 Good evening and welcome to the March 21st 2019 planning Commission meeting for the city of Santa Cruz I'll call the meeting to order and ask for a roll call, please Mr. Schiffen here Conway here Bellman here Nielsen here singleton your chair pepping present Commissioner singleton has emailed us to let us know he has another that conflicting the nights. He's absent with notification Any statements of disqualification for anything on the agenda tonight seeing none any oral communications We'll invite members of the public to Share opinion on agendized items But this is the time when anyone from the public can share comment on something anything. That's not on the agenda Seeing none. We'll move on to approval of minutes I'll invite a motion to approve the March 7th meeting minutes. So moved I'll suck it. Oh Actually, I don't have them in front of me. I think I'm staining from you were here, but you can still abstain No, I think I was um. Oh, you stepped it. So I it's all okay. All in favor. Hi. Hi with one abstention Commissioner Conway abstaining and It's our approved Next we'll move on to a public hearing Section of the agenda and item 2 is amendment of the to the cannabis delivery services regulation and we have a staff Presentation and report gosh, I have to decide which mic to use Okay, good evening, I'm Catherine Donovan senior planner in our advanced planning division and We have tonight an item that the cannabis delivery services, which is Brought before us due to a change in state's regulations so just a little background the Prop 64 was approved in November of 2016 and it decriminalized marijuana use in California and they're set out of a whole slew of regulation Regulations but left a lot of the details to the state The city adopted our cannabis ordinance in 2017 went in effect on December 28th. So it was in effect Right before it became legal commercially in 2018 and at that time that Staff was Writing the ordinance City Council had directed us to include a limitation on delivery services So that they were not allowed from businesses that were located outside of the city Sorry They there were new state regulations that are basically Fill in where prop 64 left off that went into effect on January 16th and of this year and part of those new regulations is it just Buried in the fine print is a statement that delivery services may deliver in any jurisdiction in The state and that the local jurisdictions have no control it the regulation doesn't say that but local jurisdictions have no control over that however There's a new bill that's been proposed AB 1530 that I think it went on the books It was it was sponsored on January 28th. So it's it's brand new and We don't know if it will go into effect, but we're hoping So when we did this amendment we I worked with the city attorney's office and we carefully crafted it so that It would allow delivery from locations outside of the city into the city only if required by State law and regulations so that if this if AB 1530 should pass It would automatically not allow delivery services into the city and we wouldn't have to go back and amend amend it again So I know sometimes you have trouble with finding the recommendation and reading it So my my new method is to give you the recommendation on the on the screen I don't know might be easier to read it from the staff report, but the recommendation is that The Planning Commission recommend to the city council that we Adopt approved the resolution adopting the amendment Thank you. You're welcome. Any questions for staff before we invite the public for comments Mr. Sifrin well, I thought I understood the staff report until I heard you um The regulations prohibit the state regulations prohibit the city from Banding delivery services from outside the city, right? But my understanding is they don't prohibit the city from regulating the delivery Delivery services within the city. Is that correct? Um, it basically says that Delivery I can actually I have it bookmarked right here. I can read the section to you It says a delivery employee may deliver to any jurisdiction within the state of California Provided that such delivery is conducted in compliance with all delivery provisions of this division okay, so The delivery provisions are things like, you know, you can't have a marked car and You can only go straight from where you pick it up to where you're dropping it off and then you have to go straight back again and That kind of thing it there's not any local provisions in there So I somehow I thought that the ordinance required the The business located this is on page two of the ordinance If a business located outside of the city delivers to any location inside the city The business shall obtain a city business license and shall pay all applicable both state and local sales and cannabis taxes so it does allow the city essentially to regulate these businesses by Requiring them to pay To register as a business in the city and pay cannabis tax right well those yes Those are requirements of any business that does business within the city Right, so the state regulations don't prohibit that so I mean my understanding was that the purpose of this Was really to not disadvantage Local dispensaries that have to pay taxes So what it's saying is that if you're a delivery business and you're located outside the city State regulations as long as they stay in effect you can deliver in the city But you have to get a business permit and have to pay taxes just like any dispensary right and Actually, technically we don't need to put that in there It would still apply because those are regulations of doing business in the city that are in other parts of the Municipal code, but we put it in here to emphasize that You need to do this. Well, I think it's important to have it in there given the state regulations that seem to say Cities can't prohibit delivery services within their boundaries So a business could think well then I can just deliver right so by having this ordinance I think it makes very clear that yes as long as the state law provision is on the books You can deliver, but you have to pay taxes and you have to right and we exact that's exactly why we wrote it this way We totally agree with you. That's how I understood it, but from your from what I heard it wasn't clear that that was In effect. Yes, if I may I think maybe the confusion came from the fact that since we had started drafting this and having this conversation the new bill was put forth for the legislature that would allow jurisdictions to Limit deliveries from outside their jurisdiction and as of right now the way that our ordinance had previously been written We would be in support of that and so that's why the ordinance as written now would kind of let it go both ways So that we wouldn't have to come back and amend it should that what is the AB 15 30 30 Be adopted right Do you know what the status of that bill is I mean there are all sorts of bills out there I looked it up today and it's Forget the exact wording, but it's basically it's prepared to go to committee But that it hasn't been submitted to committee yet. So it's got a long road. It's got a long way. Yeah And do you know Whether the sit this proposed ordinance is similar to the ordinance that was passed in the county Santa Cruz County by the Board of Supervisors Because as I remember this the same issue came before the board and they passed an ordinance that I thought did the same thing And I just wanted if there had been any review of the county's ordinance and you know, I didn't I didn't check I know that they were planning to do something similar, but I didn't I didn't look at their What their ordinance said? They they've been doing a lot of changes recently and I haven't been able to keep up with it Okay, thank you Other questions for staff, okay, then we'll invite the public to share comments with the Commission on this matter. It's a public hearing. So we'll invite we'll open the public hearing and invite anyone from the public to address us anyone seeing none will close the public hearing and See if commissioners have other questions for staff or discussion or someone wants their recommendation second any discussion I have one question. I think it's a clerical. I think the clean and red line copy both to save mayor to rosas. Oh Thank you. I will clean that up Templates you're right And that was my only Thank you. Good catch And we'll call for a vote all in favor. Hi. Hi. Hi opposed motion passes unanimously Thank You Catherine The next one thing I didn't share about the agenda is that we had talked to staff about bringing back this matter of The brown necked questions with regard to information items versus general business or public hearings and Staff was doing some legwork on that wanted to have some additional time to work Through conversations with the city attorney. So that's why you don't see it on here I meant to say that at the beginning. So it'll be on a future meeting. Did you get a date on when that might be? No Likely the next meeting I would expect it the next meeting I would not expect it to stretch out much further than that. It's just a coordinating with the city attorney Who's extremely busy. Thank you Sorry, does that mean that we're That general business for is not happening. No, that's general business for still happening this was the this that was the issue of a Agendizing something under information items and whether we can vote on that or whether we Have to invite public comment on that and separate from whether we have to we can discuss whether we should so all that Yeah, so we'll still do for So the next item on the agenda under public hearings is the amendments to the general plan and most local coastal plan and Have a your staff report and we'll have a presentation on that. I believe yes and This is one of our let's put several things together so we don't have to do so many staff reports So we have three different things happening here we have the The Bringing the density bonus ordinance into that our local coastal program We have the incorporation of the local hazard mitigation plan into the general plan and We have the update of the general plan archaeological and paleontological maps So we're going to look at the density bonus law and the local coastal program first State density bonus law requires that density bonuses bonus provisions must be consistent with the California Coastal Act and This has always been true, but there was some question about it Which was recently clarified and my bullets are out of order and sorry it was recently clarified in the Colnell Gardens versus City of Los Angeles case and then after that case subsequently There was an amendment made by the legislature to the density bonus law just to sort of reiterate and and specify more clearly that Density bonus law had to Be consistent with the California Coastal Act so in Density bonus law you can have allowances that include incentives waivers and reductions of development standards in addition to increased density and Those are done in exchange for either increasing the number of affordable units or increasing the level of affordability or some combination of that the way the local coastal program is Developed there are specific sections of the zoning ordinance that are cited in the local coastal program as the implementation regulations of the LCP the density bonus ordinance is not in that list and so We have been working with coastal commission staff on this and they recommend that we Bring that specific section that deals with how density bonus and coastal act interact into the those implementation regulations And then by adopting that section it just sort of clarifies For everybody exactly How you have to comply with the coastal act when you're using a density bonus And we do have Some upcoming projects that are in the coastal zone that may be utilizing the density Bonus and so they're their programs that You know if the developer was concerned Having this clarified would help And they include the dream in project and on the parking lot Kitty corner to the dream in the Cyprus points apartments at 101 Felix and the Jesse Street project at 314 Jesse Street and The third item or I'm sorry the second item we're bringing for you today is Incorporating the local hazard mitigation plan into the general plan And the reason we are proposing this is that there was a measure AB 2140 that was approved back in 2006 that allows jurisdictions to be eligible for additional straight state reimbursement of funds in the event of a declared emergency Only if their FEMA approved local hazard mitigation plan is adopted into their safety element of their general plan and We just recently the local hazard mitigation plan has to be updated every five years and ours was just updated last year it was approved by FEMA in April and adopted by city council in October and so by amending by amending the General plan to adopt this into the hazard of the safety meant the safety element Then if we do have a declared emergency will will be eligible for this additional funding doesn't mean we'll necessarily get it but it we would be eligible to apply and unfortunately We'll have to do this every five years they every time it's Reapproved by FEMA we have to Readopt it into our general plan Hopefully we won't use it in this next five years, but it'd be better to be safe than sorry Sorry, and then the third item Is an update of the general plan archaeological and paleontological maps and in the general plan itself there is an action that States that we will update these maps every five years and It seems kind of counterintuitive that you'd want to update These historic, you know maps of historic resources every five years But as development occurs and reports are done on sites We get more information and so incorporating that new information With the data that we already have Can change the level of review that's required for particular Properties so having those maps updated every five years can make a big difference. I mean it helps us protect resources and it also Allows us to not require reporting on properties that have basically been cleared and Again, I'm providing you with the recommendations and I'm happy to answer any questions you might have Thank you. Any questions for staff commissioner Spellman. I have one on the archaeological maps here. So in general are we getting Information that says we're finding more archaeological resources We're getting in a little effort a little bit of everything and you know, so we're getting Some positive and some negative and then some that You know, there's there's things found, but they're not significant. So, you know Pieces broken pieces of bottles from the late 1800s But they're not they're not considered significant But you wouldn't want to clear that property because it means that there was something there. They're at at that time Okay, so no major trends. No major trends, although It was it was very interesting working with the archaeologists on this because they collected all this data On the sites they mapped it. They use a lot of GIS mapping They map the sites then they mapped all the different soil types and they did a lot of analysis about you know Were there more positive or negative under different soil types and did the slope? Matter and the closeness to water it was Closeness to water is important because you expect people to settle close within a reasonable range of water because you're Needing the water for daily life so all of those factors were mapped and Then they you know tried to analyze and and make some general generalizations based on the where things were found most frequently and there were certain certain patterns that were I Don't know. I don't have enough knowledge of the field to say how significant they were but they seem significant to me that you know there were certain soil types where things were found more frequently and the soil maps or It was like a patchwork quilt We have a lot of different soil types and they're all scattered all over the place So knowing that you know this particular type which can be found in Areas scattered all over is more likely to have resources Kind of did change the pattern that we that we saw and it changed our mapping slightly It wasn't I wouldn't say it was a significant change But if your property was on an area of the map that changed it would be significant for you. Thank you Other questions for Steph commissioner shifrin Following in your footsteps item Point out that it says David terraces on this one as well but also on page two of the staff report there was a amusing typo under the discussion of the archaeological maps where it says Udek also undertook a sophisticated modeling effort which analyzed soil types Slups and distance to water. I Assume that they weren't analyzing sloops. You know those ancient boats were very important Then I had a question at the last full paragraph where it says the LCP was not included in the 2030 general plan and is currently being revised and updated as a standalone document. I wonder when that I wanted to ask when that is estimated to come to the planning commission We are hoping to Bring it back either in the Fall or you know Be nice if we brought it before the end of the year Unfortunately, it's one of those things that is not Urgent so whenever we get a new Load of work that is more urgent. This is the thing that slips So it's been slipping for a while. What is the consequence of not having it? Does that mean that the policies in the new general plan don't apply in the coastal zone? No, it's just it's It's more a matter of It's just awkward the the we've been where we have a draft version of the new Document and it's much better organized and easier to use But in terms of legality we're okay. Yeah, so we do have a fully certified LCP This update was really intended back when it was started in 2015 to Incorporate some sea level rise and hazards policies and do a little clean up Because right now a lot of the policies are tied to the former general plan And so what we wanted to do is we do have that separated out But we want to update it with the sea level rise and hazards information With the new general plan policies that we have and then pull in policies from any of our other Area plans or specific plans to make it consistent the exciting part and doing that is that? So it's been delayed a bit because there's been staff turnover and new priorities and things that have happened since the inception of that starting in 2015 end of last year we did get a grant from the coastal Commission to add an entire Hazards element which we don't currently have in the LCP So we're going to be doing this initial update that will come through Catherine's the project manager in that like she said Hopefully by the end of the year We'll have that here and then by the end of 2020 we expect to have another full update that will come in with the Hazards element added which is really exciting because we don't have that now and so we're going to be able to use the grant to do some really cool community outreach and Sea level rise studying and modeling that will tie into the West Cliff Drive project as well Okay, so it's a little unclear to me how I think we are LCP has not been revised, but somehow our general plan The recently adopted or not so recent anymore, but the current general plan is consistent with the LCP So the LCP needs to be consistent with the general plan not the other way around well They need to be consistent to with each other right and so that's what part of this update would be doing So, but are there any consequences of us not being in terms of the role that the city has in reviewing development in Coastal zone by not having that consistency No, although I would say that there could be an opportunity for there to be Conflicts between policies and we would have to deal with that as they come typically our current general plan was built on the previous general plan and so We're comfortable that we wouldn't have those conflicts. However, there may be some elements that are in the new general plan that weren't in The old general plan and so our LCP doesn't have those and so that's why we want to upgrade it and update it to make sure We're capturing everything So the LCP is really consistent with the old general plan. Yes, sir And in those areas where the new general plan Significantly changes the old general plan policies in the coastal zone. There could be conflicts There could be conflicts, however, we don't Thankfully have any of those and we know that because we've done this analysis and we're working through the process right now It's just taken us a little longer than we might have hoped so but we have done the analysis And we know that there's nothing that's going to be falling through the cracks or any major Absences if you will and this would really it's mostly to do with sea level rise and hazards, which is what we'll be adding Okay, thank you Any other questions for staff? Then we'll open a public hearing the public hearing and invite members of the public to address the Commission invite you to sign in on the right side and state your name if you would when you Address us. Thanks for being here and you can have three minutes each on this item. Welcome Good evening planning commissioners and Congratulations to you, Mr. Chaff, and for your new appointment I Disagree with staff on that the reason why and I have three questions and that I wanted to have a clarity on in this last one here I I believe this does affect I have the 190 West Cliff Project is tearing off the 2030 So they're telling us we don't need they don't need an EIR for that that they're going to tear that off the 2030 general plan The 20 the the LCP for that the only thing that the coastal fish stuff is the riverfront That's the only thing that we're even seeing the local So I'm I'm wondering how you can make that statement You're tearing the project off a 2030 when you don't even have an LCP But when we have right now is for the 2005 I Kind of find it hard to the grass right now. So I don't know why you can actually cure a Project off something. It's not complete. So I think that LCP is important and it's not good That's one of the questions. I'm trying to find out why it's not a minute or when it's going to be a minute. I Haven't been able to get that answer or from and actually coastal commission Sarah Carville is trying to find an answer for me, too. So That my question would be I Believe it is important that you can't wait to 2020 unless you think the 190 West Cliff project is not going to come online until And then the the second the first question here, I wanted to be I expected to hear a little bit more and some of the stuff So thank goodness I read this So I just want to make sure that that in this Ordnance that we got that The city ordinance is explicitly stating that the density bonus law does not supersede in any way Alter or less in the effect of the or application of the California Coastal Act. So that seems to be You know, I'm not seeing it this ordinance stuff like that. So that is going to be in the ordinance or that's going to be clear and then The also another statement it says the increased density this is for the density bonuses It says the increased density itself is not subject to the Coastal Act However, if the increased density included increased height or decreased setbacks those physical changes we subject to the Coastal Act That would be in the that's going to be in the ordinance of the minute. We're making now too. So I guess my question is The stuff that I pull offline You have that you're talking about stuff like that. Is this stuff going to be put in into the Upcoming minutes that you're doing Okay, and then I'm trying to understand on page three what this environmental review is actually saying it's I mean I've done some research, but it's a bit Wordy for me. So those would be my three questions that I would hope to get some answers from if not now maybe Later, I'll give you my email address there and you can put that on there. Thank you for that. Thank you Thanks for your comments Any other comments for the Commission? And so we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the Commission to consider Action on this item Mr. Schifrin well, I Think it might be helpful to respond to the testimony just in terms of answering the questions the My understanding I don't know the What that project is right now But I think it's important to understand the difference between the California Environmental Quality Act and the general plan law Tearing is really a concept on the the California Environmental Quality Act so Environmental document can be tiered off a earlier document but I think the the project has to be consistent with the general plan and The zone and the LCP so that's really the question that needs to be asked is the project consistent with the LC the and it would have to be consistent with the 20 it sounds like the 2005 LCP since the new LCP isn't adopted yet, so When we're talking about general plans, it's about consistency and I think your the ordinance I Found also that the the information online was a little bit confusing usually the staff reports the first item This time it was the last item and there were a bunch of different. Okay. Let's blame test There was red line copy copies and there are a lot of different men Additional information and I think it's very helpful to have a red line copy and a clean copy So I wouldn't want to discourage that but I think to answer your questions The way you understood it from the staff report if I understand it is correct the only exception to the That can apply for density bonus projects is the density itself Doesn't the setbacks the height all have to be consistent with the LCP And I think the ordinance language does make that does make that clear. That's correct in terms of sequel They're just under sequel. There are different ways that projects can be amended can be exempted Categorically exempted or statutorily exempted and what the staff is doing is just referring to the particular exemptions That they believe would apply to these amendments and I personally don't have a problem with those so I Can see why they're confusing especially if you don't have the sequel guidelines in front of you But they I think the the sections that they referred to are the particular Categories in the guidelines that allow for exemptions for these kinds of projects so I Don't have any problem with this with the staff recommendation on these changes and More discussion. I'd be happy to make a motion to approve the staff recommendations I'd invite a motion and we can discuss under the motion of the second It's second Any discussion of the motion? All in favor. Hi. Hi proposed Emotion passes unanimously and close the public hearing section of the agenda. Thank you. Thank you and now move on a general business which has one item the city's public outreach policy and I'm going to Continue a conversation we had about this at their last meeting or two meetings ago I think both actually So I don't have a presentation. I figured we could just have a conversation So I have had a chance to review the discussions at the previous meetings On the community outreach policy and specifically the role of the PC subcommittee So in the staff report that you've read we've attempted to clarify the role I know there were a lot of questions about what the role is and I can see where there had been some potential It's a very brief policy and we had had some conversations at previous Planning Commission and council meetings when this was going around the first time last August But it sounds like we need a little more clarification in the role So in our staff report we've indicated a few things one that I think it's really important for the commissioners to Understand and be mindful of their role in their position of power in the in these meetings and their and their stature in In the meetings as a planning commissioner, and I think anytime Staff council members planning commissioners are out in public We need to be really mindful of the fact that we are looked at as community leaders and that we can't always wear our Independent resident and citizen hat we often need to be mindful that others view us in the in these roles And so I think we need to remember that I think it's really important to that we comment or that the planning commissioners comment At these meetings only on land use policy compliance if you're going to make any comments at all I don't you know, there's nothing that says that you have to but if you're going to I think be mindful in How you're phrasing the comments so that there's not a perception that you've already made a decision Because frankly should not have already made a decision. You really are there to learn more about the project and to have a Dialogue with the developer about things that you may see issues with land use wise land use policy wise So general plan zoning ordinance any area or specific plans that govern that area that really should be your focus Again, I think I said this earlier, but it stayed abstained from Commenting as a community member as much as you can make sure that your comments are coming as representative of the of the commission I think that's important and if there's ever a question of is this right the answer is probably no because At all times I think we need to do our best to be good stewards of the public trust and To avoid any conflict of interest or even an appearance of a conflict of interest is really really important because there may not be one But being mindful that things may be perceived that way. I think it's really really important Additionally staff recommends that we avoid having more than three commissioners attending at once It may not be a brown act violation But again, there's this appearance that it could be and you know if more than that do attend definitely do not speak to each other about the project and Staff would recommend just not having conversations with one another all together again Just to avoid any appearance of impropriety because we do want to build and maintain that trust with the community So at this time, I'd like to recommend that we I know there was a lot of conversation at the last meeting about do we Disband the Planning Commission subcommittee. Do we clarify the roles? staff would like to recommend that we go ahead and so This policy is new. There's definitely growing pains. There's definitely Learning from our mistakes and we're all human and that's okay. I mean Staff could have done a better job of clarifying the role Of the Planning Commission subcommittee when this first came out and we own that and that's that's great But let's have the conversation and so I think staff recommends that we would continue the Planning Commission subcommittee Understanding the roles would be happy to memorialize this in writing or in some sort of like addendum to the policy if If the Commission would like to ask us to do that And I'd like to have a conversation with you about if you do choose to move forward in that way and give give that a little More of a chance now that it's a little more fleshed out see if it works for a trial period if it doesn't maybe you want to revisit that and we can Talk about how to revisit that but if you do want to move forward with the Commission Planning Commission subcommittee as it is we'd like to talk to you about Noting role let's see here staff recommends the Commission discuss the best way they'd like to be introduced at community meetings I think we heard a recommendation about name tags. That's a wonderful idea. I think that's a great idea And we should all have we came in as a community comment. I believe that we should Commissioners and staff should have name tags and be identified So how do we introduce you? How can staff do a better job of introducing ourselves be clearer about the roles of each of the different parties at the meetings And how you can best provide any early feedback or questions regarding policy or code compliance and then How you can bring your first-hand account of the community meetings back to the full Commission So that's the recommendation. I'm here to answer any questions and obviously discuss amongst yourselves Thank you. I have one question That might inform us as we as we discuss it. How many of these meetings have we had? That's a really great question. Yeah, the community meetings. I Don't know offhand because I focus on the long-range planning team Off the top of my head. I'd say it's between three and five Yeah Yeah, knowing how many projects we have Development projects and then there was also one are we including the ADU meeting? I know Commissioner Smellman You were at that meeting Yeah, yeah between development meetings and policy meetings Thank you. Yep. So we we We have a recommendation from you and if we were to amend like have an addendum to the policy That's just to guide ourselves Not as I understand it I believe that we could just do an addendum internally if you wanted to fully strike something from the ordinance how or the The policy or make significant changes Since it is a cat council adopted policy I would expect that it would need to go back to council for those significant changes, but a clarifying addendum I think is suitable to do internally. Okay. I just want to make sure we're defining the work So absent that we're talking about guidance and clarification for our own selves And for the benefit of the public So it's a general business item and we'll invite members of the public to give comment but before that if people have Questions or for staff or comment you can do that too. I have a lot of comments, but maybe it would make sense to hear from Okay, anybody else before public comment A quick question. So in terms of what community meeting It's both meetings about development About particular development as well as policy meetings like the ADU Is there anything else that a community meeting means? Not necessarily one that's sponsored by the city So different community groups may have a community meeting on various Initiatives or issues that they feel that's important But under the community outreach policy the way that we are looking at them So the way our department's broken up is we have a long-range planning team We have a development review or current planning team And then there's the building department and code enforcement teams Typically, they're not going to have any much community outreach because a lot of their work happens after a project's been approved For the land use entitlement and they deal with the actual development of the buildings The current planning and long-range planning teams are the ones who are making the policy That's my team and then implementing the policy through the the zoning ordinance is that Like Eric Marlitz team the current planning team So we're the ones who are going to be out in the community most often saying hey Here's what's coming forward be it a change to the zoning ordinance be it a change to the general plan be it any sort of Amendments and then his team saying here's a new development. That's coming in in your community. We want to talk about it That's usually where you see our community meetings. And so you go to different community meetings your two committees Yes, because it really just depends they more often will come to the the current planning team more often will come to ours Then the long-range planning team going to theirs because we Set and create the policy that they then implement through the design review process And so often will have them participate as we're helping craft the policy to make sure it's going to work on the ground But it's not that often that a policy individual like someone from my team would go to a current planning Meeting unless it was just of interest Or or if we were talking about a major major change to one of our policy documents because of a project request That's when we might attend, but it's not it's not a standard operating procedure to do it that way Okay, so for instance the ADU meeting all of you went to that. Yes, but the dream in meeting just the current you got it You got it. Yep Mr. Schifrin clarified because the policy that we're talking about is a very specific policy It's attachment one and it says community outreach policy for planning projects So it's not for policies that can be all sorts of community meetings for policies and I would say You meetings or policy meetings, but this Actually is not correct. It does say that but we very intentionally wrote it that way to cover both So it doesn't say it says planning projects projects meaning either a Amendment project a zoning ordinance update project review those as we call those projects But they're not development projects. They're policy projects So if you read a little further in the ordinance, we do refer both to policy as well as to development review Well, it certainly does have a section on smell small development project medium development project large development project Significant project any proposal regardless of type that has a potential for significant citywide interest So is that what your your meaning as policy? Yes And I believe if I remember correctly and I'll have to pull it up here Sometimes my computer is a little slow, but near the back. We do talk about policy and it's not on the last page Let me see if I can find it while you guys continue to your conversation, but There definitely are references to policy in there because we wanted this Yes, and so we did want this to cover everything so when we say project at the beginning we are referring to both types Okay Any other questions or discussion before we get So open the public hearing and invite members of the public to sign in on the right if you would and state your name if You're willing and I have three minutes to address the Commission. Thank you Shelley hatch I had a question because you just mentioned design review What is there a design review committee? That's what I've been trying to find out for a few meetings here You just mentioned design review and what context did you mention it? Usually not back and forth during public comment. So we can sit down. Thank you Is that your only comment? Yes, and try to bring that up in our discussion Any other members of the public? Welcome I just wanted Andy was talking about I thought one of the things we were trying to accomplish here is that when we had these large projects that are coming out that are required community meetings That we'd have we'd have Planning commissioners there and a team of three people so they can answer some policy and stuff like that So I thought that was one of the main things of the purpose of this committee that we're going to do that that it is really Guided a lot for this city is going to have an enormous amount of big projects coming up in the next five years So that's what I thought the intent of this was was that was to have a committee of three commissioners to answer Some of the questions that the community might want or some stuff on policy I mean That not is that not what this the committee we're talking about is that not part of the part of the deal? I'll um, do you have any other comments? I don't want to use more of your Oh, no, that's I just I just I didn't I didn't hear anything and then Andy is the one that kind of got on it I know you're you're right. It's um, but there's been some question about whether it's um Whether it's consistent with other city policy and whether we have concerns with the brown act So we're you're right and we're revisiting it to make sure we don't need to refine it or change it or end it or something like that Okay, I just kept hearing that we're talking more about policies internally between staff people No, you're right. We're leaving out that part. Okay. Thank you Thank you both and uh, we'll close the public hearing and bring the matter back to the commission for discussion on how we're going to guide ourselves and clarify this for the for the community and commissioners shifrin I think it's useful to get the clarification Between policy community meeting project community meetings. I think that they're really fundamentally different Because the commission plays a fundamentally different role in those two And in those two areas in the policy area the commission You know the the role of the commission is to recommend general plan and zoning ordinance policies. They come before us um, and that's what the commission does and in deciding how what those policies should be having going to community meetings listening to community about that is Seems legitimate to me to do that that could help in the development of policy When it comes to projects the commission plays a very different role We're really like the city council. We're really judges and I think the you know The first part of the staff presentation sort of I would agree with the commissioners being at these meetings are Are not like everybody else. They're in a more we're in a more powerful position and like a judge we are Our job is to interpret the general plan policies in or And the zoning ordinance and to review applications once we have all the information and determine Whether they're consistent. Do they need conditions to be consistent or whether they're inconsistent? We're we're acting as I said like judges the I don't think it's the commissioners job to explain the city's land use policies to developers That's fine for that's I see that as a staff job because our job is when we when we get an application before us We have to make a decision on it We take the staff recommend the staff analysis. We hear from the public. We hear from the applicant and then we Make our exercise or independent judgment in terms of Is that Application consistent with the general plan and the zoning ordinance. That's what we're supposed to be doing It's not the planning commission's role to either assist developers or to discourage developers That's not our job. There may be city policies to encourage development. That's fine There may be and certainly there's a desire for the People in the community both to support development and to not support development Our job I see it is really waiting till a project gets in front of us and then determining whether it meets the requirements under You know the federal constitution developers Unlike with adopting policies developers have due process rights and they have equal protection And we have to be very cognizant of those rights and the Our activities can be challenged the city's decisions can be challenged If a developer can argue that their due process rights were violated or the public can argue it Or that there's equal protection So how does this play out at these community meetings? Well, I don't see how commissioners can speak at those meetings and not be taken as if this is Influential I was thinking as it in some ways as we've learned over the years body language is very important If i'm a developer, I want to reduce my risk as I go through this process So it's important to hear from the public to see if there's things that I can do make my project a little bit more acceptable But i'm looking at the decision makers. What are they? What message are they sending me about their potential willingness to support my project and Comments that are made by commissioners I rolling Sponses Body language from commissioners can influence what a developer a message that a developer gets about whether the What he or she needs to do The other side of is what is the message that community members get and in situations where Projects are contentious Both sides are looking for ways to kind of justify their position and being able to attack The commissioners or the commission because there's bias we know that You know, that's a complaint that's sometimes made about about staff. I'm just afraid that if we're commissioners are part of the dog and pony show That goes on at a community meeting when that project ultimately comes before the commission is going to be the perception And I don't think it has anything to do with the reality necessarily, but it certainly can be the perception that That bias is being That the bias is being laid out. So from my perspective I think it's fine. I think it's important that well, I think it's certainly I don't object to the policy of having community meetings I think they can be useful for developers. They can be useful for For the public they can be even useful for staff and I don't really object to commissioners going to them And sort of listening to what the public has to say and listening to what the developer has to say I just don't think the commissioner should be there in an official capacity. They should be there They should listen. They should keep we should keep our mouths shut At least that would be my advice and what I would do if I would go It's a place for us to listen and learn It's not a place for us to start playing our role as decision makers and any time we open our mouths As decision makers, that's the danger of How that whatever that comment is So from my perspective I don't I don't think it's enough to I don't think we need to tweak this policy. I think From my perspective and I'm prepared after we have some discussion to make a motion that We request the council to rescind this portion of The the policy because one it's somewhat inconsistent with our bylaws in terms of when the commission Is legitimately Acting on projects and I think it just really muddies the role of the commission in terms of the Information that members of the public And developers will will get from the commissioners commission participation in these community meetings Commissioner shifrin. So you want to keep the policy but rescind the part that has commissioners participating? Yes, and I would I think that What I would suggest is recommending that that provision be That provision of the community outreach policy be rescinded But that we agree that commissioners can if they wish attend community meetings As members of the general public to hear what goes on so that if commissioners want to know what's what Want to learn about the project they can learn about the project But not in any official capacity that can be misunderstood Thank you Commissioner Conway Uh, I agree with quite a few of your points. Um, however Um, I disagree with your main point about rescinding This action. I wasn't in favor of it Initially for many of the reasons that you listed and then of course we had an example at an early meeting where A commissioner really behaved inappropriately and has apologized um, it does shine a light on sort of the perils of Exactly the points that were made about body language and and um, what is what is really the role? It's very important to be clear So this role came out of the housing blueprint that long You know really arduous process of dialogue in which the city engaged with the community Looking for ways to Really provide a blueprint to have better communication Um, as I said, I was I was somewhat dubious about it when it came out, but Um, besides that it came out of that process that was very involved. It involved a lot of community members Um, it was in response and it doesn't exactly respond But there's long been a desire for a design review committee, which of course it isn't Um, but the opportunity to have earlier input Was was one of the main points that came out of it But the biggest argument for keeping it is that absent that one misbehavior Um, I think this has been pretty successful The intent was to help build a bridge Um with the community to have the community have an opportunity to Be present have some meaningful weighing in more meaningfully than the formal developer meeting Um that you know, it's going to happen later on in the process I think that um, there was a request to have planning commissioners there And we you know commissioners have been willing to provide their time fortunately someone who has actually valid opinions about design Um, because this is the time to hear How they how they weigh in so, um I have changed my mind on this committee. Um, I think that or this subcommittee rather I think it has an important role I think decorum cannot be overemphasized And the formality of the role When you walk in I mean, it's true our our actual opinions Only count when we're voting on something as a whole group when we're sitting here But our perceived opinions when we're out in the community are really important So I think name tags are important. I think a formal introduction is important And I think an emphasis On the that we are not there in our quasi judicial role. We are there to listen and to actually Listen and overhear how the community is interacting with the project or an important policy At a point before it is a vote That was it came out of a process. I support it continuing Mr. Nielsen I I feel like the the number one Thing that was the most important that came out of out of this Out of this piece coming together was the community involvement piece in the fact that That for projects that developers were proposing that they that the community they could have a meeting and the community could Come and look at the project before it's been submitted And provide feedback on that And I've been to a few of these meetings as a as part of the subcommittee And and I've seen that they are they I think they've worked really well in that in that capacity For community involvement. I think the area where it gets Where it's kind of it's this muddy area for me As being on the subcommittee Also as being an architect and having My own opinions about things um I've been In those meetings. I do. I you know, I haven't I I've said very little in those meetings just because of Because of basically what commissioner shipper. I'm was saying um, so I'm curious or that's kind of a question of mine is uh if the developer is is Opening up this project to the community And I think the hope is is that The developer is then getting feedback so that they can Move the project along In the way that the community would like it to happen how As a subcommittee member can we provide any direction in terms of A recommendation on how to make an adjustment to the project in some way I see that being I get concerned about that because If because then if those if if if those changes are made then it's It's almost as if it's you know, it's intended that it will um, it will pass because those Because the changes are made so That's where I'm I do have concern about it And so I don't really know what the answer is for that. Um, but it is a question and I um And I think it's I think it's worthwhile to figure that out. Um Because we've had plenty of projects that have not gone through a public process or Community meeting and and have been submitted and come before us that that could could have used some changes and sometimes being at you know on this side and and And seeing those projects there's a there's a huge benefit to to a project potentially and but sometimes it's It may it might be off a little bit, but the the benefit of Of the of the greater benefit of the project You know Just the you know, it's better to accept that project even though it has some flaws because of the greater the greater good of it so That to me is like that's the time is before it's actually submitted. Those are the times when we can make some Make change or or not. We make changes but propose or recommend Modification, but I don't know if that's appropriate or not, but it seems like that's a better time to do it than to deny a project and have them, you know start over so um That's a question. That's really kind of a question that I have I think I think it's important. I really think I mean, you know, obviously from the development side Developers are looking for those answers, you know, how how can they you know get a project to be accepted and that's As well, I mean and then on the flip side the community is really Wants to understand a project and be able to provide input for that And so I think it's I think having these meetings is is critical and I think it's a great thing that is happening and but just in terms of the role of the of the subcommittee and from a design review or a feedback Uh, recommendation standpoint, um, I'm not I'm not sure about and those are just questions that I'm discussed I think that's Commissioner Greenberg. Um, yeah, so thanks everyone and this is really, um Very stimulating discussion on this issue. Um, and I have a few questions I guess a central question that was for me at the last time and this time as well Once I discovered that, you know, the different staff committees are already present at these meetings Um, at least the current, you know, uh Projects committee and sometimes the long-range projects me is what Kind of added value there is of having the commissioners there if the staff is already there to answer You know, a lot of the kinds of questions that you enumerate As you know, uh, the seven types of issues that might arise um Methods to foster more neighborhood involvement at early project phases to uh and to provide direction to staff applicants in the public regarding, you know These seven issues those are issues that it seems like the staff Could speak to, um And so I guess a question is is what the added value is and insofar as was Julie saying, um You know the community through this process was actually requesting That commissioners be there like why were they requesting commissioners and not solely staff Be there is a question That's that's one question I have I'm glad to jump in and again. I wasn't the big advocate for this policy. I've kind of come around Um at the time it was thought that our meetings here are very formal We do not have an opportunity to hear on here Aside from three minute slices And it was an opportunity as I understood it for planning commissioners to listen And um, I don't think that it is appropriate because it's not a design review committee and um, You know, which is a another very key point. That was a something that had been proposed As part of the zoning update And it never that never ended up coming across But it was something that was definitely found and we continue to hear about the need. This is not a design review committee Um, I do think though that the questions of design and and I'm always very glad that we have um, You know our architects participating in this committee not to provide direction I personally don't think it's appropriate at that point to be in any way providing Direction, I think it's to be He's seeing how the community is responding one of those points is about design We know that Our professional architects are going to be seeing many things in proposed designs at early stages that are worthy of feedback In my mind the appropriate Place for those questions and feedback would actually be to go to staff because staff is working directly with a developer To move a project along to the point at which You know the developer wants to build it and the staff believes it's something that could be supported By by policies of the city But it's at that point that we are appointed for the purpose of listening to And adjudicating those responses So I think an early input from a trained eye Who's not the project architect? I think it's always good to have That additional input, but I don't think that that's I don't think it's a dialogue out there. I don't think that that's a place But that belongs I don't know if that answered your question or not Value added. I think the real value added is in listening to the community's response to a project And at an earlier stage it seems to be helping to build some bridges From what I've been hearing about most of the meetings And and that's an that's an important it's important for the community to know That they're being heard at a time other than when there's going to be a vote So then The part of the ordinance that talks about feedback Would not be something that you would support and it's more it's really you you're seeing the benefit of this To the degree that there is benefit as being listening listening Okay, that's a good clarification So Which I hear and I also hear Commissioner Schifrin's Concern that there's you know, even when we're listening like and you can see I have a hard time with body language myself In my family, I'm like nodding So it's you know, and some of us would have to kind of like, you know, be be careful about that, but there can be Perception of You know encouragement and it can put it can make it awkward potentially for people on the subcommittee To know and you can be you know as an architect It can be like it can be a little stressful Maybe like if you really want to engage but you feel like perhaps that would not be appropriate and so forth And so it can put people in an awkward position So I see that there's Maybe undue complexities here The design review committee I've been hearing at the previous meetings people's interest in that if that were to be created Who would be on that committee? How would what role would commissioners play on that committee? I think that that would uh, that's not a decision or determination that could be made Now I think we would staff would look for direction from council on what that would look like Yeah, so it's really hard to say Okay, how if at all moving forward and I know there's different Interest in that moving forward on some sides and not moving forward on other sides at least historically We have a new council. We have new members on the planning commission. We live in an ever-changing and evolving world But um, yeah, the it's hard to say Council would have to provide that direction, right? Mr. Spellman. Yeah, I mean, there's a lot of models out there too for other municipalities and how You know ones that do have a design review process who's on it. It's not always staff and planning commission. It could be Just professionals from certain areas. So there's kind of a hybrid of things Redevelopment agencies were in the mix. They you know, some of them were directing You know design direction for you know, most projects that we're going through so There's a lot of different ways to do it and it's more about what's right for this community and After projects we'd be reviewing Could be very different. I would expect it to have Some staff and probably some planning commission, but probably that's a small percentage of the larger design review committee Yeah, in previous jurisdictions or organizations that I've been in. Um, it has typically been Noted experts from the outside who come in and look with usually a staff support But again as vice chair Spellman said it could take a number of forms So those were some questions that I had and You know Wondering about in so far as the community was requesting this what they were hoping Would be the result really of our participation In some kind of formal way Yeah, I think that commissioner conway really summed it up. It was it was really about the listening And so that was part of the point that I was Attempting to make at the introduction here is that if comments are not required to be made by by the subcommittee When they're attending, however, if they are made they really need to stick to Land use they really need to so what would be helpful if commissioners do want to be able to provide comments in that setting is you know bone up on your on your policies out of the different plans and out of the zoning ordinance and you know before you go I know because we all have infinite time, right? But you know take an opportunity to look okay. What what are the requirements and what are the specifics and the policies that govern this area so that when I go I can be prepared to Ask those questions if I see issues I guess a final point just So that makes total sense to me and initially I had thought we should just strike the language in there Completely about feedback and just focus on listening at the same time that I'm A bit concerned about the points that are raised By commissioners shifrin that there could be the perception of bias or Uh somehow a developer could perceive that their due process or equal protection rights were Somehow being violated if someone were there If someone were not there, you know at this meeting And they weren't getting the hearing that they thought they deserved to get and it had some bearing on our decision um And you know so this quasi judicial as opposed to Policy related meetings where So constrained So I'll put that up Yeah, so there's there's been a lot of really good points made. Um I think it does start to get a little muddy when we talk about design, right? These these are really design review Meetings, right? That's what they are so that we were calling them community outreach meetings, but there's a set of drawings usually three dimensional and rendered and there's discussion around those drawings, so it's It's hard to step back, right and not see them as that So I think there there does need to be the discussion about design That's a different thing. You would still have these community meetings, right in addition to A design review meeting if it were, you know, if the project were worthy of that type of level of review So that wouldn't that wouldn't change Um You know, I I the two meetings three meetings that I've been to I've made two very minor comments, but I think they were kind of Community focused and and clarification type of comments, right? So for example on the Street project, you know, this thing is a it's a small ownership Project and under the current zoning code That is the only unit type that can go into this project The community was having a really hard time figuring why why are they just all One-bedroom units, right 303 or whatever the number is one-bedroom units and nobody said That's a choice, right? That's the developer's choice. It's not that the zoning code says that's all you can put there They've chosen that type of project to Forward for this this project. It could be a multifamily mixed-use Project as well, right, which would have a mix of uses but This project has those set of rules and the answer is that Staff was giving word kind of confirming that yes, that's all you can do is the one-bedroom Unit and I don't think it was clear at all to the public that You could do a lot of different things, but this type of project could only do that So I think and that was the one one comment I made. I mean, I think those That's kind of an unusual case Could staff have made that comment, you know staff could have made that clarifying point, but sometimes it just doesn't come out So, you know, I think there's a benefit to that type of relationship there yes, I think the design critique and Processing looking at images and you know making comments then is completely inappropriate and you certainly would get into the realm of Seeming to favor a project. I think going going down that road, which would be probably definitely the wrong types of things to make The other thing I would say is so I think we're learning About commissioners roles and I think we're honing in on what's appropriate and what's not appropriate Maybe that's going to continue. I for one am in favor of continuing to allow that process With these new kind of rules and guidelines that communicate to people attending what our roles are You know, we're still in an official capacity here. We're not community members per se You know just here to see what's going on. We're listening to the community on this specific project and maybe we will You know have the opportunity to make very broad land use Types of statements about a project. I would encourage that to continue I do think we need to also address the public's perception of what the purpose of these meetings are as well There's some there's been some very good correspondence given to us that says You know Why isn't the developer there? Right? So I don't know that we can require the developer to be there But we should certainly encourage the developer to be in attendance so that appropriate questions To them could be addressed at those moments And the format of you know question and answer Which was kind of missing. I didn't go to the 190 west cliff meeting and Participate in that but that seemed like a very frustrating meeting for the public To not be able to weigh in on things in a In a way that made sense, right? It was a community outreach meeting They don't want to be lectured to it should be a dialogue and an ability to you know ask the questions So I think we need to fine-tune that piece and if you know this the language could be fine-tuned to Encourage those things talk about the q&a very directly And even summarize those points, you know at the beginning of these meetings So people know when it's appropriate and how that would play out. I think would be As important as trying to figure out what our role really is and where it's best Yeah, if I may I think you make some really good points about on the staff end Lessons learned and things that we could do better on this and again. It's a new process We're all learning The best way to make this work. I wasn't at that meeting either But I definitely read the correspondence that came through and many good points were made And so I think that it's a really good opportunity for us to Now that this has been in effect for about six months or so To say okay. What's working? What's not take a step back reassess and if the commission does decide to move forward with some of these amendments or not amendments addendums to the policy then or if you choose to do amendment you can do that too, but It changes to the policy to That should also be done on the staff end too to make sure that we're making these as valuable as possible because it's the end of the day It truly is about getting meaningful community input very early in the process To make the project the best project it can be Mr. Sifrin have any of these projects come before the commission? Uh the ad you I see I know I know my bubble Well, I'm not talking about projects. I'm not talking about policies. Yeah, so the development projects I don't believe anything has come through yet to be able to say that the public Is happy with this process is a bit premature And that the commission won't be criticized for being at these meetings is a bit premature I don't think it's possible in this community to talk about the community There are lots of communities and they don't all agree and many of them disagree very strongly with each other and My sense is the two projects that you've talked about although I haven't been to any of the community meetings I'm reading You're reading the paper. These are controversial projects. There are going to be people who want them and there are going to be people who don't want them and my sense is although I haven't sat up here is that It is not unusual for members of the public to perceive bias on the part of a commission that votes for every project That comes along as this commission has Every big project that I'm aware of so I think you I think going forward with this policy with the best intentions Is ignoring the context in which development moves forward in this community I think uh commission nielsen the points you raise are really were really critical points What you know, you do have you're an architect. You do have ideas about what would improve this project And the question is is you know to go to a community meeting where you're you know, you would like to Make those views known and you can't is frustrating But I would argue that that's not your role what I would say is when that project comes before the commission if you feel that the That the design is inadequate It it doesn't it isn't necessary to vote. No, it's going to say go back and redesign it. That's there's nothing new in that It's it's the At least in my experience Planning commissions look at projects. They have problems with projects They take the public input in and then Maybe they want to do a major redesign and they'll send it back Trying to sort of work it all out in advance Um, I just think is a real slippery slope and creates real problems. It's going to create real problems down the road And my sense is listening is fine and I'm perfectly happy as listening But I think if we're there, you know commissioners that they're in a formal role, they're not simply they're listening they're part of the review process and what they're being there is Going to be taken in a particular way In the context in which these projects move forward. So I think it's very I'll be interested to see what happens when When I if it ever gets here of 190 comes before the commission of 350 ocean tree comes before the commission And what members different members of the public are going to say about the fact that commissioners were part of these community meetings Uh, to the extent that they participated It's interesting commissioners spellmen. I as someone who just starting putting myself in the role of somebody Who was opposed to the project where you made sort of a clarifying Comment about what the policies are what the what the choices of the developer were Are you helping the developer? Am I going to see you as helping the developer? You're not wanting me to see it that way But if i'm worried about Previous votes that you've made what your attitude might be Is that how am I going to misperceive? What you do and that's what I think is really the underlying problem here. It's not that It wouldn't be beneficial to have input and it wouldn't be that or that any of the commissioners are acting in bad faith I don't think any of that is the problem. I just think the problem is that in a contentious political Planning environment to have commissioners early on Providing comments or even being there as commissioners With the staff for the you know add a developer called meeting It just raises that notion that There is a bias that the commission is going to play out when the policy gets before the commission Some people will say fine. They they like having the commission there. They want to hear you have to say Others will say wait a minute This is really not their job And I think really it is the staff job to answer the land use policy. I'm disturbed that The notion that staff should bone up. I mean the commission should bone up on land use policies So they should be able to come to the these community meetings and tell members of the public what the land use policies are That's not our job That's the staff's job either at the meeting or in private meetings with the developer These are the policies that you have to meet. My job is to decide when that project comes before the commission Whether it is consistent with the general plan and the zoning ordinance. That's our job And I don't know I I feel it's a mistake to Have this kind of Official function where we're out there at a community meeting In a sense assisting the development process and that's how it's going to be looked We're assisting this development going through the process The whole purpose of the community meeting is to make the project better Well, that's not our job to make the project better. It's not our job to make the project worse It's our job to figure out is the project consistent with the general plan or the zoning and zoning ordinance If it is we should support it if it isn't we shouldn't It's a confusion if we're going to community meetings where their Their purpose is to help developers develop a better project I think having a community meetings to help developer Develop a better project is fine. It makes sense. It makes sense for the community to see what developers have on have in mind But it's not our job. That's why I just feel that this is uh This is this is just not a good role for the commission to play Mr. Conway I just had a question of clarification Are these meetings not city sponsored meetings as opposed to the developer sponsored meetings? Did I get that wrong? So the way that It Tip it. Okay. So it's it's kind of a hybrid. So What it is is that the developer sponsors that they send out the mailings but staff is there And to commissioner shifrin's point. Yes staff's role is absolutely to At the beginning make the introduction. Welcome everybody. Give a high level. Here's what the project is Here's what the zoning allows. Here's what the you know, give the overview and then allow that developer to Give the presentation and take the questions from the community on any number of things I do want to clarify however that it wasn't my intent if I did come across as saying that It was the commissioner's roles to explain the land use policy that is not that was not my intent So I I apologize if it came across that way. What I meant is that should you want to Ask questions and be an interactive part of that conversation It may be helpful to know those policies so that if you because there's a vast array between the general plan All of the different elements and sections in the general plan the zoning ordinance any specific area or specific plans There's a lot of nuance to these things And so that may be helpful if you want to have those conversations But by no means did I mean that um You would as commissioners be providing that type of guidance that definitely would come from staff Did you get your question answered? Sure connolly. Oh, yeah. Yeah, okay Yeah, I'm not sure I understood the answer completely. So it is It's a requirement for the project to have the meeting whether it's you know mailed by the developer It's a certain project of a certain size It depends on that's right. It depends on the size and scale of the project Yes, but what I understood is that this is not the Required by ordinance developer sponsored meeting that generally happens when the project is, you know, fairly baked Yes, and just before it comes before Yes, and it again And it depends in the ordinance on what kind of project gets what kind of meeting This is additional on top of that the intent of this is to make it an even more um Intense opportunity for community. Maybe that's not the right word but to ensure that Early and as often as possible the community has an opportunity to provide feedback Both as a benefit and certainty for the public so that they know early. Hey a project may be coming I might want to be involved with this We'll put a sign out there We'll let you know well before the public hearing that this is coming as well as certainty for the developer that they Are going to get community feedback and hear from the community if something is Glaringly wrong or glaringly unacceptable to the community so that before they get halfway down the pike And learn that then they have to go back to the drawing board. So it's the intent is certainty on both ends Mr. Schifrin, I just wanted to follow up on can we just I want to Ask all commissioners to keep the conversation Pointed towards potential action on this. Okay. I'm very happy to do that. Thanks and we'll end my my response with with an action proposed action, but Commissioner Spellman asked whether these meetings were wired and I think that's a good A good question. I had that question last time this came up and it's it's Required by a council policy But the council policy is not legally A developer doesn't legally have to follow it. It's not in the ordinance. It's not an official part of the process So if a developer says forget about it, I'm not doing this You know that People will say we didn't come we didn't follow the plan. You know people will be upset with that perhaps But there's no legal Problem for him to do or her to do that. So and from that sense, it's really not required It's felt that it's a good thing and I think it is a good thing to have it and As I said, I think it's a good thing for commissioners to be there to listen I don't think it's a good thing for the commission to be there commissioners to be there officially as part of This is what's struck me at this discussion as part of a process that is helping the developer come up with a project That's more likely to be Approved so I would make a motion that the planning commission recommend to the city council That they rescind the provisions of the community outreach policy Establishing the planning commission subcommittee and further that the commission agree that any commissioner can attend the community meeting As a non participating member of the public second I'll second that discussion Yeah, I mean I I would tend to support that concept. I think You know, this is about the community outreach. This isn't about the commissioners having an opportunity to do anything If it takes the heat off the public's perception that if a commissioner wants to attend as a community member and is interested in Knowing what's going on. I think that's a a safer Place to be and then some official role that you're kind of judging a project officially I think I think that makes sense to me Kind of commissioner mjelton With that are we um, then are we limited are we still limited into in the number of commissioners that do attend? Under the brown act, we are not as long as we don't talk to each other There's nothing staff doesn't want us to be there I think they would recommend that we not be there in a quorum But legally as long as we don't talk to each other and we just come as members of the public to listen The brown act is very clear And maybe this will come out come back when we get the brown act discussion That provision of the brown act that says A quorum of a decision-making body can go to a public meeting as long as they don't talk to each other and don't Because the whole purpose of the brown act is that a public body not make decisions outside of the public meeting So the you know the if we're all sitting around chatting to each other the perception is well, what are these guys doing? But if we're just sort of sitting in the audience listening to other speakers Then that's we're clearly not making a decision So especially if we don't have our smartphones out So I think there isn't really a problem with a quorum of the commission attending and and frankly from my perspective There may be a meeting I'd want to go to But you know most of the time I I'd prefer to wait till the project comes before the Before the commission in an official way so with With your motion does that also Take away the need to formally introduce those commissioner any commissioner that does show up and the name tag Yes, yeah, because there's no official capacity. We would be there as members of the public members of the public only And this is a recommendation to the council because we don't have the ability to change the policy Mr. Greenberg On that point You know, we might want to make recommendations. I think there was an issue in one of the previous communications from the public of You know, which led to the desire for people to be identified that Comments were being made in an unofficial without the person knowing that this person was a uh a commissioner and so we might want to make recommendations about listening, you know, this issue of like the decorum and what we actually do even if we go as members of the members of the public that we're still Potentially going to be identified or you know, if we're not identified whether or not that means we wear a name tag What we do or don't say the issue of listening And in so far as we speak If we are going to speak that, you know, we make it clear You know why we're speaking Yeah, um, so I think it is clear that this is the slippery slope that we always worried it would be um, it also appears to be um, providing some of the vehicle that The community came up with as through the long process Of the housing blueprint Um, I am I'm going to be voting against this recommendation. Although I do appreciate where it's coming from um But I do think a lot of clarification is is needed One thing that I would say is I think it's very inappropriate for planning commissioners to be in a public meeting About an issue that's going to come before this body and have us not be introduced So, I mean, that's the part I probably Disagree with the most The fact that it that it was constituted Again through this process that there would be a subcommittee That would be named that would have a role that was supposedly going to be clear I think we haven't hit that note But that it would be clear that we would be introduced and that we we really aren't there as members of the public I don't think that I think it's disingenuous to suggest that we are we that we can be there And not have a role So I think it's important to be introduced on on that point I'll share that i'm not in favor of the motion I'm not naive to the fact that we'll be Criticized potentially if we were to make comments, but I actually believe that our job as subcommittee members or commissioners is I believe our job is to get better projects approved Or not approved if it's not a good enough project I mean there's by right and then there's stuff that comes to us and I think we should make it better for the community I think that commissioner discretion subcommittee member discretion It says 90 of the way there Past many of the concerns stated it doesn't mean the public won't criticize us. I don't want to attempt to Name that path because there's nothing beyond criticism I think that commissioners Using discretion Should be able to to share some comment and I do think you got to worry about whether the developer receives it as like Oh that Commissioner x said this So you've got to say you've got to qualify by saying like, you know, I have a question or I have a comment I realize you probably read into this that You're thinking about how to get this approved. That's your job Um, I'm speaking for myself and it's just a question So I can't I'm not speaking for other commissioners and I'm not telling you how I'll vote on this I Want to hesitate to guide you Um, I mean your words are loaded because you're one of seven votes And I do think that there are situations when using discretion Judgment that it is appropriate for a commissioner to say something at one of these meetings carefully Um, so I think I'm in minority on that and that's fine but I think that the process We're working on a better process. I do think that projects like commissioner shifrin said we haven't seen any of these projects come Um, we're going back to the drawing board on something that's very early on Commissioner conway stated some of the background and reiterated the intent. I think this has a lot of potential Um, and I think it's um a potential for good potential for that outcomes and Questioning by the public if we don't operate carefully and we've seen some missteps on that But I would actually I I don't Support the motion and I would actually like us to keep it and Have people I would I would like us to not be Required to be silent. I would like us to be Recommended to use discretion and be mostly silent and share comments or questions What's the word like Carefully and to be announced at meetings and to have name tags and to an adhere to an approach of caution and maybe some Guidance document that we give you know paragraph or two that guides us a little bit if that's necessary But anyway, that's where I am on it chair pepping may make a clarifying comment. So, um, I believe the pacific front laurel um project that came to this group did have Uh, what did go through this process? So I just wanted to clarify that that is the one project that That came through under this community outreach policy. Okay. Thank you And I don't remember The outreach meetings being brought up actually I think the developer brought them up And said that they were useful. I don't remember comments from the public About those meetings to any of you That was too too late, right? Yeah, at this meeting though. Do you remember comments from the public? praising or criticizing the outreach meeting I don't recall that but I will say that that particular outreach meeting Happened so far in the it was already so far in the process That I don't think that's a very good example to use for in terms of how this may play out so And then I'll just add that I'm I'm actually really on the fence about like Whether to support that most the motion that's that we're discussing right now or or not I think Um The um I think I am I am I think I do lean more towards like sticking with what the city council asked of and what ultimately what the community asked for I think we need to I think we should continue to play it forward and see how how this works And I think some of the clarifying things about, you know, listening being, you know, the Priority um for the for the subcommittee. I think is is very important. Um, and I was and I was My earlier comments were kind of my own internal struggle around What I was experiencing during those meetings and um, but but knowing that, you know, it um Knowing that I didn't want to say it really saying anything because you know, I just didn't I didn't want to make that Make it seem like any perception of my approval of those of those projects, but But I I think I guess I'm in the in the camp of I think we should continue it forward. I think I think the You know, I think the the subcommittee members I mean, I'm fine. I mean the name tag thing is, you know, that's fine. I think the introduction is fine I'm still a little Question Exactly You know Formally where we sit like are we are do we sit because in that we've we've been amongst the public? Um for pretty much in all the ones I've been in. Um, there was this Possibility of us sitting up front at a table Like those are the some of the things that I think need to be figured out as well formally like how that happens. I don't um I'm I I think it's I'm I'm fine with sitting amongst the public as long as If there are name tags and we aren't introduced and we have been introduced at every meeting so that necessarily that hasn't necessarily been an issue but I think name tags are a good a good thing Um But I would just go back to the I would go back to the the primary function Of the subcommittee at those meetings is is to listen. I think that's I think that's good and I I think that's the I think that's the right thing. I want to make sure I'm serving you all as chair. Um tricky stuff and we're uncertain about Each of us individually and reaching towards getting group consensus is is not crystal clear right now Let me but I also don't want to let it belabor belabor this so, um, do people have questions They want to ask before we might vote on the motion Commissioner Greenberg I was just gonna say there is a motion on the floor so we're not actually in the consensus building Well, I was trying I'm trying to Read the commission and see if there's consensus then I would just call for the vote And I'm not sensing that so informally So I was gonna say that in terms of my initial question about the kind of value added and um, the point of commissioner conway about listening being what the community primarily Wanted I mean one question that comes to my mind is I'd agree to which the community such as it is and as Commissioner Schifrin pointed out there are multiple communities the community Request that the commission participate um Like what their understanding was of the role of our commission in the first place um, and you know, so did they recognize the kinds this particular subset of the community That there could be these kinds of conflicts Um, and that it could put us in a software position and so forth and that it could You know lead to other kinds of issues that we would then subsequently face once it came For us and so there's there's that whole kind of set of questions. Um And if they really just wanted us to listen and to be aware of the debate um Then perhaps they would have wanted a more, you know or A policy that In which we didn't speak, you know um And i'm also not clear on the benefit of our speaking I mean, I don't quite understand if it's really about land use and we're and we're being restricted to speaking about land use Why the staff can't answer land use questions So, you know what and if it's not a design review committee and we're not speaking about design issues like, you know, why we would want to speak um, and I also feel that And this is a point I raised last time that there's the potential to feel that the the commission as a whole Once it does come before us You know, if I don't go to this community meeting and the sub committee has gone and said certain things And I'm not entirely clear on what they've said or how the things that they've said has been interpreted And then that is another kind of issue that comes before the commission at the point of the decision That it kind of undermines us as a body or complicates our role as a body like we're not in a position. Let's say Commissioner Spalman makes a point at a meeting and you know, it could be kind of Another commissioner might have another view on that but they weren't at that meeting, you know, so um So I feel like it's a kind of um, it's a can of worms in a way that I don't know that it's even necessary if in fact all we're supposed to be doing is listening, you know And so either I would say, I mean, so I continue to support This motion in so far as I think we all can go in good faith and try to listen at these meetings um I guess I would say if it if it's not going to be something we support that we Consider another motion that that spec clarifies listening So i'm gonna um ask for a roll call vote Commissioner shifrin yes Conway no Salman yes No Greenberg yes No Motion doesn't pass invite uh Other motion or Well, could I ask a procedural question? I'm trying to remember the bylaws on what happens when there's a tie vote And onto some circumstances the item comes back I'll take a look. I actually don't know off the top of my head, but I don't have my bylaws. No, I can bring them up right now I think certain kinds of projects it comes back It doesn't pass but that doesn't mean that it necessarily Goes away forever, so I think we should get that clarified right. I'm expecting someone to make another motion and we We can potentially still advance this tonight Right. Mr. Conway. I'm not ready to make another motion, but I do think that Are the point of this discussion really was For us to have a discussion And we know that this is a new policy It was conceived with some good intentions and may not be hitting the mark Isn't one of the things that we're doing Really sending this discussion back for further consideration because what we're recognizing is it's a policy that needs some more work And that this subcommittee needs some more guidance So are you suggesting that we Would request the council to review the policy and provide more guidance on What the role of the planning commission would be in the community outreach meetings Yeah, I what what I'm suggesting is that we we were asked to consider it and we're providing feedback to staff Who is going to be making Bringing up this conversation forward. I wasn't clear If um out of this there was going to be Um, you know strictly speaking recommendation for a new policy But it was going to be a refinement of of a policy Well, I I mean, I'd be happy typically a land use policy is what I was meaning to say right, but I'd be happy to just um Make a motion to refer the Issue of clarification of the planning commission's role to the city council for their consideration in terms of But clarifying what that role is Vis-a-vis these community meetings. So I'd make that as a motion I think in the end, this is something that the council should discuss in terms of, you know, they're we've heard different perspectives on what the You know what the appropriate role is and I think we'd all agree that it's complex And so, um, I think it might be useful to have the council hear about some of that complexity and decide This is what we want. Let's keep it. Let's change it this way They gave us this task. Uh, let them, uh, figure out whether This is now that we have some experience. We've heard different points of view Let them, um, decide where this is what they want. So I would move that we, um, refer this The issue of the role of the planning commission and the community outreach meetings to the city council for clarification On what that role what what the commission's role should be based on the issues brought up in our discussion And I have an answer for you on the tie votes. I will second that motion. Okay. Can we move on this? Um, I think based on what you're finding. Yes. So, um, well, what this says is that on page 13 of article Six section six, um Tie votes a tie vote during the absence of one or more members Or when there's a vacancy on the planning commission shall cause the item to be automatically continued to the next meeting Automatically so we cannot move on this. Is that right? That's right. So we can't entertain this motion Based on that reading according to a strict reading of this. Yes Well, this meeting is continued. Sorry, I brought up the bylaws This meeting is so I hang on a second. Um, so, um The on on the automatic so we have we have a tie vote And we have a recommendation for essentially a replacement motion Um that would allow this matter to go To the next step to come to a conclusion rather than circle the drain again Um, and I I didn't you know, I I wonder if there is a path for that or if you'd be interested in that, Andy Uh, I am That it doesn't see I don't know whether we have what kind of option we have whether it's possible to reconsider the motion that Failed on a tie vote and thereby Um Elify the necessity of continuing So it would have to be someone who voted Favor of the motion that would have to ask for reconsideration So there is a caveat on the tie vote It says that except that as to matters on which action must be taken on a date prior to the next meeting A tie vote shall constitute a denial of the requested action Yeah No, that doesn't apply So I think what you're saying is someone who is in favor of the first motion Could ask the maker of the motion to reconsider and bring a new one forward I mean the only reason to do that is would be that our next step really requires feedback Um, you know from the council, um We we having the That would be the theory of that In the absence of And they In the context of you know, the fact that there seems to be some consensus here I would Be happy to move that we reconsider Previously the previous motion to To request the council to rescind the policy Say again, you're moving to reconsider that Oh, should we can and what does that mean vote on it again? Yeah, well, I would Back up from the vote Can we do that? Yes, and so I have a um some language here if you're interested So motion to reconsider a motion to reconsider any action taken by the council may be made only on the same day That the action was taken the motion may be made either immediately during the same session or at a recess or adjourn session on the same day With the exception of the presiding officer The motion may be made only by a council member who previously voted in the majority on the item Which is the subject of reconsideration a motion to reconsider is debatable. Okay. You're moving to reconsider Yes, not that I was in the majority We'll put that aside for the time being Um, you weren't in the minority It's a good way of framing it So I would move that we reconsider the motion to uh in the previous one the previous motion Second I'll second all in favor. Hi. Hi So I would propose a substitute motion which would be to uh refer this issue to the city council Um to clarify the role of the planning commission and the community outreach policy In order to provide guidance to the to the commission based on the Issues that were brought up at the And I'll second that again Any discussion just wondering um Is there going to be like a summation of all the points that would be shared the staff is actually pretty good I've seen from limited minute minutes. I've seen of sort of reflecting the commission's discussion. So, you know, this is um, I think Assistant there was Taking good notes and that will be Reflected in our minutes and reflected in a matter going before the you know when it's before before the council Any just any other comments I'll share that I I don't support the motion. I think council has told us But given as you pointed out commissioners shifrin council has given us a task and we should do the task And we should go back for questions after doing the task a little more. Um, I think we're slowing things down and Getting in the way of work So I won't support it Question I well, I just have a question. Um, so it's the committee Subcommittee stays in effect I guess until Until city council has if we were to recommend that city council Revisits right I think correct even if we move to end the subcommittee It would stay on until until city council So all in favor I I I I all opposed That's me So the motion passes five one. Thank you for shepherding us through that That ends the general business agenda item any General business agenda section any information items? Uh, yeah, so I have one So on january 17th 2019, um, the 1720 west cliff drive project came forward. Um, it was appeal of the zoning administrators Approval of a coastal design inherited tree removal permit to construct a two-story single family dwelling and attach garage on a vacant substandard parcel That has been appealed and we'll be going forward to the, um It's been appealed the city council will be going forward on the 326 meeting. So just an fyi It's been further appealed Any subcommittee or advisory body or all reports Said another question. Do you know if we have uh business at the next meeting? Uh, I don't know. Um, we were uh, we haven't advertised anything There are no matters on the tentative planning project schedule It was being held open in the event. This body continued something from this Just don't do that then probably not That's the april 4th meeting that you're referring to and I will be gone from that I'll also be gone. I'll be gone too that day So they'd have a quorum You'll be gone We don't have a quorum for april 4th So I was under the impression that the mitigated negative declaration for segment 7 of the rail trail was going to be at that meeting That I guess now is not possible to have so what is there a schedule for that? The last time I prepared the tentative schedule for the managers. It was uh, I believe on the 18th of april I did want to ask about items for future agendas or maybe it would be on the 18th the city council at their march 12th meeting referred the general plan annual report and the corridor plan and the The golf club drive general plan policies to the commission for review So When is the is that when is that going to come before the commission? So it will be coming We are working through our resource allocation right now in terms of staffing And are determining right now kind of what we'll need to move or when when we'll be able to bring that So we'll be able to have more information for you at the upcoming meeting Okay, and then We've sort of talked At times about design review A design review commission and I would appreciate it if we could get a staff report on what the you know the options are or what the status is of considering establishing a design review committee I think there are some you know, we from some members of the public that that would be a desirable thing I think it could be helpful to the commission to have design review input through projects coming through I hear that it Suggested but it never gets acted on So, um, I'd like to get it on the agenda So if the commission wants to make a recommendation on a design review commission to the council, we're able to do that Um So If there's no objection, I would ask that that be referred to A future meeting so that we could Mr. Conway. Well, I was just going to make the point about how things get on to this agenda Um, it doesn't generally come from commissioners Although what is true is that that process of design review committee What you've heard us talking about is there was significant Um discussion about that while the um zoning update was was being discussed And um, I'd understood that it was going to come back with that sounds like that is coming Uh, frankly, I wasn't here for that and I'm not sure I would have to check back on that, but I'd be happy to do that So maybe that's all I'm asking is that as a new member, I'd like to get a report on what the status of the design review proposal is Be happy to do that Thank you Any other items for future agendas? Nothing from from this meeting any I don't think we're carrying anything forward. Okay. Um, with that the meeting is adjourned Thank you all