 Not to have conflicted commissioners, okay, so item 5a in the Body in the public that would like to talk about something. That's not on tonight's agenda. We'll give you a few minutes if it's not on tonight's agenda Okay, seeing no one we'll move it back any commissioner comments Question about 5a so if there's a you know a business right next to the property and in question You have to refuse yourself for that if you just the residence if you have a financial Interest so if you own the business next to it or you own the building next to it Then you would have a financial if if you're an employee of a business that's close by but there's no We went through and talked to with our attorney about Commissioner Christensen's scenario of being within the distance but because she isn't an owner of the business She is able to vote on this and for fairness to the Applicant it's best to continue We actually have to continue the item because we do have three commissioners who could vote on this and Therefore because of commissioner Christensen not being available tonight. It has to be continued to the next hearing Well as a conflict Peter will Do the proximity of his house? Yeah, so Okay, very good any commissioner comments or staff comments No staff comments. Okay, so we're looking at item 3 approval of the minutes And we have two sets of minutes one from our special meeting On February 7th that followed a regular meeting Move approval I can Prove on a second all those in favor Very good. So Tonight we're moving to item 4 was on our consent counter. We have one item 510 El Salto With the consent calendar, we approve everything on the consent counter with one motion And that's somebody would like to remove that one of those items off of the consent calendar does anybody on the planning commission that would like to Discuss or remove anybody in the audience who would like to remove the item off a consent counter Okay, not seeing anybody will ask for a motion to approve Motion second motion is second all those in favor. Hi. Okay. There you go. You're welcome to go Steve. Thank you You get you're welcome to stay as well Big glad for punishment are you so that moves us to the public hearings and We just heard that item 5a 401 Capitola has been continued And so we'll move to item B the update to our zoning code. I think we Did you make a motion on 401 capital avenue to continue it? Okay, so I guess we're looking for a motion to continue item 5a 401 Capitola So moved Second second all those in favor. Hi. Hi. I abstain. Thank you, Katie Okay, now we can move to item 45 be the update to the zoning code. Okay. Thank you We're going to continue from our last the special meeting that we had Regarding the zoning code update and the lcp implementation just as a quick review your local coastal program Is made up of your land use plan which has long-term policies? And it's also tied to your land use map the general plan land land use map and then your implementation plan Which is made up of the zoning code the zoning map and the municipal code so as We go through tonight. We'll be talking about the zoning code and We'll actually reference the land use map as I was working through some edits that the Coastal Commission after our last meeting They reached out to me and said Katie after reviewing your the changes that you did not want to accept In my notes on the sidebars of the zoning code. We have about 15 items would like you to reconsider and possibly accept So within Attachment a it was the list of planning commissioners requested items. I also added the coastal commission staff items So this evening I'm going to go through I've numbered the items that I think are worth Discussing some of these if there were any that you'd like to talk about we can talk about them But I just added what I think the simple fixes But I'll be going through all the numbered ones and I think there's about 20 I'll try to go quickly through the minor items and then those that we need to spend some time on and discuss and Figure out what the right solution is we'll take the time to do that. So One item that we will be talking about is the land use map Which is the general plan map and how it fits within the land use plan, but we'll wait till we get there so Actually, I guess we're here. It's the first item So, I'm sorry So you're just doing the numbered ones. I would looked at the very first edit night, and I thought you'd explain that what's going on there sure so the very first edit is under the On page 2-04 of the code It lists which chapters are applicable under the implementation plan of the LCP and they'd like me to review to remove chapter 17.12 permit application Or chapter 17.112 permit application that was where it listed with the So if you open your binder, we don't have we don't have that or starts at 4 Our first page is 04-1. Oh, you know, I think I was a little dyslexic in that I think it's 04-02. I apologize 0402 B It lists the local coastal program implementation plan and under B1B it says chapters and it includes 17.112 permit application and review and they'd like me to remove that and with that they Wouldn't they don't want that reference because it opens up a lot of other items to the LCP so but what that means is that we have to keep like the appeal procedures and Permit application procedures in 17.44. So basically you're saying it's kind of redundant It's it's a way of not including It will be redundant we're going to in 17.44 have redundant language That is tied to 17.112, but 112 will not be part of the LCP implementation plan Anything that's in the IP they have Review over any time it changes. So if they ask us to remove something from the IP we're typically happy to do so so Okay moving on to so are we gonna have a motion on this whole thing or has this has this work What are we gonna be asked to do here? I think as we go through these any changes that are requested. I'm gonna put them in a summary form so Following this meeting. I'll be putting all of your recommendations from the last hearing and this hearing into a summary of what I took away from the Planning Commission and We can make a motion this evening and when you adopt the minutes my summary will be in the minutes of those two meetings And if I got anything wrong, we can change it at that point So tonight you can make an emotion if there's anything that comes up. That's controversial will actually have a vote on any items But otherwise I'll assume For one like that that you're okay with the staff recommendation So would the final product go on the consent calendar at the next meeting? It would be in the minutes when we were doing the zoning code update I always had a table that would go in the minutes of what came out of the planning Commission meeting So I plan to do that for the April meeting. So once we agree to this Or we approve the final edits Then it goes back to the Coastal Commission. When do we hear back with their final? So actually next it goes to City Council So I'll be taking the summary that I put together with that will be reflected in the minutes to the City Council I think April 11th. Okay, it's my plan if we get through everything tonight and then we'll submit to the Coastal Commission and I believe they Have to put us on an agenda within three months. Okay. So that are you good Okay, so on to number one when the Coastal Commission staff on page This is 12-1 and 12-2 had requested that we reference the land use plan under general plan slash land use plan and I Pushed back on that because the general plan really this is for our base zoning districts and how they relate to the general plan and what they'd like to see is Back to this slide is our land use map. That's in our general plan is also the land use Okay, so our general plan land use map is also within the land use plan the coastal land use map So with their in talking through this they would like us to reference that Zoning districts are based on the general plan which in coastal areas also The general plan land use map which in coastal areas is the coastal land use map under the land use plan so it's pretty confusing, but I have I Found a solution. I've worked with the Coastal Commission and they're okay with it So this would tie us back to 17.04. So the first chapter Under that section that we were just under So if you go to 17.04.010 relationship To the local coastal program Under a it gives a very high general Statement I'd like to add be that the local coastal program land use plan Is a comprehensive long-term plan and land use for land use and physical development within the city's coastal zone And that's the document of the end of our zoning code that was in your binders It consists of proposed policies and recommendations for land use in the coastal zone consistent with the Coastal Act It includes the coastal land use plan map, which is the certified general plan land use map for areas within the coastal zone so just Referencing it back to they want to reference to the map And I'm trying to clarify where the map what map it is and it's really the general plan But I'll do respect. There's a sad reality to this which is I mean one of the objectives of codes and laws is that people can understand them and that they're Reasonably accessible to the public and they're user-friendly And it's not our fault But with the Coastal Commission overlays on this and the back-and-forths and the intricacies We're really losing that goal big time And I'll tell you take this thing out on the street and ask any citizen what the heck they should do in a situation And they won't have a clue You know, I think we we've kind of lost sight of that somewhere I don't know what the solution to that is but if anybody disagrees with me I'd like to hear there are I thought maybe it was just me but I told Katie I go this this is complicated stuff It when you start trying to reference all these different Tools and many cross-references and trying to tie everything together, right? Yeah, the first my first comment was wait a minute I'm looking at the land use plan and the maps there don't even reference the Zones and so like why is the Coastal Commission suddenly in our short zone our zones? Yeah, I was very confusing to me a citizen should be able to without hiring a lawyer Figure out something about his property or a property I was looking at the general plan from 1972 a few weeks ago Charles Delkin Associates did it when I first got on the council It's about this thick. I mean, I don't know what the solution is. I just throw that out. It's just it strikes me so so I did keep that was kind of the impetus behind this they were throwing in References to something that isn't explained anywhere. So by adding this it at least explains the reference And then I still think that under chapter 12 We shouldn't accept their modifications of adding those items to the tables, but simply Restate based zoning districts We can we could not take that suggestion of read the reiteration So then I also have the edit at the bottom for 1712 020 a If you go to page 12-1 Right now it says base zoning districts capital is divided into zoning districts that implement the general plan land use map as shown in table 17.12-1 We could add to that the underlined last sentence within the coastal zone The general plan land use map is the certified Coastal land use plan map or we can just simply leave that out and just have the reference to it on the first chapter I guess I'm having trouble understanding what their Goal was in terms of referencing the land use plan In our base zoning districts since the land use maps that they have don't have any references to their zoning districts What are they trying to get at? Control no, but what but what control I mean what so they do have control over The city is required to have a land use plan In which It consists of the long-term policies for implementation within our zone so it's almost like the general plan of the coastal area and In doing this update We decided not to update the land use plan at the same time as the general plan We move forward with the zoning code update But that would would have been a great second step for having two long-term policies for the coastal area and the general so so this is very much in their interest of saying okay Capitola Can make decisions over anything that happens in the coastal plan because they have an update They have a land use plan and an implementation plan, so I think the the first suggesting that that nevertheless to remove The slash land use plan from table 17 12 1. Yes, okay And the reason is is because they really That you can weasel work your way around it For what lack of a better? Yeah, we'll have a clear reference of how our general plan also acts as our our general plan land use map acts as our coastal land use map in The first chapter although it definitely seems like overkill, but you know, it's helpful for So just bear with me so the land use plan if it was Updated and to be complete it would have a map in it that mirrored the general plan Therefore you could the slash would be Okay, because the maps were identical So the land use plan does have a map and it's called the general plan land use map slash coastal land crew and It exists. It's from 1991 I believe and any time there's been an update to our general plan Land use map that's been certified on this map. They have a reference to that certification After our general plan was updated we should have Certified our general plan land use map and we did not so we're going to take that step when we update the zoning code in the zoning map So this will clearly reference how they all tie together. I do think the suggestion of my underline under Chapter 12 is probably overkill and we could remove that as well But just to have have that section under B1. I think it's helpful for us getting this adopted Okay, and they're good with your signal B2 There is B2 would be the implementation plan and the reference to the LCP IP And so like you say they're good. They're good with this suggestion. They are I've emailed them back and forth So would you like me to remove the? The second reference to it under that last paragraph If you think it won't cause any controversy with the coastal Commission, it'll make them happy if it's in there But yeah, they get another reference I have no opinion I doesn't matter to me. I don't care about that other Is this really 17.04? Oh? 17.04 oh Oh Four oh, oh four oh B for what oh four oh B Yes, oh wait. No, I'm sorry. Let me start okay It's seventeen point oh four point oh four oh that should not say oh one oh Oh four oh, and it's the relationship to the coastal program So the general statement will stay and then B will be local coastal program land use plan Okay, and I'm not hearing to take out the second reference, so I'll keep it in Next is Cliffwood Heights side yard setbacks This was in respect to Recent application Cliffwood Heights has much larger wider lots and typical lots in Capitola At the time that it was developed the setback standards were different when we brought forth an application recently we found that I Want to say over 90% of the lots along the street were non-conforming due to side yard setbacks, so for this modification It's building in an allowance for the existing home The Planning Commission may approve a reduction to the side yard setback for the existing structure To be reduced to the existing setback of the built structure But in no case less than three feet from the property line and that any addition or new development Must comply with the setback standards of the zone. So I have a question about that when we handled that I sort of remember that Cliffwood Heights application was the new code in effect yet Not there Okay, so once the new code went into effect. I think the problem went away Because it only applies when there's some sort of expansion of the property I mean the house is already there so the the new code has a standard of once you hit 50 percent and I know Matt you looked at this very closely if you know it off the top of your head, you're welcome, so So then unconforming makes you subject to the 80% calculation currently All these houses are way under the maximum floor ratio. They would be allowed if they were conforming And then under the new code It actually drops it from 80% to 50% improvement limit. So it's actually more more restrictive under the new code And I do think that was possibly a change that happened at the Nonconforming rule under the new code is basically that you can as long as you don't expand into and make it expand the nonconforming aspect of it you can make improvements to the property so that's how it was originally drafted and at some point towards the end there was a standard of Based on I want to say 50% it may have been at the city council Review, but but it did change under the development standards table. So it's not actually in the table. It says, you know like Super script number two when you go down the bottom. So it's in this little fine print underneath the table and it's 50% I wish I had the code here. Yeah No, we didn't definitely didn't do that the way we passed it and I didn't realize it had been changed was You know, it's a big topic of discussion on the nonconforming so when they go by 50% what are they going by? floor area Building costs we got rid of the valuation. So it has to be So when we we did review then that application under the new code and we found this The fact that there was this 50% limit tied to it that it wouldn't have helped the The owner with their development. So I'm gonna I'll pull it up Because while you're doing that, I'll just say my I don't like the idea of the city council passing a zoning rule for a particular area that is Contrary to the way a lot of the existing properties are in the area and then saying that Well, let's have another rule that says that that Ordinance doesn't apply very much here because there are a lot of areas that we can do that How about the front yard setbacks on Warfrode? For example, you know, almost all the houses don't rear yard setbacks in the jewel box So what I mean? We should have that all over the place if you know automatic variances if your neighbors It's just a bad policy to go to I think to take one area and say the city council in its wisdom Decided to change the zoning in that area Yeah, and this is like undoing that in a awkward way in my opinion so Proposed language the addition the planning commission may approve a reduction still have the same concern So should we do the same thing on Warfrode though? So so how does that work with? So the planning commission makes recommendations the city council modifies them Planning commission doesn't like the modifications So what they're like the Supreme Court. You guys you're stuck with it. They are and now we're going back and trying to Jerry Mander Decision they made well, so if we're if we're trying to get the zoning code Completed it was just started in 2010 with your general plan back when you were in law school Shouldn't we just Not fight that battle now and just accept what they'll accept and try to get the coast of commission on board and then go back and But fight these battles one by one. Well, yeah, well, no, we're not trying to undo what they did there. We're just I mean the proposal here is to make kind of like a you know one area exception That's what I think it's not a good idea. I think we'd be more consistent just to say leave it Leave it the way it is or strike the whole thing and we still have the discretion it has to require a barrier Yeah, I mean, I don't think there should be any special clipwood Heights rule So where did that rule? I'm sorry, where did that rule? Did the city council not put that rule in? No, no So this is suggesting it. Oh, I'm sorry So yeah, I agree with you. No, the city council was the 50% The trouble is the city council when they deals With these issues. It's in the midst of like 10 different things. They have to do at their meetings Whereas this is all we do So are we in agreement that we don't even like this paragraph, I was gonna say what if we strike the whole paragraph That's what I think Okay, is that so I'm definitely going to come back to you with the non-conforming Changes, I can tell you that under I don't know if you want me to get into the weeds on this or if it's just bad policy at this point To adopt a specific Yeah, I think you know forget the clipwood Heights exception We can all go back and look at that non-conforming thing and try and sort it out at another time Okay, let's do that. So strike and just as a Where I have seen this before is for historic homes where you'd have a blanket Yeah, like this way that's a good good place to utilize. Yeah, that's a that's a Special rule for historic homes, but I don't like taking an area and saying that it should fall into the very regular variants Okay next this was the the question posed by Commissioner Ruth of The density limits versus the floor area ratio and I'm gonna do my best to give you a scenario It was just a question because I know I voted to do this at the last meeting. Yep Then this Question arose in my mind just what would be the difference in the in the development Potential for like say the AAA buildings site Yeah, so the very simple answer to this would be on the AAA site within the if you meet the setback requirements and the height requirements and the parking requirement if it's tied Simply to floor area ratio with no density You could break that building up into more into smaller pieces and get a higher density But you're gonna have to park it and that's gonna be your challenge By keeping the density limit in there. There's a specific density limit of We had proposed it was in there as 20 units Per acre and under that in that scenario 20 units per acre Ended up being 52 units on that site so I think there's Some developers might like that assurance if they know the number of what their maximum density is Parking 52 units on that site with a parking requirement and multi family of 2.5 spaces per unit would be a challenge I also wanted to just remind you on this site when we did the zoning code update And this was one of the final changes that took place at the end of the zoning code update But it was a really good change of because of the sensitivity of this location and where it is and next to residential there were additional regulations tied to it that On this side that you know, it's a Community commercial parcel. There's a maximum height of 35 maximum a minimum rear yard setback of 40 Which is a lot greater than typical setbacks in this area for CC and that there's an enhanced application review So if you go beyond two stories It would require a conceptual review at planning commission and city council also a community workshop And then it also requires city council approval of the project So and then there's a bunch of findings that have to be made for any project along that south side of Capitola Road And if you'd like I can walk you through exactly the development parameters are but that was the big thing But you could get a more dense project with smaller units. Now that answers my questions thoroughly. Thank you Would anyone like to see a change to that proposal of taking out the dwelling units? Okay Okay, next There was an edit and This one I'm actually I'll bring up the new Brighton property within the visitors serving the city Does it not have Review over new Brighton the Coastal Commission is has actually sent me an updated email as of today on this And they're saying because it would be part of our LCP and because the LCP acts as the local authority over the state's the state's ability to regulate Within the city that they would like us to keep this in there because it's their way of Regulating the state can regulate the state. I Do not think we should move forward with that change if they have if they want to weigh in on each other's projects That's just fine. We will any development project would need a CDP a coastal development permit But to have development regulations I don't think is good practice as us being the police of state property. I think the less Interference the Coastal Commission has with state parks and it's handling of its properties the better We're paying both of these agencies to fight with each other about these things like when they River and Sea Cliff This is a battle we want to fight though No, no, we're not we're just telling them. No, but I yeah, I agree. I don't think we need to be involved in there But they want so They want to leave that column in there and you say it's a bad idea, but yeah, but it's not our battle Yeah, and I have our city attorney reviewing the email that I got today We can say no, we'll see what happens. Yeah, okay next is this is a review from our last meeting in talking with the Coastal Commission again they suggested for the For the Monarch Cove in parcel to change the language I have it on the slide single family Dwellings allowed only prior it said if ancillary to visitor accommodations And they were willing to change that to in conjunction with so it doesn't have to be secondary to Visitor accommodations, and then I thought it would be meet the purposes of the Coastal Commission And our residents if we modified that further to say allowed only in conjunction with visitor accommodation Use or grant of public coastal access So should they subdivide this in the future and make the single family home a single family home again They would have to within the subdivision grant public access to a view the coastal view So so this is why I wish they were here because I have a couple questions, and I I'm way over my pay grade I'm like my distinguished Commissioner to the right here. I'm not an attorney and so But looking at what has been going on with the Coastal Commission and the challenges on this very specific thing I don't know that we have to give them anything and I don't think we should it's private property and And so I would I would like to ask the Coastal Commission some very specific things based on lawsuits that the Coastal Commission has been involved in which they've lost on this very specific item and I should share with Well, maybe I'll give it to you and we could get it distributed some of these Lawsuits that have taken place and this is within the last year about this very item forcing private property owners to To give up rights for public access and so there are some very substantial cases that's been appealed to the Supreme Court on this and I for one I'm not willing to You know give up private private owner rights to to the Coastal Commission Obviously, I don't have a say in it. They can fight this if they want but I wish they were here because I asked some very specific questions One is no Nolan versus the Coastal Commission But there's there's some very specific lawsuits that have been upheld that said if they're gonna do that then they have to Pay for that property. So I don't know how we're gonna make that happen I think there's some view shed areas that they could probably get some agreement to on that little road that comes behind them But I personally I'm not willing to To make it the Responsibility of Monarch Cove to grant access to the public I Will add that I spoke with the property owner today and they liked this suggestion They thought it was a good way to still allow visitor use at the site so that visitors could take in the view Without requiring their homes to be visitor Accommodations so they're in favor of it moving forward with this language But I well my my thing is we have we granted there then where do we grant it next and who's next on the list to say You have to grant access And it's you know my understanding. It's not on our current Map for view sheds and because of that's one of the stated lawsuit issues is if it's not already in the current land use Our map for the view shed, then it doesn't have to be in the future. And so It's zone visitors serving and they that's fine. We we made that as a public access visitors know the zone is R1 with a visitor serving overlay and What they want us to do is make sure they always have that visitor servant What the property owners at one time would like to do is is make it R1 and just have it as a private residence, but I Don't know I would defer to my I agree with your general principle what the staff's addition here is is to Take what the coastal commission wants to do and give the property owner another option besides that So it's making it a little bit easier for the property owner. They can Either comply with what the coastal commission's wanting in the first place, which is in conjunction. You know, maybe have a Rand out part of it to a daily basis or they can grant some kind of pathway to To the coast so it gives them another choice, but I agree that they shouldn't be requiring that The coastal commission, I don't know if that's again if that's a big battle for It is a big battle, but I to me it looks like this battle has been settled in court several times and so You know what? I it's they're the owners currently, but And I don't want to have to fight their battle, but and this is why I think it's above my pay grade We're we're in this position of fighting the battles for these people, right? I honestly believe that this should be More I guess I Think maybe we should have some public comment meetings and Community means to talk about something because this is has some far-reaching impact So if they agree to this and then they sell the property Now it's part of the deed. Is it the next property owners? And so who's next on this? Process it says no, you have to grant This to be open to the public. I just have some strong concerns and I wish the coastal commission was here because I have some Specific questions about some of these court cases that they've lost and how they stand on how they view that so I had an opportunity to talk today to The planner from San Clemente and they just finished their land use policy and plan After four years of negotiations and it was pretty eye-opening. I have a lot of information here from lawsuits and Stuff that they went through and this is one of those areas that they try to hold tight on is not giving up these These rights in fact the city had their own properties that they own so I Just see as you're letting the foot in the door and Everyone knows my opinion on Private property and ownership. I just don't want to give them anything any access to it And I don't think they have a right to it to be honest with you If you go to page 38 of the land use program the land use plan Page 38 for page 38 and it's a map of shoreline access The very end of your binder, right? So not in the zoning code. It's in that actual Page 38 is a map of shoreline access and There is this I'm sorry. I can't put it up on the slides, but Right here a picture of the little V versus a view With a yeah, that's it was to be a V and it's close to the proximity of that parcel So I think you could they could tie us back to the land use plan on this one to say that and when you read the description of These parcels and the protected views this is mentioned within the So I guess I would go back to the Did did the property owners have due process when this happened or this is just hand-run in there So how did how did this it's not in the view shed? But I see now you have it in the shoreline access. It doesn't have it in our other map about the views What does that V mean? So on the key it says view view. Yeah, but I mean In terms of who has what rights? So I guess this one So where the escalone a drive kind of curves around it goes up. It's a dirt road up there right now. I I think You know, there may be some open to allow a view property there But on the private property of their where their parcel is I just personally I can't buy into that so your Suggestion would be that we just keep this owning the way We had it which is visitor serving or a slash residential R1. Yeah Let me ask a question if we made a very subtle change and made the word dwelling plural dwellings What impact would that have? Right now I impose single-family dwelling because that's how it's listed in the In the land use table it I think at that point When you're only allowed to have one single-family dwelling per lot in the In the R1 that would be an R1 But that isn't there a lot big enough to subdivide. Oh, it is. Yeah, so when this came through when this when this came through Ed you were still on the here is here when we had this discussion, right? Because there was a potential buyer for the property at one time that wanted to subdivide the property And that was the big push to make it zone R1 and get away from the visitor as the neighbors didn't want that The neighbors didn't want the 42 room hotel there Yeah, so We we designated we and the city council allowed this R1 for that possibility at some point to Make it more than one single-family dwelling it's a large lot Why would they not have the same right that anybody else has up there with over 4,000 square feet? I mean we your your motion tonight could be to just simply not have note 12 You know and just easy way out that you know unless and then it'll probably come back to us So at this point, it's but maybe by then we could have some honest dialogue with them about some of these lawsuits that are going on how they got overturned in other areas and And You know that's my concern I think it's difficult to have these meetings Without a representative here to have these discussions to have that dialogue if you get into the litigation That's been very Illuminous over the Coastal Commission public access. It's they'll be really complicated But the point I made last time is that this is really small fish for the Coastal Commission. They're talking about Visitor serving of a unit Part of look at Martin's Beach. That was a unit. Well, the mat's a beach. Yeah. Yeah, that's an access to I mean when we've got a potential visitor serving hotel that they're Making more difficult to construct so it's sort of like a sense of proportion isn't there in my view They're fighting a small battle So, let me kind of get a handle on this so TJ your objection is that this is private property and and they should be able to do what they want but Katie's point is that well It's clearly in the land use plan Maybe vague, but there is precedent is not a term I would use but Oh The V is clear to me I can see it So I'm not saying that that what it means is clear I'm just saying that that there is reference to General area there that that should be a view set view shed So your your notion of well, this is a slippery slope and so if it's you know, this property What about the next property? Well, this is the property that has the V close to it So that's this would be unique to this one, right? So from that standpoint the notion of Okay, let's just add Katie's note, which is well if they are gonna go ahead and develop it They at least have to have the view shed I'm not sure what's wrong with that other than other than if they do want to subdivide that because it's visitor serving they can't Know if they with this note they could subdivide but there would have to be a grant of public Coastal access so an easement so I don't I don't have a problem that seems reasonable Maybe it's because you don't own the property if but but they bought the property and no they bought the property long before this Oh, yeah, I suppose that's true. And so and the thing is I don't know there's due process So in 1987 the Nolan versus coastal Commission It states very clearly if they want to do that, they have to buy the easement and I think there's still a workaround I think that road where Escalona Shows at least that it goes up and makes that curve there could be a view access But that's kind of behind their property. I hate to tie Property owners to Something that they had no control of not having to do process to put that little V on that map I would almost guarantee they don't even know that little V's on that map So and I it's and then and plus when we use terms like allowed only if in conjunction with visitor accommodation Yeah, I I just I Just take tying our hands and like I said, I'm not a land use attorney, but Looks like there's certainly some precedence with the coastal Commission Having a problem with this and it being overturned so to move this forward Suggest that we go with the staff's recommendation Because the the current property owner seems okay with it and it actually just expands the options beyond what the coastal Commission was requesting so I mean and the Coastal Commission is okay with your exchange. I mean you talked it through No, they haven't seen the or grant of public coastal access, but they're they're okay with more options So so would you be willing to add an s to the dwelling to give them even more options? Meaning that would impact beyond this property right now It says there's only one single family dwelling allowed there, but the parcel is large enough for more than one and and subdivided it But she just said that would you wouldn't be a problem subdividing it So be able to do that. Does that mean every subdivision parcel has to allow Visitor accommodation So you under R1 you could build in ADU under it as long as the parcel meets all our ADU standards by listing single-family dwellings It really steps away from what our definition of a single-family dwelling is and it should be more of a multifamily under the open subdivided then that applies to each Every parcel has to allow Access yeah, yeah, that's right. I mean that's that's not clear what we need to clarify that So that see that would be why don't we just identify a place that is accommodating and where that road goes up there It has a view shed because Where this picture is taken from is from the fence allows you that ocean view. It's a pretty small It's not a big ocean view from it there. It's not like you get this big expansive view and so why we make that Hold them accountable to that. I I just have a problem to it and you know if they don't more power to them, but How about Allowed and I would cross out only Allowed in conjunction with visitors visitor accommodations Sorry allowed only in conjunction with visitor accommodations Use or grant of public coastal access within a subdivision Application Yeah, if it was one place that was a common Street or access where people would go. I think that's fine But this is literally in the backyard What do you get if this your private residence and you want to sit at and look over at the ocean On your lounge chair and your bathing suit does that mean people her solution because in subdivisions There's all kinds of Exactions that you have to Access to parks you have to I mean, it's all over the place But those are public act. This is private property. No, no private subdivision that you the city requires you to provide No, if it had a specific location, I don't have an issue with it This location if that was my property, I would hate to try to lounge out there in my bathing suit and have No, so this isn't I think it's better not to not to It's tied to the property to the monarch coven property At this point, I think you'd want a future person who's going to subdivide the lot to State exactly where the location is and we just have to make sure it's a public coastal access So there's actually a view so Okay, okay Will you understand when we're going with it? I was like, yeah, that's a good okay So cross out only so allowed in conjunction with visitor accommodation use Or grant of public coastal access within a subdivision Steve you're still interested So what if they choose not to subdivide so maybe We just say or grant of a public coastal Access to a view a like or one I think just making it specific that there's only one you're they're not required if they subdivide this in the future To place one on each of the parcels that there's who who actually owns that property or that road Does anybody know for that? I think it's already identified as a Access area A portion of it, you know behind the monarch over that little dirt road goes up. Yeah, it's got a chain there Yeah above the old stone house, right? Yeah, so I think that would be But I don't know who won't I don't know if that's Private property. Yeah, there's the house back in there You mean the stone house That's on there's the big house. That's on the other side of the little annex stone house that's been there for decades But it's on this side of their gulch. Yeah, do they own do they own that roadway too? I don't know if they do or not. I don't kate on one of our maps we had which there's many of them I think I have the language. There's a little blue. Okay. You have it. Okay. We're getting a feel here We go so single family dwelling allowed only Or allowed in conjunction with visitor accommodation use Or grant of public access to a viewpoint. There you go. It's a singular viewpoint. You got my you got my vote Moving right along sorry about that. It's it's only going to get worse All right next is lighting and this was brought up by commissioner welch concerned that they've added too much Too many more regulations to lighting And this is within the visitor serving So 17 28 28 Dash six is the page for visitor serving Our standards are actually stricter under a our standards that are referenced under 17 9 6 1 10 Or are strict when it comes to being shielded and applying to Dark sky. We don't use such vague terms as dark sky technology. We tie it to a specific standard um So I think it's best to maybe not accept the changes under one and just There's a clear reference to our our lighting ordinance and I'll point that out to them But under b they're asking for lighting of natural areas such as creeks riparian areas the beach etc Shall be prohibited past the minimum amount That might be necessary for public safety purposes except when temporarily permitted in conjunction with temporary events So this was added by the coastal commission Um, I had added when working with them at a staff level the except when Temporarily permitted in conjunction with temporary events because we've got we now have the light Parade that happens on the river Um, but your thoughts I don't have a problem with that, but I I want to know what dark skies dark skies technology is the latest There's standards for dark sky and we reference them under Ladder section of the code under 17.96, but it's really so that you know, um You're not glaring light up at the sky But I thought there may be some weird technology that Yeah, I know there Didn't know what that was. I I think our wording was fine and I don't particularly care for adding They're wording an item to e2 Do we do we already? limit the lighting of the Creek Again, it goes back. No, this is new That that section on the lighting of the creek So is there any reason why we'd want to have glaring lights on the creek? Well, I don't know if you I don't think we want glaring lights I think our policy talks about lighting in general about not being obtrusive all exterior lighting shall be unobtrusive Downward directed. So I think that covers it but it seems to me that the coastal commission has As a right in their charter to worry about habitats and natural we're all they want but The the problem is now they're getting into the Property owners rights of being able to have lighting and what it what becomes Beyond so no, it's not it's probably in natural areas. Yeah, so all the so how about shadow brook Does that mean they can't light up around their building along the creek area? To what I guess I would wonder what they mean by natural areas I would assume that that means so go creek which is Which is defined pretty clearly where the natural habitat is and I don't think it extends on the private property so On page 96 dash 11 of our code. We have light trespass And it's specific that it does it's not specific to the creek, but it's really specific specific to how much light trespass you're allowed to Have so lights shall be placed To direct downward and deflect light away from adjacent lots and public streets and to prevent adverse interference with The normal operation and enjoyment of surrounding properties Direct or sky reflected glare from floodlights shall not be directed into any other parcel or street Or onto any beach that was added by the coastal commission No light or activity may cast light exceeding one foot candle onto public streets with an illumination level measured From the center line of the street and then no lighter activity may cast lights exceeding one half foot candle Onto a residentially zoned parcel. So there's no requirement prohibiting light on the But you're supposed to keep everything down directed and shielded and well down directed right onto the water I mean what that's down directed, but I don't think it's environmentally sound But you would have to have put your lighting on there Over the water. I guess I guess our paul. I think our code meets all intents and purposes of being friendly with your lighting and not being obtrusive Well, to other people I'm just worried about the environmental effects. I'm not environmentalist But I would worry that you're upsetting the frogs or something. Okay, so how about how about the wharf that our pier that's got Lighting downward over the ocean Is that not Well, okay, then you object to this words all are on to any beach I object to the coastal commission telling us what to do at all so um Yeah, I you know, it's not that you can't have lighting at the beach. It's once you you understand that that Yeah, I think we got that It's not that you can't have lighting on the beach you want to have safe pathways We have areas that have our beaches Lit I all I'm saying is I think our our code meets everything that needs to be covered. I don't think we need to add their additional wording This does give us the ability if somebody a new owner moved in and started lighting up the The you know the so-called creek and it was to an extent that it was obnoxious that we could go out and we could Hold them to this standard Our own code does the same thing Because our code is a true it says and it's a truce of to yeah, it has to be downward We could we have ways to work around it. I just I I'm just want to vote up here So you don't yeah, I don't I will mention though that in the the property lines for many of the homes along riverview Do extend into the middle of the creek? So when it says that the lighting has to stay on your property this I Don't know that it bothers the fish and the I mean this is Oh, we could get it. We could we could Send this the environmental committee and have them rule on this So I don't know that I mean this Maybe not the biggest battle though for In terms of I just wrote that I'm against it doesn't mean no that's fine I I I just hate to see The coastal commission get in our stuff here and tell us what our property owners can do along the riverview is when I think about this Part of the code. I think of those people who live along riverview. It's a nice area. The creek is a nice area I don't know that having Lighting along your backyard that lights up part of the creek is Obtrusive to the nature. I just well, we have a family home on the creek and I don't think Any of our family would want to see neighbors have lights out to the And I'm I'm totally on board with that. No, I'm 100 on board with that and I think our Current code covers that but if you're okay with it So I'm gonna I'm gonna ask to see if you're alone on this because I I'm okay with e2 lighting of natural areas The way it's worded. Well, I'm my thinking is is that I'm we're stuck with the coastal commission. I mean we're not in a position to basically Revolt and secede from the state. I understand that part You know, we have to try and work this out with them and fight the battles that Are the most important. I just don't agree to it. So I I did that Why don't we do a roll call vote? So peter are you making I think the easy it's easy to say I'm the one out. I think the other three agree with this I think you're okay. So keep as this Doesn't mean we don't sympathize with your views Hey, I don't live on that creek. So it doesn't I try to sympathize with people who may want to Light up their backyard Okay, the next was under 17.36 040 This was from coastal commission staff They would like us to keep the reference in here. So 17 3 6 0 4 0 And this is under plan development and maximum intensity It says the maximum permitted floor area ratio and residential density shall not exceed maximums established in the general plan And they had or the local coastal program in the coastal zone for the applicable land use designations I still feel that this should not be included in our update Because our our general plan Establishes density limits I agree Is there a consensus? Yeah, we're good with that. Okay. Okay number seven This is also for plan development. This was a comment that came from Planning commission planning commission. It's on page 36-5 And I believe this is one of the findings So page 36 5 For plan developments located. Oh, okay so The coastal commission had asked us to put in a finding that if located in the coastal zone and subject to a coastal development permit The proposed development will protect and enhance coastal resources Um, and I had switched it to must conform with the findings of the approval of the cdp they Both the planning commissioner brought this up as well as coastal commission staff They would like it to say we'll protect and enhance coastal resources And they made the argument that you know, if a new development's going in and they're getting higher density They should it should protect and enhance coastal resources And I said well, if you look at our zoning map and you see what's been converted to pd over the years I can tell you there's only been one pd. That's located Along it's at the end of escalona Um And to require this is a required finding for all pd's it doesn't make sense to tie that into the required findings so In working with them Their modification that they would be Would like to see it amended to is for plan developments located adjacent and I have this on the slide For plan developments located adjacent to the coast The proposed development will protect and or enhance coastal resources and conform with the findings for approval of a cdp um So it'll either protect and or enhance So katie the one thing I asked was for us to We take another look at our word development McLossery. I don't know if you had a chance to do that The our current definition Says development means any human cause change to land that requires permit or approval from the city Which Would mean landscaping. It would mean a lot of different which to me. I think it's too broad of a term Does that require permit landscaping? Sure It would only require a permit if it's along the coastal bluff In an area of high hazard I do have a slide towards the end for the that okay So this is really it's the findings that are required when you Develop a plan development a plan development typically gets extra density within it and unique site layouts So The coastal commission with staff is saying that if they're receiving something they should be giving Something if it's located along the coast, but what's the point of Stating that you have to conform with the findings for approval. I mean, isn't that Always the case it is it that statement is repeated throughout this document at their request For every time we mentioned a coastal development permit One reason though it stated is they kept trying to insert these Small findings that I kept saying to them. Well, you have your findings for a coastal development permit in chapter 44 So let's reference those findings rather than Insert additional findings everywhere. So we could either go with In the white box was the original You know crossing out will protect and enhance coastal resources But if it's in the coastal zone, it's going to require a coastal development permit and the findings need to be met Or what they would like to see is at least Holding the developer to a higher standard to either protect and or enhance coastal resources Which is the new language But just adjacent to the coast. Yeah, just if it's adjacent to the coast Well, you you might convince me to Leave and protect but to enhance the when it says and enhance the coastal resources and I and or Yeah, or is okay and yeah, that's what says and or Yeah, but the word and is what concerns me That is their definition are they gonna say well, we want it to protect and enhance that coastal resource, so The enhancing part I I'm not a fan of that Well, I do and or means you have an option. You can either protect it or you can enhance it either one If you protect it, maybe you're in here. I don't I just okay. I think the word answers your question Doesn't have to be and or the and doesn't answer my question the other time I you guys are good with this fine. I just give them latitude I'm all for protecting it But I don't know that it becomes an obligation to enhance it. So does that but does that become a discussion when you Uh apply for your permit. So that's why yeah, I mean an example of enhancement would be they often um, I've seen them take funds during a development project to uh you know Replenish the sand of the beach and tie it to a development project That's an enhancement of coastal resources, right to ensure that your beach is going to continue to have sand As erosion takes place. So that that's one one um example of where a development may I need to It's pretty vague terminology, but yeah, it's there. You can read it to me. Yeah, if I enhance it It means I don't have to protect it, right What is that? Okay, so we'll go with the The new language The ninth one is interpretation of the coastal overlay zone So I had suggested striking. This is on page 44-2 I had suggested striking this language. Um, all right, that is not page 44 So Sorry, I'm not finding the correct Well the part I so I was okay with in achieving these purposes this chapter shall be consistent with the goals objectives and policies the california coastal act and an article uh x or 10 of section 4 of the coastal or the california constitution I'm not a big fan of the words shall be given the broadest interpretation possible so as to protect restore and enhance the coastal Why don't we just meet the california coastal act and be done with it? So what would you like the edit to be I have the paragraph up there This is yeah page 44-2 at the very top of the page It's b I had just in achieving these purposes This chapter shall be Consistent with the goals objectives and policies of the california coastal act article 10 section 4 of the california california constitution The additional wording of Given the broadest interpretation possible as to protect it just it's additional wording that It's not additional. It's already there. What's that? But it's already there Right. We're not adding those words It says it currently states commission is trying to add it Well, what does this mean it currently states that the shall be given the broadest interpretation It doesn't currently state it No, this is what they're trying to add Well, I'm questioning katie's note So I think I was stating what their edit currently states because I wasn't quite sure what the requested edit Was going to be so that's what the code as with their edit. That's what their edit states. Sorry This is it it's um This was in addition by the coastal commission So I see your point I'm okay with meeting the the coastal act obviously. I mean that's that is a code like you say we have to work with them, right? But why would we give them the flexibility of saying that brought us interpretation possible? So it's but We have to meet the coastal act. We will meet that but Let the interpretation lie between those people who won't have the discussion on whether it's an and or an or Two cents So we do have an attorney on the council just brought us an interpretation mean anything in legalese I mean, I I agree with uh Commissioner welch. I think they're overreaching a bit with that language It's not it's not necessary and it's sort of like they you know, maybe they had too much coffee at that point So shall be consistent with the goals objectives. Yeah, that's that's all they need And I think it uh, histrionic about us I think their attempt is to make it as vague as possible. So they have a lot of latitude a lot of latitude Right when people come in for permits, right? Yeah, I mean that would let them Turn down anything right at least look at our policy here Okay under 44 seven. I think this was just uh, I needed to clarify Um under review authority in the past. We haven't had the community development director Um having authority to make decisions kind of like a zoning administrator under the new code we do for design permits And by building this into our code For coastal development permits that don't need any other That Are not appealable to the coastal commission and do not require any other discretionary approval by planning commission The best example of this is an accessory dwelling unit Um, the coastal commission is going to require that we notice accessory dwelling units and that they're treated as For review and this would allow us to publish a that we're going to we'd send out notice To property property owners and that they could request a public hearing as the way it works within a design permit For a certain amount of design changes for a secondary An ad you they could request a hearing by the community development director So it's just creating this new level of approval for Yeah, I mean that was my concern and I didn't know that we already had a We're starting to build in the zoning administrator function here. Yeah, but if we are and we have we're willing to set that up Yep, so and I think that's a really good improvement so that we don't have to bring ad use to the Planning commission, but then these that you the staff has to get into the business of You know knowing how to conduct hearings and you're taking on a new function there. True. Yeah Is it appeal are those the staff decisions appeal both the planning commission? They are Yes next is 44 It's page 44-6 under development standards um, so This is another one that you could say is reaching but this really uh builds in the ability Of additional discretion for the planning commission. I think you have this discretion without it being written down, but under general development standards It specifies all standards included with respect to height setbacks density coverage, etc Shall be interpreted as maximums or minimums as applicable That should be reduced or increased as applicable to protect and enhance coastal resources In meet lcpa objectives to the maximum extent feasible depending on the facts presented um, I talked through this one with the coastal commission. They wanted this whole that their revisions put back in and then they after reviewing it with me. They said actually the last sentence is Redundant and they'd be happy to have us remove that but it's really Just stating the obvious that yes when you have a discretionary permit The planning commission has the ability to say yes, you know, there's a height impact associated with this development And although the zoning limit is 30 feet. We'd like to see you come down to 27 because of specific reasons so I don't think keeping that second sentence is hurtful. It builds in the discretion, but I don't think it's necessary either So could you give me an example of So let's say There's a there's a house being built on the coast or something and According to floria ratio or setbacks, whatever. It's a certain size. Then the planning commission would say Because it's near the coast We're gonna have it require a larger setback because we feel It's uh, it's a it's a coastal uh It's a coastal protection issue Is that we would do that? So the the planning commission could say If if there were a a view Say as you're going up As you're leaving town and looking back from the parking lots along Stockton looking back and one of the homes that was being built We'll just for just make up that they have a 50 foot height And if they were going to build this home to 50 feet and there's a public view Not a private view a public view the planning commission could say, you know, your height limit is 50 feet but we'd like you to You're you're moving our view of the war from this public viewpoint and it should be Decreased to this level to maintain the public view that I don't read that as that. What's that saying? Yeah, this is just saying that you that's not saying anything to me I mean, it's someone comes in let's take floor area ratio There you know, there's four area ratio for the size of their lot is 58 That's it. I mean coastal zone not coastal zone if they come in at 57 percent, they're good They come in at 59 percent. They're not good That's that that's nonsensical But that's how I was trying to understand what they're trying to say They're just trying to say that you have the discretion to The what we at 57 percent we can say they can't build it. No Well because of other factors The that's a different issue though. Yeah. Yeah, that's other standards those factors be like an asian or If they didn't meet the design the findings of a design permit or there was a circulation issue Maybe you'd say well, you're or you're not meeting your parking Requirement that they're maximums. It's stating say we shouldn't give a variance. That would make sense now my my Recommendation was to strike the last two sentences They the coastal commission would like to see the second sentence the all standards including with respect to height setbacks density and coverage kept in Shall be interpreted as maximums That shall be reduced To protect or enhance coastal resources and meet lcp objectives. I just think it leaves more room for more Dialogue and interpretation that Someone who has as you mentioned a right to a 58 percent floor ratio for someone to step in and say well You know, it's it's it's blocking a public view of the corner of the war for whatever it may be and and now we're We're taking once again. We're going past our that's what we have zoning codes for us to protect those type of issues And now they're trying to tell us how to interpret and All through with our code so i'm just it seems to me that they're Giving the planning commission the opportunity to expand like environmental habitat zones that are already zoned they say well But we'd like a little bit more Creek width or something and so we're not going to allow you to build on your property because We're going to encroach a little bit and make our parks a little bit bigger or something I agree. This is an odd I don't like that sense at all because they're talking about specific numerical Standards and saying they should be interpreted Why why does one? Property owner have a different set of standards next to another property owner Well, they could we could say, you know on the coast your floria ratio is 10 Percent, but it's 10 for everybody. Yeah. Yeah, right that so might but we already have that that established so I just think it leaves more room for interpretation that doesn't need to be there because It doesn't matter either way. We have the discretion to allow a variance or to Have a discussion about bringing your plan back for concerns we have Yeah, I agree. This just gives the property owner This confusion it's like wait a minute I meet all the rules, but you can come in and say Those don't apply because you're too close to a view shed or a park or Yeah, I don't like it. It also appears this sentence allows Where it says Minimums as applicable Or increased. Yeah, so Well minimum parking standard or height. Yeah, or anything. So Maybe my next door neighbor gets hammered by the coastal commission and only do one story, but I do really well with them and I get four stories So I'm hearing consensus to delete to keep it They need to rethink that okay Yeah We're just gonna say that no the overlay zones are the same as the underlying base There Okay, this is uh H44-7 and 44 8 legal development and permitting process Yeah, and this is like so I think commissioner welch Have made comment on this the coast elect should be able Chair welch Should be able to repair modify or add if it meets the city Zoning or building requirements well this this Okay, so this has been challenged and This whole this goes back to this 1977 date Again, and I this is being has been challenged and I don't know that we want there. Yeah, I have a lot of concern about this whole wording I know where it wasn't going to get into The geological part, but this starts that whole process. So um I would suggest we bump this up to our legal department for review and making sure that it's not Giving them any more Well, okay, so my discussions and and this is where san clementi won Is they put it based on the date of their current lcp, which was 2018 not retroactive to 1977 And and their insight to me when I called and had the discussion with them was don't give them any dates historical that from that 1977 And they they approved the plan with san clementi with the date of 2018 so And the reason why is because San clementi just like capitol These properties were here long before The coastal commission was enacted And so now you're you're trying to hold them accountable is something that They didn't have a discussion before they purchased the property for most of these Doesn't your is that your recommendation there tj on the on the paper here. Is that my recommendation? It's his comment in the center The because they both seem to see that say the same thing Yeah, so they're you know proposition 20 took place first and it was for properties within a thousand yards of the mean high tide And then the coastal act of 1976 For all properties in the coastal zone Right and they're considered lawfully established development that does not require a coastal development permit in order to continue as legally Existed prior to those dates And then the standard any additional development since those dates including improvements repair modifications and or additions May require a cdp in accordance with provisions to this chapter Yeah, I would I would so may is new under may require a cdp Is how do you our legal? Our attorneys we're using our city attorneys to review this Or do we have a special a contract with some of the city attorney? So they're saying anything that was done prior to this coastal act coming into the effect is fine But then any additional development. So if I built something in 1985 Today Someone can tell me I didn't get a permit a coastal permit Oh, if you built it in 85 without a permit. Yes Yeah, no without a um A coastal development permit, right, right I mean not anything so I think it should say may require a cdp if it were if it were Below the standards like it was less than a 10 percent addition or 10 Present height increase there are certain standards that you don't need a coastal Basically saying that things that violated the coastal act when they were built are This is some kind of enforcement provision It is yeah as another part of this is when new applications came come in they want documentation of how things were approved over the years and this is definitely um The the language here is setting it up for the non conforming Yeah, in the future to tie permits back so um Well, I don't mind that I mean if if there if the law required people to get a permit for a particular improvement in 1985 and they didn't and they come in now for More uh for a permit and that's discovered. I I think they should be held till Having complied with the law at the time that was in fact Well, if in fact, that's the issue. I don't And that's how we typically treat any application We recently had a someone come by asking about a restaurant and a bunch of illegal additions that were done there We said as if we bring if you're gonna do improvements to this when we bring it to planning commission everything has to become legal So, I mean that's typical process for if they come in for a lot line adjustment They can't have any violations on their property Wait, so if they I guess if if they had Well, how would they have done it unless they Didn't go through our permitting process Not having a coastal development permit Yeah, I mean when they just built it Well, then that would have been illegal, right? We wouldn't we wouldn't allow that Yeah, so there's there should have been a permit I the coastal development permit is a whole different thing to me than if they had a Illegally built structure or something that was outside of our permit process then I'm on board but Yeah, I'd be curious to see what our attorney has to say about I'll make I'll have them review it just to make sure we're not missing anything But this will I don't think it hurts us at this point It's when we start talking about non-conformities and they do calculations that you're going to see the same Language, but here it's not referencing What you can do to improve your property to a certain extent with a non-conformity Um move on But the one change is may at the end may require a cdp Next for 13. It's page 44 dash 17 This is from coastal commission staff And they as we spoke on about the first item. They do not want chapter 17.1 1 2 included in our lcp So to not include that they're asking By 1 2 0 or that we keep 1 2 0 in In this chapter. So my suggestion is I'll go through it and make sure it's consistent with our chapter 1 12 make sure it matches exactly and then I think it's okay to accept that change I'm fine with that. I'm fine being heads noted. Okay 14 Is floria ratio and garage exception? So this we had gone into quite some detail. Um, mr. Sham showy and was here at the last hearing And talking about the new 250 Square foot exception for garages that were added to lots over 3000 square feet went back this actually came up in our issues and options Update when we first kicked off the zoning code update. We highlighted some issues And in talking about our floor area it was suggested Um To add an exception for garages on small lots I There was no reference to why 3000 square feet as we broke down the Calculations of what the 3000 square feet would mean. Well, first, I'll talk to the slide This creates a discrepancy between a lot that's 3000 square feet In size up to a lot That's about 34 50 that they're getting more More of a benefit on a lot that's smaller than a larger a lot So the request was for the planning commission to Look at this discrepancy and try to fix it. So it's fair And Mr. Sham showy and was asking rather than give this 250 square foot Exception for lots less than 3000 square feet. Why doesn't the planning commission consider a 125 square foot? Exception to garages for and that would that that request would make all homes larger within capitol of by 125 square feet No matter how you dice it so In trying to figure out where the 250 square feet came from we figured out that for a lot size of 2587 square feet The floor area the max floor area gets you to the point that you're required to have a covered parking space We think the 250 square foot exception may have been a way in which to A property owner that's not required to have covered parking to entice them to create a garage on their lot so What staff would suggest to fix this would be to create a an exception for lots up to 2586 square feet and lot size to receive this 250 square foot exception So they could build a garage on their lot and then to create a plateau that goes across and identify That Home that lots up to 3000 18 square feet could have this garage area exception to also get that floor area established at 1750 square feet so to go back If you have a lot that Doesn't have to have covered parking You'd be able to get the 250 square foot exemption But then we'd carry that across that's 7 1750 square foot floor area. We'd carry it across until you get to The lot size that it evens it out. So it makes it a fair process for people and nobody gets in an advantage unless Do you want to talk about that before I go into I'll jump in here Okay, I just want to say I thought that was a very astute analysis and I'm in awe Of how you solved this problem. I really I mean I've studied it and I You know, I was trying to think of how to how to deal with it and you came up with a great solution I don't know if I like it Well, I don't like that. It's not a rounded off number. No, I know but it's there's logic to it though You started with the policies and the reasons and built from that and it just Made a lot of sense. So did you so I I don't like it for several reasons. First of all, it's um, he's changing what the city council Approved right isn't this this is the blue line is what the city council was the city council wasn't the planning was the city council Right, so the supreme court made the ruling and they created the blue line So once again the planning commission is trying to come back and as a lower court and over rule Supreme court So I don't like the idea of of that trying it seems like a slippery slope If we're going to start revisiting all the zoning code issues and saying oh, I'm sorry city council. You're wrong um, I also don't like it because The person who brought it up. Mr. Sham showing in was probably not interested in tightening the requirements, but Loosening them and uh, this obviously makes it tougher Uh, and I don't know again what the city council Their intention was to give some relief and you're saying no you shouldn't give as much relief From what I read in your notes. You didn't get a real Explanation of who on the city council or what their rationale was and you just tried to guess what it was but perhaps there's legitimate reasons and And I would hate to see public outrage because there's people who fit in that little triangle there and that all of a sudden now they're not They're not in compliance so The fact that it's not the fact that it's uh, it's a sharp edge according to our uh Our capability as planning commission if there seems to be enough wiggle room when we we talk about When variances are allowed if someone was to be right on the 3000 to one foot or whatever we would say Well, okay, this is an arbitrary number Some of us are harder on variances than others Well, but there's rationale and the reason for variances. I mean you could argue that You don't want to give it anyway, but there's rationale to to to allow the borderline cations Especially since it's a fairly arbitrary limit So my suggestion was to leave it alone Thanks for the research Got a lot of good information, but I don't want to change it Yeah, I'm I'm okay with the change. I I I think The city council and all their infinite wisdom sometimes has oversight, but they get a look at this again. It's not so this goes to them After it leaves us so they get a second chance to maybe review some oversights So I don't I really don't have an issue either way to be honest with you, but I like Ed suggestion from the last meeting Don't allow for any ancillary space. Just leave it up to the FA her That seems the simplest way You know, I think the one thing and and uh, and I understand the gentleman who brought it to us Was trying to resolve an issue without making his wife upset so But having said that the comment about Making garages More accessible is legitimate in capitol Your garage person Is there support for The plateau There's some people in favor of the staff recommendation. There's some people in favor of believing it the way it is There's some people in favor so far of the leading all garage Bonus the garage bonus completely and Commission chair, I'm not sure you were which way I'm okay with the staff recommendation I so we got two for the two out of four for the staff recommendation Okay, we'll lock a pitch of late on the other. All right. I prefer the other way Well, it's not unanimous. No We got a one reluctant yes and one dissent Okay, well and we've got one more part of this to discuss so The ancillary space, I think there was quite an emphasis on The need in capitol of ancillary space within a garage Because our standard would only allow the 10 by 20 area within a garage not to be counted towards the floor area ratio That's counted towards the parking So I do think that to create a benefit for ancillary space within garages. It would be appropriate For the floor area ratio, which you use to calculate parking requirement to allow An ancillary space of up to 125 square feet that doesn't count towards your parking requirement It counts towards the floor area of the home the max floor area But it wouldn't count in the calculation of parking so people could have that flexibility to decide and oddly enough We've been at this point where that 125 would have made a difference. It sounds crazy, but We've actually had that where it requires that extra parking spot that people don't have so Well, I think I mean when I said I liked what the staff and then I included that I like that also and also I mean the the trend is to reduce parking requirements So this helps, you know, that's that's the modern planet because We're trying to get a little bit away from having four car garages At least we're not talking about carbon So agreement on ancillary space. Yeah, yes Okay, uh page 56 dash one. There was a question related to um the deletion of When an archaeological or paleontological survey is for report is required and the first note was for it. It's required as shown in the capitola resource map Of the lcp and we had that recreated in the zoning code update and the reason why this is crossed out is Pretty much the whole village half a depot hill The area is going up the Soquel Creek it's just this map shows where they may be but it's not Any exact science to it so to require all these properties to have to create a report We thought would be unfair and it was actually the coastal commission staff that said that's too broad Let's get rid of it. So the standards without one Would include and there used to be within 750 feet But it's property within a known archaeological or paleontological resources so and a property Within 100 feet of the bluff Or an area with a probability of containing archaeological paleontological resources as determined Through the city's on-site investigation or other available information So if we're doing an eir and something comes up or if um, it's a known Site we would have them do The study or if it's along the block So That was mine. Yeah, that's fine. Okay Um next was the question about decorative features and materials for a fence the standard right now Beyond the six foot height you're allowed an additional two feet Of lattice or other similar material that is at least 50 transparent We get a lot of fence permits and We like to see that you can see that there's some visibility through the fence. We don't do any type of You know, there have been applications that come in with a double lattice and you can't see through it and we'll deny those but if it were There are a lot of new Fence designs coming out these days. So if we wanted I think the request was to consider lowering that to 30 percent Yeah, and just because I was there's a lot of fences that use privacy lattice Which has the double? Yeah, it's a double and the the gaps are about this big between the the strips of lattice rather than like that It just seems that's a reasonable choice to allow The question is do you want it um, is his privacy the goal or is being able to see through it the goal? The the the privacy lattice you can't see through right so so i'm thinking of uh, some of the houses, uh You know that that are overlooking We've seen it views And the lattice takes the fence up from what six feet eight feet right Which is that's an important two feet there if there's some kind of view through I think that's part of the reason for it one then other Parts of the zoning go to apply to that with views and obstructing views Maybe only for public views. Well, by the way, where'd you get that graphic? online Do you recognize it? No, I just curious That's your typical one that comes in. Oh, yeah, okay. Well, I'm gonna be probably the lone Obstruction there. Um, well, I it's not that I'm a Are you're saying you want the privacy lattice? Yeah, I think the privacy we had a we had an incident Where the people wanted to raise their fence six inches because of a hot tub and had all the neighbors agree And we didn't allow him to raise his fence six inches to me It's like I was the lone person there because it's like hey nobody wants to see the people in the hot tub They don't why not if everyone agrees why don't we just give them a little courtesy and Rules are rules. So I change the rules We have an option to change the rules right now. So I'm not opposed to it and in a lot of these areas, you know, if you look like A budding against the railroad track or park avenue It's the extra two feet of lattice that becomes privacy doesn't it's not obstructing views or anything else. So Yeah, so I guess my only concern is this isn't a coastal commission concern. Is it this is not a coastal commission so now And didn't we have didn't the planning commission already approved the zoning code the way it's written And we're just talking about the coastal commission comments. So now we're going back and re-reviewing what was already approved Yeah, that that was uh, that was part of it, but I I agree with this notion. I'm just worried about the the slippery slope of Reopening issues that are already decided Evolution I think you can do minor Because you are a new planning commission. You have that ability to do these updates, but Well, I think we should leave it the way it is I lost the first go around I don't have an issue with it either way So well, so I so I want to explore this evolution thing a little bit more again. My concern is is that Because I remember sitting there and the Last planning commission said and you know rich was really anxious to get the zoning code approved before the planning commission Was still there because the new planning commission is going to come in and start all over and they're going to review all this stuff And we're going to be a back to square one and we'll never get this thing Approved so that's that's what's in my mind, but now that I am that planning commissioner I'm kind of feeling like all right. I'll be one of those guys who's starting this whole thing over again so I'm kind of Ha ha on the fence as to whether or not to agree Uh, do this or not so I just think you have to look at some design trends I think the design trends are more towards the privacy lattice than this old stuff that's been around for 20 or 30 years Well, I mean, I'm even I'll go further than that. I think good fences make good neighbors And so I just would increase at eight feet period, but And I don't want to there's ways around it. You can have a hedge next to your faint. That's true. There's no regulation There's no regulation on it. So There are ways that's right. There are ways around it. I guess I'll I'll go with the majority if there is one the previous code I was thinking I don't remember the 50 percent in the previous code. So the previous code states um You can go up to a maximum height of eight feet provided that the top two feet of the fence made by lattice or other open material So we didn't have a standard so we could say similar material that is Well, I think the discussion was that lattice isn't always used for that upper two feet. There's other methods of doing that 50 percent type for design and stuff and so I think that's why we got away from Lattice or similar materials, but they still wanted the transparency and the 50 percent was just What came up? Had mick been on the planning commission at that time, which is a rare thing that you weren't by the way. I don't recall Yeah Well, I went through There's something about having uh, I mean there's there's a light and an air issue too In some locations where once you start getting your fences higher and higher and higher It does impose on the neighboring properties I think we should keep the witness I'm fine with it I was convinced of our other alternatives, so So We're only It's two hours into this. This is not like a hearing where you get kind of I mean This is hard work I'm not seeing that we're gonna get to the end of any reasonable hour today. Okay. We're already at 18 We've only got another page or so. We do. Yeah, we're almost Well, if you don't do it read edits if you just go to the numbers we got Well, can you give us an idea of how many more items we there's one big item and then the The rest are small I think There are there's 20 total 20 more 20 total and we're at 16. We're at 17 I lose I'm with you. Hey, I've been I've been looking at this thing all day. Can we go till uh Well, let's go to nine o'clock and see where we're at on that this next discussion. All right It's only another five minutes, but this next one you said's a big one Or is this the the coastal commission asked that we consider bringing this one back in its page 76 dash three It's under the parking standards for the central village They would like The note to say in the coastal zone in all cases hotel development shall provide adequate parking I think up to that point. It's okay But they also like and shall not negatively impact existing public parking opportunities And I don't think we should hold them to a higher standard. We discussed this at the last meeting and I think there was consensus with that so And this is one of those concerns I have about the coastal commission and some of the lawsuits is it And I don't know I'd be interested to see what our legal People say on land use but that they're trying to create policy for us and that's outside of their purview and I think our code covers parking issue So we'll keep that struck. This is where they're conflicting with some of their own policies are conflicting because you want visitor serving use which is the hotel is a visitor serving use right and then You're going to put parking restrictions on it Yeah, and the site is a parking lot right now So and it has a more intense demand for parking than a hotel site would because it flips Yeah, so in a way four times a day. It says no hotel. I mean, yeah, so We'll move on to 18 this is actually Kind of an in-depth one. This came up in our recent application on Monterey Avenue And we had the standard in here Um For this is within the mixed-use village zoning district There's a requirement Here did we skip 16 we did because it's accessory dwelling units and it's big and I thought I'd leave it for last Because we may not have time for that one Okay, so this one we had kept the standard about mixed-use village and that parking has to be outside provided outside of the village In in translating it from the old code to the new code a was not translated in and partially I think it was because There was no reference to what a non-historic structure in residential areas bounding the central commercial district. We didn't Realize that that was tied to a land use plan map and exhibit b I think it's really great language to keep in the code because it specifies that along that commercial district A non-historic structure Um Should not is not required to have on-site parking that it should be off-site And I I think that supports exactly where the public works has gone with this for years and in the It it reflects what is stated in the land use plan I think it might be better though if we even include a gis image of this of exactly what that Instead of referencing the land use plan exhibit b. I think that maybe we should follow This with the map, which is this map from the land use Plan and what it's stating is that these areas of capitol avenue Just this commercial area along here that's not within one of the residential overlay districts that Their required parking can be provided outside the village so We just handled that application and we were kind of wondering what How to interpret that and I'm still I'm wondering if I have a property in that district Where am I supposed to go for the parking to meet the parking requirement? So you should um, you should Find your parking outside the village So either getting like a deed restriction placed on another lot that has extra parking and having an agreement Or it ideally I think this was probably set up in a time when you could buy parking spaces through an in loop program But we don't have that we don't have that so and the other only other option then gives is a variance So I I mean I'm gonna ask commissioner ruth who's been here for a hundred years Whether he's ever seen anybody get a parking lot somewhere else to build a house Never Never Yeah, it just seems kind of bizarre to me. I know that there was uh further up capitol avenue there There was a neighbor who has Their parking requirement is on the neighboring property. I've heard of that story and it's it's always referenced as really poor planning as well But For this, I mean it's I that recent applicant I said, do you have any family or Yeah, I mean, you know, that's willing to give up a couple parking spaces elsewhere That's essentially a way to make money if what are you gonna tell the first first guy who comes in and says You know, I want to remodel my house in this district You say well you need to go outside and find somewhere buy a parking lot Or else you can only build a 10% addition and that's why the village hasn't really grown It's because good But anyway, I think keeping it in help is helpful. All right Because it's required under the land use plan and it just it gives um That's words into a pro a process that's definitely supported without doing additional curb cuts You're bringing up a good point though. Is this something that we should put on an agenda item to relook at this whole I mean It's crazy, right Yeah, the only reason it can't I'm just not sure how Significant it is. I mean we've had we did have one application, but yeah Well, one more you're about to have one next month too. We're gonna get another one. Well, there's three hearings But we've gone through like this happens all the time as far as I'm concerned So where fan mar hits capital avenue, there's the the cute house on the corner and then the property next to it Which recently sold that's the other vacant lot in the village that They'll come in for an application on that lot. They're required to provide parking on an outside the village Why don't they just make it a parking lot and sell to the other people that Are looking for parking And When they came in they met with staff and in reviewing this with the Uh public works director It was decided we should We should direct them towards the least impactful Land use regarding parking And then they would need a variance So the least impactful is to build a home up to 1500 square feet or 2000 square feet that only requires two parking spaces That's like a real workaround, isn't it? Yeah, I mean we can put this on an agenda if we had an in lieu program It would make sense. It would yeah Continue the discussion on that one. I maybe so I don't know that it'd be nice to have an answer It'd be nice to have an answer for people. I don't I think we're kind of kicking the can down the road by same way next was While it is past nine o'clock Where we are we're on uh 19 and she skipped 16. So yeah, that's a big one though 16's of And then how would you have uh On the next page, which ones do we need to discuss? So 19 and 19 is just to Findings and then 20 The development. Oh, that's my Well I didn't see this capital of theater development. We talked about that and we were pushing back on the coastal commission about height requirements and 10 feet below versus We already agreed to that right? Yeah We've already worked that one out at the last meeting the planning commission said to just leave it as we had it They go with the coastal commission. Say did you talk to them about that? I'm sorry. I'm off topic or never mind. Oh, that's a good point Did they accept what we did? You know, we won't know until the the staff definitely They they would prefer to have a firm number in there, but they understand what we're coming from So we'll see what the coastal commission actually says beyond their staff on that one Okay, so 19 findings for historic demolition That the comment I believe was made by commissioner newman That for the findings one through four Yeah, that Oh, yeah one or more of the first four findings should be made But then always the fifth finding would have to be made so I can just make that simple 20 is the definition of development And there is one thing I want to be really clear about is the coastal there's a Coastal act definition of development and that's going to be in 1744. So this is for our Definition of development and then there'll be a reference to the 1744030 and so development Means a any and then I said proposed change to land or structure crossing out human caused Land or structure that requires a permit or approval from the city including construction Rehabilitation and reconstruction Like that Okay, and then do you want me to get into This last item It's it's pretty much to make our adu ordinance The numbers at 16. Oh defer to my It's chapter 74 Um And I can highlight the state changes to it Our next planning commission meeting we have quite a few items on there including like two larger developments So it may be best to just take 15 minutes on this okay, so The big thing from the state is that you have to set up an administrative review And our prior ordinance it had an administrative review, but then we had lots of references to deviation to standards And for like decreased setbacks unit size open space two stories and had exceptions and they were built in throughout the ordinance We modified that to have all of the Administrative review Up front in the ordinance and then a discretionary For deviations from the standards put towards the end of the ordinance in which if you're going to deviate from these standards You then have to go to planning commission and certain findings have to be met. So that was structural Second was minimum lot size For an attached adu So does everyone understand the difference between attached detached and internal? so the um An attached adu the minimum lot size has been 5 000 square feet detached adu the minimum lot size 5 000 square feet Our previous code said internal adu We would allow A 4 000 square foot Minimum lot size and that's for a unit that's either within the home or within the exist in existing accessory structure So the pool house can be converted to an adu The state came back So not your the coastal commission so our code currently meets the state's requirements for Oh, no, this is after the state came in. So this is this is actually so it's not the coastal. We're talking about state now It's not a coastal issue. This is a state There was total zoning code issue. So our our new ordinance that we adopted in January of 2018 actually the Law that went into place in January of 2018. We thought we were in compliance with it But what took effect is not Okay, we need to make some So why do we have to discuss this we have to state its state? Yeah, we don't have well there I want to tell you the shocking things When I say I proved an adu you're not surprised So one thing this is kind of unsubstantial But for the really small internal adus the maximum size Is tied to either 50 of the existing structure or 500 square feet, whichever is less. So that's minor Whichever is less whichever is less so But that does allow now adus on all lots if it's internal So that's a big change because before on sub four thousand you just couldn't and that caused a lot of people stress So Yeah, I think I have a slide on that but to this point the um The internal adu under scenario three So it's either within the existing home or in an existing accessory structure The state says if you're a single family home on a r1 lot a single family lot We have no we cannot set a lot size standard for that So any single family home on an r1 lot can have an internal adu they can convert part of their existing home Or they can convert part of the existing accessory structure That's the biggest change in all of this Put in a second kitchen. What is it? Yeah, you put in a second kitchen and you have separate sleeping quarters and a dividing door so essentially Um, it's a second unit that has its own access. They're all over capital and have been for many years Now they're gonna be legal. So when people come to the front counter We often turn them away because their lot size isn't big enough now It's okay. You're in the r1 and you have an existing home As long as it's within the existing home You can build it The trick is so now we have this other thing of maximum floor area ratio When you have an adu your maximum floor area ratio goes up to a point six in the under our floor area ratio, it says The combined floor area for a lot with the primary residence and an accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed six that's in a In the citywide standards, then I found in the r1 standard We say in the r1 parcels of 4,000 square feet or more with an approved adu are permitted a maximum floor area of point six Tonight i'd like to note. Do you want that to apply to? All lot sizes should we have the minimum of 4,000 square feet and larger that you get an increased far It might seem I just look at the jewel box where I live and those houses now are crammed so close together to Allow it on lots less than 4,000 square feet would just really impact that neighborhood if it were to If they were to get a larger home size Okay Larger than 4,000 square feet. I don't know that I have a so what is the state requiring that's So this isn't state this is i'm finding a discrepancy so in our r1 section of code it says that as long as For for a lot that has an adu on it and it's 4,000 square feet or larger you get this Point six we see point six. We see people bump up their house size regularly in a lot of applications So a lot of people take advantage of this and put a secondary unit in Do we want to decrease that 4,000 square foot? So that the far can go up Yeah, so that you know now that we know that adus can happen on a 3,500 square foot lot. Do they also get the privilege of a More area to higher far. Yeah, and I wish I don't have the breakdown of far But it starts getting closer because the smaller the lot the higher the far between 4% would be the most someone could get Yeah It's nice to know how this really plays out and uh real world I think it plays out to be like within a hundred square feet or so once you're on a smaller lot I know matt's gone through a lot of these So the people are going to come in now and with a little bit bigger building plan Because they say that they're going to have an internal adu Which they may or may not end up having They do have to de-restrict it though well, it'll be They'll be building inspector right looking for two kitchens and the dividing wall and the door and all that stuff Yeah, then separate entrance. They could just serve as an extra bedroom for a family. Yeah. Yeah So, yeah, it's kind of a way to get a little bit more space 240 is the most someone could get out of that if they had like a 3,999 square foot lot the most they could add what the 60% would be an extra 240 square feet And on the smaller lots of a taper off down to zero And even 3,999 square feet is a large lot for capitol Most of them are 3,200 square feet And you are seeing now people on even like really big lots only adding Like the most minimal 80s just to get to that 60% so I mean, yeah people use this a lot It's it's got a lot of potential for abuse I'd say we leave it at the way it is the 4,000 Okay, we're gonna clean it up then so it's clear in both sections This I just went over with well, okay, so an internal ADU is inside the home And the state controls that the state controls that they Well, I think the other thing that Is a consideration is also controls parking so we can't ask for parking So that's if you allow the larger ADU they're going to have two families in there and More parking and but even as it is Every house in capitol it could be converted to a duplex Okay, so it looks like I did do a calculation over 3,000 square foot lot the far would be 50.57 If if we're allowed if we're going to allow a 3,000 square foot lot to have an far of 60 They would get an extra 90 square feet So their far will go from 1710 up to 1800 So we'll leave it. I heard leave it at 4,000 And so this okay, this slide was to show you We have this chicken before the egg thing happening in capitol that people are coming in and realizing that they can get an internal adu But it has to be within the existing building and then So they're coming in asking all these great adu questions and They can do the internal addition and then the next day they can come once it's done and it's finalized They can say well, I have an adu so I get my increased far of 0.6 So now I want to do an addition off the back and we're just we're looking at this saying wow, this is really a lot of bureaucracy and if the Planning commission wants we can draft this in such a way That on a 4,000 square foot lot if you're going to have an internal adu you can also build an addition at the same time just to Not have to do this two-step development process, which the purpose here really is to create more housing So yeah, it is they're related the addition is definitely related to Okay, so we're going to get rid of the chicken and the egg thing That's great The other part of the state law is that they created all of these new exceptions for parking And when I go through the exceptions for parking the only time we can require parking for an adu is if it's a detached adu So if it's this detached building, that's the only scenario if it's with all the other scenarios it's internal or attached Yeah, so only a detached building The other thing to note is that a conversion within an existing garage carport or covered parking Folks are allowed to convert their garages to adu's Um They'll use that extra 125 or 250 square feet. Yeah, and then The existing square footage for the primary home though has to be Provided on site and then the state goes so far to say the required parking spaces may be located in any configuration on the same lot as the accessory dwelling unit Including but not limited to covered spaces uncovered spaces. So our whole all the regulations about covered go out the door Tandem spaces or by the use of mechanical Automobile parking lifts. So that's in there. So as we're seeing we're going to start to see garages get converted and parking taking up other areas The accessory dwelling unit within the converted garage does not require on-site parking. That's the other part of it So there's an exception to the parking that you've just, you know, that new You know, so we have restrictions on parking in the front yard landscaped area. Will that remain? um I think it allows anything in this one. Yeah required off-street parking for the existing single family home Shall be provided on-site based on the floor area of the existing structure of the parcel the required parking spaces May be located in any configuration on the same lot as the accessory Dwelling unit including but not limited to So it sounds like no they can be in the front yard There goes early. Yeah landscaping requirement. I mean we still have like That one I'll push back on that for our attorney but I know matt and I have That creates a different neighborhood when everyone has a car right in front of their house where their front yard should be It does You have one of those coming next month too request for that So that's it that was all the changes I made it through Would you like me to because of that, uh, the village discussion? It really is tied to in lieu. We could just Bring that to city council and say we don't you know with do you want to open up the in lieu policy or It's a it's gonna be their issue anyway. It really is an in lieu Issue or it needs to be changed. So it's more of a policy discussion. If you'd like I could Take everything I've heard I'll bring it back to you in the form of minutes and with that one item we could Ask the city council for advice on the in lieu. I don't know where the city council is on the whole in lieu that has a history but It's not been around for a long time here if you have a new group of money all went away And I mean so have they haven't taken that up and I mean, it's not it's it's not a small subject when they get into it figuring it all out Would you like another shot at it at the next hearing or would you like me to To me I it's gonna go to them in there and do what they want to do. So We have a big agenda You do So, well, thank you. We do we need to Approve this or just accept it and move it to the city council You need to have a motion in support of the modifications as directed by planning commission in the past two meetings And I'll have those summarized for you Okay, so we can ask for that motion and then further discussion because You didn't say anything about duck quacking did you? That's okay, we just start looking around That was good so well we can have a motion to Accept that and then have that forwarded to the city council and then I I have a concern and I I can't make a motion but a discussion maybe just what the rest of our planning commissioners think about Having some open community forums for some of this stuff coming up on With the coastal commission's concerns and That was recommended by the other cities I talked to that they were Threatened by lawsuits and finally and they backwalked it and said the recommendation from The people I spoke to in other cities was Take your time Don't don't try to rush this thing through because a lot of people have some concerns and They ended up in litigation then so Would it be uh, you think appropriate to ask the city council With this review is to have some community forums on Especially it's the geological component of The which we haven't addressed yet, right? Right. Yeah, if I may um So the purpose for keeping geological hazards out and non conforming is there's two things going on The coastal commission is still working And working through the application of those in different areas right now the city of santa cruz or the county of santa cruz is updating their Hazards section that should be publicized. I believe tomorrow And Staff recognizes that Once we start going through the hazards and the non conforming the changes that are in these policy documents Are going to take a lot of public outreach. They require a lot of public outreach. They're very they're asking for things that Our residents have not had to consider in the past And um, so that is why we're doing this two-step approach is so that we do slow down for those highly controversial Items and at the same time, hopefully the coastal commission in working with other Um Jurisdictions on this is making some progress towards more amenable standards, but I think well, and I guess my question is too Can we make at least a public statement so people know that they're going to have an opportunity to Have this opportunity to the public outreach to have their concerns addressed Most most people they don't even know what we're doing right now with this coastal commission So a lot of this is uh very detailed That would be hard to yeah, but there may be some big issues That that would be a good idea to you know, if we get if we end up in Disagreement with the coastal commission on a major policy issue, right? And that would be something but to try to bring this kind of Detail no this detail. I understand but I just I was just thinking that if we had A statement that we're going to have a time for public comment and Some community outreach before we addressed all these other concerns and one of it it just First we need to notice those people that are affected which is a large large part of our community and then secondly Is having someone that can interpret that because it It gets it gets pretty complicated. There's a lot of information here that And so and I think the Coastal commission needs to be part of that public outreach so they can answer the questions and the concerns and And I just want to go on the record. I guess stating that we're we plan on using that process so that People are watching or hearing about this that they know that we're not just trying to backdoor the Some of these changes. So that's my concern with that. I'll leave it open for a motion A positive recommendation Second second all those in favor. All right and uh Any directors report tonight? No directors report just as a follow-up to your comment I'll make sure in the city council staff report that I echo those comments of Emphasizing future work will be done and public outreach. Thank you Planning commissioner comments. I'm dope. All right. Thank you, right Thank you