[00:00:02]
>> [BACKGROUND] GOOD EVENING. WELCOME TO THE MAY 18,
[CALL TO ORDER: ]
2020 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.PLEASE STAND FOR THE PLEDGE LED BY COMMISSIONER SABELLICO.
>> FOR THE ROLL-CALL. FOR THE RECORD, WITH EACH COMMISSIONER, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME BEGINNING ON MY FAR LEFT.
>> WILLIAM KAMENJARIN, PRESENT.
>> NOW FOR THE RECORD CHAIR STINE AND COMMISSIONER MERZ ARE ABSENT.
>> THANK YOU. THERE SHOULD BE NO PRESENTATIONS TODAY, CORRECT.
THEN THERE'S NO MINUTES TODAY, MR. NEU, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YES, MADAM CHAIR, THAT'S CORRECT.
>> NEW PROCEDURES, THE FOLLOWING CHANGES ARE NOW IN EFFECT REGARDING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PROCEDURES.
WE WILL REQUIRE A REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM FOR ALL ITEMS ON THE AGENDA INCLUDING PUBLIC HEARINGS.
REQUESTS TO SPEAK FORMS MUST BE TURNED IN TO THE MINUTES CLERK PRIOR TO THE ITEM COMMENCING.
THIS WILL ALLOW SPEAKER TIME TO BE MANAGED IN A MORE EFFECTIVE MANNER.
ALL SPEAKERS WILL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES, UNLESS THAT TIME IS REDUCED BY THE CHAIRPERSON.
SPEAKERS MAY NOT GIVE THEIR TIME TO ANOTHER SPEAKER.
GROUP TIME WILL BE PERMITTED FOR ITEMS LISTED ON THE AGENDA.
THE REPRESENTATIVE MUST IDENTIFY THE GROUP AND AT LEAST THREE MEMBERS OF THE GROUP MUST BE PRESENT DURING THE MEETING AT WHICH THE PRESENTATION IS BEING MADE.
THOSE SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF A GROUP HAVE 10 MINUTES, UNLESS THE TIME IS CHANGED BY THE CHAIRPERSON.
THE MINUTES CLERK WILL CALL THE NAMES OF THOSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN THE ORDER THE REQUEST TO SPEAK ARE RECEIVED.
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA.
THE COMMISSION SETS ASIDE THIS TIME UP TO 15 MINUTES TO ALLOW COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA.
THAT IS WITHIN THE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
MR. NEU, DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKER SLIPS TONIGHT?
>> MADAM CHAIR, WE HAVE NO SPEAKERS SLIPS FOR NON AGENDA ITEMS THIS EVENING.
>> SEEING NONE, WE WILL BEGIN TONIGHT'S HEARING.
THIS IS THE NEXT PART, RIGHT? FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURES, IF EVERYONE WILL DIRECT THEIR ATTENTION TO THE SCREEN I'LL REVIEW THE PROCEDURES OF THE COMMISSION THAT WILL BE FOLLOWING FOR THIS EVENING'S PUBLIC HEARING.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE OPENED.
STAFF WILL MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS ON THE STAFF PRESENTATION.
THE APPLICANT WILL MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION AND RESPOND TO CLARIFYING QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS.
THEY WILL HAVE 10 MINUTES FOR THEIR PRESENTATION.
THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY PERIOD WILL THEN BE OPENED.
A TIME LIMIT OF THREE MINUTES IS ALLOTTED FOR EACH SPEAKER.
AFTER ALL THOSE WAITING TO SPEAK HAVE DONE SO, THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY PERIOD WILL BE CLOSED.
THE APPLICANT AND STAFF WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO ISSUES OR QUESTIONS RAISED.
THE COMMISSIONERS WILL THEN DISCUSS THE ITEM AND THEN VOTE ON IT.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE CLOSED.
CERTAIN PLANNING COMMISSION DECISIONS, ARE FINAL BUT MAY BE APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
YOU CAN FIND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURES ON THE BACK OF TONIGHT'S AGENDA.
[BACKGROUND] THE COMMISSION HAS SPENT MANY HOURS REVIEWING STAFF REPORTS GOING OVER PLANS AND BLUEPRINTS FOR PROJECTS BEFORE US TONIGHT AND PARTICIPATING IN AN EXTENSIVE BRIEFING SESSION WITH STAFF IN SOME CASES, COMMISSIONERS HAVE ALSO REVIEWED LETTERS AND HAVE
[00:05:01]
GONE TO PROJECT SITES TO GET THE LAY OF THE LAND.STAFF IN BRIEFINGS HAS ALREADY ADDRESSED MANY QUESTIONS AND ISSUES THAT COMMISSIONERS HAVE RAISED ON PROJECTS BEING HEARD TONIGHT, SUCH AS TONIGHT'S HEARING, PROCEEDS.
KEEP IN MIND THAT COMMISSIONERS ALREADY HAVE EXTENSIVE BACKGROUND ON THIS AGENDA ITEM.
[1. CDP 2021-0025/V 2021-0001 (DEV2021-0100) - SWAN RESIDENCE]
I WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AGENDA ITEM 1, MR. NEU, WILL YOU PLEASE INTRODUCE THE ITEM?>> YES. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
OUR AGENDA ITEM THIS EVENING IS A COASTAL PERMANENT AND A VARIANCE FOR A PROJECT TITLED THE SWAN RESIDENTS.
I DID WANT TO MENTION FOR THE APPLICANTS BENEFIT AS WELL AS THE COMMISSION THAT SINCE WE HAVE LESS THAN A FULL COMMISSION TONIGHT, WE WANT TO MAKE EVERYONE AWARE THAT THE PROJECT WOULD REQUIRE FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES FOR APPROVAL.
WE JUST WANTED YOU TO BE AWARE OF THAT BEFORE YOU GET TOO FAR INTO THE ITEM.
IN THE PAST, WE HAVE ALSO EXTENDED TO THE APPLICANTS THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE TO HAVE FULL COMMISSION, WHICH I BELIEVE OUR NEXT MEETING WE THINK WE WILL HAVE ALL SEVEN COMMISSIONERS PRESENT, BUT THAT'S CERTAINLY JUST A COURTESY THAT WE'VE EXTENDED IF AN APPLICANT DID WANT TO WAIT FOR A FULL COMMISSION.
JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT ON THE RECORD BEFORE WE GET GOING.
>> DO YOU WANT ME TO START WITH THE EX PARTE?
>> YEAH. THE ONLY QUESTION I HAD WAS, DID WE RECEIVE ANY LETTERS FIRST OR EX PARTE FIRST?
>> GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE EX PARTE.
THE CORRESPONDENCE WE DID RECEIVE, I THINK HAS BEEN DISTRIBUTED TO ALL OF YOU, PROBABLY YESTERDAY, I BELIEVE IT WAS SO I THINK THAT'S CURRENT.
>> I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE AREA, I WALK IT THREE TIMES A WEEK.
I'VE ALSO BEEN IN PROBABLY MANY OF THE HOMES THEY'RE IN THAT WE HAVE BEEN OVER THE LAST 20 YEARS HERE BEEN LOOKING TO PURCHASE IN THAT AREA.
I HAVE BEEN IN A LOT OF THE PROPERTIES, THE SURROUNDING AREA THERE.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT KNOWN.
>> MY CONTEXTS ARE NOT THAT EXTENSIVE, OR HISTORICAL. [OVERLAPPING]
>> NOT THIS WEEK. BUT I'VE DRIVEN BY THE SITE, SO I'M FAMILIAR WITH IT.
>> I'VE WALKED BY THE SITE NUMEROUS TIMES IN THE LAST YEAR.
ACKNOWLEDGING THE LETTERS RECEIVED AND THE STAFF ERRATA SHEETS, WE DON'T HAVE ANY, CORRECT? THE COMMISSIONERS ARE THERE.
I THINK WE HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE STAFF PRESENTATION, SO HI, MR. GOLF. I GUESS THAT'S YOU. [LAUGHTER]
>> MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. GOOD AFTERNOON.
THE PROPOSAL BEFORE YOU TODAY IS LOCATED AT 2668 OCEAN STREET WITHIN THE CITY'S COASTAL ZONE.
THIS SITE IS ZONED MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL OR R3.
IS ALSO LOCATED WITHIN THE BEACH AREA OVERLAY ZONE.
THE APPLICANT WHO IS HERE TODAY AND AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS, IS REQUESTING YOUR CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND MINOR VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING ONE STORY SINGLE-FAMILY HOME, AND IN ITS PLACE, CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 3,348 SQUARE FOOT, TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY HOME WITH MEZZANINE AND ROOF DECK, ALSO INCLUDED AS A REQUEST FOR A MINOR FRONT YARD SETBACK REDUCTION OF FIVE FEET AND A MINOR REAR YARD SETBACK REDUCTION OF ONE FOOT, EIGHT INCHES.
THE SUBJECT LOT, WHICH IS CONSIDERED SUBSTANDARD TODAY AT 3,748 SQUARE FEET IS APPROXIMATELY 50 PERCENT OF THE 7,500 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM LOT SIZE THAT IS REQUIRED FOR AN R3 ZONE BLOT.
IF APPROVED, THE RESULTING FRONT YARD SETBACK WILL BE 15 FEET, RESULTING IN A 25 PERCENT REDUCTION AND A REAR YARD SETBACK WILL BE EIGHT FOOT, FOUR INCHES, RESULTING IN APPROXIMATELY 16.7 PERCENT REDUCTION.
THE PROPOSED FRONT AND REAR YARD SETBACK REDUCTIONS ARE IN KEEPING WITH ANOTHER VARIANCE THAT WAS RECENTLY APPROVED TO LOT SOUTH AT 2,680 OCEAN STREET.
A MINOR VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FOR SETBACK REDUCTIONS THAT DO NOT EXCEED 75 PERCENT,
[00:10:01]
AND ARE TYPICALLY DECIDED BY THE CITY PLANNER.HOWEVER, BECAUSE THIS PROJECT ALSO REQUIRES A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE, CONDITIONALLY APPROVE, OR DENY ALL CONCURRENT PROCESSED DEVELOPMENT PERMITS, WHICH IN THIS CASE ARE BOTH PERMITS.
ARCHITECTURALLY, THIS NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOME REFLECTS A MODERN DESIGN THEME WITH A BARREL STYLE ROOF COVERED BY STANDING SEAM METAL.
PRIMARY BUILDING MATERIALS CONSIST OF STUCCO AND A LIGHT SAND FINISHED AND A STONE VENEER.
ALL PROPOSED DECKS ARE SHOWN AS ENCLOSED BY GLASS RAILINGS.
IN ADDITION TO THE MAIN DWELLING, THE PROPOSAL ALSO INCLUDES AN ATTACHED 710 SQUARE FOOT ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, HIGHLIGHTED HERE IN RED.
THIS PORTION OF THE PROJECT WILL BE ACTED UPON SEPARATELY UNDER AN ADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL MINOR COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT SUBSEQUENT TO THE COMMISSION'S DECISION TODAY.
THIS PROJECT WAS ANALYZED FOR CONSISTENCY WITH ALL REQUIRED CITY CODES, POLICIES, AND STANDARDS, AND THAT THE STAFF REPORT AND RESOLUTION BEFORE YOU TODAY CONTAINS ALL THE ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS TO SUPPORT THE PROJECT APPROVAL.
STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND MINOR VARIANCE FOR THE SWAN RESIDENTS BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS CONTAINED THEREIN.
THIS DOCUMENT IS IDENTIFIED IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT AS EXHIBIT 1.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
HOWEVER, BEFORE WE MOVE ON, I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT AGAIN THAT THE APPLICANT IS HERE TODAY AND IS AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> I DO HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING THE HISTORIC REPORT.
IT SPEAKS OF A MID-CENTURY RANCH STYLE.
CAN THAT BE CLARIFIED? WAS THAT HISTORIC REPORT SHARED WITH THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION?
>> THE OTHER QUESTION IS, WHEN THEY'RE BUILDING AN ADU IN THE BACKYARD, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE A FOUR-FOOT AS-OF-RIGHT SETBACK. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> WHY ARE THEY REQUESTING ADDITIONAL REAR YARD SETBACK?
>> THE REAR YARD SETBACK APPLIES TO THE SECOND FLOOR ELEVATION ON THE REAR ELEVATION OF THE MAIN PRIMARY DWELLING.
>> WOULD YOU MIND GOING BACK TO THE DRAWING THAT YOU HAD WITH THE ADU THAT SHOWS THE ADU?
>> IN OUR SET OF PLANS, THERE'S A BUMP OUT SOMEHOW IN THE BACK THAT SUPPORT SOME BALCONY ABOVE, MAYBE, SO THAT'S NOT SHOWING UP IN THIS RENDERING.
I'M WONDERING, DOES THAT EXIST?
>> MA'AM, SURE I HAVE OTHER EXHIBITS IN MY SLIDE PROFILE THAT I CAN PROVIDE TO THE COMMISSION IF YOU'D LIKE ME TO GET TO THAT, TO SHOW THAT IT SHOWS THAT EXHIBIT. WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO GO TO THAT?
THIS SIDE PROFILE HELP SHOWS THE ADU BELOW, AS WELL AS THE SECOND FLOOR ELEVATION ABOVE AND THE ROOF DECK.
WHERE WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO GO TO THE SECOND?
>> NO, THAT ONE. I GUESS WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IS THE 1.5 FEET OR WHATEVER THAT YOU'RE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR IS REALLY THE SECOND STORY AND ABOVE. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> DOES THAT MAKE A HUGE DIFFERENCE IN THE WAY THAT THIS IS CONSTRUCTED?
>> IT DOES TO THE APPLICANT, YES.
>> WOULD IT BE A CONSIDERATION THAT WE CONDITION SOMEHOW A HIGHER FIRE RATING BECAUSE THIS IS IN A SETBACK?
>> NO. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT HAS ALREADY REVIEWED THIS APPLICATION AND HAS WEIGHED IN ON THE DESIGN OF IT.
IT IS ALREADY DESIGNED WITH FIRE PROOF IN THE FORM OF FIRE SPRINKLERS AS REQUIRED BY THE FIRE MARSHAL.
>> OKAY. BECAUSE THE PLANS ALSO INDICATE THAT THEY'RE MAINTAINING THEIR STANDARD SETBACKS.
A2.1 SAYS THAT THERE STILL IS A 20-FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK AND THE 10-FOOT REAR YARD.
I THINK THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF CONFUSION HERE.
>> I'M SORRY. WHAT ELEVATION OR WHAT SITE PLAN WERE YOU'RE LOOKING AT?
>> IT WASN'T A SITE PLAN IT WAS THE PLAN.
A2.1, THE PROJECT INFORMATION AT THE BOTTOM THERE.
IT ACTUALLY SAYS THAT THE SETBACK'S DOWN ON THE VERY LOWER RIGHT-HAND CORNER.
>> YES. I SEE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
IN THE PROJECT INFORMATION ON THE NOTES UNDER THE SETBACKS AT THE VERY BOTTOM.
[00:15:04]
YES, IT'S A CONCEPTUAL PLAN.THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL SITE PLAN DOES SHOW THE SETBACK AT 15-FEET.
>> OKAY. THE ONLY OTHER ONE THAT I'D LIKE TO CALL TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COMMISSION IS THE PERSPECTIVE THAT'S ON DRAWING A5.1.
IT SHOWS A NICE LOVELY SIDEWALK ON THERE, AND THE PLANS DON'T SHOW THAT.
I'M WONDERING, ARE SIDEWALKS GOING TO BE PROVIDED?
>> I THINK THAT'S THE END OF MY QUESTIONS.
LET'S SEE. NEXT WE'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT IF THEY HAVE A PRESENTATION.
>> YES. I HAVE A QUESTION, MR. GOLF.
>> MR. GOLF, ADUS ARE MYSTERIAL FROM THE STANDPOINT OF APPROVALS.
>> GIVEN THAT THIS ADU IS A PART OF THE STRUCTURE, HOW DOES THAT TREATED FROM THE STANDPOINT OF MINISTERIAL, FROM THE STANDPOINT OF IT BEING PART OF A STRUCTURE VERSUS A SEPARATE DWELLING UNIT ON THE LOT?
>> ARE WE SPEAKING FROM APPROVAL PROCESS?
>> YES. THE PROJECT BEFORE YOU TODAY IS THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT.
THERE'S A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THE PRIMARY DWELLING, AS WELL AS THE VARIANCE.
THERE IS A SEPARATE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THE ADU, WHICH IS NOTED HERE ON THE PLANS.
THAT ADU HAS BEEN NOTICED SEPARATELY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW, AND WOULD BE ACTED UPON SUBSEQUENTLY TO YOUR DECISION ON THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT BY THE CITY PLANNER.
>> THEREFORE, TONIGHT, WHAT WE'RE ADDRESSING AND OR PROVING IS THE MAIN STRUCTURE ITSELF AND NOT THE ADU?
>> ARE THERE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? COMMISSIONER LUNA.
>> THEN THE REASON WHY WE'RE ACTUALLY SEEING THIS TODAY IS NORMALLY STAFF WOULD BE PROCESSING THIS, BUT BECAUSE IT'S WITHIN THE COASTAL COMMISSION, THAT'S WHY IT HAS TO COME BEFORE US, RIGHT?
>> OR OTHERWISE, IT WOULD BE ADMINISTRATIVELY PROCESSED.
>> PLUS, WE CAN'T BLOCK OUT THE ADU ON THE PLANS SO WE HAVE TO SHOW IT, BUT IT'S REQUIRED.
>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
>> I HAVE ONE MORE, MR. GOLF. THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 7 ON THE STAFF REPORT, IT TALKS ABOUT HOW, AT THE VERY BOTTOM PARAGRAPH, THERE WAS A 10-DAY PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD AND NO COMMENT LETTERS WERE RECEIVED FROM THE PUBLIC REGARDING PERSPECTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION.
THIS GOES IN THE PACKET, THE ATTACHMENT FOR THE SECRET DETERMINATION OF BEING EXEMPT.
THIS ACTUALLY DEFINES AN APPEAL PROCESS, BUT IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY ASK FOR COMMENT LETTERS.
I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, NO APPEALS WERE FILED, BUT WHEN THESE TYPES OF EXEMPTIONS COME UP, THEY DON'T REALLY, SPECIFICALLY EVEN PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR COMMENT.
I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS REALLY MEANS.
WAS THERE A WAY THAT PUBLIC COMMENT LETTERS COULD HAVE BEEN RECEIVED?
>> MADAM CHAIR, I COULD ADDRESS THAT.
YOU'RE CORRECT WAY, IT DOESN'T SPECIFICALLY ASK FOR A PUBLIC COMMENT.
WHAT OUR NOTICE IS DOING FOR EXEMPTIONS IS BASICALLY TELLING THE PUBLIC THAT THIS IS A DETERMINATION THAT'S BEEN MADE.
HOWEVER, IF THEY DISAGREE WITH THAT, THAT THEY CAN FILE AN APPEAL AND THEN IT GIVES US THE TIME PERIOD.
THAT'S NOT TO SAY SOMEONE COULDN'T REVIEW THE NOTICE, THE PROPOSED EXEMPTION, AND PROVIDE US COMMENTS THAT WE WOULD THEN SHARE WITH YOU AND ALSO POTENTIALLY WITH THE APPLICANT IN TERMS OF, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WOULD AFFECT SOMETHING, THEY'VE MAYBE INCLINED TO WANT TO DO TO THE PROJECT.
BUT IT'S THE ONE SECRET DOCUMENT, IF YOU WILL, THAT DOESN'T HAVE A FORMAL PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD OTHER THAN THE ABILITY FOR SOMEONE TO APPEAL THE DETERMINATION THAT'S ALREADY BEEN MADE.
[00:20:01]
IT CAN NEVER BE MODIFIED TO ASK FOR LETTERS TO COMMENT ON OR IT HAS TO ALWAYS BE AN APPEAL?>> YES, IT WOULD BE AN APPEAL.
>> WOULD THAT BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE WAY THAT THE STAFF REPORT WAS ARTICULATED?
>> MAYBE SOMEWHAT, WE COULD LOOK AT CHANGING THAT IN THE FUTURE.
THIS WAS SOME STANDARD WORDING WE WERE ASKED TO USE.
I GUESS WHAT I WAS TRYING TO CONVEY IS THAT IT DOESN'T PREVENT SOMEONE FROM PROVIDING COMMENTS, BUT IT IS CLEAR WE'RE NOT SOLICITING, "DO YOU AGREE? DISAGREE? DO YOU WANT US TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT?" IT'S REALLY PRETTY FORMAL AND THAT IF SOMEONE IS OPPOSED TO THE EXEMPTION, THEY WOULD NEED TO FILE AN APPEAL.
>> I UNDERSTAND. LIKE I SAID, IT JUST STRUCK ME.
I WAS HOPING TO MAYBE GET SOME OF THE LAWYERS ON THE COMMISSION HERE JUST TAKE ON WHAT THAT MEANS.
BUT ANY IDEA? [LAUGHTER] ANY VOLUNTEERS?
>> MA'AM, SURE. I NOTICED THAT TOO, BUT I APPRECIATE MR. NEWS EXPLANATION.
>> I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO PUT ANYTHING BETTER THAN HE DID.
WE DID NOT RECEIVE LETTERS, BUT WE'RE NOT REQUIRED TO SOLICIT THEM EITHER.
NOW WE'RE MOVING ON TO THE APPLICANTS PRESENTATION.
THANK YOU. APPLICANTS PRESENTATION.
>> MADAM CHAIR, THE APPLICANT DOES NOT HAVE A PRESENTATION, BUT IS AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS OR [OVERLAPPING].
>> MADAM CHAIR, THERE ARE NO SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM.
>> THAT SHOULD HAVE COME BEFORE, CORRECT? NO. OKAY. LET'S SEE.
DO ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR STAFF? SEEING NONE.
WE WILL OPEN COMMISSION DISCUSSION.
WOULD ANY COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO DISCUSS THIS ITEM? NONE? OKAY.
>> COMMISSIONER SABELLICO. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I WAS VERY IMPRESSED WITH THE PLANS THAT WERE PRESENTED TO US.
WHENEVER THERE IS A VARIANCE IS ADDED SCRUTINY, OF COURSE, BECAUSE WE EXPECT ALL OF THE DEVELOPERS AND ANYONE WHO WANTS TO ADD STRUCTURE TO THEIR HOME TO FOLLOW THE SAME RULES AND REGULATIONS EVERYONE ELSE DOES.
BUT THE STAFF REPORT CONTAINS ON PAGE 4, I THINK, OF A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT CRITERION FOR WHETHER TO GRANT A VARIANCE OR WHETHER TO NOT GRANT A VARIANCE.
I THINK IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THAT THEY MEET ALL THAT CRITERIA.
IT SOUNDS LIKE IN THE STAFF REPORT, IT SAYS THAT THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR AND SEVERAL OF THE HOUSES IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD HAVE ALMOST THE EXACT SAME VARIANCES.
WHEN MAYBE THEY WEREN'T GRANTED VARIANCES BECAUSE IT DIDN'T NEED TO AT THE TIME THEY WERE BUILT, I THINK IT WOULD STILL BE A GOOD DECISION FOR US TO GRANT THE VARIANCE SO THAT ALL THE STRUCTURES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAVE THE SAME LOOK AND FEEL TO THEM AND THE COMMUNITY CHARACTER IS MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD.
>> ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS? COMMISSIONER LUNA?
>> USUALLY. THIS IS A COMMISSIONER MEENES QUESTION, BUT I'D LIKE TO COMPLIMENT THE PROJECT APPLICANT IN THAT WE'VE RECEIVED LETTERS WHERE THEY'VE BEEN EXTREMELY CONSIDERATE OF THEIR NEIGHBORS, WHICH THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO BE.
AS I SAID, I'M FAMILIAR WITH THAT AREA. THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO BE.
I THINK THAT THAT'S VERY COMMENDABLE.
I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER SABELLICO.
>> YES, I THINK I'M JUST GOING TO CHIME IN MYSELF AS WELL.
I THINK THAT PROJECT, GIVEN THE LOT SIZE AND THE CONSTRAINTS ASSOCIATED WITH IT, THE PROJECT IS AN EXCELLENT PROJECT GIVEN THE SITE.
THE VARIANCES AS STATED BY OTHER COMMISSIONERS,
[00:25:02]
OBVIOUSLY THE VARIANCE IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, BUT THERE'S PRECEDENT SET IN REGARD TO THIS PARTICULAR STREET AND LOCATION AS TO DATING BACK ON WHEN THE LANDS WERE SUBDIVIDED YEARS AGO.IT'S QUITE DIFFERENT THAN IT IS TODAY.
WITH THE PRECEDENT INVOLVED AS WELL AS I THINK THE HOME ITSELF AND THEN BEING ABLE TO INCORPORATE AN ADU.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, I THINK IT'S A WIN-WIN FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD ITSELF, SO I SUPPORT AS WELL, AND SUBMIT IT.
>> I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE FOOTPRINT RATIO, WHICH I THINK IS EXTREME IN THIS INSTANCE.
AS A LAWYER, I'M FAMILIAR WITH VARIANCES.
I'M NOT PLEASED, BUT THE PATTERN AND DIE HAS BEEN CAST.
>> I TOO I'M UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE VARIANCE AND THE IDEA THAT THIS IS A SUBSTANDARD LOT.
I DO FEEL THAT ENCROACHING INTO SETBACKS BECOME A FIRE HAZARD AND REDUCE EMERGENCY SERVICE ABILITY.
I DO FEEL THAT THERE ARE PLENTY OF LOTS THAT DON'T MEET ALL THESE REQUIREMENTS.
JUST TO ADD EXTRA BULK TO A BUILDING DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THEY'RE QUALIFIED.
I'VE QUESTIONED A LOT OF THE DOCUMENTS, THE DRAWINGS.
A LOT OF THE BUILDING DOESN'T SEEM TO EVEN BE SERVICEABLE.
THE LOCATION OF THE SOLAR PANELS ON THE EAST SIDE VERSUS WESTERN ITSELF DON'T MAKE ANY SENSE.
THE SIDEWALKS BEING SHOWN IN THE RENDERINGS, BUT NOT IN THE ACTUAL FINALIZED PLANS.
THERE'S A LOT OF DISCREPANCIES THAT I'M VERY CONCERNED WITH.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR.
LET'S SEE. AFTER THE COMMISSION'S, LET'S SEE.
>> MADAM CHAIR, I'D JUST LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT THERE IS NO SIDEWALK IN THE RENDERING, THAT IS A CURB AND GUTTER. THAT'S MY ONLY RESPONSE.
>> OKAY. I SEE. IT SEEMS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT, BUT I'M NOT SURE HOW TO RESPOND TO THAT.
>> MADAM CHAIR, I DID WANT TO JUST ADD.
IN REGARD TO THE VARIANCE, I THINK AS WAS POINTED OUT IN THE STAFF REPORT, THE LOT IS QUITE SMALL COMPARED TO THE ZONE REQUIREMENTS.
AS WE'VE ALL DISCUSSED WE HAVE ISSUED A NUMBER OF VARIANCES IN THE BEACH AREA FOR SUBSTANDARD LOTS, AND THESE WERE LOTS THAT WERE CREATED MANY YEARS AGO, SOMETIMES BEFORE THE CITY'S INCORPORATION.
THE VARIANCE FINDINGS IN TERMS OF TRYING TO INDICATE IF A PROPERTY OWNER BE DENIED RIGHTS THAT JASON PROPERTY AND REALTORS HAVE.
FROM STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE WE FELT THERE WERE SOLID GROUNDS TO SPOT THE VARIANCE.
I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY WHY WE MADE THAT RECOMMENDATION.
>> I APPRECIATE THAT. I DO SEE THAT WHOLE AREA INCREASING IN MASS.
I'M WONDERING HOW LONG THAT BLUFF IS GOING TO ACTUALLY STAY.
I REALLY FEEL THAT THAT'S A BIG ISSUE.
WE DON'T HAVE ANY BLUFF MITIGATION FEES AT ALL ON OCEAN STREET OR ANY PART OF OUR COASTAL AREAS.
AS MY UNDERSTANDING AND I FEEL THAT IT COULD BECOME A BIGGER PROBLEM DOWN THE ROAD THAT WE DON'T SEE RIGHT NOW.
THAT'S A CONCERN THAT I HAVE AND THAT'S WHY I THINK THAT THESE VARIANCES ARE CHALLENGING TO APPROVE.
BUT I ALSO APPRECIATE THAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE THEM.
WE NEED TO MOVE TO THE NEXT PART, WE'RE DONE WITH THE COMMENTS, WE'VE ASKED STAFF SEEKING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION.
IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION? CAN I HAVE A MOTION ON THE ITEM?
>> WE NEED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> WE NEED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> OH, WE'LL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY WITH THE APPLICANT.
>> I HOPE I CAN DO IT RIGHT. I STARTED DOING.
>> NOW SEEING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION MAY I HAVE A MOTION ON THIS ITEM?
>> MADAM, CHAIR, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH ADOPTION TO RESOLUTION, APPROVING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, MINOR VARIANCE AS DESCRIBED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MEENES. SECOND?
[00:30:03]
>> I'LL GO AHEAD AND SECOND IT.
>> THE MOTION CARRIES FIVE WITH TWO ABSENCES.
WE'LL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THAT CORRECT? MR. NEU, CAN YOU INTRODUCE THE NEXT ITEM.
>> THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR. WE HAVE NO OTHER PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS OR DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS TONIGHT.
I THINK YOU'RE FREE TO MOVE INTO PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER REPORTS.
>> OKAY. ARE THERE ANY REPORTS FROM ANY COMMISSIONERS?
[PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER REPORTS: ]
>> I HAVE A QUESTION. MR. NEU, COULD YOU GIVE US AN UPDATE ON WORKSHOP.
>> THE PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP? [LAUGHTER]
>> I THINK THAT'S THE ONE I'M SPEAKING OF. [LAUGHTER]
>> I WAS GOING TO GIVE YOU AN UPDATE UNDER [INAUDIBLE]
>> CAN I COME BACK AND I DO IT WHENEVER?
>> I WASN'T SURE. THANK YOU, I'LL WAIT.
>> THE REASON I ASK IS LAST NIGHT WE HAD THE PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PLAN AT THE CITY COUNCIL, SO I'M SORRY.
>> WE'LL HEAR THAT AS WELL IN YOUR REPORT, MR. NEU? THANK YOU.
>> ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER REPORTS?
>> GO AHEAD, KEVIN. [LAUGHTER]
>> WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE TO COMMENCE MEMBERS OF STAFF FOR A JOB WELL DONE OVER YEARS AT THIS TIME?
>> OKAY. [LAUGHTER] I HEARD THAT MISS FLORES IS GOING TO BE LEAVING OUR CITY AND GOING ON TO BIGGER AND BETTER THINGS, AND I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY, OVER THE PAST YEAR AND FIVE MONTHS, I'VE REALLY GOTTEN TO ENJOY WORKING WITH YOU, MISS FLORES AND I COMMEND YOU ON GOING ON AND SERVING, I BELIEVE IT'S THE CITY OF ENCELADUS.
I KNOW A FEW PEOPLE THERE, THEY'RE VERY FRIENDLY.
I HOPE YOU WILL ENJOY YOUR NEXT FUTURE ENDEAVORS.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I APPRECIATE IT.
>> I THINK ALL OF US FEEL THE SAME WAY.
YOU'RE GOING TO BE VERY MISSED.
>> COMMISSIONER CALMETTE-GUERIN.
I ATTENDED THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT SERIES OF MEETINGS ABOUT A MONTH AGO.
THE STAFF PERSON WAS NANCY MELANDER, I'M PROBABLY MISPRONOUNCING HER NAME.
A LOT OF GRATEFUL RECIPIENTS GOT OUR MONEY AND I THOUGHT THE ALLOCATION WAS EXCELLENT.
>> VERY GOOD. ANY OTHER REPORTS? THERE ARE TWO THAT I WANT TO SHARE.
THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MET ON MAY 9TH, 2020, AND WE DID REVIEW.
THERE WAS A NEW COMMISSIONER THAT STARTED, MISS COMMISSIONER JACOBS.
THE MAJORITY OF THE MEETING WAS HELPING HER GET UP TO SPEED WITH THE COMMISSION.
OF COURSE, THERE'S A NEW STAFF LIAISON, SHEILA CROSBY WHO ALSO IS WORKING TO UNDERSTAND THE NUANCES.
BUT THE MAJORITY OF THE CONVERSATION WAS STILL ABOUT THE HISTORIC CULVER-MYER CAPP HOUSE ON HIGHLAND DRIVE AND THE LETTER THAT LISTS THE 13 REMAINING ORIGINAL PRE 1990 INDIVIDUALLY APPROVED HISTORIC BUILDINGS.
IT WAS REQUESTED THAT THEY TRY TO GET THAT TO COUNSEL BEFORE THEY APPROVE MILLS ACT INFORMATION BECAUSE WE NEED TO HAVE THE LIST BEFORE WE CAN APPROVE A MILLS ACT PROGRAM.
[00:35:02]
THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE WHICH MET THE 25TH OF APRIL, AND THEY JUST REQUESTED TO RECEIVE COMMENTS ON MONDAY ON THE 16TH.A LOT OF THE INFORMATION THAT I WAS ABLE TO FORWARD TO MISS SHELLY GELLAN, WHO'S THE STAFF LIAISON FOR THIS COMMITTEE.
IT STEMS FROM QUITE A BIT OF INFORMATION THAT WAS HERE WE EXPERIENCED IN THE LAST FEW YEARS AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THE CONSULTANTS SEEMS VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE AND I THINK THAT THESE WILL REALLY HELP US MAKE BETTER DETERMINATIONS AS FAR AS HOW TO MOVE FORWARD ON MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING PROJECTS.
NOW, IT'S THE CITY PLANNER REPORT.
[CITY PLANNER REPORT: ]
[LAUGHTER]>> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. JUST TWO THINGS.
YESTERDAY, COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY AND I ATTENDED THE COUNCIL MEETING, THE PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PLAN, AND THE ANNUAL REPORT WAS ON THE AGENDA.
THEY DID HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY AND THEY ALSO I THINK THE MAYOR INITIATED SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT TRAINING, PARTICULARLY THE LEAGUE OF CITIES TRAINING.
THE MAYOR WAS EXPRESSING HIS OPINION THAT IT'S VERY IMPORTANT, AND THEY HAD SOME INITIAL DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER THEY SHOULD REQUIRE IT AS MANDATORY FOR NEW COMMISSIONERS.
THEY STOPPED SHORT OF THAT, JUST SAID WE'LL LEAVE IT UP TO DISCUSSION AT THE STAFF COMMISSION LEVEL.
BUT I THINK THE MESSAGE WAS THAT THEY FELT IT WAS VERY WORTHWHILE THAT, AT LEAST PROBABLY THE FIRST COUPLE OF YEARS SOMEONE'S ON THE COMMISSION THAT IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TRAINING.
THEN THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THE UPCOMING TRAINING IN SAN DIEGO IN JANUARY BY THE INSTITUTE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND COUNCIL MEMBER ACOSTA.
WE DID SEND THIS OUT TO YOU, THE LINK TO THE DIGITAL PLANNING COMMISSIONER OR A HANDBOOK THAT WAS UPDATED BY THE INSTITUTE.
THAT WAS THE WORK PLAN AND THEN COMMISSIONER MEENES, QUESTION ABOUT THE WORKSHOP.
THE NEXT MEETING, YOU WILL HAVE AN AGENDA ITEM TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS ITEMS FOR OUR WORKSHOP AGENDA.
WE HAD TALKED IN PREVIOUS MEETINGS ABOUT THE COMMISSION HAVING SOME BACK AND FORTH DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT YOU'D ACTUALLY LIKE ON THE AGENDA.
AS FAR AS THE DATE AND TIME, I'M STILL HAVING SOME STRUGGLES WITH THAT.
WHEN I DID GET RESPONSES FROM ALL OF YOU, THERE WAS NOT A DAY AND TIME THAT I MET EVERYBODY SCHEDULES.
BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD ON THAT PART OF IT.
WE'LL BE LOOKING FOR THAT, I THINK ONE POTENTIAL DAY, AND THERE ARE SOME SUGGESTIONS THAT MAYBE IF A MEETING IS CANCELED, THAT WOULD BE THE OPPORTUNE TIME.
WE HAVEN'T HIT THE DEADLINE YET FOR SCHEDULING FOR THE MEETING THAT WEEK OF THE 4TH OF JULY, I THINK IT'S A JULY 6TH OR SO WOULD BE THE MEETING.
THAT'S A POTENTIAL OUTSIDE POSSIBILITY IF EVERYBODY IS AVAILABLE THAT DAY AND WE COULD STILL HAVE IT IN A CONFERENCE FACILITY.
BUT OTHERWISE, I AM GOING TO GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD AND SEE IF I CAN FIND A TIME THAT'S EITHER AN AFTERNOON OR AN EVENING, SOME OTHER DAY JUST IN CASE WE DO GET AGENDA ITEMS FOR THAT DAY.
BE BACK LOOKING FOR A DATE AND PROBABLY SENDING SOMETHING OUT FOR YOUR RESPONSE.
MR. NEU, ARE YOU STILL WAITING FOR RECOMMENDATIONS AND OR COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS AS TO WHAT SHALL BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA.
I KNOW YOU HAD SENT OUT OBVIOUSLY THE INFORMATION IN REGARD TO WHAT WE HAD AT OUR LAST WORKSHOP AND THE FORMAT IN THAT WORKSHOP AND CONTENT, BUT DO YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT YOU'RE REQUESTING OR [OVERLAPPING] THERE'S SOMETHING YOU WANT FROM US IN REGARD OF WHAT YOU HAVE NOT RECEIVED SO FAR?
>> I HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY CONTENT SUGGESTIONS BACK BUT YOUR PREVIOUS DISCUSSION, IT WAS ASKED THAT YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO TALK WITH YOUR FELLOW COMMISSIONERS ABOUT WHAT DO YOU WANT.
I THINK IT'S FINE IF NO ONE SUBMITS ANYTHING AND WE JUST COME TO THE MEETING ON, I FORGET THE DATE.
WE'LL JUST OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE ON THERE.
THE ISSUE I GUESS THAT I HAD WAS OUR PREVIOUS ONES FOCUSED A LOT ON PROCEDURE.
SOME OF THE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF AND SO FORTH AND THAT SEEMS TO BE DUPLICATED IN THE UPCOMING LEAGUE TRAINING AS WELL AS THE HANDBOOK.
IT LEFT IT OPEN THEN AS TO WHAT EACH OF YOU MAY THINK WOULD BE WORTHWHILE IF ANYTHING, IF YOUR SOLE FOCUS WAS ON THAT PART OF IT THAN IT DOES AWAY WITH THE NEED FOR A WORKSHOP.
[00:40:07]
BUT THAT'S REALLY FOR YOUR DISCUSSION AT THE NEXT MEETING AS TO WHAT YOU'D LIKE TO SPEND TIME ON?>> YEAH, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO REVIEW AND GO OVER THE PROCEDURES.
I THINK THAT'S VERY CRITICAL AND IMPORTANT IN REGARD TO HOW WE FUNCTION ON THE DAIS.
BUT YET AT THE SAME TIME, I THINK IT'S GOOD THAT WE HAVE THE ABILITY WHEN WE'RE DISCUSSING THAT, TO BE ABLE TO HAVE SOME BACK-AND-FORTH DISCUSSION.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, OBVIOUSLY, I THINK JUST HAVING A BAA, A VERY INFORMAL WAY IN WHICH WE CAN COMMUNICATE WITH ONE ANOTHER AND BANTER BACK AND FORTH, I GUESS YOU COULD SAY, I THINK THAT WOULD BE VERY FRUITFUL FOR EVERYONE TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THAT ABILITY VERSUS HAVING BEING TOO STRUCTURED.
>> MADAM CHAIR, THAT WAS ALL I HAD FOR MY REPORT.
>> GREAT. THAT IS THE WRONG PAGE.
[LAUGHTER] CITY ATTORNEY REPORT.
>> [NOISE] EXCUSE ME, I HAVE NO REPORT.
I THOUGHT YOU'RE GOING TO ANNOUNCE SOMETHING ELSE EVEN THOUGH YOU SENT US SOMETHING.
[LAUGHTER] BECAUSE MY ISSUE IS IF WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A PHYSICAL WORKSHOP WITH YOUR OVER 33 DECADES OF EXPERIENCE HERE.
I'M SORRY, I WOULD LIKE THE HONOR [LAUGHTER] TO REQUEST YOUR PRESENCE.
IF WE CAN'T GET OUR ACT TOGETHER UP HERE AND DO THAT, WHEN IS THE TRAIN LEAVING FOR YOU?
>> WELL, MY TRAIN PULLS OUT OF THE STATION ON JULY 20TH, SO I WAS TRYING TO FIND A DATE PRIOR TO THAT.
>> WE WILL FIND A DATE BEFORE THAT BECAUSE I THINK IT'S CRITICAL THAT YOU BE A PART OF THAT WORKSHOP.
>> I'M HAPPY TO BE. JUST LIKE I SAY THAT WHEN EVERYONE RESPONDED THAT DID NOT MATCH UP TO EITHER DAY.
IT'S BACK TO WHEN WE CAN GET EVERYBODY BECAUSE THE OTHER GOAL WAS TO HAVE ALL SEVEN COMMISSIONERS PRESENT SO WE DIDN'T WANT TO DO IT WITH LESS THAN SEVEN.
>> GIVEN THAT WE NOW HAVE A DEADLINE, YOUR RETIREMENT DATE, I THINK THE COMMISSIONERS WILL HAVE TO MAKE SOME ADJUSTMENTS TO THE SCHEDULE TO MAKE IT HAPPEN.
>> I WILL, LIKE I SAY, I'LL SEND OUT SOME ALTERNATIVE DATES AND THEN WE'LL ALSO LEAVE THAT FIRST MEETING IN JULY AS, IF NOTHING ELSE WORKS AND WE HAVE NO ITEMS SCHEDULED THAT WOULD BE OUR OTHER OPPORTUNITY.
>> IF THAT'S THE CASE TIME OF THE DAY THAT YOU'RE THINKING OF?
>> I THINK FROM THE RESPONSES I GOT ORIGINALLY, I THINK WE WERE TALKING IN THE MORNING.
IT LOOKED LIKE THAT DIDN'T WORK FOR EVERYONE SO IT WOULD BE PROBABLY AFTERNOON OR LIKE OUR PLANNING COMMISSION START TIME MAYBE AT FIVE O'CLOCK OR SOMETHING WAS WHERE IT ENDED.
>> MY COMMENT ON THAT WOULD BE THE EARLIER THE BETTER, ONE I THINK TO HAVE A BAA.
A FRUITFUL, WHAT DO YOU CALL IT? I GUESS YOU COULD SAY A ENJOYABLE [LAUGHTER] WITH A LOT OF ALERT INDIVIDUALS SITTING AROUND THE TABLE.
THE EARLIER THE BETTER. THEN AN EVENING ONE.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE VERY IMPORTANT IF WE CAN DO THAT.
>> WELL, I DON'T THINK THAT MR. NEU WOULD OBJECT TO THAT.
I THINK IT'S INTERNALLY AMONG US [OVERLAPPING] THAT IF IT IS AT THE SAME FORMAT, IT TAKES 6-7 HOURS.
THAT'D BE LIKE A HORRIBLE PARTING GIFT FOR HIM TO MAKE HIM STAY FROM THREE TO TEN O'CLOCK AT NIGHT.
I WOULDN'T WANT TO DO THAT TO HIM.
I THINK THE COMMISSIONERS UP HERE HAVE TO GO BACK AND REEVALUATE HOW IMPORTANT THIS IS TO THEM.
>> THAT'S EXACTLY WHY I SAID WHAT I SAID.
IF MORNING DOESN'T WORK, THEN I THINK EARLY AFTERNOON MAYBE RIGHT AFTER THE LUNCH HOUR WOULD BE PERFECT.
WE CAN THEN SPEND FOUR HOURS OR MORE ALL AFTERNOON.
EVERYONE BE ALERT AND READY TO ROLL UP THEIR SLEEVES AND I THINK THAT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT THING, BUT HAVING IT BE IN THE EVENING, I DON'T THINK WE WILL ACCOMPLISH WHAT WE WANT TO ACCOMPLISH.
>> YEAH, I KNOW. WHAT I WAS LOOKING AT WAS SOMETHING THAT WOULD START 1, 1:30, 2 O'CLOCK.
I'M ANTICIPATING IT BEING A THREE HOUR MAYBE IF NEEDED.
BUT THAT REALLY GETS BACK TO WHAT THE CONTENT IS AS TO HOW MUCH TIME IS NEEDED.
I THINK NEXT MEETING WE'LL SORT THAT OUT.
[00:45:03]
BUT PRIOR TO THAT, I WILL SEND YOU SOME ALTERNATIVE DATES AND GET SOME INPUT AS TO WHAT'S GOING TO WORK.>> IN FOLLOWING UP I WANTED COMMISSIONER [INAUDIBLE] COMMENTS WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT ADJUSTING THE TIME, WE ALL KNEW WHAT WE SIGNED UP FOR.
THERE'S PROBABLY FIVE PEOPLE STACKING BEHIND EACH ONE OF US UP HERE WHO WOULD GLADLY AGREE TO HAVING A DAY MEETING.
WITH THAT BEING SAID, I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT.
>> MR. NEU, IF THERE'S ANY ISSUES, I THINK COMMISSIONER LUNA AND I WILL ARM WRESTLE WITH THE REMAINING COMMISSIONERS TO MAKE IT HAPPEN.
>> I THINK WE'RE PUNCHING AND DEVOLVING HERE.
I THINK THAT IF THERE ARE NO OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS, I DO WANT TO THANK MR. NEU PERSONALLY ALSO FOR ALL OF THE YEARS OF SERVICE THAT HE'S HELPED WITH.
ALSO TO THANK HIM FOR JUST BEING THE ORCHESTRATOR OF THIS REALLY WELL OILED MACHINE HERE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. BUT IF THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS,.
WHEN DID THE SPLIT SCREENS COME DOWN [LAUGHTER] AND WHY?
>> I DON'T KNOW THE DETAIL AROUND THAT.
WHEN WE CAME TO THE COUNCIL MEETING LAST NIGHT, THEY WERE DOWN.
IT'S INTERESTING THAT THE ONE-UP AROUND THE PODIUM STILL THERE, THE PHONE BOOTH.
[LAUGHTER] BUT [OVERLAPPING] I DON'T KNOW THE DETAILS AND I THINK WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS WE'RE ALL SEEING IN THE NEWS POTENTIAL CASE NUMBERS RISING.
I WOULD IMAGINE IF THEY GET TO A POINT THAT PEOPLE FEEL THEY'RE NEEDED AGAIN, THEY'LL BE BACK.
>> MAYBE WE'LL HAVE A HYBRID TRAINING [LAUGHTER].
ANY OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, CONCERNS? OUR MEETING IS ADJOURNED. [NOISE]
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.