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
Link
Start video at
Social
Embed

* you need to log in to manage your favorites

My Favorites List
You haven't added any favorites yet. Click the "Add Favorite" button on any media page, and they'll show up here.
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