[0:02] You -- august 31st. Hope you all had a lovely weekend. We're
[0:05] going to start for our planning commission for today. And crin I
[0:11] did, we can have call to order, please. Sorry, roll call.
[0:18] >> good afternoon commissioners. Commissioner
[0:22] biehle. Commissioner cur ran. Commissioner lind. Commissioner
[0:31] monroe. Commissioner sandoval. Commissioner stepanicich.
[0:43] commissioner muralles. >> great, we'll go ahead
[0:46] and if anybody has comments, moving minutes for last meeting
[0:50] happening on july 27 . Any comments or questions and like
[0:56] to motion? >> I'll move the minutes.
[1:05] >> okay, commissioner stepanicich moves motion and
[1:13] commissioner sandoval seconded. Communication from the
[1:18] commissioners now. >> I have one non-agenda
[1:24] question and hoping we can ask for update and I'm thinking it
[1:27] might be soon on the short term rental ordnance implementation.
[1:36] >> if I may, julia krog, deputy director planning
[1:43] services. Right now the department is hitting that point
[1:45] of a couple years into the implementation of the short term
[1:48] rental ordnance, and we'll be working on an update and
[1:52] analysis of sort of how the program is working. So I don't
[1:55] know that we have a tentative date yet, but I think certainly
[1:58] we can put that on the list. >> thank you. I've been
[2:00] getting a lot of questions about it and it's definitely of
[2:04] interest to a lot of folks out in our district. So thank you
[2:09] very much. >> chair
[2:18] muralles: excellent. I've been asked to remind everyone this
[2:21] wednesday 5-7 there's a training to make sure you follow the link
[2:23] that was sent to you via e-mail in case you do not have it,
[2:28] please contact cindi and this wednesday 5-7 via zoom. We need
[2:38] to break at 2:55. Whatever we are in the project there is one
[2:41] of the commissioners that needs to step out and we'll take a
[2:44] five minute break from 2:55 to 3:00 to make that transition and
[2:49] last, I've been asked that all the commissioners we need to do
[2:53] a bigger effort on communicating to cindi if we'll be in
[2:57] attendance or not to a meeting so they can prepare for quorum
[3:01] in events. Moving to item 2, director's report and sarah
[3:09] jones, director for the community development agency
[3:12] joining us remotely today. Sarah jones.
[3:16] >> yes, thank you. Can you hear me?
[3:21] : yes, niceralls. And clear.
[3:26] >> thank you for accommodating my need to be
[3:28] remote today. I had family issues to address so I'm kind of
[3:34] multitasking here. I wanted to join today to kind of pass the
[3:41] baton over to our new deputy director of planning services,
[3:44] julia krog. You had the chance to meet her just a little while
[3:50] ago in a little casual meet and greet that we had, and I hope
[3:54] you all had a chance to connect, but we are really thrill to have
[4:00] julia here with the county and with community development
[4:05] agency. She has terrific experience, over 12 years, in
[4:12] mend mendocino county with building
[4:21] experience and started as a planner 1. So looks like
[4:28] something cut out. Am I still going?
[4:30] >> yes, you are. >> okay, great. Thank you.
[4:36] so really bringing essentially a full career embedded in planning
[4:41] at the county level in a coastal county. Some really strong
[4:48] experience with many, many issues we address in marin and
[4:57] different ideas and perspectives and strategies. Our whole
[5:01] department, particularly our planning services team is really
[5:04] excite to be working with her, and one of the most important
[5:12] roles is to support this commission as executive staff,
[5:15] and so she will be a very, very strong partner for all of you.
[5:23] just want to turn it over to julia and give her that
[5:26] introduction. >> thank you, sarah, for
[5:29] the very warm introduction, and good afternoon, commissioners.
[5:32] I'm julia krog and deputy director of planning services.
[5:36] in my fifth week of employment with marin county. So for
[5:40] today's director's report, I had one item to update you on, which
[5:43] is really a brief update regarding a recent board item.
[5:47] at the last board meeting on august 25th, a workshop was held
[5:51] on off site objective design and development standards presented
[5:55] at this commission on july 27 . During that meeting, the board
[5:59] gave direction to staff regarding the standards. Staff
[6:02] will next incorporate that feedback from the board, and
[6:05] it's anticipated that those off site objective design and
[6:08] development standards will return to the board of
[6:11] supervisors for action in october or november around that
[6:15] time frame. With that, that's my one update item for you, and I
[6:19] am available to answer any questions that the commission
[6:24] may have. >> chair muralles: thank
[6:28] you very much. Great to voter you on the team and welcome to
[6:31] marin county. Pleasure to meet you. Welcome.
[6:37] >> commissioner lind: those standards are not coming back to
[6:40] the commission? >> the standards, there may
[6:42] be an update sort of presentation, but my
[6:45] understanding is the next step in the process is for an
[6:52] ordnance to be prepared and considered by the county board
[6:55] of supervisors. >> commissioner lind: I
[7:00] thought the last workshop we had, we were told it'd would
[7:04] come back to us. >> since I am still new in
[7:07] this role, if you'd like, I will confirm internally.
[7:11] >> commissioner lind: I may be mistaken and that was my
[7:15] impression. We never took an action and we gave some advisory
[7:19] comments, but we didn't take an action on it.
[7:22] >> I will also look to my colleague next to me for any
[7:25] additional comments he has. >> chair mur alles: manny.
[7:35] >> it was coming back as a workshop and two items at that
[7:39] time and one of which related to title 22 are the planning code,
[7:44] and your commission adapted a resolution to modify the form
[7:48] based code and the workshop was continued with your -- during
[7:52] instructions and further refinement to the board of
[7:56] supervisors and what we did say is the next phase is the role
[7:59] and coastal code will be coming back to you.
[8:07] >> commissioner lind: sorry, I missed that that
[8:09] we weren't taking action. >> it's in title 24. The
[8:13] that afternooning commission has no authority.
[8:15] >> commissioner lind: I see. Those were courtesy
[8:19] briefings then? >> correct.
[8:21] >> sarah jones will speak in one second.
[8:25] >> yes. I just wanted to clarify. Manny is correct
[8:33] there's no action for the planning commission. There's not
[8:35] a further action for the planning commission to take,
[8:38] however, when we went to the board of supervisors, following
[8:47] input we got from this commission, we did bring
[8:50] strategies to address some of the issues that emergeed around
[8:56] ways to achieve some flexibility and ways to make sure that we
[9:01] were going to end up with streets that achieved the safety
[9:05] grade schools we needed to, but gave a way to get there in
[9:12] different ways and particularly when a developer would maintain
[9:17] the street as private street. So we introduced some new concepts
[9:24] in how this might be structured at the board. And so as julia
[9:30] mentioned, we did discuss that it would likely be of great
[9:35] interest to bring them back to this commission and time
[9:44] permitting. We're under a time crunch to get standards in
[9:46] place, so we're still working together with the department of
[9:48] public works on how we might find a opportunity to bring a
[9:57] further informational presentation to the commission
[10:00] to sort of show the additional work that's been done on this.
[10:13] >> chair halleluiah especially: item 3,
[10:27] public comment and not related to items on the agenda. Okay.
[10:31] we'll go ahead and move to item 4. Which is a development and
[10:37] development code update, and we have manny barack on the topic.
[10:46] thank you. >> sure. Why not. So thank
[10:53] you very much. Primary code updates to establish consistency
[10:58] with changes in state law, and manny did a significant amount
[11:00] of work on this, and really dobbs a great job putting
[11:06] together these very sometimes challenging state laws to be
[11:10] able to implement on a local level. With that, I'll turn it
[11:13] over to manny and let immigration judges him go
[11:17] through his presentation. >> thank you, powerpoint,
[11:19] please. Good afternoon, commissioners, members of the
[11:22] public and thank you for being here. Today we will be asking
[11:26] your commission to recommend a set of amendments to the
[11:32] planning code to the board of supervisors. As you may -- as
[11:45] you may recall back in april, it was brought before your
[11:48] commission a set of wide comprehensive set of amendments
[11:52] for your considerations in a workshop. Today I'm continuing
[12:04] on that work where anna left off. Between the planning
[12:08] commission in april and today, hcd has sent a let tore the
[12:14] county informing us that our ad ordnance is out of compliance
[12:24] and sd needs reworked slightly. We decided to review the entire
[12:30] dev code and state housing laws and make sure it's consist with
[12:33] all the different state laws. Those include state density
[12:37] bonus law, ad ordnance, ab-2011, sb-35 and others. Then when
[12:46] reviewing all those laws, we found that most of our code has
[12:49] not been updated since 2024. But state law moved so far to a
[12:56] point that these things -- these laws needed to be updated so
[13:00] what we've decided to do is bifurcate laws into two set of
[13:07] amendments. Today before you is a very narrow set of amendments
[13:11] that implement state -- different type of state laws and
[13:27] two new sections of the code to make it clear and sort of
[13:30] housing related, and the intent is to make it easier for public
[13:35] and applicants and commission and implementing these laws.
[13:43] I'll treat this as a workshop because it's pretty dense, and
[13:46] I'll stop along the way to ask questions and decision points
[13:53] for the planning commission, and impactful engage you in making
[13:58] decisions. First let's talk about the ad ordnance. Since we
[14:02] last updated in 2024, the state implemented four different times
[14:07] of -- different legislations. Cumulatively those legislations
[14:12] have -- they're essentially rendering our code non-compliant
[14:15] and especially in two areas. One is the code -- the county code
[14:19] requires setbacks that are greater than four feet. And the
[14:24] state law clearly say in no case can you require a setback of
[14:28] greater than four feet for any adus, attach or detached. The
[14:33] second set of changes is the number of adus allowed in
[14:39] conjunction with a multifamily housing. Adus and multifamily
[14:50] housing only allowed in the existing -- instances where
[14:55] there's existing multifamily housing. The state law has now
[14:57] change to say it's proposed within an existing and that's
[15:00] one. Two, increased number of allowable adus with multifamily
[15:04] housing. And we need to amend our code to comply with the
[15:10] code. On the last commission hearing and it has stuff to look
[15:16] into whether or not short term rentals would be permitted in
[15:20] conjunction with adu and we did not give you a direct answer.
[15:26] and we've done re-service connected and looked at short
[15:31] term tan and other things and -- rental and what we're proposing
[15:37] before your commission today is that one I want place of
[15:42] employmented state law in order to be consist but also the
[15:44] decision point for the planning commission is the state law does
[15:49] alaw this and saying no short term rannal allowed -- rental
[15:57] allowed with adus. Adus createed prior to essentially 2022 cannot
[16:08] allow a short term rannal and want to implement so it's
[16:11] consist. It's not required by state law but was in interest of
[16:15] the commission, especially commissioner cur ran cur ran ifs
[16:32] questions. >> commissioner lind: can
[16:37] you clarify that's not short term and adu property on one
[16:40] property or can't convert adu into a short term rental.
[16:45] >> you cannot use adu for should
[16:51] short term rental. >> but they could be on the
[16:55] same property? >> correct.
[16:58] >> commissioner lind: on the same property?
[17:00] >> greater than 30 days or owner occupied.
[17:03] >> commissioner lind: great, thank you.
[17:14] >> in terms of senate bill 9 and state passed three laws in
[17:18] the last three years and one is the most significant change and
[17:22] it'll impact what the planning commission had previously
[17:26] struggled but accomplished or adapted and the changes that sb
[17:36] sb450 says that we cannot require setbacks, zoning
[17:40] standards that are different or not even formally aflied for the
[17:44] underlying -- applied for the underlying zoning district.
[17:47] that's one issue. The second issue implied is your commission
[17:50] had put in a cap of 1600 square foot for units created through
[17:58] sb-9. This could create a conflict. If the underlining
[18:03] zone allowing greater than 1600 square feet and must allow that
[18:10] and what we've done and written it and comply with the
[18:13] underlines in the district and 1600 square feet and more per
[18:20] mis-ive. This would be consist with the state law. And gig,
[18:26] keep in mind, see the commissioner adapt to senate
[18:30] bill and the submit to hcd for approval and certification. Ill
[18:38] stop here and if if there's any questions.
[18:42] >> commissioner lind: yeah. I had underlined text on page 4
[18:46] of staff report. First of all, before going into questions, I
[18:52] do want to say that this is a really excellent staff report. I
[18:55] really appreciated how well you've dealt with I do, and I de
[19:09] a few clarification requests and not too many. Lot size and
[19:34] access of grading. So what exactly does that mean in terms
[19:42] of parcel -- what else is there >> that was lifted directly
[19:47] from the state law, but there are other things, for instance,
[19:54] you cannot take into consideration slope anymore.
[19:59] because we have restrictions based on slope.
[20:02] >> commissioner lind: slope would be an example.
[20:04] >> one. Access would be another one.
[20:07] >> commissioner lind: access.
[20:08] >> and easements, required easements could be another one
[20:12] and that's to diminish easements and the state subdivision of
[20:18] law, owner -- property owner cannot grant themselves an
[20:25] easement for -- and we tried to place conditions of approval and
[20:29] we created with that process creating a conflict and that's
[20:33] the state's attempt to cure that issue.
[20:37] >> commissioner lind: I could see slope could be a
[20:40] significant change. Okay. Then I also had a question in the
[20:44] sentence prior under number one. It says local jurisdictions made
[20:49] no longer impose standards on secondary primary dwelling units
[20:54] that this is the phrase: that do not apply uniformly to all
[20:59] development within the underlying zone. So that means
[21:04] that anything that -- anything that the state has already
[21:10] preempted we have to use, and we can only use any other features
[21:16] we may have where the state has not preempted and state statute
[21:32] is silent? >> correct.
[21:34] >> commissioner lind: okay it doesn't mean existing
[21:45] development and existing standards of what may now be
[21:48] conforming structures on the property. I'm clarifying that.
[21:51] >> no, it doesn't. It means laws and objective standards
[21:54] that are in effect at the time of the application submitted.
[21:57] >> commissioner lind: okay, that's a important thing for
[22:00] everyone to understand, particularly for the public
[22:03] because people have the expectation that consistency
[22:10] means consist when what's on the ground and that is not always
[22:13] the case. >> correct.
[22:17] o: can yourello. Repeat that.
[22:27] >> only can apply existing laws and regulation of ordnance
[22:30] of the county at the time the application is submitted. So if
[22:36] it's existing condition, more common in valleys with small
[22:41] houses and small lots and houses are in the middle with huge
[22:45] front back and rear. That cannot be the requirement going
[22:50] forward. The requirement going forward for sb-9 is wherefore is
[22:55] written in the code at the time -- whatever is written in
[22:57] the code at the time they submit the application.
[23:04] >> chair muralles: got it, correct.
[23:10] >> commissioner lind: we could approach like that as long
[23:11] as it met the minimum required? >> as long as objective and
[23:15] complied with the state law. However, we don't have such
[23:19] thing. >> commissioner lind: okay
[23:30] >> chair muralles: questions,
[23:35] commissioner lind? >> commissioner
[23:36] lind: that's all I have on sb-9. >> bill 2011, this is
[23:42] essentially state law that passed a few years ago that
[23:45] allows commercial properties to be re-purposed for residential
[23:48] and mixed use. And without rezoning it's alignment with the
[24:11] state law and no new text, language or provisions. Strictly
[24:15] compliance with the state law. Same with senate bill 423 and
[24:29] formally senate bill 35. This is ministerial right of process and
[24:34] it's been amended a few times and set to expire in 2025, but
[24:38] has been extended by another ten years. Expanded to coastal zones
[24:50] and not going for the moment but the next mid housing cycles due
[25:01] next year and we're not set right now. The set of amendments
[25:04] we're proposing here is intend to strictly alignment with the
[25:07] state law and nothing else. For these two laws, I'll pause if
[25:15] you have questions. Yes commissioner lind.
[25:19] >> commissioner lind: my question is about the statement
[25:28] on page 5 into paragraph 2 saying bill narrows local
[25:32] discretionary oversight by eliminating review authority by
[25:34] the board of supervisors and the county council while allowing
[25:39] the planning commission to conduct limited review. Focus
[25:48] solely on sb2011 and I could not find that text in the section.
[25:55] >> we don't have it. >> commissioner lind: new
[25:58] underlined text? >> it's not a new text. We
[26:05] adopted in back in 2024, we designated -- made no
[26:09] designation which body would review whether it's cda director
[26:27] or public review process and we took away that ability. We never
[26:31] designated the board of supervisors as reviewing
[26:34] authority in the first place and don't have to make changes.
[26:40] however, at later stage it'll come back that we're designatinr
[26:49] commission for the staff. >> commissioner lind: I was
[26:53] not understanding this because to me talking about ministerial
[27:00] review, that's a staff-level review so you're -- what would
[27:03] be the instance when it wouldn't be? Could staff refer it up to
[27:08] the commission at your discretion?
[27:11] >> has to be codified in order for your commission to
[27:15] review a ministerial review process. This allows your
[27:23] planning commission to be designated reviewing authority.
[27:35] it's a verne view standard. >> commissioner lind: this
[27:38] is not in our code? It's not implemented?
[27:41] >> it's not till now. >> commissioner lind: I
[27:46] see. What would trigger that? >> if someone were to
[27:49] submit an sb-35 next year. If someone were to submit ab-2011
[27:55] going forward. If your commission approves this and the
[27:58] board adapts it, the planning commission would be the
[28:01] reviewing authority. >> commissioner
[28:03] lind ? Nstead of staff 124 >> correct.
[28:07] >> commissioner lind: I see. Okay. We'd have to make the
[28:12] sb-35 consistency findings and any other consistency findings?
[28:18] >> correct. >> commissioner lind: okay,
[28:21] I understand. Thanks for that clarification. I might have one
[28:25] other. Let's see what's on this page. Ab2011. Reference to
[28:42] limited or restricted right or easement access. This is the
[28:46] definition of freeway. What would be a limited restricted
[28:53] right? >> that's state highway
[28:54] definition, and I don't have department of public works staff
[28:58] to help. We map it had out. 101 corridor qualifies for sb-35.
[29:07] ab-2011 consideration. As does high 1...
[29:26] >> commissioner lind: I understand that with the butting
[29:28] rights and limited easement access. I'm not understanding
[29:31] the second part of the sentence that references only limited or
[29:36] restricted rights. What would be example of limited right?
[29:48] >> shoreway has highways that direct to the freeway and
[29:51] highway 101, there's no such thing just a freeway.
[29:55] >> commissioner lind: right, they're frontage
[29:57] roads. I'm understand that but asking why limited rights. What
[30:00] is a limited right? This is state law so
[30:14] >> if department of public works listening to this hearing,
[30:17] please come forward. >> commissioner lind: yeah,
[30:19] what would a limited easement be you can have cars but no trucks.
[30:29] >> I think it's number of driveways and access but nothing
[30:31] with capacity. >> commissioner lind: I
[30:35] see. >> chair mur alles: thank
[30:48] you, commissioner lind. Go ahead.
[30:50] >> commissioner lind: that's it for that
[30:52] section. >> chair muralles: thank
[30:55] you, commissioner lind. >> the state density bonus
[30:59] law. By our account, for the last since 2017, it's been
[31:04] amended by 14 bills, and last four years six laws and there's
[31:14] two pending at the moment. We cannot discuss any pending
[31:24] applications due to housing accountability act and brown act
[31:27] and other things, but I'll mention there's two application
[31:34] applicants that we believe have contacted hcd to outline that
[31:41] our implementing ordnance is not in compliance. Requested draft
[32:07] for sample template cities and counties to adopt locally for
[32:10] state density bonus law. Hcd issued one last year and forward
[32:21] to us for consideration and adoption. Council of governments
[32:25] has also created a template for it's members for adoption and
[32:35] what we're proposing your commission does is review the
[32:42] existing ordnance and it does not offer anything not in the
[32:47] state law and that we recommend your adopt the governance and
[33:02] mainly consist and hcd proposeed and what council of governments
[33:11] proposed and latter is by provisions and the hcd is simply
[33:16] referring to the state law. Outlining revisions is helpful
[33:33] and removing housing in conjunction with application,
[33:35] you have to replace it as outlined in the state law and
[33:47] that came before your commission with the point raised downtown
[33:51] with two units and applicants argument there was those are
[33:54] un-permitted units and therefore they do not have to replace
[33:57] them. Whereas the state law says existing units so we want to
[34:01] make it clear that replacement is required whether permitted
[34:07] orb permitted. I'll stop here. >> can I make an
[34:17] observation on that chapter in the application requirements and
[34:29] in the actual text, it's 30-49 or roman numeral -- section
[34:44] 22.22.40 brks. >> number three? Number
[34:59] three. I want to applaud this paragraph and it's important and
[35:02] valuable for each concession or incentive requested and they
[35:07] shall identify and provide reasonable documentation et
[35:10] cetera and it'll allow for the performance of the review
[35:18] mentioned 227.24 -- 250 and just want to point that out and if if
[35:29] you have any other thoughts and this is one of the areas and
[35:33] after we struggle and we ask the applicants to provide proof that
[35:37] the results are actual class reduction and reasonable
[35:42] documentation is widely though it's reasonable to you and may
[35:45] not be to me but that's upward mobility area we've had problem
[35:49] with the previous code. >> could I ask a follow up
[35:55] about this exact point? This would change that?
[36:13] >> we were previously told the code required per forma.
[36:18] >> commissioner lind: right.
[36:19] >> can no longer require per forma and state law does
[36:23] alaw and we can require a reasonable documentation and
[36:26] reasonable documentation does not exclude per forma or other
[36:32] formal analysis or documentation to demonstrate there's an actual
[36:36] cost reduction. >> commissioner lind: I
[36:39] see. It's no longer a professional per forma. Forma ts
[36:45] done for a formula typically but instead could be reasonable
[36:51] information about cost factor with certain features. For
[37:00] reduction and example and cost of providing open space or the
[37:04] cost of providing additional land scapping and and this is
[37:09] not waiver and this would be concessions. So that would --
[37:14] how would that be verified then >> it's submit to have in
[37:20] our code to allow peer review for instance or to send to
[37:28] depending what code, county code they request in the waiver and
[37:32] the recession coming from that department for review and input
[37:40] >> this is a big improvement.
[37:42] >> commissioner lind. I had questioned that previously. This
[37:49] is definitely an improvement. >> I would like to agree.
[37:52] this was important improvement for us for the future and thanks
[37:58] for that addition. >> moving along. Housing
[38:10] compliance going for housing compliance review. Going for
[38:22] approval and going for three types and one is a housing
[38:25] elements and going for county voluntarily designated going for
[38:32] sb9 and state man at a times and going for them and another one
[38:38] is sb-35 and could we. It's ab housing and proposed under state
[38:55] law 6789 it's on the process. It's no longer just the sb35 and
[39:00] going to include 2011. Sb-9 is what it is and state law and for
[39:14] the housing insights that we've created and part of. Let me put
[39:23] it this way. This is quite a bit and going for them and we've
[39:32] attempted to process these applications as if they were
[39:38] discretionary process with the applicants and certain
[39:42] submissions or certain compliance to approval and
[39:49] subsubmittal dates and we don't have a discretion to do that,
[39:54] hcr by neffy in addition and process by definition has to
[39:58] meet the code as written and meet the approval and going for
[40:03] them with the code and don't get approved and this is a struggle
[40:07] with applicants and that's one issue and another issue is
[40:11] adopting hcr process and no finding to prove them and
[40:16] codified and so we've been trying to do that on the basis
[40:20] and work for different reviewing agencies and trying to come up
[40:25] with the sort of -- lack of better term condition for
[40:30] approval and that's problematic going for flag going to exercise
[40:39] discretion and going for them and we've designated housing
[40:46] insights for the review process and committed to the state and
[40:49] we heard applicant and attorney saying this discretion and even
[40:57] though you represented this by right approval and referred to
[41:04] the value. Going to secure that issue and going to recommend we
[41:07] do three things and one is implement identification clause.
[41:14] common sense, going to require all applications get their
[41:23] approval objective design standards going for them with
[41:27] the fire code dpw code and going for them modifying at the state
[41:33] bonus law going for them and going for type three and it's
[41:39] going for them on the 2011 and it's going to submit for the
[41:44] housing application for the state law and going to review.
[41:52] limited to objective design and standards and it's part of
[41:59] issues that we have -- part of the issues we've come before us
[42:05] and projects get approved and we have these applications involve
[42:13] punishment million applicationings and going for
[42:23] them with the applications and bifurcate and segmentation issue
[42:29] and review as one application under one process that under one
[42:34] application and have them reviewed with which authority is
[42:43] going to make it clear to applicants and make it easier
[42:47] for us going to apply that and in order to get hcr approval and
[42:55] going to have code star in effect and that will apply. I'll
[43:00] pause for a second and see hands raised.
[43:09] >> commissioner lind: I don't fully understand this. For
[43:20] one thing, I think an argument could be made all approvals are
[43:24] done under state law at this time and subdivision map act and
[43:28] there's, you know, there is state authorization so it could
[43:37] be argued that it expands to the point where you would only have
[43:41] discretionary view if there were a variance or maybe a
[43:52] development agreement you're proposing later in the package
[43:55] or something like that. I don't know that's consist with the
[43:57] intent of the housing program of hcd. So I'm not sure what's
[44:08] being captured using the phrase "captured in all
[44:12] applications." I'm only concerned about type 3 and not
[44:15] concerned about type 1 and type 2 -- well, sections 226-4020 on
[44:24] this chart. But 2264020c broadens it too much. I
[44:34] understand the problems that yon carefully to the problems and I
[44:40] can understand some problems and not sure the remedy is the best
[44:48] thing. Give us an example of when we'd not have ministerial
[44:58] review. >> sb -- sorry, not
[45:03] sb 3535. Hcr application down to where the application includes
[45:09] concurrent applications and would include subdivision
[45:12] application 1. Would include removal permit and excessive
[45:21] retaining wall. We have scr and hcr elite and then multiple
[45:26] applications that are clearly either through state law or our
[45:31] code discretionary. .. >> commissioner lind: those
[45:38] are pretty minor requirements of a development and don't require
[45:43] subdivisions. This is very broad. We need to be aware this
[45:46] is very broad, and we're basically doing all development
[45:55] it involves housing as ministerial review with this
[46:00] change. It does not require by state law. So this goes
[46:03] beyond -- I mean, I think we need to have further discussion
[46:07] of what the current law requires.
[46:11] >> are you referring to type 1 or type 3 because --
[46:15] >> commissioner lind: 3. >> type 3 are
[46:19] state-mandated housing types. Referring to sb35, ab2011, or
[46:25] any successor future legislation that may require mandatory
[46:31] approvals. We're not recommending you do that.
[46:41] purpose of designating your commission to review sb35,
[46:47] ab2011 or any type of housing mandated multifamily housing to
[46:51] take from staff, have a public process, public recrew process?
[47:05] where there's transparency and given to the public code. We
[47:08] don't have to do that. It's not written
[47:19] >> it's truly ministerial. Unless it's a problem and going
[47:28] to move this and sb35 and expanding to include other types
[47:32] of state mandated housing laws and if that's a problem, this is
[47:35] a decision for the commission. >> commissioner lind: well
[47:40] that so -- maybe I'm incorrect but I think there's a
[47:46] distinction between using objective findings and
[47:59] discretion about certain aspects of design. Approval when the
[48:12] standards are met. >> so I agree with you. In
[48:18] a different way put it this way, design review as it requires
[48:25] someone to exercise discretion whether or not this component
[48:29] fitting within this code of laws. Whereas ministerial does
[48:36] it meet the code? Check. Does it not, no. It's a consistency
[48:41] analysis. What your commission would be tasked if it ever comes
[48:45] to is whether or not sb35, ab2011 or any other application
[48:51] meets these codes we'll outline to you, this is the height limit
[48:54] and minimum setbacks. Does it meet the code or not? You'll
[48:58] not be asked to exercise discretion, that would be
[49:00] contrary to the very purpose of these laws.
[49:09] >> commissioner lind: I'll have to continue to think about
[49:11] and digest. This is not a final decision today; right?
[49:14] >> we'd like you to make a decision. We can talk about it
[49:17] at the end. >> commissioner lind: okay.
[49:21] >> I have a question. I'm wondering if it's very broad for
[49:27] me. Expanding applicability, I wonder if the staff thought
[49:35] about implications with the state law as ongoing changes.
[49:38] what might that look like? In the upcoming months or so?
[49:43] >> we have and that's part of the reason why we're doing
[49:47] this. All the check analysis is it's done publicly. We're not
[50:14] trying to impede, thwart, stop housing and this is simply an
[50:20] attempt to -- and check public insight of the commission having
[50:29] a heart burn on this and we can remove from the code.
[50:46] >> the planning commission can no longer are I view sb-35,
[50:51] ab-2011 then we'll come back and have it rendition of anthony
[50:54] moved; correct. This time it doesn't say that. In fact, it
[50:57] says removed it from the board and city council level, reduced
[51:01] to a planning commission. >> got it. Comments and
[51:11] questions? Do you have more in your presentation?
[51:14] >> I do. A couple more. >> shall we move on? Let's
[51:18] move on. You have questions. We'll dib rat after. Deliberateo
[51:31] ahead, manny. >> development agreements
[51:34] and it's a commonly used tool in california and we don't have
[51:37] that tool. To your comment, commissioner lind, the
[51:42] agreements would allow the county and the applicant to
[51:45] agree to a set of proposed processes if you will. You're
[51:52] right. If a large housing project come into the county
[51:57] then designated as hcr at the moment and we'd be subject to
[52:01] hcr. However, if it has other components such as subdivision
[52:09] application, we have conflict and allowing them to agree to
[52:21] some set of processes or path forward in return to be a public
[52:29] weapon fit. Development agreement by state law only
[52:33] requested by applicants but has to be available for the public.
[52:35] there's a public interest, public benefit to codify the
[52:43] state code and primrose indicated hcr processes and
[52:46] applications can be -- can take advantage of this process. Today
[53:10] we're asking your commission to make a recommendation to the
[53:12] board for adoption. Parts or all of it. Parts of the proposal or
[53:20] all entirely. The reason we recommending that you do that is
[53:23] we need to respond to hcd as saboteur as we can, at least --
[53:28] as soon as we can and sb-35 -- sorry, not sb-35, sb-9 then we
[53:36] can be in compliance with the state law. Sometime in the fall
[53:47] we'll come back with the state code things that we left out and
[53:50] with that amendment, will include new laws that will take
[53:53] effect in january of next year. Again, we hope to go through the
[54:06] board sometime in november and then after that, we would go to
[54:15] submit for approval to hcd and we recommend your board approve
[54:19] partially, entirely, or none of it. Any questions, I'd be happy
[54:27] to answer. >> two resolutions and one
[54:30] is recommending to the board and one is the ordnance?
[54:32] >> only one resolution but make changes. There's only
[54:35] single resolution here. This is a public hearing and your
[54:39] commission could amend the resolution. .
[54:47] >> commissioner lind: I have one more question. This is
[54:49] on ab-2694 on page 8 of the staff report at the top. Says
[55:01] changing how defensety calculated for senior housing
[55:04] not solely by dwelling units. How is it calculated? I didn't
[55:08] see that any place in the analysis or -- I didn't -- I
[55:12] couldn't find it in the code because I didn't know which
[55:17] number to go look under. >> currently under the
[55:24] previous density bonus law was one units.
[55:28] >> commissioner lind: we had that in a recent case for
[55:30] example. >> correct. Now it's per
[55:32] square foot. Does it not have a kitchen.
[55:35] >> commissioner lind: it's not just by kitchen? What other
[55:42] factors would you use then? >> you have to accept
[55:45] whatever the applicant presents. Far is one, kitchen is one, and
[55:50] also number of bedrooms is one. But it's now been broadened and
[55:56] given the benefit of the applicants.
[55:59] >> commissioner lind: that would be subject to negotiation
[56:01] then? >> with the proposed we'd
[56:03] have to accept and demonstrate it's not in compliance with the
[56:07] state law. >> commissioner lind: ask
[56:08] for waivers and concession. >> right. The burden
[56:11] shifted to the county. >> commissioner lind: okay
[56:20] I didn't see that any place of the documentation and we're
[56:22] getting a number of those so it's important for the public to
[56:24] be able to understand how density is calculated for them.
[56:34] because it's a different type of land use and its own category.
[56:38] >> I imagine notifying or consulting with someone and tell
[56:40] them to apply using far as that would yield largest number of
[56:47] units. >> commissioner
[56:48] lind: right. In such a kind of project because it's freed up
[56:53] about the space and the interior and the kitchens of
[57:05] redevelopment and certain sections of the project and
[57:08] staying in the original parameters and they'd be able to
[57:12] come in and do that. Would that be correct? Combining units?
[57:20] would they come under replacement requirements of the
[57:22] state law? >> I would argue they'd
[57:25] come under replacement. That's reduction in units. Yep..
[57:32] >> commissioner lind: come under that to the extent they
[57:34] didn't reduce the number of units, they'd be able to make
[57:37] various configurations? >> make configurations as
[57:41] long as the overall number of unit crease.t increase.
[57:45] commissioner lind: within the approved building envelope.
[57:48] okay, I understand that, thank you.
[57:54] >> chair muralles: thank you, commissioner legend. I want
[57:56] to open time for public comment for this specific item.
[58:02] >> commissioner curran has a question.
[58:07] >> chair muralles: go ahea curran.sioner curran.
[58:12] commissioner curran: I had a question about 2280 and I want
[58:15] to understand it. That it this is voluntary on the part of the
[58:27] applicant, would all the state requirements regarding number of
[58:32] hearings, is really a clean slate or some are still
[58:46] governing? >> in the samples we've
[58:49] seen, they get to reset the process. So moving away from the
[59:07] state requirements of doing things.
[59:09] >> commissioner curran: some of us have known
[59:11] them for a long time and we've been in the planning area? At a
[59:16] time of california but really giving access to the county.
[59:31] >> correct. Turn out to agree to greater benefit than
[59:34] what's required by code. >> commissioner
[59:36] curran: it's marvelous to adopt that as a tool. I think that's
[59:44] very good. >> chair
[59:47] muralles: commissioner monroe. >> commissioner monroe: two
[59:52] questions, one macro and one micro. Two sections not reviewed
[1:00:00] on applicability section so 22.22.020. The micro is a funny
[1:00:09] typo. It's the following page, affordable housing income rage,
[1:00:14] I think it's range just while you're doing tidy up it's on the
[1:00:18] following page, 3-29. Lots of rage but I think you mean range.
[1:00:33] >> I see it. Thank you. >> commissioner monroe: no
[1:00:37] problem. Table 3-4a. Macro question is when might we
[1:00:56] propose the document for the mixed use prudential and 30%
[1:01:01] affordable housing floor with 15% as very low income. I think
[1:01:10] a lot of struggle we've experienced with some of the big
[1:01:13] projects would be alleviated if we could increase these
[1:01:18] percentages to say 30%. Does that require a larger review?
[1:01:29] >> that's a much larger conversation and requires all
[1:01:32] kinds of financial and economic analysis. It's not something we
[1:01:35] could do in vacuum. It's not something that has been
[1:01:40] contemplated within this but something we've discussed
[1:01:43] internally. >> commissioner
[1:01:48] monroe: thank you. I would love to put on the record that's
[1:01:51] something we should evaluated is increasing those percentages.
[1:01:54] >> comment noted. >> commissioner step niche
[1:02:21] stepanicich: it's getting a developer a right to develop at
[1:02:25] that level. >> -- it was a flat low 20%
[1:02:43] and low income and revise to the current status to incentivize
[1:02:49] housing. State density bonus law is 5% at very low income and you
[1:02:55] qualify. But we have somewhere in the code saying you have to
[1:02:58] comply with the cumulatively has to be 20%. That 5% would qualify
[1:03:03] for density bonus law, but doesn't bring you into
[1:03:08] compliance with the inclusionary ordnance.
[1:03:17] >> commissioner stepanicich: I agree. It's a
[1:03:21] good one to discuss and a need for more analysis to address
[1:03:25] that issue. >> it's also one of those
[1:03:28] things that units developer against any discussion related
[1:03:32] to increasing fees. >> chair muralles: thank
[1:03:38] you, commissioner stepanicich. I want to talk about what
[1:03:41] commissioner monroe was saying about increasing percentages for
[1:03:47] the affordable housing requirements and regard to
[1:03:52] income or price sales and is that something the county looks
[1:03:54] to or federal income guideline? >> it's the base of
[1:04:18] guidelines and there's affordable housing available.
[1:04:22] >> chair muralles: it's not necessarily encapsulated for the
[1:04:25] people needed because of the income guidelines.
[1:04:30] >> not sure I followed that.
[1:04:40] >> chair muralles: any different guidelines the county
[1:04:43] may follow for this? >> she may have a better
[1:04:46] answer for this. >> thank you. I think
[1:04:47] really the way that it has been structured is so much is based
[1:04:51] upon what's been provided through federal in terms of the
[1:05:04] income levels and to my knowledge, there's no
[1:05:06] flexibility at local level. >> chair muralles: thank
[1:05:11] you. Commissioner lind. >> commissioner lind: I
[1:05:17] want to clarify it's based on county or local median income so
[1:05:21] it very -- the actual numbers vary from place to place, but
[1:05:26] because we have high median income here, the qualifying
[1:05:31] percentages are pretty substantial, and I can
[1:05:34] understand your concern about lower income people excluded
[1:05:46] from these programs rolled out. But that's just the way the
[1:05:49] formula works, and there's really no way to change that.
[1:06:01] and your comment about meeting incentives but that's included
[1:06:05] in the bonus per sen tesla and metas. It's not on top of state
[1:06:09] bonus percentages; correct? >> it's not on top. Top cap
[1:06:15] side -- inclusionary requirement is 20 and state bonus density is
[1:06:20] blow 20% on average. >> commissioner lind: we do
[1:06:23] raise it in certain instances, we raise the percentage with our
[1:06:27] local inclusionary policy. >> correct.
[1:06:30] >> commissioner lind: that's not across the
[1:06:32] board? >> I think it's two out of
[1:06:33] three categories we do. >> commissioner lind: that
[1:06:37] addressing your concern to some degree.
[1:06:44] >> chair muralles: thank you for raising my concern. Any
[1:06:47] other questions? >> commissioner monroe: if
[1:06:51] we're doing in-depth of affordability in the
[1:06:54] inclusionary components of the code, if you include higher
[1:06:58] levels of very low income brackets, you can't change the
[1:07:02] categories but could change those levels; correct? That's
[1:07:17] how you change thees intended income.
[1:07:22] >> chair muralles: thank you, panelny.
[1:07:26] >> the structure is federal government and our ability is
[1:07:30] limited and I was involve during covid when we did -- redid the
[1:07:34] entire county -- not just county but even cities when we did
[1:07:59] through sb2 and and ended up catapulting closer to the high
[1:08:04] end. I don't know what it would take to revisit and redo the
[1:08:09] analysis. That's costing close to $1 million to put it in
[1:08:13] context and perspective. . >> chair muralles: any
[1:08:22] other questions? I think we can go ahead and go to open comment
[1:08:31] specifically for this item. Any comments. I would like to go
[1:08:34] ahead and close the time for public expression for this item
[1:08:37] and we'll go ahead and deliberate as a commission. Who
[1:08:49] would like to start? Commissioner lind, turn on your
[1:08:54] microphone, please. >> commissioner lind: I'm
[1:08:56] okay with all of it except that one issue that I didn't fully
[1:09:04] understand and I think it requires more discussion. It
[1:09:06] would be the -- on page 6, table 4, you should type under type
[1:09:19] mike: I don't fully understand it. It may be fine,
[1:09:22] but I need some more explanation of that to really understand all
[1:09:29] of the factors involved and all the types of applications as
[1:09:41] they combine together. Page 6 and capture all applications
[1:09:46] through page 6. That's problematic. Some tighter
[1:10:07] language that can't be interpreted more broadly.
[1:10:12] >> can I suggest we go right to the text itself on
[1:10:17] iv-65. >> chair muralles: manny,
[1:10:20] sorry. Page 9, not page 6. >> commissioner
[1:10:23] lind: talking from the staff report.
[1:10:27] >> chair muralles: okay. Thank you. Commissioner
[1:10:32] stepanicich. >> commissioner
[1:10:34] stepanicich: would be helpful to reference the actual code
[1:10:38] section. . >> on page iv-65.
[1:10:47] >> commissioner stepanicich: okay, got it. Thank
[1:10:51] you. Chapter 22-64 under applicability and c type 3.
[1:11:16] >> commissioner monroe: what would be the
[1:11:19] implications for you as staff to reject the type 3 and maintain
[1:11:23] the authority of sb-35? My understanding is it's a catch
[1:11:26] all so as the legislative session proceeds, we don't have
[1:11:29] to go back and fix it. What are the implications?
[1:11:41] >> nothing reverts back and staff continue to review these
[1:11:44] types of applications instead of your planning commission.
[1:11:48] >> commissioner monroe: right. I think I'm
[1:11:50] comfortable with this because it's bringing it to the
[1:11:52] commission as oppose to the staff.
[1:12:04] >> commissioner stepanicich: that's also how I
[1:12:06] see this. Seems to me is that the advantage is it gives the
[1:12:10] commission a chance to review the mandated approvals and right
[1:12:15] now reviewed by staff. I understood the staff objective
[1:12:19] is provide greater transparency in the review process so even
[1:12:22] though our discretion is very limited, at least it's in the
[1:12:30] public forum and can watch deliberation take place. It's
[1:12:33] important to go beyond sb-45 because there's other provisions
[1:12:37] that have mandated approvals so I do see this provision as
[1:12:40] giving us more authority. I understand your concern,
[1:12:58] commissioner lind. But I think it's a good one to support.
[1:13:02] >> chair muralles: commissioner lind.
[1:13:05] >> commissioner lind: would it be possible to reference the
[1:13:08] code that gets changed frequently? The interpretation
[1:13:15] of other mandates outside theed housing.
[1:13:23] >> we'd have to list every one in the code and they change
[1:13:26] often. >> commissioner lind: too
[1:13:28] often. I can certainly understand the bill numbers we
[1:13:30] don't want to list those. If -- most of the changes are to
[1:13:33] certain sections of the housing code. Government code. Not too
[1:13:44] much. >> I'll defer to kate.
[1:13:48] >> yes, we can refer to specific government code per
[1:13:51] visions and the concern that manny is highlighting once a new
[1:13:54] tool is adopted to advance the development of housing, we may
[1:13:57] see the same language added to another government code section
[1:14:00] that we didn't originally reference in our development
[1:14:02] code updates. I think that's why I I soup he used term of
[1:14:16] ministerial streamline process and sb-35 and that term of art
[1:14:20] is being developed and used as a tool or threat to incentivize
[1:14:33] compliance with the housing law. >> can I draw your
[1:14:36] attention to page iv6 table 1. >> chair muralles: repeat
[1:14:42] that. >> ib6-6. Table 4-1. On
[1:14:57] that table, commissioner lend, we have put the director or
[1:15:03] staff as recommend -- body can make recommendations to the
[1:15:09] commission as on type 3hcrs. >> commissioner lind: I see
[1:15:21] it in the actual code language so I'm okay with this language.
[1:15:24] thank you for that. Page -- section iv70.
[1:15:33] >> yes. >> chair muralles: perfect.
[1:15:39] questions or other deliberation are we ready to move then? I
[1:15:42] think we are good. Comfortable with making a decision to
[1:15:47] recommend to the board of supervisors to adopt the
[1:15:51] proposed code. >> commissioner
[1:15:53] stepanicich: I would move to adopt to the code of supervisors
[1:15:57] to adopt title 22 of marin county code.
[1:16:00] >> chair muralles: commissioner
[1:16:02] stepanicich make as first motion. Who would like to
[1:16:05] second? >> commissioner
[1:16:08] curran: I'll second. >> chair
[1:16:10] muralles: commissioner curran. Thank you, roll call.
[1:16:18] >> commissioner curran. >> I.
[1:16:20] >> commissioner lind. >> I.
[1:16:22] >> commissioner monroe. >> I.
[1:16:25] >> commissioner stepanicich >> I.
[1:16:30] >> commissioner muralles. >> I. Chair rale
[1:16:38] especially: per following the accident. That item is cruised.
[1:16:40] >> chair muralles: moving to item 5. Give us a few minutes
[1:16:44] to do the shift. Thank you. Good to go. Item 5 and morning
[1:17:19] features ands l.l.c., and project manager here with us to
[1:17:22] lead us into the project. Go ahead.
[1:17:24] >> great. Thank you. I just want to note that we have a
[1:17:27] couple staff members available on zoom for questions. We have
[1:17:36] michelle levinson and hue davis and other members in from the
[1:17:42] department of public work ifs you have questions afterwards.
[1:17:45] I'll start with my presentation then. Great, project site is in
[1:18:05] in -- it's from pre-sen tee and cliff road and property
[1:18:10] surrounded by otherred a jay san antonio private properties and
[1:18:13] the project site is irregular 4,938 square foot lot and it's
[1:18:22] down from the road and existing structure at south end of the
[1:18:26] property. In portions of the existing structure do extend
[1:18:30] over the property line. One ash tree and rendition of anthony
[1:18:58] move of a plat -- removal of platform and other improvements.
[1:19:01] picture of the site plan on the left -- bottom is cliff road.
[1:19:25] july 78, 2026, there was a timely appeal submitted of the
[1:19:29] morning phase coastal development permit and coastal
[1:19:31] variance and asserted that the project lacks analysis and
[1:19:35] compliance with the california building code. And related fire
[1:19:45] code and nonconforming code and assert that had modifications to
[1:19:48] the existing structure would violate the private easement
[1:19:54] agreement between the two subject properties. Sush say
[1:20:07] included showing existing encroach
[1:20:12] encroachmentsments and structurn the property. Building elevation
[1:20:16] and existing elevations on the top and proposed graphics on the
[1:20:21] bottom. This is just existing structure and doesn't include
[1:20:36] adu. This is a picture of the existing structure and this
[1:20:42] would be of -- looking from the center of the property towards
[1:20:47] the house. This is looking beyond the fence from cliff
[1:20:55] road. Again, this would be up towards the top of the property
[1:20:58] near cliff road. The points of appeal are insufficient to
[1:21:06] overturn the deputy zoning administrator's commissioner
[1:21:10] approval and the county building and safety division reviews for
[1:21:14] compliance with the california building code upon the applicant
[1:21:19] submitting to the building division. This application was
[1:21:23] just to review compliance for title 20 for coastal development
[1:21:32] code. Additionally private ease wants and boundary -- easements
[1:21:37] and boundary disputes are a civil matter between the parties
[1:21:40] involved and are not enforced or regulated by the county. As
[1:21:53] discussed in the findings, all the developments have been made.
[1:21:56] with that, I'll hand it over for the next -- any questions or I
[1:22:01] can hand it over for the next presentation.
[1:22:06] >> chair muralles: thank you, megan. Any questions for
[1:22:09] the planning? Commissioner curran.
[1:22:12] >> commissioner curran: I didn't hear the last thing you
[1:22:14] said. Any questions before you what, hand it over to --
[1:22:24] >> next presentation by the appellant.
[1:22:30] >> commissioner curran: I hold my question till after you
[1:22:33] speak. >> I can take them now.
[1:22:36] >> commissioner curran: just we have a memo and
[1:22:39] a procedural one and there's a memo here that looks kind of
[1:22:43] like a staff memo but from the appellant. And then kind of
[1:22:49] verne viewing and sitting here since it was new to us today.
[1:22:53] but procedurally, this is introducing a different basis
[1:23:13] for appeal than what was in the appeal. Is that permissible
[1:23:16] shifting the grounds like that? I don't recall encountering this
[1:23:22] situation before. >> chair muralles: before
[1:23:31] we get into it. It was a memo we got today. We didn't have much
[1:23:36] chance to review f. You give us context and answer the question.
[1:23:39] >> commissioner curran: or we can let things play out and
[1:23:42] speak to it afterwards. >> I think if we can
[1:23:44] proceed with some of the other presentations as well from the
[1:23:48] appellant as well as applicant, they'll give our council a
[1:23:51] chance to take a look at it as well. Generally staff conducted
[1:24:10] analysis of what was in the appeal filed timely. I don't --
[1:24:13] I think I'll wait to allow legal council to take a look and see
[1:24:17] about whether or not they can introduce additional information
[1:24:20] as part of their presentation as today's proceedings.
[1:24:31] >> commissioner stepanicich: yes, just one
[1:24:34] question on portion of main building being modified, is the
[1:24:37] actual part that encroaches to 87 brighton, is that being
[1:24:40] modified in terms of dimensionss at all? Looks like there's a
[1:24:46] window being changed. Are the general dimensions of the
[1:24:55] encroachment the same? >> existing nonconforming
[1:24:58] structure and it's not being modified in the sense that it
[1:25:00] would be expanded. >> chair
[1:25:09] muralles: commissioner monroe. >> commissioner
[1:25:11] monroe: thank you. I sent an e-mail to megan yesterday, and
[1:25:18] it is printed for you but these were my questions that I was
[1:25:21] going to ask so I may as well go ahead and share them so everyone
[1:25:31] is aware of things I had in mind. First question I had,
[1:25:35] which felt like a important contextual question was whether
[1:25:40] the review of a variance occurs or if there's an example of the
[1:25:53] code and I'll read b4 since you all don't have it in front of
[1:25:57] you. These are the decision and findings on variance, and this
[1:26:01] item 4 is granting the variance will not be debt remittal to the
[1:26:05] public -- detrimental to the public interest, health safety
[1:26:10] or convenience of the public and in the vicinity and zoning
[1:26:13] district in which the property is located. So that feels like
[1:26:17] an important point of review. You're not aware of that. In
[1:26:30] addition hr. Anything else on that?
[1:26:33] >> michelle and I were both not aware of any.
[1:26:37] >> commissioner monroe: thank you. Second was
[1:26:40] recommendations of coastal commission staff and jillian
[1:26:44] honey. Cdp include requirements per land use policy c-des-9 and
[1:26:53] regarding native planting. We can come back to that but that
[1:26:57] felt important to me, particularly given what I saw
[1:27:12] from land scapping plan with very little native plants and
[1:27:16] forward thinking coastal a saturday restrictions that are
[1:27:19] really appropriate where there's not yet -- wouldn't be a taking,
[1:27:22] this is very future forward, but it would be terrific if we can
[1:27:27] incorporate any of those provisions.
[1:27:44] >> I went back and reviewed what's applicable sections of
[1:27:48] the lcp, and as I indicated to you in the e-mail, if your
[1:27:52] commission would like, special condition of 4, waiver of
[1:27:56] liability could be added and that is a special condition of
[1:28:04] approval and it's in a list that could be add ed and then the
[1:28:09] rest of of a saturday conditions and it's up to the -- hazard and
[1:28:26] it's up to the applicant if they want to impose that themselves.
[1:28:31] >> commissioner monroe: sorry. Final question I
[1:28:33] had was to reference the condition of approval. I
[1:28:36] appreciate that there's the geotechnical oversight, but
[1:28:46] specific to the requirement of road repair that's occurring. So
[1:28:48] just want to call that out. >> part of it too is we
[1:28:51] don't know when construction would be occurring.
[1:29:03] >> commissioner monroe: thank you, for the
[1:29:04] requirement of communication and coordination would be'dell.
[1:29:10] >> chair muralles: commissioner lind,
[1:29:12] turn off your microphone. >> commissioner lind: I had
[1:29:16] a question. My question is about the statement in appeal of
[1:29:26] nonconforming and didn't see anything addressing that in the
[1:29:28] staff report. The staff report lists that on page 3 under
[1:29:35] describing the appeal and it's not new -- not completely new
[1:29:37] information all though it's certainly augmented in this memo
[1:29:41] we received today. What was the staff response to this statement
[1:29:50] about it doesn't adhere to nonconforming use regulations?
[1:29:59] >> are you asking why the structure is existing
[1:30:03] non-determined and nonconforming?
[1:30:05] >> commissioner lind: I didn't see why that was not a
[1:30:08] valid basis for appeal. >> the architectural
[1:30:12] history report provided by the applicant indicated the
[1:30:15] structure was built between 1924 and 1931. So the structure
[1:30:21] predated coastal act. Building permits and 1938 and then 1979
[1:30:37] and 1984 building permit did indicate and there's no site
[1:30:48] plan and there's written nations that the structure is --
[1:30:52] notations that the structure is at property line or over the
[1:30:56] property line. 1948 the structure was not complying with
[1:31:04] today's setbacks. >> commissioner lind: it's
[1:31:12] a setback? >> doesn't comply with any
[1:31:16] setbacks and it's over the property line. #
[1:31:23] >> commissioner lind: is it over the property line?
[1:31:25] >> according to the surveys it is.
[1:31:28] >> commissioner lind: what's the resolution of
[1:31:29] that issue? >> the appellant and
[1:31:34] applicant have agreement about the structure, and for it's
[1:31:39] non-conformance status. >> there's discussion
[1:31:49] there's an existing easement that's covering the existing
[1:31:52] home. The work that's being done is not necessarily encroaching
[1:31:57] beyond that existing footprint so there's still concern that
[1:32:15] it's built over the property line and in the easement and
[1:32:17] they're having discussions arnold the width of the easement
[1:32:20] and allowed uses within that easement area.
[1:32:23] >> commissioner lind: I see. But that's not the area
[1:32:25] being changed in the building envelope?
[1:32:27] >> it is not the area where the adu is being constructed,
[1:32:30] but there are some modifications being made to the residential
[1:32:34] structure within that easement area.
[1:32:42] >> commissioner lind: I see.
[1:32:44] >> chair muralles: are we good? We can move onto the --
[1:32:47] >> if I may through the chair, I want to respond to
[1:32:50] commissioner curran's question earlier. Looking at the code of
[1:32:58] appeal of development decision and public hearing the appeal
[1:33:00] authority may consider any issues involving the matter that
[1:33:03] is the subject of appeal in addition to the specific grounds
[1:33:06] for the appeal. Hope that answers it sufficiently.
[1:33:17] >> chair muralles: thank you, julia. Moving onto
[1:33:20] appellant's presentation. If you can come up, please. For the
[1:33:29] record, state your name. >> I'm steven ratcliffe.
[1:33:33] would you do it for me. I'll call out slide. I have ten
[1:33:54] minutes? >> chair muralles: that's
[1:33:56] correct. >> I will read quickly to
[1:34:00] cover all the salient points. >> oona ratcliffe is unable
[1:34:07] to be here and I'll read this on her behalf. Slide one. Slide
[1:34:14] two. The purpose of the memorandum, this memorandum
[1:34:20] supplements appeal submitted on july 8, 2026, and responds to
[1:34:28] the staff report recommendation that the appeal be denied.
[1:34:33] appellant kindly ask they apply to appeal title 20 of marin
[1:34:37] county code, coastal zoning code, and focus on the following
[1:34:42] title 20 provisions. 207-0030, 20.70.070, 20.70.080. 20.07.160,
[1:34:58] which is nonconforming uses and structures, and 20.64.110. Other
[1:35:06] provisional provisions of title 20. Slide 4, please. This is not
[1:35:16] guilty a boundary dispute and undisputed applicant record
[1:35:20] never analysing this. Slide 5. Appal
[1:35:24] apelted atlanta asking the -- appellant asking the commission
[1:35:27] to recognize a fact to establish by the applicants own submitted
[1:35:31] survey performed by mure consulting in -- muir con
[1:35:37] summitting consulting in 2022 and the property manager
[1:35:41] and shared with appellant before the application was filed. The
[1:35:46] physical structure at 40 cliff road occupies more of the
[1:35:51] neighborring parcel than the obstructing cerumen ragainitive
[1:35:55] recorded -- operative recording instrument describes. Neither
[1:35:59] the decision nor staff report findings analysis engages with
[1:36:02] what that fact means. Under title 20's nonconforming
[1:36:10] structure and legal interest provisions. A, the applicant's
[1:36:13] own surveyor documented discrepancy. The boundary and
[1:36:17] the topographic surveillance su0 cliff road and prepared by muir
[1:36:25] consults and part of the application record and states as
[1:36:27] a survey note "the recorded -- the record location of the
[1:36:33] buildings easement agreement doc no. 210, does not fit the
[1:36:39] resolved boundary line. The resolved boundary, the location
[1:36:42] of said easement has been moved to show the intent of said
[1:36:47] easement. See document for restrictions on new construction
[1:36:53] construction." slide 6. This is the applicant's own licensed
[1:37:01] surveys statement filed with the application. It establishes as a
[1:37:06] surveyed fact that the encroachment as it exists on the
[1:37:09] ground does not match the encroachment as legally
[1:37:14] described. Slide 7. The own comparison district shared with
[1:37:21] the appellant qualified the discrepancy. Slide 8. During a
[1:37:30] series of private e-mail exchanges and video conference
[1:37:33] meetings between appellant and development property manager and
[1:37:38] request a lot line adjustment and appellant required with
[1:37:41] several exhibits prepared by the architects on behalf of the
[1:37:49] developer and one exhibit was the pre-survey and post-survey
[1:37:52] condition and labels the two states "before 30 square foot
[1:38:02] easement, after 65 square foot easement." slide 9. Another
[1:38:08] lays out three concrete options. Webinars: adjust the property
[1:38:12] line to previously assumed location. Two: adjust the
[1:38:16] property line to the southern wall of the building footprint,
[1:38:20] eliminating the need for any easement or three: adjust
[1:38:24] property line to the existing fence. These were design to cure
[1:38:32] the nonconforming condition of survey revealed in the
[1:38:37] developer's own words "a recently completed survey
[1:38:40] determined that your property is larger than the encroachment
[1:38:44] easement previously suggested. The updated pl has created a2010
[1:38:50] nonconforming condition with our southern windows. Please review
[1:38:53] the three possible property line adjustment solutions." the
[1:39:08] coastal development permit application didn't disclose
[1:39:11] history or any three cure options or otherwise address the
[1:39:15] nonconformity. The historic resources evaluation updated
[1:39:36] 2022/2023 survey and fully describe the legal boundary
[1:39:40] condition. Condition a legal nonconforming
[1:39:50] condition existed at very location where the project
[1:39:52] proposes to row move existing wall assembly and construct a
[1:39:56] new opening and balcony and shows to proceed to cdp approval
[1:40:08] without asking the county to make the required changes the
[1:40:12] county wants for nonconforming structures. Title 20
[1:40:16] independently requires the findings the slide is missing.
[1:40:27] slide 10. An applicant must establish the legal interest in
[1:40:30] the property on which work is proposeed. The property be
[1:40:45] developed and applicants legal interest in it. No completeness
[1:40:49] review ever addressed which parcel the southern wall of the
[1:40:55] residence actually sits on. B, section 20.70.030
[1:41:03] require finding ands several of them adopted by dza and
[1:41:06] recommended by the commission are presupposed facts about "the
[1:41:10] existing residence that are not accurate as to the southern
[1:41:14] wall." the resolution's finding f and finding l under section
[1:41:22] 20.70.070 described "the existing residence as a fixed
[1:41:27] known object, neither finding acknowledges that a defined
[1:41:33] portion of the residence and portion identified as
[1:41:37] encroaching sits on a different legal parcel than the remainder
[1:41:40] of the structure." slide 11, nonconforming uses and
[1:41:51] structures. Slide 12, title 20's nonconforming structures for
[1:42:05] this and does not conform to current development standards on
[1:42:08] a portion of the site. It's not nonconforming and analyse
[1:42:19] proposed alterations against section 20.70.160 standards for
[1:42:24] altering a nonconforming structure, and does not
[1:42:26] determine whether replacing the existing windows openings with a
[1:42:31] larger door and balcony increases the degree of
[1:42:37] nonconformity. That belongs at cdp stage section 20.70.160 and
[1:42:46] not at building permit stage. Slide 13. Resolution findings g
[1:42:58] adopted under section 20.64.110 does not reach separate
[1:43:04] community development concern raised here. Inaccurate account
[1:43:20] of which parcel the southern wall sits on is not supported by
[1:43:25] substantial evidence as to that portion of the project.
[1:43:36] appellant respectfully requests planning commission one, grant
[1:43:39] appeal in part and remand the matter to require the applicant
[1:43:46] to a, demonstrate legal interest under section 20.70.030.
[1:43:58] >> chair muralles: I'll need you to wrap up.
[1:44:01] >> just two more points if I could. Three requests, decline
[1:44:11] to adapt -- adopt findings f, g, and l currently drafted and
[1:44:16] three, in the alternative condition any approval on
[1:44:20] resolution of section 20.70.160 nonconforming structure
[1:44:25] analysis. And confirmation of legal interest under section
[1:44:31] 20.70.030 as prerequisite to issuing building permit for
[1:44:37] work. >> chair muralles: thank
[1:44:46] you. Applicant can come forward and you have ten minutes, thank
[1:44:50] you. >> megan, will you put up
[1:44:52] the presentation deck. Is that handy?
[1:45:11] >> chair muralles: you may introduce yourself.
[1:45:13] >> I'm steven sutro and I'm the architect for this project.
[1:45:17] going to slide 1. Please. I prepared some points for the
[1:45:30] paperwork of appeal and it was predominantly about fire code
[1:45:34] separation and right to improve the building in the area of
[1:45:47] non-conformance and encroachment itself and whether it's legal
[1:45:52] certainly is a private matter and it's been long standing and
[1:46:01] I can read you the entire language of that private
[1:46:03] agreement of the easement. It simply says and it was recorded
[1:46:09] in 2010, it says that the entirety of that portion of the
[1:46:11] building is allowed to stand there, and it says approximately
[1:46:17] 4'10, approximately 17 feet long. It says if either party
[1:46:20] wishes to have it formally surveyed, that's -- we can do
[1:46:23] that together communally it says in the agreement. And says it's
[1:46:26] allowed to stand there and be improved. If it's destroyed
[1:46:36] that's not okay and must stand. What we're doing is not a
[1:46:41] demolition. We're not demolishing according to the
[1:46:44] standards of marin planning code neither in that area nor the
[1:46:48] whole structure. How much is being demolished of the
[1:47:00] structure and order of 17 beers and nowhere close to 75 -- 17%
[1:47:05] and nowhere close to the 75%. In the legal existing encroaching
[1:47:10] served by this easement. We're roadway placing the cladding in
[1:47:22] place and there's a roof line sloping down and seeking to make
[1:47:26] the window larger and pushing it back like in a reverse dormer in
[1:47:29] the slope. So the only modification volume metrically
[1:47:33] to the structure is making that part of the slope that's in the
[1:47:36] area of easement smaller by pushing it back towards the
[1:47:42] subject property. All the language of easements are here
[1:47:50] handy and megan said it's a civil matter and not adjudicated
[1:47:55] by staff or you all. I'm happy to read you language of easement
[1:47:58] if you want to hear it. But there's no disagreement about
[1:48:00] the easement. Maybe misinterpretation and it's very
[1:48:04] clear from our perspective, and we're not violating the easement
[1:48:07] and there's nothing that's fuzzy about that. So if you could
[1:48:21] thank you. A bit about the project and address fire
[1:48:24] concerns and proposed project is renovation of very small 600
[1:48:28] square foot main house and in addition to 800ad and you
[1:48:31] recollects lot slopes downward significantly from cliff road.
[1:48:34] one concerns in this area and with the landslide that just
[1:48:39] happened is that all the neighbors are in for a penny and
[1:48:42] pound to help participate in the remedy of the landslide that isa
[1:49:00] jay san jaire
[1:49:05] is adjacent and it's the property owner that signed up
[1:49:09] for the share of the payment. The improvements for this site
[1:49:12] put in place if it proceeds a series of landscape walls that
[1:49:18] are curved and linear and buttress up the hillside they're
[1:49:23] not short of. This improvement will improve the safety of the
[1:49:27] road. Also will not injure the public in any way in there's no
[1:49:33] more bulk and mass of the structure and no change in kind
[1:49:36] of predominant use of the structure other than the
[1:49:39] addition of the adu, which has its own kind of circumstances in
[1:49:52] california. There's a small electrical platform if you want
[1:49:54] to ask questions about that. It's underserved by utilities
[1:49:57] and only way to get. It's so severely down sloped and no
[1:50:00] place on the lot for a person by code to stand in front of an
[1:50:04] electrical panel and work. We're doing a small platform for a
[1:50:18] transfer switch and subject of discussion at last round of
[1:50:22] areview. Go to slide 2 -- 3 actually. The little bump on the
[1:50:38] left -- portion of the structure on the left of the diagram with
[1:50:41] a jog and that's the portion of the main house with an'sment
[1:50:50] recorded and single story portion with existing non-rated
[1:50:55] series of glass skylights. I've been a licensed architect in
[1:51:11] california for 20 years and we know how to do rated
[1:51:14] construction within three feet of a property line. So
[1:51:19] everything in this area has a rating and skylights are single
[1:51:26] payne, vulnerable not skylights in the same spot with rated
[1:51:30] skylights and a one-hour available assembly for
[1:51:33] manufacturers to use so fire won't transfer as easily between
[1:51:37] properties. Like wise the window not rated and made larger is a
[1:51:49] fire wall too and all of these things are knowing there's a
[1:51:53] conceptual solution and design something not probable and
[1:51:56] provide details at building permit submittal and adhere to
[1:52:01] fire separation standards. Alts a concern raised --
[1:52:06] also a concern raised that construction is difficult and we
[1:52:20] submitted a construction management plan, where the
[1:52:22] builder proposes to build a platform off the road to stage
[1:52:28] materials and a limited amount of parking, for two or three
[1:52:34] trucks, and would find car pools and transfer spot for
[1:52:42] subcontractors to park and general contractor would shuttle
[1:52:45] them touchdown pass position. So the idea is -- to this position
[1:52:49] the idea is that platform built off the roadway would serve so
[1:52:52] trucks can unload in a way that would be safe so that emergency
[1:52:57] vehicles and neighbors can get by while activities have
[1:53:00] happening. With care and diligence this would be no
[1:53:03] different than any others on belvidere island or place where
[1:53:05] is the access is difficult and wine I did and small. -- windy
[1:53:12] and small. I think I've gone through the points that I want
[1:53:18] to talk about so I'll yield my time unless anyone has questions
[1:53:21] they'd like to discuss. >> chair muralles: any
[1:53:30] questions for the presenter? Go ahead.
[1:53:33] >> commissioner monroe: that you can't thank yor
[1:53:36] presentations. In the plan, is there a portion of the project
[1:53:39] that is -- trying to understand is there a portion on the public
[1:53:51] easement and the nor deck. Is the deck reaching out over the
[1:53:55] public easement? >> the deck exists and
[1:53:57] pointing to a tiny little triangle and exists there, yes,
[1:54:00] and it's propose to be replaced in kind in place with new
[1:54:06] decking. And there's encroachment placing for that
[1:54:15] and it could be modified a tiny bit smaller.
[1:54:19] >> commissioner monroe: that's the deck?
[1:54:21] >> yes, existing nonconforming condition and
[1:54:23] there's no encroachment permit or anything to speak to that.
[1:54:32] >> chair muralles: I mentioned at the beginning we
[1:54:35] need to take a break as one of our commissioners is leaving.
[1:54:40] we'll be back with more questions.
[1:54:42] >> commissioner curran: I'm the commissioner that has to
[1:54:46] leave. Excuse me. I apologize for that, everybody. I'm still a
[1:54:52] little confused, and I hope we get to the bottom of it of
[1:54:56] exactly whether this is in any way increasing degree of
[1:55:02] nonconformity and I'm not asking you to respond. That's moving
[1:55:08] onto different stage. But you'll be asked if anybody else who can
[1:55:14] answer whether this is in any way increasing degree of
[1:55:19] nonconformity. I am concerned about what commissioner monroe
[1:55:24] raised as well of something is nonconforming to demolish and
[1:55:32] replace it, it's questionable and like really questionable and
[1:55:38] in my history of that subject that you don't generally in a
[1:55:45] broad sense get to tear something down that's
[1:55:49] nonconforming and replace it with nonconforming. When you
[1:55:51] tear something down, you replace with conforming. That's how
[1:55:56] conformance happens over time. But those are some of my
[1:56:00] concerns, but I apologize that I have to go.
[1:56:05] >> chair muralles: thank you, commissioner curran. Two
[1:56:07] minutes and we'll be back and you can answer that.
[1:56:10] >> got it. Okay, thank you this is.
[1:56:17] >> chair muralles: this is a good time if you park in the
[1:56:20] two hour zone, you immediate to move your car. We're taking five
[1:56:23] minutes. If you need to move your car because it's parked in
[1:56:25] the two-hour zone, this is a good time to do it and we'll
[1:56:28] convene in five minutes. Thank you.
[1:58:39] test. Test.
[2:01:50] .
[2:02:03] . .
[2:03:28] [please stand by] test.
[2:03:36] [please stand by] test.
[2:07:16] >> chair muralles: all right we'ring to get ready to
[2:07:20] reconvene our meeting. Go ahead mr. Shutter when you
[2:07:30] are ready to answer to what the last commissioner pointed out
[2:07:34] we'll be happy to here that.
[2:07:36] >> okay. Terrific. So, let's
[2:07:39] see I think her you might have to help me restate the question
[2:07:44] but one was is there an intensification of anything of
[2:07:49] use or of any non-conformans? Non-conformance that I can see.
[2:07:56] and megan is out of line. I don't knowing there is
[2:08:00] anything intensified. Meaning the building is beep
[2:08:03] rehabilitted with finishes in place request no change, no
[2:08:07] change of use it's a single family residence now and it
[2:08:13] tends to stay that way. Encroachment is not getting
[2:08:17] bigger there is nothing that is changing so I don't see that
[2:08:21] there is an intensification of use or an exacerbation of the
[2:08:32] conconformty. I can't remember her second question. Oh, I
[2:08:35] think she said you know, in our experience and I sit on the ros.
[2:08:44] turkt review board and we seek to make in better if we can
[2:08:48] there is not a demolition of this structure by any stretch
[2:08:53] all of the studs, rafters and joints are staying and it'seses
[2:08:59] toughs do the calculation to show it's well beyond the code
[2:09:04] as it relates to admission so we're not building a new
[2:09:09] structure nor demolishing this one flt I guess that guess
[2:09:13] that's the same thing. That's not case. I don't knowing that
[2:09:20] applies here. >> chair muralles: thank you.
[2:09:23] commissioner stepanicich. Stand up
[2:09:28] >> commissioner stepanicich: did that kate that the current
[2:09:31] structure goes outside the limits of the oovment?
[2:09:35] >> the easement is not mathematic. I can read you the
[2:09:41] easement says we both acknowledge that this house
[2:09:47] compends 4-foot 10 and approximately 17 feet that's the
[2:09:50] wording they used in 2010 2010 they had no formal survey. They
[2:09:55] were doing their own math. They said to each other. If either
[2:10:00] party wishes to have a formal survey, great. I don't know why
[2:10:04] they mention that but they do. I think its, from a legal
[2:10:10] coverage standpoint if it's 5' 2 that's cool to.
[2:10:14] and if it's greater than 17, that's okay, too. We don't
[2:10:20] knowlet metes and bounds and we don't wabt to pay to have a
[2:10:24] surveyor at this time. This encroaches and we're okay with
[2:10:28] that. It's allowed to stay there as long ass not made
[2:10:32] bigger. So our surveyor said this is about 4' 6 I don't know
[2:10:37] what it is we can look at the documents but we corroborates
[2:10:46] what is says in the documentation.
[2:10:52] >> chair muralles: thank you. Commissioner lind.
[2:10:55] >> commissioner lind: how much out of the easement is the
[2:10:59] structure based on the new survey?
[2:11:03] >> you may how far does it compensated beyond the property
[2:11:09] line? >> commissioner lind: the easem.
[2:11:11] >> the answer to that is 0 because the easement does not
[2:11:16] decree a certain distance. >> commissioner lind: sot
[2:11:22] previousso the previous tm said it had a result.
[2:11:28] >> this is smoke and mirrors I
[2:11:30] think he's trying to make it difficult for us.
[2:11:36] >> commissioner lind: do you have a document that shows that.
[2:11:40] >> the easement is not a recorded distance.
[2:11:44] >> commissioner lind: but you disiernd it.
[2:11:46] >> we know what the property
[2:11:48] line is and the house compends beyond that property line and we
[2:11:53] designed knowing those facts. >> commissioner lind: does the
[2:11:57] staff have the language of the easement?
[2:12:00] >> I don't know because it's a civil matter.
[2:12:03] >> it's in the plan set.
[2:12:05] >> commissioner lind: where is it in the plan set?
[2:12:09] >> 1.07.
[2:12:27] >> commissioner lind: I was looking at this.
[2:12:32] >> it's 81.07.
[2:12:42] >> chair muralles: comom do you have any questions?
[2:12:45] >> chair muralles: okay just give us a minute. Thank you.
[2:13:15] >> claudia, michelle would like to make a comment.
[2:13:19] >> chair muralles: yes, michelle.
[2:13:21] hi, michelle. Sorry I was looking around.
[2:13:24] >> I'm michelle levenson
[2:13:27] principle planner I'm at home with covid, go figure its still
[2:13:30] a thing. But I did it wouldn't direct your attention as you are
[2:13:37] reviewing that easement language to a specific portion of it.
[2:13:40] and it does talk about thability the ability and the right to the
[2:13:50] property owner to repair and maintain the encroachment at
[2:13:55] their expense. So as the architect has described, the
[2:14:01] portion of the structure within the easement isn't getting
[2:14:08] bigger. Essentially the non-conformity isn't exacerbated
[2:14:15] with this project. They are maintaining the
[2:14:18] structure in the easement. >> chair muralles: thank you, m.
[2:14:26] >> I can answer mislinned's question.
[2:14:34] >> chair muralles: go ahead. Thank you.
[2:14:35] >> sot easement says in the
[2:14:36] porks of it says the encroachment in quotation marx
[2:14:41] is approximately 4 feet in the north to south direction and 17
[2:14:45] teethe 17 feet in the east to west direction and we find that
[2:14:51] the surveyor sees that it's 17 feet 2 inches long and it is
[2:14:57] 3-foot 11 wide. So it's approximately the same but use
[2:15:01] it's word "approximate." >> commissioner lind: sot sleng
[2:15:07] not issue it's the the width. >> chair muralles: can you speak
[2:15:10] in the microphone please. >> commissioner lind: I'm
[2:15:14] sorry. The sleng not the issue tsz it's
[2:15:18] the widthth.
[2:15:20] >> its 3-foot 11.
[2:15:25] >> commissioner lind: so about a inch is that correct?
[2:15:28] >> from the language to what we see in the field, yes. In 2010
[2:15:32] when the approximate the language they are off but about
[2:15:37] an inch. >> commissioner lind: okay.
[2:15:39] that was the answer to my question. Thank you.
[2:15:46] >> chair muralles: commissioner monroe.
[2:15:52] >> commissioner monroe: so it's the updated survey that is the
[2:15:57] changed condition is that correct?
[2:15:59] >> I don't know what "changed" meanings.
[2:16:05] >> commissioner monroe: they've included and shown in the slide
[2:16:08] the formerly understood property line meant that a smaller
[2:16:15] portion of the building was, included in the easement and now
[2:16:23] their property line has been established to have moved.
[2:16:31] could you perhaps just tell me or tell us your understanding of
[2:16:37] the property line survey that has occurred?
[2:16:44] >> sure. When we started the design of the project a few
[2:16:46] years ago we hired a consulting that is we know and trust and
[2:16:54] love and we had an old survey document from, I don't know
[2:16:58] when, some number of years ago, 10, 20, 30 years ago and we
[2:17:02] disbt have didn't have everything we needed on it. It
[2:17:08] didn't have topography and it wasn't proper for a design. So
[2:17:13] he asked for a new deal we weren't trying to shape anything
[2:17:18] about this easement just where is everything please so we can
[2:17:21] design properly. I think that he's mening that the old survey
[2:17:26] had it slightly differently depicted but joz how it's
[2:17:36] germane. It is 17 feet and that's what the surveyor found
[2:17:41] that it does. This neighbor group has not
[2:17:47] asked nor anything in particular. It just seems that
[2:17:52] it's resistance to change. Not can you please do this or that.
[2:18:01] could you not design an an tenia ow make it blue or have a
[2:18:07] problem with the parking or this or thavment.
[2:18:10] >> chair muralles: thank you commissioners.
[2:18:12] with respect to the balcony that encroaches is that bailing
[2:18:19] balcony the same size that currently exists?
[2:18:23] >> the balcony, -- one second.
[2:18:33] >> chair muralles: no, thank
[2:18:34] you.
[2:18:36] >> yeah. I just it wouldn't
[2:18:38] make sure I wasn't going to misspeak.
[2:18:42] that's a fixed window. We thought it would be cool to
[2:18:46] have an operable window but make angry upable upable terrace. So
[2:18:55] we made it a fixed piece of glass. It removes a little bit
[2:19:00] of volume and the window is on the sog property subject
[2:19:08] property. >> commissioner stepanicich: but
[2:19:09] no balcony?
[2:19:10] >> no balcony at all. >> commissioner stepanicich: I
[2:19:13] just wanted to clarify that.
[2:19:15] >> it was our mistake for representing that in earlier
[2:19:21] designs. >> chair muralles: commissioner
[2:19:24] monroe? >> commissioner monroe: no.
[2:19:26] >> chair muralles: any other questions.
[2:19:26] before we go to public comment I want to see if the staff has any
[2:19:31] feedback for us regarding the slemental. Thank you, steve.
[2:19:36] if you have any information for us regarding the memorandum that
[2:19:41] was submitted today?
[2:19:43] >> if I may I think I'll address from the procedural perspective.
[2:19:49] there is a section of county code that covers the appeal of
[2:19:55] the permits so just reminder to the commissioners it says they
[2:20:00] my consider any issue involving the the matter that is a subject
[2:20:05] of the appeal. So you certainly can consider any of the
[2:20:09] information, any of the project that's in front of you today and
[2:20:12] then I'll look to see if staff has anything additional that
[2:20:15] they wish to add for the record.
[2:20:20] >> I think to note that I guess the marin county code
[2:20:25] specifically the definitions does include definitions of
[2:20:31] repair and maintenance and demolition and the code does
[2:20:37] allow for repair maintenance of non-conforming structures and
[2:20:41] that's what's proposed as part of this project.
[2:20:45] >> chair muralles: thank you.
[2:20:48] commissioners? You are fine? Okay. We're good? Okay. I
[2:20:50] would like to go ahead and open this time for public comment.
[2:21:02] if you can go ahead and state your name please and you'll have
[2:21:06] 3 minutes. Is it 3 ow 2? 3 minutes to speak.
[2:21:09] >> hello I'm nansy I'm coowner
[2:21:14] of brighton avenue and originally it wasn't all the way
[2:21:18] through to cliff road. And mr. Walker divided the property
[2:21:26] two years before my grandfather purchased it because he built a
[2:21:34] house. It was an old barn that was there before and then the
[2:21:40] segment platform and it encroaches on our property and
[2:21:44] we have been contacted to change the property line. We're kind
[2:21:48] of like this because they want the property line changed and
[2:21:53] then people have found out we've never known who owned this
[2:21:58] house. And my sister and brother did it, it's a
[2:22:04] cofoppedder of air bnb worth 7 billion and he has been
[2:22:10] working through all these people and they want us to change the
[2:22:15] property line and people in bolinas are saying wait a
[2:22:18] minute. So we're torn here. Also just hearing about the
[2:22:24] platform the pink east platform which you probably all know
[2:22:29] about was causing a 2.7 earthquake and my daughter lives
[2:22:34] in the area and all the houses all around finally eliminated
[2:22:39] this equipment and I learned in 1968 the couple who owned the
[2:22:46] property the road going down you know with cliff road, behind
[2:22:51] cliff road they could never build on that property told by
[2:22:57] the county because the hill was to unstable. The slide that
[2:23:02] destroyed the house behind 87 brighton and also destroyed the
[2:23:07] house at the curve. So the house has already been knocked
[2:23:12] off its foundation once and that's why we have a sunken
[2:23:18] fireplace because it was going to cost as much to build a whole
[2:23:23] new foundation for the house so I'm concerned about this
[2:23:27] platform being built on a very unstable soil. Alturis road is
[2:23:34] failing because I heard little mesa people talking about it
[2:23:40] because of the trucks not being allowed up there. That's my big
[2:23:45] concern and my sisters concern. She's sick that's why she's not
[2:23:51] here. Has been will thereby a slide occurring? Who'so going to
[2:23:58] pay for for it. You know how unstable the hill is. Will you
[2:24:05] be held accountable because there are lawsuits galore going
[2:24:11] up in little mesa. Thank you. >> chair muralles: thawvment
[2:24:15] anyone else? Okay. I'd like to go ahead and close the time for
[2:24:22] public comment.
[2:24:31] he's the appellate. He spoke
[2:24:41] already. You already had your time.
[2:24:43] thank you. All right any questions comments or everything
[2:24:49] for deliberation?
[2:24:54] >> yeah. >> commissioner lind: I have a
[2:24:54] question for the appellant. >> chair muralles: go ahead.
[2:24:59] lin lib >> commissioner lind: I'm
[2:25:03] stilling struggle to understand the lot line in the easement can
[2:25:06] you tell me if the easement were drawn now based on the new
[2:25:13] survey, how wide would the new easement need to be compared, is
[2:25:17] it bigger than --
[2:25:20] >> what's the question again? >> commissioner lind: if the
[2:25:24] easement were based on the new lot line, does the lot line get
[2:25:30] closer to the house or further?
[2:25:34] >> the lot line got further into the property. Into the property
[2:25:40] the 40 cliff road property. It went further in. So now that --
[2:25:48] pardon me. >> commissioner lind: if you
[2:25:49] were going to solve the problem the non-conforming structure
[2:25:53] problem with an easement and you were doing it now you would need
[2:25:56] to do a bigger easement?
[2:26:00] >> it would have to be granted a larger easement.
[2:26:04] >> commissioner lind: right and how much larger would the
[2:26:08] easement need to be?
[2:26:10] >> I'm not sure exactly. I wanted to say also there was a
[2:26:15] descrement disagreement about the easement I think the
[2:26:20] gentlemen suggested everything was agreed upon.
[2:26:25] >> chair muralles: sorry you already had a turn. You just
[2:26:29] need to answer comirption commissioner lind's question.
[2:26:37] ready to deliberate? Any other questions?
[2:26:43] >> commissioner monroe: was the point you were going to make per
[2:26:45] tint to the easement or unrelated point? Oims point? I'm
[2:26:55] sorry chair would it be okay. >> chair muralles: you can ask
[2:26:59] him a question, yes? >> commissioner monroe: would
[2:27:03] you tell us the follow up to commissioner lind's question?
[2:27:07] >> yes the original easement was granted by oona ratcliffe's
[2:27:14] mother, my wife. It gave a certain amount of encroachment
[2:27:18] on to her property to allow the then owner of the property, wane
[2:27:25] phreic this was in the 1980s to build the little extension on to
[2:27:29] his house and in that easement thftion written that was written
[2:27:37] by -- ratcliffe pa r put in the language if there is ever
[2:27:44] reconstruction or change of property, change of building the
[2:27:48] easement will be revoked. Now the easement that the county has
[2:27:54] accepted into their records is a little, it doesn't include that
[2:28:00] so it seems that the staff has determined that the easement can
[2:28:06] exist and they can do what they want but I appreciate
[2:28:13] commissioner curran's point if there is a nonconformity does it
[2:28:18] make sense to do reconstruction in that nonconformity? That
[2:28:24] seems, that's what they're proposing by you know, he
[2:28:28] mentioned those windows that were sent back but the windows
[2:28:31] are much larger. >> commissioner monroe: okay.
[2:28:34] thank you.
[2:28:34] >> thank you.
[2:28:39] >> chair muralles: commissioner lind?
[2:28:40] >> commissioner lind: oh, okay. No.
[2:28:45] >> chair muralles: commissioner monroe?
[2:28:46] >> commissioner monroe: I have one other swetion there were
[2:28:51] some public comments that referenced the park parking
[2:28:57] spaces and the private cliff road so I'm hoping either staff
[2:29:06] or the project proopponents could describe the role if any
[2:29:12] of the both parking spaces that provide access for the residents
[2:29:18] and also the parking for construction I'm very family
[2:29:24] familiar with this stretch of the road and it's less than
[2:29:28] 10 feet it's very narrow the access is difficult. If you can
[2:29:34] lay out that element as it pertains to the appeal.
[2:29:43] >> I could have the department
[2:29:46] of public works come up here and speak.
[2:29:48] are you asking about the requirements?
[2:29:52] >> commissioner monroe: both the rimplets requirements and the
[2:29:57] impacts of the proposed project of related question is, what is
[2:30:02] the requirement for the actual private parking spaces and do
[2:30:08] they have a relationship to the project it is? So there is a two
[2:30:12] parks questions the construction parking and the resident parkin.
[2:30:19] >> I'll have alicia stamps from the department of public works
[2:30:23] answer this.
[2:30:28] >> hi. Alicia stamples stamps. For the existing parking the
[2:30:38] applicantses not proposing to change the parking and we're not
[2:30:42] allowed to ask for a parking for the adu so the parking for the
[2:30:46] existing homes remains as it is which is on the shoulder and on
[2:30:51] the construction management, I hadn't seen the construction
[2:30:56] management plan that was discussed during the applicant
[2:30:58] presentation but there is a requirement as a condition of
[2:31:01] approval that they submit a construction management plan
[2:31:07] prior to approval of the building permit that will
[2:31:13] address parking access throughout the duration of the
[2:31:17] project. >> chair muralles: thank you.
[2:31:26] do we have any more questions? Yeah. Maybe I could add a
[2:31:34] couple points here looking at the terms of the easement where
[2:31:37] we stand right now with the current structure. This is has
[2:31:43] become a little more complicated than I firsist thought it was
[2:31:47] going to be. What seems to be the case here the easement was
[2:31:52] agreed upon after the structure had been built. The parties
[2:31:57] realized this was an encroaching structure and then demanded it
[2:32:00] be resolved and there was an easement within a approximate
[2:32:06] description of the inprovments. I think the key factor it says
[2:32:13] that the encroachment which exists at that time which now
[2:32:16] the current structure the encroachment cannot be expanded
[2:32:22] so I think it seems to be the parties accepted that the
[2:32:25] structure that exists there right now was being acceptedded
[2:32:28] as being a permissible encroachment and it does seem to
[2:32:33] be exist regardless of a later survey that shows different
[2:32:38] dmingses because again this was a resolutioner of a dispute at
[2:32:42] that time. It seems to me that the encroachment that now exists
[2:32:47] is valid and because one issue to be would be clearly if this
[2:32:51] was being expanded the property owner would have to have legal
[2:32:57] interest in the property that they are encroach ting to. At
[2:33:02] this time the building is not beep extended or increased in
[2:33:07] height situated within the scope of the existing easement I'm not
[2:33:13] sure there is more we can do about that. And that becomes a
[2:33:19] question of okay whether or not does non-conforming structure is
[2:33:24] being changed to the non-conforming rights is under
[2:33:28] what staff is saying this falls in the scope of repair and
[2:33:32] maintenance and that has the staff conclusion that this is
[2:33:36] not a replace r placement. Structure the the easement
[2:33:42] itself as you a demolition of the encroachment or the
[2:33:47] replacement or the applicants property of the structure itself
[2:33:52] but that's not being replaced it is being modified within the
[2:33:57] existing existing footprint. I'm curious of what everyone's
[2:34:06] else read is. But I'm trying to interpret this building and it
[2:34:12] is further encroaching or becoming a greater
[2:34:19] nonconformity. >> chair muralles: thank you
[2:34:21] commissioner lind lin. >> commissioner lind: I have a
[2:34:25] further question about the adu is it located entirely within
[2:34:29] the property or within the easement?
[2:34:37] >> I can answer that. It's entirely within the
[2:34:40] property not within the easement.
[2:34:44] >> commissioner lind: but on a different part of the property?
[2:34:47] >> correct. >> commissioner lind: I juster
[2:34:49] want today cleaver wanted to clarify that. [indiscernible]
[2:35:01] >> that's correct. >> commissioner lind: which
[2:35:03] staff has determined falls under the commission of maintenance.
[2:35:08] thank you. >> chair muralles: thank you.
[2:35:10] commissioner monroe. >> commissioner monroe: thank
[2:35:15] you commissioner stepanicich for laying that out. You very
[2:35:20] clearly described them and I agree with staff as pertains to
[2:35:24] the easement and the encroachment that is a civil
[2:35:27] matter that needs to be resolved in a civil court but what -- the
[2:35:37] connectivity for decision today is whether our decision on the
[2:35:42] variance for the electrical platform would in anyway
[2:35:48] prejudice their resolution and we haven't talked about the
[2:35:54] electrical platform and I'm hoping I can get maybe a review
[2:36:00] of of sort of the necessity of that platform. I did read that
[2:36:07] this was, it could only be located with -- in a spot that
[2:36:15] requires a variance. But, is there anything else you could
[2:36:21] share with us about the implications of the electrical
[2:36:26] platform? Platform on the overall project?
[2:36:33] >> so, from my understanding that the electrical platform was
[2:36:38] designed in compliance with the pg and e standards I could look
[2:36:45] up but there is only a very very small portion of this property
[2:36:48] that would not be within any setback the coastal code also
[2:36:55] does not have the same flexibility that we see in the
[2:37:00] interior code for detach structures within setbacks so
[2:37:08] for example title xxii we have more flexibility and probably
[2:37:16] with the design review application but in the coastal
[2:37:20] zone the coastal code does no have that and that no structures
[2:37:25] over a certain height I think 36 to 48 inches are allowed to be
[2:37:32] within the setback and there is very few exemses so a very small
[2:37:43] triangular portion of the property that is not fullly
[2:37:51] incumbered of the subject zoning.
[2:37:57] >> commissioner monroe: thawr very much. Okay so. Question
[2:38:01] raised by nancy who spoke with us. Can you speak to the
[2:38:12] liability should driver's license be a there be a slide.
[2:38:22] anything you can share with us about the assurance that there
[2:38:25] is perhaps, a bond that could be taken out to address the
[2:38:33] possible repair because it is a pretty significant slide that
[2:38:39] has occurred 200 feet up hill, .
[2:38:44] >> yes, commissioner monroe, I'm happy to speak to that. With
[2:38:49] the development project there would be endem niskation from
[2:38:52] the applicant and I mean and a slide is you know challenging
[2:38:58] thing like causation but for anything connect today this
[2:39:03] particular project that unfolds the county would have indement
[2:39:09] as a conditional of approval.
[2:39:12] >> chair muralles: commissioner
[2:39:17] stepanicich. Going back to the electrical
[2:39:22] panel. 11 feet seemed tall for something like that. What I
[2:39:27] gathered from the testimony is that required because it
[2:39:32] requires that the panel go up to grade so it can be read? Is that
[2:39:38] the reason why it's so tall?
[2:39:41] >> yeah. So what happens is the grade goes down steeply so what
[2:39:48] is actually you know the panel itself the 7-foot tall but we
[2:39:54] measure from grade below and for example from cliff road it would
[2:40:00] only appear to be 7 feet tall. But we measure from grade below
[2:40:06] and so that's how the height is increased to 11 feet.
[2:40:11] thank you. >> chair muralles: thank you.
[2:40:15] commissioner monroe? >> commissioner monroe: well, I
[2:40:17] think that we've reviewed these issues fairly theuroly and I
[2:40:23] think that if we can incorporate the three points that I shared
[2:40:29] in my email in two conditional of conditions of the permit I'm
[2:40:37] willing to move forward with the permit. I don't know what the
[2:40:40] procedure would be if this requires another round of
[2:40:43] revision and return or if you can do that administerially
[2:40:51] right now? Those conditions would be 1 n incorporation of
[2:40:57] the requirement related to navy plantings. Two, any provisions
[2:41:03] you can north from the coastal commissions recommendation
[2:41:07] regarding coastal hazards and then 3 just affirming that there
[2:41:11] is that coordination component with the road repair.
[2:41:20] >> yes, if you would like those
[2:41:23] incorporated of conditions of approval that can be done.
[2:41:28] >> that would be affirming the
[2:41:31] approval but modifying that which would need votes from all
[2:41:37] of four of new favor of that. >> chair muralles: can we have
[2:41:41] role call, please?
[2:41:45] >> okay. I will change that into a motion.
[2:41:48] >> commissioner monroe: I move to accept staff's
[2:41:54] recommendation, deny the appeal with modification of adoption of
[2:42:00] those conditions. I'll second the motion.
[2:42:06] >> chair muralles: commission monroe motions and commissioner
[2:42:10] stepanicich seconds the commission. Role call, please.
[2:42:18] >> commission lind?
[2:42:23] >> commissioner lind: yes.
[2:42:23] >> comirks monroe.
[2:42:26] >> commissioner monroe: yes. Commissioner stepanicich?
[2:42:31] yes. Commissioner murall he is.
[2:42:38] >> chair muralles: yes. Are we all done?
[2:42:42] >> yes. >> chair muralles: we have done
[2:42:44] we've recommending the meet jawrn adjourned have a good
[2:42:51] afternoon. [end]