Mar 20, 2025 Planning Commission

IS TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT.

COMMISSIONER CLEMSON, NOW'S THE TIME.

I'D LIKE TO SWEAR IN ANY, UH, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT PLAN ON GIVING TESTIMONY THIS EVENING.

IF YOU ARE PLANNING ON SPEAKING, IF YOU COULD STAND PLEASE AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, SIR.

MY HUSBAND IS OF A CERTAIN AGE AND NEEDED TO TAKE CARE OF A PERSONAL MATTER AND HE WANTS TO SPEAK AND HE'LL BE BACK IN THE, WHEN HE COMES BACK.

WE'LL HAVE HIM STAND UP AND DO IT.

THAT'D BE PERFECT.

THANK YOU MA'AM.

UH, DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE EVIDENCE YOU SHALL GIVE IN THIS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SHALL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, OR NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? THANK YOU.

MAY BE SEATED.

FIRST ITEM THIS EVENING

[1. 25-54724 Recommendation to receive and file Director’s Report. Suggested Action: Approve recommendation. ]

COULD I HAVE A MOTION PLEASE? THANK YOU.

VICE CHAIR TEMPLAN AND COMMISSIONER CLEMSON.

TURN IT OVER FOR THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT.

GOOD EVENING, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS.

HAPPY SPRING.

UM, I WANTED TO PROVIDE YOU JUST A FEW QUICK UPDATES ON TUESDAY EVENING.

THE COUNCIL, UM, HAD THE FIRST READING OF THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE.

SO I HAD REPORTED PREVIOUSLY, UM, THAT THEY HAD LARGELY MOVED FORWARD WITH YOUR RECOMMENDATION WITH ONE MITRE MODIFICATION THAT CAME BACK AS BACK AS A FIRST READING ON TUESDAY AND WAS APPROVED.

SO WE EXPECT THAT TO, UH, CONTINUE THROUGH THE PROCESS AND BE IN EFFECT IN JUST ABOUT A MONTH AND A HALF ONCE THE PROCESS IS COMPLETE.

UM, ALSO THIS BODY PREVIOUSLY, UM, HEARD, UM, UM, UH, REGARDING FIRE STATION NINE, THE FORMER FIRE STATION NINE, UM, AND WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMISSION WILL BE HEARING AN ADAPTIVE REUSE PROPOSAL FOR THAT ON THIS COMING TUESDAY.

SO, UH, THE GOOD WORK OF THIS COMMISSION IS, IS MOVING FORWARD RELATED TO THAT PROJECT WITH A LEGACY BUSINESS JAMAY BAKERY, UM, WHO'S PLANNING TO MOVE INTO THAT PROPERTY.

UH, SO THOSE ARE A COUPLE EXCITING UPDATES.

THE LAST THING I JUST WANNA SHARE IS THAT WE'RE PREPARING TO RELEASE A DRAFT, UM, VISION CONCEPT FOR THE SHORELINE VISIONING WORK THAT YOU ALL HAVE HEARD, UH, A COUPLE OF UPDATES ON IN THE PAST.

UM, SO WE WILL, UM, BE BRINGING THAT FORWARD IN APRIL, SO WE'LL COME BACK TO SHARE THAT WITH YOU ALL AND FOR THE PUBLIC TO GET TO WEIGH IN, BUT WE'RE VERY EXCITED TO SHARE MORE ABOUT THAT COMING SOON.

THAT CONCLUDES MY DIRECTOR'S REPORT.

EXCITED TO SEE THE PROGRESS ON THE VISIONING.

THE, UH, INCLUSIONARY HOUSING MODIFICATION WAS THE SAME ONE I THINK YOU PRESENTED TO US PREVIOUSLY ON THE ALLOCATION OF LOW TO VERY LOW FOR THAT'S, THAT'S CORRECT.

AND SO THE COUNCIL HAD GIVEN US DIRECTION ABOUT GETTING AS MUCH VERY LOW AS POSSIBLE, BUT WE HAD TO COME BACK WITH ANALYSIS OF WHAT EXACTLY THOSE NUMBERS LOOKED LIKE.

AND SO WHAT WENT INTO THE FIRST READING ON TUESDAY WAS, UM, 8% VERY LOW AND 4% LOW.

PERFECT.

COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT? SEEING NONE, I'LL OPEN IT UP TO PUBLIC COMMENT.

IF ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT, NOW WOULD BE THE TIME TO DO SO.

SEEING NONE IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, DO WE HAVE ANY VIRTUAL COMMENTS? WE DO NOT HAVE ANY VIRTUAL ATTENDEES.

WITH THAT, I WILL BRING IT BACK BEHIND THE RAIL.

ENCLOSED PUBLIC COMMENT.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, IF WE COULD HAVE THE VOTE PLEASE.

[00:05:05]

MOTION CARRIES.

OF HOUSEKEEPING IS A RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OUR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THURSDAY, MARCH 6TH, 2025.

OUR NEXT ORDER

[2. 25-54725 Recommendation to approve the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of Thursday, March 6, 2025. Suggested Action: Approve recommendation. ]

VICE CHAIR, TEMPLE AND COMMISSIONER WARE FOR THOSE MOTIONS.

ARE THERE ANY CORRECTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THE MINUTES AS THEY'VE BEEN PRESENTED TO US? NO.

WITH THAT, I'LL OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

IF YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT ON THE MINUTE MEETINGS FROM OUR MARCH 6TH MEETING, NOW WOULD BE THE TIME TO DO SO.

SEEING NO ONE IN THE CHAMBER FOR THAT, DO WE HAVE ANY VIRTUAL COMMENTS? WE DO NOT HAVE ANY VIRTUAL ATTENDEES.

OUR FIRST REGULAR AGENDA ITEM ITEM NUMBER THREE IS RECOMMENDATION TO ACCEPT CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CE DASH 25 DASH ZERO 12 AND APPROVE THE MODIFICATION TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANNING, COMMISSION APPROVAL AND LOCAL COASTAL COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND ADOPT THE PROPOSED FINDINGS AND MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THERETO TO REMOVE CONDITION NUMBER 23, WHICH LIMITS THE TOTAL LEASE AREA OF FOOD SALES TO NO MORE THAN 30% AND PLACES HIGH RESTRICTION ON THE PROPERTY TITLE AT THE SHOPPING CENTER AT 6,200 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY.

I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT, BRING IT BACK BEHIND THE RAIL.

SEEING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, IF WE COULD HAVE THE VOTE PLEASE.

MOTION CARRIES.

AND SIR, IF I COULD JUST ASK YOU TO STAND UP.

WE'LL SWEAR YOU IN QUICKLY.

I THINK YOU WANTED TO SPEAK ON THE NEXT MATTER THAT WE'RE ABOUT TO HAVE.

DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE EVIDENCE YOU SHALL GIVE IN THIS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SHALL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? I DO.

THANK YOU, SIR.

YOU MAY BE SEATED.

AND WITH THAT, I BELIEVE THAT BRINGS US TO

[3. 25-54726 Recommendation to accept Categorical Exemption CE-25-012; and Approve the Modification (MOD24-014) to previously approved Planning Commission Approval (Case No. 290-86) and Local Coastal Development Permit (LCDP24-048), and adopt the proposed findings and modified conditions of approval thereto, to remove Condition No. 23, which limits the total lease area of food sales to no more than 30-percent and places this restriction on the property title, at the shopping center at 6200 Pacific Coast Highway in the Commercial Neighborhood designation of the Southeast Area Specific Plan (SP-2-CN). There would be no physical construction associated with this request. (District 3) Suggested Action: Approve recommendation. ]

IN THE COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGNATION OF THE SOUTHEAST AREA PACIFIC PLAN, THERE WOULD BE NO PHYSICAL CONSTRUCTION ASSOCIATED WITH THIS REQUEST.

DISTRICT THREE.

UH, THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS.

CAN I HAVE A MOTION TO HEAR THIS ITEM? I CAN TAKE A VERBAL MOTION.

I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION.

WILL PROVIDE THIS PRESENTATION.

VICE CHAIR TEMPLE MADE THE MOTION.

AND COMMISSIONER CLEMSON MADE THE SECOND.

OH, SORRY.

I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION.

DO WE HAVE A STAFF PRESENTATION THIS EVENING? WE DO.

UM, PROJECT PLANNER MARCOS LOPEZ JR.

I THANK YOU.

GOOD EVENING CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.

SO THE FOLLOWING SLIDE HIGHLIGHTS THE SUBJECT SIDE IN YELLOW.

THE EXISTING MULTI-TENANT SHOPPING CENTER LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOINS DRIVE AND EAST PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY IS APPROXIMATELY 33,000 SQUARE FEET.

THE SHOPPING CENTER SITS ON APPROXIMATELY 87,000 SQUARE FEET FOOT TRIANGULAR LOT CONTAINING TWO ONE STORY BUILDINGS, A SEPARATE MULTI-TENANT PAD BUILDING AND A SURFACE PARKING LOT.

THE SUBJECT SIDE IS BOARDED BY RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM TO THE SOUTH AND WEST, A SIMS POND TO THE NORTH AND A RESTAURANT AND BAR TO THE EAST.

THE SUBJECT SIDE, AGAIN HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW FALLS WITHIN A COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGNATION OF SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AS SPECIFICALLY KNOWN AS THE SP TWO ZONING DISTRICT THAT DOES THIS DESIGNATION ALLOWS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD ORIENTED RETAIL USES LIKE RESTAURANTS, GROCERY STORES, AND PERSONAL SERVICES THAT CATER TO THE LOCAL NEEDS.

THE EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER ALIGNS WITH, UH, THESE PERMITTED USES.

UH, FURTHERMORE, THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE 1989 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DISTRICT NUMBER SEVEN, WHICH ENCOURAGES A DIVERSE RANGE OF LAND USES.

IT'S ALSO WITHIN THE, WITHIN THE APPEALABLE AREA OF THE COASTAL ZONE, WHILE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE SETTLEMENT WAS ADOPTED IN 2019.

IT HAS NOT YET BEEN CERTIFIED AS PART OF THE CITY'S LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM.

CONSEQUENTLY, THE 1989 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION, UH, OF MIXED USES STILL APPLIES TO THE PROJECT SITE.

THE EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN 1986 UNDER A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND COASTAL PERMIT.

THIS APPROVAL ALLOWED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SHOPPING CENTER AND INCLUDED SPECIAL CONDITIONS RELATED TO ITS CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION.

IN 2023, THE SHOPPING CENTER UNDERWENT A FACADE REMODEL AND SIGN PROGRAM UPGRADE, WHICH WAS APPROVED THROUGH SITE PLAN REVIEW AND A LOCAL COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND COMPLETED IN 2024.

THE CURRENT APPLICATION PROPOSES NO CHANGE TO THE EXISTING BUILDINGS.

INSTEAD, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE REMOVAL OF CONDITIONS 23 FROM THE ORIGINAL PERMIT AND THE CORRESPONDING OPERATIONAL RESTRICTION FROM THE PROPERTY TITLE.

IN SHORT, THE CONDITION LIMITS FOOD SALES ON THE PROPERTY TO 30%.

THIS

[00:10:01]

REQUEST IS BEING BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR REVIEW.

AS THEY WERE THE ORIGINAL APPROVING BODY, IT'S LIKELY THAT CONDITION 23 WAS INITIALLY IMPOSED DUE TO CONCERNS ABOUT TRAFFIC.

THIS SLIDE PROVIDES A VISUAL BREAKDOWN OF THE CURRENT TENANTS WITH EACH TENANT CATEGORY REPRESENTED BY A DIFFERENT COLOR.

IT'S IMPORTANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT THE USE IS CURRENTLY LIMITED TO 30% OF THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE PER THE EXISTING CONDITION, OCCUPY ONLY 22% OF THE SPACE.

THIS CALCULATION INCLUDES READY TO EAT ESTABLISHMENTS AND RESTAURANTS, WHICH ARE TWO OF THE CATEGORIES CURRENTLY SELLING FOOD AT THE SHOPPING CENTER.

CONDITION 23 CREATES AN UNNECESSARY PARKING RESTRICTION EXCEEDING THE CITY'S ESTABLISHED PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR CIP SHOPPING CENTERS.

THIS RESTRICTION HINDERS BUSINESS BUSINESSES LIKE RESTAURANTS AND MANY MARKETS LIMITING THEM TO 30% OF THE LEASE AREA.

ELIMINATING IT WOULD BRING IT TO THE, WOULD BRING THE SITE INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY'S STANDARDS WHILE MAINTAINING ITS COMMERCIAL NATURE.

CITYWIDE SHOPPING CENTERS CAN ALLOCATE UP TO 50% OF THEIR SPACE TO RESTAURANTS WITHOUT EXTRA PARKING CALCULATIONS.

REMOVING CONDITION 23 WILL NOT ONLY LIFT THE OUTDATED 30% LIMIT, BUT IT WOULD ALSO ALLOW THE SHOPPING CENTER TO BENEFIT FROM THE 15 WOULD ALLOW THE SHOPPING CENTER TO BENEFIT FROM THE SAME 50% ALLOWANCE AS OTHER SHOPPING CENTERS IN CSIP AND THE SURROUNDING AREA.

IN ADDITION, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE PARKING EXEMPT AREA ESTABLISHED BY RECENT CHANGES TO STATE LAW, AS WELL AS THE CITY'S CHANGE OF USE PARKING ORDINANCE, WHICH WAS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN 2024 AND CITY COUNCIL IN DECEMBER, 2024.

WHILE THE ORDINANCE AND PARKING EXEMPT AREA MAP IS NOT IN EFFECT IN THE COASTAL ZONE UNTIL THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION CERTIFIES IT, IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE SITE IS IN PROXIMITY TO TRANSIT PURSUANT TO LOCAL AND STATE REGULATIONS.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE, A LOCAL COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IS REQUIRED WHENEVER THERE'S A DISCRETIONARY APPLICATION SUCH AS A MODIFICATION TO AN IMPROVED PERMIT.

THE PURPOSE OF THE LOCAL COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IS TO ENSURE THAT THE, THAT ALL PUBLIC AND PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT IN LONG BEACH COASTAL ZONE IS DEVELOPED CONSISTENTLY WITH THE C CITY'S CERTIFIED LCP.

UH, THE LCP IDENTIFIES THE SUBJECT SITE IN THE SOUTHEAST AREA COMMUNITIES, WHICH IMPLEMENTS THE CI PLAN THE COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGNATION OF CIP CROSS-REFERENCE AND TITLE 21 OF THE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR PERMITTED USES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF SHOP THE SHOPPING CENTER WOULD NOT, WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE ALLOWED USES IN THE COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGNATION OF CIP.

THERE WOULD BE NO PHYSICAL CONSTRUCTION ASSOCIATED WITH THE REQUEST.

THE MODIFICATION WOULD NOT AFFECT COASTAL ACCESS OR IMPEDE THE ABILITY FOR EXISTING COMMERCIAL USES IN THE VICINITY, WHICH WOULD CONTINUE ITS CONFORMANCE WITH LCP.

THEREFORE, THE MODIFICATION TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PERMIT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE POLICIES AND REQUIREMENTS OUTLINED IN THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM.

UH, THE LOCAL COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CAN MEET THE FINDINGS.

UM, THESE FINDINGS SUPPORT THE SHOPPING CENTER'S ABILITY TO CONTINUE TO PROMOTE COASTAL ACCESS WITH COMMERCIAL AND RESTAURANT USES FOR ENJOYMENT BY THE BROADER PUBLIC AND LOCAL RE RESIDENTS.

CONSISTENT WITH THE LCP AND COASTAL ACT GOALS THAT ENCOURAGE VISITORS SERVING USES WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE, SINCE AGAIN, THE PROJECT INVOLVES NO PHYSICAL CONSTRICTION, MANY OF THE STANDARD FINDINGS ARE NOT APPLICABLE.

THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION WOULD BE CATEGORICALLY EXAM PER SECTION 15 3 0 1 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.

UH, AND THE PROJECT WAS NOTICED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LONG BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY COMMENTS IN RESPONSE TO THE HEARING NOTICE BASED ON THE DRAFT FINDINGS AND MODIFIED CONDITIONS, STAFF RECOMMENDS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ONE, APPROVE THE MODIFICATION TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PERMIT.

TWO, APPROVE THE LOCAL COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, AND THREE, ADOPT THE PROPOSED FINDINGS AND MODIFIED CONDITIONS, WHICH INCLUDE THE REMOVAL OF CONDITION THREE, AND ITS CORRESPONDING RESTRICTION FROM THE PROPERTY TITLE.

THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

UH, THE APPLICANT AND STAFF ARE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION.

THANK YOU MR. LOPEZ.

COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER CLEMSON.

SO THERE'S SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THE CHANGE IN THE RETAIL MIX FROM A 30%, UH, TO 50% RULE, AND THAT THAT HAD TO DO WITH, UH, MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

SO IS IT, IS THE IDEA THAT IF IF WE ALLOW MORE THAN 50% BASED ON, UH, RESTAURANTS, THEN THE PARKING WILL BE OVERSUBSCRIBED? IS THAT THE, IS THAT THE THOUGHT? SO THE WAY THAT THE PARKING IS,

[00:15:01]

UM, REFERRED TO IN THE CODE IS AT A FIVE PER 1000 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA FOR A SHOPPING CENTER.

SHOPPING CENTERS INHERENTLY SHARE USES.

SO YOU, UH, IT, IT ALLOWS FOR THE WHOLE SHOPPING CENTER TO HAVE A, A UNIFORM, UH, APPLICATION.

IF YOU HAVE UP TO 50% CAN, EVERYBODY CAN BE PARKED AT FIVE PER THOUSAND.

ONCE YOU EXCEED THAT 50% RULE, THAT'S WHERE WE START LOOKING AT ARE YOU EXCEEDING THAT, UM, THRESHOLD OF FI FIVE PER THOUSAND.

SO THE GOAL OF THIS APPLICATION IS TO RE REMOVE THE RESTRICTION THAT OVERLY RESTRICTS AS COMPARED TO THE OTHER, UH, SHOPPING CENTERS THAT ARE AFFORDED THE 50% RULE.

AND THEN, AND THEN UNDER AB 2097, THIS IS NOT, WE CAN'T ENFORCE MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS, UH, CORRECT.

UNTIL THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION CERTIFIES THE ORDINANCE THAT WAS BROUGHT BEFORE THIS COMMISSION.

UH, THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION HAS TO LOOK AT BALANCING COASTAL ACCESS, UH, WITH STATE LAW.

AND THERE IS NO, UH, PROVISION THAT ALLOWS AB 2097 TO SUPERSEDE THE COASTAL ACT.

UH, RIGHT NOW THE APPLICATION FOR THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT IS IN WITH THE COASTAL COMMISSION FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT.

AND SO ONCE WHAT COMES OUT OF THAT, WE CAN'T APPLY THAT IN THE COASTAL ZONE QUITE YET.

SO WHAT HAPPENS IF THE COASTAL COMMISSION APPLIES 2097 IN THAT, IN OUR COASTAL ZONE, IF THEY APPLY IT, THERE'S NO PARKING REQUIREMENTS REQUIRED BY THE LOCAL JURISDICTION.

NO, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT IS IT, UH, WHAT HAPPENS TO THIS PROPERTY? IS IT STILL SUBJECT TO THE 50%? UH, NO.

WE'RE TRYING TO BRING THIS INTERIM TIMEFRAME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH OUR, OUR GREATER LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, UH, REGULATIONS WHERE THIS WAS DONE IN THE EARLY INFANCY OF THE COASTAL COMMISSION.

ACTUALLY, I THINK THE COASTAL CONSERVANCY APPROVE THE ORIGINAL PERMIT FOR THIS.

SO IT WAS A LONG TIME AGO FROM A PERSPECTIVE OF OUR ZONING REGULATIONS.

AND WITH THE CHANGES IN THE COMMERCIAL MARKET, YOU CAN IMAGINE THERE ARE CHALLENGES TO FILLING COMMERCIAL SPACES.

UM, GENERALLY THE CITY WOULD NEVER ADVISE AN APPLICANT TO WAIT FOR US TO CHANGE A CODE BECAUSE YOU NEVER KNOW HOW LONG IT'S GONNA TAKE.

SO EVEN THOUGH, EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE RIGHT LIKELY IN THE NEAR FUTURE, THERE MAY BE NO PARKING REQUIREMENT AT ALL, UM, WE STILL WANNA PROCESS THIS IN THE INTERIM TO GIVE THEM, UM, A MORE NEAR TERM SOLUTION TO THE CHALLENGE OF FILLING VACANT SPACES.

AND JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, FOR THE, FOR THE COMMISSION, WHAT IS, FOR A REGULAR RESTAURANT THAT WAS APPLYING, IF IT WAS A STANDALONE PROPERTY, WHAT WOULD THE PARKING REQUIREMENT BE? IF IT'S A DINING RESTAURANT, SO IT'S OVER, WE HAVE TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF RESTAURANTS.

WE HAVE READY TO EAT RESTAURANTS.

YOU'LL THINK OF A SUBWAY, A SMALLER DINING AREA, LESS THAN A PRESCRIBED AMOUNT, LIKE TWO 50 I THINK IT IS.

THOSE ARE AT FOUR PER THOUSAND, WHICH IS LOWER THAN THE SHOPPING CENTER.

IF IT'S A RESTAURANT THAT'S 10 PER THOUSAND.

NOW THOSE CALCULATIONS ON THE RESTAURANT ARE ONLY THE DINING AREA.

THEY DON'T TAKE ACCOUNT OF THE BACK OF HOUSE.

SO THE REASON FOR THE SHOPPING CENTER, UM, PARKING RATIO TO BE A BLANKET, IT HELPS WITH THE APPLICATION OF ALL OF THOSE CONSISTENT ZONING.

AND WE CAN GET APPLICANTS IN, UH, UNIFORMLY ACROSS THE SHOPPING CENTER.

I HAD A, A QUICK OUT OF BODY EXPERIENCE WHEN YOU PRESENTED THE SLIDE THAT HAD THE ORIGINAL 1986 APPROVAL, AND THEN IT HAD THE 1922 NEXT TO IT.

AND I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT WAS 22 AND I SAW MARYANNE AND ALEXIS'S SIGNATURES ON THERE, AND I THOUGHT THEY HAVE NOT BEEN HERE SINCE 1986 .

UM, AND IF WE HAD A CUP COMING THROUGH NOW, WOULD WE, I MEAN WE HAVE THIS 50% RULE, WE KIND OF ARE BLENDING THE PARKING.

WE WOULDN'T BE PUTTING A 30% RESTRICTION ON A CURRENT PROJECT THAT WAS COMING IN FRONT OF US NORMALLY.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING STAFF WOULD TYPICALLY RECOMMEND TODAY.

AND THEN WHEN, WHEN THE APPLICANT CAME BACK THROUGH IN 20 22, 20 23 FOR THEIR REMODEL, DID WE MODIFY OR DID WE LOOK AT THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OR, OR MAKE NEW CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL? AT THAT TIME? WE, IT WAS RELATED TO THE FACADE REMODEL.

UM, THEY DID A, WHAT YOU SEE ON THE RIGHT IS A MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED PERMIT THAT'S VERY COMMON WHEN IT'S SUBSEQUENT.

BUT THE SUBSEQUENT FACADE REMODEL ONLY NEEDED TO GO TO THE SITE PLAN REVIEW COMMITTEE.

GOT IT.

IT DIDN'T REACH THE THRESHOLD OF REMOVING CONDITIONS SUCH AS THIS APPLICATION.

AND IT IS WORTH NOTING THAT IN THE TIME FROM THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL, WE'VE GOTTEN A LITTLE BIT MORE SOPHISTICATED WITH OUR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WHERE THERE WERE, UM, UNIQUE CONDITIONS ADDED TO MAKE SURE THE QUALITY OF THE DESIGN ON THE EXTERIOR IS UPHELD, WHICH IT LOOKS VERY NICE, UH, CURRENTLY.

YEP.

UM, THERE WASN'T, UM, A WHOLE LOT OF CONDITIONS ON THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE LAST ONE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY.

PERFECT.

THANK YOU FOR ALL THOSE CLARIFICATIONS,

[00:20:01]

COMMISSIONERS.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER.

IS THIS A UNIQUE EXCEPTION OR ARE THERE OTHER PROJECTS THAT HAVE ALREADY, UM, BEEN ACCEPTED WITH REVISION? THIS IS PRETTY UNIQUE.

WE DON'T SEE THIS VERY OFTEN, UH, ON, I HAVE NOT SEEN IT IN MY TIME HERE, BUT IT PROBABLY HAS TO DO WITH THE TIMING ON WHEN THIS APPROVAL WAS DONE.

AS ALLISON ALLUDED TO, UH, WE DO NOT ADD ANYTHING OVER AND BEYOND WHAT THE CODE SAYS WITHOUT A NEXUS IN PROPORTIONALITY TO THE IMPACT THAT IS FORESEEN IN THE RECORD.

THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF WHY THE 30% WE'VE, WE'VE GOTTEN TO THAT CONCLUSION, BUT IT'S VERY RARE TO HAVE A VERY SPECIFIC, UM, CONDITION AS SUCH.

BUT IT WAS IN THE EARLY INFANCY OF OUR PREVIOUS CD DIP AREA, UH, WHICH WAS WHEN THE FIRST DEVELOPMENTS WERE COMING IN, IN THAT PORTION OF THE CITY.

AND IT WAS A LOT OF TIMES WHEN YOU HAD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS COMING IN OR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS.

SO THERE WEREN'T A LOT OF STREET PARKING FACILITIES IN THOSE AREAS IN THE SEVENTIES.

SO THAT WAS PROBABLY WHAT WE'RE ALLUDING TO, UM, THAT REQUIREMENT.

BUT IT'S VERY RARE.

AND JUST TO SAY IT ANOTHER WAY, THE CONDITION ITSELF IS PRETTY UNUSUAL.

UM, SO EXCEPTION TO IT IS SOMETHING WE HAVEN'T PROCESSED.

BUT YEAH, I HAVEN'T SEEN THIS CONDITION BEFORE ON A PROJECT THAT 50% BLENDED RATE MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN ON THE BOOKS EITHER BACK THEN.

RIGHT.

AND SO THIS MAY HAVE BEEN A BEST ASSUMPTION OF WHAT A BLENDED RATE MIGHT HAVE LOOKED LIKE, SO.

HELLO, I'M MICHAEL FIELDS.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR STAFF? NO.

WITH THAT, I'LL OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE COME FORWARD.

AND I'M NOT SURE IF THE APPLICANT'S HERE DID.

WE ARE.

I'M HERE WITH MY WIFE.

WE LIVE AT 61 71 LAGUNA COURT, WHICH IS RIGHT BEHIND THE SHOPPING CENTER.

AND I WAS HERE AND PARTICIPATED WITH THE CITY IN 1986.

AND I PROBABLY KNOW MORE ABOUT THE PROJECT THAN MOST OF THE PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM, AT LEAST THE INITIAL STAGES OF IT.

AND WE WERE VERY CONCERNED AT THAT TIME.

UH, THERE WAS ORIGINALLY GONNA BE A FASHION MALL WITH, WITH FASHION, UH, STORES.

AND IT TURNED OUT ONE OF THE FIRST, UH, TENNIS WAS GONNA BE PAUL'S LIQUOR STORE.

AND THAT DREW THE ATTENTION OF, OF US REAL QUICK THAT WE WENT OVER TO TAKE A LOOK AT PAUL'S ORIGINAL LIQUOR STORE.

AND IT WAS A BIG STORE WITH PLASTERED, UH, ADVERTISEMENTS OF VARIOUS ALCOHOL AND ALL KINDS OF THINGS, AND THAT I DIDN'T SEEM TO FIT INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, ESPECIALLY AFTER WE'VE SPENT A LOT OF MONEY ON OUR HOME.

AND I'M EXACTLY BEHIND, UH, THE SHOPPING CENTER.

THE SHOPPING CENTER WAS ORIGINALLY A BOAT YARD.

AND, UH, THEY, THEY, UH, REMOVED THE BOAT YARD AND THEY CAME UP WITH THE IDEA, HAVE THIS LITTLE SHOPPING CENTER.

WE DON'T OBJECT TO THE SHOPPING CENTER TO BE HONEST WITH YOU.

UM, WE'RE OBJECTING TO SOME OTHER THINGS, HOW IT WAS RUN.

ORIGINALLY WHAT HAPPENED WAS THE, UH, BOATYARD HAD A FENCE THAT, UH, WENT AROUND LO COSTA DOSO THAT COSTA DOSO, UH, WHICH WAS RIGHT BEHIND OUR PROPERTY.

THERE'S A STREET COASTAL.

SO OUR HOUSE, AND THEN THAT WALL WALL WENT UP ABOUT SEVEN OR EIGHT FEET.

AND WE THOUGHT WHEN THEY WERE, WHEN THEY WERE EXCAVATING THE PROPERTY THAT IT'S GONNA BE LEVEL WITH THE, WITH THE BOAT YARD.

INSTEAD THEY ELEVATED THE PROPERTY.

SO THAT, AND THEY PUT IN ALL THESE, UH, UH, THEY PUT IN DOORS, EXIT DOORS ON THE BACKSIDE, AND THE EXIT DOORS WERE FACING OUR, OUR HOME AND OTHER HOMES THERE.

AND ALL OF A SUDDEN WE'RE, WE GET THIS INTRUSION, WE THOUGHT IT WAS GONNA BE A LOW FACILITY.

AND, UM, ALL OF A SUDDEN THEY'RE GONNA PUT IN A RESTAURANT THAT BARBECUE RESTAURANTS WITH BONES AND, AND ALL KINDS OF OTHER PROPERTY THERE, UH, BAD THINGS COMING OUT OF THERE.

AND THEY HAD THIS PATHWAY THEY WENT ALONG, WHICH STILL DOES THE BACKSIDE OF THE SHOPPING CENTER.

SO WHEN WE WENT TO THE CITY AND EXPLAINED ALL THIS TO THE CITY, THE CITY, I THINK LIMITED TO 30% OF FOOD TRYING TO ELIMINATE THE LIQUOR STORE AND PUT IN DECENT RESTAURANTS THERE, WHICH WE WANT, YOU KNOW, WE WANT.

AND, UM, AND SO PART OF THE CITY PLAN WAS TO ELIMINATE THESE BONES COMING, COMING FROM, FROM, UH, ONE END OF THE SHOPPING CENTER ALONG THAT PATHWAY TO, UM, LOINS DRIVE AND THEN INTO THE PARKING LOT.

SO THEY CREATED A, A PATHWAY FROM THIS, UH, UH, RESTAURANT, I, I FORGOT WHAT IT'S CALLED.

AND SO ALL THE BONES HAD TO GO THROUGH THE FRONT, AND SO THEY DIDN'T COME ALONG THE BACKSIDE.

AND PART OF THE OTHER COMMENTS THINGS, PLEASE WRAP UP YOUR COMMENTS.

AHMAD, AM I SAFE? YOU'RE AT YOUR THREE MINUTES.

GO, GO

[00:25:01]

AHEAD, GO.

EXCEEDED MY TIME OR WHAT? YEAH, YOU, YOU'VE EXCEEDED YOUR TIME, BUT GO AHEAD.

WHY DON'T YOU TELL A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT YOUR, WHAT YOUR COMMENTS ARE ON THE MOTION IN FRONT OF US THIS EVENING? YEAH, WELL, MY COMMENTS ARE, WE DON'T WANT A LIQUOR STORE.

WE DON'T WANNA HAVE A A A, UH, A UH, SPORTS BAR THERE.

THERE'S A BIG ENOUGH PLACE THERE THAT THEY COULD PUT A SPORTS BAR THERE, WHICH WE DON'T WANT.

WE'VE LIMITED THE THROUGH THE CITY AND, AND PARKING RESTRICTIONS.

THAT'S COSTA DEL SOUL WITH NO PARKING, BECAUSE WE USED TO HAVE, UH, PEOPLE PARKED THERE, THE BEER CANS WOULD BE ALL OVER THE, THE STREET.

SO THE CITY RESTRICTED THAT.

AND WE JUST, NOBODY'S TOLD US WHAT THEY WANNA DO.

IF ANYTHING, THEY'VE ELIMINATED A, A, UM, A CLEANERS, CLEANERS IS GONE NEXT WEEK, CLEANERS BE GONE.

NOT, THEY WANNA PUT MORE RESTAURANTS IN THERE.

WE NEED A CLEANERS.

SO WE OBJECT TO IT ON THAT BASIS TOO.

WHY, WHY ARE THEY PUTTING MORE FOOD FACILITIES IN THERE WHEN WE DON'T HAVE A CLEANERS? I DON'T KNOW WHERE WE'RE GONNA GO TO GET OUR CLEANING DONE.

ALRIGHT SIR.

THAT'S IT.

I APPRECIATE I GOT MORE TO SAY.

I WELL, I THINK WE, I THINK WE UNDERSTAND YOUR COMMENT ON IT THOUGH.

ALRIGHT.

ACTUALLY, IS THE APPLICANT HERE, DID THEY WANNA ADD ANYTHING TO STAFF'S PRESENTATION EARLIER? GOOD EVENING CHAIR, VICE CHAIR, COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF.

MY NAME'S ARIEL SAKARIS.

I'M WITH CREST REAL ESTATE ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER.

WE'RE THE APPLICANT ON THE, ON THE, UH, REQUEST AND NO, WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING OF SUBSTANTIVE DATA AT THE MOMENT OTHER THAN, UM, WE HAVE READ THE REPORT.

WE AGREE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS, THE ANALYSIS AND THE FINDINGS, AND ARE AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

UM, IF YOU HAVE ANY, APPRECIATE THAT COMMISSION.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NO.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR.

YOU'RE WELCOME.

ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS? CAN I SAY SOMETHING EVEN THOUGH I HAVEN'T BEEN SWORN IN YET? YOU WILL STAND UP AND WE'LL SWEAR YOU IN AND YOU CAN HAVE YOUR THREE MINUTES.

MA'AM.

DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE IS THE TRUTH AND THE WHOLE TRUTH? I, I DO.

THE, WE DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S GOING TO BE A MCDONALD'S SAYING, MAY WE TAKE, TAKE YOUR NEXT ORDER, PLEASE.

WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEY'RE PLANNING ON PUTTING THERE.

THERE IS A RESTAURANT WAS THERE, IT'S EMPTY.

IT WAS, IT CLO WHEN THE GOVERNOR CLOSED THE WHOLE STATE ON IN MARCH OF 2020.

THIS RESTAURANT OWNER LET EVERYBODY GO AND HE DIDN'T EVEN LAST THE WEEKEND.

HE HAD A HEART ATTACK AND DIED.

THAT RESTAURANT HAS BEEN CLOSED SINCE MARCH OF 2020.

SO THAT SPACE HAS BEEN THERE AND THERE'S ROOM FOR THEM TO HAVE PUT IN A RESTAURANT FOR THE PAST FIVE YEARS AND THEY HAVEN'T DONE IT.

WE'D HAVE, WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THEY PLAN ON DOING HERE BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO AFFECT EVERYBODY THAT LIVES IN BAY HARBOR WITH REGARD TO HOW THEY LIVE.

AND MY HUSBAND'S COMMENTS ABOUT THE CLEANERS THERE, THERE SEEMS TO BE NO CONCERN ABOUT WHAT IS GOOD FOR WHAT THE PEOPLE IN THE AREA NEED FOR SERVICES TO HELP THEM.

THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO SAY.

APPRECIATE IT.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.

WITH THAT, I'LL CLOSE, UH, COMMENTS IN THE, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER.

DO WE HAVE ANY VIRTUAL COMMENTS? WE DO NOT HAVE ANY VIRTUAL ATTENDEES.

WELL, WITH THAT I WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENTS AND BRING IT BACK BEHIND THE RAIL.

WOULD YOU MIND PULLING UP THE SLIDE THAT SHOWED THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOCATIONS? AND I WAS JUST CURIOUS IF WE WERE TO GO FROM 30% TO 50%, WHAT KIND OF SQUARE FOOTAGE ARE WE ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT? IS THAT ONE ADDITIONAL UNIT WITHIN THAT PROJECT? SO TODAY, UH, WITH THE RESTAURANTS AND READY TO EAT, UH, PLACES LISTED, IT'S ABOUT 22%.

UH, VACANCY IS ABOUT 28%.

SO ROUGHLY THAT'S A LITTLE OVER 50%.

IF, IF WE WERE TO ASSUME THAT ALL THE VAC SPACES NOT COUNTING THE CLEANERS, UH, WERE ALL TO BE RESTAURANTS OR READY TO EAT AND ON THE SLIDE, THE VACANT SPACES CAN BE SEEN IN WHITE.

AND WHAT'S THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE, UH, EMPTY RESTAURANT THAT'S UP THERE ON THE TOP? IT'S ROUGHLY JUST 'CAUSE I CAN'T SEE ON, ON MY OWN SIDE.

I'M GLAD IT'S NOT JUST MY EYES.

, IT'S ROUGHLY 2000 TO 3000 SQUARE FEET.

UM, RESTAURANTS AND THAT WOULD NOT BE A POSSIBILITY UNDER WHAT WE'RE REVIEWING TODAY.

ALRIGHT.

SO IT LOOKS LIKE, YOU KNOW, IF WE TAKE, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'D BE AN ADDITIONAL 6,000 SQUARE FEET APPROXIMATELY, AND, AND POTENTIAL, UH, RESTAURANTS AND UH, AND THEN ONE OF THE SPEAKERS HAD A QUESTION ABOUT FAST FOOD OR NOT FAST FOOD, BUT DRIVE-THROUGH,

[00:30:01]

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.

SO, UM, ANY DRIVE-THROUGH WOULD REQUIRE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, A CUP, BUT IN THIS LOCATION IT'S ACTUALLY NOT ALLOWED AT ALL.

SO IT WOULD COME BACK THROUGH, UH, THE PROCESS WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH A PUBLIC HEARING, UH, FOR YOU TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO KNOW ABOUT IT AHEAD OF TIME AND WEIGH IN ON WHETHER, UH, THE CITY SHOULD APPROVE SUCH A THING.

PERFECT.

COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER WARE? JUST CLARIFICATION.

SO THERE ISN'T A PROPOSED RESTAURANT AT THIS TIME 'CAUSE THERE IS VACANT SPACE.

THIS IS JUST REMOVING THAT RESTRICTION FOR OPPORTUNITIES THAT MAY ARISE, BUT AS YOU SAID, IT WOULD NEED TO COME BACK HERE IF IT WAS A USE THAT IS OTHERWISE WHAT IT IS CURRENTLY? WELL, IT, IT DOES DEPEND ON THE USE.

AND I SHOULD CLARIFY.

I SAID, UM, LIKE A BAR WOULD REQUIRE A CUP, CERTAIN RESTAURANTS CAN GET EXEMPTIONS IF THEY'RE ONLY SELLING ALCOHOL WITH A FULL UM, MEAL.

BUT FOR SORT OF MORE OF A A BAR TYPE OF LOCATION, A USE PERMIT WITH DISCRETION IN A PUBLIC HEARING WOULD BE REQUIRED.

CERTAIN THINGS LIKE RETAIL ARE ALLOWED BY RIGHT? SO THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO COME BACK AGAIN, UM, TO BE ALLOWED TO DO RETAIL.

UM, BUT, UH, SO IT DOES DEPEND ON THE USE, BUT ANYTHING THAT MIGHT HAVE EXCESS IMPACTS ON NEIGHBORS OR NOISE DOES REQUIRE THAT DISCRETIONARY PERMIT JUST FOR THAT PURPOSE.

SO I MENTIONED DRIVE-THROUGHS ARE NOT ALLOWED IN THIS LOCATION, BUT WHEN WE DO PROCESS DRIVE-THROUGHS, WE LOOK AT THINGS LIKE THE MENU BOARD AND THE MICROPHONES AND WHAT THE NOISE DECIBELS WOULD BE, HOW CLOSE RESIDENTIAL IS, AND WE, WE CRAFT CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS, UH, BASED ON ALL OF THOSE FACTORS.

WOULD A LIQUOR STORE BE ALLOWED AT THIS LOCATION AND IF SO, WOULD THAT, THAT WOULD, I'M ASSUMING ALSO REQUIRE A CUP? THEY WOULD NEED A CUP.

YEAH.

GO AHEAD COMMISSIONER.

ALSO, JUST TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT WERE RAISED EARLIER, CAN YOU SPEAK TO, UM, WHETHER WE HAVE THE PURVIEW AT THIS POINT TO MAKE ANY, UM, DECISIONS ON WHAT THE DEVELOPER OR OWNER HA CAN LEASE THOSE UNITS FOR IN TERM, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT YOU'VE ALREADY MENTIONED? UM, NO, OUR PURVIEW IS REALLY, IT'S JUST BASED ON WHAT THE USE TABLE IS FOR THE ZONING REGULATIONS.

UM, SO HERE IS THE SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN THAT TELLS YOU ARE THINGS ALLOWED BY, RIGHT? SO JUST BY COMING TO THE CITY AND ASKING FOR APPROVAL, ARE THEY NOT ALLOWED AT ALL OR IS IT, UM, SOMETHING THAT, UM, NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED CAREFULLY THROUGH A DISCRETIONARY USE PERMIT? AND THAT'S THE CEP TERMINOLOGY WE'VE BEEN THROWING AROUND HERE, THAT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, WHICH AGAIN, THE CITY HAS THAT OPPORTUNITY TO PUT ON CONDITIONS TO MAKE SURE IT DOESN'T HAVE THAT NEGATIVE IMPACT ON NEIGHBORS.

AND THAT IF IT DOES OPERATE IN A MANNER THAT DOES, THAT THE CITY WOULD HAVE OPTIONS.

IN TERMS OF, UH, ENFORCEMENT, JUST FOR MY OWN EDIFICATION, IF IN FACT THE COASTAL COMMISSION WERE TO APPROVE, UH, THE PARKING EXEMPTION FOR THIS AREA, HOW DO, HOW DO SITUATIONS LIKE THIS WHERE WE'VE GOT SOMETHING RECORDED ON TITLE THAT'S NO LONGER ENFORCEABLE? IS THERE A MECHANISM AFTER THAT THAT THEY CAN GO THROUGH WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND HAVE THOSE ITEMS REMOVED IF THEY'RE NOT CURRENTLY ENFORCEABLE? OR IS THAT THERE'S A SECTION OF OUR MUNICIPAL CODE THAT TALKS ABOUT WHEN LAWS ARE ENACTED SUBSEQUENT TO APPROVALS AND THE RELEVANCE OF THE CONDITIONS OR APPLICABLE, UM, REGULATIONS.

SO IT SHOULD BE COVERED.

UH, THAT ALSO WHEN WE CHANGE PARKING REQUIREMENTS, THAT'S HOW IT RETROACTIVELY APPLIES.

GOT IT.

FROM THAT MOMENT FORWARD.

THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? NOPE.

WITH THAT, I THINK WE'RE READY FOR THE VOTE THEN PLEASE.

COMMISSIONER SUAREZ, IF YOU'D LIKE TO GIVE A VERBAL THAT, I CAN TAKE THAT.

THE TIME FOR NON AGENDIZED PUBLIC ITEMS, SO IF THERE'S ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON SOMETHING THAT WASN'T ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA, NOW WOULD BE THE TIME TO DO SO.

YOU CAN JUST TURN ON YOUR MIC AND SAY YES.

AND I HOPE THAT, UH, ANSWERED SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT THE PUBLIC HAD ON WHAT, WHAT THE PROCESS IS FOR THINGS MOVING INTO THAT AREA MOVING FORWARD.

UH, WITH THAT, I BELIEVE WE ARE AT

[PUBLIC COMMENT Opportunity to address the Planning Commission on non-agenda items. Each speaker is limited to three minutes to make their comments unless extended by the Chair.]

SEE NO COMMENTS IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER.

DO WE HAVE ANY VIRTUAL COMMENTS? WE DO NOT HAVE ANY VIRTUAL ATTENDEES.

WELL, WITH THAT, I WILL CLOSE THE NON AGENDIZED PUBLIC COMMENTS SECTION.

ARE ARE THERE ANY

[ANNOUNCEMENTS]

ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? HAPPY SPRING.