 Good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining us for today's planning commission meeting. Today's date is December 14, 2022, and the time is 9 30 a.m. Today's meeting is completely remote via zoom. There are a couple of ways to participate in today's meeting. If your computer is equipped with a microphone, it is recommended that you participate via the planning commission zoom meeting link. Which is posted on the planning department's home page at scco planning.com. Alternatively, if your computer is not equipped with a microphone, you may provide comment by telephone. To call in please dial 669-444-9171 and when prompted enter the collaboration code number 814-8152-8029. And again, this information is posted on the planning department web page. During key points in today's meeting time will be provided for members of the public to provide their testimony. Speakers will be muted until called on to speak. I will ask participants who wish to provide testimony to either remotely raise your hand by selecting the hand icon on the zoom link. Or if calling in by telephone by remotely raising your hand by pressing star nine. I will call on participants by either your name or the last four digits of your telephone number. If you are participating via the zoom link when I call on you to speak you'll see a pop up on your screen that says unmute. Please accept the pop up state your name for the record and provide your testimony. If calling in via telephone you must unmute yourself by pressing star six and I'll remind everybody of these instructions as we move forward. If at any time you're having difficulty connecting to today's meeting via the zoom link or by calling in. We do have support with staff with us today. Nick Brown he's our new planning technician. You can email him at Nicholas dot brown at Santa Cruz County dot US. He'll be checking his email periodically throughout the meeting and he's ready to assist anyone who needs additional help. All right. And with those instructions, I will turn over the meeting to our planning commission chair chair Tim Gordon. Good morning. Good morning Jocelyn. Thank you for that intro and welcome everyone to today's Santa Cruz County Planning Commission hearing. It is 934 and we can call this meeting to order mystery. Can we please start with a roll call. Yes. Commissioner Dan. Here. Commissioner Lante. Here. Commissioner Shepard. Here. And chair Gordon. Here. Great. Thank you. And moving right along. Do we have any additions or corrections to the agenda today? No, not today. Okay. And agenda item number three declaration of ex parte communications. Do you have any commissioners I would like to declare anything today. I did meet with Deidra from Hamilton planning on item number seven. Wonderful. Thank you. Excuse me. Okay, great. And without enclose agenda number three, and move on to number four oral communications is the time when members of the public have the opportunity to speak on items that are not on the agenda today. And Ms. Drake, do we have anyone that would like to speak at this time. Let's see. So this is the time again for folks who wish to provide comment on any subject matter, not on today's agenda to please make yourself known by raising your hand by pressing the hand icon on the zoom link, or by pressing star nine on your telephone, you would have two minutes to speak. And chair, I'm not seeing any hands raised. Okay. Oh wait, one just popped up. All right, I'm seeing in hand a hand raised by Ali Webster. Good morning, please restate your name for the record you have two minutes. Good morning. Let's see. I'm sorry, I don't believe I raised my hand. I'm speaking on item number seven. Sorry. Okay, no problem. We'll catch up with you in a bit. Thanks. Yep. I did see another hand raised by Pisa Murdoch. Good morning, please state your name for the record you have two minutes. Okay, just got the unpop the unmute button. Can you hear me. Yes, good morning. Thank you. Good morning. Thank you. I was just curious what number three was that you met with Deirdre Hamilton on. I assume that's regarding the Jeffrey Beach access. I'm sorry, could you please state your name for the record. Teresa Murdoch, Teresa Murdoch. Thank you. Does that conclude your comments. Yes. Okay, thank you. And let's see if we have any additional members of the public who wish to speak on anything that is not on the agenda today. I am saying no additional hands raised I'll turn it back over to your chair. Great. Thank you. Commissioner Layton be did you want to clarify that that meeting was in regards to agenda item number seven. You're muted Commissioner Layton be. Yes, that was in regard to item number seven. Thank you. Okay, with that we can close agenda item number four oral communications and move on to item number five today which is our consent agenda item. This might be our last one resolution. This might be our last one. It might we have, we might have one more. I can check in with the planning commission and later in the meeting. Well, if there's any members of the commission that would like to make a motion on this item and be appropriate. I'll move approval. Thank you Commissioner Dan. Thank you. And second by Commissioner Villante. Thank you. Mr. can we please do a roll call vote on this. Commissioner shepherd. Commissioner shepherd. You're muted. Yep. Okay, thanks. Yes. Did, did you hear me that time. I did not. Okay. Yes. Thank you. Mr. Villante. Yes. Commissioner Dan. Yes. Yes. And Chair Gordon. Yes. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Without the motion passes and we can move on to agenda item number six approval of the minutes of the November 9th Planning Commission hearing and members of the commission have discussion or would like to make a motion on that. I'll move approval. Great. Thank you. And, and I can second that. So we have a motion and a second mystery. Can we please do a roll call vote on that. Commissioner Dan. Yes. Commissioner Villante. Yes. Commissioner shepherd. Yes. Commissioner liaison be abstain abstain. Okay. And chair Gordon. Yes. Great. Thank you that motion passes and we can move on to the next agenda item. Agenda item number seven. This is a repair of a slump slide on 70 Jeffrey drive project application number 201 302. Ms. Drake, do we have staff and applicants available for this item? Yes, we have Nathan McBeth senior planner with the development review division with us today to present on this item. If we could load his PowerPoint. That would be fantastic. Melissa, do you have a PowerPoint. I do. We'll load it as backup. We were going to have you run it. Can you let me know which one is it 302 or 211. It's 302. Thank you. And Nathan, you can just let her know when to advance the slides. Great. Thank you. In the winter of 2019 2020 heavy rains caused a slope failure of a 10 foot high section of the slope supporting a driveway access homes that located at 60 and 70 Joffrey drive. And due to a clogged clogging of an existing drain inlet near the top edge of the roadway, an emergency coastal development permit and grading permit application 2021 227 was issued for the construction of a slump slide repair. By constructing a temporary reinforced slope and installing a 12 inch diameter drain pipe. All the work associated with the emergency repair was completed under the emergency coastal development permit and grading permits and proper technical reports were prepared submitted to the county for review and accepted. All work had been completed in accordance with the recommendations of those reports. County code requires a regular coastal development permit to be submitted following issuance of an emergency coastal development permit. The regular coastal development permit is intended to address any changes or long term repairs. As opposed to the minimum repair necessary to prevent or mitigate the conditions posed by composing imminent threat to life health property, essential public services. In this case, there are no changes from the emergency coastal development permit to the proposed regular coastal development permit. In October 21, 2022, the zoning administrator after a duly noticed hearing referred this application 201 302 to your commission for additional consideration. So the issues raised by the zoning administrator were regards to policies. Particularly policies pertaining to access along Geoffrey Drive. Where existing public access is located to 200 feet to the east of the project site. And if you could advance the slide that would be great. So location of the project. At the end of Geoffrey Drive. Next slide please. The zoning for the site is R16. Next slide. Which is consistent with the general plan land use designation of urban low residential. Next slide please. Again the project site. A little bit closer look at sandwiched between, between Lake Beach or Blacks Beach and sunny Cove. Next slide please. This is the location of the project and the slope immediate, the adjacent to the driveway, the end of Geoffrey. Next slide please. This slide represents the extent of the county maintained portions of Geoffrey and 16th Avenue. The blue areas are existing developed beach access. And in this case the access at the end of 16th Avenue is a narrow trail that leads to a rock shelf. Next slide please. These are photographs of the slope failure. As you can see in the lower left frame, the drain inlet. Where this gentleman standing is what was the cause of the failure. The upper frame is looking back at Blacks Beach. Kind of the same with the lower right frame. Next slide please. These are plans for the project. It was to grade approximately 50 cubic yards. And we're going to key in the fill slope, install a sub drain, install a 12 inch diameter drain pipe stick to the slope with a new inlet. Install erosion control fabric for reach vegetation and install a four foot high safety fence at the top of the slope. Next slide please. Thank you. These are photos of the completed work. The fabric overlaying the 12 inch drain line drain pipe stick to the slope. Back up on top with the right and the frame to the right is the new drain inlet. Next slide please. And a photo of the finished product with the four foot high safety fence. Next slide please. This is a view looking back across Blacks Beach at the project site. Some time had passed since this photo was taken in the previous frames. It shows the site starting to revegetate. Next slide please. Oh, that's me. Next slide please. The project site is reviewed all the applicable policies cited by the general by the zoning administrator and continues to support a determination that the proposed slump slide repair and restoration of the project site is just pre existing condition does not rise to the level of requiring further analysis as to whether the public access over the subject property. It does not include or include require the establishment of construction of coastal access improvements. Correspondence was received from coastal staff that applicants representative members of the public and all comments and late correspondence are contained in your packet. I'd also like to acknowledge last minute correspondence from bill parking. Mayor Guth and Elijah Malberry. You should all have been forwarded those Cor, those correspondence. The primary concerns raised in those in those letters were similar to what coastal staff has raised in the past regarding violations for placement structures impeding public access. a historic public access at the project site and some concerns regarding the use of the secret exceptions contained in the packet. As proposed and condition project is consistent with all applicable codes and policies of the zoning ordinance and general plan and therefore staff recommends a determination that the proposal is exempt from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act and approval of application 201302 based on the findings and conditions. That concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions. Great. Thank you, Mr. Macbeth. Appreciate that. And the picture is really helpful. Thank you for that presentation. So at this time, we can bring it back to the Commission to ask any questions that you might have of staff. Do any commissioners have anything they'd like to discuss? Commissioner Lazenby? I do have one question between the parking lot inlet and the cyclone fencing. I noticed at least three sprinkler risers that were right up next to the fence between the asphalt berm and the fencing. Is that system connected? And why would it be there? Good question. I guess, could you clarify maybe by one of the slides, the location of the sprinklers you noticed? You could go back to the very first slide, I think. Oh, this one here maybe? No, the next one where the individuals are standing. Oh, that would be a, here we are, yeah. Okay, you see where the inlet is in the parking lot. And you see where the cyclone fencing is. Go back to that prior slide. I think it'd be to advance one more slide. There we go. This is the completed work. Does this help? Okay, where the individuals are standing. Just inside the asphalt berm or the curb. Okay, here we go. This is the slide. Just beyond that curb. And between the curb and the fencing. I noted at least three 12 foot 12 inch high sprinkler risers. And my question is, are those connected? Are those using, are they using that? And why would they be sprinkling that area? Yeah, you raise a good question. I don't see any risers in these photos. You know, perhaps the applicant can clarify whether or not this irrigation system is functioning. Is that something that we can bring back commissioner lays and be when the applicant has their time to present and ask the question to them. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions at this time, I'm happy to hear from the public. Wait, I had a question. Commissioner shepherd, please go ahead. So exactly what are we voting about determining the project. And then exempt from further environmental review. It's already been built. Right. This exists. So we are just, this is a bureaucratic action to say that there's no review. I'm not quite sure what we are doing here. That's a good question. Our code requires that any emergency coastal development permit that's issued by the county come back with a regular coastal development permit. Often cases that results in a subsequent public hearing. The intent is to address any permit conditions site constraints that might now be present or changes to the project from the time that the emergency work is performed and kind of looking at more of a long term maintenance of whatever that hazard was. In this case, there is no change from what was done as the emergency repair and what is proposed as part of the long term solution to that slope failure. So there's normally you might have done an emergency band aid and then have a plan for a more permanent solution. In this case, that's not the case. What we see is what we have and what we're going to get. So basically, this is just a dot any. I don't, I still don't see what you want us to do here because you already did it. Right, right. I guess I would imagine kind of a two part process with any emergency repair. Maybe it's just fill a hole with rock. And then maybe the follow up would be to to pull the rock out and then to, you know, do maybe a unified seawall or something like that. In this case, as you mentioned, this is the long term repair. And, and yeah, an action to acknowledge that work is is required by county code. Well, what are the, maybe if you step away from it. What are the issues here it's all it's already built. So like it says that we are going to determine the project's example further environmental review. And what other environmental review is there to be done when it's done. So, yeah, Mr. Johnson has his hand perhaps he could answer the question. I came late into the secret determination but I've done a detailed review of the history, the, the work was done under an emergency coastal development permit. At the time we determined that the work being done under the emergency coastal permit was exempt under the emergency exemption under statutory exemption under sequel. Unfortunately, that's what should have been attached to this document. It was done initially has already been done as he recognized it was done under a sequel exemption. It was not a formally posted one statute limitations on that was a six month running of statute limitations, but that which is long past. So, what I would recommend is, if you decide to move forward with this, we revise the exemption to reflect the determination made with the emergency coastal development permit that it was exempt under the emergency statute of sequel. Well, in fact, if there has been a, if there was an emergency exemption already made, then we probably don't need to make see what findings again doesn't that make sense man. I would still because you're you're recognizing as a permit it is a discretionary action. I would refer to a sequel determination on a discretionary action. And the, the appropriate one in this case. Again, it was not formally posted at the clerk of the board, which is not required under sequel sequel requires only the posting to shorten the appeal period from six months to 30 days. If it was not posted we have to we can provide the environmental record that shows that we determined this project was an emergency project. So that would be the exemption that we move forward on back then, as stated there is no further work to be done on this. Currently, the, the, the, the, there is no development proposed as a result of this application it's a recognize. It's appropriate to do a, a sequel exemption that and I understand you that's why it's confusing that that we're not proposing to do any work so why isn't it exemption that exempts work. So we're not making new findings is what you're saying. Exactly. Yeah. So understood so that staff recommendations, given what you just said, the staff recommendation is that it's exempt from further environmental review under the California Quality Act, in that it qualifies for class one and class three categorical exceptions and then we've improved the application. Given what you just said to do. Is that what you want us. No, I would, I would revise it to rather than the one and two to the exemption which is a 15 to. Let me give me just one moment to 60 something. You're suggesting another action why don't you just say what it would be. Yeah, so rather than class one and class three, or class class two and class three, it would be the emergency exemption under sequel guidelines 15269. Can you repeat that one more time. Emergency actions under sequel guidelines 15269 emergency projects. Okay, so the fact that we're having the hearing on this and we're going to hear from the public is a little peculiar since the project is already done. And we're not going to undo it because it was emergency repair that was needed so we're in a unique situation that's, I just want to point that out so I propose that we get. We have much latitude here things down already. Matt, can you provide the revised language in the for the action for that secret determination. Right now we have determined that the project is exempt. Should we just say, affirm the project is exempt under emergency action 15269 or what would that language be. It's the same language just about the 15269 for the class one and class two. Okay, whichever they were sorry. Okay. Thank you. So that we should we should redo the the sequel exemption form. And I can work on that today. I can't get it done this moment. It needs to be changed from the category of exemption to the statutory exemption. The reasoning needs to be inserted in the bottom. Well, it would be good if staff recommendations could be accurate. I'm sure that this is a confusing situation but I'm glad that we've straightened it out. While we're about to have a hearing on. Commissioner Dan, did you have something to add there. Yeah, I would suggest that if staff would like us to consider this modified secret exemption that we take a break long enough for them to put that in writing and send it to us in writing. From my perspective, actually, this application has a lot going on in it and I'm frankly not prepared to take action on a modified staff recommendation. That's just verbally given to us. I don't think that that fits with this. What we're dealing with with this application. So that would be my suggestion. And then I might afford some time for the commission to read the late correspondence as well. Yeah, I have the second commissioner Dan on this because I agree that this application does have a lot going on and I really appreciate Mr. Johnson adding. Well, first, Mr. Shepherd bringing this up and then Mr. Johnson clarifying this but I agree that I would. I'm thinking about revising secret findings and actually he even mentioned revising the entire, you know, document and that's something I would want to read before taking action and I mean I hate to even say this but not only taking a break but if necessary continuing the item. I'm not saying we need to do that to the applicant and I'm not saying we need to do that but it just may be necessary because I would feel much more comfortable taking action on findings after having a chance to read them. Then then taking action on something verbally given what I consider the complexity of this particular item so I know we need to have a hearing because we need to hear from the public, given that it's been doing noted. But I just would like to share my thoughts and echo Commissioner Dan that I, I at a minimum would like to ensure that we have time to read those findings and that means maybe a break, but I just want to put out there that for me, I might be inclined to almost almost continue the item based on what Mr. Johnson shared. So I just want to be candid with the public and with the commission about where I am at present. Thank you. Who's the applicant? Is it the county? No, the app. No. Well, let's stop cancer. Nate. You're muted, Nate. The applicant is Hamilton land planning. It's Deidre Hamilton, and it's Mark and Suzanne Cowles are the property owners. Well, maybe I agree, either continue it or take break and rewrite it either way. It's good with me. If it's okay with your commission, I would say I, I'm happy to work on that sequel exemption. It is a, it is a form that that I can easily modify to reflect Matt's revised recommendation. So, yeah, that sounds great. And so just to sum this up and try and get some direction here. You know, I don't know how much time we're all going to need but I would hate to cram, you know, some review time in digits short amount. If we need a little more. So I would be, you know, open to discussing the continuance or at least like a set timeframe and maybe moving on to, if nothing else moving on to the next agenda item and coming back to this, it gives staff time to create. And maybe it's time to think about whether or not we want to continue it or spend time on a break trying to figure it out. I think that the fine idea to move on to the next item. So can I just so, so Nathan is the planner for the next item so we would need to take an actual break for us to make that revision and it is just a quick revised form that we would put together it would, it would not take long. I'm wondering if you'd like to have the public hearing on this item before we move on I didn't. We might want to take public comment just so that Mr. McBeth can work on it but during public comment and I don't know Nathan if you can work during public comment or if you need to. I don't know how that works for you. I'm pretty much already done with it. But yeah, happy to move forward. Can I ask, can I ask one more question from staff. Commissioner shepherd good. I am just still unclear if let's say we did not approve the findings are we. I don't understand the consequences of an negative vote are we you know what we'd be voting to take the project apart, are we are we really is this just the things built already what can we do if we say we don't like it for some reason. Yeah, that's another very good question. Obviously we don't want to revert back to an unstable hillside. But, you know, I think if it. Yeah, what are the options I mean you guys can, if the commission can approve it, as recommended you could modify it. You can, you know, continue it. I think those are still options but yeah certainly removal of the fill slope is would be that would be potentially problematic. I think it would be very costly. And I don't think so we are really looking at a bureaucratic action of one sort or another. I know that I agree with that commissioner shepherd I mean they are instances where emergency repairs require changes and there's a reason that there's an action requiring of. That's what a long term permit I mean I'd let staff speak to that but I would argue that there's a reason that we have distinctions between emergency permits and emergency repairs and those that require. Longer term permits and longer term actions and so I wouldn't. I just don't want to understate the importance of these kinds of two distinct actions but I guess I'm speak to that but yeah just like a head. Yeah, if I may, I mean they explain this but I'll just kind of reiterate Nathan's statement which is that for an emergency coastal permit. The purpose of those is to address an emergency situation. It's a quick action by staff a quick sequel exemption that we issue to just address the emergency to stabilize a slope for example after a major storm. So we've the department routinely issues emergency coastal permits especially in the winter time to address emergency situations is required by code that we follow up that emergency coastal permit with a formal coastal permit. And so we have a secondary action that we must take which is a coastal permit where we make our coastal findings and determine that the project is consistent with the local coastal program and the coastal findings. And that is a typically either a level for a level five coastal development permit in this case it's a level five coastal development permit which went to the zoning administrator and he referred it up to the Planning Commission. As described in the letter that we sent to you. And so, typically, there are no changes that we make between the work that was done. And so we have an emergency coastal permit phase and the formal coastal permit phase typically the work's done similar to this project and we're not recommending any revisions to that work. But sometimes they'll just go up, you know, for example for a bluff repair, you know the applicant or the property owner will just plug a hole. And then when we're looking at the formal coastal permit will say hey you need to do some planting around that shock re you need to color that shock re you need to, you know, secure that pipe that's the drainage pipe that's just kind of thrown out there to just address emergency drainage. And so we will add conditions of approval to, to sort of, you know, make that project more consistent with our coastal permit regulations if they've if it's kind of sort of half, you know, half baked if they just kind of went out there and address the emergency to really do a full a full on a project at that time to really make it consistent with our coastal permit findings in this case staff is not recommending any further changes to the project. But that is something that the Planning Commission could consider through conditions of approval and in reviewing this formal coastal permit. So that is a very good background and understanding and now I have much firmer graphs of what's going on here. I'm ready to proceed now and thank you I wish that had been written up a little bit that way because it gives us context I couldn't make head or tail of this. Now I can. Well, it sounds like we can move on to the public comment and specifically the applicants. Excuse me now. Now I'm lost. All right, we can move on to the applicants presentation at this time. Okay, and then open public. Okay. So we'll start with the applicant and I see did you have her hand raised. Good morning did you please state your name for the record. Hello. Yes, good morning. How are you. I want to actually think commissioner shepherd for her questions because it is a little confusing and I, I myself have a better understanding about what is being decided. And in terms of how we want to handle it. Like it's just a form and if it if it's the form that I'm familiar with, probably by the time I'm done talking, Nate will be done with that form. And I think that if we can have this heard today, I would much appreciated as you see this has been a few years since the emergency permit and this permit has come before the commission. I was appointed with with the zoning administrators sending it up to your commission. But here we are, but I really would like there not to be another continuance on top of that one. And I don't know if that's still under consideration or not. I will say that since this is my time for presentation. I won't address any of the legal matters that you'll probably hear from the public. We do have the attorney present. My name is Ira Harris, and he should be on your, your zoom list of participants. So if need be, he can address any of the legal matters. But I do just want to say, in terms of access to the beach in terms of vistas. None of that has to do with this application. The application before you is to issue a coastal development permit for emergency work that was done under an emergency permit and approved by the county. A few years ago, the Nexus that is trying to be made in this case just does not exist. As Nate mentioned, we had, it was probably less than 50 cubic yards of grading involved in fixing this slump. And as you see the drain pipe that was put in was a replacement for the drain pipe that unsuccessfully took water down the slope. So, asking for all of these other things to be thrown into the mix just is not appropriate. There's no Nexus. And there's definitely no proportionality to it at all. I would ask that your commission accept the exemption and approve the application with the work done as stated. Oh, and I did want to address our commissioner. I'm going to ask a question about the, the irrigation, the irrigation that was placed out there I did go back and check with John Kasunich who's our project engineer on that. And those irrigations were put there to water the plants so that they could establish themselves because as you know we were having a drought. And as you saw when we were out there, the irrigation has successfully helped to keep the planting alive. It is not connected at this time because as you see, we've had significant rains and it is being monitored so that it doesn't cause any further erosion. But it's just there so that the planning can take hold and revegetate that slope so that it looks like it did before the emergency happened. And with that, I'll stop right there. If anyone has any questions of me, I'm happy to answer them. I would like to share my rebuttal time with the attorney because I think that there'll be some legal questions that may come up that I don't feel comfortable answering. So with that, I'll stop there. Great. Thank you, Ms. Hampton. Appreciate that. When any commissioners have any questions, Ms. Hampton before we move on to the rest of the public comment. Sounds like no. Okay, that's great. Thank you. Then let's do that. Let's continue on with public comment miss straight. We have other members of the public I'd like to speak at this time. Yes, I'll move on to Ira Harris, who I believe is part of the project team. He has his hand raised so no timer for Ira will go ahead and allow him to speak. Good morning. We please restate your name for the record. Yes, Ira James Harris. I'm counsel for Mark and Suzanne call wells. I agree with Mr. Graham and Mr. Johnson that the paperwork with respect to the sequel issues is properly should properly identify statutory code section 15.269. There are issues that have arisen with respect to the public regarding access. I have submitted in both our position paper back in October of 2020 and in supplements to Nathan since then this year. I'm responding to each of those claims of public access by providing aerial photographs of the area that show that there's been a fence there since the 1950s. There have been some commissions from the homeowners that have been there since the 1950s that a fence and gate has always been there. And that despite there being an occasional trespasser over the years early on that there hasn't been any trespassing for the last couple of years. The issue has been raised with the commission and the county over the years that somehow some of these beachgoers have claimed that they had a historic access up that slope in some location. Each time the council or the planning commission or the Costa commission has investigated they haven't found the exact location of any access and have told the public that they need to file an action for prescriptive rights if they felt that they had such a prescriptive right. No one has ever filed but because that issue kept surfacing and in response to a commission claim for administrative penalties for the vehicular gate that the county had approved in 2016. We went ahead and filed a lawsuit in Santa Cruz Superior Court and Judge Timothy Volkman has held that the Costa commission had no jurisdiction over the vehicular gate because no one had appealed that decision and the county had properly determined that it was exempt. The same thing with this mysterious prior violation that they claim is an open violation. The records that have been submitted from the coastal commission's own files show that that alleged violation V-3-01-055 was associated with 60 Joffrey Drive not 70 Joffrey Drive and that it was resolved back in 1985-1986 with a requirement by the commission for the owner of that property at that time to dedicate a sandy portion of the beach down below. And that's the exact same number on that file and they went ahead and did so. There's nothing in that open violation file since then to suggest that there's any claim that continues to be investigated. But nonetheless, we went ahead and quieted title to the public with Judge Volkman as well. On September 30th of this year, he quieted title, issued judgment. Now the commission is appealing that decision, but I suspect it will be promptly dismissed. But nonetheless, there's no stay on the enforcement of that judgment. And so that's the current state of the record with respect to any rights of public access. One, they were never established. No one ever responded. No one ever filed any kind of quiet title or prescriptive right claim. And it's now been resolved against them. And that judgment is still enforceable until it's overturned, which is very, very unlikely. The key is here is that is this a like-kind repair and you've heard from Mr. McBeth that it was. There's been no further changes to the project, no further maintenance obligations that have been imposed, and therefore it is exempt from CEQA. And so that should properly be the commission's finding. If I have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. Thank you, Ira. All right, I will move on to members of the public. Each member of the public will have three minutes to provide comment. We will put a timer up. So when I call on you, please restate your name for the record. I will start with Eli Malgray. Good morning. Please restate your name for the record. You have three minutes. Good morning. How are you? Good morning. My name is Elijah Malgray, and I'm here to comment on this situation. I submitted a letter. I submitted a late. I apologize if I didn't get it in. And I have eight or nine points that are kind of summarized my concerns about the approval of this emergency permit. First and foremost, I grew up on Forking Avenue, and I regularly use this access point. So there's a lot of talk about there wasn't access, there was access. And I walked between Blacks Beach and the Cove hundreds of times as a kid. So, in my opinion, that's simply not true. The historical use of the coastal access is also supported by a great deal of additional evidence. Other tests were in local residents. Even the statements from previous owners, which are included in the packet material, which I believe is part of the quiet title documentation. And also the county general plan, which states that the access here at this location is to be maintained. You only maintain existing access. You don't maintain access. So that heavily infers that when the document was prepared in 1995, access existed. Same thing with the Coastal Overlook. I mean, if there was no access there, why would they have a Coastal Overlook in the general plan, the local coastal program? Also, the Coastal Commission disagrees with many of the things that have been said about by the attorney for the property owners. I think that the beginning of page 40 of your staff agenda packet is a correspondence from Rainey Graven of Coastal Commission. She does a great job summarizing a lot of the issues. And your county code states that they're not supposed to approve permits if there's an outstanding violation. They believe there are extended violations, so I'm not sure you should approve the permit for that reason. But even if it's true that there's no public access at this point, but I believe there is. I would point out that Chapter 1505 of the county code requires the dedication of a coastal access easement at any local coastal, but any location appropriate for neighborhood shoreline access, which this is designated for neighborhood shoreline access. So they could, you could still require the dedication of an easement. They act like this project has no nexus to the coastal access, but the coastal access was exactly where this grading occurred, exactly in the same location. I mean, I used it many times. So it is a complete nexus between the two. And I think that Chapter 1505 of the county code was not considered at all by the staff and the staff report. Also, by the way, a public access easement would entirely overlap other existing easements to reduce the buildable area of those properties. I don't really know how expensive it would be to take that if you had to take it by the main. The proposed emergency permit work, in fact, would make construction and development of the access more difficult. People are talking about the fact that the fence is conflicting, obviously. The drainage pipe was relocated to at grade instead of low grade. That would conflict with the construction of a connection of the road. And then the reinforced earth, soil reinforcing grids that are put in this new embankment would actually make it harder to build this too, potentially. I have a lot of concerns about the staff report. I summarize those concerns, but it's not true that there's access to the project, but not true that access to a rocky shelf not to Black Beach. And it's also not true that there's no, there's an uncertainty of locations access point is no uncertainty of location. And I don't think it's even relevant that when he says that it's not in the scope scope include public access requirements for the county code for this location. Thank you. Thank you, Eli. All right. I will next call on gentlemen by the name of Doug. Please take your name for the record you have three minutes. Can you hear me. Yes, good morning. I already live at 205 16th. So, looking at the permit thing they tried to sneak in a security fence as part of the emergency slow prepare permit. The reason I use the term sneak it in is because it's obvious in the application description that the constructing that constructing the reinforced slow fill and erosion control drains. And actually addressing the problem the slippage, but the chain link fence to serve as a quote safety rail. That really, really belies what's going on here is it is a security fences to prevent people from crossing there if it was a safety rail, they would just remove the chain link part of the fence, and it would serve as a rail. This fence is clearly designed as a security fence, and as an obstruction to anyone trying to access the bluff cop. The description shows they want to hide the function of the fence behind the description of safety rail, remove the chain link and more resemble a rail. This fence has no function or relationship to repairing the slump slide. The failure that's what the emergency permit is for is the minimum construction required to repair the immediate problem which is the slump failure. As far as I'm concerned fences don't stop erosion. So I would ask the planners to modify the approval to exclude the fence and not recognize the fence as part of this repair that will address one of my main concerns. I'm kind of amazed that the discouraged the planning commission doesn't even understand their own processes. You know, I know that everybody are citizens trying to do their best to help the community so I'm not going to knock them for the dedication, but you know, Renee was a little bit confused about what we're doing here. What we're doing here is recognizing this construction and all I'm asking for is to modify the recognition to exclude the fence part. I'm a little bit upset with, you know, with the efforts of Santa Cruz purports to support all these coastal access plans, but when it push comes to shove they never actually do anything about it and they, they help represent private and do very poorly representing the public access issues and using our coastal resource. That's all I have to say. I hope that the planning commission would modify the approval to exclude and review the function of the fence. Thanks. This is Melissa with CTV. Jocelyn had to reconnect. So I will continue to move this along with speaker Mike gut. Thank you. Can you hear me. Yes, we can hear you. Okay. Okay, there we go. Okay. So, hello everybody hello former colleagues. I'm going to move along. There's way more going on than any kind of rubber stamp of a prior emergency permit and I was disappointed to hear staff discussion about what's going on here. There's absolutely no vested right whatsoever and anything that was granted under the emergency permit. I'll also say though in like the dozens of people who spoke at the Z of hearing nobody's talking about undoing the slump repair. Conditions are appropriate and what other parts of the project might have to be taken out of it is absolutely normal to have new conditions or sometimes removal of part of emergency projects and in extreme cases ripping the whole thing out which nobody's talking about here. But this is a complete new hearing on this material, despite what you might have heard from staff. So if you go to page 243 of your work package 243, you will see a coastal commission staff letter it's the third on this project. That's not just from a few staff members. My understanding that's after detailed discussions between the reviewing staff their enforcement staff and their legal teams. They are not messing around. There are open violations. The violations don't have to do with like a far end of a two mile long property where now they've got us in there, despite Ms Hamilton's claims, there's nexus nexus nexus here. These violations need to be resolved before we can give a new coastal development permit on a project that's right in the area where the violations, the nexus is right there could maybe give this permit, for example, pulling the fence. And saying it only becomes effective after resolution of the open violations, but otherwise we have a responsibility to follow our county code which says we can't give coastal development permits when there's this kind of circumstance going on. I'm going to briefly respond to Mr Harris's talk about the lawsuit. I know this is not illegal forum for hearing such as this, there are signs on the property, big signs, notice of development project hearing all this stuff. They used to be smaller. I worked with Jen Butz to get these big signs put up but for this quiet title action against the public. I'd ask you to please look at page 200. And you'll see the only public notice of the quiet title action, which was a printout in the Sentinel that didn't list the property name, the geographic location or the APN. And the applicants council had the temerity of the GA hearing to say no evidence was presented. Well the county, he, the applicant certainly knew that the coastal file lists 23 people who had already gone on the record in writing about access here. There's a half dozen at the last hearing. And I'm so unfortunate I'm running out of time because three minutes is not enough to do justice for what's going on here, but don't expect the legal rulings on this parcel to hold up. This is a critical item for continuity along the walking on this area and you should not approve this permit as presented. I only have three minutes. Great to see you all again. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Guthrie. We will move on to a bill parking. Mr. Park and you should be on needed. Sorry, Mr. Park in. Can you hear us now. Can you hear me. Yes, we can thank you. Good morning members of the commission bill parking council for Tom Mater citizen very concerned about this project and public access. First, I do want to clarify as other members of the public have spoken about the emergency permit process. Under county code 1320 oh no see all emergency development pursuant to an emergency coastal development permit is considered temporary. So this is not pro forma, actually. Not only imposing new conditions are requiring other work, but structures and improvements may pursuant to an emergency permit can actually be removed. This happens all the time if you talk to coastal staff. That's the way the process works. So I'm going to get permission to put rip rap down on the beach. They may be required to remove it later to do some other type of improvement. So the damage to the slope, the damage to the slope. And as one as other members of the public pointed out, the emergency permit went beyond dealing with the damage to the slope that fence that safety fence was a new fence put up. It was unnecessary to deal with the emergency. And so the commission has the right and the ability to have that fence removed pursuant to the to this formal coastal development permit which legitimizes any emergency work. There's no reason for the fence and clearly it's an attempt to bootstrap in the fence into the emergency permit in order to bolster the applicants contensions in its litigation about excluding the public. So I urge the commission to not approve the coastal development permit to include the fence. Also, as Mr McBeth pointed out the damage cost to the slope was caused by the drainage we don't know whether the new drainage is actually adequate to deal and to prevent future slides. If you're referring to the emergency exception under sequa, it's kind of a moving target I commented in my letter that class one and class three exemptions did not apply. Now staff this morning is saying that the emergency exemption applies basically based on the emergency permit well there's no more exigent circumstance, there's no more emergency so the emergency exemption doesn't apply. Now my letter that was submitted yesterday morning under county code section 132170 see a development for a CDP cannot be approved for development proposed until all former violations are resolved, and the other violations that the commission because as I last pointed out have not been resolved. And therefore, we don't believe a CDP can even be approved. But again, the fence should not be bootstrapped and it was not legitimate under the emergency authorization. And this commission has the ability to deny a CDP to include the fence, the fence should not be used as a cudgel to help the applicants in their litigation. I appreciate your consideration this morning. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Park and the next hand I see is alley Webster. Hello, my name is Allison Webster speaking with Sir frider foundation Santa Cruz chapter. I wanted to comment briefly just to say that we strongly oppose this project for the reasons that are outlined in the coastal commissions 2020 letter to the Santa Cruz County Planning Department. They have not been addressed over mitigated at all in these follow up coastal development permit considerations to speak to the earlier discussion the purpose of this meeting is to make sure that the kind of work that gets permit permitted in emergencies doesn't get perpetuated when it causes other negative impacts that can be avoided or mitigated for our coastline should not look like the aftermath of the landslide and perpetuity with denial decision today the applicant will have to adjust this project so that the public access is better facilitated and or so that the public can be compensated for its lost action access or lost beaches due to erosion caused by the armoring that was originally only permitted because of an emergency. The impacts of this project including its violations of the coastal act have not been properly discussed or considered otherwise, as has been said the fence at the very least would not be part of this should not be part of this project. Another negative impact is that this project gets in the way of potential restored coastal access in the area which violates the coastal act and our own LCP coastal access, a coastal access at Jeffrey drive has been degraded and privatized and the county should not be reinforcing development in an area that is still being fought over for prescriptive access rights. This area represents an opportunity to access black speech which is not otherwise accessible by the other paths described today by staff. This area has been located 200 feet east of the site. A particular note is this project's violation of section 3211 of the coastal act which prohibits development from interfering with the public's right of access to the sea. This is directly relevant at this location as the coastal commission staff made clear in that 2020 letter. We're advancing the public interest to access at the beach in this area, but regardless of access disputes, other major concern for surfrider is that the erosion control grid is armoring for a new development. It's absurd to think that the coastal commission would approve this under the coastal act section 30235 which approves armoring for structures that were existing before the coastal act was enacted in 1976. This project has such a structure warranting protection and has been completely redone since the coastal act. The armoring access gets in the way of a potential coastal access trail where both our LCP and the coastal act seek to maximize public access. The county needs to uphold our rights to access and enjoy our beaches and Santa Cruz and the considerations made in this permit is a place to start. We urge you to deny this flawed permit until the impacts to public access and armoring have been properly considered. Thank you. I am back. Sorry about that. Have we heard from, let's see, I see no hands raised except for the applicant. All right. I think that if there's no one else, no other members of the public that would like to speak, then we can come bring it back to the applicant for rebuttal time period and Mr. What do we have for time limit on this. Five minutes. I'll start with Ira. Did you have some follow up comments. Yes, I do. Okay. First of all, it's important to realize and it's in your packet of attached to the letters that I have submitted both to the county and in response to the coast of commissions. I'm not going to go into the subjections. The alleged access that they're talking about this historical access that no one's been able to identify exactly where it was on this slope. The commission and the county's records clearly indicate that over the decades that they have inspected have not been able to determine where the the public claim they had some access at some time. Whether or not it was access that extended over a period of time that any prescriptive rights would have accrued they've consistently referred the public to the courts. No one's ever afforded their opportunity to prove the existence of any prescriptive rights and the county and the commission's records clearly indicate the problem with the nexus that Diedra had identified, which is that this private driveway that goes down the bluff top off of the drive serves five different properties. It's not simply 70 Joffrey Drive. It's 60, it's 70, it's 80, it's 90, and it's 63 Joffrey Drive. So you have to trespass across five different properties to get to Joffrey Drive, and at least two to get from Blacks Beach up to 70 Joffrey. So you can't there's no nexus with this property to provide public access, because someone would have to go across 63 to get up to 70 from the beach, and you'd have to go through all five properties to get down to 70 to have some visual display with respect to the fence. The aerial photos show that the fence was there in the 50s in the 60s in the 70s, even the county and and commissions own records identify the fence. The photograph that Mr. Macbeth had on with the two people standing on the drain, looking down the slope that had just failed shows a fence. The fence was a like kind replacement for what was already there. That's why there was no change noted by the planning staff. In terms of the status of the litigation, the litigation has been resolved. Both of those alleged violations are contingent upon public access existing. Judge Volkman has ruled against them in both instances. They've indicated that the commission had no jurisdiction with respect to the vehicular gate and fence that the county had approved as exempt in 2016. They made that ruling August 10 of 2020. They failed to appeal it timely. They're trying to belatedly do that now, but it's going to fail, but they did not stay that action so it's still enforceable on the other alleged violation of public access. We've quieted title to the to the members of the public on that. Again, they're appealing that, but it's not stayed. And so what's currently before the commission is a judgment against both of those. So there's no quote open violations whatsoever that that that you can consider. Frankly. There are aerial photographs, declarations and the county and commissions own records. Identify the absence of any specific location for this access. They identify the existence of the fence. They totally undermine these claims that there's some historical right of access. And more importantly, the coast to commission has no jurisdiction to determine if there are prescriptive rights. The case of LT dash W or LLC versus California coast commission at 152 cal at fourth 770 at page 805 and 806 definitively states that prescriptive rights have to be determined by the court. The coast to commission has no right to say hey we we're going to hold you in violation because someone in the public claims that they traversed your property for the prescriptive period. And so, with that, I submit it to you. Thank you. Thank you, Ira. I think that Deidre does have her hand raised. Chair leave it up to you since we're at the five minutes if you want to provide some time for. Yeah, if we can just give her a couple minutes really quickly. Right. Right, Deidre. I have lower my hand. I think I recovered it. Pretty well. The, the public is trying to tie things that are settled with the court to this application. We're just asking for you to follow the staff's recommendation. And approve the project as the emergency permit stated, and to recognize the exemption as staff, I'm sure by this point has rewritten and I won't, I won't say any more than that. Thank you. Thank you, Deidre. All right, I'll turn it back over to you now chair. Thank you so much and thank you everyone for your comments we really appreciate it. And so we'll close the public comment at this time and move it back to the commission for discussion. Would any commissioners like to start off. I don't mind starting. Go ahead commissioner Dan. So I'd like to thank staff for their work on this. And all the folks that showed up today and spoke we appreciate your comments and you always help the process. So, I will just say that where I am right now. I am not able to support this application. I'll give you some reasons why. And then we can, we can discuss, we can discuss it as a commission. I would just say that I think, you know, I went through the entire packet. It was voluminous. There was loads of information. And then I went through the staff report and thought, okay, this is, this is a relatively simple emergency CDP after the fact. And then reading through the packet, you come, I came to understand that there's a lot more going on here than what, what, what was presented in the staff report. I appreciate staff for giving us all of that information. Very helpful. And so, and so I want to appreciate our staff for being transparent and giving us the information that we need in order to make a sound determination on this. So I would just say that in the packet, first of all, start with that I believe the historic access of this on this property is well documented from my perspective, from what I read in the packet. I would say that from what I understand the issue of access is at the very beginning of the legal process. And so I wouldn't. In my view, I wouldn't say that it's at all settled and that throughout the state with regard to prescriptive rights and access for the public to the coast that these proceedings often take years to get resolved and there are many cases where the public's right to access the coast has only been upheld at the terminus of the legal process. So, to me that's it's not at all settled. So I would say specifically with this application, I cannot support the CDP permit findings. Specifically, I can't make number two, number four, number five, and number six, and I can go into specifics as to why I can't support those findings. I'd also say that the perm this permit covers the fence, the fence from my understanding from the packet, never received a coastal permit to begin with. And I believe that there's evidence in the record from the previous owner of this property who stipulated that they erected the fence specifically to keep the public out. So the previous owner has stated that they that the public did have access through this their property, and they put up the fence specifically to keep the public out because they felt the public was not on their property. So, in addition, I believe that the emergency work, I agree with the 2021 postal staff letter that discussed whether or not the fence was in kind. And the emergency work went well beyond a like kind repair from evidence in the record, I would agree with that. And then, although I understand our staff, we are changing the recommendation for the secret exemption I haven't seen that yet so I'll just say that from what was in the record that I cannot support the secret exception. And for reasons outlined in the parking and goose letters. And so that's where I am right now. And I'd like to hear what my fellow commissioners think as well. Commissioner Dan, any other commissioners like to go next. I asked a follow up question of staff actually based on these public comment. Mr. Beth, are you still with us. Yes, I am. So, to both commissioner Dan and a lot of the public comments, you know, there's been this discussion about the the fence along the bluff in particular and whether or not it was in kind replacement, but it seems based on some testimony and many of the materials in the packet. Was this. Was it a permitted. In existence had it been permitted through the coastal commission had been permitted through the county can you can you maybe perhaps speak to the not not whether it existed. I don't know whether or not it was a permitted fence because I'm I agree with commissioner Dan that I'm a little confused about why a fence would be included in an emergency permit so it would be on the emergency repair so could you speak to the permitted nature of that fence before the repair that would be helpful. Sure. I don't have a record of a permit having been issued specifically for the fence, but I will say to your point that a fence has existed there in the past and this project was intended to replace an existing fence. Thank you. That's helpful because I think that's helpful. I'm not a liaison be your shepherd did you have any other questions or comments, I'm still reviewing the findings that Commissioner Dan had objected to. So, I'll let Commissioner shepherd go ahead. I have no additional questions at this time. Okay. Great. Thank you. questions just to follow up with staff also. It kind of came out of the discussion there. You know, as it relates to actual public access, you know, can you enlighten me a little bit on the process of a prescriptive easement and if that exists or not, and if not like what's the process, does this and then follow up as does this application preclude anything like that from continuing to happen outside of this application? Well, yeah, I think for some of your question, I would have to defer to council, but yeah, as stated in the staff report, this project in itself would not preclude a future effort or improvement to establish or construct public access at the project site. The intent of this project is simply to stabilize that slope and to keep it safe from, you know, people falling off of it. The matter of public access doesn't necessarily need to be addressed at this point to the extent that it's already been discussed in the correspondence. Chair Gordon, was that a question regarding prescriptive access that I could provide some enlightenment on? Yeah, I think that what Nathan said was great. Effectively, you know, this doesn't preclude any kind of public access challenges that, you know, may exist. And I guess my other question was like, what's that process, maybe not as important after hearing Nate, but, you know, well, maybe it may be important. What is that process? So as you heard from many of the, in public comment and particularly from the serve writer representative, there's an argument that the public has a prescriptive right of access over this property. Prescriptive right of access is essentially a right of use that is to access across a property that is contrary to the underlying property owner's interest. It's open notorious and hostile to that property owner's interest and it rises through continuous use that is not interfered with by the property owner. It takes the form when ultimately adjudicated of an easement for access. Here, though, we have a quiet title judgment from the Superior Court and it starts at page 274 of your packet that says there is no public right of access over this property. So there is no easement of access over the property as determined by the court. That judgment is under appeal. That appeal remains undetermined, but at this point in time, the judgment from the Superior Court is final and that determination stands and remains essentially a judicial determination that the public cannot access over this property. Now, as to whether or not a prescriptive right could arise in the future, the answer is yes, the public would have to make use and continuously trespass over this property and then establish a, and then essentially quiet title to establish a prescriptive right. Whether that would happen is not before us right now. If, as to your question, whether or not public access could be developed in the future, yes, that might be a determination that would be made on a future building permit or future coastal development permit for the site, but it doesn't, but staff has not provided any information that would suggest that such an exaction would have an access and proportionality in relation to the permit that is for the commission for consideration right now. Does that answer your question? Yeah, absolutely. And I appreciate that. And so to kind of sum it up here in my own words, essentially the court said there's no access. It's not up to us in this meeting to determine that or even assume that there is access because we have a ruling that there is no access at this point. That's correct. Can I just ask Commissioner Gordon, can I just ask one question of console? The judgment was about a quick claim. Was the judgment, was that one of the rulings was about prescriptive access or does it go along with a quick claim decision that there is no access? In other words, has they have the, was part of this petition before spirit court asking for access? So based on a, based on a claim of prescriptive right? There are two, there are two judgments in this action. One is a mandamus action relating to the outstanding coastal notices of violation, which determined as I read it that there were that coastal has no outstanding violations. And then there is a second judgment, which starts on page 274 of your packet, which deals with the second and third act causes of action, quieting title. I don't know that there was a quick claim issue, but there was a quiet title action, which is essentially an action saying, let's determine all rights in this property. And in fact, what you have here is specifically a determination that the public doesn't have an easement of access over this. And the only interests inland that exist on these property, though, ones that are recorded on title. So there is no prescriptive right. So that was yes, specifically adjudicated. They're, you know, as noted by other speakers, there was a publication, which whether or not that publication was sufficient to put members of the public on notice that this issue is being adjudicated is an issue that's before the court and not before this commission. But the judgment here was dealing with essentially prescriptive rights and determine that there were none. Since they are, you know, this decision comes down if the appeal is not successful, put any members of the public in the future, try to establish prescriptive rights, or does this judgment prevent that from happening in the future? Well, well, again, prescriptive rights are established through continuous use that is hostile to the underlying property owner, legally hostile to the underlying property and owner's interests. So members of the public were to keep using this in contrary, essentially to keep trespassing. And to the point where there is an open notorious and continuous use of this property, they might have standing to bring to buy title for a prescriptive easement, but that hasn't happened. And right now the court has determined that there is no prescriptive right here. Okay, so you have to have the term that's important here is continuous. So you would have to prove that people have continued to use it. Essentially, but that's one of the factors. Yes. Okay. Thank you. All right. And two other follow up questions. You know, there's contradictory evidence of or discussion, I would say, and evidence of open violations on this property. Can, can you just clear that up for me, Mr. McBeth, or whoever's most suited to answer that? Yeah, I'd be happy to take that one. There are no open code enforcement actions or violations on the subject property that the county has issued. Okay. So we are Can I please go ahead there. So that that's a little confusing, Nathan, since there are numerous code violations that the Coastal Commission is investigating. And has been that is part of our packet. Yeah, yeah, I understand that. We do have two separate regulatory. I would, if Matt Johnston is still on, he is also not just our environmental coordinator, he's also in charge of our code enforcement. He may be able to explain a little bit about that. Yeah, yeah, sure. Interface between Coastal and us. Coastal has their own enforcement. We have our own enforcement. We respond to complaints. We have not received any complaints to the Planning Department code compliance regarding this parcel since 1990. Code the, the enforcement arm of Coastal often works with us. At this point, we have not established a violation on this parcel through our coordination with the Coastal, Coastal Commission. And it's fairly common. There are a lot of cases that where the Coastal Commission identifies a violation on a property. And it stands for several years and they do their own enforcement. There are times where we coordinate. We have other violations as well, building on a on a coastal bluff without permits and such. This one has not risen to that level. So as others have pointed out, and I guess my question is, if it's not a county violation, are we, does that affect whether or not we can make a determination because there's technically not an open violation in the county? Yes. Yeah, the, the, the regulator, I mean, our code is specific to our code. I mean, if, if another state agency has an open investigation or have noted, have, have noticed and proven that there is a violation, that doesn't, that's not our code. We don't enforce other state, the state violations, unless it's something that we are coordinating with and we both have open cases. In this case, we don't have an open case on. Excuse me. I have a follow up question to that though, because we are, we are in what our job here right now, what we are being asked to do is issue the coastal development permit on behalf of the coastal commission. We have to make specific findings under our code that conform with the coastal act. So I mean, I think like that's factually true that the county has no open code enforcement cases, but I believe it is an important factor that the, there are open violations that have been ongoing on this property that the coastal commission staff has determined are in violation of the coastal act and our LCP. So there, there is some connection there that I, and I can't speak to the coastal, the, the implementation of the LCP regarding that. That's not, I would just say that the coastal commission staff and county staff are not always in perfect alignment on our interpretation of the county's LCP policies. It's not infrequent that there's a disagreement in how to apply those policies. And that is true in cases of violations as well. Did you have any other follow up there commissioner Dan? The last question I had did regard the fence and, you know, replacing kind of can't remember the pictures looked like with maybe a wood fence or something before analysis chain link fence. So maybe not exactly the same, but still a fence nonetheless. I guess my question is, you know, is this fence, if you're just going to put this fence up, what's the process? Does someone have to get a permit for this fence? It's private property. You know, I'm not sure exactly what this because of the location with the beach and all this stuff. So can you help me understand that? Yeah, due to the location of the fence at coastal development permit would be required under our current regulations. Fences are typically ancillary to some other type of development, whether it be like a remodel of the home. So we don't see a lot of standalone fence applications. In this case, it is viewed by county staff as replacement of an existing fence. The wood fence that you referred to was temporary during the during the slide. So in some of the other frames from that slide, you can see the actual chain link fence that had been kind of rolled back, pulled away from the slope to gain access. But yeah, that would be the process would be a separate application if it wasn't included in a larger project. Okay, that makes sense. And is the applicant allowed to add that fence in this application? Yes, they are. Okay, so they could in theory, but you know, apply for any type of fence with this application doesn't necessarily have to be exactly what was there because of the emergency. This is the opportunity to make it right and add a fence that they wanted to. I think if we could consider revised design or something like that, if that's what you mean. No, I guess I'm just asking process wise, just to confirm that this is an appropriate time for them to add a fence is this application. It's an appropriate time to add the fence. Okay. Thank you. Oh, go ahead. Go ahead. I'm done with questions. So yeah, I didn't catch you as first commissioner. Yeah, I suppose. Yeah, I just I was hoping Mr. McBeth could clarify his statements because I I see this application as I mean, when I read the staff report, it says a permit to recognize the the emergency development permit. And I want to clarify. Chair Gordon's comments because I or Mr. McBeth's response about the fact that is this the appropriate time or would this be the appropriate time to add something to an emergency development permit? And I I'm hoping for some clarity because I see this application as a as a recognition of an emergency permit versus um if they were to I'm trying to think of an example of like add something like an ADU or overheight that something that wasn't part of the emergency permit. I don't see this as appropriate time. I see this as a recognition of that. I mean, an amendment to the emergency repair. Absolutely. But the addition of something is not and I see the clarity on what you just said because this this was an unpermitted fence and I'm hoping you can clarify that this is a recognition of their emergency work and construction of it, not just the opportunity to add something. Right. I mean, for this, it's for all intents and purposes, this is a regular coastal development permit. And so and so yeah, to that point, yeah, it would be the time to do, you know, you could do anything, but really the scope of the work is to recognize the primary reason is to recognize the fill slope and to repair that the failure. As part of that repair, a fence was installed. And again, it's up, it's in place, it was intended to replace an existing fence. And so this is the same to clarify my statement, this would be appropriate time to recognize the placement of that replacement fence. Right. It includes, it includes the fence, this coastal permit, and it could be modified to this coastal permit. Matt, I guess I understand the distinction, though, about that this is what we're doing today is recognizing the emergency work repair under a kind of traditional permit we're not, this wasn't, this isn't an application to, and this is kind of an odd one because the emergency repair is the same as the regular permit, but I'm trying to clarify that this. So I have an example of a similar permit with the CZU fire and PG&E went and cut down a whole bunch of trees and they got stopped. They did an emergency permit to recognize trees that were removed. And the follow up permit included the trees that were not specific emergencies, but that still needed to be removed and it included some road repair. So in this case, you have an emergency permit to repair the slope and the follow up permit that include, can include other aspects such as the fence along the top or other apperent things, or even if they wanted to do further development, that would be your, you could bifurcate that thing, you know, that should be part of a separate one. But in this case, with the fence that is on the repair, and there was a preexisting fence there, it makes sense that it not be included in the emergency permit, but it would be considered under the follow up coastal development permit. Right. Can I jump in here? I think the, for me at least, the important distinction is that the fence was not permitted to begin with. And if you look at page 246 of our packet, the coastal commission letter talks about this. And I think that this is in a very important distinction. And that it says, a fence at this location has never been authorized by a CDP, in the nearly 50 years since CDPs were first required. Replacement of unauthorized in illegal development cannot constitute a like kind of repair. So I just think, for me at least, I'm just pointing out this is a key element of the, what we're dealing with here, that's important to, well, it's important for me to point out. Well, and Mr. Johnson, I just would also like clarity, you're telling me that the fence was not included in the emergency repair, and they've added it, because I thought at the beginning we were all told that everything was the same under the emergency repair as today's permit. And that makes me very confused because I was under the impression that the slope repair, the fence was all under the emergency repair. And so it was all under today's kind of traditional, regular CDP. And to the stand's point, the fence should not be included in a like repair. And it goes, in my opinion, goes beyond the fence, goes beyond the scope of an emergency. And so that's what I'm trying to understand the distinction, because to me, these are very relevant points to today's application. Right. So my understanding is the fence was installed at the time of the repair. It was installed as a replacement of an existing fence. The emergency repair itself was for the slope. And that's as far as, I mean, again, I came into this today. And the coastal permit now is to recognize all of that work, the emergency repair work and the fence. And the fence can be modified through this coastal permit. Should the Planning Commission wish to do so? Mr. McBeth, can you please clarify then about whether or not the fence was included in the emergency repair and the emergency approval? For me, I just think that's really a really important distinction. Yeah. I think for me, I try to think about it as to the original, the grading and emergency coastal development permit was intended to restore the site to as best could be its pre-failure condition. It had a drain inlet, it had a drain pipe running down the slope, and it had a fence at the top of the slope. So as part of the emergency coastal development permit, all of the site improvements that are before you today were installed, approved, inspected. So it's the way, kind of the way that we look at this permit is to say, yes, we're recognizing the emergency piece, which was the slope failure, right? That's what's going to cause, you know, somebody to really get hurt. The fence was in the way of the work, and so as part of that, pulled back, the work completed, and the fence put back in place. That's really what it is. So in the end, the regular development permit, coastal development permit covers it all. Thanks, Nate. That was helpful to me. So the fence was there previously. Part of the previous CEQA determination, all approved. You know, just to be really clear on that, that's what we're saying. Correct. It existed, Chair Gordon, but for me, it was an unpermitted fence that was put in for the purpose of keeping people out, which we're not here to make the determination, as Council mentioned about prescriptive easements, but it was literally put in for the purpose of preventing people from using it as a prescriptive easement, which led to them being able to quiet title. And I don't know, for me, it's, I don't know how the, you know, Commissioner Dan referenced the letter that says that this fence cannot be included in a like kind repair, and we're talking about replacing an unpermitted fence. And all of this lump, this lump, the slide, obviously as an emergency, they were able to replace it, but I, I struggle a little bit to understand why the fence needs to be recognized. I understand, you know, that we're at this interesting place that the prescriptive easement is under appeal, and, you know, the court has determined that there's not an easement there, but I just don't know whether or not for me, we can justify replete, you know, kind of sanctioning this fence as part of an emergency repair, and then the coastal development permit when there's an unsettled case out there. I just, that's where I'm struggling with a little bit personally, given that it was an unpermitted fence and we'd be essentially permitting it when there's an unsettled case. And so I think it was, I think it was the member of the public, Mr. Goots, who said that perhaps we would say that it could all go in when such a subtle kind of thing. Hi, Chair Gordon. I had a question. We can change or modify the fence. We can. And we could also ask that there be a gate in it. I do see myself personally that some kind of fence, whether it's an open fence, not a chain fence, whatever, it's just a safety feature who drive down the end of that road with little kids. You know, I want them tiptoeing over at the top, so I don't have an objection, especially if there was a fence there. We can change the nature of the fence, but I am a little befuddled by the fact that if we were like to put a gate in it or make it a very successful fence, then we right now aren't the prohibition of the superior court saying, unless till the appeals heard that there is no right to access there. And that's a pretty strong prohibition. So we're between a rock and a hard place until that appealing, until that appeal is determined. Go ahead. Sorry. Go ahead, Chair Gordon. Oh, sure. Okay. No problem. I just say that, you know, I agree that it's a tricky spot, but with the facts that we have, you know, that there's no public easement that we can consider, you know, that shouldn't make a determination as to what kind of fence we say would be allowed in my opinion. But my question here is, okay, so say that, you know, I'm really interested in this topic of if the fence was technically allowed to be put back in in the emergency use permit if it was not permitted in the first place. And so, because right now what I believe we're saying is that we're using the CEQA determination from the emergency use permit, but if we're also saying that the fence, you know, maybe shouldn't have been included, then are we saying that that CEQA determination was incorrect in the first place? And that's what we're using to determine this project. And I don't know who's supposed to answer that. I think I can take a stab at it. I'm going to be forwarding you a revised CEQA determination. It'll include the all the language that Matt Johnston provided you regarding the applicability of the emergency statutory exemption, as well as a categorical exemption for the fence to separate CEQA determinations. And I think that that should address that piece. Okay. Thank you very much. Commissioner Dan, go ahead. Thanks for letting me jump in there. Of course. So, for me, for me, like I started out with saying it's a matter of not being able to make a number of the CDP findings. So, I cannot support affirmatively a support issuing a coastal development permit when I believe that they violate the majority of the findings. I also don't know that the CEQA exemption is acceptable even as revised. So, just to move us along, just and I don't know where this will go. But I'm going to try to make a motion. I don't know if it'll get second. If it doesn't, that's fine. But I'm going to make an attempt just to move us along so we don't get obmired. So, I'm going to move to determine that the project does not exempt from environmental review and move to deny application 201302 and ask staff to return with findings for denial. That's my motion. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Dan, would any commissioners want to second that motion? Can I ask a question because Ms. Dan, do you and is it or maybe it's a question to staff or Ms. Dan, is it or to staff, is it possible to approve just the slump prepared today and not the fence or do we have to take it as a whole because I don't know if Ms. Dan would be interested in in approving at least the hair component or maybe this is a mood point. So maybe I should start with Ms. Dan. I think that if there was a recommendation and findings crafted to just speak to the the slope repair, I think it's possible that after I took a look at that, I'd be able to evaluate that. I think that that there's been some questions brought up about the actual repair work done. But yeah, I mean, I think that that would that that would have been something to take a look at. Then my question to staff is, is that even possible that we can or just do we have to take it as a whole? I think yeah, you can you can approve the project as a whole or in part revise the project as you see appropriate. There are maybe perhaps some technical questions about a full denial of the project and where that leaves us having the work, you know, given the work has already been completed. And would we remove that work or just that's sort of I have, you know, other questions like that. Commissioner Gordon. Give me one sec here. Commissioner Dan, I know we have a motion on the floor and typically we go for a second before discussion. That's right. And if there's no second, it dies for lack of time. We're okay to continue discussion. Okay. I just wanted to know if and I should second it because if we can't bifurcate, I'm willing to second it and move on. I just that's all. Yeah, I would. Okay. Can we discuss after a second? We can get a second to discuss. I heard a second from Violante. Okay, I wasn't sure if that was an official. That's why I asked my clarifying question because if we can't right, I can say the problem is I might want to make a alternative motion to bifurcate. That's why I wanted to ask my question. So So, so we've had a second and we're under discussion. No, no, Commissioner Shepherd, no second yet. I don't. Sorry. My mistake. That's okay. I was trying to second the motion. Oh, sorry, that was Judy. Okay. Yes. So we can start discussion. Thanks. I know I heard one. Thank you. Okay. Now we can officially talk again about the sorry, my apologies. I'm willing to support. I mean, I agree with Commissioner Dan that I'm willing to I support not supporting the project denial of the application in light of my concerns. I also recognize the need to repair emergencies when they occur, which is why I asked about bifurcating just to repair it just for the I want to get this right that that the pipes that I say inlet, but that's not the right word can move forward. So that's why I asked about bifurcating. But but my if that's not supported by the commission, I'm my concerns are great enough that I would support the motion as is. Commissioner Gordon, please go ahead. Yeah, I don't support the motion and won't vote for it. I think the work is already done. If the Superior Court accepts the appeal, then the issue of access, which is very important, can be opened again. But right now that's not an option. I think denying it is just going to leave it in bureaucratic limbo and cost a lot of money and not really affect the end result. So I would not support this motion. Thank you. Yeah, I would agree with that. I don't, you know, I would prefer continuance to review the sequel findings before a denial. However, you know, that's not the vote on the floor right now. And so we do have a motion in a second. So unless there's a friendly amendment or an adjustment. Stan, would you be open to a friendly amendment to or just to prove the the slump slide repair that it was the so the pipe work can move forward because I absolutely share your concerns about the access component. I share your concerns that the fence went beyond the scope of the emergency repair, especially since to chair Gordon's point, if we're going to be using the sequel findings that this is an emergency repair, I just can't justify the fence fitting within that scope. And so I don't know if you'd be open to a friendly amendment of approving what I consider the emergency work, which is the slope slide repair, but but not including the repair. I don't know if you'd be open, open to that. I wish that that's what this application originally recognized. So I guess I would say I'd almost rather a substitute motion be made instead. And then we can vote on the substitute motion and then the original motion as well. It's not acceptable. I absolutely think that's appropriate. Commission. Sorry, if I just want to make sure we catch Commissioner Lee's and be she's had her hand up here. And further in some of the discussion, I have a little bit of pause because I agree that the court has said that there is no public access and by prescription or not. But does that apply to all of these houses around this in this cul-de-sac? Because this is only property number 70. Then there was I think the attorney Harris mentioned something about property number 60 had an action. Now, if we vote on this motion, will it absolve any further action with respect to violations or whatever as to all the properties? Or will it only be number 70? And then we'll come back with 60 and 90 and 63 or whatever. Commissioner Lee's and be I don't think that this has anything to do with violate and resolving violations. You're solely considering a CDP and sequel findings here. Whether there are violations from the coastal commission is a coastal commission matter. And that's being separately adjudicated. Well, I and I agree with that. But as far as there is no responsibility for holding public access, does that apply to all of those houses? And are they all responsible for this emergency repair? One minute while I look at the at the judgment so that I can answer your question. Mr. Drake, can I ask a question while he looks that up? Yes, given that Mr. McBeth has not yet been able to decide unless I missed an email, sent us the updated sequel findings. I assume we need those. Well, I may need those for my substitute motion. It's an updated sequel determination, not the findings are not being revised. Just the sequel determination, but we can maybe take a break and send that to everyone because he did prepare it. I think I saw it right, Nate. Commissioner Lee's and this I'm reviewing the quiet title judgment. It does appear to apply to all the properties along the or at the end of Joprey Drive as I read it. Okay, thank you. So if we made a determination that the emergency repairs should be made into or the emergency permit should be made permanent, I think that's an oversimplification. But would it affect all the properties around there or just number 70? Because this is a gated community and it's only these five houses, I believe. Justin, are you? Commissioner, I'm trying to understand when you say would it affect what is the thrust of your question? Well, this is an action brought by the number 70, the house number 70. That cannot be the only house there that is responsible for paying for or upkeeping or applying to get a permanent permit for these repairs for this particular repair. Am I missing the point or is this this is a gated community of I believe it's five houses. There is no other access for the public to get to this community and if they do not, if they're not responsible for public access, then if we go ahead and we say that the repairs should be made public permanent or they should be permitted permanently, then will it absolve them from any further actions? Can we say that? Any further actions as far as ensuring public access across their property? Or any complaints about the way in which the repairs were done and the permit was made permanent? I don't understand why this is only this one house that is spearheading this action. Well, I can tell you that by title judgment as far as interest in this property involved, it appears the owners of the other properties along the Joffrey Drive. And that's because this is a drainage, it appears at least as I read this, to be a drainage for this driveway, which services these other properties. So access over that parcel to the public is resolved by that quiet title judgment. As far as as as far as whether or not approval of this CDP as it's currently contemplated with the fence has some impact on public access. You know, it might conceivably potentially interfere with the future development of prescriptive rights, since it would prevent people from trespassing to establish those rights. Right. But I don't know that it would do anything as far as absolving any of the property owners of anything in particular. But if there's a specific concern, I could maybe give you a better answer. Okay, thank you. Surveillance, I believe you were. Yeah, chair, I think I would like to offer a substitute motion, if that's all right, that we approve application. And I think I'm going to need a break probably before I can fully propose my motion because I don't have Mr. McBeth's documentation in front of me is the only problem. But I'd like to propose an alternative motion that we approve application two zero one three zero two, but only recognizing the installation of those the slope stability is some side repair without the inclusion of the fence at the top of the hill. But I just and I don't have the new thing to include in. I think I think they just send I did just send it, but it would not reflect your your current motion in that it has language pertaining to the fence. Okay, and I think basically I think everything else is the same like even some of the concerns that Commissioner Dan had about the coastal development permit, I think because the fence isn't included, I that may help with some of these coastal development permit findings, I believe that may address some of those. So I'd like to offer that motion because it only includes the repair and not the slide repair and not the fence at the time. And to be clear, we're saying essentially everything except the fence, even, even though the fence was there before sometimes it was an unpermitted fence. And so I believe that the emergency component only since we're using, I believe that the emergency only included the slide component and the fence is not necessary. Okay, just one, I could support your motion, but I have one question for you. Just a common sense one, don't you think some kind of low fancy move three feet tall to prevent kids from like people from, you know, stumbling or falling is a good idea? I think that at present that there's an unsettled court case about whether or not there's anything at all right now that I should say we are bound by the court right now, but I think that there's an unsettled issue, I should say about this and that it present, it just doesn't fit within the scope of the emergency and therefore I think it's an appropriate way in to permit something that was not permitted before. And I mean you didn't answer my question. I don't think it's appropriate. I am answering your question, which is I don't think it's appropriate that we include it within the scope of this permit. Is the fence in the court case? I didn't understand that. No, the challenge is this, Mr. Shepherd, that the fence was, imagine it as never technically being allowed and someone just put it up. Okay. And now we're making a secret determination that this project didn't have an impact based on, and that this new fence that wasn't allowed essentially was, is actually, you know, acceptable based on an exemption that had a permit or a fence that wasn't allowed to be there in the first place. Does that make sense? I don't know, I don't think that really said that even any better. I think that was good. And that was, that is a fair explanation. And that, that, that, that we're basing the permit on what was an in-kind repair. And there is evidence in the record from some perspectives, including the California Coastal Commission, that it is not an in-kind repair. So I think that's the basis for Commissioner Villalomte's motion excluding the fence. Okay. Thank you. That is a much, thank you. That's helpful. And now I understand what you're, what you're saying. And I would support motion. I, because it's an alternative motion for Commissioner Shepherd, I need a second. I will, I will second. And then the process goes just to remind folks of parliamentary procedure when there is a substitute motion made on top of a original motion, the substitute motion must be voted on first and then, and then the original motion. Commissioner Villalomte to clarify that your motion is to support approval of the emergency slope repair and drainage repair, but not the fence and direct staff to return back at a future meeting with findings? Well, that's why I was asking Mr. McBeth that he was able to send them out. And because I believe most of the findings still hold. And that's why I was asking for clarity if we needed to take a break or if our findings, that's what I was asking about whether we need to take a break for findings or if we can hold on any of these findings. That's what I was asking. Do we need to return? Because I want to be very clear. I think we can. Yeah, I think we need to. Thank you, Mr. Graham for asking that clarifying question. That's what I was trying to get clarity on. Since I don't have the documentation, do I need? I was going to ask that question too. I think if I may, it makes sense for us to take a break and then have staff review the findings and just clarify any of the findings where we might reference the fence and make adjustments to them. And then we can also make sure everybody's had an opportunity to review a re-revised CEQA document. Is that? It's 1130 anyway. Yeah. I just want to do you mind if I just quickly make a clarifying, ask a clarifying question. I do think so we could draft the findings to remove the fence from the scope of the CDP and state that is not approved. I think because there's a driveway directly perpendicular to this slope, we could return with some kind of barrier, coastal permit barrier to a future date. I just don't see not securing that slope in some way with some kind of safety feature. I mean they could come back with ballards or something that's appropriate. But to me, from me, I feel like they could come back with a permit that's not within the scope of this us recognizing an emergency. For me, it's just not an in-kind and like I said, it's just not appropriate for us to include it in this. Understood. So we can return. Okay. Thank you. I feel like it's appropriate for the applicants to come up with that and the applicants to return and not within the scope of this. For me, obviously I make the motion. Okay. I just want to make sure there was support for something, some potential. There was some acknowledgement that we might need to come back with some kind of barrier. We'll see. I'm willing to support the motion so we can make a ruling and I agree if there's a mechanism, if there's any kind of security fence or just keep people from falling, that can be a separate issue. I'm glad to know that. Thank you. Okay. Well, I think we need to take a short recess then and what kind of timeframe are we looking at here? I might, I'm sorry, I might suggest maybe just going ahead and breaking for lunch. Great. Since we're at 1140, we can give our CTV staff a break. I'm sorry to interrupt, but I have to leave at 1230, so. Oh, okay. I'm sorry, I thought we'd be done by 1230 and I didn't know this would take this long, so just so you know. Okay. Half hour? Yeah, let's still take that. The lunch breaks half hour, right? Okay. Yeah, let's still make that happen. I think we can probably hopefully get through this and if we can't, you know, we always have the option to adjust to continue until we have time to really finalize, so. Okay. So 1210 chair? Please, that sounds great. Thank you so much. And just to, just to clarify the two versions of the secret determination have been forwarded to you, hopefully by now one includes the fence as an replacement of an existing structure. Another version omits the fence entirely and it's just for the slide repair. Great. Thank you, sir. And Nate and I will take a look at the findings during the break. Okay. Okay. We will see you at 1210. Thank you. Welcome back. I can take roll call again. I just wanted to let you know we're just finishing up a written revised finding and I'm going to send it. Let me send that out really quick and then I can maybe take roll call if that's okay with you chair. Just so you guys have that. Sounds good. Okay. Hold on. Okay. All right. Maybe I will start with taking roll call first and then I will get the planning commission up to speed with what we did over lunch. Is that so good? Okay. Please. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Lazenby and Commissioner Dan. Here. Commissioner Villalante. Here. Commissioner Shepard. Oh, sorry. My microphone off. Yes, I'm here. Okay. And chair Gordon. Here. Thank you. Okay. So where we left it was the planning commission directed staff to review the coastal development permit findings and staff report to address any references to the proposed fence and to also revise the CEQA determination to address the slum slide repair only. So I just forwarded the revised CEQA determination and our understanding of the motion which is to approve the slum slide repair and amend the project description as appropriate to admit the four foot height at the top of the bluff or four foot high fence at the top of the bluff and to direct the applicant to return at a littered date with a revised fence or barrier design if necessary. And that would include adopting a revised CEQA determination that the project is exempt from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act as an emergency project and to approve application 201-302 as revised by staff with revised findings exhibit 1B which omits any reference to the fence. My computer froze on me there for a second. Sorry. Perfect timing. But I did hear all that. So thank you for that. I appreciate that. So looking at the findings now, is there, can you explain to me that just to be really clear the statutory exemption versus the categorical and how that relates to the previous CEQA exemption? I just wanted to make sure I really understood that. I see Matt is no longer with us, Matt Johnston, but my understanding from his explanation is that an emergency repair is statutorily exempt under CEQA. And since this is a follow-up CDP to acknowledge that work that was done, we can rely on that statutory exemption for this coastal permit. However, as pointed out by the Planning Commission, it was not appropriate to include the fence in the scope of that project. So we're eliminating that from the exemption and that will return with its own CEQA exemption or CEQA determination along with the coastal permit should the applicant propose to retain some kind of barrier in the future. Great. Thank you. That's very clear for me. I appreciate it. So where we're at is on a substitute motion. And so I believe that Ms. Drake read that Commissioner Villalante, did you have any questions or adjustments or are we good to move forward with the vote on this? I was just giving it a quick read over. No problem. Take your time. Ms. Drake, I guess I have a question about the language about the directing the applicant to return at a later date with their revised fence of barrier design if necessary. I mean, we're not giving any sort of indication by including that language that we will necessarily approve it at a future date or any sort of indication, correct? We're just saying that should they want to pursue that in a future date, they would need to return at a later date, correct? That language that included. That it would require approval through a permit. And yes, the results of that, I mean, I guess it required them to submit an application, which could or cannot be approved, but the point being that it needs to be removed and resolved through a follow up permit, coastal permit. Thank you. I appreciate that. I just, no, that's fine. I just think you're directing staff to do something not an applicant. Sorry. Yes. Sorry. We're not giving any sort of the PC is not indicating our support necessarily of anything, but should they choose to pursue it that it would require such action on their part? I just want to be sure. That's a better way to put it. Yes. Thank you. I appreciate it. Would it be maybe more appropriate to remove that sentence just generally? We don't need them. We don't need to tell them to return at all. They can if they would like to. They don't have to if they don't want to. We could take that out. I just wanted it to be, I mean, we can clarify for the applicant afterwards that that is required of the subsequent permit. I'm fine with it either way. Just throwing ideas out there. So now that's, that was good. I guess my concern is that if necessary, because we consider it necessary, maybe if desired, would be my only amendment to like my. We could just say applicant shall return at a later date with their revised barrier design if desired. We could just change it to May return. That leaves it open. I don't care. I reject. I don't want to change anything. Let's just applicant may return at a later date with revised fence or barrier design if desired. Yeah, I think that's, but I just want to be clear that we think it's, I want to go to we think it is necessary that if they choose to return with, if they want to pursue this, we believe it's necessary. Okay. I would support that change as the second or as well. Applicant may return at a later date with their revised fence or barrier design if desired. Okay. Can Mr. Machado, can we, can you go ahead? Thank you. I just, I wanted just to ensure there's clarity. So when we say return, I mean typically a fence CDP would, would simply go to the ZA not to the planning commission. So when you say return, just return to the normal county process, right? We're not, we're not adding extra, extra guidance there, right? Just the standard process, whatever that process is. Is that correct? I'm by me. Okay. Yes, that's our intention. I just, like I said, I don't want to, yeah, thank you, Mr. Machado. Like I said, I just don't want to give the impression that we're pertaining some sort of future action. Okay. So can I ask to call the question? I believe we're just ready to vote unless it's for a good decision. Okay, good. Yeah. Great. Mr. Drake, can we have a roll call vote on this please? Yes. All right. Commissioner Lazenby. Yes. Commissioner Dan. I'm going to be voting no, but I very much appreciate Commissioner Villalante bringing forward this substitute motion. Okay. Commissioner Shepard. Yes. Commissioner Chair Gordon. Yes. And Commissioner Villalante. Yes. All right. The motion passes. Thank you for all of your work on this project. Do we address the primary motion? How does that work? Apologize my lack of experience on this. Or is that it? The substitute motion replaces the primary motion because it might have failed, then we would have done it on the primary motion. Got it. Thank you. Appreciate it. No problem. Great. Okay. So then yes, I apologize for interrupting. That motion passes and we can close this item and move on. Okay. And as I mentioned, I am now going to do part of it. Okay. Thank you. Have a great afternoon, Commissioner Shepard. Okay. Since we are moving on to item number eight and Nathan is the planner for that, we just wanted to just maybe just take a couple of minutes to allow the members of the public to join for that item. Should we have people that we're waiting to join just and get what Nathan gets together. Five or ten minute recess. I think Nathan had asked for a five minute recess. Okay. I'm good to go. Are you okay? Okay. I didn't want to rush you. Okay. Okay. Ready to go? Okay. Great. So if we could load the PowerPoint, Melissa, for the other, thank you. I wanted to say a quick thank you to everyone on the last item. That was a lot of detailed and intricate discussion and a lot of advice and input from a lot of people. So just a quick thank you to everyone before we move on. So okay. I'm ready. Okay. So we have agenda item number eight, project application 211 211 at 6201 Soquel Drive. This is a subdivision and Mr. McBeth, take it away. Thank you. The subject property is approximately 36,478 square feet in size and developed with an existing nine unit dwelling group consisting of four individual buildings. Property was historically used as a travel motel between approximately 1939 and 1950. Historic resource report was prepared and submitted to the county for review. The report provides an extensive history of the property and structures on site. It was concluded that the site and existing structures were of no historical significance. The site is currently on the currently occupied by long term tenants, which has been the case since that visitor accommodation used ceased. Next slide please. It's the location of the project on Soquel Drive just north on the north side just west of Cabrillo College. Next slide please. The zoning for the site is RM3. Next slide, which is consistent with the urban high residential density. Next slide. This is the location of the property as seen from Soquel Drive. There's a, the primary structure on site is a Victorian style home that you can see kind of the peak of just above that car there. As we turn on to Merrill Drive or Merrill Road rather, you start to see this is the side view of that home. And the sidewalk kind of just disappears there as we turn the corner. Next slide. As you can see a bunch of dense vegetation throughout the site. Kind of as we travel up Merrill Drive, here's the primary driveway to the site on that lower frame. And the second building on the site is kind of center of the frame. Next slide. These are the site photographs of all the structures. You can see the primary dwelling is consists of two individual dwelling units within building one. Building two down below is a single unit kind of a carriage house. Next slide, please. The back portion of the parcel consists of two primary structures are really long in, as you can see, into the far right frame here under building three. It's kind of a motel style development. Between the two buildings, each of these buildings contains three residential units. Next slide, please. There's a site plan of the subject parcel. Larger dwelling, the Victorian is up front there. And you can see Merrill where we came in that driveway. Next slide, please. This is the proposed boundary of parcel one and two. Kind of just cuts right down the middle. Next slide. Parcel one will have approximately 15,500 square feet, three dwellings. Two in the main home and one in that carriage home. The back parcel of 20,000 square feet will contain six dwelling units. Next slide, please. The project proposes a new driveway with parking. A right-of-way dedication along Merrill that wraps. Actually, could you click forward through here through this slide? There we go. Here's the proposed driveway parking. This new roadway, if you will, driveway access requires a roadside, roadway roadside exception, because it's less than the standard 56 feet, which is being required for an access that's serving this many units. Public Works has reviewed it and determined that based on the traffic level here and the other site improvements that are proposed, the width is appropriate. As part of this project, there's some right-of-way dedication. As I mentioned, can you click again, please? This graphically displays the right-of-way dedication. This would be offered to the county and improve with a sidewalk that wraps all the way down around to Soquel Drive. The end here on Soquel Drive, that's where a new bus stop kind of platform will be serving an existing bus stop. It's expanded to be able to accommodate a new cover enclosure and again, widening the sidewalk. Finally, the last improvement along Soquel Drive would be the abandonment of an existing driveway just up Soquel Drive. If you can click one more time, we'll show you folks where that's at. There we go. It would be abandonment of that new curb gutter. Next slide, please? The site will also include a number of trees that are going to be removed, be augmented by a revised landscape plan. All the necessary parking will be provided on site. And maybe I didn't mention, but there's no residential units being proposed as part of this project. The project is designed to retain all the existing rental housing that exists on site. Staff have received a number of inquiries regarding, from members of the public, all just wanting more information about the project. All comment, if there is no comment that has been formally submitted, the applicant held a neighborhood meeting as required by code. Only one neighbor was in attendance of that meeting. And I believe that all of the issues that were raised by that neighbor have been, are going to be addressed by the applicant that was namely the continuation of a shared fence line that might possibly be interrupted by the proposed development. As proposing condition, the project is consistent with all applicable codes and policies. The zoning ordinance and general plan, and therefore staff recommends a determination that the proposal be found exempt from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act and approval of application 211-211 based on the attached findings and conditions. That concludes my presentation available for any questions. Great. Thank you, Mr. Beth. Appreciate that. What any commissioners like to ask? Sorry, I'm carrying Zoom. I'm just wondering if you can clarify for me what the project actually entails, because I looked at the map and I have my interpretation of which, I mean the project documents, and I find interpretation, but if you could clarify that would be helpful. Yeah. Thank you. There are two areas that are designated for pedestrian access, serving both parcel A or parcel one and parcel B. The portion of the portion that's on parcel two is incorporated into the required roadway width. So it'll be kind of a shared sort of space, right? So it's a way to achieve the 24 foot for two-way traffic. So that is the piece that's on the north side. There is an access on the south side, but it's not immediately adjacent to the roadway. It kind of goes between those units, if I recall correctly. And yeah, the material is going to be one that's durable and dustless. So yeah, the if I'm looking at sheet A1 or A0, you can see the pedestrian access as noted kind of just outside of the driveway. And it says access to buildings three and four. And then the other walkway is proposed on the other side of unit two from kind of the edge of the parking to the south side of that building reaching out to the new sidewalk on Merrill. That was my interpretation. So that's good to know. I'm reading the map, the documents correctly. I do believe though that the as a result, the roadway and roadside exception findings need to be amended because when you read it, it describes it as four foot wide at great pedestrian walkway aisles, construction of stamped concrete along are proposed along both sides of the interior roadway. I suppose you could interpret the one on the, I think we're going to call it south side, the one on parcel two could be interpreted as both sides of the interior driveway. But I think that it's only the one on parcel one that would be considered along the interior driveway. That's correct. I think that that's reflected in on page nine. Is that right? Yeah, so page nine is correct. Page nine says both sides. So would we consider that? Yeah, so would we consider that both sides in the findings because I believe we would only say one side and that does just like I said, it was just inconsistent in the staff report. It says one one side and then in the findings, it says both. And so I was just, I want to ensure that our findings correctly reflect the situation, which is why I'm asking. I apologize for being so specific in my questions. No, I appreciate it. You're correct. It should be one side. Okay. Yeah. And that's what the staff report said was the findings, which is probably the most important spot that I get it right. And said both. So I think we might need to amend that before we get to motions. Okay. Thank you. Great. Any other questions? No. Well, thank you, Nate, for that presentation. Really, really appreciate it. Always as always make it very clear for us. This time we can ask the applicant if they have anything to add or presentation at this time and move on to public comment. I see Ken Hart has his hand raised. So we'll start with Ken. Good morning. Or I guess good afternoon at this point. Will you please restate your name for the record? Am I unmuted? Yes. Good afternoon. Thank you for the presentation, Nate. I think the staff reports good, good staff report and very concisely characterizes the proposed project. One thing that I would like to add, and I don't know if, Nate, you can put that one of the site plans back up on the screen. Is that possible so that the commission can see what I'm referring to? So back to the PowerPoint. Nate, I just so I want to call attention to the relocation or the reorientation of the fence line at the along the eastern property line. There was a concern by the belief she's the president of the HOA of the condominium complex to the east that if that fence line was to be re aligned, it could leave a small gap in in their fence and would because they've been having some problems with unauthorized access onto their property. And our intention is to not leave that gap is to close to close any gap that is results from the reorientation of that realignment of the fence line. We'd be certainly happy to have a condition of approval added that to that effect if that's satisfactory. That's really the only comment I had. Great. Thank you, Mr. Hart. Appreciate that. Did any commissioners have questions of applicant before we open the rest of the public comment? Okay, hearing none. Let's go ahead and open public comment at this time, Ms. Freik. All right. I see a hand raised by Karen. Good afternoon, Karen. Please state your name for the record. You have three minutes. You want to press star six as I recall to unmute if you're calling in. There you go. Hello. Hello. Hi. Good morning. Yeah, I'm this is Fernando. I'm the husband of Karen. A long time. I had a question about emergency services and the the access. It's very difficult to talk about these things when you take the maps down. The future you might want to do something with that. But we had a problem. I live on the land. And I was just curious about a fire truck. And if you had an emergency, the fire trucks come with the EMTs. And with that fire truck, we will make that turn there on that access road that you're including to the the apartment units. Fernando, go ahead and state all of your comments and we'll address any questions at the end of public comment. Oh, okay. That's a very narrow road. A lot of kids play there. Merrill, I'm speaking of. There's a rather large project right across the street from that. And I'm concerned about traffic and parking, but I think you address that when you had the map up. Difficult again, difficult to speak about these things without having a visual in front of you. That's about it. Otherwise, I know we need housing. Oh, affordability. If you could be a little clearer, you may have gone over this already about affordability on these projects. And I thought I heard somebody say that they will be occupied by people who are occupying that parcel at the present time. That's correct. I'd like to clarification on that. Thank you. Thank you. Time to spare. All right. And I'm seeing a hand raised by Victoria. Good afternoon. Please state your name for the record. Victoria Smith Raymond. And I was the only neighbor that attended the community meeting. I apologize. I have laryngitis, but I wanted to say that Ken Hart has been very accessible and did address already the issue of the fencing. And because we had just put a perpendicular fence parallel to the Soquel on the property to help with the reduction of people coming onto the property and using it for various reasons. My only other question was looking at the map. I had asked about grading and Nathan had mentioned that there wouldn't be any other grading because we have a problem with drainage coming from that property right onto our cul-de-sac and right in front of my home. But it appears that the parking spaces are going to be just on the other side of the fence from there. So I don't understand how the parking spaces can be in there, can be put there without any additional grading if that could be clarified. I think that's the only thing that I have and we did just elect a new board. So the conversations will need to be with them as far as the like the fence and how to make sure that there isn't any gap there. And when they rectify the three-foot there was a three-foot mistake I guess when the original fencing was put in over 35 years ago. So anyway that's the only comment that I have. Clarify that. Parking. Thank you Victoria. All right. Are there any other members of the public who wish to speak at this time about this proposed application? And I am not seeing any so I will turn it back over to you, Chair. Okay, great. Thank you. Then we can go ahead and close. Actually let's bring it back to Ken. If Ken had anything more to add, you have a few more minutes to respond if desired. And his hand is raised. Ken, there you go. You can hear me? Yes. I just wanted to address Victoria's point about parking being located right on the other side of the fence. I believe that she's referring to existing parking spaces that are along the eastern property line of the subject property, the western property line of her property. Those are all existing spaces and there won't be any changes there. Any, the grading that's going to take place, the lion's share of it actually will be out of the corner of Merrill and Soquel where that hillside will be shaved back in order to provide better side distance for cars coming out of Merrill onto Soquel Drive. But I think that if I understood correctly, the parking spaces that she was referring to are all existing. There'd be no change. Okay, great. Thank you, Mr. Hart. Appreciate that. Then at this time we can go ahead and close the public comment and bring the matter back to the commission for discussion. Did any commissioners have anything to discuss on this topic? Chair Gordon, if I may actually have a question for Mr. Hart, but I was actually brought up by the public, but I am more specifically, but I had a question for him throughout the staff report. And some of the findings, it routinely talks about the exception for the width of the road, talking about the low level of traffic the interior road sees it present, but that's based on the current number of units on the site. And I was just wondering if he could answer a few questions about whether or not in the future should this parcel be developed, whether or not that would meet, whether or not there'd be a possibility in the future of expanding the width of this road, internal road, if that would happen, because we know that there's the possibility of an increased density, should this parcel be developed in the future and would an increase of the roadway be possible or required at that time? If Mr. Hart could answer that question. Yeah, I think so. Yeah, I think there's a lot of parts to your question. The current proposal is consistent with the allowed density for the RM3 site. So in terms of future development, what that would look like would be something in excess of the current general plan designation. Any future division of this parcel would be subject to review and approval, right? So if we had more units proposed and a condo style development of that kind, we would have to then look at the adequacy of the roadway width and how it would serve the interior of that parcel. So kind of a revisiting of the site. Yeah, this is one project that's been designed specifically to retain the existing housing stock on site. And so really, that's what I would say about the adequacy of the road. It's to serve this site and the number of units that are currently on. Thank you. I appreciate that. Okay, any other questions or comments? Doesn't sound like it. Great. I have a question. The access road is shared by the two parcels. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay, so if you in the future sold off one of the parcels, let's say the back part, lot number two, what would happen to the access road? Nothing. So is it creating an easement on each one of the parcels then? Yeah, I think to the easement is actually, yeah, it's the entirety of the access is located on parcel two with it will be a deeded access to parcel one. Yeah, if the parcel was to be sold, there are will be covenants in place to secure the right of access to, you know, both parcels. Those for access and parking, right? Yeah, it's really because the parking is actually outside of the easement or the right of way. But yeah, it's immediately adjacent to the parking for parcel one. Got it. Okay. Did that answer your question, Commissioner Lazenby? The silence is a yes. Then, you know, if any commissioner would see it appropriate, it might be a good time for a motion or? Mr. McBeth, before I make my motion, I just want to verify that this project is located in Central Creek Water District. That's correct, it is. I'm going to make a motion that includes amending some conditions because again, on page 16 of the agenda packet, condition 3F, it reads City of Santa Cruz Water District, and I'm going to amend that before I do. I just want to verify that I'm correct in doing so. You are. Good catch. There's also just a small typo on 5A where it says count road and I'm going to amend that, say county road, and I'm going to make sure I'm not doing anything untoward by amending a couple of things here. I'm also going to touch that the north county condition, pardon me, the north side concrete, the interior road as well. Correct, and sorry, what page was the count road on? I'll touch them in my motion. Okay. Page 17. Got it. So I'd make a motion that we I'm going to make sure I get all the things included that we have to do, that we approve application 211211 based on the findings in the staff report with a few amendments, and they include amending on page nine of the staff report, amending the roadway and roadside exception findings to read that the four foot wide at grade pedestrian walk aisles constructed of stamped concrete are along the north side of the interior roadway, including that on page 16 of the conditions of approval, 3F should read Soquel Creek Water District, and on page 17, there's a typo should be corrected of 5A and where feasible all improvements adjacent to or affecting a county road should be corrected, and then determine that the proposal is exempt from further environmental review under the California environmental quality. That would be my motion. I'll second it. Great. Thank you very much, Mr. Villante and Commissioner Dan. Any further discussion on this before we move to a vote? Hey, great. Ms. Drake, can we please do a roll call vote on this? Yes. Commissioner Lee is in B. Okay. Chair Gordon. Yes. Commissioner Dan. Yes. And Commissioner Villante. Yes. Okay. Motion passes. Thank you so much. Okay, with that, we can close out agenda item number eight and move right along. Thank you, everyone, for the input and help and the presentation on item eight there. Moving on to agenda number nine, planning director's report, Mr. Machado. Are you today? Thank you, Chair. Thank you, commissioners. No report today. Just thank you for your continued hard work. I see the work that you put into this, just like you've done on past items. So thank you for all that extra good effort. Absolutely. Great. Well, thank you. I appreciate that. So we can move on to agenda item number 10, upcoming meeting dates. Ms. Drake, where we've got. So I think we've already sent out a cancellation notice. If not, you'll be receiving one soon. The December 28th planning commission meeting is canceled. We do have one item so far scheduled for the January 11th planning commission meeting. So be prepared to convene after the new year. We are also anticipating a meeting on January 25th as well. So we're going to hit the ground running in January with a couple of meetings. I am working with our ISD department to bring the meetings back to the chambers with a call-in feature for the public as we've discussed in the past, depending on what we have on the agendas and where we're at with testing that new meeting format and possibly also looking at commissioner appointments and where those might fall. I'm a little bit unclear about when we're going to come back to the chambers. I'm just trying to put a couple of pieces together. So it is likely that we'll continue the remote format for the first meeting for sure, possibly the second meeting, depending on those factors I mentioned, with the intent to come back to the chambers in February. But I will definitely keep everybody posted. And that is all I have. Sharon, may I ask a question? Yeah, please. Ms. Drake, could you send the 2023 dates? If I receive them, I must have missed them. Yes. Or deleted them. Okay. Turns out I will need them. I would love to send those to you. Yes, I will send those to everybody. And I will keep everyone posted. Oh, I wanted to, I'm sorry, I have one other thing really quick. It's not about meeting dates. I wanted to introduce Nicholas Brown. He, Nick, there he is. Nicholas has been with us for a couple of months now. However, we haven't had an opportunity to introduce him to the Planning Commission formally, I don't think. He is Mike Lam's replacement. So you'll be seeing a lot of Nick. He'll be corresponding with Nicholas, just like you did with Mike on any follow-up questions about pockets or meeting dates or anything else. He's fantastic and we're really excited to have him on our team. So welcome, Nicholas. And yeah, there he is. Good to meet you. Good to put a face to the name. Welcome, Nicholas. And I apologize to Michael. I have been emailing Michael. And congratulations to Michael. And thank you, Nicholas, for all your work in putting our packets together. You're welcome. I'm really happy to be here. Appreciate it all, y'all. Yeah. Okay, awesome. Do we have a county council's report today? Nothing to report. Thank you. Well, we made it through 2022. That's it. That was a lot of big stuff this year. So it's 2023 is going to be smooth sailing, right? Yeah. I've been waiting for smooth sailing since 2020. So yeah. Yeah. Happy holidays, everyone. I'm sad that we weren't in person. So we weren't able to do some cookies, coffee, some kind of celebration. And we'll postpone it until the new year. Extra cookies in the new year. All right. Nice to see everybody. Thank you, everyone. Thank you all so much. Thank you. All right. See you. Thank you.