No Bookmarks Exist.
Good evening. I'd like to call the regular meeting of the Planning Commission for. | 00:00:09 | |
October 10th to order. | 00:00:15 | |
Could we have a roll call please? | 00:00:19 | |
Chair Murphy. | 00:00:24 | |
Yeah. | 00:00:28 | |
Vice Chair Sawyer present. | 00:00:31 | |
Commissioner Nadzynski here. | 00:00:36 | |
Commissioner Kubica. President. Commissioner Fredrickson. | 00:00:38 | |
Commissioner Davidson here and Commissioner Swaggart is absent today, so we have 6. Thank you. | 00:00:43 | |
Does staff have any suggestion about changing the agenda? | 00:00:52 | |
Anyone on the Commission have any questions about the order of the agenda? | 00:01:00 | |
If not, can we have a motion to approve it? | 00:01:06 | |
So moved. | 00:01:09 | |
Commissioner Frederickson. | 00:01:13 | |
Commissioner Nozzinski. | 00:01:15 | |
All in favor say aye aye, all opposed. That's 601 to approve the agenda with Commissioner Frederickson and Commissioner Zenski. | 00:01:16 | |
Now it's time for Commission and staff announcements. | 00:01:28 | |
I think we usually ask staff first is does staff have any announcements this evening? We do. I have a couple of announcements. | 00:01:32 | |
Thank you Chair. The 1st is. | 00:01:37 | |
Director Vaughn could not make it today. She's out of town taking care of some family issues, so she sends her her regrets for | 00:01:43 | |
that, but we'll be back for our next meeting. | 00:01:49 | |
And I'd also like to introduce, we didn't have a meeting last last month, so we didn't get a chance to introduce our new associate | 00:01:57 | |
planner, Ariana Mora. Arianna has her bachelor's degree from UC Santa Cruz in environmental studies. She was a planner with the | 00:02:03 | |
City of Soledad for the last three years. She's now been with us for two months, and she's a wonderful addition to the team. So | 00:02:09 | |
please welcome her. Welcome, Miss Mora. | 00:02:15 | |
Looking forward to to working with you likewise. | 00:02:22 | |
And that's all for us. | 00:02:26 | |
Any announcements from commissioners, Commissioner, Vice Chair Sawyer? | 00:02:28 | |
I just wanted to give everybody an update on the six cycle housing element outreach that we did for the Planning Commission. And I | 00:02:33 | |
would like to extend my thanks to Don Murphy and also to my gentleman sitting here on my right, Ross. They were helpful. So | 00:02:43 | |
basically what happened is we met at the Pacific Grove Public Library. The library was really good. | 00:02:52 | |
They advertise for us, they sent out Flyers, they put us on social media and so and we even had a special table and we met three | 00:03:02 | |
times and we met two hours and three hours on one time and two hours on the second time and we had a total of. | 00:03:12 | |
Three people who came by to see us. It was rousing participation. | 00:03:22 | |
So then we decided, OK, because it was in our plan anyway that we would try the farmers market. And so we did that three times as | 00:03:28 | |
well. And that was in August for two dates and one date in September. And we were there for basically 4 hours and we had very nice | 00:03:38 | |
participation there. We had a total of 19 on one day, 16 on another and 18 on the third day. | 00:03:47 | |
And the one thing that we did not do, we didn't ask everybody if they were all from Pacific Grove, but about 80% of the people | 00:03:57 | |
that talked with us were from Pacific Grove. And it was interesting, the people that weren't from Pacific Grove were very curious | 00:04:05 | |
as to find out what exactly we were doing. And what was resounding to all of us that did that is the amount of. | 00:04:14 | |
Information that people did not have. | 00:04:24 | |
They really did not know much, if anything, about the housing element. And then we talked a little bit about it. They said thank | 00:04:26 | |
you. And then they left. They said, oh, that's not going to affect me or my neighborhood. And so we said, well, you might want to | 00:04:32 | |
check. And so that was what we did. Thank you. | 00:04:38 | |
And I just also wanted to add one comment as we will be talking about it when we look at the. | 00:04:45 | |
Lup, I have gone back to the great Tide pool area and I'm really concerned with what I saw there. Chair Murphy and I met with the | 00:04:53 | |
city manager and expressed our concerns. I went back there yesterday and what our concerns, what we discussed, nothing had been | 00:05:01 | |
changed and so it was a little. | 00:05:10 | |
Disappointing because. | 00:05:20 | |
The fences, you know, the cable and. | 00:05:22 | |
Posts in some places are completely down and what we noticed, what I especially noticed yesterday is people are tracking into the | 00:05:27 | |
dunes to get around the part that comes down into the valley of the Great Tide Pool area. So it's a concern, but we'll look at | 00:05:34 | |
that more when we talk about the LUP. Thank you. | 00:05:42 | |
Thank you. Other other staff announcements. | 00:05:50 | |
Seeing none if Council member Coletti is is with us, is there the Council Planning Commission members? There are quite a few items | 00:05:55 | |
to discuss quite a few discussion we're going to have on council. Of course. The 1st is the the vacation of Slow Ave. as part of | 00:06:03 | |
the development for the American Tin Cannery Hotel, the proposed development. | 00:06:12 | |
That's on our agenda for next Wednesday. That's agenda item 11A. | 00:06:21 | |
We'll also be doing another public hearing as regards transitioning to district based elections for the City Council election. So | 00:06:26 | |
we're currently at large. | 00:06:31 | |
The general report will get you up to speed on what's transpired as far as receiving a demand letter from LULAC such that we would | 00:06:38 | |
be contemplating going to district based elections and that's what we'll be discussing for the second time. | 00:06:44 | |
Next week, next Wednesday, there's also an agenda item regarding the second reading of an ordinance I brought forward for | 00:06:51 | |
increasing penalties for violations of our short term rental ordinance. This is specific to infractions of health or safety | 00:06:57 | |
violations. | 00:07:04 | |
And then finally some some also some news that I know the Planning Commission will be interested in. After nearly two years and | 00:07:11 | |
many, many conversations and meetings, construction will finally begin on the sidewalk improvements, the sidewalk, the curb | 00:07:19 | |
extension at the corner of Fountain Lighthouse with the removal of the existing Parkland. | 00:07:26 | |
That's all I have for now. Have a good meeting. Thank you. | 00:07:34 | |
In Miss Vegas, is there anything from the city attorneys office? | 00:07:40 | |
Thank you, Chair Murphy. I don't have anything to report to the Commission this evening. | 00:07:46 | |
Well, thank you and welcome. | 00:07:52 | |
Now it's time for general public comment. This is comment from members of the public about issues that are not not on our agenda | 00:07:55 | |
tonight. You will have 3 minutes to make a comment and we will not. | 00:08:01 | |
Not take action on on any of the items. | 00:08:08 | |
Is there any anyone in the room who wishes to speak to us? | 00:08:11 | |
Seeing no one. | 00:08:17 | |
Mr. Campbell, is there anyone online with a raised hand? We have Anthony Gianni. | 00:08:20 | |
Good evening, Planning Commissioners. I'm going to bring two things to your mind that. | 00:08:30 | |
One which Miss Sawyer just commented on, which was the great title. The other one is Crespi Pond. | 00:08:36 | |
Both. I understand that both of those projects are being reviewed for a coastal development permit. | 00:08:47 | |
However. | 00:08:56 | |
Both of those projects were approved as coastal permits originally by the Coastal Commission. It's my understanding that I. | 00:08:58 | |
They remain in a jurisdiction of the Coastal Commission. | 00:09:11 | |
And while that's true, I believe you should ask that those applications be brought to you when they're ready. | 00:09:15 | |
The apparently the public works department. | 00:09:27 | |
Got a study done? | 00:09:31 | |
Last December for Crespi Pond. | 00:09:33 | |
But none of that has been shared with the BNRC or you or the City Council, and no coastal permit has been brought forward. | 00:09:38 | |
To address that. | 00:09:50 | |
I think it could be an error that the CDD is assuming that it's responsible for reviewing the coastal permit. But as I said, I | 00:09:52 | |
believe that's in a jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission. | 00:10:01 | |
As far as the Great Tide pool, it's a disaster. | 00:10:11 | |
It's gotten worse, not better. | 00:10:17 | |
And the notion that about a week ago they sent out a, the planning department set out some sort of an advisory that they're | 00:10:22 | |
reviewing the coastal permit, that doesn't help anything. It should be going to the Coastal Commission and in the meantime, it | 00:10:29 | |
needs to be saved up. | 00:10:36 | |
Safety is the 1st. | 00:10:44 | |
Rule. | 00:10:48 | |
Whether you're doing a private project, whether you're standing on a ladder, painting a building building, whether you're doing a | 00:10:48 | |
large public works project, public safety, individual safety is is paramount. And I don't see that happening here. I think the | 00:10:56 | |
liability to the city is gotten worse, not better. | 00:11:05 | |
Thank you. | 00:11:14 | |
Thank you, Mr. Johnny. | 00:11:16 | |
We have Lisa Chiani. | 00:11:20 | |
Thank you. | 00:11:24 | |
Since since the Great Tide Pool Trail was brought up and and it is content continues to be a huge concern to me I. | 00:11:27 | |
That was once a really, really wonderful area and I think somehow it could be restored to that. But I, I just wanted to say that | 00:11:40 | |
in reviewing all the coastal hazard policies in recent days, it was. | 00:11:48 | |
And I wrote this in my comments last night. I don't know if you received them last night, but. | 00:11:58 | |
Has policy. Has 11 I. | 00:12:04 | |
It seems to me in reading that again carefully. | 00:12:09 | |
That policy seems to indicate the city should not be reconstructing the Great Tide Pool Trail, where it's already been damaged by | 00:12:16 | |
coastal hazards and has strewn large concrete debris around the site that's yet to be removed. And we're coming up on on a year. | 00:12:25 | |
The Great Typical Trail fits the description of critical public infrastructure. | 00:12:36 | |
Now and and or will soon and much of it is below the 20 foot elevation. Yet the city is proceeding with plans to reconstruct the | 00:12:41 | |
heavily damaged trail and add stairs. So I I hope that that will be looked at more carefully in coming days. Thank you. | 00:12:52 | |
Thank you. | 00:13:05 | |
We have Inga, Lorenzen, Dahmer. | 00:13:08 | |
Thank you, Commission Chair. I think that with this great tide pool thing, the explanation I had gotten from public Works was that | 00:13:13 | |
the FEMA money to fix it was only to replace exactly what was there before, which is absolutely insane because it never should | 00:13:21 | |
have been put there in the beginning. | 00:13:29 | |
It should have been differently designed. So I think that that's the crux of the matter here. | 00:13:38 | |
This FEMA stuff and funding and certainly public works is not moving ahead with with anything. | 00:13:45 | |
We're talking slow pace here, years and years, and meanwhile our dunes are getting destroyed. So something really does need to be | 00:13:57 | |
done and not just waiting on FEMA money. And it does need coastal Commission. | 00:14:06 | |
In my mind, because that's where it came from in the beginning. | 00:14:16 | |
Thank you very much. Thank you. | 00:14:22 | |
I see no other hands. Oh, looks. Pardon me. Please join us. | 00:14:30 | |
I just want I discussed this with the mayor Pro Tem but. | 00:14:45 | |
Bringing up the idea of replacing sidewalks, it would be the excellent time for the city to pick a standard for the downtown | 00:14:49 | |
district. | 00:14:54 | |
So that all the sidewalks match. | 00:14:58 | |
And comment. Thank you. | 00:15:02 | |
Seeing no other hands raised or people walking to the podium, I. | 00:15:09 | |
That's an end of general public comment. | 00:15:15 | |
And I don't. | 00:15:20 | |
Remember written public comments since our last meeting on topics other than the ones on our agenda, but I my memory might be | 00:15:21 | |
faulty. | 00:15:25 | |
Pardon me. | 00:15:30 | |
OK. Thank you. | 00:15:34 | |
Time for the consent agenda. The consent agenda tonight to. | 00:15:37 | |
Consists of the work plan. | 00:15:43 | |
In the minutes of our August 8th meeting, I without pulling it from consent, I just wanted to mention two things about the work | 00:15:45 | |
plan and I believe the transportation subcommittee report, you know will not be held tonight. We should we'll do it next next | 00:15:52 | |
month and also on next month's work plan will be an opportunity for us to discuss what kind of training opportunities would would | 00:15:59 | |
like and planning related matters. | 00:16:06 | |
And what kind of initiatives would like to? | 00:16:13 | |
Dig into in the next. | 00:16:17 | |
You know the next several months. So this this advance notice gives you time to think of of those things. | 00:16:20 | |
Does staff wish to pull anything from consent? | 00:16:26 | |
No, Sir. | 00:16:31 | |
Does anyone in the public wishing to pull wish to pull in anything from consent? | 00:16:32 | |
Any commissioner willing to pull any wishing to pull out anything from consent. | 00:16:40 | |
Seeing no one, can we have a motion to approve the consent agenda? Vice Chair Sawyer and. | 00:16:45 | |
Make a motion to approve the consent agenda and a second second Commissioner Kubica. | 00:16:52 | |
All in favor, please say aye aye. All opposed. | 00:16:59 | |
Consent agenda pass 601 with Vice Chair Sawyer and Commissioner Kubica. | 00:17:03 | |
We're now on to our regular agenda and the first item is Item 8A and amendment to the local coastal program is exempt from SEQUA. | 00:17:12 | |
And the recommended action is that we approve the staff recommendations and forward them to the City Council. | 00:17:22 | |
And Mr. Sidor, is this your item? | 00:17:33 | |
Yes, Chair Murphy, just one moment, will I bring up the presentation? | 00:17:39 | |
Our apologies, we having having technical difficulty. | 00:18:53 | |
Murphy and commissioners, sorry for the delay. The Commission will consider the initiation of an amendment to the local Coastal | 00:19:33 | |
program and a recommendation to the City Council. | 00:19:38 | |
Of the draft changes as proposed. | 00:19:45 | |
Just a little bit of background first. | 00:19:51 | |
In 2022 of the city applied for and received a $100,000 grant from the California Coastal Commission to update the cities coastal | 00:19:53 | |
hazard mapping. This grant supported a technical update of the cities current coastal hazard data, which is based on modeling data | 00:19:59 | |
from 2008. | 00:20:05 | |
Integral Consulting completed the technical analysis and presented an overview of the modeling methodology and analysis results to | 00:20:13 | |
the Planning Commission on August 8th, 2024, and the final document with tracked changes is attached to the agenda report for | 00:20:19 | |
tonight's meeting. | 00:20:26 | |
Just one more thing about the modeling data from 2008. Based on the information received from Integral Consulting, that modeling | 00:20:34 | |
data was. | 00:20:40 | |
Overestimated the potential. | 00:20:50 | |
Hazards and it was a very conservative set of modeling data and so the. | 00:20:54 | |
New data is more accurate and consistent with current state guidance on sea level rise and provide staff with improved tools to | 00:21:04 | |
determine coastal hazard vulnerability of proposed projects. Therefore, the draft LCP amendment reflects this limited technical | 00:21:11 | |
scope and does not propose the inclusion of unrelated changes. | 00:21:18 | |
Based on the results of the technical analysis and in close coordination with Costa Commission staff, CDD staff prepared draft | 00:21:27 | |
amendments to the text, policies and figures of the Land Use Plan and Implementation Plan. These minor amendments to the LCP are | 00:21:35 | |
intended to implement the updated technical analysis and tools used to determine coastal hazard vulnerability. | 00:21:43 | |
The draft amendments consist primarily of the following. | 00:21:52 | |
The addition of a definition for. | 00:21:58 | |
Critical, uh. | 00:22:00 | |
Excuse me, critical public infrastructure and LUP Section 1.10 and critical public infrastructure will be evaluated at a higher | 00:22:03 | |
standard and Coastal Commission staff provided guidance on the types of infrastructure and other wording to include to include in | 00:22:08 | |
the definition. | 00:22:14 | |
To an update of the data and information sources and LUP Section 2.1, point 1/3. An update to LUP Figure 3 in Section 2, point 1.2 | 00:22:21 | |
Figure 3. Excuse me. Just as a reminder, Figure 3 is a static snapshot and City staff will primarily use the GIS data to complete | 00:22:31 | |
any initial assessment and four text revisions to policy. | 00:22:41 | |
12. | 00:22:51 | |
In land use plans, Section 2, point 1.4 and policy has 12 would be amended to include a paragraph regarding critical public | 00:22:53 | |
infrastructure and to differentiate between the level of review required for private and public development within the GIS data | 00:23:00 | |
and additional safety. Setback distance has also been added to the calendar year 2100 erosion hazard zone to approximate the more | 00:23:08 | |
severe sea level rise scenario. | 00:23:15 | |
For critical public infrastructure and then five and last our text revisions to implementation plans section or Pacific Grove | 00:23:23 | |
Municipal Code section 23.90 point 140 B to shift the responsibility for completing an initial assessment from an applicant to | 00:23:30 | |
city staff. | 00:23:37 | |
Regarding the schedule, the technical analysis took longer than anticipated, so the city will need to quickly move the LCP | 00:23:48 | |
amendment through the remaining process steps in order to complete the entire process prior or by June of 2025. And that may seem. | 00:23:58 | |
A ways away, but it's a. It's a. | 00:24:09 | |
Lengthy and time consuming process and so it will take approximately 7 to 8 months or until May or June of 2025. | 00:24:13 | |
And following the Planning Commission action, the City Council will consider the draft amendment and a resolution of intent to | 00:24:24 | |
amend the local coastal program. And then staff will then prepare and submit the LCP amendment packet to the Coastal Commission | 00:24:31 | |
for their consideration and certification. And then after certification by the Coastal Commission, the City Council will again | 00:24:39 | |
consider final adoption of the LCP amendment. | 00:24:46 | |
And we do have some corrections this evening. | 00:25:00 | |
Staff recommends the following corrections regarding the resolution to initiate the LCP amendment. | 00:25:06 | |
On the resolution of intention to initiate the LCP amendment, delete recitals 9 through 12 and the findings section and the | 00:25:12 | |
references to findings in item one in the operative or decision section. And these recitals and findings are only required in the | 00:25:19 | |
resolution recommending resolution to the City Council recommending adoption of the LCP amendment. And so they're not required in | 00:25:27 | |
the resolution of. | 00:25:34 | |
Attention and then regarding correspondence from interested parties. Planning Commission received a letter and emails from 2 | 00:25:41 | |
interested parties recommending changes to the LCP in addition to the proposed draft amendment. The City may want to consider | 00:25:49 | |
these recommendations in a future LCP amendment. However, in regard to the LCP amendment before the Planning Commission tonight, | 00:25:56 | |
staff recommends moving forward with the draft amendment as proposed. | 00:26:03 | |
By staff. | 00:26:11 | |
The changes proposed are generally outside the scope or budget of the grant agreement, could result in a timeline delay which | 00:26:12 | |
cannot be accommodated in the schedule or the time available, and could result in a higher level of environmental review required. | 00:26:20 | |
Which could also increase the cost and further delay the schedule. The city staff or CDD staff does have a working file and we've | 00:26:30 | |
added the comments received to that working file for possible future LCP amendments. | 00:26:38 | |
And so therefore, staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the resolutions to initiate an amendment to the local coastal | 00:26:48 | |
program and recommend the City Council adopt the draft LCP amendment as proposed. And this concludes staff presentation and I'm | 00:26:55 | |
available for questions. Thank you, Mr. SEDAR. Before questions. I think we'll we'll go to the public if anyone. | 00:27:03 | |
Wishes to speak to us on this item. | 00:27:12 | |
See at least one hand raised on Zoom, we have a Lisa Chiani. | 00:27:19 | |
Thank you. Well, I'm just going to say what I was going to say, despite what staff said. | 00:27:27 | |
1st, I request that you encourage staff to improve the Figure 3 revision by creating 2 figures 3A and B3A and 3B corresponding to | 00:27:35 | |
integrals separate maps for coastal wave hazards and coastal erosion. The the two map the the. | 00:27:46 | |
Blending of the two maps, presumably done by staff. | 00:27:56 | |
Has so many indistinguishable colors and and the legend isn't consistent with the resulting map and so it seems a terrible shame | 00:28:02 | |
to just continue with that. Anyway. It's it's incredibly difficult to read even at 500% magnification on a computer. It would also | 00:28:11 | |
be helpful for the Maple legend to include the terms intermediate, high, scenario, C level, rise projections. | 00:28:21 | |
And high scenarios sea level rise projection to improve understanding of HAS 12 and 239140. | 00:28:31 | |
I, I I. | 00:28:40 | |
Also would like to say that Figure 3 tsunami in the Figure 3 tsunami evacuation line is clear on the map, but only minimally | 00:28:42 | |
supports has policy has four which addresses tsunami hazards. Evacuation routes provided by the county could readily be indicated | 00:28:52 | |
on the map and would not add confusing detail to the shoreline features currently depicted. | 00:29:01 | |
Tsunamis are rare, but they're a real risk, including the potential for a submarine Submarine landslide in the Monterey Canyon. | 00:29:11 | |
Agreeing a tsunami, the city's planners could address evacuation routes away from the coast and evaluate the feasibility. | 00:29:18 | |
This amendment is an opportunity to make a really simple correction to an error in the coastal hazard policy that says shoreline | 00:29:29 | |
management plan will be prepared when we've had one for four years now and and we should be using it. | 00:29:40 | |
So I would hope that very simple correction could be added. | 00:29:53 | |
To the other corrections. | 00:29:59 | |
To the other, to the Amendment I. | 00:30:02 | |
And let's see. So it's surprising that $100,000 grant from the Coastal Commission could be spent entirely on an analysis and | 00:30:07 | |
report with revised hazard modelling findings, some of them from our existing shoreline management plan, usefulness of the | 00:30:14 | |
communities infrastructure left for the future, for future next steps, so. | 00:30:22 | |
With that, I hope this makes a big difference, $100,000 difference. OK, thank you. | 00:30:32 | |
Thank you. | 00:30:40 | |
We have Tony Ciani. | 00:30:44 | |
Thank you. I just want to follow up. | 00:30:49 | |
The Shoreline Management Plan was adopted in 2020 and. | 00:30:52 | |
The current technical report and results relies on the shoreline management plans studies, so the notion that it will be prepared | 00:30:58 | |
when it has been prepared is just an error in our LCP and must be corrected. | 00:31:08 | |
The draft coastal hazards amendment to the LCP is a promising start the results in the technical report appear to resolve the | 00:31:19 | |
sometimes conflicting information of previous studies, but the draft amendment provides policies that can only be implemented in. | 00:31:29 | |
In reaction to to an application for a coastal development permit. | 00:31:40 | |
Pacific Grove must take steps to recommend. | 00:31:47 | |
Must take steps recommended by the Coastal Commission to quote identify adaptation planning and policies and to provide specific | 00:31:51 | |
measures to implement those adaptation policies. The draft LCP amendment attempts to define critical infrastructure, but it does | 00:32:00 | |
not appear to address the quote risks to critical infrastructure. | 00:32:08 | |
In a meaningful way. | 00:32:18 | |
For example, it does not use the Coastal Commissions adopted guidance that provides a strategy for examining risk for | 00:32:20 | |
infrastructure, including to look at both the risks to infrastructure itself as well as. | 00:32:29 | |
The impacts and to people and development that must rely on the infrastructure. For Pacific Grove, the critical infrastructure | 00:32:38 | |
includes transportation on Ocean View Blvd. and Sunset Drive and alternative routes in case of evacuation and water infrastructure | 00:32:45 | |
including wastewater treatment and stormwater. And it requires a coordinated planning to design and prepare the adaptation | 00:32:53 | |
strategies. | 00:33:00 | |
Such as physical alterations or planned triggers for future changes that effectively address coastal hazard risks to development | 00:33:08 | |
or habitat over time. | 00:33:14 | |
The Point Penis Trail project calls for a planned retreat to avoid quote the coastal squeeze. The Shoreline management plan quote | 00:33:22 | |
aims to provide public access along Pacific Grove shoreline well into the future while protecting and enhancing coastal. | 00:33:31 | |
The Coast. Natural and cultural resources. | 00:33:42 | |
Thus, recommendations are what the Coastal Act calls for. | 00:33:47 | |
And that is other implementing actions. Pacific Grove needs to be proactive to protect its magnificent resources and public health | 00:33:55 | |
and safety. Thank you for the extra time. | 00:34:02 | |
Thank you. | 00:34:10 | |
We have Inga, Lorenzen, Dahmer. | 00:34:15 | |
Thank you. | 00:34:18 | |
Chair and Commissioners, mine is kind of a real personal thing here and it has to do with that tsunami map because. | 00:34:19 | |
With a planned vacation of slot. | 00:34:30 | |
The half of it, which is where I get my egress and all the one way streets, my little one black section, the only way that I will | 00:34:34 | |
be able to get out. | 00:34:40 | |
Of my street is to go north towards Ocean View Blvd. and if there's a tsunami, just how am I going to get out? Am I going to be | 00:34:47 | |
like Florida and sitting in the floods? It's just it's ludicrous of what's happening that's saying that slowed isn't needed is a | 00:34:57 | |
right of egress because in a tsunami it's going to come right over Ocean View Blvd. and that isn't going to be a way to get out. | 00:35:07 | |
I mean, I think this whole thing needs to be rethought a little bit here because you're not providing, this is not providing for | 00:35:17 | |
the safety of the citizens of Pacific Grove, so. | 00:35:23 | |
That's my take. Thank you. Thank you. | 00:35:32 | |
Seeing no further hands, I'll end the public comment on this issue and bring it back to commissioners for. | 00:35:39 | |
Questions 1st and then discussion. Any questions for Mr. Sidor? | 00:35:48 | |
I have one. I'm not sure if it's for Mr. Cedar or for Erica Vega, and it has to do with a resolution of intent from the Planning | 00:35:56 | |
Commission. | 00:36:01 | |
And and usual, usual practice is and we don't do resolutions of intent and our code says if something is initiated by the planning | 00:36:06 | |
commission's. | 00:36:12 | |
A resolution of intent is appropriate. | 00:36:20 | |
But to me, this was, this was. | 00:36:24 | |
You know, this comes from staff, it didn't come from us. So I guess my question is, you know, based on past practice and all the | 00:36:27 | |
years have been on the Commission. | 00:36:31 | |
You know last earlier this year we had three items. We did resolution of intent because those 3. | 00:36:36 | |
Were things that we thought of that staff didn't bring to us, and I thought it was appropriate, but now I guess I didn't. | 00:36:42 | |
I want to hear from Miss Vega I guess, why it's necessary. | 00:36:49 | |
Thank you, Chair. | 00:36:57 | |
You know, certainly we can't force the Commission to adopt A resolution of intent. We're just trying to follow the procedures that | 00:36:59 | |
are laid out in the code. So, you know, I can't really speak to prior practices before I came on and advised, but I do know that I | 00:37:05 | |
was part of the decision making on making sure that the resolutions of intent were done on the three previous amendments that were | 00:37:11 | |
processed earlier in the year. | 00:37:18 | |
So this is just in keeping with that and ensuring that we're not skipping a procedural step that's outlined in your code. | 00:37:25 | |
And I guess I guess my question is the language of the code and and to me that means. | 00:37:31 | |
If we initiate something which we did with those three items, but this we didn't initiate, staff did. And I'm trying to make a | 00:37:37 | |
difference. Perhaps you disagree with me. I don't, I don't have the the code language pulled up in front of me right now to to, | 00:37:45 | |
you know, look at the specific wording on whether it compasses all LCP amendments or just those that are initiated by this body. | 00:37:54 | |
So I would I would need to go back and look at the language more precisely to answer that question. | 00:38:03 | |
OK, well. | 00:38:08 | |
I don't see any harm in doing it, it just seemed like an unnecessary step that wasn't required by the code, but I'll leave it | 00:38:11 | |
there. Other questions from commissioners. | 00:38:16 | |
Yeah, last year, Sawyer. | 00:38:26 | |
On hazard #4. | 00:38:30 | |
Umm, which is? | 00:38:34 | |
Addressing umm. | 00:38:37 | |
The tsunami evacuation, I'm just wondering, have there been any plans or discussions about firming up plans so the public knows | 00:38:39 | |
exactly where we're supposed to go and what we're supposed to do? Because it seems like that hasn't been. | 00:38:49 | |
The protocols haven't really been set out. | 00:39:01 | |
Just a question. | 00:39:05 | |
Yes, Commissioner Sawyer's. | 00:39:09 | |
I don't have an answer for you on that this evening. | 00:39:13 | |
But we can certainly staff can follow up and I did find out. | 00:39:17 | |
Who within the city is responsible for comparing that? And I wasn't sure and so I appreciate your answer. Thank you. | 00:39:25 | |
If Mr. Cedar, if you don't mind, we did talk about this on the phone. | 00:39:36 | |
Could you walk us through how Figure 3 is going to be used? Because I agree with Miss Gianni that it's just for a layperson | 00:39:42 | |
looking at it, it's very difficult to to understand and particularly at the 8 1/2 by 11. And, and how does staff envision Figure 3 | 00:39:50 | |
to to be used and who is it for? | 00:39:58 | |
Thank you three Chair Murphy. Figure 3 is. | 00:40:08 | |
More of a quick reference and again as I mentioned in the presentation, it's sort of a snapshot of the potential coastal hazards | 00:40:14 | |
along the shoreline of Pacific Grove and what staff would use when preparing an initial assessment is we would look at. | 00:40:25 | |
The GIS data layers and. | 00:40:37 | |
To to prepare our our more in depth or or to complete our more in depth review of a particular project and its potential | 00:40:43 | |
vulnerability to coastal hazards and. | 00:40:50 | |
The. | 00:41:00 | |
Sorry, just collecting my thoughts here in terms of. | 00:41:07 | |
The figure and how it would be used. | 00:41:15 | |
I guess my question is, does it make sense? | 00:41:18 | |
To create a better figure 3 that you know applicants and members of the public could. | 00:41:21 | |
Could easily understand. | 00:41:27 | |
Well, there is a lot of information that is on that figure and so the lines do get sort of crossed. | 00:41:36 | |
In terms of preparing an additional food year, the the budget for the grant has been exhausted and so any additional. | 00:41:44 | |
Creation of new figures would be something that the city would have to figure out or determine or identify how to pay for. | 00:41:58 | |
I see. | 00:42:09 | |
And Commissioner Russ. | 00:42:11 | |
Maybe as an intermediary step, are those data layers publicly available? They will be. Maybe we can just say anybody who wants to | 00:42:16 | |
inspect more closely can access the publicly available data layers. | 00:42:22 | |
Does that make sense? | 00:42:31 | |
I'm sorry, could you repeat that, Commissioner Davidson? | 00:42:35 | |
I'm just saying that if someone wants to have a more in depth look at, you know, what's going on in the outcomes from that | 00:42:39 | |
analysis, that perhaps they could just access the publicly available data layers rather than having to go through and create a new | 00:42:44 | |
figure. | 00:42:48 | |
Yes, that would certainly be an option for any applicant or or interested member of the public and. | 00:42:55 | |
Once. | 00:43:04 | |
The action is completed. Those GIS layers will be made available on the parcel viewer for the city. | 00:43:06 | |
Thank you, Commissioner Davidson. | 00:43:18 | |
Vice Chair Sawyer. | 00:43:21 | |
Would that information then be included in the explanation about Figure 3, so that the public would? | 00:43:22 | |
Be able to look at that if they're going through the LUP, I know that it would be on the property information, but I'm just | 00:43:32 | |
wondering, some people don't always go to the property information, so if that could be included in the LUP. | 00:43:39 | |
About the GIS information, if people wanted to go to that. | 00:43:47 | |
The reason why I'm asking is we already have one figure in the LUP, figure 5 that is not accurate, that hasn't been accurate for | 00:43:53 | |
years. And I'm just thinking why would we want to add something to it, another map that leaves a little bit to be desired when we | 00:44:01 | |
can just point out that there is further information via the city. | 00:44:08 | |
Yeah, through the through the chair, I think that that is a that's a fairpoint Vice Chair Sawyer, I think part of the the process | 00:44:19 | |
of our through Staffs. | 00:44:25 | |
Application was we don't as much so we would look at those maps and we go OK, well maybe this property is close within that and | 00:44:32 | |
then as as Commissioner Davidson brought up, we do an in depth study of those. So I think if I'm. | 00:44:39 | |
1st and to answer. | 00:44:48 | |
Chair Murphy's question is what does staff do with that map? We do use parcel viewer. We do use GIS to identify each property and | 00:44:52 | |
at each application, coastal development permit application and as we go through our list of cultural resources, scenic resources. | 00:45:00 | |
Coastal hazards we go, we look in depth at those. | 00:45:11 | |
Those items through. | 00:45:17 | |
Parcel viewer, it's not just the maps. The maps kind of guide us and then we use more specific information. So then we in turn can | 00:45:19 | |
guide the applicants and what they're going to need in that, especially with that initial study which is usually done at the staff | 00:45:26 | |
level to see whether or not they need further studies. | 00:45:32 | |
I'm just wondering because I I too have concerns in regards to the figure 3 and I'm just wondering if there's a way as Mr. | 00:45:42 | |
Davidson. | 00:45:48 | |
Explained that we could just add one simple thing. Please look at blah blah blah if you want more information. | 00:45:55 | |
Yeah, like a link or whatever. I just think it would be really helpful because I was looking at the map and it's to me. | 00:46:04 | |
I know more than a lot of the public but it's still kind of confusing so I think if we had a link. | 00:46:13 | |
In the actual LUP it might be helpful. | 00:46:20 | |
And it doesn't won't cost us any more money to have to create another map because I know that would be expensive. So it's just a | 00:46:24 | |
thought. | 00:46:27 | |
Commissioner Sawyer. | 00:46:34 | |
Again, that that is a fairpoint I'm just trying to come up with. | 00:46:37 | |
Some something that could potentially work that the challenge with a link is that links overtime change, especially on the city's | 00:46:42 | |
website and I. | 00:46:47 | |
Also, references to to specific data could also change and so. | 00:46:55 | |
Just. | 00:47:03 | |
Wondering if there's another another alternative to that. | 00:47:05 | |
To either of those. | 00:47:09 | |
Yeah, Mr. Campbell. | 00:47:11 | |
Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Another alternative could be we do have a local coastal program page on our website and so that it's | 00:47:13 | |
not in the body of the LCP, we may be able to use our website because that is. | 00:47:21 | |
As Joe is saying, at times some links can be fluid and may change if if there is a place for us to put that. I think that I think | 00:47:29 | |
that's a good suggestion for us to be more helpful to the public and more open to the public that on that local coastal program | 00:47:35 | |
website we should be able to put something like that there. So that could be included then in the LUP to look at the local coastal | 00:47:40 | |
program. | 00:47:46 | |
I'm just thinking because we already have one very inaccurate map. | 00:47:53 | |
What can we do to make ourselves more transparent? And I hear what you're saying. I understand the difficulty. I'm just trying to, | 00:47:58 | |
if somebody really wanted to do more research before they came to you, that this would open it up so that they could look further. | 00:48:04 | |
Because there are some people like that out in the community that are going to want to know ahead of time. | 00:48:10 | |
So I don't. Is that a possibility? | 00:48:17 | |
I think staff understands our intent. Yes, we do whatever, whatever you can do to accomplish that would be appreciated. And your | 00:48:23 | |
goal and our goal is to make it easier for the public to, to get the right information for sure. We'll trust you to do that. And | 00:48:30 | |
I, I see council member Coletti's hand is raised. I'm not sure if he wanted to jump into this conversation. I do chair and thank | 00:48:37 | |
you for indulging me. I, I'm a regular user of our GIS. | 00:48:44 | |
A portal. | 00:48:53 | |
And I was trying to access it this weekend and the layers that we're specifically talking about this evening aren't loading. In | 00:48:55 | |
fact, there's an error message that comes up when you try to launch the map, which includes the hazard layer, coastal boundaries, | 00:49:02 | |
et cetera. So we probably need to look at getting that correct. Thank you. | 00:49:08 | |
And I do agree on the importance of maps and having them available to the public. | 00:49:15 | |
Thank you. | 00:49:21 | |
Other. | 00:49:23 | |
Commissioner Kubica. | 00:49:25 | |
Thank you. Thank you, Chair Murphy. | 00:49:28 | |
I would like to understand the process of updating the document. Does it come up with a Rev? So this is a Rev ALCP then or? | 00:49:31 | |
When you say we're going to put a an amendment, is this amendment one or how is it documented to someone in the public that we had | 00:49:43 | |
an original LCP in 2020 and now we have a new one? | 00:49:49 | |
Are the pages going to be or the page is going to have dates on them so that whoever looks at the LCP knows that they have the | 00:49:56 | |
latest possible document? What is the process of doing it so that we the public when they see this, has the latest document? | 00:50:03 | |
Mr. Cedar. | 00:50:11 | |
Yes, Commissioner Kubica. | 00:50:14 | |
I see Councilmember Coletti has his hand raised again, so I'm going to defer to him if he wants to speak first. | 00:50:18 | |
OK. | 00:50:27 | |
Good SO. | 00:50:28 | |
The. | 00:50:31 | |
A document that's posted online for public viewing would have an annotation identifying that it has been amended. That would be | 00:50:33 | |
best practice. | 00:50:39 | |
And then the pages or the areas that are amended would. | 00:50:46 | |
Also be identified. | 00:50:54 | |
As amended and there's a specific format for doing that in in the Pacific Grove Municipal Code and I'm not sure of the exact | 00:50:56 | |
process, but it did is identified. Thank you. | 00:51:05 | |
And on page 23, if I may continue, certainly near the bottom. I don't know if this is a typo or it says there's a item 29. | 00:51:14 | |
It's the second line above the pictures down on the page 23 in the package. | 00:51:27 | |
Says Marine Station A 29 portion. | 00:51:34 | |
It's it's page 23 of 100 and it's from. | 00:51:58 | |
It's it's, yeah. | 00:52:02 | |
I think it's a typo from the original, but I'm I'm not sure what word is supposed to be in there. | 00:52:08 | |
I don't know if it reference or something else or it's a typo as I was transferring this from the current document to this. | 00:52:15 | |
Document that was probably just a page number that got transferred. Thank, thank you very much. And then in the hazard #12. | 00:52:27 | |
It appears that there's a new paragraph about city public infrastructure, and it details a lot of stuff in there, a lot of items | 00:52:37 | |
that need to be done. What is now the process? We were updating this document, so does the city now go through a review of the? | 00:52:46 | |
City infrastructure. | 00:52:57 | |
Does someone what what is the process that follows after that or does it just sit there till we have some problem or I mean we | 00:53:00 | |
have a budget coming up in? | 00:53:04 | |
Next June we have a budget building that starts in January. Does something need to be put into the process and what is the? | 00:53:09 | |
For the budget, so that we start checking on this infrastructure and. | 00:53:18 | |
Making capital improvements if we need to, or getting grants or. | 00:53:24 | |
What's the process after this? Yes, Commissioner Kubica, the the LCP amendment by itself would not initiate any of what you just | 00:53:28 | |
identified. The LCP amendment would or identifies the policies in the process that have to be followed when a project is brought | 00:53:37 | |
forward for consideration under a coastal development permit and so. | 00:53:46 | |
The. | 00:53:56 | |
You know, public or city infrastructure projects would be addressed by public works through things like the the. | 00:53:58 | |
Capital improvement program. | 00:54:10 | |
Or plan. | 00:54:13 | |
Through chair muffler. Yes, go ahead. | 00:54:14 | |
But if we're changing the LCP, that seems to be a trigger for something in the city. So somebody should be doing something in the | 00:54:17 | |
city. And that's all I'm asking. I'm not saying that this body should be doing it. I'm just saying what something in in the | 00:54:22 | |
process in the city and I don't know what that is. | 00:54:28 | |
Let me take a crack. I think what it means is. | 00:54:35 | |
Who own a public works project? | 00:54:39 | |
Now is proposed and it deals with the critical public infrastructure listed here. | 00:54:42 | |
It'll be treated differently, it'll be judged more strictly. | 00:54:50 | |
Or at a higher level, it's the way you said it is. Is that correct? | 00:54:55 | |
Yes, critical public infrastructure would be evaluated under the the highest scenario using the states of OPC sea level rise | 00:55:01 | |
guidance from 2024, from this year or from or other best available information sources. And how does that vary? | 00:55:11 | |
From current practice. | 00:55:22 | |
Current practices we're using the. | 00:55:30 | |
Current GIS layers from 2008. Thank you. | 00:55:34 | |
Does that help? | 00:55:40 | |
I understand what was being said. | 00:55:44 | |
And do you want more than that? | 00:55:48 | |
It it it it seems that we're. | 00:55:53 | |
The state has said that there we need to review the document. State has given us $100,000 to go update the document. We're | 00:55:56 | |
updating a document. We come back and it says we either have a bigger hazard or a less hazard and it would seem that we should be | 00:56:05 | |
doing something about it. And I understand that's guidance if a project is is started, but does this seem to say that? | 00:56:13 | |
In the future, maybe we should start a project. | 00:56:22 | |
And I don't know the answer to that, that's why I'm bringing it up. | 00:56:25 | |
Questions. Comments. | 00:56:32 | |
Commission Nozinski. Thank you, Chair Murphy. I'm looking at hazard 2. It talks about doing the review at least every 10 years or | 00:56:34 | |
if there is a significant storm event. | 00:56:39 | |
How is that? | 00:56:46 | |
How is that review done? Is it done and then put somewhere? Is it I mean if it doesn't make? | 00:56:50 | |
It might require changes to make, you know, different changes as it's indicated here. But once if we did the review and it we're | 00:56:57 | |
not going to make any changes, how is that document and where's that document? Where's that review? How's that review done and and | 00:57:02 | |
who's how's it going to be documented? | 00:57:07 | |
Well, this. | 00:57:18 | |
Current local coastal program was just adopted in 2020, so the next. | 00:57:21 | |
Evaluation would be required or occur in 20-30. | 00:57:27 | |
So we're right, but then how's that initiated? | 00:57:32 | |
And then once it's initiated the review and then it's, you know, like here it is, you know, where is it going to be presented and | 00:57:37 | |
to who. | 00:57:41 | |
Commissioner Zinski, that's something that would be. | 00:57:50 | |
That staff would prepare and. | 00:57:56 | |
Since it would involve possible. | 00:58:01 | |
New or amended policies to the LCP, then that would be brought forward to the Planning Commission. | 00:58:05 | |
And the City Council for consideration. | 00:58:10 | |
Mr. Fredrickson yeah, I think what it, I would think the intent is we go through pretty much the same we went through to, to bring | 00:58:14 | |
out the LUP in the 1st place. It would need public hearings. It would need input from the from from the public, from from the | 00:58:22 | |
staff and from the Planning Commission to finalize a document which would then go through the approval process. | 00:58:30 | |
But none of that's possible now because we're working under a tight time constraint. No, not time constraint so much as a monetary | 00:58:39 | |
restraint. And and clearly we're not willing to spend more money than $100,000. So it sounds like we need to make a decision. Is | 00:58:45 | |
that fair? | 00:58:52 | |
I think Mr. Cedar agrees with you. Yes, Commissioner Frederickson. | 00:59:02 | |
Any other comments or questions, Vice Chair Sawyer? | 00:59:07 | |
I read with interest a few of the letters that we received from the public and there are a couple of things that were suggested | 00:59:14 | |
that made sense to me and one was on the definition and LUP 1.10 to add on the social and economic well-being of the city. I think | 00:59:22 | |
with the state of affairs, I think that's probably something that. | 00:59:29 | |
Might be wise for us to add to that. | 00:59:38 | |
And then I. | 00:59:42 | |
I really have a problem with #5 which is on page 14, and it talks about the text revision to the IPPG Municipal code 23 point | 00:59:45 | |
90.14 OB. Is there a different way of saying that the staff better understand? That really grates on me. I'm sorry. I just think | 00:59:54 | |
there's got to be a different way of putting it. | 01:00:03 | |
It just feels a little kind of. | 01:00:13 | |
We know better than you do, and yes, I know you do, but just to put it in a slightly different. | 01:00:16 | |
Contacts would be lovely. | 01:00:23 | |
And Joe was laughing at that, but sorry. | 01:00:26 | |
Commissioner Sawyer, that that's a very fairpoint and let me just, I understood what you were saying, but I just thought, can we | 01:00:31 | |
put it a different way? | 01:00:37 | |
Yeah. | 01:00:43 | |
Have to get to the right to the correct document here. Yeah, it's on page 14 in our agenda and it's #5. | 01:00:46 | |
Oh, you're referring to something that is in the Agenda report? | 01:01:10 | |
Correct. OK. So staff could certainly change that in the agenda report going forward to the City Council. But that language I | 01:01:15 | |
don't believe is in the proposed ordinance amendment. | 01:01:21 | |
Pacific Grove Municipal Code section. Those are not the revisions though. Oh, OK, good. | 01:01:29 | |
Then I I'll leave it be. And then I just have one other question and it's on page 28 and it's the hazardous number six and that's | 01:01:35 | |
dealing with the shoreline management plan. I think we heard from both the Giannis in regards to that language just needing to be | 01:01:43 | |
changed to be updated. | 01:01:51 | |
And do you want me to go through it or I think, I think you are probably very clear on it, but it just needs to be updated. | 01:02:00 | |
So that the shoreline management plan is. | 01:02:09 | |
An appendix to the LCP and it's was approved in April of 2020. | 01:02:13 | |
And it shall be used to guide the management of. | 01:02:22 | |
Public park lands. I just think it's just those few little words that need to be changed. | 01:02:26 | |
So, Chair Murphy. | 01:02:34 | |
If you'd like, I could respond to Commissioner Sawyer's comments for the benefit of the whole Commission. So. | 01:02:37 | |
Regarding the the first point about adding the word social to the definition of critical public infrastructure, the definition | 01:02:45 | |
that is included in the draft LCP amendment is the definition that. | 01:02:53 | |
Was. | 01:03:03 | |
Prepared in coordination with Coastal Commission staff based on state and federal guidance. And so I I staff would. | 01:03:05 | |
Hesitate to add wording that is not. | 01:03:15 | |
Something that is typically used for a critical public infrastructure definition and also may have other implications that we | 01:03:20 | |
haven't reviewed or evaluated yet. | 01:03:26 | |
And then for the. | 01:03:33 | |
Policy has 6 the short lane management plan. | 01:03:36 | |
It is a fairpoint that the city has prepared a shoreline management plan. | 01:03:44 | |
As. | 01:03:52 | |
To the best of staff's knowledge, that shoreline management plan has not yet been submitted to the Coastal Commission for review | 01:03:53 | |
and approval. | 01:03:57 | |
So. | 01:04:02 | |
The. | 01:04:05 | |
The focus of. | 01:04:09 | |
The grant was on updating the mapping data. | 01:04:12 | |
And only making changes to the LCP that were necessary to implement the mapping data and not making other changes. So even though | 01:04:18 | |
that that's something that the city, it would be beneficial for the city to look at in the future, it may be problematic to to | 01:04:26 | |
address that right now under the current. | 01:04:34 | |
LCP Amendment. | 01:04:43 | |
Because that's not the only change that would likely be required for that policy. And now again, we we're getting into the a | 01:04:45 | |
possible timeline delay. | 01:04:51 | |
Mr. Fredrickson, I think we're beginning to wander astray. Yeah, I would like to make a motion. | 01:04:58 | |
I would like to initiate the I'd like to move to initiate technical amendment to the local coastal plan LCP, including the text of | 01:05:06 | |
the hazard policies in the land use plan LUPLUP figure 3, figure 3 and the implementation plan IP and recommend the City Council | 01:05:13 | |
adopt the draft LCP amendment is proposed. | 01:05:21 | |
Is there a second second? | 01:05:30 | |
Mr. Davison. | 01:05:32 | |
Any further discussion? | 01:05:35 | |
Well, with the understanding that staff has. | 01:05:38 | |
Said it will add the suggested comments from the Giannis and others to the list for further amendments. With the understanding | 01:05:43 | |
that that's that's going to happen. I I would support this too. Yes, Chair Murphy. | 01:05:50 | |
I guess I don't all that's all in favor say aye aye. | 01:06:02 | |
All opposed. | 01:06:07 | |
601. | 01:06:09 | |
01. | 01:06:12 | |
That's right. | 01:06:15 | |
And I forget who seconded the motion. | 01:06:17 | |
Commissioner Davis. | 01:06:20 | |
Our next item, I think, is the housing. | 01:06:26 | |
Element status and schedule. | 01:06:30 | |
And it's Mr. Campbell substituting for the director. Yes, Chair Murphy, thank you. And also I ask you to be patient. This was | 01:06:34 | |
Director Vons update and she has limited availability due to where she currently is. So we haven't had much conversation as to, to | 01:06:42 | |
this. So I, I have the report and I'll give you what I have so. | 01:06:49 | |
I'm presenting to you this evening the Housing element project status update. Director Vaughn wanted us to start with the project | 01:07:08 | |
or the housing element project components. The first is the preparation of the six cycle housing element, the focused amendments | 01:07:15 | |
to the general planned land use element to support the updated housing element, a full update to the general plan health and | 01:07:21 | |
safety element to comply with state law. | 01:07:27 | |
Focused amendments to the zoning code and the municipal code regarding objective development standards. | 01:07:35 | |
And an environmental impact report pursuant to SEQUA. Excuse me, Mr. Campbell, the slides supposed to be being displayed. | 01:07:41 | |
And asking. | 01:07:51 | |
Yes, we could go without them, but it is helpful to have them. Sure. Thank you. | 01:08:01 | |
Thank you very much. | 01:08:07 | |
And we're on Slide 3. | 01:08:11 | |
If you'd like, we can go back to Slide 2 and pause on that for a moment to take a look at the housing element project components. | 01:08:14 | |
Doing what we can to keep you guys here longer. | 01:09:00 | |
I think it helps people at home in particular. Absolutely. | 01:09:05 | |
I. | 01:09:14 | |
If you could Scroll down to the second slide with the project components and we did go through those. | 01:09:17 | |
That's OK, just give the. | 01:09:24 | |
2nd to look at those, I'll go over them really quickly again just to thank you. Project components of the housing element or | 01:09:27 | |
preparation of the six cycle housing element, the focused amendments to the general plan land use element to support the updated | 01:09:32 | |
housing element. | 01:09:36 | |
Full update of the General Plan Health and Safety element to comply with state laws, Focused amendments to the Zoning Code | 01:09:42 | |
regarding objective development standards and an environmental impact report pursuant to SEQUA. | 01:09:48 | |
And if you can Scroll down please. | 01:09:57 | |
Housing Element project milestones to date. The Planning Commission reviewed the draft Housing Element on October 5th and October | 01:10:02 | |
12th, 2023. City Council reviewed draft Housing Element on October 18th of 2023. The draft Housing element submitted to HCD on | 01:10:09 | |
November 2nd, 2023 and January 16th, 2024. After public comment periods and HCD comments were received by the City on January | 01:10:16 | |
31st, 2024. | 01:10:23 | |
Next slide, please. | 01:10:31 | |
In February of 2024, staff took a report to City Council addressing the three unclassified zone parcels that were included in the | 01:10:37 | |
Housing Element Sites inventory. Council directed staff to find alternative sites or methods for meeting the arena. Allocation | 01:10:43 | |
sites and method options were considered by the Planning Commission on June 13th, 2024 and a recommendation was made to City | 01:10:49 | |
Council. | 01:10:55 | |
The alternative sites and methods options were approved by Council on July 17, 2024 at the Planning Commission's recommendations. | 01:11:01 | |
The work associated with the alternative sites or methods was beyond the scope of the Rincon contract and that contract was then | 01:11:15 | |
taken back to City Council for amendments and the contract and budget amendments were approved by City Council on September 18th, | 01:11:20 | |
2024. | 01:11:26 | |
The approved contract amendment included an updated project schedule, which is attached and I would be happy to put up after this. | 01:11:32 | |
Preparation of the EIR is the driver of that schedule. | 01:11:40 | |
So the housing element. Next steps. | 01:11:46 | |
Rincon is prepared to revise draft Housing element and it is currently being reviewed by staff. They plan to release the revised | 01:11:50 | |
draft housing element for public comment the first week of November for a 7 day public comment period. | 01:11:55 | |
And plan to submit the revised draft Housing element to HCD on November 19th, 2024. Continuing work on the Land Use element, | 01:12:01 | |
Health and safety element, zoning text amendments, and the ER. The draft ER plan to be released to public comment in February 2025 | 01:12:08 | |
for a 45 day public comment period. | 01:12:14 | |
Rincon and staff these are the upcoming. | 01:12:25 | |
PC Touch Points Rincon and staff will provide an informational presentation on the ER to the PC during the public comment period. | 01:12:29 | |
And I think it's important to note that the draft EIR info meeting is not required by Sequa and at that time we won't be taking | 01:12:36 | |
formal comment. This is more of a way to get the Planning Commission and the public both involved and educated so that they can | 01:12:44 | |
have more meaningful written comments. | 01:12:51 | |
When we when we while because this is during the the 45 day comment period so we can help help along and educate the best that we | 01:12:59 | |
can. | 01:13:04 | |
When CON and staff will hold a public workshop with the Planning Commission after the new year on proposed general planned land | 01:13:10 | |
use amendments, the health and safety amendments and zoning code amendments. There will be a second public outreach meeting event | 01:13:16 | |
in addition to the Planning Commission workshop. | 01:13:21 | |
In late summer of 2025, public hearings on the final EIR and the full project will be held. | 01:13:27 | |
And this is just kind of a general idea. Take a look at what we have here of of a timeline. | 01:13:34 | |
And you can see and I think to keep in mind. | 01:13:43 | |
Our timelines are, I mean they are fluid. We're working. I can't tell you how often. I mean we are working on this daily with | 01:13:46 | |
Rincon. We have we're in contact with Rincon constantly and some of these shift with either. | 01:13:54 | |
Little bumps in the road or they get taken care of beforehand. So the next update may have slightly, slightly different dates, but | 01:14:04 | |
they're not going to be a major day because we're still. | 01:14:10 | |
Scheduled for for summer 2025 public hearings. | 01:14:16 | |
Thank you. | 01:14:22 | |
Let's let's go to the public's. | 01:14:24 | |
Perhaps it's somebody on Zoom who wants to be on it. | 01:14:27 | |
Perhaps not. | 01:14:32 | |
Let's wait, wait. | 01:14:37 | |
You're seeing no one. Let's close public comment and time for questions, comments, discussion by commissioners. | 01:14:43 | |
Commissioner Zinski. | 01:14:55 | |
Has the city received any inklings of builder or developer wanting to do it? | 01:14:58 | |
The builders remedy. | 01:15:06 | |
Not to my knowledge. | 01:15:11 | |
So follow. | 01:15:14 | |
Certainly did. I just saw in the paper that or somewhere that there's a developer wanting to do a builders remedy in Carmel, OK. | 01:15:18 | |
Just throw it out there. | 01:15:30 | |
Thank you. | 01:15:33 | |
Mr. Kubica. | 01:15:38 | |
I'd like some more information about what these items are, if that's possible. Chair, the city reviewing the housing element, Does | 01:15:40 | |
that mean that the housing element is completed at this time and the city staff now is reviewing what Rincon has written? | 01:15:47 | |
And then I have some follow up questions. | 01:15:56 | |
Our review, we are reviewing the revised draft. That's correct. | 01:16:04 | |
What is a screen check versus a review? | 01:16:09 | |
Commissioner Kubica, typically. | 01:16:20 | |
When reviewing large documents like this, there's an initial review of a draft and then. | 01:16:24 | |
The screen check review, it follows the review of the draft and it's just more of a cursory making sure the the recommended | 01:16:31 | |
changes were addressed in the draft and making sure that everything is formatted correctly before it actually is published or or | 01:16:40 | |
circulated or submitted to whatever agency it's going to be submitted to. So. | 01:16:49 | |
It's me. Go ahead. | 01:16:59 | |
So the initial draft that you received hasn't been checked for typos or anything. That's what staff is doing. | 01:17:01 | |
I mean, there's five weeks here. | 01:17:09 | |
Of city reviewing and then a screen check, but I'm assuming that you have received that staff has received a document that should | 01:17:11 | |
be ready. | 01:17:15 | |
To go to. | 01:17:20 | |
The state. | 01:17:23 | |
And then this is just a cursory review that everything was done correctly. At least that's but you know. | 01:17:24 | |
Just trying to understand. And then the public gets a week to review this document and then where is the Planning Commission | 01:17:32 | |
meeting in this schedule and the City Council meeting and the schedule? | 01:17:37 | |
I know it's a Rincon schedule but I'm trying to. | 01:17:46 | |
And then with the. So these are the, if you, if I may, through the chair. | 01:17:49 | |
These changes that were responses to HCD common, it's not common to go back to the Planning Commission for these Planning | 01:17:56 | |
Commission had made comments and they can make comments during that 7/7 day period, but it's not it's not well. | 01:18:04 | |
It's not common practice. | 01:18:14 | |
For after having gone through that comment period, to come back again for another comment period with the Planning Commission to | 01:18:16 | |
provide more comments. Is it correct? It's also not going to the City Council. | 01:18:24 | |
That's correct. | 01:18:32 | |
Like do you have a follow up? | 01:18:38 | |
It just seems that with a major change where we had to change to over 400 different sites. | 01:18:41 | |
That it. | 01:18:48 | |
May have been appropriate even though it's not common practice that it would come back through the process. Again, that's just a | 01:18:48 | |
comment. I mean the the sites part did come through us and and did go to the council. | 01:18:54 | |
Vice Chair Sawyer. | 01:19:00 | |
In our monthly meeting with the CDD director, Miss Fun, we talked about this and we questioned why it wasn't coming back to the | 01:19:02 | |
Planning Commission. And she explained, just as you did, that it wasn't customary once the comments have been made and that the | 01:19:10 | |
time for the Planning Commission and the City Council to make. | 01:19:18 | |
Comments would be during the public time, which would be in that seven day period. | 01:19:27 | |
But that would not be. | 01:19:36 | |
A Commission meeting. | 01:19:39 | |
That would be an opportunity for us as individuals slash planning commissioners to comment. | 01:19:40 | |
Other questions or comments? | 01:19:53 | |
Commissioner Murphy, Chair Murphy, if I could just to to further respond to a Commissioner because question about the timing the | 01:20:00 | |
the revised draft housing element is being reviewed by staff. We we are preparing comments and feedback for. | 01:20:09 | |
Rincon, based on our review and. | 01:20:20 | |
And that includes. | 01:20:26 | |
Questions, edits and corrections, and then. | 01:20:29 | |
Once staff has completed its review, then the document would go back to Rincon for making those corrections or resolving any | 01:20:35 | |
questions that staff raised during our review. | 01:20:42 | |
And so that's why there's a several week delay before the the revised draft housing element would be completed and and released | 01:20:49 | |
for. | 01:20:55 | |
Like comment in November. | 01:21:01 | |
Does that answer your question? | 01:21:05 | |
Thank you very much for your for your comment. I do want to say something which I should have said initially before I asked my | 01:21:08 | |
questions. Having a schedule like this is much a great improvement and I'm very happy with that. And I should have said that up | 01:21:13 | |
front and I want to thank staff for providing that to us. | 01:21:18 | |
And is it right, Mr. Sudhir or Mr. Campbell, that all of the revisions are in response to the HCD questions or comments on the | 01:21:25 | |
first draft that we sent them? Is that correct? | 01:21:32 | |
Yes, he said as and based on sites inventory changes. Great, thank you. | 01:21:45 | |
Other comments Questions. | 01:21:51 | |
I think we've received the status update. Thank you. | 01:21:55 | |
And next is Item 10A, a discussion of possible ground floor residential uses in our downtown commercial zoning district. | 01:22:02 | |
And our task is to, I think, provide some guidance that will be used. | 01:22:10 | |
Later on when Rincon is looking at the. | 01:22:16 | |
The land use element and is there a a staff report? | 01:22:21 | |
There is Chair Murphy, I will be giving it. Thank you and again thank you, Planning Commissioners. And you're correct, we are | 01:22:25 | |
seeking policy guidance regarding General plan land Use Policy 23 and associated development standards which limit residential | 01:22:32 | |
uses to the upper floor and the downtown commercial district. | 01:22:38 | |
Slide please. | 01:22:45 | |
And if you could bear with me, we do this for the public record to we know that you are fully aware of what the general plan is | 01:22:47 | |
and the land use elements, but I'm going to give just a brief summary of these things for the public. The general plan is the | 01:22:53 | |
principal policy document for guiding future conservation and development of the city. In addition to being a long range planning | 01:22:59 | |
document, the general plan serves as a comprehensive day-to-day guide for making decisions about land use, economic development, | 01:23:05 | |
Rd. improvements, natural. | 01:23:11 | |
Protection and public health and safety. | 01:23:17 | |
Next slide, please. | 01:23:20 | |
Land use element is a major focus of the General Plan as it presents the goals, policy and programs that determine the cities land | 01:23:23 | |
use and guide the cities future development. | 01:23:28 | |
Next slide, please. | 01:23:33 | |
Today we're discussing the commercial downtown designation of the land use element. | 01:23:35 | |
The intent of the commercial downtown designation, as described in the Land Use element, is to promote personal services and | 01:23:39 | |
retail sales while enhancing the vitality and character of the city's historic commercial area that includes offices, restaurants, | 01:23:47 | |
entertainment, cultural facilities. It also includes multifamily residential units above the ground floor. | 01:23:54 | |
Next slide, please. | 01:24:02 | |
This is the general planned land use map outlining the commercial downtown district. | 01:24:04 | |
Next slide, please. | 01:24:12 | |
As it pertains to residential uses in the downtown commercial district, we have Land Use Policy 23, which limits new residential | 01:24:14 | |
uses to the upper stories of new and existing buildings. | 01:24:19 | |
Next slide, please. | 01:24:25 | |
So we have a general plan that provides the goals, objectives and policies that guide our future conservation and development of | 01:24:28 | |
the city. We also have the zoning regulations, Title 23, and it's the primary tool used by the city to carry out those goals, | 01:24:34 | |
objectives and policies. Its purpose is to promote the health, safety, peace, comfort, general welfare and implement the general | 01:24:40 | |
plan and local coastal program. | 01:24:45 | |
So several sections of Title 23 regarding residential uses in the downtown commercial district are consistent with the General | 01:24:55 | |
Plan Land Use Element Policy 23 that includes here. | 01:25:00 | |
Pacific Grove Municipal Code 23.31 O2 OC and 23.34.01 OC. One is the intent and one is the purpose of the downtown commercial uses | 01:25:06 | |
and they both more or less talk about second floor residential uses above the retail and service uses in the downtown commercial | 01:25:14 | |
distance. | 01:25:22 | |
There is however, a table that gets to be a little bit confusing because we. | 01:25:31 | |
Have it to where the commercial industrial zone, if the table is titled commercial industrial zoning districts, allowable land | 01:25:38 | |
uses and permit requirements. By the way, this table is the table that planning and the public use to see whether or not a use is | 01:25:43 | |
permitted in a district so. | 01:25:48 | |
For residential or mixed-use in commercial downtown, it says that it is. | 01:25:54 | |
Allowed with residential above or behind commercial uses and if you show the next slide please. | 01:26:00 | |
Just to show the Planning Commission and the public that this is the way that this or this is what this table looks like. It's | 01:26:09 | |
much longer, but I give you just a little snippet of it to see that if you pick emergency shelters, for example, and follow along | 01:26:16 | |
the top, you have C1C1T, Commercial, Downtown Commercial, Forest Hill, C2, CV and I, and emergency shelters are only permitted in | 01:26:24 | |
C2 and so that's the same. | 01:26:31 | |
He is permitted. You P is with a use permit. | 01:26:39 | |
It some people do get confused with these annotations up to the P2 and P3 is usually those are dealing with the sizes of these | 01:26:43 | |
commercial buildings or uses square footage. If it goes over 10,000 square feet, you may need a use permit. That's an example of | 01:26:48 | |
of some of those. | 01:26:53 | |
So you can see here under Use mixed-use residential above or behind commercial, the commercial downtown district. | 01:26:59 | |
Is it does say permitted use, so it has caused a pretty fair deal of confusion among applicants and even staff. | 01:27:07 | |
Next slide, please. | 01:27:19 | |
Pacific Groves Downtown is a historic downtown and the commercial core of the city. Lively commercial corridors are those that | 01:27:23 | |
provide interest and activity at the pedestrian level. | 01:27:28 | |
Crafting policies that protect active commercial uses along the pedestrian walkways within downtown is wholly appropriate and | 01:27:33 | |
necessary to preserve the feel and character of a walkable, historic downtown core. The question is whether there's room for more | 01:27:39 | |
flexible, targeted policies pertaining to ground floor residential uses downtown. Next slide, please. | 01:27:46 | |
Active ground floor uses are those that promote an active pedestrian environment. Historically and like Pacific Grove communities, | 01:27:54 | |
limit active ground floor uses in the commercial downtown districts to restaurants, varieties of retail, and things like food | 01:27:59 | |
stores. | 01:28:04 | |
However, commercial residential market trends nationwide are causing policymakers to reshape the way they view active ground floor | 01:28:10 | |
uses and are adjusting policy accordingly. And those trends are too many vacant storefronts, too little residential and struggling | 01:28:16 | |
property owners and just. | 01:28:22 | |
This if you guys received it, they've there is an article in here that says yes, you can convert vacant retail to housing. This is | 01:28:30 | |
this is a trend that's happening. | 01:28:36 | |
Across the country, next slide, please. | 01:28:42 | |
So this I I was hesitant to put this graph up. | 01:28:47 | |
I we're currently working with the Chamber of Commerce to for vacancy rates in the downtown commercial district, but we were | 01:28:53 | |
unable to get that that data before this meeting. But we were also looking at other data that we can use to help us identify | 01:29:00 | |
whether or not we are having issues with our our downtown. This graph is citywide. | 01:29:07 | |
It compares per capita sales tax generated from targeted retail categories against county wide averages. So retail surplus | 01:29:17 | |
suggests the community is capturing its local market and a retail gap suggests the positive possibility that residents may have a | 01:29:24 | |
greater demand for the products. You can see it's, it might be a little tough to read in here, but we have it looks like 5 + 1 | 01:29:31 | |
category that's a little bit over that are in the green and that's casual dining. | 01:29:38 | |
Lumber and building materials, Grocery stores, fine dining, home furnishings. | 01:29:46 | |
And then down lower is novelty stores. So these are the stores and looking at this commercial downtown, these are not all in | 01:29:52 | |
commercial downtown. Lumber clearly is not. And we have one grocery store, grocery store downtown. But then you can look at the | 01:30:01 | |
the retail gap where Pacific Grove is, is underperforming and it doesn't necessarily speak to vacant vacancy rates, however. | 01:30:11 | |
There's something happening here. | 01:30:21 | |
That is a, there is a, a mild correlation or can be made that that some of this for whatever reason why we have these vacancy | 01:30:23 | |
rates, but this is kind of one of the results of of that. I think it's not a, we don't have the exact count yet, but it's not | 01:30:31 | |
difficult to walk downtown down lighthouse up Grand. | 01:30:40 | |
Or or forest and and count how many vacant retail shops that we do have our storefronts that we do have. | 01:30:49 | |
Next slide, please. | 01:30:57 | |
So, Pacific Grove, as you can see in the article that you're reading and planning magazine. | 01:30:59 | |
They're not the first to consider expanding permissible ground floor uses or downsizing ground floor retail requirements to | 01:31:06 | |
enhance and support commercial districts. So common practices, as I spelled out in the staff report, are. | 01:31:13 | |
Similar to what our table says is allow it behind non residential uses. However you would implement a minimum storefront depth. | 01:31:23 | |
You could implement a minimum floor area. I'm trying to remember which city might have been a Missouri City. | 01:31:31 | |
That they, they, they required if you're going to have residential downtown, you had to have 60% gross floor area on that first | 01:31:41 | |
floor of retailer commercial. | 01:31:46 | |
And then you could you could use the rest as as as residential, the more popular and what I'm finding is this permitted outside of | 01:31:52 | |
our primary retail corridors or non artillery, artillery arterial streets. You have Champaign, IL they have basically said. | 01:32:03 | |
They pick specific streets. You, you know, some of these streets you can go ahead and, and, and put residential on the 1st floor. | 01:32:16 | |
Grand Rapids, MI picked the streets that were adjacent to residential zoning districts. Our neighbor Monterey, they said you could | 01:32:24 | |
do it anywhere in the commercial downtown except for our primary retail area, which is the Alvarado. | 01:32:32 | |
District. | 01:32:41 | |
As you know and we spoke about, amendments to the general plan land use element to support the housing element update will be | 01:32:45 | |
included in the overall housing element project work that's currently underway. Current schedule will have us have this work | 01:32:51 | |
continuing through the first half of 2025 and culminating in public hearings for adoption next summer. This is the perfect time | 01:32:57 | |
for the Commission to consider modifications to the description and policy pertaining ground floor residential uses within the | 01:33:02 | |
commercial downtown zoning district. | 01:33:08 | |
And. | 01:33:14 | |
The Planning Commission guidance will directly inform the way that we work toward these projects or toward the general plan | 01:33:16 | |
changes. | 01:33:20 | |
That is the end of my report. As requested, we do have our Deputy building official, Minnie Arredondo here if you have any | 01:33:28 | |
questions for her. | 01:33:33 | |
A little bit. Good evening. Thank you for coming. Let's hold questions and comments until we hear from the public and. | 01:33:39 | |
I see you, anxious and willing participant. | 01:33:47 | |
Out of the cast of thousands, I'm the one here. | 01:33:52 | |
Well, so to drag up old history, I sat on the Building Standards Committee for seven years and this is one of the things that we | 01:33:57 | |
addressed. And the issue was to allow residential on the upper floors to increase and be able to increase the height limit of new | 01:34:07 | |
buildings or existing buildings. And the objective was to bring more residential traffic downtown to help. | 01:34:16 | |
Umm, kind of be more of a vibrant downtown area. | 01:34:28 | |
That we have gone gone with for many years is the idea of being able to have residential at the back of the commercial buildings. | 01:34:38 | |
We wanted to save the main artery shopping areas I. | 01:34:46 | |
To be resident, to be commercial and retail, because otherwise, if you have all residences, you know, you just lose the vitality | 01:34:55 | |
of your downtown. | 01:35:00 | |
Currently there are multiple cases down in the downtown district, especially on Grand St. I was talking with Bill Bloom who was a | 01:35:07 | |
previous planning commissioner. He has three buildings on Grand that are. | 01:35:16 | |
Retail in the front or commercial in the front and our residential in the back, because there's that funny little alley that goes | 01:35:24 | |
from fountain to grand. | 01:35:29 | |
James Smith a number of years ago did his architectural firm in the front and had his residence in the back that access from that | 01:35:35 | |
alley so. | 01:35:40 | |
The primary example. | 01:35:48 | |
Is already set and that's why I think in the in the sort of footnote. | 01:35:50 | |
The allowance for rear residential entry was sort of critical. | 01:35:58 | |
And one of the case in points, which is partly why I'm getting involved, is because mum's furniture store would like to do the | 01:36:06 | |
same thing and have a residence that faces 16th St. And as you know, in that block, the other side of the street are three history | 01:36:16 | |
historic Victorian single family houses. The backside of Mums or Grove Market or Fandango's, you know, certainly isn't. | 01:36:26 | |
The retail commercial area and so it would be fitting for them to fit under this category, which is historically for a number of | 01:36:36 | |
years has been the case in the kind of typical Victorian block where Victorians restaurant is is. | 01:36:47 | |
Several entrances. | 01:37:00 | |
From lighthouse ground floor to the residences above, which is. | 01:37:02 | |
Way back sort of turn of the century. So it's it's typical, but in in my feeling. | 01:37:10 | |
The downtown main shopping district should still remain. | 01:37:20 | |
Umm, retail commercial on the ground floor with the option of the residential at the back of the buildings or on the sort of side | 01:37:28 | |
streets that really don't promote shopping or or kind of. | 01:37:37 | |
Pedestrian action. | 01:37:47 | |
So I guess when I'm. | 01:37:49 | |
What I'm saying is I think the ordinance was correct in saying that the residential should be on the upper floors, but it also was | 01:37:53 | |
correct in saying that you should have access from the rear of the property that doesn't affect the retail. | 01:38:02 | |
I think one of the things that the Planning Commission is going to have to struggle with is if somebody proposes a residential on | 01:38:12 | |
the second or third floor, they may have to have access as far as their entry is at the ground floor. And how you decide that's | 01:38:21 | |
going to happen is part of your challenge. But it would be very similar to the Victorian Carter block. | 01:38:30 | |
Where I think there's two. | 01:38:40 | |
Residential entrances what you don't really notice but the object of adding the residential overlay and granting some height | 01:38:42 | |
exceptions. | 01:38:48 | |
Was to really bring more people down town so that the downtown district stays vibrant. | 01:38:55 | |
Anyway, so I would hope that you confirm what has been going on for a long time and just confirm this option that the intent is | 01:39:02 | |
for residential at the back of the buildings. Thank you. Thank you. | 01:39:11 | |
Is there anyone? | 01:39:22 | |
Mayor Peak. | 01:39:25 | |
Good afternoon chair or good evening chair. Murphy commissioners. I just in keeping with these comments, I just want to point out | 01:39:28 | |
hops and fog. There's a door to the left to a apartment. My understanding is apartment upstairs. So there's another spot has that | 01:39:34 | |
example. Thanks. Thank you. | 01:39:41 | |
I see at least one hand raised from home. 2 we have Anthony Chiani. | 01:39:50 | |
Good evening again. | 01:40:00 | |
For the most part I agree with the previous speakers. | 01:40:03 | |
For over 50 years. | 01:40:08 | |
The vitality of downtowns I. | 01:40:10 | |
It has involved the pedestrian use of commercial spaces. | 01:40:15 | |
Retail. | 01:40:21 | |
Businesses, restaurants, et cetera. And when you put residences on the 1st floor facing the street. | 01:40:22 | |
By the way, I just want to weave into this this notion that was brought up earlier about the importance of sidewalks having been a | 01:40:32 | |
historic thread of the pedestrian use of the streets. | 01:40:38 | |
Lighthouse is Pacific Groves Alvarado. | 01:40:45 | |
And I think it would be a mistake to change that now. | 01:40:51 | |
Out of desperation for housing. | 01:40:56 | |
I think looking at side streets. | 01:41:02 | |
Is an alternative and should be considered. What should be done? | 01:41:05 | |
On a comprehensive basis or at at least, and I don't like this, but as a piece meal case by case study. | 01:41:10 | |
Umm, as far as moms goes, as I recall, the Planning Commission and the City Council approved. | 01:41:22 | |
A residential unit on the 2nd floor at the rear side of the mum's property. | 01:41:33 | |
And I think that was appropriate. | 01:41:39 | |
It was, it was done using the architectural guidelines and it ended up fitting with the context, the historical context of Pacific | 01:41:43 | |
Grove. | 01:41:50 | |
What doesn't make sense is saying, OK, we need a lot more housing. So what we're going to do is we're going to take the vitality | 01:41:58 | |
of of Lighthouse Ave. of the historical Main Street for Pacific Grove and change that into a housing center. That just doesn't | 01:42:06 | |
make sense, so I don't. | 01:42:15 | |
I I recommend that you don't change the general plan. You don't change the general plans, goals and policies. | 01:42:24 | |
With regard to. | 01:42:30 | |
The the Historical Main Street and Historical District. | 01:42:33 | |
If anything, the city should be applying for a Main St. Historic Preservation grant to study. | 01:42:38 | |
Pacific Groves, Main Street, and maybe in that study, as a comprehensive study, alternatives to address residential uses could be | 01:42:47 | |
explored. Thank you very much. | 01:42:53 | |
Thank you. | 01:43:01 | |
Inga, Lorenzen, Dahmer. | 01:43:04 | |
Thank you. | 01:43:10 | |
I'm pretty much in agreement with what Anthony Gianni said. | 01:43:12 | |
We need the Main St. as Main Street. We need it with retail, whatever it used to be, and I don't see why it can't be again. We had | 01:43:18 | |
a variety store, we had a jewelry store. We had, we had, we had and I don't see because we need all those services still. I don't | 01:43:26 | |
see really why that can't happen again. So I really don't want it converted to housing. | 01:43:35 | |
Now, as far as the upper floors go, I've worked with a census since I don't know. | 01:43:44 | |
A lot of lot of the 10 year periods and there's lots of little apartments upstairs and I think that's appropriate also as far as | 01:43:52 | |
behind well. | 01:43:59 | |
You know they need access and it it is. We need that storefront though and. | 01:44:06 | |
It seems like our ordinances allow for all that. | 01:44:15 | |
So I don't think that that should be changed. | 01:44:21 | |
Second and third floors, yes. And as far as going up higher, no, I'm very much against the going up higher. | 01:44:25 | |
Excuse me, we've already exceeded. | 01:44:35 | |
And allowed ones that shouldn't in my mind have that are just blocking out. | 01:44:40 | |
Our views and our sunlight and many things like that. | 01:44:46 | |
But there's lots of little apartments up and if we have more fine and as far as other cities. | 01:44:54 | |
Midwestern cities or whatever doing all this stuff, Well, that's great too. | 01:45:02 | |
They are not Pacific Row. We are. | 01:45:09 | |
And office buildings. Yeah, office buildings. They're converting them. | 01:45:12 | |
Professional offices, etcetera, like the Garden Rd. that's a different, you know the high rise is already there and and converting | 01:45:20 | |
an office building is different in a city for us. Let's keep it to the upper floors, maybe behind and it is as Tony said. | 01:45:30 | |
Kind of on a case by case basis too, because they have to have, they have to ways to get, have to have ways to get in and out, you | 01:45:42 | |
know ingress and egress whether it's foot or anything else and that is necessary. So I don't think we really need to change | 01:45:49 | |
things. | 01:45:56 | |
Thank you very much. | 01:46:04 | |
And I see Councilman Coletti has his hand up. I do indeed, chair, and thank you. I'm speaking on my, on my own behalf, as they | 01:46:08 | |
say, as a private citizen. | 01:46:12 | |
I think that's kosher. I still have First Amendment rights as far as I'm aware, at any rate. | 01:46:19 | |
I just wanted to provide you with a little historic context on this. 30 years ago, the citizens of Pacific Grove approved hotel | 01:46:24 | |
use for the Holman Block. | 01:46:29 | |
1994 measure EI think Mayor Byrne at the time had something to do with that. At any rate, 30 years later, we finally have a hotel | 01:46:34 | |
that's being built. And the whole idea is that it's going to drive economic vitality into downtown. And now we're talking about | 01:46:43 | |
taking away the opportunity for commercial space to serve that use. And I just, I just kind of find that fascinating. Thank you. | 01:46:52 | |
Thank you. | 01:47:04 | |
No further hands, Mr. Campbell. | 01:47:08 | |
No, we have no further hands. That ends our public comment. Time for questions or comments from the. | 01:47:14 | |
Commission. | 01:47:20 | |
Commissioner Frederickson, why? Thank you. | 01:47:26 | |
I guess the basic question I have is who's asking for this? | 01:47:30 | |
We actually have through the chair, a number of applicants. We have people from. | 01:47:39 | |
Well, Mrs. Byrne to a gentleman who converted years ago, a mixed-use building that he lives in the upper floor and he converted it | 01:47:46 | |
fully to a commercial building so that he could have an office on the 1st floor and wants to now go back to what he had before, | 01:47:56 | |
which was at the time almost. Well it was he made it more conforming basically. It wasn't necessarily non conforming. | 01:48:05 | |
But now he can't convert that space that he had before into. He wants to have a an apartment downstairs. We have. | 01:48:14 | |
Residential condominiums with a. | 01:48:24 | |
Commercial condominium on the 1st floor on one of our streets that they wanted they're they're having a hard time getting tenants | 01:48:30 | |
into that space and would like to do a portion of it as a residential I. | 01:48:38 | |
There is, we've had a it's, it's a lot of it has come from from the public, a lot has come from just also options. It's not | 01:48:47 | |
anything we really, this isn't something that staff has any real. We're really looking to say this is a discussion. And is it | 01:48:55 | |
something that you would like us to look at as we move move forward? | 01:49:02 | |
Commissioner Frederickson. | 01:49:11 | |
So that if that's the case, if I if I understand you correctly, that the the the document if if the document allowed living space | 01:49:13 | |
on the ground floor. | 01:49:20 | |
In back that would satisfy the needs of most of the people you're talking. That's correct. Yeah. And nobody's proposing that | 01:49:29 | |
seriously that that we close out the businesses with 100%. | 01:49:36 | |
Use for living. | 01:49:46 | |
No, Sir, and definitely not. | 01:49:49 | |
And definitely not on, we haven't had any inquiries on Lighthouse for residential first floor. I can say the one the one house | 01:49:53 | |
that did the mix is headed did the mixed-use conversion. | 01:49:59 | |
That office is in the rear. There is no storefront. It's actually a budding I think our three it's and it was one of those one of | 01:50:06 | |
those houses that happen to get caught into the commercial downtown. I think at the at one point it was a dog groomers and so they | 01:50:12 | |
added it as as a commercial downtown. | 01:50:19 | |
I guess to close my comment then I I think that we are the last thing we would want to do with. | 01:50:28 | |
Would be to at a time when we're going to have a boutique hotel coming into the downtown area. | 01:50:37 | |
That that presumably is going to drive. | 01:50:43 | |
More people onto the streets looking for things to buy, shopping that we want to keep those sites available for commercial use. | 01:50:47 | |
So I I would I would be in agreement to to. | 01:50:58 | |
To proceed as suggested and allow use for apartments at the back of a commercial building building, but require the the lighthouse | 01:51:03 | |
corridor anyway. That the space be the space fronting lighthouse be used for commercial use. | 01:51:12 | |
Commissioner Davidson. | 01:51:24 | |
I think I'm in agreement as well. I think one of the things that maybe goes on setting these discussions is, you know, commercial | 01:51:26 | |
space is expensive. And with, you know, the rise of everything, it's more and more difficult to make money in a commercial space | 01:51:32 | |
if your rent is so high. And I am wondering if we could do some amount of subdivision to effectively offset rent prices. I'm | 01:51:38 | |
thinking of some of the more interesting places that have opened up in the last few years in Pacific Grove and I think like | 01:51:43 | |
Captain Stoker. | 01:51:49 | |
Among them and they were in a tiny spot, right? And that makes it economically feasible. And so I want to keep all the storefronts | 01:51:55 | |
in Pacific Grove for sure. And Lighthouse. I'm an agreement. I don't think we should get rid of our like downtown thoroughfare. | 01:52:01 | |
But I'm wondering if the 60 percent, 40% housing in the back might actually make it more feasible for more businesses to open in | 01:52:06 | |
downtown. | 01:52:12 | |
Vice Chair Sawyer. | 01:52:20 | |
I got the planning magazine and I read it with great interest. | 01:52:24 | |
I have to agree with both the gentleman that just spoke. We do have a lot of empty retail space and we do have two little housing. | 01:52:31 | |
However, I think we really need to safeguard and ensure our high quality comfortable pedestrian environments. And I think that | 01:52:38 | |
that really pertains to our main artery of lighthouse. I think it's really, really important because we are getting a boutique | 01:52:46 | |
hotel and I think we need to make sure that the retail. | 01:52:53 | |
Aren't pushed out by housing. | 01:53:02 | |
I think that many. | 01:53:06 | |
Downtowns are experiencing the long term vacancy, but. | 01:53:09 | |
I think it's important to think about what we are as a town. | 01:53:14 | |
And it's fine to look at Champaign IL and but what I think is very clear, they prohibit housing on selected blocks and streets in | 01:53:21 | |
its downtown commercial district. They too have that site that they need to keep the area that supports commercial activity and | 01:53:27 | |
pedestrian activity. | 01:53:34 | |
Grand Grand Rapids, MI They did the same thing. | 01:53:42 | |
And New York is also looking at doing a commercial overview and overhaul. And I just think it's really, really important to. | 01:53:47 | |
Prioritize our continuity of retail frontage where strong concentration of pedestrians. | 01:53:57 | |
And activity occurs. And the one thing that I found really interesting in the article and the magazine, the planning magazine, is | 01:54:04 | |
they also talked about San Francisco. And so because I'm curious, I decided I would look up what San Francisco's guidelines for | 01:54:11 | |
ground floor residential design had to say. And it was fascinating. They talk about if you're going to put housing on the front | 01:54:19 | |
of. | 01:54:26 | |
Retail, they talked about a lot of different things that you need to do. One of them was talking about setbacks. They recommended | 01:54:35 | |
a three foot minimum set back. They talked about having the entry level or ground floor unit elevate by three feet. | 01:54:42 | |
And then if you couldn't elevate that by three feet, then you needed to provide some sort of a buffer. So I am very much in favor | 01:54:51 | |
of the idea of having the residential in the back and keeping the retail in the front for that very reason, because we have these | 01:54:58 | |
old historic buildings where I think it would be difficult to change setbacks. But my question, and I'm so glad our building lady | 01:55:05 | |
is here. | 01:55:12 | |
Is if you put something in the back. | 01:55:19 | |
How do we do egress and ingress? If it's one of those old buildings that's, you know, has all buildings on either side of it, what | 01:55:23 | |
does that do to the ability to build a residential in the back? | 01:55:31 | |
Thank you, Vice Chair. So I. | 01:55:45 | |
Good question. And that is obviously a concern for us that egress for residential is identified and required especially in | 01:55:48 | |
sleeping areas. So we and and with our downtown each each. | 01:55:57 | |
Building could be have its own set of challenges. So we're going to, you know, we would defer to the architects, structural | 01:56:06 | |
engineers who designed that and we review it. Those would be the criteria we're looking for is to make sure they're meeting | 01:56:11 | |
egress. | 01:56:16 | |
To ensure that you know if. | 01:56:22 | |
Should a fire plus fire sprinklers would then be required as well? Should the building not have fire sprinklers, that change of | 01:56:25 | |
use would trigger fire sprinklers as well using a historic building. | 01:56:30 | |
Yes. | 01:56:35 | |
Because of the change in use from commercial to residential. | 01:56:37 | |
Let let me slip into question to to our our building official and we we have a number of short term rentals in the commercial area | 01:56:45 | |
and I'm thinking particularly on on fountain. | 01:56:50 | |
If if a property has been approved for a short term rental. | 01:56:58 | |
Does that mean it would automatically qualify for a residential use, a full time residential use as far as building codes, et | 01:57:03 | |
cetera? | 01:57:07 | |
Some short term rental is it's the use of that structure. It's already residential. Now these are some of the commercial buildings | 01:57:14 | |
along Fountain and now we have allowed short-term rentals in the back with a narrow space in the front that's basically supposed | 01:57:20 | |
to be commercial, but usually that there's nothing there. And and I guess I'm asking if those buildings where we in the commercial | 01:57:26 | |
zone where we allow short term rentals. | 01:57:33 | |
The fact that we have a short term rental. | 01:57:40 | |
That mean that automatically fits all the code requirements for a permanent residential situation. | 01:57:43 | |
So. | 01:57:53 | |
Are the short term rentals already? | 01:57:55 | |
Yes, so. | 01:57:59 | |
So the short term rental are we talking have they been there for 10 years, five years? I'm sure they're more like 5 or so most of | 01:58:04 | |
them. So when those when when they were converted, if they were converted from commercial that would have triggered the fire | 01:58:09 | |
sprinklers I. | 01:58:14 | |
By the fact that they're being used is residential even though they're short term rentals if they're being used as residents | 01:58:21 | |
residential any type of capacity residential which that is like a hotel right? Your short term rentals or are twos that would | 01:58:27 | |
trigger fire sprinklers. | 01:58:33 | |
Miss Byrne, perhaps you can help us out here. | 01:58:46 | |
Actually that's a zoning issue. So it would be up to you to decide how you're going to deal with the zoning going from short term | 01:58:50 | |
rental, which is a commercial use to a residential use, so. | 01:58:57 | |
Fire sprinklers, they're all different, right? That's somebody else's problem. You would have to look at that. So and I think the | 01:59:05 | |
issue is, I know it's a bigger discussion, but currently the residential aspect is allowed at the rear of the property. So you | 01:59:13 | |
know, I think confirmation of that is important and but in the process. | 01:59:22 | |
The long term is to me is to maintain the. | 01:59:31 | |
More vibrant retail commercial on the main streets. | 01:59:37 | |
But also the question about egress, et cetera, et cetera, these only work if you have an alley, you have a street. I mean, if | 01:59:43 | |
you're at the 0 lot line, you're not going to put a unit behind you. | 01:59:50 | |
The only way you could do that, and this is again a discussion for you, is do you allow an entrance from the street level on the | 01:59:59 | |
Main Street to access something in the back? | 02:00:05 | |
But you know, there's all kinds of zoning issues in terms of. | 02:00:12 | |
Egress light ventilation, you know, if you're lot lined a lot line, you've exempted yourself essentially from doing a residential | 02:00:17 | |
project. So you guys have the zoning all to yourself. Thank you. Other comments, questions, suggestions. | 02:00:27 | |
I I guess for me, I understand what everyone's saying about lighthouse sitting and I. | 02:00:39 | |
I I basically agree, although I think. | 02:00:47 | |
You know, I think retail is in trouble and I'm not sure a new hotel is going to make much difference one way or the other. It may | 02:00:51 | |
that that remains to be seen. | 02:00:56 | |
And I understand not wanting to do anything on on Lighthouse, and I guess if we were to do something I'd be open to nibbling at | 02:01:01 | |
the edges where Pier one was and where Hambrooks. | 02:01:08 | |
I wouldn't want to you know, have you know, retail, residential, retail residential, but starting at at either end if there are | 02:01:17 | |
opportunities. | 02:01:21 | |
For previously commercial buildings to have residential on the 1st floor. | 02:01:27 | |
And again using. | 02:01:34 | |
Peter One in Hambrooks, just as an as an example. | 02:01:36 | |
I guess I wouldn't object to. | 02:01:40 | |
Residential there right right from the front and I also wouldn't object on on grand or. | 02:01:45 | |
Or or fountain. | 02:01:52 | |
Umm, I would not. | 02:01:56 | |
I think we probably should treat forests the way we're trying treating lighthouse. | 02:01:58 | |
And this is really a big, a big discussion and, and you know, I know we invited the chamber and the bid and, and people didn't | 02:02:05 | |
come. | 02:02:09 | |
Before thinking of this meeting as as providing guide, you know, policy guidance, I I think it probably makes sense for us to talk | 02:02:15 | |
about it. | 02:02:20 | |
Some more. | 02:02:26 | |
Along the way and and maybe to have some more information about what our vacancy rate really, really is and here and I'd like to | 02:02:27 | |
hear from some. | 02:02:32 | |
You know, building owners downtown who have been trying to rent. | 02:02:38 | |
Their buildings and you know, it's, it's very well for us to say, oh, keep, keep it the way it is. | 02:02:41 | |
On the other hand, if we have places that can't can't be rented, I. | 02:02:49 | |
You know, that's that's an issue and I don't have an answer and I don't think we haven't. | 02:02:54 | |
We're giving you. | 02:02:59 | |
First impression type stuff, but I think maybe there's room for a more informed discussion. | 02:03:01 | |
From us in the next couple of months. | 02:03:08 | |
Other comments, questions Mr. Campbell Oh, I was just through the chair. I was thinking that I think that is sound, sound advice. | 02:03:13 | |
I mean, we definitely don't want to run into unintended consequences. | 02:03:19 | |
And so it's, I think this, this was really a. | 02:03:26 | |
Intended to open. | 02:03:32 | |
Open the door or the floor. The idea, the concept of it, we have a pretty solid staff uses. | 02:03:35 | |
Like I mentioned earlier, it's a general plan and land use plan. They guide us. It guides us every day. And in this case. | 02:03:42 | |
We we often. | 02:03:51 | |
Have to tell people that something's not allowed because of the general plan, even though we do have this table, but it is I think | 02:03:54 | |
it's important that. | 02:03:57 | |
We can find a way to get more information and data if that's what we can. We can gather or or. | 02:04:03 | |
Maybe involve the chamber? | 02:04:11 | |
Or even the EDC for that matter would be in the property you've mentioned. For the fellow has had his office on the 1st floor and | 02:04:14 | |
he lived above and now he wants residential on the 1st floor. | 02:04:19 | |
Yeah, He that's, you know, that's on 15th St. I think. And I, you know, I'd be open to residential there now even though it's it's | 02:04:26 | |
not allowed. So I think we should. | 02:04:30 | |
Be thinking about. | 02:04:36 | |
You know, relaxing rules somewhat to allow people to to have housing. | 02:04:38 | |
Vice Chair Sawyer. | 02:04:44 | |
One of my concerns in Mr. Campbell addressed it. I think it's something that we want to look at carefully. I don't think we want | 02:04:46 | |
to approach a piece meal. I think we need to decide what will work for Pacific Grove, what will work for our historic downtown | 02:04:55 | |
district, and also what's going to work for our property owners because we do have a lot of empty. | 02:05:04 | |
Buildings and. | 02:05:13 | |
How do we get that together and look at it and I think it needs a bit more. | 02:05:14 | |
We need a bit more information. | 02:05:20 | |
Mr. Kubica. | 02:05:24 | |
Thank you, Chair Murphy. I guess I have a question and I don't know who to ask. | 02:05:27 | |
Has this been broached at the BID or the HID or at the Chamber of Commerce? | 02:05:32 | |
Or is it just coming here and you know it? It would it would seem whether the business owners might be interested in Director | 02:05:37 | |
Vaughn did notify those groups that were meeting and discussing it tonight. | 02:05:43 | |
It was relatively short notice but she did notify them. Maybe they it should be on their agendas for their meetings and let them | 02:05:49 | |
discuss it. | 02:05:53 | |
It's just just a suggestion. | 02:05:59 | |
A quick one. | 02:06:10 | |
Well, since currently this is allowed at the rear of a building, is this a confirmation that that that is in fact in place and of | 02:06:14 | |
course we would have to meet all the egress and all the standard. | 02:06:21 | |
Buildings code stuff, but essentially it's allowed at this point. I guess that's the question for you. | 02:06:29 | |
We it is. | 02:06:37 | |
Every. Every. | 02:06:40 | |
As as I, I showed in the in the report, everything except for the table is is it limits it to upper floors and so staff can't, we | 02:06:43 | |
can't. I mean, we're, we have the general plan, we have two code sections and then we have one table that says you can do it. So | 02:06:50 | |
it doesn't. | 02:06:56 | |
By what we have, it doesn't seem that we can reasonably make findings that it is allowed. | 02:07:04 | |
Even though it's. | 02:07:13 | |
What? What? What's been done in the past, isn't it? | 02:07:19 | |
You know, we, we have, we have a new director, we have new staff and, and we are, we're using what we have in front of us, which | 02:07:24 | |
is the. | 02:07:28 | |
The zoning ordinance and the general plan and land use plan to to guide us we probably should should not keep going from trip | 02:07:33 | |
discussion, but if. | 02:07:37 | |
OK, I understand. OK. Thank you. | 02:07:43 | |
Commission Dozenski. So it sounds like we have a conflict, yeah, with the table and with so there's a conflict existing. So | 02:07:47 | |
something needs to be done to. | 02:07:52 | |
One way or the other, OK. | 02:07:57 | |
And could that? | 02:08:00 | |
Kind of like in the zoning code. | 02:08:01 | |
Be fixed without having to address it in the general plan. | 02:08:04 | |
The easiest way to fix it would to be to exactly reflect the general plan, because I I believe that where it says mixed uses and | 02:08:11 | |
then in parentheses says in the rear. It's also including other commercial districts. | 02:08:20 | |
So it's not just commercial downtown. So it may be. | 02:08:29 | |
What happened was they probably meant to be in the back and other commercial districts, but the general plan clearly says no and | 02:08:34 | |
they did kind of a blanket item, table item. So really. | 02:08:41 | |
And this wouldn't help anybody. The only way to reflect the general plan would be to update that table to or yeah, to to reflect | 02:08:49 | |
the general plan. And it would be implementing what the general plan says. And so it's. | 02:08:56 | |
So in other words, you would deny the. | 02:09:04 | |
Residential in the back. | 02:09:09 | |
At this time, yeah, we, we would and, and, and to fix the conflict, you would also continue on that road. So in other words, fix | 02:09:12 | |
the table. We, we couldn't do anything until. And that's what that's why we bring up the land use plan because that's what needs | 02:09:18 | |
it's change. It's, it's anything, you know, it's we have our implementation plan. All that is, is, is the reflection of what? The | 02:09:24 | |
what the general plan and land use plan. | 02:09:31 | |
Are are guiding us to do. | 02:09:38 | |
So until the land use plan were to change. | 02:09:40 | |
Because we do have other code sections in 23 that say only above floor. | 02:09:44 | |
Above residential. | 02:09:50 | |
The variance doesn't apply to general plans. | 02:09:55 | |
As the general plan strictly says no. | 02:09:59 | |
Discussion for further discussion. | 02:10:10 | |
And seeing no further comment, so end the meeting. Our next meeting is, I want to say November 14th. | 02:10:15 | |
And thank you. Thank you all, particularly to our building official who spent some hours with us. Thank you. | 02:10:23 | |
Into our former mayor who helped us understand the issue, and to our. | 02:10:30 | |
President, Mayor, who is a faithful attendee. | 02:10:36 |
* you need to log in to manage your favorites
Good evening. I'd like to call the regular meeting of the Planning Commission for. | 00:00:09 | |
October 10th to order. | 00:00:15 | |
Could we have a roll call please? | 00:00:19 | |
Chair Murphy. | 00:00:24 | |
Yeah. | 00:00:28 | |
Vice Chair Sawyer present. | 00:00:31 | |
Commissioner Nadzynski here. | 00:00:36 | |
Commissioner Kubica. President. Commissioner Fredrickson. | 00:00:38 | |
Commissioner Davidson here and Commissioner Swaggart is absent today, so we have 6. Thank you. | 00:00:43 | |
Does staff have any suggestion about changing the agenda? | 00:00:52 | |
Anyone on the Commission have any questions about the order of the agenda? | 00:01:00 | |
If not, can we have a motion to approve it? | 00:01:06 | |
So moved. | 00:01:09 | |
Commissioner Frederickson. | 00:01:13 | |
Commissioner Nozzinski. | 00:01:15 | |
All in favor say aye aye, all opposed. That's 601 to approve the agenda with Commissioner Frederickson and Commissioner Zenski. | 00:01:16 | |
Now it's time for Commission and staff announcements. | 00:01:28 | |
I think we usually ask staff first is does staff have any announcements this evening? We do. I have a couple of announcements. | 00:01:32 | |
Thank you Chair. The 1st is. | 00:01:37 | |
Director Vaughn could not make it today. She's out of town taking care of some family issues, so she sends her her regrets for | 00:01:43 | |
that, but we'll be back for our next meeting. | 00:01:49 | |
And I'd also like to introduce, we didn't have a meeting last last month, so we didn't get a chance to introduce our new associate | 00:01:57 | |
planner, Ariana Mora. Arianna has her bachelor's degree from UC Santa Cruz in environmental studies. She was a planner with the | 00:02:03 | |
City of Soledad for the last three years. She's now been with us for two months, and she's a wonderful addition to the team. So | 00:02:09 | |
please welcome her. Welcome, Miss Mora. | 00:02:15 | |
Looking forward to to working with you likewise. | 00:02:22 | |
And that's all for us. | 00:02:26 | |
Any announcements from commissioners, Commissioner, Vice Chair Sawyer? | 00:02:28 | |
I just wanted to give everybody an update on the six cycle housing element outreach that we did for the Planning Commission. And I | 00:02:33 | |
would like to extend my thanks to Don Murphy and also to my gentleman sitting here on my right, Ross. They were helpful. So | 00:02:43 | |
basically what happened is we met at the Pacific Grove Public Library. The library was really good. | 00:02:52 | |
They advertise for us, they sent out Flyers, they put us on social media and so and we even had a special table and we met three | 00:03:02 | |
times and we met two hours and three hours on one time and two hours on the second time and we had a total of. | 00:03:12 | |
Three people who came by to see us. It was rousing participation. | 00:03:22 | |
So then we decided, OK, because it was in our plan anyway that we would try the farmers market. And so we did that three times as | 00:03:28 | |
well. And that was in August for two dates and one date in September. And we were there for basically 4 hours and we had very nice | 00:03:38 | |
participation there. We had a total of 19 on one day, 16 on another and 18 on the third day. | 00:03:47 | |
And the one thing that we did not do, we didn't ask everybody if they were all from Pacific Grove, but about 80% of the people | 00:03:57 | |
that talked with us were from Pacific Grove. And it was interesting, the people that weren't from Pacific Grove were very curious | 00:04:05 | |
as to find out what exactly we were doing. And what was resounding to all of us that did that is the amount of. | 00:04:14 | |
Information that people did not have. | 00:04:24 | |
They really did not know much, if anything, about the housing element. And then we talked a little bit about it. They said thank | 00:04:26 | |
you. And then they left. They said, oh, that's not going to affect me or my neighborhood. And so we said, well, you might want to | 00:04:32 | |
check. And so that was what we did. Thank you. | 00:04:38 | |
And I just also wanted to add one comment as we will be talking about it when we look at the. | 00:04:45 | |
Lup, I have gone back to the great Tide pool area and I'm really concerned with what I saw there. Chair Murphy and I met with the | 00:04:53 | |
city manager and expressed our concerns. I went back there yesterday and what our concerns, what we discussed, nothing had been | 00:05:01 | |
changed and so it was a little. | 00:05:10 | |
Disappointing because. | 00:05:20 | |
The fences, you know, the cable and. | 00:05:22 | |
Posts in some places are completely down and what we noticed, what I especially noticed yesterday is people are tracking into the | 00:05:27 | |
dunes to get around the part that comes down into the valley of the Great Tide Pool area. So it's a concern, but we'll look at | 00:05:34 | |
that more when we talk about the LUP. Thank you. | 00:05:42 | |
Thank you. Other other staff announcements. | 00:05:50 | |
Seeing none if Council member Coletti is is with us, is there the Council Planning Commission members? There are quite a few items | 00:05:55 | |
to discuss quite a few discussion we're going to have on council. Of course. The 1st is the the vacation of Slow Ave. as part of | 00:06:03 | |
the development for the American Tin Cannery Hotel, the proposed development. | 00:06:12 | |
That's on our agenda for next Wednesday. That's agenda item 11A. | 00:06:21 | |
We'll also be doing another public hearing as regards transitioning to district based elections for the City Council election. So | 00:06:26 | |
we're currently at large. | 00:06:31 | |
The general report will get you up to speed on what's transpired as far as receiving a demand letter from LULAC such that we would | 00:06:38 | |
be contemplating going to district based elections and that's what we'll be discussing for the second time. | 00:06:44 | |
Next week, next Wednesday, there's also an agenda item regarding the second reading of an ordinance I brought forward for | 00:06:51 | |
increasing penalties for violations of our short term rental ordinance. This is specific to infractions of health or safety | 00:06:57 | |
violations. | 00:07:04 | |
And then finally some some also some news that I know the Planning Commission will be interested in. After nearly two years and | 00:07:11 | |
many, many conversations and meetings, construction will finally begin on the sidewalk improvements, the sidewalk, the curb | 00:07:19 | |
extension at the corner of Fountain Lighthouse with the removal of the existing Parkland. | 00:07:26 | |
That's all I have for now. Have a good meeting. Thank you. | 00:07:34 | |
In Miss Vegas, is there anything from the city attorneys office? | 00:07:40 | |
Thank you, Chair Murphy. I don't have anything to report to the Commission this evening. | 00:07:46 | |
Well, thank you and welcome. | 00:07:52 | |
Now it's time for general public comment. This is comment from members of the public about issues that are not not on our agenda | 00:07:55 | |
tonight. You will have 3 minutes to make a comment and we will not. | 00:08:01 | |
Not take action on on any of the items. | 00:08:08 | |
Is there any anyone in the room who wishes to speak to us? | 00:08:11 | |
Seeing no one. | 00:08:17 | |
Mr. Campbell, is there anyone online with a raised hand? We have Anthony Gianni. | 00:08:20 | |
Good evening, Planning Commissioners. I'm going to bring two things to your mind that. | 00:08:30 | |
One which Miss Sawyer just commented on, which was the great title. The other one is Crespi Pond. | 00:08:36 | |
Both. I understand that both of those projects are being reviewed for a coastal development permit. | 00:08:47 | |
However. | 00:08:56 | |
Both of those projects were approved as coastal permits originally by the Coastal Commission. It's my understanding that I. | 00:08:58 | |
They remain in a jurisdiction of the Coastal Commission. | 00:09:11 | |
And while that's true, I believe you should ask that those applications be brought to you when they're ready. | 00:09:15 | |
The apparently the public works department. | 00:09:27 | |
Got a study done? | 00:09:31 | |
Last December for Crespi Pond. | 00:09:33 | |
But none of that has been shared with the BNRC or you or the City Council, and no coastal permit has been brought forward. | 00:09:38 | |
To address that. | 00:09:50 | |
I think it could be an error that the CDD is assuming that it's responsible for reviewing the coastal permit. But as I said, I | 00:09:52 | |
believe that's in a jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission. | 00:10:01 | |
As far as the Great Tide pool, it's a disaster. | 00:10:11 | |
It's gotten worse, not better. | 00:10:17 | |
And the notion that about a week ago they sent out a, the planning department set out some sort of an advisory that they're | 00:10:22 | |
reviewing the coastal permit, that doesn't help anything. It should be going to the Coastal Commission and in the meantime, it | 00:10:29 | |
needs to be saved up. | 00:10:36 | |
Safety is the 1st. | 00:10:44 | |
Rule. | 00:10:48 | |
Whether you're doing a private project, whether you're standing on a ladder, painting a building building, whether you're doing a | 00:10:48 | |
large public works project, public safety, individual safety is is paramount. And I don't see that happening here. I think the | 00:10:56 | |
liability to the city is gotten worse, not better. | 00:11:05 | |
Thank you. | 00:11:14 | |
Thank you, Mr. Johnny. | 00:11:16 | |
We have Lisa Chiani. | 00:11:20 | |
Thank you. | 00:11:24 | |
Since since the Great Tide Pool Trail was brought up and and it is content continues to be a huge concern to me I. | 00:11:27 | |
That was once a really, really wonderful area and I think somehow it could be restored to that. But I, I just wanted to say that | 00:11:40 | |
in reviewing all the coastal hazard policies in recent days, it was. | 00:11:48 | |
And I wrote this in my comments last night. I don't know if you received them last night, but. | 00:11:58 | |
Has policy. Has 11 I. | 00:12:04 | |
It seems to me in reading that again carefully. | 00:12:09 | |
That policy seems to indicate the city should not be reconstructing the Great Tide Pool Trail, where it's already been damaged by | 00:12:16 | |
coastal hazards and has strewn large concrete debris around the site that's yet to be removed. And we're coming up on on a year. | 00:12:25 | |
The Great Typical Trail fits the description of critical public infrastructure. | 00:12:36 | |
Now and and or will soon and much of it is below the 20 foot elevation. Yet the city is proceeding with plans to reconstruct the | 00:12:41 | |
heavily damaged trail and add stairs. So I I hope that that will be looked at more carefully in coming days. Thank you. | 00:12:52 | |
Thank you. | 00:13:05 | |
We have Inga, Lorenzen, Dahmer. | 00:13:08 | |
Thank you, Commission Chair. I think that with this great tide pool thing, the explanation I had gotten from public Works was that | 00:13:13 | |
the FEMA money to fix it was only to replace exactly what was there before, which is absolutely insane because it never should | 00:13:21 | |
have been put there in the beginning. | 00:13:29 | |
It should have been differently designed. So I think that that's the crux of the matter here. | 00:13:38 | |
This FEMA stuff and funding and certainly public works is not moving ahead with with anything. | 00:13:45 | |
We're talking slow pace here, years and years, and meanwhile our dunes are getting destroyed. So something really does need to be | 00:13:57 | |
done and not just waiting on FEMA money. And it does need coastal Commission. | 00:14:06 | |
In my mind, because that's where it came from in the beginning. | 00:14:16 | |
Thank you very much. Thank you. | 00:14:22 | |
I see no other hands. Oh, looks. Pardon me. Please join us. | 00:14:30 | |
I just want I discussed this with the mayor Pro Tem but. | 00:14:45 | |
Bringing up the idea of replacing sidewalks, it would be the excellent time for the city to pick a standard for the downtown | 00:14:49 | |
district. | 00:14:54 | |
So that all the sidewalks match. | 00:14:58 | |
And comment. Thank you. | 00:15:02 | |
Seeing no other hands raised or people walking to the podium, I. | 00:15:09 | |
That's an end of general public comment. | 00:15:15 | |
And I don't. | 00:15:20 | |
Remember written public comments since our last meeting on topics other than the ones on our agenda, but I my memory might be | 00:15:21 | |
faulty. | 00:15:25 | |
Pardon me. | 00:15:30 | |
OK. Thank you. | 00:15:34 | |
Time for the consent agenda. The consent agenda tonight to. | 00:15:37 | |
Consists of the work plan. | 00:15:43 | |
In the minutes of our August 8th meeting, I without pulling it from consent, I just wanted to mention two things about the work | 00:15:45 | |
plan and I believe the transportation subcommittee report, you know will not be held tonight. We should we'll do it next next | 00:15:52 | |
month and also on next month's work plan will be an opportunity for us to discuss what kind of training opportunities would would | 00:15:59 | |
like and planning related matters. | 00:16:06 | |
And what kind of initiatives would like to? | 00:16:13 | |
Dig into in the next. | 00:16:17 | |
You know the next several months. So this this advance notice gives you time to think of of those things. | 00:16:20 | |
Does staff wish to pull anything from consent? | 00:16:26 | |
No, Sir. | 00:16:31 | |
Does anyone in the public wishing to pull wish to pull in anything from consent? | 00:16:32 | |
Any commissioner willing to pull any wishing to pull out anything from consent. | 00:16:40 | |
Seeing no one, can we have a motion to approve the consent agenda? Vice Chair Sawyer and. | 00:16:45 | |
Make a motion to approve the consent agenda and a second second Commissioner Kubica. | 00:16:52 | |
All in favor, please say aye aye. All opposed. | 00:16:59 | |
Consent agenda pass 601 with Vice Chair Sawyer and Commissioner Kubica. | 00:17:03 | |
We're now on to our regular agenda and the first item is Item 8A and amendment to the local coastal program is exempt from SEQUA. | 00:17:12 | |
And the recommended action is that we approve the staff recommendations and forward them to the City Council. | 00:17:22 | |
And Mr. Sidor, is this your item? | 00:17:33 | |
Yes, Chair Murphy, just one moment, will I bring up the presentation? | 00:17:39 | |
Our apologies, we having having technical difficulty. | 00:18:53 | |
Murphy and commissioners, sorry for the delay. The Commission will consider the initiation of an amendment to the local Coastal | 00:19:33 | |
program and a recommendation to the City Council. | 00:19:38 | |
Of the draft changes as proposed. | 00:19:45 | |
Just a little bit of background first. | 00:19:51 | |
In 2022 of the city applied for and received a $100,000 grant from the California Coastal Commission to update the cities coastal | 00:19:53 | |
hazard mapping. This grant supported a technical update of the cities current coastal hazard data, which is based on modeling data | 00:19:59 | |
from 2008. | 00:20:05 | |
Integral Consulting completed the technical analysis and presented an overview of the modeling methodology and analysis results to | 00:20:13 | |
the Planning Commission on August 8th, 2024, and the final document with tracked changes is attached to the agenda report for | 00:20:19 | |
tonight's meeting. | 00:20:26 | |
Just one more thing about the modeling data from 2008. Based on the information received from Integral Consulting, that modeling | 00:20:34 | |
data was. | 00:20:40 | |
Overestimated the potential. | 00:20:50 | |
Hazards and it was a very conservative set of modeling data and so the. | 00:20:54 | |
New data is more accurate and consistent with current state guidance on sea level rise and provide staff with improved tools to | 00:21:04 | |
determine coastal hazard vulnerability of proposed projects. Therefore, the draft LCP amendment reflects this limited technical | 00:21:11 | |
scope and does not propose the inclusion of unrelated changes. | 00:21:18 | |
Based on the results of the technical analysis and in close coordination with Costa Commission staff, CDD staff prepared draft | 00:21:27 | |
amendments to the text, policies and figures of the Land Use Plan and Implementation Plan. These minor amendments to the LCP are | 00:21:35 | |
intended to implement the updated technical analysis and tools used to determine coastal hazard vulnerability. | 00:21:43 | |
The draft amendments consist primarily of the following. | 00:21:52 | |
The addition of a definition for. | 00:21:58 | |
Critical, uh. | 00:22:00 | |
Excuse me, critical public infrastructure and LUP Section 1.10 and critical public infrastructure will be evaluated at a higher | 00:22:03 | |
standard and Coastal Commission staff provided guidance on the types of infrastructure and other wording to include to include in | 00:22:08 | |
the definition. | 00:22:14 | |
To an update of the data and information sources and LUP Section 2.1, point 1/3. An update to LUP Figure 3 in Section 2, point 1.2 | 00:22:21 | |
Figure 3. Excuse me. Just as a reminder, Figure 3 is a static snapshot and City staff will primarily use the GIS data to complete | 00:22:31 | |
any initial assessment and four text revisions to policy. | 00:22:41 | |
12. | 00:22:51 | |
In land use plans, Section 2, point 1.4 and policy has 12 would be amended to include a paragraph regarding critical public | 00:22:53 | |
infrastructure and to differentiate between the level of review required for private and public development within the GIS data | 00:23:00 | |
and additional safety. Setback distance has also been added to the calendar year 2100 erosion hazard zone to approximate the more | 00:23:08 | |
severe sea level rise scenario. | 00:23:15 | |
For critical public infrastructure and then five and last our text revisions to implementation plans section or Pacific Grove | 00:23:23 | |
Municipal Code section 23.90 point 140 B to shift the responsibility for completing an initial assessment from an applicant to | 00:23:30 | |
city staff. | 00:23:37 | |
Regarding the schedule, the technical analysis took longer than anticipated, so the city will need to quickly move the LCP | 00:23:48 | |
amendment through the remaining process steps in order to complete the entire process prior or by June of 2025. And that may seem. | 00:23:58 | |
A ways away, but it's a. It's a. | 00:24:09 | |
Lengthy and time consuming process and so it will take approximately 7 to 8 months or until May or June of 2025. | 00:24:13 | |
And following the Planning Commission action, the City Council will consider the draft amendment and a resolution of intent to | 00:24:24 | |
amend the local coastal program. And then staff will then prepare and submit the LCP amendment packet to the Coastal Commission | 00:24:31 | |
for their consideration and certification. And then after certification by the Coastal Commission, the City Council will again | 00:24:39 | |
consider final adoption of the LCP amendment. | 00:24:46 | |
And we do have some corrections this evening. | 00:25:00 | |
Staff recommends the following corrections regarding the resolution to initiate the LCP amendment. | 00:25:06 | |
On the resolution of intention to initiate the LCP amendment, delete recitals 9 through 12 and the findings section and the | 00:25:12 | |
references to findings in item one in the operative or decision section. And these recitals and findings are only required in the | 00:25:19 | |
resolution recommending resolution to the City Council recommending adoption of the LCP amendment. And so they're not required in | 00:25:27 | |
the resolution of. | 00:25:34 | |
Attention and then regarding correspondence from interested parties. Planning Commission received a letter and emails from 2 | 00:25:41 | |
interested parties recommending changes to the LCP in addition to the proposed draft amendment. The City may want to consider | 00:25:49 | |
these recommendations in a future LCP amendment. However, in regard to the LCP amendment before the Planning Commission tonight, | 00:25:56 | |
staff recommends moving forward with the draft amendment as proposed. | 00:26:03 | |
By staff. | 00:26:11 | |
The changes proposed are generally outside the scope or budget of the grant agreement, could result in a timeline delay which | 00:26:12 | |
cannot be accommodated in the schedule or the time available, and could result in a higher level of environmental review required. | 00:26:20 | |
Which could also increase the cost and further delay the schedule. The city staff or CDD staff does have a working file and we've | 00:26:30 | |
added the comments received to that working file for possible future LCP amendments. | 00:26:38 | |
And so therefore, staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the resolutions to initiate an amendment to the local coastal | 00:26:48 | |
program and recommend the City Council adopt the draft LCP amendment as proposed. And this concludes staff presentation and I'm | 00:26:55 | |
available for questions. Thank you, Mr. SEDAR. Before questions. I think we'll we'll go to the public if anyone. | 00:27:03 | |
Wishes to speak to us on this item. | 00:27:12 | |
See at least one hand raised on Zoom, we have a Lisa Chiani. | 00:27:19 | |
Thank you. Well, I'm just going to say what I was going to say, despite what staff said. | 00:27:27 | |
1st, I request that you encourage staff to improve the Figure 3 revision by creating 2 figures 3A and B3A and 3B corresponding to | 00:27:35 | |
integrals separate maps for coastal wave hazards and coastal erosion. The the two map the the. | 00:27:46 | |
Blending of the two maps, presumably done by staff. | 00:27:56 | |
Has so many indistinguishable colors and and the legend isn't consistent with the resulting map and so it seems a terrible shame | 00:28:02 | |
to just continue with that. Anyway. It's it's incredibly difficult to read even at 500% magnification on a computer. It would also | 00:28:11 | |
be helpful for the Maple legend to include the terms intermediate, high, scenario, C level, rise projections. | 00:28:21 | |
And high scenarios sea level rise projection to improve understanding of HAS 12 and 239140. | 00:28:31 | |
I, I I. | 00:28:40 | |
Also would like to say that Figure 3 tsunami in the Figure 3 tsunami evacuation line is clear on the map, but only minimally | 00:28:42 | |
supports has policy has four which addresses tsunami hazards. Evacuation routes provided by the county could readily be indicated | 00:28:52 | |
on the map and would not add confusing detail to the shoreline features currently depicted. | 00:29:01 | |
Tsunamis are rare, but they're a real risk, including the potential for a submarine Submarine landslide in the Monterey Canyon. | 00:29:11 | |
Agreeing a tsunami, the city's planners could address evacuation routes away from the coast and evaluate the feasibility. | 00:29:18 | |
This amendment is an opportunity to make a really simple correction to an error in the coastal hazard policy that says shoreline | 00:29:29 | |
management plan will be prepared when we've had one for four years now and and we should be using it. | 00:29:40 | |
So I would hope that very simple correction could be added. | 00:29:53 | |
To the other corrections. | 00:29:59 | |
To the other, to the Amendment I. | 00:30:02 | |
And let's see. So it's surprising that $100,000 grant from the Coastal Commission could be spent entirely on an analysis and | 00:30:07 | |
report with revised hazard modelling findings, some of them from our existing shoreline management plan, usefulness of the | 00:30:14 | |
communities infrastructure left for the future, for future next steps, so. | 00:30:22 | |
With that, I hope this makes a big difference, $100,000 difference. OK, thank you. | 00:30:32 | |
Thank you. | 00:30:40 | |
We have Tony Ciani. | 00:30:44 | |
Thank you. I just want to follow up. | 00:30:49 | |
The Shoreline Management Plan was adopted in 2020 and. | 00:30:52 | |
The current technical report and results relies on the shoreline management plans studies, so the notion that it will be prepared | 00:30:58 | |
when it has been prepared is just an error in our LCP and must be corrected. | 00:31:08 | |
The draft coastal hazards amendment to the LCP is a promising start the results in the technical report appear to resolve the | 00:31:19 | |
sometimes conflicting information of previous studies, but the draft amendment provides policies that can only be implemented in. | 00:31:29 | |
In reaction to to an application for a coastal development permit. | 00:31:40 | |
Pacific Grove must take steps to recommend. | 00:31:47 | |
Must take steps recommended by the Coastal Commission to quote identify adaptation planning and policies and to provide specific | 00:31:51 | |
measures to implement those adaptation policies. The draft LCP amendment attempts to define critical infrastructure, but it does | 00:32:00 | |
not appear to address the quote risks to critical infrastructure. | 00:32:08 | |
In a meaningful way. | 00:32:18 | |
For example, it does not use the Coastal Commissions adopted guidance that provides a strategy for examining risk for | 00:32:20 | |
infrastructure, including to look at both the risks to infrastructure itself as well as. | 00:32:29 | |
The impacts and to people and development that must rely on the infrastructure. For Pacific Grove, the critical infrastructure | 00:32:38 | |
includes transportation on Ocean View Blvd. and Sunset Drive and alternative routes in case of evacuation and water infrastructure | 00:32:45 | |
including wastewater treatment and stormwater. And it requires a coordinated planning to design and prepare the adaptation | 00:32:53 | |
strategies. | 00:33:00 | |
Such as physical alterations or planned triggers for future changes that effectively address coastal hazard risks to development | 00:33:08 | |
or habitat over time. | 00:33:14 | |
The Point Penis Trail project calls for a planned retreat to avoid quote the coastal squeeze. The Shoreline management plan quote | 00:33:22 | |
aims to provide public access along Pacific Grove shoreline well into the future while protecting and enhancing coastal. | 00:33:31 | |
The Coast. Natural and cultural resources. | 00:33:42 | |
Thus, recommendations are what the Coastal Act calls for. | 00:33:47 | |
And that is other implementing actions. Pacific Grove needs to be proactive to protect its magnificent resources and public health | 00:33:55 | |
and safety. Thank you for the extra time. | 00:34:02 | |
Thank you. | 00:34:10 | |
We have Inga, Lorenzen, Dahmer. | 00:34:15 | |
Thank you. | 00:34:18 | |
Chair and Commissioners, mine is kind of a real personal thing here and it has to do with that tsunami map because. | 00:34:19 | |
With a planned vacation of slot. | 00:34:30 | |
The half of it, which is where I get my egress and all the one way streets, my little one black section, the only way that I will | 00:34:34 | |
be able to get out. | 00:34:40 | |
Of my street is to go north towards Ocean View Blvd. and if there's a tsunami, just how am I going to get out? Am I going to be | 00:34:47 | |
like Florida and sitting in the floods? It's just it's ludicrous of what's happening that's saying that slowed isn't needed is a | 00:34:57 | |
right of egress because in a tsunami it's going to come right over Ocean View Blvd. and that isn't going to be a way to get out. | 00:35:07 | |
I mean, I think this whole thing needs to be rethought a little bit here because you're not providing, this is not providing for | 00:35:17 | |
the safety of the citizens of Pacific Grove, so. | 00:35:23 | |
That's my take. Thank you. Thank you. | 00:35:32 | |
Seeing no further hands, I'll end the public comment on this issue and bring it back to commissioners for. | 00:35:39 | |
Questions 1st and then discussion. Any questions for Mr. Sidor? | 00:35:48 | |
I have one. I'm not sure if it's for Mr. Cedar or for Erica Vega, and it has to do with a resolution of intent from the Planning | 00:35:56 | |
Commission. | 00:36:01 | |
And and usual, usual practice is and we don't do resolutions of intent and our code says if something is initiated by the planning | 00:36:06 | |
commission's. | 00:36:12 | |
A resolution of intent is appropriate. | 00:36:20 | |
But to me, this was, this was. | 00:36:24 | |
You know, this comes from staff, it didn't come from us. So I guess my question is, you know, based on past practice and all the | 00:36:27 | |
years have been on the Commission. | 00:36:31 | |
You know last earlier this year we had three items. We did resolution of intent because those 3. | 00:36:36 | |
Were things that we thought of that staff didn't bring to us, and I thought it was appropriate, but now I guess I didn't. | 00:36:42 | |
I want to hear from Miss Vega I guess, why it's necessary. | 00:36:49 | |
Thank you, Chair. | 00:36:57 | |
You know, certainly we can't force the Commission to adopt A resolution of intent. We're just trying to follow the procedures that | 00:36:59 | |
are laid out in the code. So, you know, I can't really speak to prior practices before I came on and advised, but I do know that I | 00:37:05 | |
was part of the decision making on making sure that the resolutions of intent were done on the three previous amendments that were | 00:37:11 | |
processed earlier in the year. | 00:37:18 | |
So this is just in keeping with that and ensuring that we're not skipping a procedural step that's outlined in your code. | 00:37:25 | |
And I guess I guess my question is the language of the code and and to me that means. | 00:37:31 | |
If we initiate something which we did with those three items, but this we didn't initiate, staff did. And I'm trying to make a | 00:37:37 | |
difference. Perhaps you disagree with me. I don't, I don't have the the code language pulled up in front of me right now to to, | 00:37:45 | |
you know, look at the specific wording on whether it compasses all LCP amendments or just those that are initiated by this body. | 00:37:54 | |
So I would I would need to go back and look at the language more precisely to answer that question. | 00:38:03 | |
OK, well. | 00:38:08 | |
I don't see any harm in doing it, it just seemed like an unnecessary step that wasn't required by the code, but I'll leave it | 00:38:11 | |
there. Other questions from commissioners. | 00:38:16 | |
Yeah, last year, Sawyer. | 00:38:26 | |
On hazard #4. | 00:38:30 | |
Umm, which is? | 00:38:34 | |
Addressing umm. | 00:38:37 | |
The tsunami evacuation, I'm just wondering, have there been any plans or discussions about firming up plans so the public knows | 00:38:39 | |
exactly where we're supposed to go and what we're supposed to do? Because it seems like that hasn't been. | 00:38:49 | |
The protocols haven't really been set out. | 00:39:01 | |
Just a question. | 00:39:05 | |
Yes, Commissioner Sawyer's. | 00:39:09 | |
I don't have an answer for you on that this evening. | 00:39:13 | |
But we can certainly staff can follow up and I did find out. | 00:39:17 | |
Who within the city is responsible for comparing that? And I wasn't sure and so I appreciate your answer. Thank you. | 00:39:25 | |
If Mr. Cedar, if you don't mind, we did talk about this on the phone. | 00:39:36 | |
Could you walk us through how Figure 3 is going to be used? Because I agree with Miss Gianni that it's just for a layperson | 00:39:42 | |
looking at it, it's very difficult to to understand and particularly at the 8 1/2 by 11. And, and how does staff envision Figure 3 | 00:39:50 | |
to to be used and who is it for? | 00:39:58 | |
Thank you three Chair Murphy. Figure 3 is. | 00:40:08 | |
More of a quick reference and again as I mentioned in the presentation, it's sort of a snapshot of the potential coastal hazards | 00:40:14 | |
along the shoreline of Pacific Grove and what staff would use when preparing an initial assessment is we would look at. | 00:40:25 | |
The GIS data layers and. | 00:40:37 | |
To to prepare our our more in depth or or to complete our more in depth review of a particular project and its potential | 00:40:43 | |
vulnerability to coastal hazards and. | 00:40:50 | |
The. | 00:41:00 | |
Sorry, just collecting my thoughts here in terms of. | 00:41:07 | |
The figure and how it would be used. | 00:41:15 | |
I guess my question is, does it make sense? | 00:41:18 | |
To create a better figure 3 that you know applicants and members of the public could. | 00:41:21 | |
Could easily understand. | 00:41:27 | |
Well, there is a lot of information that is on that figure and so the lines do get sort of crossed. | 00:41:36 | |
In terms of preparing an additional food year, the the budget for the grant has been exhausted and so any additional. | 00:41:44 | |
Creation of new figures would be something that the city would have to figure out or determine or identify how to pay for. | 00:41:58 | |
I see. | 00:42:09 | |
And Commissioner Russ. | 00:42:11 | |
Maybe as an intermediary step, are those data layers publicly available? They will be. Maybe we can just say anybody who wants to | 00:42:16 | |
inspect more closely can access the publicly available data layers. | 00:42:22 | |
Does that make sense? | 00:42:31 | |
I'm sorry, could you repeat that, Commissioner Davidson? | 00:42:35 | |
I'm just saying that if someone wants to have a more in depth look at, you know, what's going on in the outcomes from that | 00:42:39 | |
analysis, that perhaps they could just access the publicly available data layers rather than having to go through and create a new | 00:42:44 | |
figure. | 00:42:48 | |
Yes, that would certainly be an option for any applicant or or interested member of the public and. | 00:42:55 | |
Once. | 00:43:04 | |
The action is completed. Those GIS layers will be made available on the parcel viewer for the city. | 00:43:06 | |