:00,505 --> 01:14:02,907
that we didn't originally reference in our development

774
01:14:02,907 --> 01:14:10,707
code updates. I think that's why I I soup he used term of

775
01:14:16,254 --> 01:14:20,658
ministerial streamline process and sb-35 and that term of art

776
01:14:20,658 --> 01:14:27,858
is being developed and used as a tool or threat to incentivize

777
01:14:33,710 --> 01:14:36,730
compliance with the housing law. >> can I draw your

778
01:14:36,730 --> 01:14:40,873
attention to page iv6 table 1. >> chair muralles: repeat

779
01:14:42,130 --> 01:14:45,613
that. >> ib6-6. Table 4-1. On

780
01:14:57,428 --> 01:15:03,428
that table, commissioner lend, we have put the director or

781
01:15:03,902 --> 01:15:09,307
staff as recommend -- body can make recommendations to the

782
01:15:09,307 --> 01:15:14,707
commission as on type 3hcrs. >> commissioner lind: I see

783
01:15:21,452 --> 01:15:24,389
it in the actual code language so I'm okay with this language.

784
01:15:24,389 --> 01:15:29,189
thank you for that. Page -- section iv70.

785
01:15:33,264 --> 01:15:35,664
>> yes. >> chair muralles: perfect.

786
01:15:39,700 --> 01:15:42,407
questions or other deliberation are we ready to move then? I

787
01:15:42,407 --> 01:15:47,278
think we are good. Comfortable with making a decision to

788
01:15:47,278 --> 01:15:51,282
recommend to the board of supervisors to adopt the

789
01:15:51,282 --> 01:15:53,282
proposed code. >> commissioner

790
01:15:53,484 --> 01:15:57,210
stepanicich: I would move to adopt to the code of supervisors

791
01:15:57,210 --> 01:16:00,358
to adopt title 22 of marin county code.

792
01:16:00,358 --> 01:16:02,358
>> chair muralles: commissioner

793
01:16:02,760 --> 01:16:05,496
stepanicich make as first motion. Who would like to

794
01:16:05,496 --> 01:16:07,496
second? >> commissioner

795
01:16:08,310 --> 01:16:10,431
curran: I'll second. >> chair

796
01:16:10,902 --> 01:16:15,102
muralles: commissioner curran. Thank you, roll call.

797
01:16:18,109 --> 01:16:20,109
>> commissioner curran. >> I.

798
01:16:20,178 --> 01:16:22,450
>> commissioner lind. >> I.

799
01:16:22,450 --> 01:16:24,450
>> commissioner monroe. >> I.

800
01:16:25,382 --> 01:16:27,382
>> commissioner stepanicich >> I.

801
01:16:30,855 --> 01:16:33,855
>> commissioner muralles. >> I. Chair rale

802
01:16:38,620 --> 01:16:40,732
especially: per following the accident. That item is cruised.

803
01:16:40,732 --> 01:16:44,135
>> chair muralles: moving to item 5. Give us a few minutes

804
01:16:44,135 --> 01:16:51,335
to do the shift. Thank you. Good to go. Item 5 and morning

805
01:17:19,838 --> 01:17:22,639
features ands l.l.c., and project manager here with us to

806
01:17:22,639 --> 01:17:24,308
lead us into the project. Go ahead.

807
01:17:24,308 --> 01:17:27,177
>> great. Thank you. I just want to note that we have a

808
01:17:27,177 --> 01:17:33,177
couple staff members available on zoom for questions. We have

809
01:17:36,254 --> 01:17:42,854
michelle levinson and hue davis and other members in from the

810
01:17:42,860 --> 01:17:45,129
department of public work ifs you have questions afterwards.

811
01:17:45,129 --> 01:17:51,729
I'll start with my presentation then. Great, project site is in

812
01:18:05,750 --> 01:18:10,221
in -- it's from pre-sen tee and cliff road and property

813
01:18:10,221 --> 01:18:13,891
surrounded by otherred a jay san antonio private properties and

814
01:18:13,891 --> 01:18:19,891
the project site is irregular 4,938 square foot lot and it's

815
01:18:22,633 --> 01:18:26,704
down from the road and existing structure at south end of the

816
01:18:26,704 --> 01:18:30,174
property. In portions of the existing structure do extend

817
01:18:30,174 --> 01:18:36,774
over the property line. One ash tree and rendition of anthony

818
01:18:58,870 --> 01:19:01,538
move of a plat -- removal of platform and other improvements.

819
01:19:01,538 --> 01:19:09,338
picture of the site plan on the left -- bottom is cliff road.

820
01:19:25,896 --> 01:19:29,100
july 78, 2026, there was a timely appeal submitted of the

821
01:19:29,100 --> 01:19:31,969
morning phase coastal development permit and coastal

822
01:19:31,969 --> 01:19:35,773
variance and asserted that the project lacks analysis and

823
01:19:35,773 --> 01:19:41,173
compliance with the california building code. And related fire

824
01:19:45,183 --> 01:19:48,586
code and nonconforming code and assert that had modifications to

825
01:19:48,586 --> 01:19:53,386
the existing structure would violate the private easement

826
01:19:54,206 --> 01:19:59,600
agreement between the two subject properties. Sush say

827
01:20:07,619 --> 01:20:10,190
included showing existing encroach

828
01:20:12,891 --> 01:20:16,562
encroachmentsments and structurn the property. Building elevation

829
01:20:16,562 --> 01:20:21,900
and existing elevations on the top and proposed graphics on the

830
01:20:21,900 --> 01:20:27,300
bottom. This is just existing structure and doesn't include

831
01:20:36,782 --> 01:20:42,921
adu. This is a picture of the existing structure and this

832
01:20:42,921 --> 01:20:47,926
would be of -- looking from the center of the property towards

833
01:20:47,926 --> 01:20:53,926
the house. This is looking beyond the fence from cliff

834
01:20:55,467 --> 01:20:58,336
road. Again, this would be up towards the top of the property

835
01:20:58,336 --> 01:21:04,336
near cliff road. The points of appeal are insufficient to

836
01:21:06,780 --> 01:21:09,678
overturn the deputy zoning administrator's commissioner

837
01:21:10,682 --> 01:21:14,686
approval and the county building and safety division reviews for

838
01:21:14,686 --> 01:21:19,824
compliance with the california building code upon the applicant

839
01:21:19,824 --> 01:21:23,562
submitting to the building division. This application was

840
01:21:23,562 --> 01:21:28,962
just to review compliance for title 20 for coastal development

841
01:21:32,437 --> 01:21:37,309
code. Additionally private ease wants and boundary -- easements

842
01:21:37,309 --> 01:21:40,450
and boundary disputes are a civil matter between the parties

843
01:21:40,450 --> 01:21:46,645
involved and are not enforced or regulated by the county. As

844
01:21:53,658 --> 01:21:56,661
discussed in the findings, all the developments have been made.

845
01:21:56,661 --> 01:22:01,332
with that, I'll hand it over for the next -- any questions or I

846
01:22:01,332 --> 01:22:06,132
can hand it over for the next presentation.

847
01:22:06,938 --> 01:22:09,341
>> chair muralles: thank you, megan. Any questions for

848
01:22:09,341 --> 01:22:11,741
the planning? Commissioner curran.

849
01:22:12,744 --> 01:22:14,679
>> commissioner curran: I didn't hear the last thing you

850
01:22:14,679 --> 01:22:21,279
said. Any questions before you what, hand it over to --

851
01:22:24,422 --> 01:22:27,422
>> next presentation by the appellant.

852
01:22:30,829 --> 01:22:33,698
>> commissioner curran: I hold my question till after you

853
01:22:33,698 --> 01:22:36,168
speak. >> I can take them now.

854
01:22:36,168 --> 01:22:39,905
>> commissioner curran: just we have a memo and

855
01:22:39,905 --> 01:22:43,641
a procedural one and there's a memo here that looks kind of

856
01:22:43,641 --> 01:22:49,248
like a staff memo but from the appellant. And then kind of

857
01:22:49,248 --> 01:22:53,852
verne viewing and sitting here since it was new to us today.

858
01:22:53,852 --> 01:22:58,652
but procedurally, this is introducing a different basis

859
01:23:13,138 --> 01:23:16,541
for appeal than what was in the appeal. Is that permissible

860
01:23:16,541 --> 01:23:22,414
shifting the grounds like that? I don't recall encountering this

861
01:23:22,414 --> 01:23:25,414
situation before. >> chair muralles: before

862
01:23:31,890 --> 01:23:36,940
we get into it. It was a memo we got today. We didn't have much

863
01:23:36,940 --> 01:23:39,631
chance to review f. You give us context and answer the question.

864
01:23:39,631 --> 01:23:42,100
>> commissioner curran: or we can let things play out and

865
01:23:42,100 --> 01:23:44,836
speak to it afterwards. >> I think if we can

866
01:23:44,836 --> 01:23:48,373
proceed with some of the other presentations as well from the

867
01:23:48,373 --> 01:23:51,309
appellant as well as applicant, they'll give our council a

868
01:23:51,309 --> 01:23:58,509
chance to take a look at it as well. Generally staff conducted

869
01:24:10,729 --> 01:24:13,531
analysis of what was in the appeal filed timely. I don't --

870
01:24:13,531 --> 01:24:17,669
I think I'll wait to allow legal council to take a look and see

871
01:24:17,669 --> 01:24:20,606
about whether or not they can introduce additional information

872
01:24:20,606 --> 01:24:25,406
as part of their presentation as today's proceedings.

873
01:24:31,950 --> 01:24:34,286
>> commissioner stepanicich: yes, just one

874
01:24:34,286 --> 01:24:37,422
question on portion of main building being modified, is the

875
01:24:37,422 --> 01:24:40,959
actual part that encroaches to 87 brighton, is that being

876
01:24:40,959 --> 01:24:46,970
modified in terms of dimensionss at all? Looks like there's a

877
01:24:46,970 --> 01:24:51,497
window being changed. Are the general dimensions of the

878
01:24:55,707 --> 01:24:58,376
encroachment the same? >> existing nonconforming

879
01:24:58,376 --> 01:25:00,780
structure and it's not being modified in the sense that it

880
01:25:00,780 --> 01:25:03,180
would be expanded. >> chair

881
01:25:09,788 --> 01:25:11,590
muralles: commissioner monroe. >> commissioner

882
01:25:11,590 --> 01:25:18,190
monroe: thank you. I sent an e-mail to megan yesterday, and

883
01:25:18,597 --> 01:25:21,660
it is printed for you but these were my questions that I was

884
01:25:21,660 --> 01:25:30,660
going to ask so I may as well go ahead and share them so everyone

885
01:25:31,343 --> 01:25:35,800
is aware of things I had in mind. First question I had,

886
01:25:35,800 --> 01:25:40,351
which felt like a important contextual question was whether

887
01:25:40,351 --> 01:25:48,151
the review of a variance occurs or if there's an example of the

888
01:25:53,698 --> 01:25:57,649
code and I'll read b4 since you all don't have it in front of

889
01:25:57,649 --> 01:26:01,786
you. These are the decision and findings on variance, and this

890
01:26:01,786 --> 01:26:05,589
item 4 is granting the variance will not be debt remittal to the

891
01:26:05,589 --> 01:26:10,328
public -- detrimental to the public interest, health safety

892
01:26:10,328 --> 01:26:13,397
or convenience of the public and in the vicinity and zoning

893
01:26:13,397 --> 01:26:17,100
district in which the property is located. So that feels like

894
01:26:17,100 --> 01:26:23,601
an important point of review. You're not aware of that. In

895
01:26:30,214 --> 01:26:33,484
addition hr. Anything else on that?

896
01:26:33,484 --> 01:26:37,555
>> michelle and I were both not aware of any.

897
01:26:37,555 --> 01:26:40,557
>> commissioner monroe: thank you. Second was

898
01:26:40,557 --> 01:26:44,629
recommendations of coastal commission staff and jillian

899
01:26:44,629 --> 01:26:50,629
honey. Cdp include requirements per land use policy c-des-9 and

900
01:26:53,304 --> 01:26:57,641
regarding native planting. We can come back to that but that

901
01:26:57,641 --> 01:27:03,410
felt important to me, particularly given what I saw

902
01:27:12,390 --> 01:27:16,193
from land scapping plan with very little native plants and

903
01:27:16,193 --> 01:27:19,597
forward thinking coastal a saturday restrictions that are

904
01:27:19,597 --> 01:27:22,533
really appropriate where there's not yet -- wouldn't be a taking,

905
01:27:22,533 --> 01:27:27,710
this is very future forward, but it would be terrific if we can

906
01:27:27,710 --> 01:27:30,710
incorporate any of those provisions.

907
01:27:44,689 --> 01:27:48,159
>> I went back and reviewed what's applicable sections of

908
01:27:48,159 --> 01:27:52,296
the lcp, and as I indicated to you in the e-mail, if your

909
01:27:52,296 --> 01:27:56,167
commission would like, special condition of 4, waiver of

910
01:27:56,167 --> 01:28:02,767
liability could be added and that is a special condition of

911
01:28:04,241 --> 01:28:09,248
approval and it's in a list that could be add ed and then the

912
01:28:09,248 --> 01:28:17,648
rest of of a saturday conditions and it's up to the -- hazard and

913
01:28:26,531 --> 01:28:31,201
it's up to the applicant if they want to impose that themselves.

914
01:28:31,201 --> 01:28:33,337
>> commissioner monroe: sorry. Final question I

915
01:28:33,337 --> 01:28:36,207
had was to reference the condition of approval. I

916
01:28:36,207 --> 01:28:40,407
appreciate that there's the geotechnical oversight, but

917
01:28:46,170 --> 01:28:48,753
specific to the requirement of road repair that's occurring. So

918
01:28:48,753 --> 01:28:51,355
just want to call that out. >> part of it too is we

919
01:28:51,355 --> 01:28:55,555
don't know when construction would be occurring.

920
01:29:03,301 --> 01:29:04,968
>> commissioner monroe: thank you, for the

921
01:29:04,968 --> 01:29:09,168
requirement of communication and coordination would be'dell.

922
01:29:10,707 --> 01:29:12,376
>> chair muralles: commissioner lind,

923
01:29:12,376 --> 01:29:16,781
turn off your microphone. >> commissioner lind: I had

924
01:29:16,781 --> 01:29:23,381
a question. My question is about the statement in appeal of

925
01:29:26,857 --> 01:29:28,992
nonconforming and didn't see anything addressing that in the

926
01:29:28,992 --> 01:29:34,992
staff report. The staff report lists that on page 3 under

927
01:29:35,660 --> 01:29:37,868
describing the appeal and it's not new -- not completely new

928
01:29:37,868 --> 01:29:41,406
information all though it's certainly augmented in this memo

929
01:29:41,406 --> 01:29:48,600
we received today. What was the staff response to this statement

930
01:29:50,140 --> 01:29:54,814
about it doesn't adhere to nonconforming use regulations?

931
01:29:59,223 --> 01:30:03,694
>> are you asking why the structure is existing

932
01:30:03,694 --> 01:30:05,694
non-determined and nonconforming?

933
01:30:05,896 --> 01:30:08,766
>> commissioner lind: I didn't see why that was not a

934
01:30:08,766 --> 01:30:12,366
valid basis for appeal. >> the architectural

935
01:30:12,503 --> 01:30:15,706
history report provided by the applicant indicated the

936
01:30:15,706 --> 01:30:20,506
structure was built between 1924 and 1931. So the structure

937
01:30:21,979 --> 01:30:26,779
predated coastal act. Building permits and 1938 and then 1979

938
01:30:37,862 --> 01:30:43,262
and 1984 building permit did indicate and there's no site

939
01:30:48,806 --> 01:30:52,210
plan and there's written nations that the structure is --

940
01:30:52,210 --> 01:30:56,881
notations that the structure is at property line or over the

941
01:30:56,881 --> 01:31:01,681
property line. 1948 the structure was not complying with

942
01:31:04,880 --> 01:31:07,880
today's setbacks. >> commissioner lind: it's

943
01:31:12,963 --> 01:31:16,367
a setback? >> doesn't comply with any

944
01:31:16,367 --> 01:31:20,567
setbacks and it's over the property line. #

945
01:31:23,775 --> 01:31:25,443
>> commissioner lind: is it over the property line?

946
01:31:25,443 --> 01:31:28,450
>> according to the surveys it is.

947
01:31:28,450 --> 01:31:29,514
>> commissioner lind: what's the resolution of

948
01:31:29,514 --> 01:31:32,514
that issue? >> the appellant and

949
01:31:34,252 --> 01:31:39,652
applicant have agreement about the structure, and for it's

950
01:31:39,724 --> 01:31:42,124
non-conformance status. >> there's discussion

951
01:31:49,399 --> 01:31:52,869
there's an existing easement that's covering the existing

952
01:31:52,869 --> 01:31:57,608
home. The work that's being done is not necessarily encroaching

953
01:31:57,608 --> 01:32:03,800
beyond that existing footprint so there's still concern that

954
01:32:15,504 --> 01:32:17,840
it's built over the property line and in the easement and

955
01:32:17,840 --> 01:32:20,443
they're having discussions arnold the width of the easement

956
01:32:20,443 --> 01:32:23,245
and allowed uses within that easement area.

957
01:32:23,245 --> 01:32:25,314
>> commissioner lind: I see. But that's not the area

958
01:32:25,314 --> 01:32:27,450
being changed in the building envelope?

959
01:32:27,450 --> 01:32:30,919
>> it is not the area where the adu is being constructed,

960
01:32:30,919 --> 01:32:34,590
but there are some modifications being made to the residential

961
01:32:34,590 --> 01:32:37,590
structure within that easement area.

962
01:32:42,732 --> 01:32:44,666
>> commissioner lind: I see.

963
01:32:44,666 --> 01:32:47,803
>> chair muralles: are we good? We can move onto the --

964
01:32:47,803 --> 01:32:50,339
>> if I may through the chair, I want to respond to

965
01:32:50,339 --> 01:32:55,739
commissioner curran's question earlier. Looking at the code of

966
01:32:58,147 --> 01:33:00,949
appeal of development decision and public hearing the appeal

967
01:33:00,949 --> 01:33:03,152
authority may consider any issues involving the matter that

968
01:33:03,152 --> 01:33:06,823
is the subject of appeal in addition to the specific grounds

969
01:33:06,823 --> 01:33:11,623
for the appeal. Hope that answers it sufficiently.

970
01:33:17,233 --> 01:33:20,236
>> chair muralles: thank you, julia. Moving onto

971
01:33:20,236 --> 01:33:26,236
appellant's presentation. If you can come up, please. For the

972
01:33:29,845 --> 01:33:33,182
record, state your name. >> I'm steven ratcliffe.

973
01:33:33,182 --> 01:33:40,982
would you do it for me. I'll call out slide. I have ten

974
01:33:54,603 --> 01:33:56,872
minutes? >> chair muralles: that's

975
01:33:56,872 --> 01:34:00,343
correct. >> I will read quickly to

976
01:34:00,343 --> 01:34:05,743
cover all the salient points. >> oona ratcliffe is unable

977
01:34:07,150 --> 01:34:14,423
to be here and I'll read this on her behalf. Slide one. Slide

978
01:34:14,423 --> 01:34:19,223
two. The purpose of the memorandum, this memorandum

979
01:34:20,629 --> 01:34:25,429
supplements appeal submitted on july 8, 2026, and responds to

980
01:34:28,370 --> 01:34:33,437
the staff report recommendation that the appeal be denied.

981
01:34:33,976 --> 01:34:37,580
appellant kindly ask they apply to appeal title 20 of marin

982
01:34:37,580 --> 01:34:42,510
county code, coastal zoning code, and focus on the following

983
01:34:42,510 --> 01:34:44,510
title 20 provisions. 207-0030, 20.70.070, 20.70.080. 20.07.160,

984
01:34:58,670 --> 01:35:02,867
which is nonconforming uses and structures, and 20.64.110. Other

985
01:35:06,141 --> 01:35:11,541
provisional provisions of title 20. Slide 4, please. This is not

986
01:35:16,552 --> 01:35:20,890
guilty a boundary dispute and undisputed applicant record

987
01:35:20,890 --> 01:35:23,890
never analysing this. Slide 5. Appal

988
01:35:24,961 --> 01:35:27,629
apelted atlanta asking the -- appellant asking the commission

989
01:35:27,629 --> 01:35:31,900
to recognize a fact to establish by the applicants own submitted

990
01:35:31,900 --> 01:35:37,300
survey performed by mure consulting in -- muir con

991
01:35:37,773 --> 01:35:41,911
summitting consulting in 2022 and the property manager

992
01:35:41,911 --> 01:35:46,182
and shared with appellant before the application was filed. The

993
01:35:46,182 --> 01:35:51,320
physical structure at 40 cliff road occupies more of the

994
01:35:51,320 --> 01:35:55,520
neighborring parcel than the obstructing cerumen ragainitive

995
01:35:55,591 --> 01:35:59,661
recorded -- operative recording instrument describes. Neither

996
01:35:59,661 --> 01:36:02,932
the decision nor staff report findings analysis engages with

997
01:36:02,932 --> 01:36:07,732
what that fact means. Under title 20's nonconforming

998
01:36:10,139 --> 01:36:13,609
structure and legal interest provisions. A, the applicant's

999
01:36:13,609 --> 01:36:17,809
own surveyor documented discrepancy. The boundary and

1000
01:36:17,813 --> 01:36:23,813
the topographic surveillance su0 cliff road and prepared by muir

1001
01:36:25,287 --> 01:36:27,623
consults and part of the application record and states as

1002
01:36:27,623 --> 01:36:33,296
a survey note "the recorded -- the record location of the

1003
01:36:33,296 --> 01:36:38,696
buildings easement agreement doc no. 210, does not fit the

1004
01:36:39,301 --> 01:36:42,839
resolved boundary line. The resolved boundary, the location

1005
01:36:42,839 --> 01:36:47,376
of said easement has been moved to show the intent of said

1006
01:36:47,376 --> 01:36:52,176
easement. See document for restrictions on new construction

1007
01:36:53,116 --> 01:36:57,916
construction." slide 6. This is the applicant's own licensed

1008
01:37:01,991 --> 01:37:06,262
surveys statement filed with the application. It establishes as a

1009
01:37:06,262 --> 01:37:09,665
surveyed fact that the encroachment as it exists on the

1010
01:37:09,665 --> 01:37:14,336
ground does not match the encroachment as legally

1011
01:37:14,336 --> 01:37:19,136
described. Slide 7. The own comparison district shared with

1012
01:37:21,743 --> 01:37:26,543
the appellant qualified the discrepancy. Slide 8. During a

1013
01:37:30,352 --> 01:37:33,890
series of private e-mail exchanges and video conference

1014
01:37:33,890 --> 01:37:37,889
meetings between appellant and development property manager and

1015
01:37:38,828 --> 01:37:41,630
request a lot line adjustment and appellant required with

1016
01:37:41,630 --> 01:37:47,630
several exhibits prepared by the architects on behalf of the

1017
01:37:49,380 --> 01:37:52,374
developer and one exhibit was the pre-survey and post-survey

1018
01:37:52,374 --> 01:37:57,774
condition and labels the two states "before 30 square foot

1019
01:38:02,718 --> 01:38:06,918
easement, after 65 square foot easement." slide 9. Another

1020
01:38:08,858 --> 01:38:12,327
lays out three concrete options. Webinars: adjust the property

1021
01:38:12,327 --> 01:38:16,276
line to previously assumed location. Two: adjust the

1022
01:38:16,276 --> 01:38:20,613
property line to the southern wall of the building footprint,

1023
01:38:20,613 --> 01:38:24,551
eliminating the need for any easement or three: adjust

1024
01:38:24,551 --> 01:38:31,151
property line to the existing fence. These were design to cure

1025
01:38:32,359 --> 01:38:37,159
the nonconforming condition of survey revealed in the

1026
01:38:37,230 --> 01:38:40,990
developer's own words "a recently completed survey

1027
01:38:40,990 --> 01:38:44,637
determined that your property is larger than the encroachment

1028
01:38:44,637 --> 01:38:50,370
easement previously suggested. The updated pl has created a2010

1029
01:38:50,110 --> 01:38:53,846
nonconforming condition with our southern windows. Please review

1030
01:38:53,846 --> 01:38:58,646
the three possible property line adjustment solutions." the

1031
01:39:08,395 --> 01:39:11,598
coastal development permit application didn't disclose

1032
01:39:11,598 --> 01:39:15,202
history or any three cure options or otherwise address the

1033
01:39:15,202 --> 01:39:18,802
nonconformity. The historic resources evaluation updated

1034
01:39:36,490 --> 01:39:40,360
2022/2023 survey and fully describe the legal boundary

1035
01:39:40,360 --> 01:39:43,360
condition. Condition a legal nonconforming

1036
01:39:50,837 --> 01:39:52,906
condition existed at very location where the project

1037
01:39:52,906 --> 01:39:56,843
proposes to row move existing wall assembly and construct a

1038
01:39:56,843 --> 01:40:03,443
new opening and balcony and shows to proceed to cdp approval

1039
01:40:08,655 --> 01:40:12,725
without asking the county to make the required changes the

1040
01:40:12,725 --> 01:40:16,325
county wants for nonconforming structures. Title 20

1041
01:40:16,930 --> 01:40:21,730
independently requires the findings the slide is missing.

1042
01:40:27,340 --> 01:40:30,944
slide 10. An applicant must establish the legal interest in

1043
01:40:30,944 --> 01:40:36,944
the property on which work is proposeed. The property be

1044
01:40:45,291 --> 01:40:49,229
developed and applicants legal interest in it. No completeness

1045
01:40:49,229 --> 01:40:55,350
review ever addressed which parcel the southern wall of the

1046
01:40:55,350 --> 01:40:58,635
residence actually sits on. B, section 20.70.030

1047
01:41:03,643 --> 01:41:06,980
require finding ands several of them adopted by dza and

1048
01:41:06,980 --> 01:41:10,984
recommended by the commission are presupposed facts about "the

1049
01:41:10,984 --> 01:41:14,921
existing residence that are not accurate as to the southern

1050
01:41:14,921 --> 01:41:20,921
wall." the resolution's finding f and finding l under section

1051
01:41:22,196 --> 01:41:26,396
20.70.070 described "the existing residence as a fixed

1052
01:41:27,534 --> 01:41:32,334
known object, neither finding acknowledges that a defined

1053
01:41:33,940 --> 01:41:37,410
portion of the residence and portion identified as

1054
01:41:37,410 --> 01:41:40,146
encroaching sits on a different legal parcel than the remainder

1055
01:41:40,146 --> 01:41:44,346
of the structure." slide 11, nonconforming uses and

1056
01:41:51,240 --> 01:41:55,224
structures. Slide 12, title 20's nonconforming structures for

1057
01:42:05,238 --> 01:42:08,307
this and does not conform to current development standards on

1058
01:42:08,307 --> 01:42:14,307
a portion of the site. It's not nonconforming and analyse

1059
01:42:19,319 --> 01:42:22,919
proposed alterations against section 20.70.160 standards for

1060
01:42:24,124 --> 01:42:26,993
altering a nonconforming structure, and does not

1061
01:42:26,993 --> 01:42:31,598
determine whether replacing the existing windows openings with a

1062
01:42:31,598 --> 01:42:36,398
larger door and balcony increases the degree of

1063
01:42:37,270 --> 01:42:42,700
nonconformity. That belongs at cdp stage section 20.70.160 and

1064
01:42:46,813 --> 01:42:52,213
not at building permit stage. Slide 13. Resolution findings g

1065
01:42:58,958 --> 01:43:03,158
adopted under section 20.64.110 does not reach separate

1066
01:43:04,163 --> 01:43:08,363
community development concern raised here. Inaccurate account

1067
01:43:20,379 --> 01:43:25,851
of which parcel the southern wall sits on is not supported by

1068
01:43:25,851 --> 01:43:31,251
substantial evidence as to that portion of the project.

1069
01:43:36,128 --> 01:43:39,799
appellant respectfully requests planning commission one, grant

1070
01:43:39,799 --> 01:43:46,205
appeal in part and remand the matter to require the applicant

1071
01:43:46,205 --> 01:43:50,405
to a, demonstrate legal interest under section 20.70.030.

1072
01:43:58,618 --> 01:44:01,154
>> chair muralles: I'll need you to wrap up.

1073
01:44:01,154 --> 01:44:07,154
>> just two more points if I could. Three requests, decline

1074
01:44:11,970 --> 01:44:16,435
to adapt -- adopt findings f, g, and l currently drafted and

1075
01:44:16,435 --> 01:44:20,773
three, in the alternative condition any approval on

1076
01:44:20,773 --> 01:44:23,773
resolution of section 20.70.160 nonconforming structure

1077
01:44:25,320 --> 01:44:30,120
analysis. And confirmation of legal interest under section

1078
01:44:31,193 --> 01:44:35,393
20.70.030 as prerequisite to issuing building permit for

1079
01:44:37,399 --> 01:44:39,799
work. >> chair muralles: thank

1080
01:44:46,141 --> 01:44:50,412
you. Applicant can come forward and you have ten minutes, thank

1081
01:44:50,412 --> 01:44:52,815
you. >> megan, will you put up

1082
01:44:52,815 --> 01:44:56,415
the presentation deck. Is that handy?

1083
01:45:11,320 --> 01:45:13,636
>> chair muralles: you may introduce yourself.

1084
01:45:13,636 --> 01:45:17,106
>> I'm steven sutro and I'm the architect for this project.

1085
01:45:17,106 --> 01:45:23,106
going to slide 1. Please. I prepared some points for the

1086
01:45:30,586 --> 01:45:34,189
paperwork of appeal and it was predominantly about fire code

1087
01:45:34,189 --> 01:45:40,789
separation and right to improve the building in the area of

1088
01:45:47,470 --> 01:45:52,140
non-conformance and encroachment itself and whether it's legal

1089
01:45:52,140 --> 01:45:58,740
certainly is a private matter and it's been long standing and

1090
01:46:01,550 --> 01:46:03,952
I can read you the entire language of that private

1091
01:46:03,952 --> 01:46:09,425
agreement of the easement. It simply says and it was recorded

1092
01:46:09,425 --> 01:46:11,961
in 2010, it says that the entirety of that portion of the

1093
01:46:11,961 --> 01:46:17,320
building is allowed to stand there, and it says approximately

1094
01:46:17,320 --> 01:46:20,360
4'10, approximately 17 feet long. It says if either party

1095
01:46:20,360 --> 01:46:23,505
wishes to have it formally surveyed, that's -- we can do

1096
01:46:23,505 --> 01:46:26,174
that together communally it says in the agreement. And says it's

1097
01:46:26,174 --> 01:46:32,174
allowed to stand there and be improved. If it's destroyed

1098
01:46:36,919 --> 01:46:41,560
that's not okay and must stand. What we're doing is not a

1099
01:46:41,560 --> 01:46:44,860
demolition. We're not demolishing according to the

1100
01:46:44,860 --> 01:46:48,731
standards of marin planning code neither in that area nor the

1101
01:46:48,731 --> 01:46:54,131
whole structure. How much is being demolished of the

1102
01:47:00,676 --> 01:47:05,214
structure and order of 17 beers and nowhere close to 75 -- 17%

1103
01:47:05,214 --> 01:47:10,486
and nowhere close to the 75%. In the legal existing encroaching

1104
01:47:10,486 --> 01:47:16,486
served by this easement. We're roadway placing the cladding in

1105
01:47:22,765 --> 01:47:26,350
place and there's a roof line sloping down and seeking to make

1106
01:47:26,350 --> 01:47:29,304
the window larger and pushing it back like in a reverse dormer in

1107
01:47:29,304 --> 01:47:33,843
the slope. So the only modification volume metrically

1108
01:47:33,843 --> 01:47:36,445
to the structure is making that part of the slope that's in the

1109
01:47:36,445 --> 01:47:42,510
area of easement smaller by pushing it back towards the

1110
01:47:42,510 --> 01:47:47,451
subject property. All the language of easements are here

1111
01:47:50,659 --> 01:47:55,531
handy and megan said it's a civil matter and not adjudicated

1112
01:47:55,531 --> 01:47:58,200
by staff or you all. I'm happy to read you language of easement

1113
01:47:58,200 --> 01:48:00,802
if you want to hear it. But there's no disagreement about

1114
01:48:00,802 --> 01:48:04,206
the easement. Maybe misinterpretation and it's very

1115
01:48:04,206 --> 01:48:07,810
clear from our perspective, and we're not violating the easement

1116
01:48:07,810 --> 01:48:14,410
and there's nothing that's fuzzy about that. So if you could

1117
01:48:21,891 --> 01:48:24,226
thank you. A bit about the project and address fire

1118
01:48:24,226 --> 01:48:28,363
concerns and proposed project is renovation of very small 600

1119
01:48:28,363 --> 01:48:31,834
square foot main house and in addition to 800ad and you

1120
01:48:31,834 --> 01:48:34,770
recollects lot slopes downward significantly from cliff road.

1121
01:48:34,770 --> 01:48:39,775
one concerns in this area and with the landslide that just

1122
01:48:39,775 --> 01:48:42,845
happened is that all the neighbors are in for a penny and

1123
01:48:42,845 --> 01:48:50,450
pound to help participate in the remedy of the landslide that isa

1124
01:49:00,462 --> 01:49:02,462
jay san jaire

1125
01:49:05,534 --> 01:49:09,204
is adjacent and it's the property owner that signed up

1126
01:49:09,204 --> 01:49:12,875
for the share of the payment. The improvements for this site

1127
01:49:12,875 --> 01:49:18,213
put in place if it proceeds a series of landscape walls that

1128
01:49:18,213 --> 01:49:23,152
are curved and linear and buttress up the hillside they're

1129
01:49:23,152 --> 01:49:27,956
not short of. This improvement will improve the safety of the

1130
01:49:27,956 --> 01:49:33,162
road. Also will not injure the public in any way in there's no

1131
01:49:33,162 --> 01:49:36,832
more bulk and mass of the structure and no change in kind

1132
01:49:36,832 --> 01:49:39,330
of predominant use of the structure other than the

1133
01:49:39,330 --> 01:49:46,233
addition of the adu, which has its own kind of circumstances in

1134
01:49:52,380 --> 01:49:54,383
california. There's a small electrical platform if you want

1135
01:49:54,383 --> 01:49:57,253
to ask questions about that. It's underserved by utilities

1136
01:49:57,253 --> 01:50:00,922
and only way to get. It's so severely down sloped and no

1137
01:50:00,922 --> 01:50:04,860
place on the lot for a person by code to stand in front of an

1138
01:50:04,860 --> 01:50:11,460
electrical panel and work. We're doing a small platform for a

1139
01:50:18,700 --> 01:50:22,277
transfer switch and subject of discussion at last round of

1140
01:50:22,277 --> 01:50:28,877
areview. Go to slide 2 -- 3 actually. The little bump on the

1141
01:50:38,968 --> 01:50:41,438
left -- portion of the structure on the left of the diagram with

1142
01:50:41,438 --> 01:50:48,638
a jog and that's the portion of the main house with an'sment

1143
01:50:50,314 --> 01:50:55,114
recorded and single story portion with existing non-rated

1144
01:50:55,786 --> 01:51:01,786
series of glass skylights. I've been a licensed architect in

1145
01:51:11,735 --> 01:51:14,137
california for 20 years and we know how to do rated

1146
01:51:14,137 --> 01:51:19,142
construction within three feet of a property line. So

1147
01:51:19,142 --> 01:51:25,742
everything in this area has a rating and skylights are single

1148
01:51:26,883 --> 01:51:30,820
payne, vulnerable not skylights in the same spot with rated

1149
01:51:30,820 --> 01:51:33,823
skylights and a one-hour available assembly for

1150
01:51:33,823 --> 01:51:37,427
manufacturers to use so fire won't transfer as easily between

1151
01:51:37,427 --> 01:51:44,627
properties. Like wise the window not rated and made larger is a

1152
01:51:49,380 --> 01:51:53,843
fire wall too and all of these things are knowing there's a

1153
01:51:53,843 --> 01:51:56,847
conceptual solution and design something not probable and

1154
01:51:56,847 --> 01:52:01,251
provide details at building permit submittal and adhere to

1155
01:52:01,251 --> 01:52:06,510
fire separation standards. Alts a concern raised --

1156
01:52:06,656 --> 01:52:12,656
also a concern raised that construction is difficult and we

1157
01:52:20,737 --> 01:52:22,739
submitted a construction management plan, where the

1158
01:52:22,739 --> 01:52:28,678
builder proposes to build a platform off the road to stage

1159
01:52:28,678 --> 01:52:34,840
materials and a limited amount of parking, for two or three

1160
01:52:34,840 --> 01:52:40,840
trucks, and would find car pools and transfer spot for

1161
01:52:42,559 --> 01:52:45,829
subcontractors to park and general contractor would shuttle

1162
01:52:45,829 --> 01:52:49,980
them touchdown pass position. So the idea is -- to this position

1163
01:52:49,980 --> 01:52:52,769
the idea is that platform built off the roadway would serve so

1164
01:52:52,769 --> 01:52:57,841
trucks can unload in a way that would be safe so that emergency

1165
01:52:57,841 --> 01:53:00,777
vehicles and neighbors can get by while activities have

1166
01:53:00,777 --> 01:53:03,112
happening. With care and diligence this would be no

1167
01:53:03,112 --> 01:53:05,782
different than any others on belvidere island or place where

1168
01:53:05,782 --> 01:53:12,321
is the access is difficult and wine I did and small. -- windy

1169
01:53:12,321 --> 01:53:18,327
and small. I think I've gone through the points that I want

1170
01:53:18,327 --> 01:53:21,798
to talk about so I'll yield my time unless anyone has questions

1171
01:53:21,798 --> 01:53:25,998
they'd like to discuss. >> chair muralles: any

1172
01:53:30,873 --> 01:53:33,409
questions for the presenter? Go ahead.

1173
01:53:33,409 --> 01:53:36,879
>> commissioner monroe: that you can't thank yor

1174
01:53:36,879 --> 01:53:39,150
presentations. In the plan, is there a portion of the project

1175
01:53:39,150 --> 01:53:46,815
that is -- trying to understand is there a portion on the public

1176
01:53:51,694 --> 01:53:55,432
easement and the nor deck. Is the deck reaching out over the

1177
01:53:55,432 --> 01:53:57,634
public easement? >> the deck exists and

1178
01:53:57,634 --> 01:54:00,903
pointing to a tiny little triangle and exists there, yes,

1179
01:54:00,903 --> 01:54:06,709
and it's propose to be replaced in kind in place with new

1180
01:54:06,709 --> 01:54:10,909
decking. And there's encroachment placing for that

1181
01:54:15,584 --> 01:54:19,255
and it could be modified a tiny bit smaller.

1182
01:54:19,255 --> 01:54:21,591
>> commissioner monroe: that's the deck?

1183
01:54:21,591 --> 01:54:23,460
>> yes, existing nonconforming condition and

1184
01:54:23,460 --> 01:54:29,460
there's no encroachment permit or anything to speak to that.

1185
01:54:32,335 --> 01:54:35,710
>> chair muralles: I mentioned at the beginning we

1186
01:54:35,710 --> 01:54:40,276
need to take a break as one of our commissioners is leaving.

1187
01:54:40,276 --> 01:54:42,412
we'll be back with more questions.

1188
01:54:42,412 --> 01:54:46,416
>> commissioner curran: I'm the commissioner that has to

1189
01:54:46,416 --> 01:54:52,956
leave. Excuse me. I apologize for that, everybody. I'm still a

1190
01:54:52,956 --> 01:54:56,893
little confused, and I hope we get to the bottom of it of

1191
01:54:56,893 --> 01:55:02,499
exactly whether this is in any way increasing degree of

1192
01:55:02,499 --> 01:55:08,499
nonconformity and I'm not asking you to respond. That's moving

1193
01:55:08,505 --> 01:55:14,177
onto different stage. But you'll be asked if anybody else who can

1194
01:55:14,177 --> 01:55:19,480
answer whether this is in any way increasing degree of

1195
01:55:19,480 --> 01:55:23,848
nonconformity. I am concerned about what commissioner monroe

1196
01:55:24,530 --> 01:55:30,530
raised as well of something is nonconforming to demolish and

1197
01:55:32,595 --> 01:55:37,995
replace it, it's questionable and like really questionable and

1198
01:55:38,467 --> 01:55:45,667
in my history of that subject that you don't generally in a

1199
01:55:45,941 --> 01:55:49,780
broad sense get to tear something down that's

1200
01:55:49,780 --> 01:55:51,948
nonconforming and replace it with nonconforming. When you

1201
01:55:51,948 --> 01:55:56,886
tear something down, you replace with conforming. That's how

1202
01:55:56,886 --> 01:56:00,690
conformance happens over time. But those are some of my

1203
01:56:00,690 --> 01:56:05,562
concerns, but I apologize that I have to go.

1204
01:56:05,562 --> 01:56:07,831
>> chair muralles: thank you, commissioner curran. Two

1205
01:56:07,831 --> 01:56:10,166
minutes and we'll be back and you can answer that.

1206
01:56:10,166 --> 01:56:14,366
>> got it. Okay, thank you this is.

1207
01:56:17,907 --> 01:56:20,309
>> chair muralles: this is a good time if you park in the

1208
01:56:20,309 --> 01:56:23,179
two hour zone, you immediate to move your car. We're taking five

1209
01:56:23,179 --> 01:56:25,648
minutes. If you need to move your car because it's parked in

1210
01:56:25,648 --> 01:56:28,718
the two-hour zone, this is a good time to do it and we'll

1211
01:56:28,718 --> 01:56:32,318
convene in five minutes. Thank you.

1212
01:58:39,388 --> 01:58:41,388
test. Test.

1213
02:01:50,112 --> 02:01:52,112
.

1214
02:02:03,726 --> 02:02:05,726
. .

1215
02:03:28,549 --> 02:03:30,949
[please stand by] test.

1216
02:03:36,424 --> 02:03:38,824
[please stand by] test.

1217
02:07:16,778 --> 02:07:20,782
>> chair muralles: all right we'ring to get ready to

1218
02:07:20,782 --> 02:07:26,182
reconvene our meeting. Go ahead mr. Shutter when you

1219
02:07:30,657 --> 02:07:34,595
are ready to answer to what the last commissioner pointed out

1220
02:07:34,595 --> 02:07:36,130
we'll be happy to here that.

1221
02:07:36,130 --> 02:07:38,530
>> okay. Terrific. So, let's

1222
02:07:39,600 --> 02:07:44,710
see I think her you might have to help me restate the question

1223
02:07:44,710 --> 02:07:49,344
but one was is there an intensification of anything of

1224
02:07:49,344 --> 02:07:55,344
use or of any non-conformans? Non-conformance that I can see.

1225
02:07:56,684 --> 02:08:00,755
and megan is out of line. I don't knowing there is

1226
02:08:00,755 --> 02:08:03,490
anything intensified. Meaning the building is beep

1227
02:08:03,490 --> 02:08:07,161
rehabilitted with finishes in place request no change, no

1228
02:08:07,161 --> 02:08:13,101
change of use it's a single family residence now and it

1229
02:08:13,101 --> 02:08:17,772
tends to stay that way. Encroachment is not getting

1230
02:08:17,772 --> 02:08:21,376
bigger there is nothing that is changing so I don't see that

1231
02:08:21,376 --> 02:08:27,976
there is an intensification of use or an exacerbation of the

1232
02:08:32,253 --> 02:08:35,189
conconformty. I can't remember her second question. Oh, I

1233
02:08:35,189 --> 02:08:43,589
think she said you know, in our experience and I sit on the ros.

1234
02:08:44,731 --> 02:08:48,869
turkt review board and we seek to make in better if we can

1235
02:08:48,869 --> 02:08:53,407
there is not a demolition of this structure by any stretch

1236
02:08:53,407 --> 02:08:59,751
all of the studs, rafters and joints are staying and it'seses

1237
02:08:59,751 --> 02:09:04,956
toughs do the calculation to show it's well beyond the code

1238
02:09:04,956 --> 02:09:09,894
as it relates to admission so we're not building a new

1239
02:09:09,894 --> 02:09:13,832
structure nor demolishing this one flt I guess that guess

1240
02:09:13,832 --> 02:09:20,380
that's the same thing. That's not case. I don't knowing that

1241
02:09:20,380 --> 02:09:23,638
applies here. >> chair muralles: thank you.

1242
02:09:23,642 --> 02:09:26,420
commissioner stepanicich. Stand up

1243
02:09:28,580 --> 02:09:31,783
>> commissioner stepanicich: did that kate that the current

1244
02:09:31,783 --> 02:09:35,920
structure goes outside the limits of the oovment?

1245
02:09:35,920 --> 02:09:41,727
>> the easement is not mathematic. I can read you the

1246
02:09:41,727 --> 02:09:46,527
easement says we both acknowledge that this house

1247
02:09:47,331 --> 02:09:50,669
compends 4-foot 10 and approximately 17 feet that's the

1248
02:09:50,669 --> 02:09:55,873
wording they used in 2010 2010 they had no formal survey. They

1249
02:09:55,873 --> 02:10:00,879
were doing their own math. They said to each other. If either

1250
02:10:00,879 --> 02:10:04,616
party wishes to have a formal survey, great. I don't know why

1251
02:10:04,616 --> 02:10:10,889
they mention that but they do. I think its, from a legal

1252
02:10:10,889 --> 02:10:14,292
coverage standpoint if it's 5' 2 that's cool to.

1253
02:10:14,292 --> 02:10:20,980
and if it's greater than 17, that's okay, too. We don't

1254
02:10:20,980 --> 02:10:24,702
knowlet metes and bounds and we don't wabt to pay to have a

1255
02:10:24,702 --> 02:10:28,706
surveyor at this time. This encroaches and we're okay with

1256
02:10:28,706 --> 02:10:32,377
that. It's allowed to stay there as long ass not made

1257
02:10:32,377 --> 02:10:37,849
bigger. So our surveyor said this is about 4' 6 I don't know

1258
02:10:37,849 --> 02:10:45,490
what it is we can look at the documents but we corroborates

1259
02:10:46,560 --> 02:10:49,656
what is says in the documentation.

1260
02:10:52,197 --> 02:10:55,797
>> chair muralles: thank you. Commissioner lind.

1261
02:10:55,800 --> 02:10:59,737
>> commissioner lind: how much out of the easement is the

1262
02:10:59,737 --> 02:11:03,337
structure based on the new survey?

1263
02:11:03,942 --> 02:11:09,147
>> you may how far does it compensated beyond the property

1264
02:11:09,147 --> 02:11:11,949
line? >> commissioner lind: the easem.

1265
02:11:11,949 --> 02:11:16,200
>> the answer to that is 0 because the easement does not

1266
02:11:16,200 --> 02:11:20,220
decree a certain distance. >> commissioner lind: sot

1267
02:11:22,828 --> 02:11:28,228
previousso the previous tm said it had a result.

1268
02:11:28,299 --> 02:11:30,168
>> this is smoke and mirrors I

1269
02:11:30,168 --> 02:11:35,568
think he's trying to make it difficult for us.

1270
02:11:36,708 --> 02:11:40,445
>> commissioner lind: do you have a document that shows that.

1271
02:11:40,445 --> 02:11:44,645
>> the easement is not a recorded distance.

1272
02:11:44,916 --> 02:11:46,650
>> commissioner lind: but you disiernd it.

1273
02:11:46,650 --> 02:11:48,586
>> we know what the property

1274
02:11:48,586 --> 02:11:53,570
line is and the house compends beyond that property line and we

1275
02:11:53,570 --> 02:11:57,728
designed knowing those facts. >> commissioner lind: does the

1276
02:11:57,728 --> 02:12:00,398
staff have the language of the easement?

1277
02:12:00,398 --> 02:12:03,268
>> I don't know because it's a civil matter.

1278
02:12:03,268 --> 02:12:05,603
>> it's in the plan set.

1279
02:12:05,603 --> 02:12:09,540
>> commissioner lind: where is it in the plan set?

1280
02:12:09,540 --> 02:12:11,540
>> 1.07.

1281
02:12:27,625 --> 02:12:31,825
>> commissioner lind: I was looking at this.

1282
02:12:32,964 --> 02:12:34,964
>> it's 81.07.

1283
02:12:42,573 --> 02:12:45,109
>> chair muralles: comom do you have any questions?

1284
02:12:45,109 --> 02:12:51,109
>> chair muralles: okay just give us a minute. Thank you.

1285
02:13:15,740 --> 02:13:19,343
>> claudia, michelle would like to make a comment.

1286
02:13:19,343 --> 02:13:21,743
>> chair muralles: yes, michelle.

1287
02:13:21,746 --> 02:13:24,615
hi, michelle. Sorry I was looking around.

1288
02:13:24,615 --> 02:13:26,615
>> I'm michelle levenson

1289
02:13:27,285 --> 02:13:30,755
principle planner I'm at home with covid, go figure its still

1290
02:13:30,755 --> 02:13:37,561
a thing. But I did it wouldn't direct your attention as you are

1291
02:13:37,561 --> 02:13:40,698
reviewing that easement language to a specific portion of it.

1292
02:13:40,698 --> 02:13:48,498
and it does talk about thability the ability and the right to the

1293
02:13:50,174 --> 02:13:55,450
property owner to repair and maintain the encroachment at

1294
02:13:55,450 --> 02:14:00,445
their expense. So as the architect has described, the

1295
02:14:01,586 --> 02:14:06,986
portion of the structure within the easement isn't getting

1296
02:14:08,526 --> 02:14:12,126
bigger. Essentially the non-conformity isn't exacerbated

1297
02:14:15,600 --> 02:14:18,870
with this project. They are maintaining the

1298
02:14:18,870 --> 02:14:24,270
structure in the easement. >> chair muralles: thank you, m.

1299
02:14:26,210 --> 02:14:29,210
>> I can answer mislinned's question.

1300
02:14:34,152 --> 02:14:35,153
>> chair muralles: go ahead. Thank you.

1301
02:14:35,153 --> 02:14:36,153
>> sot easement says in the

1302
02:14:36,153 --> 02:14:41,226
porks of it says the encroachment in quotation marx

1303
02:14:41,226 --> 02:14:45,497
is approximately 4 feet in the north to south direction and 17

1304
02:14:45,497 --> 02:14:51,368
teethe 17 feet in the east to west direction and we find that

1305
02:14:51,368 --> 02:14:57,241
the surveyor sees that it's 17 feet 2 inches long and it is

1306
02:14:57,241 --> 02:15:01,579
3-foot 11 wide. So it's approximately the same but use

1307
02:15:01,579 --> 02:15:05,779
it's word "approximate." >> commissioner lind: sot sleng

1308
02:15:07,855 --> 02:15:10,724
not issue it's the the width. >> chair muralles: can you speak

1309
02:15:10,724 --> 02:15:14,620
in the microphone please. >> commissioner lind: I'm

1310
02:15:14,620 --> 02:15:18,466
sorry. The sleng not the issue tsz it's

1311
02:15:18,466 --> 02:15:20,466
the widthth.

1312
02:15:20,735 --> 02:15:22,735
>> its 3-foot 11.

1313
02:15:25,339 --> 02:15:28,750
>> commissioner lind: so about a inch is that correct?

1314
02:15:28,750 --> 02:15:32,880
>> from the language to what we see in the field, yes. In 2010

1315
02:15:32,880 --> 02:15:37,840
when the approximate the language they are off but about

1316
02:15:37,840 --> 02:15:39,888
an inch. >> commissioner lind: okay.

1317
02:15:39,888 --> 02:15:45,288
that was the answer to my question. Thank you.

1318
02:15:46,293 --> 02:15:48,693
>> chair muralles: commissioner monroe.

1319
02:15:52,300 --> 02:15:57,171
>> commissioner monroe: so it's the updated survey that is the

1320
02:15:57,171 --> 02:15:59,400
changed condition is that correct?

1321
02:15:59,400 --> 02:16:02,640
>> I don't know what "changed" meanings.

1322
02:16:05,847 --> 02:16:08,849
>> commissioner monroe: they've included and shown in the slide

1323
02:16:08,849 --> 02:16:14,249
the formerly understood property line meant that a smaller

1324
02:16:15,989 --> 02:16:22,589
portion of the building was, included in the easement and now

1325
02:16:23,264 --> 02:16:28,664
their property line has been established to have moved.

1326
02:16:31,710 --> 02:16:37,611
could you perhaps just tell me or tell us your understanding of

1327
02:16:37,611 --> 02:16:41,811
the property line survey that has occurred?

1328
02:16:44,151 --> 02:16:46,421
>> sure. When we started the design of the project a few

1329
02:16:46,421 --> 02:16:54,280
years ago we hired a consulting that is we know and trust and

1330
02:16:54,280 --> 02:16:58,165
love and we had an old survey document from, I don't know

1331
02:16:58,165 --> 02:17:02,436
when, some number of years ago, 10, 20, 30 years ago and we

1332
02:17:02,436 --> 02:17:08,436
disbt have didn't have everything we needed on it. It

1333
02:17:08,642 --> 02:17:13,981
didn't have topography and it wasn't proper for a design. So

1334
02:17:13,981 --> 02:17:18,118
he asked for a new deal we weren't trying to shape anything

1335
02:17:18,118 --> 02:17:21,789
about this easement just where is everything please so we can

1336
02:17:21,789 --> 02:17:26,727
design properly. I think that he's mening that the old survey

1337
02:17:26,727 --> 02:17:32,127
had it slightly differently depicted but joz how it's

1338
02:17:36,336 --> 02:17:41,208
germane. It is 17 feet and that's what the surveyor found

1339
02:17:41,208 --> 02:17:46,800
that it does. This neighbor group has not

1340
02:17:47,815 --> 02:17:52,953
asked nor anything in particular. It just seems that

1341
02:17:52,953 --> 02:18:00,153
it's resistance to change. Not can you please do this or that.

1342
02:18:01,295 --> 02:18:07,368
could you not design an an tenia ow make it blue or have a

1343
02:18:07,368 --> 02:18:10,437
problem with the parking or this or thavment.

1344
02:18:10,437 --> 02:18:12,506
>> chair muralles: thank you commissioners.

1345
02:18:12,506 --> 02:18:18,506
with respect to the balcony that encroaches is that bailing

1346
02:18:19,113 --> 02:18:23,313
balcony the same size that currently exists?

1347
02:18:23,984 --> 02:18:26,984
>> the balcony, -- one second.

1348
02:18:33,327 --> 02:18:34,729
>> chair muralles: no, thank

1349
02:18:34,729 --> 02:18:36,196
you.

1350
02:18:36,196 --> 02:18:38,332
>> yeah. I just it wouldn't

1351
02:18:38,332 --> 02:18:42,532
make sure I wasn't going to misspeak.

1352
02:18:42,736 --> 02:18:46,273
that's a fixed window. We thought it would be cool to

1353
02:18:46,273 --> 02:18:52,873
have an operable window but make angry upable upable terrace. So

1354
02:18:55,349 --> 02:19:00,687
we made it a fixed piece of glass. It removes a little bit

1355
02:19:00,687 --> 02:19:07,287
of volume and the window is on the sog property subject

1356
02:19:08,950 --> 02:19:09,763
property. >> commissioner stepanicich: but

1357
02:19:09,763 --> 02:19:10,964
no balcony?

1358
02:19:10,964 --> 02:19:13,568
>> no balcony at all. >> commissioner stepanicich: I

1359
02:19:13,568 --> 02:19:15,836
just wanted to clarify that.

1360
02:19:15,836 --> 02:19:21,236
>> it was our mistake for representing that in earlier

1361
02:19:21,908 --> 02:19:24,177
designs. >> chair muralles: commissioner

1362
02:19:24,177 --> 02:19:26,113
monroe? >> commissioner monroe: no.

1363
02:19:26,113 --> 02:19:26,848
>> chair muralles: any other questions.

1364
02:19:26,848 --> 02:19:31,185
before we go to public comment I want to see if the staff has any

1365
02:19:31,185 --> 02:19:36,585
feedback for us regarding the slemental. Thank you, steve.

1366
02:19:36,924 --> 02:19:41,929
if you have any information for us regarding the memorandum that

1367
02:19:41,929 --> 02:19:43,530
was submitted today?

1368
02:19:43,530 --> 02:19:49,803
>> if I may I think I'll address from the procedural perspective.

1369
02:19:49,803 --> 02:19:55,760
there is a section of county code that covers the appeal of

1370
02:19:55,760 --> 02:20:00,681
the permits so just reminder to the commissioners it says they

1371
02:20:00,681 --> 02:20:05,180
my consider any issue involving the the matter that is a subject

1372
02:20:05,180 --> 02:20:09,490
of the appeal. So you certainly can consider any of the

1373
02:20:09,490 --> 02:20:12,426
information, any of the project that's in front of you today and

1374
02:20:12,426 --> 02:20:15,497
then I'll look to see if staff has anything additional that

1375
02:20:15,497 --> 02:20:19,697
they wish to add for the record.

1376
02:20:20,367 --> 02:20:25,506
>> I think to note that I guess the marin county code

1377
02:20:25,506 --> 02:20:29,706
specifically the definitions does include definitions of

1378
02:20:31,578 --> 02:20:36,978
repair and maintenance and demolition and the code does

1379
02:20:37,651 --> 02:20:41,722
allow for repair maintenance of non-conforming structures and

1380
02:20:41,722 --> 02:20:45,192
that's what's proposed as part of this project.

1381
02:20:45,192 --> 02:20:47,592
>> chair muralles: thank you.

1382
02:20:48,620 --> 02:20:50,731
commissioners? You are fine? Okay. We're good? Okay. I

1383
02:20:50,731 --> 02:20:57,931
would like to go ahead and open this time for public comment.

1384
02:21:02,677 --> 02:21:06,120
if you can go ahead and state your name please and you'll have

1385
02:21:06,120 --> 02:21:09,683
3 minutes. Is it 3 ow 2? 3 minutes to speak.

1386
02:21:09,683 --> 02:21:12,683
>> hello I'm nansy I'm coowner

1387
02:21:14,356 --> 02:21:18,361
of brighton avenue and originally it wasn't all the way

1388
02:21:18,361 --> 02:21:24,361
through to cliff road. And mr. Walker divided the property

1389
02:21:26,969 --> 02:21:33,569
two years before my grandfather purchased it because he built a

1390
02:21:34,243 --> 02:21:40,383
house. It was an old barn that was there before and then the

1391
02:21:40,383 --> 02:21:44,387
segment platform and it encroaches on our property and

1392
02:21:44,387 --> 02:21:48,658
we have been contacted to change the property line. We're kind

1393
02:21:48,658 --> 02:21:53,862
of like this because they want the property line changed and

1394
02:21:53,862 --> 02:21:58,333
then people have found out we've never known who owned this

1395
02:21:58,333 --> 02:22:04,333
house. And my sister and brother did it, it's a

1396
02:22:04,807 --> 02:22:10,279
cofoppedder of air bnb worth 7 billion and he has been

1397
02:22:10,279 --> 02:22:15,170
working through all these people and they want us to change the

1398
02:22:15,170 --> 02:22:18,860
property line and people in bolinas are saying wait a

1399
02:22:18,860 --> 02:22:24,860
minute. So we're torn here. Also just hearing about the

1400
02:22:24,293 --> 02:22:29,300
platform the pink east platform which you probably all know

1401
02:22:29,300 --> 02:22:34,430
about was causing a 2.7 earthquake and my daughter lives

1402
02:22:34,770 --> 02:22:39,376
in the area and all the houses all around finally eliminated

1403
02:22:39,376 --> 02:22:45,976
this equipment and I learned in 1968 the couple who owned the

1404
02:22:46,248 --> 02:22:51,187
property the road going down you know with cliff road, behind

1405
02:22:51,187 --> 02:22:57,259
cliff road they could never build on that property told by

1406
02:22:57,259 --> 02:23:02,531
the county because the hill was to unstable. The slide that

1407
02:23:02,531 --> 02:23:07,536
destroyed the house behind 87 brighton and also destroyed the

1408
02:23:07,536 --> 02:23:12,608
house at the curve. So the house has already been knocked

1409
02:23:12,608 --> 02:23:18,947
off its foundation once and that's why we have a sunken

1410
02:23:18,947 --> 02:23:23,752
fireplace because it was going to cost as much to build a whole

1411
02:23:23,752 --> 02:23:27,890
new foundation for the house so I'm concerned about this

1412
02:23:27,890 --> 02:23:33,689
platform being built on a very unstable soil. Alturis road is

1413
02:23:34,497 --> 02:23:40,497
failing because I heard little mesa people talking about it

1414
02:23:40,969 --> 02:23:45,974
because of the trucks not being allowed up there. That's my big

1415
02:23:45,974 --> 02:23:51,913
concern and my sisters concern. She's sick that's why she's not

1416
02:23:51,913 --> 02:23:58,254
here. Has been will thereby a slide occurring? Who'so going to

1417
02:23:58,254 --> 02:24:05,861
pay for for it. You know how unstable the hill is. Will you

1418
02:24:05,861 --> 02:24:11,261
be held accountable because there are lawsuits galore going

1419
02:24:11,867 --> 02:24:15,872
up in little mesa. Thank you. >> chair muralles: thawvment

1420
02:24:15,872 --> 02:24:22,411
anyone else? Okay. I'd like to go ahead and close the time for

1421
02:24:22,411 --> 02:24:24,411
public comment.

1422
02:24:31,153 --> 02:24:34,153
he's the appellate. He spoke

1423
02:24:41,563 --> 02:24:43,232
already. You already had your time.

1424
02:24:43,232 --> 02:24:48,632
thank you. All right any questions comments or everything

1425
02:24:49,304 --> 02:24:51,304
for deliberation?

1426
02:24:54,176 --> 02:24:54,978
>> yeah. >> commissioner lind: I have a

1427
02:24:54,978 --> 02:24:59,778
question for the appellant. >> chair muralles: go ahead.

1428
02:24:59,849 --> 02:25:02,849
lin lib >> commissioner lind: I'm

1429
02:25:03,719 --> 02:25:06,188
stilling struggle to understand the lot line in the easement can

1430
02:25:06,188 --> 02:25:13,128
you tell me if the easement were drawn now based on the new

1431
02:25:13,128 --> 02:25:17,199
survey, how wide would the new easement need to be compared, is

1432
02:25:17,199 --> 02:25:19,599
it bigger than --

1433
02:25:20,269 --> 02:25:24,500
>> what's the question again? >> commissioner lind: if the

1434
02:25:24,500 --> 02:25:30,879
easement were based on the new lot line, does the lot line get

1435
02:25:30,879 --> 02:25:34,160
closer to the house or further?

1436
02:25:34,160 --> 02:25:40,616
>> the lot line got further into the property. Into the property

1437
02:25:40,823 --> 02:25:48,230
the 40 cliff road property. It went further in. So now that --

1438
02:25:48,163 --> 02:25:49,699
pardon me. >> commissioner lind: if you

1439
02:25:49,699 --> 02:25:53,436
were going to solve the problem the non-conforming structure

1440
02:25:53,436 --> 02:25:56,572
problem with an easement and you were doing it now you would need

1441
02:25:56,572 --> 02:25:59,572
to do a bigger easement?

1442
02:26:00,242 --> 02:26:04,313
>> it would have to be granted a larger easement.

1443
02:26:04,313 --> 02:26:08,316
>> commissioner lind: right and how much larger would the

1444
02:26:08,316 --> 02:26:10,252
easement need to be?

1445
02:26:10,252 --> 02:26:15,791
>> I'm not sure exactly. I wanted to say also there was a

1446
02:26:15,791 --> 02:26:20,396
descrement disagreement about the easement I think the

1447
02:26:20,396 --> 02:26:23,996
gentlemen suggested everything was agreed upon.

1448
02:26:25,868 --> 02:26:29,710
>> chair muralles: sorry you already had a turn. You just

1449
02:26:29,710 --> 02:26:33,271
need to answer comirption commissioner lind's question.

1450
02:26:37,746 --> 02:26:41,346
ready to deliberate? Any other questions?

1451
02:26:43,552 --> 02:26:45,822
>> commissioner monroe: was the point you were going to make per

1452
02:26:45,822 --> 02:26:51,822
tint to the easement or unrelated point? Oims point? I'm

1453
02:26:55,364 --> 02:26:59,635
sorry chair would it be okay. >> chair muralles: you can ask

1454
02:26:59,635 --> 02:27:03,171
him a question, yes? >> commissioner monroe: would

1455
02:27:03,171 --> 02:27:07,509
you tell us the follow up to commissioner lind's question?

1456
02:27:07,509 --> 02:27:12,909
>> yes the original easement was granted by oona ratcliffe's

1457
02:27:14,983 --> 02:27:18,788
mother, my wife. It gave a certain amount of encroachment

1458
02:27:18,788 --> 02:27:25,795
on to her property to allow the then owner of the property, wane

1459
02:27:25,795 --> 02:27:29,665
phreic this was in the 1980s to build the little extension on to

1460
02:27:29,665 --> 02:27:36,265
his house and in that easement thftion written that was written

1461
02:27:37,940 --> 02:27:44,881
by -- ratcliffe pa r put in the language if there is ever

1462
02:27:44,881 --> 02:27:48,618
reconstruction or change of property, change of building the

1463
02:27:48,618 --> 02:27:54,900
easement will be revoked. Now the easement that the county has

1464
02:27:54,900 --> 02:28:00,496
accepted into their records is a little, it doesn't include that

1465
02:28:00,496 --> 02:28:06,636
so it seems that the staff has determined that the easement can

1466
02:28:06,636 --> 02:28:13,236
exist and they can do what they want but I appreciate

1467
02:28:13,443 --> 02:28:18,515
commissioner curran's point if there is a nonconformity does it

1468
02:28:18,515 --> 02:28:23,915
make sense to do reconstruction in that nonconformity? That

1469
02:28:24,253 --> 02:28:28,257
seems, that's what they're proposing by you know, he

1470
02:28:28,257 --> 02:28:31,995
mentioned those windows that were sent back but the windows

1471
02:28:31,995 --> 02:28:34,597
are much larger. >> commissioner monroe: okay.

1472
02:28:34,597 --> 02:28:34,931
thank you.

1473
02:28:34,931 --> 02:28:36,931
>> thank you.

1474
02:28:39,268 --> 02:28:40,870
>> chair muralles: commissioner lind?

1475
02:28:40,870 --> 02:28:43,870
>> commissioner lind: oh, okay. No.

1476
02:28:45,608 --> 02:28:46,609
>> chair muralles: commissioner monroe?

1477
02:28:46,609 --> 02:28:51,280
>> commissioner monroe: I have one other swetion there were

1478
02:28:51,280 --> 02:28:56,800
some public comments that referenced the park parking

1479
02:28:57,420 --> 02:29:04,200
spaces and the private cliff road so I'm hoping either staff

1480
02:29:06,290 --> 02:29:12,290
or the project proopponents could describe the role if any

1481
02:29:12,969 --> 02:29:18,507
of the both parking spaces that provide access for the residents

1482
02:29:18,507 --> 02:29:23,907
and also the parking for construction I'm very family

1483
02:29:24,314 --> 02:29:28,118
familiar with this stretch of the road and it's less than

1484
02:29:28,118 --> 02:29:34,190
10 feet it's very narrow the access is difficult. If you can

1485
02:29:34,190 --> 02:29:40,190
lay out that element as it pertains to the appeal.

1486
02:29:43,533 --> 02:29:46,136
>> I could have the department

1487
02:29:46,136 --> 02:29:48,671
of public works come up here and speak.

1488
02:29:48,671 --> 02:29:52,271
are you asking about the requirements?

1489
02:29:52,275 --> 02:29:57,750
>> commissioner monroe: both the rimplets requirements and the

1490
02:29:57,280 --> 02:30:02,284
impacts of the proposed project of related question is, what is

1491
02:30:02,284 --> 02:30:08,284
the requirement for the actual private parking spaces and do

1492
02:30:08,624 --> 02:30:12,962
they have a relationship to the project it is? So there is a two

1493
02:30:12,962 --> 02:30:18,362
parks questions the construction parking and the resident parkin.

1494
02:30:19,302 --> 02:30:23,439
>> I'll have alicia stamps from the department of public works

1495
02:30:23,439 --> 02:30:25,439
answer this.

1496
02:30:28,511 --> 02:30:33,911
>> hi. Alicia stamples stamps. For the existing parking the

1497
02:30:38,722 --> 02:30:42,258
applicantses not proposing to change the parking and we're not

1498
02:30:42,258 --> 02:30:46,730
allowed to ask for a parking for the adu so the parking for the

1499
02:30:46,730 --> 02:30:51,267
existing homes remains as it is which is on the shoulder and on

1500
02:30:51,267 --> 02:30:56,670
the construction management, I hadn't seen the construction

1501
02:30:56,139 --> 02:30:58,943
management plan that was discussed during the applicant

1502
02:30:58,943 --> 02:31:01,611
presentation but there is a requirement as a condition of

1503
02:31:01,611 --> 02:31:06,411
approval that they submit a construction management plan

1504
02:31:07,617 --> 02:31:13,170
prior to approval of the building permit that will

1505
02:31:13,356 --> 02:31:17,270
address parking access throughout the duration of the

1506
02:31:17,270 --> 02:31:20,270
project. >> chair muralles: thank you.

1507
02:31:26,102 --> 02:31:33,302
do we have any more questions? Yeah. Maybe I could add a

1508
02:31:34,430 --> 02:31:37,246
couple points here looking at the terms of the easement where

1509
02:31:37,246 --> 02:31:43,319
we stand right now with the current structure. This is has

1510
02:31:43,319 --> 02:31:47,524
become a little more complicated than I firsist thought it was

1511
02:31:47,524 --> 02:31:52,262
going to be. What seems to be the case here the easement was

1512
02:31:52,262 --> 02:31:57,333
agreed upon after the structure had been built. The parties

1513
02:31:57,333 --> 02:32:00,870
realized this was an encroaching structure and then demanded it

1514
02:32:00,870 --> 02:32:06,275
be resolved and there was an easement within a approximate

1515
02:32:06,275 --> 02:32:12,875
description of the inprovments. I think the key factor it says

1516
02:32:13,830 --> 02:32:16,819
that the encroachment which exists at that time which now

1517
02:32:16,819 --> 02:32:21,619
the current structure the encroachment cannot be expanded

1518
02:32:22,292 --> 02:32:25,962
so I think it seems to be the parties accepted that the

1519
02:32:25,962 --> 02:32:28,698
structure that exists there right now was being acceptedded

1520
02:32:28,698 --> 02:32:33,236
as being a permissible encroachment and it does seem to

1521
02:32:33,236 --> 02:32:38,307
be exist regardless of a later survey that shows different

1522
02:32:38,307 --> 02:32:42,311
dmingses because again this was a resolutioner of a dispute at

1523
02:32:42,311 --> 02:32:47,249
that time. It seems to me that the encroachment that now exists

1524
02:32:47,249 --> 02:32:51,921
is valid and because one issue to be would be clearly if this

1525
02:32:51,921 --> 02:32:57,793
was being expanded the property owner would have to have legal

1526
02:32:57,793 --> 02:33:02,265
interest in the property that they are encroach ting to. At

1527
02:33:02,265 --> 02:33:07,870
this time the building is not beep extended or increased in

1528
02:33:07,870 --> 02:33:13,675
height situated within the scope of the existing easement I'm not

1529
02:33:13,675 --> 02:33:19,548
sure there is more we can do about that. And that becomes a

1530
02:33:19,548 --> 02:33:24,420
question of okay whether or not does non-conforming structure is

1531
02:33:24,420 --> 02:33:28,357
being changed to the non-conforming rights is under

1532
02:33:28,357 --> 02:33:32,449
what staff is saying this falls in the scope of repair and

1533
02:33:32,449 --> 02:33:36,186
maintenance and that has the staff conclusion that this is

1534
02:33:36,186 --> 02:33:41,586
not a replace r placement. Structure the the easement

1535
02:33:42,126 --> 02:33:47,531
itself as you a demolition of the encroachment or the

1536
02:33:47,531 --> 02:33:52,690
replacement or the applicants property of the structure itself

1537
02:33:52,690 --> 02:33:57,941
but that's not being replaced it is being modified within the

1538
02:33:57,941 --> 02:34:02,741
existing existing footprint. I'm curious of what everyone's

1539
02:34:06,417 --> 02:34:12,210
else read is. But I'm trying to interpret this building and it

1540
02:34:12,210 --> 02:34:16,221
is further encroaching or becoming a greater

1541
02:34:19,960 --> 02:34:21,310
nonconformity. >> chair muralles: thank you

1542
02:34:21,310 --> 02:34:25,436
commissioner lind lin. >> commissioner lind: I have a

1543
02:34:25,436 --> 02:34:29,974
further question about the adu is it located entirely within

1544
02:34:29,974 --> 02:34:33,574
the property or within the easement?

1545
02:34:37,314 --> 02:34:40,984
>> I can answer that. It's entirely within the

1546
02:34:40,984 --> 02:34:43,984
property not within the easement.

1547
02:34:44,530 --> 02:34:47,858
>> commissioner lind: but on a different part of the property?

1548
02:34:47,858 --> 02:34:49,326
>> correct. >> commissioner lind: I juster

1549
02:34:49,326 --> 02:34:54,126
want today cleaver wanted to clarify that. [indiscernible]

1550
02:35:01,204 --> 02:35:03,341
>> that's correct. >> commissioner lind: which

1551
02:35:03,341 --> 02:35:08,278
staff has determined falls under the commission of maintenance.

1552
02:35:08,278 --> 02:35:10,613
thank you. >> chair muralles: thank you.

1553
02:35:10,613 --> 02:35:13,613
commissioner monroe. >> commissioner monroe: thank

1554
02:35:15,619 --> 02:35:20,957
you commissioner stepanicich for laying that out. You very

1555
02:35:20,957 --> 02:35:24,762
clearly described them and I agree with staff as pertains to

1556
02:35:24,762 --> 02:35:27,497
the easement and the encroachment that is a civil

1557
02:35:27,497 --> 02:35:35,897
matter that needs to be resolved in a civil court but what -- the

1558
02:35:37,241 --> 02:35:42,112
connectivity for decision today is whether our decision on the

1559
02:35:42,112 --> 02:35:46,912
variance for the electrical platform would in anyway

1560
02:35:48,985 --> 02:35:54,191
prejudice their resolution and we haven't talked about the

1561
02:35:54,191 --> 02:36:00,530
electrical platform and I'm hoping I can get maybe a review

1562
02:36:00,530 --> 02:36:07,672
of of sort of the necessity of that platform. I did read that

1563
02:36:07,672 --> 02:36:15,345
this was, it could only be located with -- in a spot that

1564
02:36:15,345 --> 02:36:21,345
requires a variance. But, is there anything else you could

1565
02:36:21,551 --> 02:36:26,824
share with us about the implications of the electrical

1566
02:36:26,824 --> 02:36:30,424
platform? Platform on the overall project?

1567
02:36:33,497 --> 02:36:38,836
>> so, from my understanding that the electrical platform was

1568
02:36:38,836 --> 02:36:45,442
designed in compliance with the pg and e standards I could look

1569
02:36:45,442 --> 02:36:48,779
up but there is only a very very small portion of this property

1570
02:36:48,779 --> 02:36:55,185
that would not be within any setback the coastal code also

1571
02:36:55,185 --> 02:37:00,191
does not have the same flexibility that we see in the

1572
02:37:00,191 --> 02:37:04,991
interior code for detach structures within setbacks so

1573
02:37:08,665 --> 02:37:14,665
for example title xxii we have more flexibility and probably

1574
02:37:16,339 --> 02:37:20,277
with the design review application but in the coastal

1575
02:37:20,277 --> 02:37:25,883
zone the coastal code does no have that and that no structures

1576
02:37:25,883 --> 02:37:32,222
over a certain height I think 36 to 48 inches are allowed to be

1577
02:37:32,222 --> 02:37:40,220
within the setback and there is very few exemses so a very small

1578
02:37:43,567 --> 02:37:48,967
triangular portion of the property that is not fullly

1579
02:37:51,442 --> 02:37:54,442
incumbered of the subject zoning.

1580
02:37:57,114 --> 02:38:01,852
>> commissioner monroe: thawr very much. Okay so. Question

1581
02:38:01,852 --> 02:38:09,520
raised by nancy who spoke with us. Can you speak to the

1582
02:38:12,729 --> 02:38:18,729
liability should driver's license be a there be a slide.

1583
02:38:22,720 --> 02:38:25,742
anything you can share with us about the assurance that there

1584
02:38:25,742 --> 02:38:32,942
is perhaps, a bond that could be taken out to address the

1585
02:38:33,160 --> 02:38:39,160
possible repair because it is a pretty significant slide that

1586
02:38:39,823 --> 02:38:42,823
has occurred 200 feet up hill, .

1587
02:38:44,828 --> 02:38:49,232
>> yes, commissioner monroe, I'm happy to speak to that. With

1588
02:38:49,232 --> 02:38:52,769
the development project there would be endem niskation from

1589
02:38:52,769 --> 02:38:58,400
the applicant and I mean and a slide is you know challenging

1590
02:38:58,400 --> 02:39:03,440
thing like causation but for anything connect today this

1591
02:39:03,913 --> 02:39:09,313
particular project that unfolds the county would have indement

1592
02:39:09,653 --> 02:39:12,653
as a conditional of approval.

1593
02:39:12,989 --> 02:39:14,989
>> chair muralles: commissioner

1594
02:39:17,727 --> 02:39:21,327
stepanicich. Going back to the electrical

1595
02:39:22,665 --> 02:39:27,137
panel. 11 feet seemed tall for something like that. What I

1596
02:39:27,137 --> 02:39:32,537
gathered from the testimony is that required because it

1597
02:39:32,608 --> 02:39:38,835
requires that the panel go up to grade so it can be read? Is that

1598
02:39:38,835 --> 02:39:41,638
the reason why it's so tall?

1599
02:39:41,638 --> 02:39:48,440
>> yeah. So what happens is the grade goes down steeply so what

1600
02:39:48,440 --> 02:39:54,500
is actually you know the panel itself the 7-foot tall but we

1601
02:39:54,500 --> 02:40:00,923
measure from grade below and for example from cliff road it would

1602
02:40:00,923 --> 02:40:06,262
only appear to be 7 feet tall. But we measure from grade below

1603
02:40:06,262 --> 02:40:11,201
and so that's how the height is increased to 11 feet.

1604
02:40:11,201 --> 02:40:14,801
thank you. >> chair muralles: thank you.

1605
02:40:15,400 --> 02:40:17,407
commissioner monroe? >> commissioner monroe: well, I

1606
02:40:17,407 --> 02:40:23,346
think that we've reviewed these issues fairly theuroly and I

1607
02:40:23,346 --> 02:40:29,850
think that if we can incorporate the three points that I shared

1608
02:40:29,850 --> 02:40:36,285
in my email in two conditional of conditions of the permit I'm

1609
02:40:37,493 --> 02:40:40,363
willing to move forward with the permit. I don't know what the

1610
02:40:40,363 --> 02:40:43,766
procedure would be if this requires another round of

1611
02:40:43,766 --> 02:40:49,766
revision and return or if you can do that administerially

1612
02:40:51,841 --> 02:40:57,113
right now? Those conditions would be 1 n incorporation of

1613
02:40:57,113 --> 02:41:02,513
the requirement related to navy plantings. Two, any provisions

1614
02:41:03,530 --> 02:41:07,390
you can north from the coastal commissions recommendation

1615
02:41:07,390 --> 02:41:11,528
regarding coastal hazards and then 3 just affirming that there

1616
02:41:11,528 --> 02:41:16,328
is that coordination component with the road repair.

1617
02:41:20,300 --> 02:41:23,603
>> yes, if you would like those

1618
02:41:23,606 --> 02:41:28,144
incorporated of conditions of approval that can be done.

1619
02:41:28,144 --> 02:41:31,144
>> that would be affirming the

1620
02:41:31,680 --> 02:41:37,860
approval but modifying that which would need votes from all

1621
02:41:37,860 --> 02:41:41,758
of four of new favor of that. >> chair muralles: can we have

1622
02:41:41,758 --> 02:41:43,758
role call, please?

1623
02:41:45,428 --> 02:41:48,564
>> okay. I will change that into a motion.

1624
02:41:48,564 --> 02:41:52,764
>> commissioner monroe: I move to accept staff's

1625
02:41:54,304 --> 02:41:59,704
recommendation, deny the appeal with modification of adoption of

1626
02:42:00,176 --> 02:42:03,776
those conditions. I'll second the motion.

1627
02:42:06,316 --> 02:42:10,453
>> chair muralles: commission monroe motions and commissioner

1628
02:42:10,453 --> 02:42:14,653
stepanicich seconds the commission. Role call, please.

1629
02:42:18,128 --> 02:42:20,128
>> commission lind?

1630
02:42:23,199 --> 02:42:23,800
>> commissioner lind: yes.

1631
02:42:23,800 --> 02:42:25,800
>> comirks monroe.

1632
02:42:26,936 --> 02:42:29,936
>> commissioner monroe: yes. Commissioner stepanicich?

1633
02:42:31,274 --> 02:42:34,274
yes. Commissioner murall he is.

1634
02:42:38,681 --> 02:42:42,818
>> chair muralles: yes. Are we all done?

1635
02:42:42,818 --> 02:42:44,688
>> yes. >> chair muralles: we have done

1636
02:42:44,688 --> 02:42:50,880
we've recommending the meet jawrn adjourned have a good

1637
02:42:51,294 --> 02:42:53,294
afternoon. [end]