Grover Beach City Council
November 10, 2025

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 1 10/27/25 APPEAL OF THE SEPTEMBER 2, 2025, PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 24-54
Appellants: Debbie Peterson 160 S. 3rd St. Grover Beach, CA 93433 Jose Najarro 277 Rockaway Av. Grover Beach, CA 93433
Above & Below: Project site seen from the east. Shown above, next to the site are the city parking lot, rail cars on the Union Pacific tracks at the train station, Highway One & the dunes & wetlands of Pismo State Beach.

The Google Earth photo, above, included in the City’s Staff Report regarding the project, shows how close this site is to the State Park. Just under the red arrow is a stand of trees. The photos below are of those mature trees. The pines were on the adjacent Beach Place property to the north of the project site. The Eucalyptus trees bounded the west property line of the site, some in the city parking lot in city right-of-way. The photo illustrates that this first 5-story building in Grover Beach, located as close to the beach as possible, will block inland and coastal dune and ocean views from every landward and seaward direction.

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 25-A1 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF GROVER BEACH, CALIFORNIA APPROVING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 24-54 FOR A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, USE PERMIT, AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP (TR-3244) TO CONSTRUCT

A NEW FIVE-STORY MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT THAT INCLUDES A DENSITY BONUS LOCATED AT 261 ROCKAWAY AVENUE (APN: 060-206-0115 AND 060-206-008) The Grover Beach Planning Commission approval of Development Application 24- 54 conflicts with multiple state and Grover Beach codes including but not limited to the following:

1. THE PROJECT FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE CONFORMANCE OR COMPLIANCE WITH THE

CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT, GROVER BEACH GENERAL PLAN, MUNICIPAL CODE,

DEVELOPMENT PLAN, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, WEST GRAND MASTER PLAN, VISIONING

DOCUMENT, ZONING & BUILDING CODES, AND/OR OTHER GROVER BEACH POLICY AND REGULATORY DOCUMENTS.

2. THE PROJECT FAILS TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTATION OR RECORDS TO

SUPPORT THE FINDINGS MADE IN THE RESOLUTION APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON SEPTEMBER 2, 2025.

3. THE PROJECT'S USE IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSES OF THE ZONE IN WHICH THE SITE IS LOCATED.

4. THE PROJECT HAS SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECTS, INDIVIDUALLY AND CUMULATIVELY, ON

COASTAL RESOURCES, CONSTITUTING A HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE.

5. THE LOCATION, USE, DESIGN, AND INCOMPLETE CONDITIONS FOR THE PROJECT AS

APPROVED ARE MATERIALLY INJURIOUS TO SURROUNDING REAL PROPERTY AND RESIDENTS, WHICH WILL RESULT IN HAZARDS TO HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE.

The Cal Cities City Attorney Library explains that the City Council in the appeal hearing must apply rules to facts & evidence applying due process of Reasonable opportunity to be heard as impartial decision makers.

Common Issues in Quasi-Judicial Hearings
Cal Cities https://www.cacities.org › City-Attorneys ›
Library
Note: The length of this appeal document is
due in part to numerous issues with the
project and in part to the multiple, often
overlapping city, state, and federal codes
pertaining to each issue and a desire on the
part of the appellants to fully document in
fact and in law each issue they address.
1 Attachment 1 PC Resolution No. 25- September 2, 2025, 261 Rockaway Ave LEGEND:

Appellant Comments are bold in this
typestyle.

Other typestyles denote the law, codes,
ordinances, or official studies.

The transcript of the planning
commission meeting that approved
Development Application 24-54 is in
this typestyle.

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 3 Common Issues in Quasi-Judicial Hearings Cal Cities https://www.cacities.org › City-Attorneys › Library Manuela Albuquerque, Director of Complex Public litigation for Burke Williams & Sorensen, LLP. In addition to her due process papers for the City Attorneys’ Department and County Counsel, she authored a successful amicus brief for the League and CSAC before the California Supreme Court in Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. California Water Control Resources Control Board (2009) 45 Cal.4th 731, was the Berkeley City Attorney for twenty-two years, is a past President of the City Attorney’s Department.

California general law cities must conduct quasi-judicial hearings fairly, even without specific statutes. These hearings require procedural due process, including proper notice, an unbiased decision-maker, and an opportunity for parties to be heard. The process must involve applying rules to specific facts, much like a court, and must ensure a neutral decision-maker who has heard all the evidence and avoids "ex parte" communications (discussions outside the formal hearing).

Key requirements for quasi-judicial hearings
• Proper notice: All affected parties must receive timely notice of the hearing. • Unbiased decision-makers: The individuals making the decision must be neutral and cannot have a conflict of interest or a strong personal bias.
• Opportunity to be heard: Parties must have the chance to present evidence, call witnesses, and crossexamine opposing witnesses. • Adherence to evidence rules: The hearing body should focus on evidence and can exclude irrelevant or repetitive evidence.
• No "ex parte" communications: Decision-makers cannot receive outside information from one party without the other party being present or notified.
• Decision-maker must hear all evidence: Anyone who votes must have been present for all evidence presented in the hearing, as decisions cannot be based on testimony they did not hear.

Why these standards are important
• Applies to specific parties: Quasi-judicial hearings are distinct from legislative hearings because they determine the rights and obligations of specific individuals or groups, rather than creating broad public policy. • Due process is required: Even if a city ordinance does not explicitly state it, California courts have held that quasi-judicial hearings must provide a fair process, often referred to as "adjudicative" hearings. • Protects against unfair outcomes: These rules are in place to prevent arbitrary or biased decisions by ensuring a level of fairness comparable to a court proceeding.

1. When Fair Process Is Required: “Adjudicative” Or “Quasi-Judicial” Hearings California courts have held that when the applicable law (for example a city ordinance) requires that an administrative hearing must be held to take testimony and apply a standard or rule to an individual set of facts, the hearing must be fair and have “impartial” decision makers. This is the case irrespective of whether or not the hearing entails the taking away or modi�ication of a vested right, such as an existing permit or other entitlement.

These hearings are often referred to as “adjudicative” or “quasi-judicial” because the decision makers act like judges applying rules to facts and evidence, rather than as legislators making policy decisions. They generally concern an application for a city permit or other entitlement (including employment) or the modi�ication or revocation of one. Such hearings may, but need not, involve an appeal from an initial administrative determination.

What Process Is Due: Notice, Reasonable Opportunity To Be Heard, Impartial Decision Maker. Administrative hearings are not required to be conducted like trials with sworn testimony, cross examination and conformity to the rules of evidence. The procedures will generally be governed by a local ordinance.

The essential components of fairness are

1. reasonable advance notice,

2. reasonable opportunity to be heard and

3. an ”impartial” decision maker.

Judicial Review: Unfairness
The �inal administrative decision is subject to judicial review in an administrative mandate writ proceeding based on an administrative record of the proceedings before the City and the City’s written �indings.3 A judge can invalidate the City’s decision based on the unfairness of the proceedings. Sometimes attorneys’ fees can be awarded based on an unfair proceeding.

Adequacy Of Notice-Special Considerations Notice of a hearing usually should conform to the requirements of the local ordinance or other law setting up the hearing, should provide reasonable advance notice as to when the hearing will be held, what will be at issue and how any staff reports and other material before the hearing body Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 4 may be accessed. This is a matter that City staff will normally handle. Decision makers should be alert to problems that may arise during the course of a hearing. These might be addressed by continuing the hearing, for example, is there some compelling circumstance that makes it impossible for a key witness to be present or is the applicant or appellants not present at the hearing suggesting that they may not be aware that the hearing was to proceed? If a hearing is to be continued from one date to another it is a good idea to make it clear on the record that no further notice will be given of the continued date, especially in land use hearings with complex noticing requirements.

Reasonable Opportunity To Be Heard: Responding To New Issues Sometimes a new issue or a new twist on an old issue gets raised during the hearing. Persons whose interests are affected need to be given a fair chance to address them. A hearing can be re-opened for a limited purpose and a reasonable time limit placed on the parties to address the new issue. This will ensure that your hearing is perceived to be fair by a reviewing judge.

Demystifying Due Process for Decision Makers —The Top Ten List OAK #4834-1527-6048 v1
Fair “Hearing”: Being/Seeming Attentive, Reviewing The Record Of Prior Proceedings The fairness of the proceeding requires that decision makers appear to be and are paying close attention to the information being presented at the hearing. Making or taking cell phone calls, stepping out of the chambers in the middle of the hearing, using a computer for unrelated matters (for example, reviewing or sending emails) can all be taken by a reviewing court as an indication that the decision maker is not paying attention to the proceedings and therefore that the hearing is unfair.8 It is helpful to state for the record that you are taking notes concerning the proceedings if you are using your computer for this purpose. If you have been absent for a prior part of the hearing it is important to state on the record that you have reviewed the tapes of the prior proceedings you missed. Doing so will avoid any public misperceptions and prevent legal challenges based on such misunderstandings.

Bias: Personal Embroilment, Seeking Advice, Disclosures On The Record Impartiality in a hearing context goes beyond disquali�ications required by the state �inancial con�lict of interest laws. “Personal embroilment” is a broad legal term the courts use when the decision maker has some personal stake in the outcome which might impair impartiality. Are you very close friends or an adversary of the applicant? Ask your city attorney ahead of the hearing if the circumstances present a problem. If there is any question, ask the parties by disclosing the involvement and whether anyone objects. If there is a reasonable basis for objecting to a decision maker’s participation, it is often wise to err on the side of caution and recuse yourself so as not to render the decision vulnerable to legal attack.

Avoiding Prejudgment: Framing Questions, Maintaining A Neutral Demeanor And Tone Did you take a position on the project or matter so as to suggest that you cannot make a decision on the evidence presented?10 Asking questions rather than stating opinions helps show you are interested in making a decision on the merits and haven’t made a decision without considering the information presented. Be mindful of whether your tone and demeanor re�lect your neutrality. Even after the hearing has been closed and it is time to make a decision, make temperate statements explaining your conclusions by reference to the evidence received.

Fair Hearing: Disclosing “Ex Parte” Out Of Hearing Facts- Avoiding Commitments While members of the council and city boards and commission may be permitted to make out of hearing “ex parte” contact with the parties to gather facts, especially in land use matters, the information gathered must be disclosed on the record in suf�icient detail so that all parties can respond and all decision makers are provided access to the same information. You can explain to anyone seeking your commitment to a position that you cannot make a decision until you consider all the information presented at the hearing. Such prejudgment is inconsistent with the duty of impartiality and the conduct of a fair hearing.

Asking The Staff: Separating Adjudicatory And Prosecutorial Functions.

Sometimes, city staff will be playing a “prosecutorial” or advocacy role in the hearing. When this occurs, a decision maker will not be able to seek information or advice from staff on the “prosecutorial” side. Your city attorney will guide you as to the lawyers and staff assigned to play the “advisory” role who you may consult.

Providing fairness is actually quite simple once you know the rules of the road. Good luck! Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The question of building heights is the single most important issue to Grover Beach residents since three decades ago when the Community voted in 1992 to change the City’s name to Grover Beach. Height and massing changes took place during COVID shutdowns in 2022 without additional outreach to citizens, so the highly massed 5-6 story height buildings come as a shock to many who live in the 5-Cities who relied on the Vision, Master Plan, and LCP that had been crafted amidst significant community outreach.

The appellants believe that the question of building height and massing in the coastal zone, the community’s most valuable asset, is of such import that the Council should initiate public engagement around the issue. The appellants offer their appeal not as an attack, but as an invitation to work together through the democratic process to arrive at the best solution for the greatest number of people.

The 261 Rockaway project doesn’t meet the intent of the CVS Zone, and several other code requirements as documented herein. The overarching issues with the project could be addressed with any of the following alternatives:

1. Uphold the Appeal based on:
• Tsunami and Liquefaction zoning with a 10’water table that preclude the plan to build on fill, and subject the public, neighbors, and project occupants to unacceptable hazards.
• Violations of LCP and Coastal Act codes to protect public access to scenic and environmental resources
• Design & Height incompatibility with surrounding properties.

2. Support the Appeal & Deny the Project in favor of highest and best uses that meet all code requirements:
• Motel/Hotel/Lodging – Underprovided in Grover, #1 recommendation in CVS, Generates TOT, Perfect location next to train station.
• Parking Garage – The Coastal Commission requires environmental justice – sufficient parking to allow low cost access to the coast.
• Pocket Park - The City’s Park and Recreation Element includes a map that identifies the need for a mini park in the West Grover Beach neighborhood south of Long Branch Avenue.
• Commercial Use: Smoking Lounge – UrbnLeaf Dispensary

3. Condition the Appeal with design remedies that bring it into compliance with the intent of the CVS zone and the community vision as expressed in Grover code – Restore the Commercial unit to the ground floor and reduce the number of residential door fronts to

16. 4. Send it back to the Community Development Department and Planning Commission and instruct them to address unaddressed issues and bring it into compliance with defensible findings. What was presented at the Planning commission meeting was insufficient to assess or address concerns related to final building height, liquefaction, tsunami, storm water, and solar access, or to approve without unacceptable risks and costs to the owners, investors, neighborhood, and the public.

Housing is important but cannot override laws regarding coastal access, environmental justice, social justice and health & safety. Changes can be made that don’t Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 6 result in significant changes to housing and certainly not to affordable housing. The project could move to a location outside the CVS zone and comply with all codes.

1. THE PROJECT FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE CONFORMANCE OR COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT.

Information in this section, unless otherwise annotated, is from the Coastal Commission website.

The Planning Commission & Planning Staff by definition are focused on development. The appellants ask the City Council to consider the wider view so as to balance all legal aspects involving the community.

THE LAW: COASTAL COMMISSION DEFINITIONS 2
CoastalAccess: The ability of the public to reach, use, and enjoy the coast, as protected by the California Coastal Act under Sections 30210-30214.

CoastalResources: The natural and scenic assetsof California's coast, including beaches, wetlands, estuaries, and marine habitats, as defined throughout Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act (Sections 30200-30265.5).

Environmental Justice: Everyone, regardlessofincome orbackground,deserves access tonaturalresources. TheCoastlinebelongs to everyone.

EnvironmentallySensitiveHabitatArea (ESHA): Any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem, as defined in Section 30107.5of the California Coastal Act.

A site is not required to have nests to be ESHA. It must only be a place where wildlife roosts, feeds, or hunts or that is a scenic resource.

Local Coastal Program (LCP): A local government's land use plans, zoning ordinances, zoning district maps, and implementing actions that together meet the requirements of, and implement the provisions and policies of, the California Coastal Act at the local level, as described inSection 30108.6of the Act.

PublicAccess: The ability of the publictophysically reach, occupy, and enjoy public coastal lands and waters, as protected by Sections 30210-30214 of the California Coastal Act.

Sensitive Coastal Resource Areas: Those identifiable and geographically boundland and water areas within the coastal zone of vital interest and sensitivity, such as highly scenic areas, special communities or neighborhoods which are significant visitor destination areas, as defined in Section 30116of the California Coastal Act:
“Sensitive coastal resource areas” means those identifiable and geographically bounded land and water areas within the coastal zone of vital interest and sensitivitywhich include:
(a)Special marine and land habitat areas, wetlands, lagoons, and estuaries as mapped and designated in Part 4 of the coastal plan.
(c)Highly scenic areas.
(e)Special communities or neighborhoods which are significant visitor destination areas. (f)Areas that provide existing coastal housing or recreational opportunities for low- and moderate-income persons.

Visual Resources: The scenic qualities of coastal areas, including natural landforms, vegetation, and structures, as protected under Section 30251 of the California Coastal Act. 2 https://resourcecenter.transect.com/regulations/state/california/costal-act/glossary Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 7 Wetland: Lands within the coastal zone which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and include saltwater marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps, mudflats, and fens, as defined in Section 30121of the California Coastal Act.

CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT POLICIES ADDRESS COASTAL RESOURCES SUCH AS…PROTECTION OF SCENIC VISTAS, COASTAL LANDSCAPES AND SENSITIVE VISUAL RESOURCES.3 Our Mission - California Coastal Commission 4
The Commission is committed to protecting and enhancing California's coast and ocean for present and future generations.

The California Coastal Act protects: 5

1. Public access to the coast and shoreline7

2. Coastal habitats and sensitive species8

3. Visual resources and scenic qualities of coastal areas10 Impacts toenvironmentally sensitivehabitat areas (ESHA): Development activities that significantly disrupt or degrade areas designated as ESHA, such as wetlands, riparian habitats, and rare species habitats, are prohibited unless … no feasible alternatives exist. These prohibitions and restrictions are designed to safeguard the ecological integrity, natural beauty, and public accessibility of California's coastal resources for current and future generations.

The California Coastal Act establishes various standards and limitations to protect and preserve the state's coastal resources. These include:6
• Development Standards: The Act sets forth criteria for the siting and design of new development in the coastal zone, such as setback requirements, height limitations, and visual compatibility with the surrounding area. • Resource Protection: The Act requires the protection of sensitive coastal resources, including wetlands … by limiting development in these areas and establishing buffer zones. • Public Access: The Act mandates the provision of public access to the coast, including the dedication of easements and the construction of accessways, as a condition of new development. • Cease andDesistOrders: The Commission may issue a cease-and-desistorder to stop unauthorized development or other activities that violate the Act or a permit. 3 https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/assets/ourmission/Coasal_Act_Chapter_3_Policies_Slide_Show.pdf 4 https://coastal.ca.gov › whoweare4
5 https://resourcecenter.transect.com/regulations/state/california/costal-act 6 https://resourcecenter.transect.com/regulations/state/california/costal-act#user-content-fn-201 Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 8 • CivilPenalties: The Act authorizes the imposition of civil penalties of up to $30,000 per violation, depending on the severity and duration of the violation.
• CriminalPenalties: In some cases, violations of the Act may be prosecuted as misdemeanors, with potential fines and imprisonment.

Coastal Act: Section 30222 requires that the development of visitor-serving commercial recreational facilities be given priority, in "suitable" coastal areas, over all other types of potential development.7 The California Supreme Courtin Lynchv.CaliforniaCoastalCommission in 2017 26 ruled that the Coastal Commission has broad authority to impose conditions on coastal development permits to protect public access and coastal resources, even if those conditions are not directly related to the specific development project. This decision has affirmed the Commission's power to regulate coastal development and has set a precedent for future permit decisions. 8
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:9 (a) The right of access to the coast is guaranteed to the people of California by the California Constitution and the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 commencing with Section 30000), which requires that coastal development be regulated and public access rights to our state's beaches be protected.
(b) California's Parks Forward Commission has emphasized the need to expand access to parks and public lands throughout California to ensure that all Californians and visitors to the state, including those from low-income and underserved communities, are able to benefit from outdoor experiences.
(c) Lower cost accommodations, including hotels, motels, hostels … are essential elements of coastal and park access because they enable Californians and visitors from a variety of backgrounds, including those of low and moderate income, to enjoy California's beaches and parks and experience the full range of recreational, educational, spiritual, and other experiences offered.
(d) A lack of affordable accommodations remains a barrier to coastal access. California's historic supply of lower cost coastal accommodations has been reduced, and continues to be diminished, as a result of high coastal property values and economic pressures to develop new coastal accommodations that are too expensive to be affordable to most visitors. (e) California should invest in new strategies and partnerships to improve the availability of lower cost accommodations along the coast, particularly for low-income and middle-income families. A strategic program to provide affordable accommodations in appropriate areas of our coastal parks and public lands can play an important role in improving public access to the coast.

This appeal provides an opportunity for the City Council to improve public access to the coast for low-income and middle-income visitors by correcting the issue of more demand for and less availability of parking caused by development, particularly at this site in this area of the Coastal Zone so close to the beach. 30001. The Legislature hereby finds and declares:
(a) That the California coastal zone is a distinct and valuable natural resource of vital and enduring interest to all the people and exists as a delicately balanced ecosystem. 7 City of Grover Beach Local Coastal Plan November 1, 1999.Coastal Act: P. 63 8 California Code, Public Resources Code - PRC § 31411 9 Current as of January 01, 2024, | https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/public-resources-code/prc-sect-31411.html Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 9 If this project proceeds as planned, three natural resource categories will be compromised or permanently destroyed: ESH A, Wildlife Corridor, and Scenic Vistas, Coastal Landscapes & Sensitive Visual Resources.

1. ESHA (Environmentally Sensitive Habitat)
The site and adjacent city parking lot contained
multiple trees that were hunting or feeding
grounds for: hummingbirds, monarch
butterflies, great horned owls, red-tailed
hawks, and crows. This is relevant because
nothing stands between the site and Pismo
State Beach except public rights-of-way. Adjacent to the development is the city parking lot, then the train station, and the scenic Highway One, thus
per the California Code
definition of “adjoined,” 261
Rockaway is adjoined to the
state park, Pismo State Beach
and its dunes and Meadow
Creek Wetlands. (See map
below.) “Legal parcels that are only separated by a street, or highway, or if separated only by a public right-of-way, road, alley, or other public
thoroughfare shall be
considered adjoined.”
Left: Great Horned Owl. Right:

Red-tailed Hawk eating a crow
in a eucalyptus tree at 261 Rockaway. Below: ground squirrel at 160 S. 3rd St.

Above Right, SLO County GIS Map showing Environmentally Sensitive Prime Riparian Habitat adjacent to 261 Rockaway.

2. Wildlife Corridor. Where sensitive habitats may be present, a project must be reviewed for potential impacts. The neighbors who share a fence at 277 Rockaway and 172 S. 3rd created throughways in their fences to accommodate passage of wildlife from one lot to the next.

Next page: Left: Xerxes Society map of Monarch butterfly sensitive sites includes 261 Rockaway Ave. Right and Below: this stand of trees, while not native, was, for these creatures, the last stop before reaching the state park, and a vital corridor to the Meadow Creek Riparian Wetlands in the dunes of Pismo State Beach.

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 12 “Coastal Recreation in California: Beyond the Beach Center for the Blue Economy,” the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey November 2021study finds the highways with coastal views, in particular California’s Highway 1, a very important asset whether the sightseeing is a principal or an incidental purpose of a trip.12
The Grover Beach General Plan states, “Some city streets offer views of the hills to the north & east. W.

Grand Ave., Fourth St., & many other streets provide views of the beach, dunes, wetlands, & Pismo Lake.

Highway 1 that passes through Grover Beach (from Pismo Beach to Oceano) is eligible as a Caltrans state scenic highway. This stretch of Highway 1 provides views of the Pacific Ocean and Meadow Creek to the west & hills to the north.

Below: Grover General Plan Maps show proximity to Pismo State Beach and Right, the proximity of the site to ESHA, Meadow Creek, and Pismo State Beach. Below: Coastal Commission ESHA definitions and next page: examples of the views from many of Grover Beach streets that will be impacted by 5-story height massively scaled
projects.

CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACCESS & ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
The public trust doctrine prioritizes public uses and interests over private ones. This doctrine holds that the state acts as a trustee, holding sovereign lands and navigable waters for the benefit of the public and ensuring their use and enjoyment is protected from private infringement. Key aspects of the doctrine recognized by case law:
12 The Grover Beach General Plan P.5 Conservation and Open Space Element Update Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 13 State's Duty: The state
• has an affirmative duty to protect public trust resources. • Public Benefit: These lands are held in trust for the public for uses … recreation, and the preservation of the lands in their natural state.
• Limitations on Private Rights: The doctrine sets limits on private rights that may interfere with public access or uses.
• Continuous Supervision: The state retains the authority to exercise continuous supervision and control over public trust lands and waters, which can extend to the revocation of previously granted rights if those actions harm public trust interests.
• Affirmative Duty to Consider Impacts: Agencies must consider the effect on public trust uses and must attempt to avoid or minimize harm to those interests.

The modern public trust doctrine refers to the principle that the government must protect these lands for public use on behalf of the people. 13
Therefore, the City must adopt findings that appropriately describe public trust topics at issue and incorporate appropriate special conditions and modifications that ensure protection of public trust uses, resources, and needs in a manner consistent with the Coastal Act and relevant LCPs.

The California Coastal Act is an exercise of the Legislature’s public trust authority and responsibility and, as such, aligns with and implements aspects of the public trust doctrine, including through its emphasis on public access … and ocean-related recreation. Consistent with its affirmative duty to uphold the public trust doctrine, the Coastal Commission will incorporate considerations of public trust resources, uses, and needs into its decision-making, including its actions on coastal development permits, local coastal programs and other plans, federal consistency determinations, and other relevant actions because the Coastal Act requires protection of public access, coastal habitats, recreation, and other public trustrelated resources.

The public trust doctrine should inform the interpretation of the Coastal Act and LCP provisions to ensure that they are conducted in a manner that fully protects the public trust. At the very least, the City of Grover Beach must adopt findings that appropriately describe the public trust topics at issue and incorporate appropriate special conditions and modifications that ensure protection of public trust uses, resources, and needs in a manner consistent with the Coastal Act and the Grover Beach Local Coastal Plan. 13 https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blog/CA-Public-Trust-Doctrine-for-Beaches.pdf P.3 Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 14 Uses that may be considered consistent with the public trust include … public access, and environmental preservation and restoration. Case law recognizes that the public trust doctrine prioritizes public uses and interests over private ones.14 The National Audubon Society v. Superior Court (1983) case15 centered on the Public Trust Doctrine. The California Supreme Court ruled that the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power's diversion of water from streams feeding Mono Lake, which caused severe ecological damage, was subject to the state's continuing responsibility to protect public trust values. The court held that permits … must consider the public interest in the environment, requiring a reevaluation of past …appropriations to protect public trust interests like ecological balance and scenic beauty.

The court determined that the state's duty to protect public trust values—such as the environment, wildlife, and public enjoyment of Mono Lake—must be considered...

Precedent Set: The case established that … rights are not absolute and must be reevaluated to prevent significant harm to public trust resources.

The nexus between coastal access and environmental justice at 261 Rockaway Ave. is multi-faceted. Parking is a crucial part of visitor coastal access. The 261 Rockaway site takes out 4 on-street parking spaces on its street frontage and 3 parking spaces in the City lot. It further restricts parking in the coastal zone by providing only 1 onsite parking space per condominium. The train station is located across the city parking lot from the project site, but other public transit is very limited, so most visitors and their beach toys and gear will arrive by car and need parking in the Coastal Zone near the beach.

Fact: The Coastal Commission has studied the impact of recent housing policies that have both increased development and decreased parking requirements and, in many cases, decreased street parking while at the same time shifting parking offsite onto streets. The following Coastal Commission Study addresses this issue with the addition of J/ADUs (Junior/Accessory Dwelling Units) in residential areas. The issues apply to mixed use development in commercial areas also.

VI. Coastal Commission staff reports … summarize specific issues that arose between Coastal Act requirements and the new J/ADU provisions as well as the necessary changes that were made in order to harmonize each jurisdiction’s LCP with the State’s housing laws. The suggested modifications shown in the staff reports were all approved by the Coastal Commission. Although referring to ADU’s, the same issues arise with residential mixed-use development.
…private residential J/ADU parking needs can shift onto adjacent public streets. The Coastal Act contains objectives and policies … to protect and provide for maximum coastal access opportunities, which includes maintaining sufficient public coastal parking, including … through LCP off-street parking provisions. The addition of J/ADUs may interfere with coastal public street parking availability if … parking is not replaced onsite, in addition to the street parking … thereby reducing the availability of on-street parking to the general public. This may adversely affect public coastal access if it occurs in high visitor-serving areas and/or areas with significant public recreational /ADU parking demand itself.

The Commission has … found that when private residential parking needs are not accommodated onsite, it can lead to increased use of on-street parking. The result will be that the general public could be displaced from on-street parking … which may violate the Coastal Act’s requirements to protect, provide, and maximize public coastal access and recreational 14 https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blog/CA-Public-Trust-Doctrine-for-Beaches.pd fP.6 15 National Audubon Society v. Superior Court (1983)15 Justia Law https://law.justia.com › cases › california › supreme court Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 15 opportunities. In many impacted coastal neighborhoods, development patterns over the years have not adequately accounted for off-street parking needs, and adding J/ADU parking to the mix will only exacerbate such public parking difficulties. Additionally, because general onstreet parking is typically free or lower cost compared to other public parking facilities, … construction may also interfere with maintaining lower cost coastal access for all. In order to avoid conflicts regarding parking requirements … as they may impact public access, local governments are encouraged to … identify or map specific neighborhoods and locations where there is high visitor demand for public on-street parking … for coastal access and to specify parking requirements for each such area that harmonizes Government Code requirements with the Coastal Act (and any applicable LCP policies). These maps can denote areas that supply important coastal public parking and access opportunities and require that … development in these areas ensures that private residential parking needs are accommodated off-street. The Commission has previously found that local governments may include specific off-street parking requirements … and may also require maintenance of all off-street parking….

The other nexus between coastal access and environmental justice is the obstruction of panoramic views from every corner of the city by a massive full-lot coverage 55’ (and rising) condominium complex separated from the beach only by public rights-of-way: a city parking lot, Union Pacific tracks, and H ighway One. Inland views from the Scenic Highway One located between the project and Pismo State Beach will also be blocked.

Protection of sensitive habitats and visual qualities; avoidance of hazards. There can be cases where … projects may affect significant coastal resources, such as sensitive habitats and shorelines and beaches. …It is important that proposed mixed use provisions are not structured to undo any … LCP protections. They may need to be reviewed for specific siting and design standards, particularly in visually sensitive areas (such as the immediate shoreline, LCP-designated scenic areas, etc.). Similarly, where sensitive habitat may be present, they must be reviewed for impacts to such habitat. Additionally, local governments should include provisions … in areas vulnerable to sea level rise and other coastal hazards which ensure not only that these structures will meet all LCP requirements for new development to be safe from such hazards, but that also addresses the need for future sea level rise adaptations (including future accommodation or removal, risk disclosure conditions … and any other risk-related issues dealt with in the LCP.

Coastal Act § 30604(h) describes environmental justice as “the equitable distribution of environmental benefits throughout the state.”
Coastal Act § 30013 further declares that in order to advance the principles of environmental justice and equality, California government code subdivisions Section 11135(a) subdivision (e) of Section 65040(e) of the Government Code apply to the Commission and all public agencies implementing the provisions of the Coastal Act. Government Code § 11135(a) • Prohibits Discrimination: This provision states that no person in California can be denied access to state-funded programs or services based on race, national origin, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, color, or disability.

Fact: as detailed in the studies in this section, when there is limited parking, it is particularly low-income, young adults, seniors, families, and people of color who cannot access the seaside. • Scope: It applies to any program or activity conducted, operated, or administered by any … agency, including those funded directly by the state or receiving state financial assistance.

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 16 The City threatens that we will lose state support if we don’t build 5-story buildings. The same risk of losing state income exists if the City Council impedes beach access and violates social justice principles by reducing parking. Good governance dictates balancing the uses, needs, and rights of at-risk populations. • Government Code § 65040.12(e) Environmental Justice Context: This subdivision of the California Government Code relates to the implementation of environmental policies. It defines environmental justice as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people of all races, cultures, incomes, and national origins, with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies,” including, at a minimum, the meaningful consideration of recommendations from populations and communities most impacted … land use decisions.

How They Connect in the Coastal Act
• Coastal Act § 30013: The Legislature enacted this section to advance the principles of environmental justice and equality within coastal management. This ensures that coastal programs and activities are conducted in a way that is fair, equitable, and free from discrimination for all people in California.
• Coastal … uplands [inland from the beach] support a variety of ecological, socioeconomic, and cultural values. The various beaches and wetlands that constitute public tidelands support public access … and coastal recreational activities, most of which require a vehicle and parking to access.

Unlike much upland coastal property, tidelands are generally open to all visitors at no or low cost and are thus critical from an environmental justice standpoint as an important resource providing equitable access to coastal … resources. 16
Due to its inherent emphasis on protecting public uses and resources with wide-reaching public benefits, the public trust doctrine can further environmental justice, or the equitable distribution of environmental benefits and burdens. Likewise, the Coastal Act is grounded in principles of public inclusion and protection of coastal resource benefits for the public. The Coastal Act’s mandates to provide maximum access and recreational opportunities for all, and to protect, encourage, and provide lower-cost visitor and recreational opportunities, embody fundamental principles of environmental justice. The City Council must answer these issues and the big picture . Recent city development illustrates the Coastal Commission concern about “high coastal property values and economic pressures to develop new coastal accommodations that are too expensive to be affordable to most visitors.”
Fact: Recent Grover Beach staff reports to the City Council indicate that the City currently exceeds RHNA goals for development of above-moderate-income beachfront housing by over 50% but meets only a third of the goal for income categories below that.

The [Coastal] Commission has a long-standing commitment to identifying and eliminating barriers to equitable access. [However], California Native American Tribes, communities of color, low income communities and other historically marginalized populations often experience greater burdens and barriers in accessing the California coast and remain unable to enjoy the benefits that shoreline and coastal access provide. Future climate change and sea level rise hazards will have17 disproportionate 16 https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blog/CA-Public-Trust-Doctrine-for-Beaches.pdf 17 1: 17 https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blog/CA-Public-Trust-Doctrine-for-Beaches.pd Guiding Principles | Page 12 Section 8
Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 17 impacts on communities with the least capacity to adapt and may exacerbate existing environmental injustices:
• Access to cooler coastal temperatures will increasingly become a public health imperative for inland residents as average temperatures in California rise. • As sea levels rise, the potential for public trust lands and their associated upland public spaces to be subject to coastal squeeze against private upland development will only increase, exacerbating existing inequalities in coastal access and tipping the scales further toward injustice.

The Coastal Commission must continue working toward appropriately balancing the public’s interest in … public lands and waters with private property rights, even as sea level rise pushes the publicprivate boundary landward.

The Coastal Commission will implement and uphold the public trust doctrine, consistent with its Environmental Justice Policy, to advance environmental justice on the California coast, ensure that coastal development on and near public trust lands is inclusive for all who work, live, and recreate on California’s coast and provides equitable benefits for communities that have historically been excluded, marginalized, or harmed by coastal development.

Consistent with its Environmental Justice Policy, the Commission will meaningfully engage with environmental justice communities to ensure they can reach and enjoy public trust lands.

The Coastal Commission will continue to analyze the impacts of residential-related development on public trust resources, uses, and needs. As sea levels rise, the impacts of … development upon the public trust resources and values, both at the individual parcel scale and cumulative, larger scales, will increase.

The public trust doctrine creates an imperative for the city to preserve public interests on the coast of California. Common law is clear that the public trust doctrine does not permit the city to alienate or relinquish public trust resources for private residential uses. When considering proposals for new residential-related development and redevelopment, and when considering whether authorized development is in compliance with all special conditions of approval, the city must analyze the impacts to public trust resources, including sea level rise, and consider the impacts of proposed development over its full lifetime. While sea level rise in Grover Beach is expected to be only 1.5 feet, coastal flooding is anticipated, and the effects of the rise in more impacted areas will likely drive more people to Grover Beach, resulting in a cumulative reducing effect on access.

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 18 The Community Development Department maintains that by providing two low- income 600sf condominiums and 18 other residential condominium homes, it is exercising social justice. H owever, these two small affordable condominiums could be provided elsewhere without violating environmental justice and other state-mandated environmental protections. The assessment of this must be taken in its entirety, including the City’s having more than met RHNA number goals. These two small condominiums together can only house at most 6 individuals. The remaining 18 residential condominiums at $ 1,000 a square foot exceed the financial wherewithal of most buyers to purchase them, a market which Grover RH NA numbers show is already overserved in other recent developments in Grover Beach with 119 condos at 401 (59) & 402 (37) & 197 W.

Grand (23 units). When weighed against the permanent loss of views and habitat losses for millions of people, the public trust suffers imbalances, inequalities and isn’t served.

Above are the 10 mid-rise condo blocks planned along W. Grand Ave, which together form a cumulative effect, all but two in the Coastal Zone, all blocking views. The argument that these developments up to 66’ high do not impede coastal views cannot be supported when one drives through town and can see that they do block views from all over the city and previous scenic views are now permanently blocked.

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 19 Below are the projects included in the Grover RHNA numbers.

The 2025 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) goals are more than met for above moderate-income housing. Zero more are needed, but another 273 (see chart above) are currently in the works. There is still a need for housing for lower income levels. 261 Rockaway falls into the Above-Moderate-Income bracket, which is currently edging out other income groups with a total of 300 in the works and a goal of only 169. Given the shortage of available lots in Grover Beach, these higher-income units are occupying space that could have been dedicated to the 83 needed lower-income units and reveal a hypocrisy in which the City claims to be providing housing, but in fact is squeezing out those most in need of it while creating 2nd homes for those not in need and stealing from those same citizens and visitors access to the City’s most valuable asset – the coastline.

The Law: 30007.5. The Legislature further finds and recognizes that conflicts may occur between one or more policies of the division. The Legislature therefore declares that in carrying out the provisions of this division such conflicts be resolved in a manner which on balance is the most protective of significant coastal resources.

The appellants are asking the City Council to champion the causes and call of its citizens’ documents and voices to fulfill the promise of the Coastal Act now and for the future by balancing the needs and rights of the many over the few.

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 20

THE PROJECT FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE CONFORMANCE OR COMPLIANCE WITH THE GROVER BEACH GENERAL PLAN.

The Law: If there is a conflict between any standards, the provisions of Chapter 3 control over Chapter 2, and the provisions of Chapter 4 control over Chapters 2 and 3. GB Dev. Code 3.10.010 1.B.

2.30.20 Commercial Zones …and encourages active evening uses and street life. Appropriate uses include lodging, restaurants, recreational uses, and retail and commercial services primarily for the convenience of visitors.

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 22 Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 23

THE PROJECT FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE CONFORMANCE OR COMPLIANCE WITH GROVER BEACH GENERAL PLAN CHAPTER 3:

GROVER BEACH DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 3
Note: If there is a conflict between any standards, the provisions of Chapter 3 control over Chapter 2, and the provisions of Chapter 4 control over Chapters 2 and 3. GB Dev. Code 3.10.010 1.B.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN: The regulations codified in this title are adopted for the following purposes:
30001.5. The Legislature further finds and declares that the basic goals of the state for the coastal zone are to:
(a) Protect, maintain, and, where feasible, enhance and restore the overall quality of the coastal zone environment and its natural and artificial resources. (b) Ensure orderly, balanced utilization and conservation of coastal zone resources (d) Ensure priority for coastal-dependent and coastal-related development over other development on the coast.18

3.10 Standards for All Development and Land Uses

3.10.010

1. Purpose & Applicability
A. Purpose. This Chapter expands upon the zoning standards of Chapter 2 (Zones and Allowable Land Uses) by addressing additional details of site planning, project design, and the operation of land uses. The intent of these standards is to ensure that proposed development is compatible with existing and future development on neighboring properties, and produces an environment of desirable character, consistent with the General Plan.

B. Applicability. The requirements of this Chapter shall apply to all proposed development and new land uses, except as specified in Section 7.40 (Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Lots), and shall be considered in combination with the standards for the applicable zone in Chapter 2 (Zones & Allowable Land Uses) and those in Chapter 4 (Standards for Specific Development and Land Uses). If there is a conflict between any standards, the provisions of Chapter 3 control over Chapter 2, and the provisions of Chapter 4 control over Chapters 2 and 3. Projects within the Coastal Zone shall comply with all standards in the Local Coastal Program.

The Law: The project shall comply with all standards in the Local Coastal Program - Grover Beach General Plan Section 3.1.B.
18 (Amended by Stats. 2021, Ch. 236, Sec. 1. (SB 1) Effective January 1, 2022.)

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 26 ARTICLE 5 LAND RESOURCES Section 30240 Environmentally sensitive habitat areas; adjacent developments
(a) Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values.
(b) Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade and shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation areas.

The project destroyed environmentally sensitive habitat, significantly degrading the habitat and compatibility with continuance of habitat and therefore does not conform or comply with ARTICLE 5 LAND RESOURCES Section 30240
ARTICLE SIX DEVELOPMENT Section 30250 Location; existing developed area (a) New residential, commercial, or industrial development, except as otherwise provided in this division, shall be located … where it will not have significant adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources. The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance.

The project is not sited where it will not have significant individual and cumulative impacts on coastal resources. It does not consider and protect resources of public importance:
views, access, and habitat, and therefore does not conform or comply with ARTICLE SIX DEVELOPMENT Section 30250.

Section 30251 Scenic and visual qualities
The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas. New development in highly scenic areas shall be subordinate to the character of its setting.

The Law: Location SHALL be located where it will not have significant adverse effects either individually or cumulative on coastal resources, protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and be subordinate to the character of its setting.

The project has both individually and cumulatively adverse effects on scenic and visual qualities and is not subordinate to the character of its setting, therefore neither conforms nor complies with the General Plan 30250(a) or 30251.

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 27 GROVER BEACH DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 4
Note: If there is a conflict between any standards, the provisions of Chapter 3 control over Chapter 2, and the provisions of Chapter 4 control over Chapters 2 and 3. GB Dev. Code 3.10.010 1.B.

4.10.10 E. Site layout and project design standards. Each proposed mixed-use project shall comply with the development standards of the applicable zone and the following requirements.

1. Location of units. … The ground floor street frontage space within a mixed-use building shall be reserved for commercial uses...

The commercial space is not on the ground floor street frontage, the project therefore neither conforms nor complies with General Plan 4.10.10.

4.10.110 Standards for Specific Development and Land Uses B. Design considerations. A mixed-use project shall be designed to achieve the following objectives.

1. The design shall provide for internal compatibility between the residential and non-residential uses on the site.

2. Potential glare, noise, odors, and other potential nuisance conditions for residents shall be minimized to allow a compatible mix of residential and non-residential uses on the same site.

3. The design shall take into consideration existing and potential future uses on adjacent properties and shall include specific design features to minimize potential impacts.

4. The design shall ensure …that appropriate privacy between residential units and other uses on the site is provided.

5. Site planning and building design shall provide for convenient pedestrian access from the public street into the commercial portions of the project, through such means as courtyards, plazas, and walkways.

6. The commercial area shall be adjacent and oriented to the primary street frontage to emphasize the commercial activity towards the street.

Development Plan Chapter 3.10.010 states, “The intent of these standards is to ensure that proposed development is compatible with existing and future development on neighboring properties…In taking 3.10.010 into consideration with 4.10.110 B. 3., above, to design features to minimize potential impacts on future uses on adjacent properties, the project would logically apply the same standards for compatibility between residential and non- residential units off-site as it does on-site, including:

2. minimizing odors and other nuisances,
4, ensuring appropriate privacy between residential units and other uses.

The project makes minimal or no provision for:

1. the privacy of neighbors whose yards are overlooked,

2. solar access of neighbors, or

3. venting of parking lot fumes onto neighboring properties and therefore, neither conforms nor complies with General Plan 4.10.110.

The site plan and building design provide no convenient pedestrian access from the public street into the commercial portions of the project and is not adjacent and oriented to the primary street frontage to emphasize the commercial activity towards the street. Rather, it is tucked away on the 2nd floor behind a deck and therefore neither conforms nor complies with General Plan 4.10.110 5. & 6.

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 28 Section 4.2520 Residential and Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards This is the one of the most significant of all proposed updates to the Code as required by State law and Housing Element Program

1.8. The State Housing Accountability Act (HAA) was amended in 2017 to streamline housing development and made it more difficult to deny housing projects by utilizing subjective policies and standards. A key provision of the HAA that affects all residential projects includes the following:
• For housing development projects, whether or not affordable, if the project complies with all “objective” general plan, zoning standards, and subdivision standards and criteria, it may only be denied or have its density reduced if the City can make written findings that the project would have a “specific adverse impact” on public health and safety and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact other than the disapproval of the housing development project or approved on condition of being developed at a lower density.

The law defines “specific adverse impact” as follows:
• A significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.

Fact: Current Community Development staff commented in the hearing that they were not in position at the time of the above changes to the Development Code. It is therefore helpful to note the comment of staff, above, who were in position at the time the current code was adopted. “…if the project complies with all “objective” general plan, zoning standards, and subdivision standards & criteria it cannot be denied…”
The project does NOT comply with all “objective” general plan, zoning standards & criteria, so it therefore CAN be denied, contrary to the direction provided by staff to the Planning Commission. These “objectives” include but are not limited to the following and therefore may be denied.

Section 4.25.060 The law limits a local agency’s ability to condition the correction of nonconforming zoning conditions on the property.

Although 261 Rockaway does not abut a residential zone, it does abut residences. Code commands that on site residential and commercial uses be compatible. Should it not also be so with adjacent properties?
Fact: The following are objective standards and criteria which must be met, otherwise, the project may be denied.
20 https://grover.org/DocumentCenter/View/12651/AgendaPacket_4-19-2022_Spc?bidId= Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 29 The project could therefore be denied because the following objective standards and criteria are not met by the project:

4.25.050 Multi-Unit Attached Dwellings (Large/10+ Units) and Mixed-Use Developments with 10+ Units Design Standards
A. Purpose.

1. The objective design standards established in this Section are intended to:
a. Maintain high-quality site planning and building design for areas where new multi-unit attached residential and mixed-use projects with ten or more units are proposed.
b. Promote and enhance a high quality of life for residents, new business activity, and the community’s appearance as viewed from the public realm, including:

The reference above to the community’s appearance as viewed from the public realm reasserts the codified importance of views in the Coastal Zone. i. Building form that gives prominence to the pedestrian realm, provides convenient access to buildings and active uses from the street, and creates visually interesting and human-scaled facades. Placement and orientation of doorways, windows, and landscape elements are important features that help create strong, direct relationships between the building frontage/sidewalks and the street.21 ii. Open space requirements that provide for a variety of functional, well designed open spaces, located and planned to enhance the quality of life for residents, businesses, and visitors.
iii. A pedestrian network that offers clear circulation paths, as well as parking that is visibly screened from the public right-of-way, creating a friendly, inviting environment.

Fact: Parking is not visibly screened from the public right-of-way. The project therefore does not comply with Development Code 4.25.050 A.1.b.iii. c. Design appropriate22 fencing, wall, and screening features to enhance the appearance of neighborhoods and commercial corridors for residents of attached multi-unit developments and pedestrians.

B. Applicability. This Section provides standards for the design of multi-unit attached residential and mixed-use projects with 10 or more units, where allowed by Chapter 2 (Zones and Allowable Land Uses).

The commercial use of a GYM is allowed by Use Permit, not by right.

C. Allowed uses.

1. Combined Uses. The ground floor street frontage space within a mixed-use building shall be reserved for commercial uses, except for a lobby or other feature providing direct access to the residential units.

The ground floor use is NOT reserved for commercial uses and therefore does not conform or comply with Development code 4.25.050 C.1. b. Section 2.30.040 for Commercial Zones, establish requirements for height, setback, and lot requirements.
21 City of Grover Beach Development Code Adopted October 15, 2012 Amended February 26, 2024. 4-67 0 22 4-68 City of Grover Beach Development Code Adopted October 15, 2012February 26, 2024 Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 30 E. Building Form and Design. Building Entries for Large Attached Multi-Unit and Mixed-Use b. Entrances for Mixed-Use Developments. Separate entrances shall be provided for the nonresidential and residential portions of a mixed-use building. c. Nonresidential Entrances
i. Building entrances shall incorporate at least one of the following entry features:
a) Shopfront;23
b) Gallery, minimum width of 10 feet;
c) Forecourt; or
d) Commercial Terrace24 . Fact: The project fails to provide a separate entrance for nonresidential entrances and no entry to the building provides a shopfront, gallery, forecourt, or commercial terrace. The building therefore does not incorporate an entrance exclusive to the residential entrance. It appears not to meet the standards of 4.25 d.

4.25 – Nonresidential Entrances for Large Attached Multi-Unit and Mixed-Use. d. Residential Entrances. New residential buildings shall provide transitional spaces between public areas fronting the primary street and entrances. This type of element or equivalent shall be required for each unit or group of units; but no less than one of this type of element shall be provided. Building entrances shall incorporate at least one of the following transitional space entry features:
i. Stoop (at least four feet by four feet and no higher than five feet in height); ii. Porch (at least six feet by eight feet for common entries and at least five feet by eight feet for individual entries); or
iii. Overhang (if building has a shared lobby) with a recessed depth of at least three feet.

Fact: The proposed design appears to fail to incorporate the required stoop, porch, or overhang, in which case the project does not comply or conform with the Development Plan 4.25 d.

2. Minimum Ground Floor Height. The minimum interior floor-to-ceiling height of nonresidential ground floor spaces shall be at least 15 feet for nonresidential spaces with building frontage on West Grand Avenue and 12 feet for25 nonresidential spaces with building frontage on other streets. The minimum height of residential ground-floor floor-toceiling spaces shall be 10 feet. This height shall be measured from the floor of the first story to the floor of the second story.

Fact: The 8’ parking structure ceiling does not meet Development Code 4.25 for either residential or non-residential development.

4.25.060
23 4-74 City of Grover Beach Development Code Adopted October 15, 2012, Amended February 26, 2024 24 City of Grover Beach Development Code Adopted October 15, 2012 Amended February 26, 2024 25 City of Grover Beach Development Code Adopted October 15, Amended February 26, 2024.

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 31 F. Design standards for natural resources as amenities.

1. New public or private developments adjacent to creeks … and wetlands as identified in the General Plan, Local Coastal Program, and/or by State and federal laws, must incorporate the natural features as project amenities, in a way that protects the resources and does not diminish values as habitat, flood control…

3. Within the Coastal Zone, Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) shall be protected against any significant destruction of habitat values and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed within those areas. ESHA shall require a 40-foot buffer on both sides of the creek as measured from the highest … designated/regulated floodway.

Fact: The development at 261 Rockaway is separated from the State Park, Wetlands, and Dunes by only public rights-of-way, thereby making it adjacent to ESHA.

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 33 The appellants
maintain that the
project does not
conform with the
mandate not to do
the following with
a building of this
massing and
height on fill in a
tsunami zone with
a moderate
liquefaction risk
because it is a
danger to the
building
inhabitants and to
neighboring
properties, and a potential high cost to Grover Beach taxpayers based on Grover Beach Development Plan definition of fraud and victimization: as related to Subsection 5.10.060.C. In examining this requirement, the Council will consider the fact that every newly constructed building adds to government responsibilities and remains a part of the community for fifty to one hundred years. The site does not appear to have a study confirming the base flood elevation. Buildings that are permitted to be constructed below the base flood elevation are subject during all those years to increased risk of damage from floods, while future owners of the property and the community as a whole are subject to all the costs, inconvenience, danger, and suffering that those increased flood damages bring. In addition, future owners may purchase the property, unaware that it is subject to potential flood damage…

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 34 GROVER BEACH DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 8
This project does not comply with or conform to Development Code 8.10.20 A, B, and G:

A. If the City Council denies the appeal it fails to protect and provide for the public health, safety, and general welfare and fails to conform or comply with its own development code.

B. This real property to be subdivided into 21 condominium units endangers inhabitants due to tsunamis, soil instability, and liquefaction.

G. The project fails to protect the natural resources of the community, including solar exposure, wildlife habitats, and scenic vistas, and decreases, rather than increases public access to these resources.

B. Subdivisions.

1. All subdivision maps for five or more lots filed for tentative approval shall designate clearly any trees upon the property. Any trees upon the property which are to be removed shall be clearly designated upon the tentative subdivision map. Tentative approval of the map by the Parks and Recreation Commission shall constitute a recommendation to the Council to permit removal of any trees so permission being granted to any person for the purpose of planting, trimming, pruning, cutting or removal same shall be done under the general supervision of the Parks and Recreation Director.

Fact: The Applicant began cutting trees down without City permission and did enough damage before being stopped that there was then no other option but to continue the process that had already destroyed wildlife habitat as shown in photos herein.

The tentative subdivision map is therefore inaccurate and fraudulent if approved by the Council for submission to the State if it does not show trees to be removed. It does not conform or comply with Grover Beach Development Code Chapter 8 Subdivisions.

No person shall, without a written permit from the Parks and Recreation Director, plant, remove, trim, prune, or cut any tree upon the streets, planting easements, or between the property line and the curb.

Fact: The trees removed were located partly in the city parking lot, or what the city is now calling “2nd Street.”
Fact: The project is a subdivision – applies to the state under the Subdivision Act, subdividing into 21 units with separate assessor parcel numbers. These required findings cannot be made:

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 35

1. The Property is
of such size, shape, or
topography that it is
not possible to
conform to the code.

The developer could
conform to code by
placing commercial
on the ground floor &
building only so
many condo units as
allowed by the site
ability to
accommodate
parking & siting the
commercial unit on
the ground floor.

Moving Commercial
use to the ground
floor as required by
every code quoted
herein would require removal of 4 parking spaces and 4 units, thus dropping the
height a full floor or
reducing massing, both of which would
bring the project in
closer alignment
with State and City
codes.

2. The applicant states it is the cost to
comply that causes
the need for the
modification.

3. The
modification will not
be detrimental to
public health, safety,
or welfare or injurious
to other projects in the
area. The exceptions
granted cause injury
to views and
resource access of
locals & visitors, habitat, and solar access of neighbors.

4. Granting the modifications fits the intent & purpose of regulations, is consistent with the General Plan & other City plans. For the reasons cited in this appeal, it does not meet with the intent and purpose of regulations and is not consistent with City planning documents.

The project cannot meet any of the four required criteria to modify a subdivision and therefore does not comply with or conform to Development Code 8.1 Subdivision Exceptions.

III. LAND USE ELEMENT Introduction When considering the … topics, or elements that a general plan is required to cover (land use, … conservation, open space, … and safety), the issue of land use is often of

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 37 Fact: The 261 Rockaway project has parking, rather than a retail shop, eating or drinking establishment or visitor accommodation. This does not meet with the development code or with CVS zoning intent.

Open Space/Resource Conservation The Open Space/Resource Conservation designation is applied to areas intended for active and passive recreation …to preserve sensitive habitat for special status plant or animal species, in areas subject to flood hazard.
.

The Grover Beach General Plan P.5 Conservation and Open Space Element Update describe SCENIC RESOURCES: Scenic resources and vistas in Grover Beach include views of open spaces (beaches, coastal dunes, rolling hills, and wetlands).

Fact: The 261 Rockaway project is in an area subject to sea level rise and tsunami hazard. The Open Space/Resource Conservation chapter of the Development Code, noted above, indicates that the Open Space/Resource Conservation designation should be applied to the 261 Rockaway project for active and passive recreation to preserve sensitive habitat. The project is inappropriate for such a location.

LU-4.3 Mixed use development. The City will promote mixed use developments that functionally integrate businesses that depend on foot traffic and exposure to pedestrians on the ground floor (such as retail, restaurants, and visitor-serving accommodations) with residences, professional offices, and/or visitor accommodations on the upper floors.

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 38 The 261 Rockaway project does not functionally integrate a business that depends on foot traffic and exposure to pedestrians on the ground floor. It envisions a members-only Gym tucked away behind a deck on the 2nd floor reached by a staircase and requiring a key fob to access. This does not meet the Development Code LU-4.3.

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 39 CITY of GROVER BEACH ~ GENERAL PLAN Land Use (LU) Policies LU-5.1 To revitalize the Grand Avenue Corridor/Beach Area into vibrant, economically sound, pedestrian-oriented districts.

West Grand Avenue Master Plan as a guide for revitalization. A Master Plan was adopted in 2011 establishing the vision for the physical and economic development and revitalization of the West Grand Avenue corridor. Development and design standards for residential and mixed-use development are regulated through the Development Code. The West Grand Avenue Master Plan provides design guidelines for nonresidential development ...

Implementation Measures West Grand Avenue Master Plan
• Review nonresidential development projects for consistency with the Master Plan.

Goal LU-6: To establish an attractive, beach-oriented visitor serving district generally between 5th Street and the beach.

LU-6.1 West Grand Avenue West Grand Avenue area. The West Grand Avenue area is an appropriate location for the development of a significant mixed- use visitor-serving district. Revitalization efforts in this area will be guided by the Master Plan prepared in accordance with Policy LU-5.1; however, residential, and mixed-use development shall comply with the development and design standards of the Development Code.

Implementation Measures
• Support development of family-oriented uses within this area. • Review development projects for consistency with the Master Plan ...

GENERAL PLAN LU-31U-13.2 Clustering of public facilities/joint use. The City shall promote the clustering of public and quasi-public uses such as schools, parks, … and community activity centers • Review the siting of public facilities for consistency with the above policy as part of the development review process.

The project is ideally located to be a pocket park anchoring the Train Station, City Parking Lot, and Beach Access.

Park Land Requirements For New Development Public Facilities GENERAL PLAN LU-43 Goal LU-17: To ensure continued compliance with the California Coastal Act. Policy LU-17.1 Local Coastal Program. The City will adhere to, and implement, the policies and directives of the California Coastal Act by implementing the certified Local Coastal Program.

Implementation Measures
• Amend the Local Coastal Program consistent with this General Plan.

This approach appears backwards, as State Coastal ordinances which are repeated in Grover code indicate the General Plan is to be consistent with the LCP rather than vice versa. • Comply with relevant provisions of the Coastal Act as part of the development review process.

In reviewing and permitting proposed development within the Coastal Zone, the city will require public access when appropriate nexus findings can be made or make the required finding for why access is not being required.

The development impedes coastal access. It takes away 4 street parking spaces and 3 city parking lot spaces. It also blocks coastal views from many parts of the city, as established under the headings “Views” and “Environmental Justice”
Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 40 Community Design and Character Goal LU-19: To promote the development of a coherent and distinctive physical form and structure that reflects Grover Beach’s unique aesthetic and beachorientation.

LU-27.5 Passive solar heating. To the extent feasible, the City shall require the orientation of buildings to accomplish the following:
a. Maximize passive solar heating during cool seasons;
b. Avoid solar heat gain in warm seasons;
c. Enhance natural ventilation and effective use of daylight; d. Maximize opportunities for the installation of solar panels; e. Facilitate the use of sunlight for direct heating and illumination whenever possible; and f. Take advantage of natural ventilation and shading to cool a building.

Fact: The project, while implementing its own solar, impedes existing and potential solar access to neighboring residences due to the lot line to lot line massing and 55’ height. Being on a flat roof, it will be necessary to further increase the building height to angle solar panels, thus further impeding the solar access and opportunities of neighbors as far away as the 300’ shadow, to implement or benefit from the above measures on their properties.

Goal LU-29: Opportunities for inclusion in governmental processes, programs, and decisions.

Policies LU-29.

1. Support programs in the community that promote inclusion from different socio-economic groups on policies and programs that affect residents.

GENERAL PLAN LU-61 LU-29.2. Provide transparent decision-making processes that facilitate public engagement of diverse stakeholders.

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 41

THE PROJECT FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE CONFORMANCE OR COMPLIANCE WITH THE

GROVER BEACH LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM (LCP)
The above chart shows the extensive application of the Local Coastal Program in all areas of development in Grover Beach. 0001.5. The Legislature further finds and declares that the basic goals of the state for the coastal zone are to:
(a) Protect, maintain, and, where feasible, enhance and restore the overall quality of the coastal zone environment and its natural and artificial resources. (b) the permanent protection of the state’s natural and scenic resources is a paramount concern to present and future residents of the state and nation. (c) To promote the public safety, health, and welfare, and to protect public and private property, wildlife, and other ocean resources, and the natural environment, it is necessary to protect the ecological balance of the coastal zone and prevent its deterioration and destruction. (d) That future developments that are carefully planned and developed consistent with the policies of this division, are essential to the economic and social well-being of the people of this state and especially to working persons employed within the coastal zone.* *Note: Appellant Peterson is a working person employed within the coastal zone.

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 42 LCP 1.1 COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARIES Known as Grover City when its Local Coastal Program was originally adopted, the community of Grover Beach in 1992 changed its name to emphasize its greatest resource – the coast.

LCP 1.2 RELATIONSHIP TO THE COASTAL ACT The California Coastal Act of 1976 mandated that local governments prepare a land use plan and schedule of implementing actions to carry out the policies of the Coastal Act. Coastal Act policies address specific issues of … protection of sensitive habitats, and protection and preservation of visual and scenic resources.

The 261 Rockaway site is environmentally sensitive habitat. The project fails to protect and preserve visual and scenic resources, and has accelerated, rather than prevented the deterioration and destruction of the ecological balance of the coastal zone, thus failing to conform and comply with the Local Coastal Act.

LCP 1.3 RELATIONSHIP TO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE In the Coastal Zone, the Local Coastal Program, which consists of this document, in addition to the Development Code sections identified … [above], is the legal standard of review for issuance of Coastal Development Permits.

The 261 Rockaway project does not meet the legal standard of review for issuance of a Coastal Development Permit because it fails to conform with multiple codes in the LCP and other Development Code Sections as outlined previous in this appeal.

2.1.3 INLAND RESOURCE AREAS Inland resource areas which are within or are impacted by the City's portion of the Coastal Zone include a variety of natural systems and habitats which derive much of their resource value directly or indirectly from their interrelationship with the ocean. Natural systems include … a coastal wetlands complex containing portions of a creek, marsh, and an open lagoon. Several sensitive habitat areas dependent upon these bodies of water also fall in the category of inland resource areas.

Coastal habitats include riparian, freshwater marsh, coastal woodland, sage chaparral, and lagoon communities. All of these habitats interact with one another and are characteristic of an undisturbed coastal environment.

Meadow Creek Flora and Fauna: South of Grand Avenue, where native vegetation has not been extensively disturbed, the creek and the wetlands through which it flows support diverse riparian and freshwater marsh habitats. Herbaceous vegetation, including wild rose, elderberry, wild cucumber, nettle, and poison oak as well as California wax myrtle and other small trees, are found near the creek and wetlands immediately south of Grand Avenue. Avian species include a variety of waterfowl, herons, egrets, hawks, and owls. Among the mammals identified here are opossums, raccoons and beavers, and the neighbors will tell you, ground squirrels, and skunks.

PRESENT & POTENTIAL USES New development shall incorporate restoration and enhancement of this portion of the creek.

MEADOW CREEK (WESTERN BRANCH)Policy: Approval of developments in areas draining into Meadow Creek shall be conditioned upon provision of on-site ponding basins or other means of regulating runoff water. Retention facilities should be capable of retaining the first two hours of a fifty-year frequency storm. (Section 30231) GENERAL 1. 2. Policy: The City shall designate the following types of land as open space:

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 43 a. Sensitive habitats and corridors which connect habitats. b. Those areas which are best suited to non-urban uses due to:
vi. Scenic value.

Policy: Lands designated Open Space/Resource Conservation should be used for purposes which do not need urban service, major structures, or extensive landform changes. Such uses include:
b. wildlife and native plant habitat; and passive recreation.

Policy. The City should manage its Meadow Creek wetlands, and associated resources to achieve the multiple objectives of:
a. Maintaining and restoring natural conditions and fish and wildlife habitat; b.

Preventing loss of life and minimizing property damage from flooding; c. Providing recreational opportunities which are compatible with fish and wildlife habitat, flood protection, and use of adjacent private properties.

5. Policy: Environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA) shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values. Development in areas adjacent to ESHA shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas and shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation areas.

2.2.3 SUMMARY OF CONFLICTS
D. AREA 4

1.Viewshed losses increase as more two-story structures are built.

Viewshed in the area adjacent to the CVS is lost even with “two-story structures” in Area 4, highlighting the much greater loss with structures equivalent to 5 or 6 stories.

E. AREA 5

1.The land use designation presently applied to land fronting on Grand Avenue in this area does not require special design and landscaping features compatible with its high visibility to tourists and travelers.

The LCP states that there is a lack of special design and landscaping features compatible with high visibility to tourists conflicts with the LCP. The City has not rectified this, rather continued and exacerbated it with recent developments, which does not comply with the intent of the LCP.

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 46 AREA 5

1. Policy: Future developments along this commercial stripshallbe limitedtostructures which are visually appealing to beach visitors and tourists. Design, material and landscaping requirements shall promote imaginative development compatible with the adopted City architectural guidelines.

The project is visually obstructive rather than visually appealing to beach visitors and tourists, thereby failing to conform with LCP policy.

2. Policy: The existing slot view on Grand Avenue toward the dunes and shoreline shall be protected and enhanced where feasible.

The project fails to conform or comply with LCP policy because it blocks, rather than protecting or enhancing slot views in the CVS.

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 47

5.0 PUBLICACCESS AND RECREATIONCOMPONENT of the LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM

5.1 INTRODUCTION 28
Of all the issues which the Coastal Act addresses, those concerned with provision of public access to the coast are perhaps the most significant and the most familiar. Provision of coastal access was a primary concern of California voters who approved the Coastal Zone Management Initiative in 1973. The specific public access policies of the Coastal Act implicitly recognize that, while coastal access is guaranteed under the California Constitution (Article XV, Section 2), escalating coastal land values and the increasing demands of the private market for coastal land pose a serious threat to the continuance of public access to the coast. PISMO STATE BEACH Of the slightly less than one square mile of the Coastal Zone which lies within Grover Beach's limits approximately 150 acres are contained by the boundaries of Pismo State Beach. This State facility includes not only the shoreline, but the coastal dunes and wetlands along the beach's eastern edge.

The above description makes an especially important point – almost 1 mile of Grover’s

2.25 square mile size is in the Coastal Zone – just how much of Grover Beach is Coastal Zone and how much the City Council therefore must commit to and protect this resource that comprises almost half the City’s geographic area.

COASTAL DUNES Approximately 100 acres of … the coastal dunes system called the Nipomo Dunes complex lie within Grover Beach boundaries. In Grover Beach, the dunes are slightly more than 2 miles in length and a maximum of about 1/4 mile in width.

PROTECTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES FROM OVERUSE A third concern of Section 30210 is the protection of natural resources from overuse where public shoreline access is provided. Existing conditions may represent sources of conflict with this requirement in several ways.

The recent preponderance of new tall buildings is a form of overuse that impedes scenic access and from which the community and visitors must be protected.

Coastal Act: Section 30222 requires that the development of visitor-serving commercial recreational facilities be given priority, in "suitable" coastal areas, over all other types of potential development 29 Coastal Act: Section 30254 of the Coastal Act requires that public services to public and commercial recreation and visitor-serving land uses not be precluded by other development.30 PRIVATE VISITOR-SERVING AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES Ensure that private commercial visitorserving and recreational uses are given priority over private residential, general industrial and general commercial development on lands suitable for visitor-serving, beach-related commercial uses The project prioritizes housing, which can be sited anywhere in the city, over visitor- serving land uses unique to this very small Coastal Visitor Serving Zone, which does not conform to the Coastal Act.
28 https://www.grover.org/DocumentCenter/View/1703/C-6---Proposed-LCP-Amendment_Chapter-5_Public-Acc?bidId=5.0 29 City of Grover Beach Local Coastal Plan November 1, 1999. P.63 30 City of Grover Beach Local Coastal Plan November 1, 1999. P.64 Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 48 b. The City should ensure that the appearance of private commercial structures within the Coastal Zone contributes to an attractive, beach-oriented, visual theme which enhances the quality of the recreational experience within the Coastal Zone.31
The project has no beach-oriented features so does not conform to the Coastal Act.

Actions
a. The City should establish a new land use designation which specifically provides for those uses which are visitor-serving and recreation-related. Uses which shall be permitted under this designation include the following:
(1) Hotels, motels, restaurants, and cocktail lounges or dancing facilities in connection with restaurants.
(2) Refreshment stands.
(3) Souvenir shops.
(4) Convenience services.
b. Land designated for coastal commercial uses shall be subject to special landscaping and design requirements which will provide and protect an attractive visual theme. Height limitations shall be more restrictive than in general commercial areas in order to avoid obstruction of or conflict with ocean views. Landscaping in coastal commercial areas shall occupy a larger portion of building sites than is required in other commercial districts. The use of building materials and architectural designs which are appropriate to highly visible tourist areas shall also be required here. Acceptable modes and materials for developments in coastal commercial areas shall be specified in the City's coastal zoning ordinance.32
The LCP proclaims that special additional landscaping and heights SHALL be more restrictive than in general commercial areas to avoid conflict with ocean views. However, the City has created a conflict in the Coastal Zone by permitting 100% lot coverage and 66’ heights.

Nevertheless, other restrictions remain available to the City Council to protect the intent of the LCP.

Policies
a. PRIVATE VISITOR-SERVING AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES Ensure that private commercial visitor-serving and recreational uses are given priority over private residential … and general commercial development on lands suitable for visitor-serving, beach-related commercial uses. 33 b. The City should ensure that the appearance of private commercial structures within the Coastal Zone contribute to an attractive, beach-oriented, visual theme which enhances the quality of the recreational experience within the Coastal Zone.

VISUAL SENSITIVITY This [CVS] area is particularly sensitive to uses and structural designs which detract from its appeal to tourists and beach visitors. It is sensitive, in addition, to structures which, because of height and bulk or poor design, diminish the value of views down Grand Avenue, are sensitive to the visual impacts of large developments, either commercial or residential, which appear obtrusive among small one-story, single-family dwellings such as those characteristic of Area 5 [CVS Zone.] The LCP clearly states that the CVS zone is sensitive to design that detracts from its tourist and beach appeal and bulky high structures and large developments that diminish views and appear obtrusive among the smaller or one-story residential dwellings in the CVS Zone, such as 31 City of Grover Beach Local Coastal Plan November 1, 1999, P.67 32 City of Grover Beach Local Coastal Plan November 1, 1999. P.69 33 City of Grover Beach Local Coastal Plan November 1, 1999, P. 67 Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 49 those within 300’ of 261 Rockaway. The project does not conform or comply with the intent statement above. city of Grover Beach Local Coastal Program
51 The primary purpose of the access component of the local coastal program, then, is to describe in detail the ways in which local conditions do or do not conform to Coastal Act policies, and to recommend local policies and actions to correct non-conforming conditions. Because of the extent of overlap between concerns relevant to shoreline access and those involving coastal recreation, policies and plans concerning both are addressed in a single report.

COASTAL WETLANDS Immediately to the east of the sand dunes, yet still within State Beach boundaries, lies a portion of the coastal wetlands system which borders Grover Beach on three sides. South of Grand Avenue … both Meadow Creek and a part of the Oceano Lagoon provide marsh and riparian habitats for wildlife. This area, which is little used and largely undisturbed, is an excellent place for activities such as photography, nature study, and birdwatching.

VISITOR USE Pismo State Beach is one of the most popular of California's State parks. In the 1996-97 fiscal year, the State Beach and Vehicular Recreation Area attracted over one and one-half million visitors.

5.2.6 NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS There are no neighborhood parks within the Coastal Zone boundary … As land and money become available, new parks will be added within the Coastal Zone. The chaparral of the most eastward dunes within City limits is largely indigenous and provides habitat for a variety of wildlife.

5.3.2 LOCAL POLICY The Open Space/Conservation Element of Grover Beach's General Plan contains several policies relevant to the recreation and access concerns of the Coastal Act. Among these are included the following:

1. Recreation development should be provided as a part of any future residential subdivision Fact: The 261 Rockaway subdivision does not provide recreation development.

It therefore doesn’t comply with LCP 5.3.2 Local Policy, especially because The City’s Park and Recreation Element includes a map that identifies the need for a mini-park in the West Grover Beach neighborhood south of Long Branch Avenue, just a block south of the project.

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 50 The above chart, while outdated, classifies “visitors” as people from areas in California that are a minimum of 150 miles distant to Grover Beach.

1. Policies
a. In the Coastal Visitor Services area along Grand Avenue east of the railroad tracks, the City shall ensure that visitors are provided with easily accessible visitor-serving commercial services, particularly those relating to provision of food and lodging.

F. VISITOR-SERVING AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES Ensure that commercial visitor-serving and recreational uses are given priority over residential, general industrial and general commercial development on lands suitable for visitor-serving commercial, public recreational access, and beach-related uses.

1. Policies
d. The City should ensure that the appearance of commercial structures within the Coastal Zone contribute to an attractive, beach-oriented, visual theme which enhances the quality of the recreational experience within the Coastal Zone.
e. Lower-Cost Visitor and Recreational Facilities. Existing lower-cost visitor serving and recreational facilities shall be projected and enhanced, and new lower-cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be encouraged and provided in the City.

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 51

6.5.3 COMMERCIAL The Coastal Act gives very high priority to commercial land uses which are recreationrelated and/or visitor-serving (Coastal Act, Section 30222). Within Grover Beach's portion of the Coastal Zone, several areas are specifically committed to recreational, and visitor-serving uses. 34 at this time.

PARKING The demand generated by recreation-related commercial developments will be greater. As the result of this change in the type of commercial demand which will predominate in the future, peak period parking needs will be increased, particularly on Grand Avenue where the greatest potential for high-turnover, recreationrelated commercial activities exists.

Coastal Visitor Serving Zone (CVS): This Zone applies to areas of the City appropriate for pedestrian oriented commercial development. The CVS Zone encompasses a unique location near the beachfront. The provisions of this Zone encourage an attractive area that provides convenience goods and services that support visitor needs related to beach activities and surrounding neighborhood areas. 34 City of Grover Beach Local Coastal Program 85

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 53 Fact: The West Grand Avenue Master Plan clearly states
that the people of Grover and the city council sought 2-3 story buildings

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 56 The Consensus Vision includes the creation of a vibrant retail node at the intersection of 4th Street and Grand Avenue with cafes, restaurants, lodging, entertainment venues, shopping, and other uses that cater to both visitors and residents. The area would draw people who are coming to Grover Beach for the beach onto Grand Avenue…The area’s proximity to the Amtrak Station makes it easy for visitors who travel to Grover Beach by train to eat and shop, as well as go to the beach. Many participants suggested that this would also be an ideal area to encourage bike and roller skate rentals, and other retail outlets serving beachgoers.

Limit Building Heights to Three Stories, Except in Key Areas. There was broad consensus that buildings along Grand Avenue should be two to three stories in most places. Four story buildings were only considered appropriate in limited areas: the intersection of 4th Street and Grand Avenue (the touristserving retail node) .... Five story buildings should not be allowed on Grand Avenue. There was also general consensus that building heights along Grand Avenue should be varied, and setbacks on the upper stories of buildings should be encouraged.

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 57

THE PROJECT FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE CONFORMANCE OR COMPLIANCE WITH GROVER BEACH ZONING & BUILDING CODES.

Fact: The gym does not comply with building code. See LEVEL 2 FLOORPLAN, A-1.2 • To be a legally constituted commercial use it must have a separate entrance. It does not. It is accessed from the residential part of the building and shares an entrance with residents.
• The ADA restroom must be accessible from the gym. It is not, but rather it is accessible from the residential lobby area.

Fact: The liquefaction factor is moderate, when combined with issues of sea level rise, 10’ water table, and being in a tsunami zone and other issues noted in this appeal it becomes inadvisable for the City Council to approve such a project, given the risks to inhabitants and investors, and to the city as a whole in the fairly likely occurrence of one or more of these geologic events.

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 58 Fact: The Project Plans Cover Sheet says the development is zoned R-2 but the allowance of 20 units per acre used in density calculations is the allowance allocated to R-3 zoning.

Fact: Several statements in the plans are inconsistent, including referencing Paso Robles and Atascadero codes, rather than Grover Beach codes, and showing four affordable units when there are in fact only two.

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 59

THE PROJECT FAILS TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTATION OR RECORDS TO

SUPPORT THE FINDINGS MADE IN THE RESOLUTION APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON SEPTEMBER 2, 2025.

There is essentially no documentation supporting the findings in the resolution apart from “we said so” on the part of staff and in several cases, “we don’t know,” when questioned by staff. Below are the findings made by the Planning Commission that the appellants believe to be at odds with state and local legislation.

PLANNING FINDINGS:

WHEREAS, The Planning Commission of the City of Grover Beach conducted a public Hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 154 S 8th Street, Grover Beach, California, on September 2, 2025, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under Development Application 24-54 requesting approval for a Coastal Development Permit, Use Permit, and Vesting Tentative Map (TR-3244) to construct a new five-story mixed-use development project with a 46.25% Density [provided] Bonus. The project includes 20 new residential condominiums, 900 square-feet of commercial space; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and evaluation and recommendations by staff presented at said hearing;… Fact: The Planning Commission failed to duly consider the testimony of interested parties and therefore cannot make the finding that they did so. The Commission did not consider the testimony of two interested parties waiting on the phone line to make public comment on the project due to unresolved technical difficulties, as noted in the planning commission meeting video (https://slo-span.org/meeting/gbpc_20250902/) and the video transcript (Appendix 2).

Appellant Debra Peterson issued a “cure and correct” demand (see Appendices 1 & 2) to Community Development Director Megan Martin for failing to convene an “open and public” meeting as required by Government Code Section 54953 (2):

A legislative body that holds a meeting pursuant to this subdivision shall do all of the following:
(B) The legislative body shall allow members of the public to access the meeting, and the agenda shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body directly pursuant to Section 54954.3. In each instance in which notice of the time of the teleconferenced meeting is otherwise given or the agenda for the meeting is otherwise posted, the legislative body shall also give notice of the means by which members of the public may access the meeting and offer public comment35. The agenda shall identify and include an opportunity for all persons to attend via a call-in option or an internet-based service option. 35Transcript Line 2 Chair Manning: So, I do recommend that you call in to get the live audio. Members of the public may provide public comment during the meeting by calling 321-6639. The phone line is now open.

Transcript lines 362-377 Is there anyone online who wanted to, who has called in to speak? Yes. We have two callers. Um, the first one is Yu Ming.Yu Ming, can you hear me? We're ready for your comment. Hello? Hello, Yu Ming? We can maybe move on to the next person, we'll come back to Yu Ming in case, uh, they are coming back.

Would that be okay? All right. The next one's
Krista Jeffries. Krista, we're ready to hear your comment. We could be having a problem with call-in. We may be having a problem. Okay. Um, so what would be the appropriate thing to do? Shall we reopen public comment in a little bit and see if that resolves? Like move on and then come back to it. Um, I can log out of call-in and try to log back in. Um, and then we can try that, but I'm not sure why it's not working. Okay. Chair Mann, I, I might suggest we could take a five minute take a quick recess.... and see if we can reset and then come back to the phone lines. I will close us to take a five-minute recess. We will resume at, um, well, let's say 7:15.

It's 7:00, almost 7:09 here. I'm gonna reopen the meeting. Um, so uh, apologies to the folks who tried to call in. Thank you for the effort. We will, uh, hopefully be figuring this out quickly, uh, after this meeting. So, um, we will continue the public hearing if there's anyone remaining in the room. We are not able to hear from the folks online. Uh, so at this moment I can close the public hearing.

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 61 Section 1 Environmental Review
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Grover Beach as follows:

The Planning Commission hereby finds that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt (Class 32 Section 15332: Infill Project) from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., “CEQA”) and CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000, et seq.), as follows:

1. … The proposed project …is consistent with policies and standards applicable to development within the Coastal Visitor Serving (CVS) zone… with no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species.

The Commission failed in the finding of consistency with policies and standards applicable to development within the CVS zone of value as habitat, quality of environment, viewshed, scenic views, scenic resources, protected resources, sunlight, access, and cumulative impacts regarding these, as documented in previous sections. The commission cannot make a legally defensible finding that it is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of CEQA.

Fact: Raptors (see photos and ESHA Pages 7-9), crows, hummingbirds, and monarch butterflies frequented the project site until the trees were removed.

The project is not located in an environmentally sensitive area and will not impact an environmental resource.

The project will not have a cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type, in the same place, over a period of time.

The above statements are simply not true. The city has aggressively fast-forwarded and incentivized at least 10 such projects highly massed mid-rise buildings, eight of which are in the coastal zone to be completed by 2028. If each can build to the lot line, some as much as to 66’ high, spanning whole city blocks along W. Grand Avenue and in the CVS Zone, it cannot be denied that scenic coastal views of dunes, and the Pacific to the north, west and south, from city streets, Highway One and views inland to the Santa Lucia mountain range from the western half of the city and from the ocean will be hugely impacted. Views and viewsheds become successively diminished with each such development.

Cumulative impact on wildlife habitat is well accepted environmentally, as trees are razed and blocks covered lot line to lot line to clear space for development in our city that has a state park and beach as its western border, the insects, birds, and animals that inhabit the coastal zone are pushed out.

Cumulative impact on parking is documented by Coastal Commission studies.

Fact: The Planning Commission failed to duly consider the testimony of interested parties and therefore cannot make the finding that they did so. The Commission did not consider the testimony of two interested parties waiting on the phone line to make public comment on the project due to unresolved technical difficulties, as noted in the planning commission meeting video (https://slo-span.org/meeting/gbpc_20250902/) and the video transcript (Appendix 2).

Appellant Debra Peterson issued a “cure and correct” demand (see Appendices 1 & 2) to Community Development Director Megan Martin for failing to convene an “open and public” meeting as required by Government Code Section 54953 (2):

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 62 The plans say there are 2 parking spaces provided along frontage. Exactly where are these 2 spots? As documented by the Coastal Commission, as multi-story mixed housing and commercial units with minimal parking develop, street parking is reduced by ingress and egress to the developments there is a knock-on effect. Allotments of just one car per unit push more parking onto the streets in and out of the Coastal Zone. The 261 Rockaway development alone, one of 12, creates 21 new units with 21 parking spaces for 20 households and a commercial unit, eliminates 4 existing street parking spots along the 83-foot Rockaway frontage, and removes 3 parking spots from the City allotment. This knock-on effect is documented above under “Coastal Access” by a Coastal Commission document.

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 63 Of greater concern is that
there is no “first right” in building
such units, such that the three
neighboring properties could also
choose to build to the lot line and
so on next to all these mid-rise
buildings, thus creating issues of
ventilation of the parking areas on
the 1st floor, and right up against the windows, walkways, fire escape, doors and balconies on
both the north and east sides of the
project likely also impeding access
by fire equipment. It raises the
question of what will happen to the
windows on the east and north
sides of the building in this specific
project if the neighbors build. The
failure to address this represents
poor planning on the part of the
city and the developer.

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 64

4. The project will not have a significant effect on the environment based on the project record located at city hall.

Fact: The project record was not provided to the Planning Commission.

The project is not located on a designated scenic highway or scenic resource.

Fact: The project is both located on a designated scenic highway and area of scenic resources, as stated by the community development director Martin:
“The project is located within the Visual Resource Area Five of the city's, uh, Local Coastal Program. Um, a visually sensitive area that serves as a gateway to the coast along Grand Avenue and Highway 1.” Transcript Line 66.

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 65 …nor is it located within a resource protection zone.

Fact: The project is located within a resource protection zone according to the Coastal Commission definition: A Coastal Commission resource protection zone refers to specific areas within the broader California Coastal Zone that receive heightened protection under the California Coastal Act. These are often designated as Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs) or parks and recreation areas. The intent is to protect these valuable ecological areas from degradation and disruption, allowing only resource-dependent uses within them and ensuring that adjacent development is sited and designed to be compatible with the continued health of these critical resources.

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 66 SECTION 2. Findings for approval of a Use Permit.

The Planning Commission hereby grants final approval of Development Application 24-54 for a Use Permit (Grover Beach Municipal Code “GBMC” Article IX § 6.20.090.F), based on the following findings:

1. The project is consistent with General Plan and Development Code requirements for the Coastal Visitor Serving (CVS) zone (GBMC Article IX § 2.30.020). The project is consistent with all objective design standards as outlined in the Development Code and effectively integrates residential uses with commercial uses in the CVS Zone.

Fact: The project is not consistent with General Plan and Development Code requirements for the CVS zone as detailed in previous pages in the appeal and does not effectively integrate residential uses with commercial uses in the CVS zone.

2. As conditioned, the proposed project will not constitute a hazard to the public health, safety, or welfare as the project is consistent with the underlying zone.

The project will not result in a significant hazard or have a significant impact on the surrounding environment.

The project is not consistent with the underlying zone, and it constitutes a hazard to the public health, safety, and welfare because including but not limited to:

1. It is located in a tsunami zone. 2. It shall be built on fill, which is not allowed.

3. Appears to have only 1 emergency egress discharging out of the building. The other two not-rated fire emergency egress enclosures exit into the garage.

4. It is unclear how the garage meets fire safety standards, being quasi open to the upper building, apparently relying on ventilation dependent on adjacent properties.

5. It appears that the developers are not intending to install any mechanical ventilation of the garage.

6. The project provides no security for the garage which poses safety hazards due to open access into a private garage which could accommodate entry by unauthorized individuals.

7. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM 2.1.1 INTRODUCTION “preservation of the State's unique coastal resources is not merely desirable, but is essential to the long-term health, wellbeing, and prosperity of California and the nation as a whole.”
Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 67 SECTION 3. Findings for approval of a Coastal Development Permit.

The Planning Commission hereby grants final approval of Development Application 24-54 for a Coastal Development Permit (Grover Beach Municipal Code “GBMC” Article IX § 6.20.040.H), based on the following findings:

As conditioned, the project is consistent with the City’s certified Local Coastal Program.

This appeal document cites numerous LCP codes with which the project is not consistent.

As conditioned, the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the proposed project at this subject site will not constitute a hazard to the public health, safety, or welfare as the project is consistent with the underlying zone.

Simply because a project is consistent with the underlying zone does not prevent a hazard to the public health, safety, or welfare. The project is not, however, consistent with the underlying zone and several local, State, and federal statutes quoted herein indicate that the project constitutes a hazard to the public health, safety, and welfare.

The project is located in the Coastal Visitor Serving (CVS) zone, east of Highway 1 and the Union Pacific Railroad, within an existing undeveloped property, where no coastal resources have been identified.

Photos in this appeal document clearly show wildlife habitat and views and staff and city documents provide detail of the scenic resources specific to the CVS zone. Therefore, this finding cannot be made because it is contradicted by staff and development documentation. Community Development Director Megan Martin, in her presentation of the project states, (Line 65, Transcript Appendix 2) “The project is located within the Visual Resource Area Five of the city's, uh, local coastal program. Um, a visually sensitive area that serves as a gateway to the coast along Grand Avenue and Highway 1.”

2. The project is categorically exempt from CEQA, … No significant impacts have been identified that would have an adverse effect on the environment … Therefore, the project will not have any adverse impact on any coastal resources.

The project should not be exempted from CEQA. See Section 1.

Failure by staff to identify adverse impacts on coastal resources raises the question as to whether staff looked for impacts, which of course cannot be identified if they are not considered. City development documents and this appeal clearly identify adverse impacts to access, scenic views, and habitat, therefore disputing the CEQA categorically exempt status and contradicting the claim that there are no adverse impacts on any coastal resources.

4. The project is consistent with all applicable General Plan policies and Development Code requirements for the CVS Zone (GBMC Article IX § 2.30.020.F.: Coastal Visitor Serving Zone (CVS). [The Coastal Visitor Serving (CVS) Zone applies to areas of the City appropriate for pedestrian oriented commercial development near the beachfront and encourages active evening uses and street life.

Appropriate uses include lodging, restaurants, recreational uses, and retail and commercial services primarily for the convenience of visitors.]
Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 68

The project is not consistent with all applicable General Plan policies and Development Code requirements for the CVS Zone.

The project consists of a higher density mixed-use development … that has been designed to be consistent with the City’s Objective Design Standards … (LUE Policy 3.1).

The project is consistent with the purpose of the Coastal Visitor Serving Zone (CVS) with pedestrian and visitor serving uses along the ground floor that create pedestrian ambiance and other amenities...

Fact: there are no pedestrian and visitor serving uses or amenities along the ground floor that create pedestrian ambiance. The plans show the ground floor as exclusively parking.

The above finding is based on a false statement. The project design is not consistent with several Objective Design Standards.

5. As conditioned, the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the proposed project at this subject site will not constitute a hazard to the public health, safety, or welfare as the project is consistent with the underlying zone.

Simply because a project is consistent with the underlying zone does not prevent a hazard to the public health, safety, or welfare. The project is not, however, consistent with the underlying zone: several local, State, and federal statutes indicate that the project constitutes a hazard to the public health, safety, and welfare most specifically but not limited to its location in a tsunami zone and being built on fill, which is not allowed in a flood zone for reasons of health, safety, and public fraud.

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 69 SECTION 4. Conditions of Approval.

GENERAL
G-2. The Applicant agrees, as a condition of approval of this resolution, to indemnify, defend and hold harmless, at Applicant’s expense, City and City’s agents, officers and employees from and against any loss, liability, costs, damages, claims, action or proceeding of any kind including also any proceeding commenced to attack, review, set aside, void or annul the approval of this resolution or to determine the reasonableness, legality or validity of any condition attached hereto. City shall promptly notify Applicant of any such loss, liability, costs, damages, claims, action or proceeding to which City receives notice, and City will cooperate fully with Applicant in the defense thereof. Applicant shall reimburse the City for any court costs and attorney’s fees that the City may be required to pay as a result of any such claim, action or proceeding. City may, in its sole discretion, participate in the defense of any such claim, action or proceeding, but such participation shall not relieve Applicant of the obligations of this condition.

Applicant’s acceptance of this resolution or commencement of construction or operations under this resolution shall be deemed to be acceptance of all conditions contained in this resolution.

Notice to applicant: many findings of the Commission in approving the project are indefensible. Unless the City Council sees fit to ameliorate some of these issues the City has tasked the applicant and investors with all the responsibility, and substantial losses should the applicant gamble their resources on the City’s say-so.

G-3. All Conditions of Approval shall be provided on a full-size drawing sheet as part of the construction plan set. All notes and specifications as shown on the plans shall be considered Conditions of Approval.

The project shall comply with all State and City codes, regulations, and standards.

There are several errors in the plans that Staff have not required the applicant to correct with updated plans. The appellants ask, “In the City’s first ever 5-story building, wouldn’t it be more responsible to ensure it meets standards before approving rather than after? Is it fair to the investors, the buyers, the neighbors, and the community to approve a landmark project using incorrect plans that don’t comply with all State and City codes, regulations, and standards?”
The appellants request an explanation of whether there will be upgrades to the facilities on W. Grand, N. 2nd, and Rockaway, and documentation of the Development Impact Fees levied for water, sewer, and storm drain facilities. If existing service lines, as noted below, are not proposed for re-use, who shall pay for the new water and sewer service lines? • The design does not show neighbors’ 8’ fences that potentially block ventilation from the garage. Furthermore, the project is not designed assuming abutting owners’ right to 55’ high full buildout at zero lot line. Instead, it appears to assume access to light and ventilation to adjoining properties where they have no easement rights over abutting properties, applied or otherwise. This appears to be City approving a taking by the applicant of the abutting property owners’ development rights. • The applicant fails to demonstrate access rights to adjoining properties and does not provide a construction plan that demonstrates feasible access to adjoining properties to accommodate lot line construction. The developer has made no contact with adjoining property owners regarding access.
• The design fails to adequately disclose or explain where the mechanical equipment, including heat pumps, solar panels, condensers, safety parapet walls, guard rails, stair rails, elevator towers, roof access etc. are located. Where will these items be located? How tall is this building going to be? The applicant should be required to complete the plans before approval so the council and planning commission may make fully informed decisions regarding the building height and safety issues.
• There is no roof access shown.

Where the applicant requests a waiver of development standards the applicant and city fail to provide any objective presentation or analysis to demonstrate that waivers are necessary to make the project financially feasible.

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 70

3.20 Affordable Housing Density Bonuses and Concessions/Incentives G. Interpretations. If any portion of this Section conflicts with … applicable State law, State law shall supersede this Section.

3.20.060 Local Coastal Program Consistency
A. Applicability. State Density Bonus Law provides that it shall not be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Cal. Public Resources Code § 30000 et seq…
B. Certified LCP. For development within the coastal zone, any requested density bonus, incentive(s), waiver(s), parking reduction(s), or commercial development bonus shall be consistent with all applicable requirements of the certified Grover Beach Local Coastal Program, with the exception of density.

C. LCP Consistency Findings. Within the Coastal Zone, the Review Authority may approve a density bonus only after making all of the following findings:
b. The project is found to be in conformity with the Local Coastal Program (including but not limited to sensitive habitat, public viewshed, public services, public recreational access, and open space protections), with the exception of the density standards.

3.20.070 Review Procedures A. Housing Development. To ensure that an application for a housing development conforms with the provisions of State Density Bonus Law and the Coastal Act, the Review Authority shall determine whether the application conforms to the following requirements of State law, as applicable:

2. … if a mixed-use development is requested, the application must instead meet all of the requirements of Government Code Section 65915, subdivision (k)(2):

Approval of mixed-use zoning in conjunction with the housing commercial, office, industrial, or other land uses will reduce the cost of the housing development and if the commercial, office, industrial, or other land uses are compatible with the housing project and the existing or planned development in the area where the proposed housing … project will be located. The mixed-use building is not compatible with existing development in the area.

3. The development standards for which a waiver is requested would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by State Density Bonus Law. The development could still construct at the densities even without the waiver, so the waiver doesn’t conform to State Law and shouldn’t have been granted.

4. The housing development is eligible for any requested parking reductions under Government Code Section 65915, subdivision (p).:
(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (2), (3), and (4), upon the request of the developer, a city, county, or city and county shall not require a vehicular parking ratio, inclusive of parking for persons with a disability and guests, of a development meeting the criteria of subdivisions (b) and (c), that exceeds the following ratios:
(B) Two to three bedrooms: one and one-half onsite parking spaces The “den” in the six larger 1-bedroom units will in most cases function as a bedroom. The developers appear to have made it a “den” to circumvent parking requirements and therefore there should be an additional 3 parking spaces, especially considering that 7 parking spaces are being removed by the project.

8. If the housing development is in the coastal zone, the requested density bonus and any requested incentive(s), waiver(s), or parking reduction(s) are consistent with all applicable requirements of the certified Grover Beach Local Coastal Program, with the exception of Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 71 density. The waiver is not consistent with the LCP, which requires transparent windows on the ground floor and commercial use on the ground floor. The parking reduction is not consistent with the LCP, so there should be 3 additional parking spaces for the existing number of units, or the project should be reduced by 1-2 units.

B. Exception to Approval of Requested Incentive. The Review Authority shall grant an incentive requested by the applicant unless it makes a written finding, based upon substantial evidence, of any of the following:

2. The proposed incentive would be contrary to State or Federal law; or

3. The proposed incentive would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety or the physical environment … and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the housing development unaffordable to low and moderate income households. For the purpose of this subsection, specific adverse impact means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact based on objective, identified, written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date that the application for the housing development was deemed complete.

C. Exception to Approval of Requested Waiver. The Review Authority shall grant the waiver of development standards requested by the applicant unless it makes a written finding, based upon substantial evidence, of any of the following:

1. The proposed incentive would be contrary to State or Federal law; or

2. The proposed incentive would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety or the physical … and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the housing development unaffordable to low and moderate income households. For the purpose of this subsection, specific adverse impact means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified, written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date that the application for the housing development was deemed complete.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CDD-2. Plans shall demonstrate … design features that … are compatible with the neighborhood character.

CDD-3. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include a railing system for the balconies that provides a design that visually obscures views of storage on the balconies and provides additional privacy between existing and new residential units.

While it is important to obscure view of balcony storage and provide additional privacy to protect public views of the building, it does not address the real issue of privacy for neighbors. The balconies in the project are all street-facing the industrial zone, or parking lot- facing the train station. The place where privacy is an issue are the dozens of walkways, doorways, and windows facing east and north overlooking nearby residences. The appellants ask the Council to condition the project to provide privacy for the neighborhood from the 5 stories of walkways, doorways, and windows overlooking the many properties and their yards to the north and east of the project because these do not comply with the intent of Grover Beach code.

CDD-4. The property owner shall be responsible for maintaining and updating the current parking calculation for the project upon the submittal of Planning and Building permits for tenant changes or improvements, and/or each business license, to ensure the site does not become under-parked.

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 72 Indications are it is already underparked and doesn’t comply with Coastal Act mandated beach access because 7 existing spaces on Rockaway and in the city parking lot are removed by the project.

CDD-6. Plans submitted for building permit shall include a photometric plan, demonstrating compliance with maximum light intensity standards. The locations of all lighting, including bollard-style landscaping or path lighting, shall be included in plans submitted for a building permit. All wall-mounted lighting fixtures shall be clearly called out on building elevations included as part of working drawings. All wall-mounted lighting shall complement building architecture. The lighting schedule for the building shall include a graphic representation of the proposed lighting fixtures and cut-sheets on the submitted building plans.

The selected fixture(s) shall be shielded to ensure that light is directed downward consistent with the requirements of Development Code § 3.10.040 (Outdoor Lighting).

The appellants ask the Council to make provision to protect the neighborhood from the impact of outdoor lighting from heights as much as 55+ feet to ensure it is not directed downward into their yards and homes.

CDD-7.
36 The storage area for trash and recycling.

The appellants ask that there be equipment installed in the parking garage to ensure that fumes from the garages are not vented from the property line onto their properties.

They also query how trash equipment will access the trash enclosure with a roof height of only 8 feet. 37

FIRE DEPARTMENT
FD-2. All submitted building plans shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes … and shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Protection Engineer prior to building permit issuance. This includes … the following:
d) Elevator must be sized and rated for emergency personnel and equipment.

It appears that the elevator is not sufficiently sized to accommodate a stretcher and personnel as required by code.

FD-3. Prior to final occupancy, the Five Cities Fire Authority shall perform a final inspection to ensure consistency with local adopted California Building and Fire Codes.

The appellants intend the following statement to go on record as their urgent recommendation and plea that fire authorities immediately review the project before allowing further action due to the following safety concerns including but not limited to:
• It appears emergency egress is via three stairwells, two of which are open air and do not fully discharge to the exterior of the building, instead discharging into the building to either the first-floor deck or the garage.
• There must be a method to ensure that emergency egress stairwell doors are not propped open to prevent smoke from entering stairwells.
• Whatever happens on the lower level garage will potentially block egress in the event of fire or smoke.
• The central open stairwell only extends down to level two with no fire protection. 36 PC Resolution No. 25- September 2, 2025, 261 Rockaway Ave Page 5 37 PC Resolution No. 25- September 2, 2025, 261 Rockaway Ave Pages 6 & 7 Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 73 • Given the limited parking spaces the garage is likely to be full and there are likely to be several electric vehicles, so lithium is a big concern. It is incredibly toxic when it burns and nearly impossible to extinguish.
• Smoke and fire extending upwards from a garage fire will cut off egress on all the balconies above. Residents in an emergency situation will be forced to utilize the one enclosed stairwell, but that stairwell is at the far end of the open balconies, so residents will have to travel the open balconies through smoke and fire to get to a safe egress. • It looks like trash pickup will be inside the enclosed garage also. Trash is another great place for fires to start.
• The above-mentioned issues are further exacerbated by the fact that the building is on the lot line, making the likelihood of any fire or smoke impacting neighboring properties much more likely. This is even more likely, and more dangerous should the neighboring property owners choose to build to the lot line, which would create tunnels along the exterior walkways and staircases.
• The building design fails utilizes windows on the zero lot line abutting the properties to the north and east. No consideration was given that five-story zero lot line buildings may be built there, thus blocking the windows.
• Will the building be designed to have appropriate fire ratings on the zero lot lines to accommodate adjoining zero lot line construction of buildings of equal height to the project?

BUILDING DIVISION
BD-3: Provide a photovoltaic (PV) system meeting the minimum requirements specified in Section 170.2 of the CA Energy Code, with an annual electrical output equal to or greater than the dwelling’s annual usage.

Provide a calculation on plan sheet and show location of PV system on roof plan and elevation views. Note on plans that a separate permit is required for the PV system. Submit a separate permit application and complete plans for the PV system.

It pushes the limits of credibility that planning staff are unaware of the need for increased height to accommodate solar panels on a flat roof. The appellants request transparency as to the actual height impacts of installing sufficient solar to provide all the needs of the building which may well cover the whole roof surface and increase the massing and height of the project. The appellants also ask the Council to consider the equity of allowing further height to accommodate solar power when the project will steal those same rights from neighbors whose solar access will be impeded by the project.

BD-5: As covered multifamily housing, Chapter 11A housing accessibility requirements will be applicable. Chapter 11b access requirements apply to common areas and commercial facilities such as the gym.

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 74 Please note that the GYM MUST HAVE A HANDICAP BATHROOM ENTERED FROM GYM and as currently designed appears not to comply with code because it is entered from the lobby.

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/CITY ENGINEER
PW/CE-1: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a Public Improvements Plan as required by Municipal Code Article IX Section 5.20. This plan shall include:
d. Locations of new street trees, to be planted per City of Grover Beach standards by Municipal Code Article IX Section 5.30.

The appellants request that the City Council determine where these street trees and replacement trees required for the removal of trees will be located, as it does not appear that with a lot line to lot line project there is room for street trees.

Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a Site Utility Plan. This plan shall include:
a. The location and size of the existing water, sewer, and storm drain facilities on West Grand Avenue, North 2nd, and Rockaway Avenue.
b. The location and size of any existing water and sewer service lines for the property.

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 75 i. All existing service lines that are not proposed for re-use shall be abandoned at the main to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
ii. Abandoned, existing and/or proposed water services lines must have at least 5’ minimum separation along the City’s water main per City Standard W.4.
iii. Show saw cut lines needed for abandoned and proposed utility trenching. c. The location and size of all new water and sewer service lines for the property. i. New water service lines to be constructed per City of Grover Beach Standard Plan W.4
ii. New sewer service lines to be constructed per City of Grover Beach Standard Plan S.5a-c.
iii. New sewer service line backwater prevention valve to be constructed per City of Grover Beach Standard Plan S.8.

The appellants request an explanation of whether there will be upgrades to the facilities on W. Grand, N. 2nd, and Rockaway, and documentation of the Development Impact Fees levied for water, sewer, and storm drain facilities. If existing service lines, as noted below, are not proposed for re-use, who shall pay for the new service lines? PW/CE-4: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a Grading and Drainage Plan.

This plan shall include:
a. Property boundaries are to be established, and lot corners are to be set for the purposes of foundation verification.
b. Based on a Topographic Survey, provide sufficient detail for the project and adjoining properties to the extent of representing adjacent grades, existing drainage patterns, grade changes between adjoining lots, structures, etc.
c. All existing and proposed easements affecting the project shall be shown.

The question of easements was raised by Appellant Peterson at the September 2, 2025, hearing, asking where the Union Pacific Easement is located. It was not answered.

The appellants ask that this question be answered before or on the night of the appeal. The appellants also request to see proposed access easements for access to neighboring properties to excavate for the foundation, use of air space up to 70’ high to overhang neighboring properties during construction, and ventilation of the parking garage into the neighbors’ air space.
d. 100-percent of proposed impervious surfaces shall be collected and retained onsite as required by Development Code Section 5.50.080.
e. Provide calculations for all impervious surfaces, and the required storage volume to meet the City’s on-site drainage retention requirements.
f. Provide construction details for all stormwater collection and treatment devices. g. Storm water must be conveyed to on-site storage facilities. Roof water shall be piped underground from the downspouts if underground storage is proposed. h. Appropriate separations and design features shall be included in the site design to ensure that infiltration and retention systems are not in conflict with proposed building footings and foundations or zones of influence.
i. Safe overland routes shall be provided for retention overflow in the event of flooding. j. A clear note shall be included on the approved Grading and Drainage plan indicating this requirement: “Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall submit for recordation Exhibit A, “Post Construction Stormwater Management System Operations & Maintenance Plan,” and Exhibit B, the “Checklist.”
The appellants are aware that the use of fill and the related compaction will likely impact the pervious capture of rainwater on site and request that the applicant provide Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 76 an engineering study prior to moving ahead with the project showing how this will be addressed, given the issues of a 10’ water table, moderate liquefaction factor, sea level rise of 1.5 feet, and location in a tsunami zone along with the safe overland routes to avoid flooding neighboring properties.

THE TRANSCRIPT
Line 54 Chair Mann: What we as a commission can do tonight is review the project for compliance with adopted objective standards and consider conditions of approval to address construction impacts, safety, and design details. Our discussion will focus on the areas where the commission does have authority to shape the project and not on denying or reducing it.

The chair demonstrates bias and an attempt to steer the commission into approving the project by refusing to introduce findings that would legitimately allow denying the project.

There are no conditions that can address or waive the tsunami, liquidation, and flood risks that dictate that the project be denied.

Line 55 CHAIR MANN We do appreciate the community's interest and feedback, and we will carefully consider comments that relate to objective standards and mitigation of impacts.

The Chair implies that only public comments related to objective standards and mitigation of impacts will be considered, thus limiting the public’s free speech rights and the Commission’s authority.

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 77 Line 56 Community Development Director Martin: Uh, thank you. Um, I'll speak first. I'm Megan Martin, Community Development Director. [Procedure: The Chair did not call upon or authorize her to speak.] Um, I just, as you noted, uh, the project is being processed under state housing law, which significantly limits, uh, city's discretion in its decision tonight. So staff's role, uh, is to present the commission with our analysis on how the project complies with the city's objective design standards, uh, and explain the required findings that your commission needs to make in order to approve the project and outline the conditions of approval recommended to address, um, construction standards, um, things related to safety, as well as design.

Community Development Director Martin states, ”Under state law, the Housing Accountability Act, and the Density Bonus Law, the city cannot deny a project or reduce its density unless there is a specific, significant, direct, and unavoidable impact on public health or safety that cannot otherwise be mitigated. In accordance with the Housing Accountability Act, preferences about building height, scale, or neighborhood compatibility do not meet this legal standard.” The appellants assert that, given the weight of the facts and evidence provided in this appeal document, there are several specific, significant, direct, and unavoidable impacts on public health or safety that cannot otherwise be mitigated, including destruction of habitat, obstruction of scenic views, and reduction of coastal access due to elimination of 7 parking spots.

Line 63 Sr. Planner Bell: Two of the residential units will be dedicated as affordable housing for very low-income households, qualifying the project for a density bonus and one waiver under uh, the state density bonus law.

By providing two very low-income units, the project qualifies for a 46.25% density bonus under the state housing, uh, state density bonus law, which allows for the applicant to exceed the site's base density and build up to the 11 density units permitted. Additionally, the project qualifies for up to two incentives or concessions under state law.

While the above statement is technically accurate, it is really just a manipulation of affordability mandates to shoehorn a shorefront multi-story residential condominium project into a 10,600sf lot which in reality will serve 18 high end buyers and make a 40-50% profit of $7m for the developer.

Line 68 Sr. Planner Bell: The second floor includes the commercial suite along the building's street frontage and four residential units with private separate access from the commercial suite.

FACT: This claim is not supported by the architect’s plans, which show that both the residential units and commercial space can be accessed by one of two staircases. See a Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 78 screenshot of Plan
sheet A-1.2. The
commercial space is
tucked away behind
covered deck making
it difficult to see from
the street frontage.

Line 69 The proposed
project complies
with all
applicable
objective design
standards, with
the exception of
a single waiver
requested, um,
uh, related to
the ground floor
transparency
requirement.From
a design
standpoint, the
building aligns
with the vision
of the West Grand
Avenue Master Plan, which promotes pedestrian-oriented mixed-use development along the coastal corridor.

This is not a pedestrian-oriented mixed-use development. The so-called commercial use is out of sight behind a covered deck on the 2nd floor. The site is located across from an industrial zone with no visibility from Grand Avenue. I own the mixed used building two doors down from and visible from Grand. The ground level commercial unit went unleased for 13 years from the time of completion in 2004 to 2017 when I applied for a use permit to convert it to lodging use. It was unleasable for any other use because it was not on Grand Ave. or applicants could not meet the narrow CVS allowed uses. It is now seldom vacant. 261 Rockaway is tucked away around the corner from my mixed-use building and is unlikely ever to contain a successful commercial use. I speak to this as a real estate broker who works and lives in the CVS zone. I participated in the first visioning plan in 2004 and moved my home and real estate business to the W. Grand corridor in 2011 because I believe in the vision. I introduced the first successful restaurant to the CVS zone in 2012.

Regarding the design standpoint that staff purports the building to align with, neither the W.

Grand Master Plan or 2004 Visioning plan were provided with or even linked with the staff report. Had they been, the charming buildings in the screenshots from these documents, shown on the next page, would have revealed that the project is nothing whatsoever like the designs in the Master Plan. Note that 2-3 stories or 40’ is the maximum height. Developers will tell you that doesn’t “pencil” to build 2-3 story buildings, or that they can’t accommodate enough housing but in fact, it is working all over the county, state, and county. Staff will tell you that we must build up to 5 stories to create housing because developers must do so to make a profit. That, too,

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 81 …new housing, affordable units, and visitor-serving commercial space … that supports the general plan and the City Council's goals. … the project incorporates objective design elements including pedestrian-oriented design that aligns with the LCP's intent to enhance visual quality and support tourism.

The design is not pedestrian-oriented. It is 5-stories crammed lot line to lot line with a small commercial space set back behind a covered deck on the 2nd floor. This does nothing to enhance tourism in a location which is directly across from the train station. “Enhance visual quality” is a subjective statement that is belied by the loss of viewshed citywide.

Line 73 Sr Planner Bell Importantly, the project is not located within or adjacent to any identified coastal resource and will not obstruct the existing view corridor along Grand Avenue as it is appropriately set back from Grand Avenue and located behind an existing three-story mixed-use project. The project meets all the required findings for the Coastal Development Permit and will be referred to the Coastal Commission preceding final action by the Planning Commission.

The project IS located adjacent to an identified coastal resource – the ESHA state park. At 15’ higher than the 3-story building referenced, it will obstruct the view corridor along Grand Avenue. It does not meet the required findings for the Coastal Development Permit.

Line 74 Sr Planner Bell The proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan and the West Avenue Master Plan… It is inconsistent with many of the goals and policies of the general plan, the West Grand Avenue Master Plan, the Visioning Workshop, and the LCP.

Line 76 Sr Planner Bell The project complies with all applicable, development and performance standards for the visitor Coastal Visitor-Serving Zone Incorrect as shown previously in this appeal document.

Line 77 Sr Planner Bell The state law mandates that the city grants such waivers unless they would cause a specific adverse impact on the public health, safety, or on the environment, or conflict with state law or federal law.

The project causes specific adverse impacts on the public health, safety, and environment and conflicts with state law, essentially enabling the positioning of a residential condominium block in a location where it is not allowed due to tsunami risk.

Line 78 Sr Planner Bell The proposed project is also categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and the required findings for the exemption have been provided within the resolution.

See ‘Findings’ section. The project should not be categorically exempt from CEQA.

Line 79 Sr Planner Bell … tonight's recommendation is to find the project consistent with the general plan and development code and approve the project...

There are far too many questionable findings to make a defensible finding of consistency and approve the project.

Line 97 Comm Dev Dir Martin Our zoning code doesn't stipulate further or prescribe further that a certain percentage or square footage of the entire development itself has to be commercial versus residential.

Irrelevant. It is the job of the planning commission to make these judgement calls.

Line 98 there is a public serving commercial space located here. Secondly, they... Uh, the general plan, um, land use designation itself, uh, stipulates that residential uses should be on the upper floor. The zoning code combined with that also stipulates that those residential uses should be on the upper floor contributing more parking, um, or the required amount of parking pursuant to the zoning code. The commercial space is not located or configured or planned to be public serving. Unfortunate that the first statement the Comm Dev Dir makes is that the project contributes more parking, when in fact it takes out seven spaces.

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 82 This is the response to the commissioner question, “is this project exempt from meeting the requirements of the coastal visitor serving zone?” The Community Development Director’s response obscures the fact that the commercial space is located on the 2nd floor, which is the concern of the commissioner, by stating that residential must be on the upper floors and not addressing the FACT: that commercial is not on the ground floor as required by City Code. It also fails to address the factthat residential uses are in fact the lowest priority in the CVS zone, with visitor serving uses preferred on the upper floors. The project violates the CVS Coastal VISITOR SERVING intent by locating a tiny commercial unit on an upper floor tucked behind a covered deck in what is essentially a large residential complex. Community Development Director Martin then goes on to claim there is MORE parking than required, only feebly stepping back that untruth in a way that most listeners would not catch.

Line 98 But that commercial space then would have otherwise taken up the required number of parking spaces, and so they elected to put it onto that second floor. Um, so with that, it is consistent with our land use element, the zoning code, and our LCP, um, do not go further to stipulate a certain prescriptive measure or objective standard that we use.

Moving the uses: (commercial from ground floor to the 2nd floor) is NOT consistent with the land use element, zoning code, or LCP. The compliant solution would be to have commercial on the ground floor and create only the number of residential units for which parking could be provided on the ground floor.

Community Development Director Martin seems to be forgetting the first descriptor in her title, “community” and be biased against the community on behalf of the developer, creating narratives that do not comport with the facts or the law.

Line 99 COMMISSIONER: So, without a specific quantitative value of, uh, what constitutes sufficient commercial space for mixed use, that, um, subjectivity then is left to the commission to decide if it is sufficient? COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR MARTIN: Um, I can't answer that. The commissioner highlights that it is the planning commission that makes such determinations, and the Community Development Director here, and in subsequent statements, avoids the issue by claiming not to know.

Lines 109 And so just from a starting point, what we could look at as we look to potentially change that code is maybe it's a third commercial, twothirds residential, and then we're in compliance with the Housing Accountability Act and not, you know, jeopardizing our, our, our state with the... State with the state. Our position with the state. So, I think we were a little bit off topic and out of the agenda, but that is something that we're exploring.

Community Development Director repeats an oft-claimed position that has now been debunked in the appeal, that the Commission would jeopardize the City’s position with the state unless they approve her recommendation and, goes on to use another tactic she uses in other comments, that since no specifics have been codified, the Commission cannot use its authority until it codifies the issue and then attempts to change the subject by telling the director it is off course. The recent law signed by Governor Newsom does not, in fact, require the City to approve 5 story buildings, despite staff’s narrative for over a year from staff that it would do so.

Line 115 Sr Planner Bell It's not anticipated that the elevators or stairwells would exceed the maximum height at this time.

Based on past practice where several 55’ buildings have been allowed to later climb as high as 66’ based on elevators & stairwells, it is reasonable to anticipate that the “at this time” qualifier indicates they will indeed exceed the maximum height, particularly with regard to the solar panels.

Line 126 Sr Planner Bell Yeah, but also this is speculative Given the practice in which nearly every other mid-rise building approved in the past 18 months has exceeded the height, and the Director has had the Commission codified that as acceptable, it would appear that Community Development Director Martin is yet again sidestepping an issue of concern by labeling it speculative. “Inevitable” would be a better tag.

Line 148 Comm Dev Dir Martin It is not coastal appealable. So, it is not subject to final approval by Coastal Commission as a project that is appealable would be.

Directly conflicts with the Community Development Director’s statement earlier, “will be referred to the Coastal Commission preceding final action by the Planning Commission”
Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 83 Line 158 Sr Planner Bell, the first one we'll look at is the General Plan. And so, the General Plan is identified as a, a Visitor-Serving Mixed Use. And in the definition of that, uh, Land Use designation identifies dwellings as appropriate above the first floor. The zoning designation goes further in identifying other types of, uh, uses that are also appropriate for the Coastal Visitor-Serving Zone and then the Land Use, uh, the Local Coastal Program as well as the, uh, West Grand Avenue Master Plan also identify other appropriate types of designs or, uh, features associated with those types of projects. Actually, the General plan identifies the zoning NOT as Visitor Serving, but as Coastal Visitor Serving.

Line 171 APPLICANT: It's built towards the parking lot and the street. The, uh, the other sides of it, if you looked only have the fencing for the parking lot. All of the balconies look out to the public areas. They don't look at any residential homes and, uh, we do intend to have a viable commercial gym on the second floor.

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 84 What is not disclosed by the applicant or staff is that even more than 50 stairways, walkways, windows, openings, and front doors on 5 stories overlook the neighbors.

Lines 172-173 Applicant: It’s the closest access to the elevator and the stairwell. Those people won’t have the ability to go up to the other floors that are, that are members of the public that join. We’ve been members of many gyms and the one that we recall worked the best was a very small private one that very few people were at, you had to make an appointment online for a trainer to be there, you weren’t there feeling self-conscious that a lot, 90% of the people there were, fitter or healthier than you. Um, and that’s, everyone will have an electronic lab, it’ll record when they go there so that the computer will know who’s in there all the time. It’ll have 24-hour visibility that’ll be monitored by a security company so Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 85 people are safe to be in there, um, and it will be at a reduced fee available to the occupants of the building.

The applicant’s vision of a GYM on the 2nd floor that requires membership and a key to access and is tucked behind a deck on the 2nd floor does not appear to be a pedestrian-oriented coastal visitor serving business. It sounds more like what the developer will tell potential buyers who likely do not want the public accessing their residential building.

Line 189 Comm Dev Dir Martin: Where we are limited is in the findings that your commission would need to make if your commission would consider denying the project.

There are many findings that would legitimately deny or condition the property. None of these were discussed by staff or provided to the Commission.

Line 189 Comm Dev Dir Martin: That is where we run into some, some issues. But the focus should be on construction standards, anything safety related, and/or the overall design of the project
Lines 303-304 Grover Beach Citizen: Again, I did not plan on speaking this evening. Um, Butterfly for Life, Curves, Blink Fitness, Fitness Connection, Bally Total Fitness, Yoga Works, InShape Health Clubs, 24 Hour Fitness, Gold's Gym, all these businesses, all these gyms all went bankrupt. A gym is not a good investment. I believe that pretty much they're saying this 'cause it's gonna end up being a, um, a lie. HAA does not mandate the approval of any project. These you guys, developers are continuing to deceive us. You guys are approving stuff, and then six months from now, he's gonna come back request a waiver for an elevator. I don't see any exhaust fan vents outside the side of the houses.

Lines 354-369 ... Chair Mann: Is there anyone online who wanted to, who has called in to speak?
Clerk: Yes. We have two callers. Um, the first one is Yu Ming.

Chair Mann: Yu Ming, can you hear me? We're ready for your comment. Hello? Hello, Yu Ming? We can maybe move on to the next person, we'll come back to Yu Ming in case, uh, they are coming back. Would that be okay? All right.

The next one's Krista Jeffries. Krista, we're ready to hear your comment.

We could be having a problem with call-in. May be having a problem. Okay.

Um, so what would be the appropriate thing to do? Shall we reopen public comment in a little bit and see if that resolves? Like move on and then come back to it?
Clerk: Um, I can log out of call-in and try to log back in. Um, and then we can try that, but I'm not sure why it's not working.

Chair Mann: Okay.

Clerk: Chair Mann, I, I might suggest we could take a five minute take a quick recess.... and see if we can reset and then come back to the phone lines. I will close us to take a five-minute recess. We will resume at, um, well, let's say 7:15. It's 7:00, almost 7:09 here.

I'm gonna reopen the meeting. Um, so uh, apologies to the folks who tried to call in. Thank you for the effort. We will, uh, hopefully be figuring this out quickly, uh, after this meeting. So, um, we will continue the public hearing if there's anyone remaining in the room. We are not able to hear from the folks online. Uh, so at this moment I can close the public hearing.

The appellants assert that the failure of the commission to hear from 2 interested parties constitutes a Ralph M. Brown Act violation and that the meeting should have been reheard. The matter has been referred to the District Attorney’s Public Integrity Unit. See Appendix 1.

Line 379 Comm Dev Dir Martin: No, permit's not required. You are required to obtain what's known as an encroachment permit if it's in the right-of-way Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 86 and/or if you're doing any work within the right-of-way. An encroachment permit was obtained here as it relates to the removal of the trees themselves. As it relates to the removal of the trees themselves, um, so the, um, the tree removal did begin without, uh, the city's permission. When the appellant commented from the audience that it was ‘after the fact’ the Comm Dev Director admitted as much. This is a second instance in this meeting where the CDD states something that is untrue and follows it up with the true statement. Designed to confound the listeners? Ultimately, she admits that the trees were in the city right of way because they required an encroachment permit to remove them – after the fact – they were decimated by then.

Line 403 Um, so the state pretty much dictates how much parking is required for a development, and, um, this one meets the requirement, um, so there's not much to talk about there. Um, and the stairway overlooking the residence, um, I guess if there was a weak point to, um, to the design as far as, um, impinging on the surrounding existing residences, that's, that, um, be the southeast corner there where there's, uh, hello, there's, um, the stairway, the, the walkway that, that serves, I guess, the, uh, the doors, um, to those, those four units on the end. This is an understatement. 50 walkways, stairways, windows, and front doors run 5 stories on the east and north sides of the building up to the lot line of not one, but two neighboring residences as shown in plan drawings below.

Lines 396-8 Sr Planner Bell:

Uh, yes, and the, uh,
development code was
updated in 2020 to 2022, I
believe. Uh, that was the
last time the code was
updated other than the one
we're currently working
on. Uh, during that code
update, that was when the
objective design standards
were created, um, and
there was a, there was
public involvement with
that process. I was not
around, so was not...
can't speak to it
directly. Um, however,
the, uh, the maximum
height was increased
through that process as
part of the, um, the
zoning code, uh,
development code update.

And so, the, uh, chapter, uh, two which included the design standards associated with this commercial development were amended to reflect what we have today. And so that's, uh, that's the story of how we got to the current code requirements, um, and, uh, unfortunately I don't I know there was a lot of public involvement during that process, but I can't speak to it directly. The Community knows what a lot of public involvement looks like because such was the case with the Vision, W. Grand Master Plan, and LCP. No such outreach occurred, and very little public involvement took place because this was during COVID shutdowns and precautions.A quick look at the Slo-Span.org archives reveals almost no public involvement.

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 87 Line 413 Sr Planner Bell re: Solar: Uh, yes, it's, um... There is some protections in place. It's mostly a civil matter. Uh, however, um, the project has been designed with that in mind. Uh, you can tell the, the massing is oriented further away from the adjacent single-family residence to the east, um, that provides, uh, some, um, leeway from solar.

Uh, however, the, uh, the solar... 'Cause this project is east to west along Grand Avenue, that's where the sun rises and sets, um, so the, the shading will, um, will have a minimal impact. Uh, we do have a solar study, our website that offers a solar study that we took a look at, and it doesn't seem to be a, a significant impact.

The planners plotted the shadow from the southwest corner of the property, the corner farthest from the neighboring properties. The east lot line where the building looms 55’ is just 20 feet from the 277 Rockaway structure, and the north lot line just 30’ from the 160 S. 3rd structure.

The appellants request a solar study that plots the shadow from the southeast and northeast corners of the property to better assess the impact on properties overlooked by the edifice.

Using the link provided by the City and calculating the building at 55’ plus the max allowed that is likely to be required to put enough solar panels to serve the electricity needs of all 21 units and common areas, i.e. 66,’ from the southeast and northeast corners of the property. https://www.suncalc.org/#/35.121,-120.6283,18/2025.12.21/13:33/1/3 The appellants ask the City, as a matter of social justice, for existing and future neighbors:
• limit building height and density to protect the solar access of existing and future neighboring properties. • Setbacks: specify the minimum distance a structure must be from property lines, also play a role in ensuring new developments don't cast excessive shadows on neighboring properties.
• Solar orientation: Local regulations can specify how new buildings should be oriented on a lot to minimize negative impacts on solar access for neighbors. The appellants ask the City Council to require a professional study to determine the impact of the building height on the solar access of neighbors within 300 feet of the property.

Lines 453-454 Commissioner Swift: No, I think it's whether it's visitor serving or not. Visitor serving is the key operator here even in the LCP. Visitor serving, and that is
The Comm Dev Director is uncertain as to the meaning of visitor and shoots from the hip in the response that follows. Com Dev Dir Martin: Visitor... Visitor could be resident, visitor could be transient, visitor could be a tourist, visitor could be a, a city employee. I mean, visitor has a broad definition. But I would look to our attorney as to whether or not there is an issue with the definition of visitor serving here. Our analysis is that it's consistent with the land use element as well as, um, the rest of the general plan, the LCP, as well as our zoning code. I mean, visitor has a broad definition. I guess I would just add that, um, visitors could also potentially be members [of the gym].

I don't think that that's necessarily precluded. I don't have the level of detail of knowledge of all of the different code language to be able to provide an analysis of what exactly visitor serving means, but I would say that a visitor could potentially be a member depending on how the membership is structured.”
The appellants suggest the appeal be upheld until uncertainties expressed by the Community Development Department are addressed, one being that the Community Development Director does not “have the level of detail of knowledge of all of the different code language to be able to provide an analysis of what exactly visitor serving means.” To assist in the interpretation of the word visitor in the coastal visitor serving context of whether a membership gym is visitor serving, the appellants have collected the definitions from city codes. The appellants ask the City Council to make the determination of the intent of the term “visitor-serving” as used in City development documents including but not limited to:

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 88  people who travel a minimum of 50 miles from home
https://www.coastal.ca.gov/coastalvoices/resources/StanfordFreetheBeach.pdf:
 from out-of-town Coastal Act CSV: Appropriate uses include lodging, restaurants, recreational use, and retail and commercial services primarily for convenience of visitors.” Lodging, restaurants, and convenience  from out-of-town LCP Visitor Serving – Mixed-Use designation: complementary range of hotels and motels, bed and breakfast accommodations, convention facilities, restaurants, recreational uses, and retail sales primarily for the convenience of visitors, which indicates and need food and accommodation.  traveling to access resources“destination” The Coastal Act definition of Sensitive Coastal Resource Areas: uses the term associated with visitor, i.e. Those identifiable and geographically bound land and water areas within the coastal zone of vital interest and sensitivity… which are significant visitor destinations. • other than Californians California's Parks Forward Commission: all Californians and visitors to the state.  people from large California metropolitan areas a minimum of 150 miles away LCP pie chart:
groups “visitors” to Grover Beach.
 residents and businesses are not “visitors”: Grover Beach Development Code 4.25.050 ii. Differentiates between residents, businesses, and visitors … well designed open spaces, … to enhance the quality of life for residents, businesses, and visitors.

COMMISSIONER: They all really stress that it's for visitor serving. The Community Developer Director is making up definitions on the fly and then admits she doesn’t know the code and then dismisses the conversation saying it’s up to the City Attorney. The definitions of COASTAL VISITOR SERVING are clear:

Line 457 Well, you should apply Chapter Two's allowable uses under the CVS Zone to see what's allowed. What's allowed is a permitted-by-right use versus what would be provided for as a use permit subject to planning commission review and approval. If it's listed under Chapter Two's allowable uses in the CVS Zone, then it's technically allowable and considered coastal visitor serving use.

Fact: A gym is not an allowable permitted-by-right CVS use. See the screenshot below from Chapter Two.

It
would fall under the category of Health/Fitness Facility <3,000 sf and requires a Use Permit subject to planning commission review and approval.

However, this understanding of whether it is CVS is not a use listed by the Coastal Commission and doesn’t fit well into the descriptions of CVS contained in Grover Code either as a members-only-key-required 2nd floor gym that isn’t immediately visible from the street. It certainly isn’t pedestrian oriented. It doesn’t tick the boxes:

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 89 Line 465. Com Dev Dir Martin: Um, yeah, I don't have a number in front of me but, uh, the, um... Due to the traffic study that was conducted, the frontage along, um, Rockaway is required to be red curbed and so there will be no longer any front street parking along Rockaway. Um, and I believe at least, uh, three spaces were removed from the city's parking lot.

The Staff report answers the question: 4 on the 83’ frontage (20 linear ft per space) and 3 in the City Parking Lot. If the Director is unsure, the project should be brought back when she can provide an answer.

Line 469 As part of the project process, we will be conducting a shared easement agreement with the developer with that parking lot to indicate access and requirements and any further improvements that are necessary along that frontage.

What will the developer pay for the easement of at least the legal requirement of 64 ft by 20 feet to accommodate three legal-size parking spots (1280 sf) added to the 10,000-sf site, thus effectively increasing the lot size 12%? Prior to project approval this should have been Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 90 drafted to ensure that the Community Development Director has not made unauthorized gift of public funds.

Line 479 COM DEV DIR MARTIN: I think the issue here is that Grover Beach needs to find its brand and find its identity, similar to Avila Beach, similar to Morro Bay, similar to downtown San Luis Obispo, similar to The Village in AG. We need to find our identity and our brand. And when we can do that, we can apply an additional standard to our objective designs to say, "Within one of these three types of architectural styles, this is what we'd like it to be." but until we do that, uh, and you know, we, we ...

The W. Grand Avenue Master Plan and the Visioning Plan both part of City code, illustrate and provide photos of the brand identity the citizens said they wish to see, with examples of these building styles. The project has no visual nexus to the examples in either of the above plans. (See Pages 77-78).

Line 485 COMMISSIONER: about the rooftop solar. It sounds like if they're shadowing, you've basically set up a civil action between neighboring rooftop solars and the project. It's not something that can be addressed at the time of building?
STAFF: No, but I do, I do want to, I do want to clarify, um, just on the record. So, when this was brought up, um, we, we took a look at some free online, um, software and mapping that shows during summer and winter solstice, because this property is essentially east-west, you have a direct line of the sun traveling across.

Um, this would likely have an impact to solar on the immediately adjacent residents, um, I think that individual is here this evening, should they wish to pursue solar. Um, but the actual impacts to that, I would say staff would need to do additional research, but it isn't something under CEQA that we can say that ...significant or adverse impact that would require us to deny the project or make a finding to deny the project. It's also not a standard in our development code, um, that would lend us to condition it in any way, or to, again, deny it because it's, it's not a current standard within our code.

COMMISSIONER: there is, state language that, that doesn't allow you to shadow somebody's, uh, solar voltaic system and I'm wondering how that comes to play. Is that something that we should have, should be under CEQA or isn't under CEQA and, uh, and isn't part of the project review at all? STAFF: Uh, it's not under CEQA to my knowledge, but I would have to do more research into the building code or state code requirements. Maybe it's a Title 24. Um, I can, I can reach out to our building official to ask, but I don't have that answer for you. But it was something that we looked at and it showed that there would not be an impact to any immediate residents except for potentially the resident that's just next door, but only, um, only in the late evening hours when solar panels aren't necessarily, uh, collecting that energy same as they would midday.

Staff twice assert that they cannot answer this question without additional research. The project should have been tabled until staff could research and come back to the Planning Commission so Commissioners could make supported findings. Practically speaking it makes no sense that a 55’ building with a 10,000-sf footprint would cast no shadow.

Fact: Staff made their assertion that only one neighbor was impacted based on a building height of 16.7’ considering the shadow using the lot corner farthest from neighboring properties. Using a height commensurate with what the height will be once extensive solar equipment is Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 91 added to the rooftop, from the lot lines nearest project neighbors reveals a 300-foot shadow in some months.

Line 546 STAFF: the Commission, um, does not have the discretion to deny the project unless, uh, you make the findings that there are significant unavoidable adverse impacts to, um, the community.

False. The project could be denied based on the many findings detailed in this report. At the very least, the Commission should have delayed their decision to a date certain to allow the members of the public who were waiting on the non-functioning phone line to comment, provide accurate plans, and return to the Commission with answers to the many questions staff could not answer:

1. Transcript Line 99-COMMISSIONER SWIFT: So, without a specific quantitative value of, uh, what constitutes sufficient commercial space for mixed use, that subjectivity then is left to the commission to decide if it is sufficient?
STAFF: I can't answer that. Under density bonus law, I think, I think you're a little bit restricted, but…

2. Transcript Line 139-VICE CHAIR SWIFT: … the very low-income sale price for one-bedroom units in San Luis is $140,000 a year?
SR PLANNER BELL That sounds pretty close,
COMM DEV DIR MARTIN I'll look it up.

3. Transcript Line 217-COMMISSIONER HOLDEN: "All construction will be, will conform to the City of Atascadero." And then number six is, "Any tree removal permit will be filed with the City of Paso Robles." And then I read the unit numbers of the affordable, um, units, Um, but they're marked in, in the, as nine and 10, but I thought it was 11 and 12 or something.

COMM DEV DIR MARTIN I can clarify that. At the beginning … the project … included four affordable units. … now there are only two affordable units proposed, but the conceptual plans that are provided still have the four.

4. Transcript Line 267-CHAIR MANN I wondered if you would consider putting... a window there so that should one need to cross ventilate and put a box fan in to try to get a smell out or something else.

ARCHITECT Um, I don't know if there's enough space for that.

5. Transcript Line 406-SR PLANNER BELL I didn't require them to update the project design, uh, so that you could see the project as proposed.

6. Transcript Lines 406-408-COMMISSIONER HOFFMAN I had a question. Are there protections for resident, existing residents in relation to their solar on their roof if this building were to overshadow their solar panels? SR PLANNER BELL SR PLANNER BELL Uh, we do have a solar study, a website that offers a solar study that we took a look at, and it doesn't seem to be a, a significant impact. At this point in the proceedings Staff accessed a website. What couldn’t be seen on the screen was that it proposed a building 16’7 feet high, when the project is over 55 feet high. Nor was it apparent that the measurement was taken from the lot corner most distant from other properties.

7. Transcript Lines 453-COMM DEV DIR MARTIN : Visitor... Visitor could be resident, visitor could be transient, visitor could be a tourist, visitor could be a, a city employee. I mean, visitor has a broad definition. But I would look to our attorney as to whether or not there is an issue with the definition of visitor serving here. [The attorney made no response.]
Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 92

8. Transcript Line 451-COMM DEV DIR MARTIN I guess I would just add that, um, visitors could also potentially be members. I don't think that that's necessarily precluded. I don't have the level of detail of knowledge of all of the different code language to be able to provide an analysis of what exactly visitor serving means…

9. Transcript Line 464-VICE CHAIR SWIFT Okay. Uh, parking. Somebody asked the question about how many parking spaces were removed from Rockaway and from the public parking structure to make this, uh, possible.SR PLANNER BELL Um, yeah, I don't have a number in front of me …

10. Transcript Line 475-SR PLANNER BELL So, we will, um, I can also defer that question to the architects of the project if you would like a more specific answer for the elevator access.

11. Transcript Lines 480-482-VICE CHAIR SWIFT … rooftop solar. It sounds like if they're shadowing, you've basically set up a civil action between neighboring rooftop solars and the project. It's not something that can be addressed at the time of building. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN … when this was brought up, um, we, we took a look at some free online, um, software and mapping … Um, but the actual impacts to that, I would say staff would need to do additional research…

12. Transcript Line 487-COMM DEV DIR MARTIN … this would likely have an impact to solar on the immediately adjacent residents, … but the actual impacts to that, I would say staff would need to do additional research…

13. Transcript Line 549-VICE CHAIR SWIFT I would just like to know what the strength of the language is. Whether it's gonna be written here real-time or written with the legal staff to, to really make sure that this is appropriate for that zone going forward. … those conditions on the building, how do you put enough teeth in ... that it doesn't fall out of compliance with the zone. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN I don't necessarily know how to answer this.

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 93 Debra Peterson
160 S. 3rd St.

Grover Beach, CA 93433
Tel/Text 805 550 4490
[email protected]
Megan Martin
Community Development Director
City of Grover Beach
154 S. 8th St.

Grover Beach, CA 93433
September 28, 2025
Sent via email and certified mail.

Dear Ms. Martin,
City of Grover Beach Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 2025, Public Hearing: Development Application 24-54
On September 2, 2025, the Planning Commission failed to take public comment from citizens calling in via the phone-in option due to “technical difficulties”. The option was noticed in the agenda and announced by the Planning Commission Chairperson in the meeting.

The Commission therefore failed to hold an "open and public" meeting as required by Government Code Section 54953 (2) A legislative body that holds a meeting pursuant to this subdivision shall do all of the following:
(A) The legislative body shall give notice of the meeting and post agendas as otherwise required by this chapter.
(B) The legislative body shall allow members of the public to access the meeting, and the agenda shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body directly pursuant to Section 54954.3. In each instance in which notice of the time of the teleconferenced meeting is otherwise given or the agenda for the meeting is otherwise posted, the legislative body shall also give notice of the means by which members of the public may access the meeting and offer public comment. The agenda shall identify and include an opportunity for all persons to attend via a call-in option or an internet-based service option. This subparagraph shall not be construed to require the legislative body to provide a physical location from which the public may attend or comment.
(C) The legislative body shall conduct teleconference meetings in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties and the public appearing before the legislative body of a local agency.

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 94 (D) In the event of a disruption which prevents the public agency from broadcasting the meeting to members of the public using the call-in option or internet-based service option, or in the event of a disruption within the local agency’s control which prevents members of the public from offering public comments using the call-in option or internet-based service option, the body shall take no further action on items appearing on the meeting agenda until public access to the meeting via the call-in option or internet-based service option is restored.

Actions taken on agenda items during a disruption which prevents the public agency from broadcasting the meeting may be challenged pursuant to Section 54960.1. [emphasis added] I therefore demand that the Planning Commission cure and correct the failure to allow call-in comments from the public by rehearing Development Application 24-54 when the phone lines are operable and the public may participate via that option.

Sincerely,
Debra Peterson
Cc: Dan Dow, District Attorney, County of San Luis Obispo Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 95

3. THE PROJECT'S USE IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSES OF THE ZONE IN WHICH THE SITE IS LOCATED.

The project’s suitability for the zone being: 1. a commercial component such that it can be deemed “mixed use” and thus, as a residential project qualify for location within the Coastal Visitor Zone and 2. The use of affordable units to leverage nearly double the number of residential units allowed in the R-3 zoning, thus increasing the number of units from 20 per acre to nearly 39 per acre.

Fact: The gym is not a coastal visitor serving use.

Fact: Here is how the developer described the gym on the 2nd floor. Transcript Line 172:
“…uh, we do intend to have a viable commercial gym on the second floor. It's the closest access to the elevator and the stairwell.

Those people won't have the ability to go up to the other floors that are, that are members of the public that join. We've been members of many gyms and the one that we recall worked the best was a very small private one that very few people were at, you had to make an appointment online for a trainer to be there, you weren't there feeling self-conscious that a lot, 90% of the people there were, fitter or healthier than you. Um, and that's, everyone will have an electronic fob, it'll record when they go there so that the computer will know who's in there all the time. It'll have 24-hour visibility that'll be monitored by a security company so people are safe to be in there, um, and it also will be at a reduced fee available to the occupants of the building.”
Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 96 Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 97 Below are the various descriptions of Coastal Visitor Serving contained in City documents. The project fails to comply with the majority of the descriptions. • encourages active evening uses and street life.
• Appropriate uses include:
• lodging,
• restaurants,
• recreational uses, and
• retail and commercial services primarily for the convenience of visitors. • attractive, beach-oriented
• pedestrian oriented commercial development. Goal LU-6 • an attractive area that provides convenience goods and services that support visitor needs related to beach activities Coastal Visitor Serving Zone (CVS)
• attractive, beach-oriented visual theme
• enhances the quality of the recreational experience within the Coastal Zone.38b. • recreation-related.
• Uses which shall be permitted:
(1) Hotels, motels, restaurants, and cocktail lounges or dancing facilities in connection with restaurants.
(2) Refreshment stands.
(3) Souvenir shops.
(4) Convenience services.
• 2-3 stories high
• recognizable beach theme W. Grand Master Plan
• pedestrian friendly environment W. Grand Ave. Master Plan • examples are Avila Beach, Village of Arroyo Grande, Morrow Bay, San Luis Obispo. parking behind Visioning Document
• provides convenience goods and services that support visitor needs related to beach activities • with:
o cafes, shopping Vision Project
o bike & roller skate outlets Visioning Project
• considers and protects scenic & visual qualities of coastal area W Grand Master Plan • designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas W. Grand Master Plan • visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas W. Grand Master Plan • give prominence to the pedestrian realm W. Grand Master Plan • convenient access to enhance quality of life W. Grand Master Plan • pedestrian network W. Grand Master Plan
• parking visibly screened from the public right-of-way W. Grand Master Plan • friendly, inviting environment Development Code 4.25.050 A.1.b.iii. • a destination
• specialty retail and restaurants
• emphasize city’s unique coastal access
• complementary range of
o bed and breakfast accommodations,
o convention facilities
38 City of Grover Beach Local Coastal Plan November 1, 1999, P.67 Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 98 • eating and drinking establishments, and visitor accommodations, primarily for the convenience of visitors
• family oriented businesses
• functionally integrates businesses that depend on foot traffic and exposure to pedestrians on the ground floor (such as … visitor-serving accommodations) LU-4.3 Mixed use development. • vibrant, economically sound, pedestrian-oriented district. LU-5.1 • limitedto structureswhich are visually appealing to beach visitors and tourists • attractive, beach-oriented visitor serving district. LU-6.1 • visitor-serving commercial recreational facilities priority, over all other types of development 39Coastal Act: Section 30222
• public services to visitor-serving land uses not be precluded by other development.40 Coastal Act:

Section 30254
• private commercial visitor-serving and recreational uses are priority over private residential development
• contribute to an attractive, beach-oriented, visual theme which enhances the quality of the recreational experience within the Coastal Zone.41b.
• special landscaping and design requirements which will provide and protect an attractive visual theme.
• Height limitations shall be more restrictive than in general commercial areas to avoid obstruction of or conflict with ocean views.
• Landscaping shall occupy a larger portion of … sites than required in other commercial districts.
• visual theme which enhances the quality of the recreational experience within the Coastal Zone. b.
• visitors provided with easily accessible visitor-serving commercial services, particularly food and lodging.
• enhances the quality of the recreational experience within the Coastal Zone. d. • Lower-Cost Visitor and Recreational Facilities. e.
39 City of Grover Beach Local Coastal Plan November 1, 1999. P.63 40 City of Grover Beach Local Coastal Plan November 1, 1999. P.64 41 City of Grover Beach Local Coastal Plan November 1, 1999, P.67 Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 99

4. THE PROJECT HAS SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECTS, INDIVIDUALLY AND CUMULATIVELY, ON COASTAL RESOURCES, CONSTITUTING A HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE. "Preservation of the state's unique coastal resources is not merely desirable, but is essential to the longterm health, wellbeing, and prosperity of California and the nation as a whole." (Coastal Act) Future climate change and sea level rise hazards will have42 disproportionate impacts on communities with the least capacity to adapt and may exacerbate existing environmental injustices. Access to cooler coastal temperatures will increasingly become a public health imperative for inland residents as average temperatures in California rise. 43
ARTICLE SIX DEVELOPMENT Section 30250 Location; existing developed area (a) New residential, commercial, or industrial development, except as otherwise provided in this division, shall be located … where it will not have significant adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources
The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to • protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, • to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas.

New development in highly scenic areas shall be subordinate to the character of its setting.

The project fails to meet the above requirements for the health, safety, and welfare of the public. Development Code 5 in the following section also applies to this Section. The project risks material injury to surrounding real property and residents, which will result in hazards to health, safety, and welfare.
42 1: 42 https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blog/CA-Public-Trust-Doctrine-for-Beaches.pd Guiding Principles | Page 12 Section 8 43 https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blog/CA-Public-Trust-Doctrine-for-Beaches.pdf Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 100

5. THE LOCATION, USE, DESIGN, AND INCOMPLETE CONDITIONS FOR THE PROJECT AS APPROVED

ARE MATERIALLY INJURIOUS TO SURROUNDING REAL PROPERTY AND RESIDENTS, WHICH WILL RESULT IN HAZARDS TO HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE.

Fact: The Coastal Act notes that preservation of … is essential for health and wellbeing of not just Californians but the nation.

Scenic views and habitat have been or will be destroyed by the project, thus threatening, per the Coastal Commission assertion above, the long-term health and wellbeing … of California and the nation as a whole.

General Plan 8.10.20 Purpose
30001. The Legislature hereby finds and declares:
(c) To promote the public safety, health, and welfare, and to protect public and private property, wildlife, and other ocean resources, and the natural environment, it is necessary to protect the ecological balance of the coastal zone and prevent its deterioration and destruction.
(d) That future developments that are carefully planned and developed consistent with the policies of this division, are essential to the economic and social well-being of the people of this state and especially to working persons employed within the coastal zone.

The appellants and the occupants of the 30 homes within 300 feet of the project are working persons employed within the coastal zone.

Staff did not make a complete analysis concerning patent and latent adverse impacts to adjoining properties in order to abide by Development Code 3.10.050 Performance Standards A.

Purpose “promote compatibility with adjoining areas and land uses.”… Staff failed to consider the cumulative impact of full build-out on nearby parcels. This is a mess waiting to happen, for neighbors and the project which will result in inverse condemnation of abutting neighbors if they also wish to utilize the zero lot-line option This would have significant impact on their value. It’s a compounding mess. There’s nowhere in the state or city housing density bonus law that provides the city or the applicant the right to impose financial hardship or inverse condemnation on neighboring properties. This appeal serves as constructive notice to the City Council of their duties to the community they serve.

3.10.050 Performance Standards
A. Purpose. This Section provides performance standards that are intended to minimize various potential operational impacts of land uses and development within the City and promote compatibility with adjoining areas and land uses.

B. Applicability. The provisions of this Section apply to all new and existing land uses, Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 101 including permanent and temporary uses in all zones, unless an exemption is specifically provided.

I. Odors. No obnoxious odor or fumes shall be emitted that are perceptible without instruments by a reasonable person at the property line of the site.

PROTECTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES FROM OVERUSE A third concern of Section 30210 is the protection of natural resources from overuse where public shoreline access is provided. Existing conditions may represent sources of conflict with this requirement in several ways.

A building of this height and the cumulative effect of 10 such buildings planned in the coastal zone, a form of overuse from which we must be protected by our city leaders.

The project blocks the privacy of neighbors, many of whom have back yards overlooked by the project, and all of whose homes are of significantly lower heights than the massive project.

There is no ‘first in line’ situation in the zoning. All are entitled to the same code. If the 3 neighboring properties build a 55’ building up to the lot line they:

1. will block project windows on the lot line,

2. trap ventilation in the project that is venting onto the neighboring properties Fact: the project is in a Moderate Liquefaction Zone – See SLO County Land Use Maps Below.

Fact: The property is located in a Tsunami Zone with a 10’ (shallowest) water table and Latest Pleistocene to Holocene dune sand, both of which are factors in liquefaction in the event of a moderate to severe earthquake as noted below in the SLO County Dataset on the property.

1. Fact: Grover Development Code Chapter 5 Clearly lays out the circumstances under which development should NOT occur due health, safety, and welfare risks in areas subject to seal level rise, tsunamis, flood, and liquefaction. This location has all 4.

The liquefaction factor is moderate, when combined with issues of sea level rise, 10’ water table, and being in a tsunami zone. Considering the other issues noted in this appeal it becomes inadvisable for the City Council to approve such a project, given the risks to inhabitants and investors, and to the city as a whole in the fairly likely occurrence of some of these geologic events.

All of the above factors are or threaten to be materially injurious to surrounding real property and residents, which will result in hazards to health, safety, and welfare.

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 102 Section 30253 Minimization of adverse impacts New development shall:

A. Purpose. This Section provides standards for setbacks requirements and exceptions to the requirements. Setback standards provide open areas around structures for: visibility and traffic safety; access to and around structures; access to natural light, ventilation, and direct sunlight; separation between potentially conflicting activities; and space for privacy, landscaping, and recreation.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN: The regulations codified in this title are adopted for the following purposes:

The project is a hazard to neighboring properties because it blocks their solar access, natural light, ventilation, and privacy.

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 103 APPENDIX 1 NOTICE OF RALPH M. BROWN ACT VIOLATION
Debra Peterson
Grover Beach, CA 93433
Tel/Text
Megan Martin
Community Development Director
City of Grover Beach
154 S. 8th St.

Grover Beach, CA 93433
September 28, 2025
Sent via email and certified mail.

Dear Ms. Martin,
City of Grover Beach Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 2025, Public Hearing: Development Application 24-54
On September 2, 2025, the Planning Commission failed to take public comment from citizens calling in via the phone-in option due to “technical difficulties”. The option was noticed in the agenda and announced by the Planning Commission Chairperson in the meeting.

The Commission therefore failed to hold an "open and public" meeting as required by Government Code Section 54953 (2) A legislative body that holds a meeting pursuant to this subdivision shall do all of the following:
(A) The legislative body shall give notice of the meeting and post agendas as otherwise required by this chapter.
(B) The legislative body shall allow members of the public to access the meeting, and the agenda shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body directly pursuant to Section 54954.3. In each instance in which notice of the time of the teleconferenced meeting is otherwise given or the agenda for the meeting is otherwise posted, the legislative body shall also give notice of the means by which members of the public may access the meeting and offer public comment. The agenda shall identify and include an opportunity for all persons to attend via a call-in option or an internet-based service option. This subparagraph shall not be construed to require the legislative body to provide a physical location from which the public may attend or comment.
(C) The legislative body shall conduct teleconference meetings in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties and the public appearing before the legislative body of a local agency.

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 104 (D) In the event of a disruption which prevents the public agency from broadcasting the meeting to members of the public using the call-in option or internet-based service option, or in the event of a disruption within the local agency’s control which prevents members of the public from offering public comments using the call-in option or internet-based service option, the body shall take no further action on items appearing on the meeting agenda until public access to the meeting via the call-in option or internet-based service option is restored.

Actions taken on agenda items during a disruption which prevents the public agency from broadcasting the meeting may be challenged pursuant to Section 54960.1. [emphasis added] I therefore demand that the Planning Commission cure and correct the failure to allow call-in comments from the public by rehearing Development Application 24-54 when the phone lines are operable and the public may participate via that option.

Sincerely,
Debra Peterson
Cc: Dan Dow, District Attorney, County of San Luis Obispo Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 105 APPENDIX 2 TRANSCRIPT OF THE GROVER BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM 2, SEPTEMBER 2, 2025
The following is a transcript of the video of the meeting at www.slow-span.org. [https://slospan.org/meeting/gbpc_20250902/]

8. CHAIR MANN I call to order the Planning Commission meeting for Tuesday, September 2nd, 2025. It is now 6:00 PM. This meeting may also be viewed on Channel 20 and is available on semi-live streaming on the city's website and on www.slow-span.org. Uh, what you see on the screen, if you are live streaming, it will be about a minute behind what is happening here in the room.

9. CHAIR MANN So, I do recommend that you call in to get the live audio. Members of the public may provide public comment during the meeting by calling 321-6639. The phone line is now open.

10. CHAIR MANN Ms. Ritano, would you please call the roll? Commissioner Hoffman?

11. COMMISSIONER HOFFMAN Here.

12. COMMISSIONER HOLDEN Commissioner Holden?

13. Here.

14. Vice Chair Swift?

15. VICE CHAIR SWIFT Here.

16. Commissioner Halvorsen?

17. COMMISSIONER HALVORSEN Here.

18. CHAIR MANN And Chairman? Here. We will now review the agenda.

It's a short one with only two items. Um, and that will be the consent agenda, which just has the minutes from the last meeting.

And then we have a public hearing for item two, which is development application 24-54. Um, there will be three opportunities for public comment.

19. CHAIR MANN And then we will move on to number two, the, uh, public hearing item. And there will be public comment for that. So, uh, do I have a motion to approve the agenda?

20. I will move to approve the agenda as written.

21. VICE CHAIR SWIFT I second.

22. Uh, this is a voice vote. Um, all in favor say aye.

23. ALL Aye.

24. CHAIR MANN So, I will open public comment. And my first speaker I have here is Ms. Peterson. Would you please come forward?

25. DEBBIE PETERSON Good evening, Chairman and, um, Planning Commissioners. I, I saw earlier today, I believe online in a statement that you read aloud three minutes’ worth of all letters received. And I wanted to commend you on that if that's in fact the case. And I'd also like to ask you to consider the following public engagement suggestions.

26. DEBBIE PETERSON Um, I'd like to ask you to seek public input through more than just one public hearing so that you can comply with and accurately assess social justice law. Consider the balance of rights. Will a development with affordable units disenfranchise Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 106 existing neighbors in affordable housing? Do developer and new occupant rights supersede the rights of existing homes to sunlight and privacy, the local coastal program, the community vision, the rights of Grover residents and visitors from all over California, the US, and the world, to the unique, increasingly rare scenic view resource or environmentally sensitive habitat?

27. DEBBIE PETERSON And if so, is justice served? The second thing is to read the ordinances and laws to make your own determination as to their intent. Consider whether it's your job to abide by staff recommendations or, as commissioners with discretionary authority, to dig deeper. Just because staff says so doesn't always make it so.

28. DEBBIE PETERSON Does your fiduciary responsibility and accountability to the public interest as individual board members and the board as a whole obligate you to oversee staff whether they like it or not? Considering the foregoing, can you make the staff's findings? Have you paid careful attention to the documents and the neighbors?

29. DEBBIE PETERSON Who do you represent? The developers from out of town, the community development department, or the community?

30. DEBBIE PETERSON Number three, if you cannot honestly make findings and you vote favoring a project, you subject the city to legal action. If staff prioritize development over the community, they may threaten that the developer or the state will force your hand.

31. DEBBIE PETERSON But ultimately, the development code is yours to interpret, and we trust you to do so. Thank you.

32. CHAIR MANN Thank you very much. Next, I have, um, Ms. Auer, Auer.

I can never remember how to pronounce your name. I'm so sorry.

Brenda?

33. BRENDA AUER It's AUER.

34. BRENDA AUER I like that. Good evening, neighbors.

35. CHAIR MANN Good evening.

36. BRENDA AUER Good evening, neighbors on TV. Um, I've had an opportunity, I was given the 2007 field study of West Grand Corridor by Mr. Ashton when he did it. He was so proud of it. I have a copy of it if any of you would like to read it. It's very fascinating.

37. BRENDA AUER It talks about things like there was, from 1998 to 2002, over $300,000 spent to do research, to talk to people about what they wanted in Grover Beach. They also predicted that by 2020, our population would be 15,000 or more. It's not. It went down. But notable on that, the community said, "We do not want any five story buildings." A lot's changed, but I don't think anyone's ever reached back out to the community to ask them.

38. BRENDA AUER I think changes have been made in this room and maybe that's time for the community to get more involved. They said two to three story buildings in our Grand Avenue corridor. Uh, they said four story buildings on 16th Street by Oak Park and at Grover, uh, Grand Avenue and 4th, but we're overlooking what the community wanted.

39. BRENDA AUER Some of these buildings are gonna block people's solar. Some of these buildings are gonna do a lot of different Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 107 things, put people in the shade that weren't in the shade before.

I've sold over 100 homes in Grover Beach, over 500 in the five cities. I sold homes at a premium to people that had ocean views from single story homes that are gonna lose that.

40. BRENDA AUER I'm told tough pachookies now, but I'm also told our private views, public views from the street should be protected. So, I'm gonna ask all of you, please go up Eighth Street, go, um, uh, down Eighth Street, stand in the middle of the street, see what views are gonna be blocked.

41. BRENDA AUER Take a look at that report and see there was a lot of money spent. I, think the report alone cost $10,000, let alone the $300,000 in research of what the community really wanted, and our community hasn't grown. One of the interesting facts it says is that! The high cost of housing and limited jobs is the reason we don't have growth in Grover Beach.

42. BRENDA AUER Well, I've been here 25 years. I've seen a lot of, "We're gonna bring in marijuana and make some money." But that didn't happen. And then I want to ask you one last thing. These developments, you said we didn't have water, we don't have water, we don't... We need money for sewer because they're spending our money on the park.

43. BRENDA AUER Who's gonna pay for these new developments? Upgrades of the sewer? Where's the water gonna come from? Um, take a look at these issues, if you would. Thank you for your time tonight.

44. CHAIR MANN Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in the room who wanted to speak, uh, for general public comment on items that are not on the agenda? Go ahead.

45. LOREN WESTPHAL Good evening, Ms. Mann. Um, Loren Westphal with Grover Beach. Um, when the guys did the development in El Camino and people put in letters that, uh, disagreed, you guys actually answered, or not you guys, but someone answered every single person that put in a letter and it was submitted in the, uh, council's package.

46. LOREN WESTPHAL The other question I have is when is the boundaries gonna be the boundaries and is it gonna set a line? Are we gonna say the boundaries are like four blocks away when we're building these high-rise developments? Also, if you guys are gonna approve this, we need better color schemes.

47. LOREN WESTPHAL I mean, this gray brown is quite boring. That's it. Thank you.

48. CHAIR MANN Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who wanted to speak, uh, on a general topic? I'm not seeing any hands in the room. Is there anyone on the line?

49. MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC FROM AUDIENCE Oh, what's, what's... I signed up for something. Which one did I sign up for? I'm in two. Could I speak?

50. CHAIR MANN We will, we will have another round of public comment for that. Thank you. Is there anyone on the line there's general public comment?

51. CLERK No.

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 108

52. CHAIR MANN All right. I will close, uh, sorry, public communication at, for the beginning.

53. CHAIR MANN Um, and I did have a prepared statement, um, as we, before we move into this. So, before we begin to our review of this project, I want to provide some context for the public in attendance and listening at home about the commission's role in reviewing this project. This project includes a state-mandated density bonus, which limits the city's discretion.

54. CHAIR MANN Under state law, the Housing Accountability Act, and the Density Bonus Law, the city cannot deny a project or reduce its density unless there is a specific, significant, direct, and unavoidable impact on public health or safety that cannot otherwise be mitigated. In accordance with the Housing Accountability Act, preferences about building height, scale, or neighborhood compatibility do not meet this legal standard.

55. CHAIR MANN What we as a commission can do tonight is review the project for compliance with adopted objective standards and consider conditions of approval to address construction impacts, safety, and design details. Our discussion will focus on the areas where the commission does have authority to shape the project and not on denying or reducing it.

56. CHAIR MANN We do appreciate the community's interest and feedback, and we will carefully consider comments that relate to objective standards and mitigation of impacts. Thank you. And with that, I will turn it over to staff. Uh, this is development application 24-54. The applicant is Empire Development and Construction, and we will hear from Senior Planner Kyle Bell.

57. COM DEV DIR MARTIN Uh, thank you. Um, I'll speak first. I'm Megan Martin, Community Development Director. [Oops,she wasn’t called upon!] Um, I just, as you noted, uh, the project is being processed under state housing law, which significantly limits, uh, city's discretion in its decision tonight. So staff's role, uh, is to present the commission with our analysis on how the project complies with the city's objective design standards, uh, and explain the required findings that your commission needs to make in order to approve the project and outline the conditions of approval recommended to address, um, construction standards, um, things related to safety, as well as design.

58. COM DEV DIR MARTIN And so, with that framework in mind, I will turn it over to Senior Planner, Mr. Kyle Bell, uh, to walk through the staff report and the details of the project.

59. SR PLANNER BELL All right. Thank you. All right. Tonight, we'll be reviewing a request for a Coastal Development permit, use permit, and vesting tentative subdivision map to allow for the construction of a five-story mixed-use development located at 261 Rockaway Avenue.

60. SR PLANNER BELL The project site is located at the western end of Rockaway Avenue, situated between a public parking lot to the west and South 3rd Street to the east. The quarter-acre property lies within the coastal visitor serving zone and falls under the West Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 109 Grand Avenue Master Plan. The site is currently vacant and undeveloped with generally level topography.

61. SR PLANNER BELL Surrounding land uses include mixed-use... Oops, hold on a second.

62. SR PLANNER BELL Surrounding land uses include mixed-use to the north, Grand Junction Commercial Center, outdoor storage to the south [and other industrial?], um, public parking to the west, and residential uses to the east.

63. SR PLANNER BELL The proposed project involves the construction of a five-story mixed-use building. The development includes 20 residential condominium units and 900 square feet of commercial space intended for visitor-serving uses such as a fitness or wellness studio. All residential units will be individually owned through a vesting tentative subdivision map, creating 21 airspace condominium parcels, including the commercial suite.

64. SR PLANNER BELL Two of the residential units will be dedicated as affordable housing for very low-income households, qualifying the project for a density bonus and one waiver under uh, the state density bonus law.

65. SR PLANNER BELL The project um, the proposed project offers a mix of smaller and mid-sized units to support a range of housing needs.

Of the 20 units, 14 units are 600 square feet or less, and six units range between 601 to 1,000 square feet. Under the city's fractional density standards, smaller units count as a half-density unit, and mid-sized units count as two-thirds of a unit.

66. SR PLANNER BELL When calculated, the total residential density amounts to just under 11 density units. By providing two very lowincome units, the project qualifies for a 46.25% density bonus under the state housing, uh, state density bonus law, which allows for the applicant to exceed the site's base density and build up to the 11 density units permitted. Additionally, the project qualifies for up to two incentives or concessions under state law.

67. SR PLANNER BELL However, none have been requested.

68. SR PLANNER BELL The project consists of a single, um, single five-story structure with, uh, uses organized vertically. The ground floor is primarily dedicated to structured parking, including three tandem spaces. Vehicle access is provided via a driveway along Rockaway Avenue with a secondary connection to the adjacent public parking lot to the west.

69. SR PLANNER BELL The second floor includes the commercial suite along the building's street frontage and four residential units with private separate access from the commercial suite. The remaining 16 residential units are located on the third, uh, through fifth floors, and each unit within the project includes a private open space by, uh, by use of a covered balcony.

70. SR PLANNER BELL The proposed project complies with all applicable objective design standards, with the exception of a single waiver requested, um, uh, related to the ground floor transparency requirement, which I'll discuss in more detail later. From a design standpoint, the building aligns with the vision of the West Grand Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 110 Avenue Master Plan, which promotes pedestrian-oriented mixed-use development along the coastal corridor.

71. SR PLANNER BELL The architectural design incorporates vertical and horizontal articulation, private balconies, and defined pedestrian entryways. while the commercial space is located on the second floor rather than the ground floor, it remains highly visible from Rockaway Avenue and is, uh, designed to accommodate visitorserving uses to provide for that fitness or wellness studio..

72. SR PLANNER BELL The building's ground floor is reserved for structured parking, allowing the project to maximize its site's usable area. The project is located within the Visual Resource Area Five of the city's, uh, local coastal program. Um, a visually sensitive area that serves as a gateway to the coast along Grand Avenue and Highway 1.

73. SR PLANNER BELL This area is noted in the LCP for its, uh, mixed architectural character, lack of cohesive theme, and visual conflicts caused by under-utilized or industrial uses near the entrance of the city beach. The proposed project will place a vacant lot... sorry, will replace a vacant lot with a five-story mixed-use building introducing a new housing, um...new housing, affordable units, and visitor-serving commercial space in a manner that supports the general plan and the City Council's goals. While subjective design standards are not enforceable under the Housing Accountability Act, the project incorporates objective design elements including articulated facades, landscaping, and pedestrianoriented design that aligns with the LCP's intent to enhance visual quality and support tourism.

74. SR PLANNER BELL Importantly, the project is not located within or adjacent to any identified coastal resource and will not obstruct the existing view corridor along Grand Avenue as it is appropriately set back from Grand Avenue and located behind an existing threestory mixed-use project. The project meets all the required findings for the Coastal Development Permit and will be referred to by the Coastal Commission preceding final action by the Planning Commission.

75. SR PLANNER BELL The proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan and the West Avenue Master Plan...

West Grand Avenue Master Plan, particularly those related to infill development, mixed-use land use, and the provision of affordable housing. The site is located within a walkable distance of neighborhood amenities, public parking, the beach, and other visitor-serving uses, making it an ideal location for higher-density housing and commercial activity.

76. SR PLANNER BELL The integration of residential and visitorserving commercial space with, uh, within a compact, vertical mixeduse format directly supports the city's goals for walkable development. The project includes two very-low-income affordable housing units, advancing the city's housing goals and contributing to a diverse range of housing options in line with the Housing Element and the Land Use Element policies.

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 111

77. SR PLANNER BELL The project complies with all applicable, development and performance standards for the visitor Coastal Visitor-Serving Zone with one exception. Under the Density Bonus Law, public agencies are required to provide density bonuses and allow incentives, concessions, or waivers when a project includes affordable housing. In this case, the applicant is not requesting any incentives or concessions but does request one waiver from the city's ground floor transparency standard.

78. SR PLANNER BELL This standard normally requires at least 40% of the ground floor, street-facing facade to be made up of transparent windows or openings. However, because the ground floor is primarily dedicated to structured parking, providing this level of transparency is not feasible without compromising the screening of the parking area. The state law mandates that the city grants such waivers unless they would cause a specific adverse impact on the public health, safety, or on the environment, or conflict with state law or federal law.

79. SR PLANNER BELL Staff has reviewed the request and concluded that the waiver will not result in any such adverse impact and remains consistent with all applicable regulations, including subdivision requirements for the condominium ownership. The proposed project is also categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and the required findings for the exemption have been provided within the resolution.

80. SR PLANNER BELL And then tonight's recommendation is to find the project consistent with the general plan and development code and approve the project as proposed subject to the findings and conditions outlined in the resolution. And I'm available for any questions.

81. CHAIR MANN Thank you very much. Uh, let me continue on my script here. Um, all right. Moving on to... At this point, the commissioners will be able to ask questions of staff, um, and then we will open the public hearing. So, uh, do any of the commissioners have questions for staff? Uh, we'll start with Commissioner Halvorsen. HALVORSEN No comments, no questions.

82. CHAIR MANN Commissioner Hoffman.

83. COMMISSIONER HOFFMAN I just wanted to, um, make sure I understand. We can comment on how it looks, correct? When the time comes.

84. SR PLANNER BELL Correct.

85. COMMISSIONER HOFFMAN Okay. No other questions.

86. CHAIR MANN Commissioner Holden?

87. COMMISSIONER HOLDEN No.

88. CHAIR MANN Vice Chair Swift?

89. VICE CHAIR SWIFT I think this is the appropriate time for my questions because they're not comments, but if you're, if they're better off the latter half, I can save them for there. Do you want me to just ask them now and see if this is the appropriate time?

90. CHAIR MANN Are they questions that staff can answer?

91. VICE CHAIR SWIFT They are questions that staff can answer that.

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 112

92. VICE CHAIR SWIFT Well, or that the, uh, the applicant can answer if the applicant is here. Um, so you gave us a whole list of things that, that we can't object to, but one of the questions that I had is that this is in a coastal visitor serving zone and the language in both the development code and the local coastal plan are pretty clear as to what's, uh, the intent of that zone.

93. VICE CHAIR SWIFT And while it claims to have 900 square feet of commercial public access space, I don't believe that's realistic.

And so, this does not look like it's properly zoned for the way this project is proposed.

94. CHAIR MANN No, no. Sorry. So, uh, do you have a question?

95. VICE CHAIR SWIFT Yeah.

96. CHAIR MANN I like that's more of you...

97. VICE CHAIR SWIFT What, uh... is this project exempt from meeting the requirements of the coastal visitor serving zone?

98. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN No. So the land use element itself identifies this property as designated as, um, visitor serving mixed use. And so, within that land use designation, combined with zoning, it allows for a mix of commercial and residential uses. Our zoning code doesn't stipulate further or prescribe further that a certain percentage or square footage of the entire development itself has to be commercial versus residential.

99. COM DEV DIR MARTIN And so, with that, whatever is proposed is typically the most that staff is able to, um, commit to a project.

But it would still be considered mixed use because there is a public serving commercial space located here. Secondly, they... Uh, the general plan, um, land use designation itself, uh, stipulates that, residential uses should be on the upper floor. The zoning code combined with that also stipulates that those residential uses should be on the upper floor. Um, this project in particular has proposed parking on the ground level for better access and for, um, uh, contributing more parking, um, or the required amount of parking pursuant to the zoning code. But that commercial space then would have otherwise taken up the required number of parking spaces, and so they elected to put it onto that second floor. Um, so with that, it is consistent with our land use element, the zoning code, and our LCP, um, do not go further to stipulate a certain prescriptive measure or objective standard that we use. But it is consistent with both the general plan as well as our zoning code in that it allows for mixed uses, and this is mixed use.
100. COMMISSIONER SWIFT: So, so without a specific quantitative value of, uh, what constitutes sufficient commercial space for mixed use, that, um, subjectivity then is left to the commission to decide if it is sufficient?
101. SR PLANNER BELL Um, I can't answer that.
102. Uh, under density bonus law, I think, I think you're a little bit restricted, but
103. SR PLANNER BELL Yeah. Under the Housing Accountability... Under the Housing Accountability Act, um, only objective standards may be applied to qualifying housing projects. So, identifying a threshold of commercial versus residential would be considered
Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 113 104. SR PLANNER BELL Yeah.
105. SR PLANNER BELL would not be enforceable under the Housing Accountability Act.
106. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN Now staff agrees that it isn't necessarily a balanced mixed use, but again, that would be subjective, where somebody might find a third of the total floor area as commercial and two thirds residential to be balanced, whereas someone else might say, "No, it needs to be 50/50." This is something that we are exploring as staff as to whether or not in a future update we want to prescribe this, because we are seeing certain mixed-use projects not contribute a, you know, what we would otherwise consider, again subjective, but a higher amount of commercial square footage. 107. VICE CHAIR SWIFT Yeah, I think the county has a specific designation of like 51% commercial, 49% residential.
108. COM DEV DIR MARTIN In some areas. Yeah, I know Cayucos, for example has a 50, 51%, um, requirement. I, I'm not sure of other areas though. But, um, you know, one thing that, um, one thing that we, you know, that we can, can consider is adding it to the list that we discussed at our last, um, public hearing, uh, during commissioner comments and director comments, is that the list that we're......
109. COM DEV DIR MARTIN keeping that says what the commission is interested in pursuing and communicating to the council is for us to explore, explore this. Um, and, uh, I think, also, one thing that, just to kind of put out on the table, Housing Accountability Act, um, defines a qualified housing project where two-thirds of that, of that project is residential.
110. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN And so just from a starting point, what we could look at as we look to potentially change that code is maybe it's a third commercial, two-thirds residential, and then we're in compliance with the Housing Accountability Act and not, you know, jeopardizing our, our, our state with the... State with the state. 111. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN Our position with the state. So, I think we were a little bit off topic and out of the agenda, but that is something that we're exploring.
112. VICE CHAIR SWIFT Okay. I'll save the rest of my comments on that specifically for, for after the public comment period. Um, it's listed as a 55-foot height building.
113. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN Mm-hmm.
114. VICE CHAIR SWIFT No place on the top of the building does it show elevator, shaft, utilities, um, uh, stairwell access to the roof.

Um, were those overlooked or are they not going to be there? 115. SR PLANNER BELL Great question.
116. SR PLANNER BELL It's not anticipated that the elevators or stairwells would exceed the maximum height at this time. 117. VICE CHAIR SWIFT So, what's the proposed maximum height, including elevators and stairwells?
118. SR PLANNER BELL The maximum height of this project is 54 feet and 7 inches, I believe, is the current proposal.
119. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN Yeah, but also the elevator does... There's no rooftop access, so there's no reason that the elevator would Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 114 necessarily need to exceed that roof because the elevator doesn't need to go higher than that final story.
120. VICE CHAIR SWIFT So, this is, so this is 55 feet plus a few inches for a hatch to get up onto the roof?
121. it should be able to be flushed with the roof. Uh, I don't see why it would protrude any higher.
122. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN So, I also think that that would be an appropriate question for the applicant is if they intend to put an elevator to the top of the roof. However, as proposed, that elevator will not access the roof. There is no elevator to the roof. There's no rooftop access for any of the users of said project. 123. VICE CHAIR SWIFT And if they were to come back in the future and want to propose something like that, they’d be subject to our development code standards. And likely, it would trigger a use permit which would require consideration by, um, by your commission if it exceeds that, I think. Is it eight feet?
124. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN But the use permit is for the mechanicals of the elevator, not the elevator itself.
125. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN The elevator to exceed the maximum allowable height more than what is allowed. So, it's under the modification to standards requirement and that, that triggers a use permit. So, we just, we just went through this with, um, with the neighboring property on Long Branch.
126. VICE CHAIR SWIFT Right, but that one, that one was only exceeding it by the, by the additional mechanicals on top of the elevator shaft that exit onto the roof. This would now be the entire elevator shaft which would exceed the height.
127. COMM DEV DIR BELL Yeah, but also this is speculative. 128. VICE CHAIR SWIFT Okay.
129. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN It's not proposed.
130. VICE CHAIR SWIFT It'd be nice to what the real height is going to be.
131. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN 54 feet 7 inches as conditioned and if they want that changed, they'll need to request a modification to standards or modify their conditions of approval.
132. VICE CHAIR SWIFT Okay.
133. VICE CHAIR SWIFT Yeah.
134. VICE CHAIR SWIFT Uh, let's see. You said they're all going to be, um, for sale units?
135. COMM DEV DIR BELL Correct.
136. VICE CHAIR SWIFT Deeded for sale units and the current STR requirements, uh, for the city would allow how many of those to actually be STRs?
137. SR PLANNER BELL Only one.
138. SR PLANNER BELL Only one.
139. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN They would also be subject to the wait list.

At this point in time right now, folks are waiting at least one to two years. So, whether they are actually successful in obtaining ... is contingent on existing STR operators maintaining their good standing as well as wanting to continue to utilize their STRs.

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 115 140. VICE CHAIR SWIFT And currently, the very low-income sale price for one-bedroom units in San Luis is $140,000 a year?
141. SR PLANNER BELL That sounds pretty close,
142. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN I'll look it up.
143. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN Yeah, we can look that up.
144. VICE CHAIR SWIFT Okay. I'll save the rest of my comments for the latter half of this.
145. CHAIR MANN Okay, and I did have a couple of clarifying questions.

Um, since this is, the zoning is Coastal Visitor-Serving, it is also in the Coastal Zone, I was gonna say, we had a little ghost exit that closet there. Um, so then we have the coastal, the Coastal Zone, which means that it has to go to another review, right? 146. CHAIR MANN Or no?
147. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN No.
148. CHAIR MANN Okay.
149. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN It is not coastal appealable. So, it is not subject to final approval by Coastal Commission as a project that is appealable would be.
150. CHAIR MANN Okay.
151. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN So, the only way that this would go to the next level would be on appeal by an aggrieved individual that would appeal to the City
152. CHAIR MANN Okay.
153. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN at which point their action would be final. 154. CHAIR MANN Okay. and then the West Grand Avenue Plan, which has overlaid the zone, does that permit more flexibility or does it restrict, like, were there not the West Grand Avenue Plan, would this still be in compliance with that Coastal Visitor-Serving? 155. SR PLANNER BELL Yes. Um, so the, the, again, the, there's a, there's a General Plan Land Use, uh, Map as well.
156. CHAIR MANN Mm-hmm.
157. SR PLANNER BELL So, the very base level of,
158. CHAIR MANN Okay.
159. SR PLANNER BELL the first one we'll look at is the General Plan.

And so, the General Plan is identified as a, a Visitor-Serving Mixed Use. And in the definition of that, uh, Land Use designation identifies dwellings as appropriate above the first floor. The zoning designation goes further in identifying other types of, uh, uses that are also appropriate for the Coastal Visitor-Serving Zone and then the Land Use, uh, the Local Coastal Program as well as the, uh, West Grand Avenue Master Plan also identify other appropriate types of designs or, uh, features associated with those types of projects.
160. SR PLANNER BELL But the, the idea of the, the Mixed-Use Project not being consistent with the actual designation of the zone wouldn't be accurate.
161. CHAIR MANN Got it. Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. Um, with the Density Bonus, um, Law, you've meant, we've, we've talked about concessions, waivers, and then there was a third, Incentives. 162. SR PLANNER BELL... Okay.
163. SR PLANNER BELL concessions and waivers.

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 116 164. CHAIR MANN So, I think maybe I'm not sure what the difference between a concession as a waiver and a waiver is. We don't have to figure it out today because it sounds like the waiver is the one thing that they're asking for, but at some point in the future, I'd like some clarity.
165. CHAIR MANN Um, and then the third question I had or fourth, wherever we, um, at the, at this time there's no residential, there's noth-, there's no one living on that property, like this is not displacing a single resident?
166. SR PLANNER BELL Correct.
167. CHAIR MANN Okay. That's all my questions. Anything else from, for staff? Okay. Let's get to the public hearing. Let me use my proper words. All right. So, the public hearing is now open. Again, if you would like to call in, let me get that phone number for you. That is 805-321-6639.
168. CHAIR MANN We will begin with the applicant, and they do not have a three-minute limit. I think it's more like 10. So, if the applicant would like to come forward, we'd love to hear from you. 169. CHAIR MANN Good evening.
170. APPLICANT evening.
171. APPLICANT Uh, my name's Fred Brillman. I live at 645 Balboa Street, Grover Beach with my wife Chrissy and our son who goes to Cuesta College. We moved here 2019 and we love this community. We have; we'll be here as far as we're concerned forever. Um, we bought this property when it became available March last year, and we designed the building that you're looking at from what we found was the applicable zoning and we of course designed it to have at least impact as we could on the neighbors.
172. APPLICANT It's built towards the parking lot and the street. The, uh, the other sides of it, if you looked only have the fencing for the parking lot. All of the balconies look out to the public areas.

They don't look at any residential homes and, uh, we do intend to have a viable commercial gym on the second floor.
173. APPLICANT It's the closest access to the elevator and the stairwell. Those people won't have the ability to go up to the other floors that are, that are members of the public that join. We've been members of many gyms and the one that we recall worked the best was a very small private one that very few people were at, you had to make an appointment online for a trainer to be there, you weren't there feeling self-conscious that a lot, 90% of the people there were, fitter or healthier than you.
174. APPLICANT Um, and that's, everyone will have an electronic fob, it'll record when they go there so that the computer will know who's in there all the time. It'll have 24-hour visibility that'll be monitored by a security company so people are safe to be in there, um, and it also will be at a reduced fee available to the occupants of the building.
175. APPLICANT Uh, any other questions you have, I'm happy to answer.

Um, there are other partners in the property. Uh, my wife and I have the majority interest and we're residents here since 2019 and proud US citizens.

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 117 176. CHAIR MANN Thank you very much. I believe, uh, let me verify, we continue with the public hearing with all of the comment and then we'll have a chance, commission will have a chance to ask questions of the applicant. Okay.
177. APPLICANT Our architect is here also.... he can tell you all of the work he's done over the last year with staff in making sure that we comply with everything, and it is as viable as possible. And we're happily providing the two affordable units, and we look forward to completing the project.
178. APPLICANT Thank you and thank you for your time.
179. CHAIR MANN Thank you. I'm sure we'll have questions for you in a little bit. Um, so we
180. CITY ATTORNEY and Chair Mann, just to,
181. CHAIR MANN Yeah.
182. CITY ATTORNEY in the past meetings that I've attended, you've asked the applicant questions at this time.
183. CHAIR MANN Okay. I couldn't remember.
184. CITY ATTORNEY There's no requirement to do that, but that's just the process that you followed in the past.
185. CHAIR MANN yeah, I think I am remembering back to a time where that meant that it kind of closed the public comment and then we had reopened it.
186. CHAIR MANN Right, so the public hearing will remain open all the way through hearing all from the public. So, you'll hear from the applicant, ask them questions, hear from the public, and then you'll close the public hearing. So,
187. CHAIR MANN Shall we stick with what we've done in the past? I don't know why I forgot that we do that. So, okay. We're gonna, we're gonna move to having, uh, the commission ask questions to the applicant. So, we may need you back up here. Um, I will begin with Commissioner Halvorsen.
188. COMMISSIONER HALVORSEN I don't have any questions. Thank you. 189. CHAIR MANN Commissioner Hoffman.
190. COMMISSIONER HOFFMAN Um, I have some comments. I... We can talk about what we look, what it looks like, uh, subjectively or just objectively.
191. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN So, you're welcome to ask him any questions that you have on the overall project itself. Where we are limited is in the findings that your commission would need to make if your commission would consider denying the project. That is where we run into some, some issues. But the focus should be on construction standards, anything safety related, and/or the overall design of the project.
192. COMMISSIONER HOFFMAN Okay.
193. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN But any, any comments, or questions that you have now are appropriate, but it's the findings for approval or denial in which we have to narrow our scope considerably. 194. COMMISSIONER HOFFMAN Okay. Thank you. Um, I appreciate what you said about that the balconies would be overlooking public areas and not facing, uh, existing residences. I do feel like the look of the building is kind of like a motel, hotel look a little bit. It's, Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 118 it's a little boxy. Um, just wanted to put that out there that maybe revisiting the design a little bit in that respect might ease more of the neighbors' feelings about it.
195. COMMISSIONER HOFFMAN Um, but, but yeah, I look forward to seeing what this gym is. Thank you
196. CHAIR MANN Commissioner Holden.
197. COMMISSIONER HOLDEN Um, I have a couple of comments, um, kind of nit-picky, probably for your architect. Um, page 34 of the maps, um, there's a general note and it says that... Number one says, "Um, all construction will conform to the City of Atascadero."
198. ARCHITECT That little crack is an error in the note. 199. COMMISSIONER HOLDEN Okay. And then number six, it also has tree removal. "Um, any tree removal would be with Paso." So, 200. COMMISSIONER HOLDEN I read all that
201. Apparently not
202. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN That'll get addressed in the Con Docs for the building permits.
203. All right. Thanks.
204. COMMISSIONER HOLDEN We can't hear him out there.
205. COMMISSIONER HOLDEN And then I, I guess
206. ARCHITECT That's Preston Jones, by way.
207. ARCHITECT Yeah, okay. Um,
208. We can't hear his comments.
209. ARCHITECT There's
210. ARCHITECT So...
211. ARCHITECT Oh, okay. Sorry.
212. CHAIR MANN If you can respond to those questions at the podium. 213. ARCHITECT I'm Preston, I drew the plans. Preston Jones, and I live in Templeton,
214. CHAIR MANN Okay.
215. ARCHITECT Can you ask your question again?
216. COMMISSIONER HOLDEN Um, you want me to ask them again? 217. ARCHITECT Yep.
218. COMMISSIONER HOLDEN Okay. On, in general notes on page 34, um, number one says, "All construction will be, will conform to the City of Atascadero." And then number six is, "Any tree removal permit will be filed with the City of Paso Robles." And then I read the unit numbers of the affordable, um, units, Um, but they're marked in, in the, as nine and 10, but I thought it was 11 and 12 or something.
219. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN I can clarify that. At the beginning, um, the project, um, the project itself included four affordable units. Um, and at the time, um, the project was drastically different. Uh, it was reduced in scale, and so now there are only two affordable units proposed, but the conceptual plans that are provided still have the four.
220. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN So when
221. COMMISSIONER HOLDEN Oh, okay.
222. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN submit for the building
223. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN All
224. COMM DEV DIR MARTINit'll only be the two.

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 119 225. Okay.
226. COMMISSIONER HOLDEN And as it was noticed, and as it was described in the staff report, it's just the two, and I believe it's... Which units? 10 and?
227. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN 15 and 20.
228. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN 15
229. COMMISSIONER HOLDEN Okay. Yeah, but 10 and nine are marked as affordable. Okay.
230. COMMISSIONER HOLDEN So, so it's just the two.
231. COMMISSIONER HOLDEN Okay.
232. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN Uh, and, um, and those will be updated as part of... Oh, apologies. It's just the two, and they'll be updated as part of the building permit and construction plan set when it's submitted.
233. COMMISSIONER HOLDEN That's all I had.
234. CHAIR MANN Okay.
235. CHAIR MANN Thanks.
236. Ms. Chair Swift.
237. VICE CHAIR SWIFT Since we're asking design questions, I think I had, uh, three design related. One of them somebody asked me over comment periods really is about color palette, and I think we talk about this quite a bit with the buildings going up is that, you know, what, what restricts your color palette?
238. VICE CHAIR SWIFT These are all very
239. VICE CHAIR SWIFT sort of benign colors, and I think seeing some brighter colors in a beach town would be nice. Um,
240. VICE CHAIR SWIFT do you feel restricted on your color choices at all?
241. ARCHITECT I think that's kind of just discretionary. It's just kind of just what the, you know, the client or developer wants, so... And I don't think there's any... I personally don't think there's anything wrong with it.
242. VICE CHAIR SWIFT Okay. Um, also the, if you look at the bedroom sizes, they're all generally very small. Um, small enough that you probably can't get a king-sized bed in those bedrooms and still have egress. And it looks like you're using full-sized appliances in the kitchen, rather than compact. And so, in designs like this especially, we would see things like this in Europe.
243. VICE CHAIR SWIFT They generally go with the smaller European appliances to reduce kitchen size and give room other places. And I just ask, uh, have you considered, uh, smaller appliances to properly scale with the unit size and take that space up in making the bedrooms enough larger that you could actually get a king bed in them?
244. ARCHITECT I think that's also kind of like discretionary or opinion 'cause from my experience, most people would rather have a smaller bedroom and have a bigger kitchen and hangout area. 245. VICE CHAIR SWIFT Yes, definitely subjective.
246. ARCHITECT Yeah.
247. VICE CHAIR SWIFT I think that was what we were, we were asking was some subjective questions. Uh, that's all I have for now.

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 120 248. CHAIR MANN Okay.
249. CHAIR MANN We'll come back to the others.
250. CHAIR MANN I had a, a few design questions as well. I personally like the palette, but I am also a graduate of the University of Minnesota. Go Gophers. Uh, so maroon and gold were my colors. But that is a subjective opinion. Um, so I notice the ceilings are nine foot. Uh, I did have a question about the storage closets. 251. CHAIR MANN It looks like each of the units will have a storage space of roughly five by five. Um, are those gonna be conditioned? So, for example, could you store a piano in it?
252. ARCHITECT I don't think you could.
253. ARCHITECT it, you can store a piano in it.
254. CHAIR MANN Are they conditioned, or like, will they be heated and cooled?
255. ARCHITECT No. No, we haven't. It's not counted towards the conditioned space.
256. CHAIR MANN So could potentially store an e-bike in it. Um, I generally make comments about parking and, and pet relief areas and things. Um, the proposed green roof, um, is there anything limiting expanding the size on that? And is, I guess, is it intended to be an area where people could sit, or is it just for, um...
257. ARCHITECT There's, uh, landscape
258. CHAIR MANN Okay.
259. ARCHITECT for this project, and, um, if we wanna delve into cost, I mean, to have a big old podium deck there, we didn't wanna have like hangout area basically looking at the neighbors' properties right there.
260. CHAIR MANN Got it.
261. CHAIR MANN And it's not intended for people to be hanging out or taking their dogs over there.
262. ARCHITECT it's a
263. CHAIR MANN just for visual.
264. ARCHITECT Yep.
265. CHAIR MANN Um, improvement. Okay.
266. ARCHITECT And meet the landscape requirement.
267. CHAIR MANN Understandable. Um, I did notice one of the, the things I did like about the units that each, uh, with this design, each of them, except for three units, has windows on two sides, which is unusual at this point in, um, in multifamily. Um, and so the units that only have windows on one side are, I think, 10, 15, and 20.
268. CHAIR MANN They're all stacked. They're on the south side of the building. And I wondered if you would consider putting... There's like a, it looks like kind of where the entryway is on the north, 'cause they're south facing, um, if you would consider putting a window there so that should one need to cross ventilate and put a box fan in to try to get a smell out or something else, it might be helpful.
269. ARCHITECT Um, I don't know if there's enough space for that. But if you did, then put an outlet underneath it so you can plug that fan in.

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 121 270. CHAIR MANN Got it.
271. CHAIR MANN Um, just a nice-to-have, having lived in a lot of different apartments. Um, did I have any other questions for you? Um, personal opinion, uh, I find walk-in closets to be kind of a waste of space, but, um, you probably know who's interested in purchasing these. So, if you think that they want a walk-in closet and that's what's gonna sell them, I respect that.
272. CHAIR MANN Um, I have no further questions for the applicant. So, with that, shall we move on to public comment? Or public, the public hearing part? We are in the public hearing. Shall we move on to the public? All right. Uh, and that was General. Here we are. The first person I have is Ms. Peterson again.
273. DEBBIE PETERSON Chairman and planning commissioners, um, I left you an updated copy, uh, that included, um, a local survey and some comments by, by neighbors of, of my general comments, so there is more in there. Um, I'd appreciate it if you'd look at that. And I, I wanted to thank the Chair for, um, explaining that we have to have specific unavoidable impacts on health to disapprove this project, and, um, I'd like to bring to your attention that the state itself has a prior act, the Coastal Act of 1976, which says, "Preservation of the state's unique coastal resources is not merely desirable, but is essential to the long-term health, wellbeing, and prosperity of California and the nation as a whole." Sounds like health to me.

Sounds like an option to me. Um, I'm curious about the subjective, the limit of, of any anything subjective, because what that really says to me as a neighbor adjoining the property is, that if there are four, three or four walkways overlooking my property, several front doors, many windows, a 2,500 square foot landscaping area, um, that butt right up to my property line, that nobody can grant any concessions?
274. DEBBIE PETERSON Um, one of the issues also is solar. They have solar. I won't have solar anymore. Anybody else who wants to have solar isn't gonna have solar because the sun's gonna be blocked. So, I'd ask you to consider the, the rights of the neighbors, preexisting neighbors, who while the, um, while the project applicants have invested a lot of money, have invested more over the years in their properties, most of which would qualify as affordable housing also.
275. DEBBIE PETERSON So, you'll be stealing from 30 residential units that are primarily affordable housing to create two. I'm going to assert again that this project is nothing more than a luxury condo development dressed up as a mixed-use with affordable housing, but in reality, it's neither. Uh, we were told that there would be permits lodged with the wrong city, but that they would be lodged. 276. DEBBIE PETERSON They may be lodged, but they weren't taken out prior to cutting down all the trees, and I can tell you that because I watched them and I sent you photographs. The trees were removed and they were, I believe, environmentally sensitive habitat. They were removed mostly, for the most part, without permits, or so I was told by the city when I, um, called to inquire about it.

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 122 277. DEBBIE PETERSON Um, my neighbors and I, I mentioned what were looked, overlooked by, staircases zigzagging up to five stories and a common area space or sunlight's impacted, our solar panels may be rendered useless, our short-term rentals and ability to work from home will suffer poor ratings and cancellations for what may be several years of construction, noise seven days a week. 278. CHAIR MANN Thank you very much, Ms. Peterson. Um, next I have, uh, Ms. Sylvia Dodd. It's your moment. And we will, if, if you ask us questions, we will not interrupt you. We will wait until, to answer those until after.
279. SYLVIA DODD Good. Can you hear me?
280. CHAIR MANN Yeah. Perfect.
281. SYLVIA DODD to bring it down a little lower. Madam, um, Chair, Commissioners, before I looked at this property, I went to look at its beforehand months ago, because you've, I follow the city and development. Of course, we have the Gary Grossmans. We have other homes being built in Grover. I'll go back, I've been a resident of Grover Beach for 30 years, under Grover City.
282. SYLVIA DODD It was a big change when it became Grover Beach. Then the community got involved and started building things that appreciated Grover Beach. Even the train station. Now, I see, I walk, I walk around town, I do walkabouts. ... I look and I see the merchants. I looked at this property specifically, drove around it, and I saw there's a security around by the Station Grill or the Station Place.
283. SYLVIA DODD They have a security truck there, so there will be security where they all share. Neighbors tend to watch neighbors, and I think this is a good development with two affordable income. I see it all around, people are leaving California. There was a comment about Grover Beach has 15,000 and never gone beyond that. 284. SYLVIA DODD Well, I see it growing and I'm excited about it because I see what it's doing to the small businesses; the hair cutters, the 7-Eleven, the little taco place, people buying things.

I actually drove into Gary Grossman's project with some parking, parking there. Those people are going to go to the new Red Garage for their haircuts.
285. SYLVIA DODD They're not gonna leave, they're not gonna leave their homes. They're gonna go to the 7-Eleven, they're gonna go to other places, they're gonna walk to the beach, they're gonna come back home. This is a different type of person that likes to live there. I live in Grover Beach. Would I live there?
286. SYLVIA DODD May... I would say yes, if it got me closer to the beach, yes. I looked at all of it, I looked at the schematics, I've looked at a lot of different projects going up. What I've seen, I drove around Grover by California Fine Wire, Sierra Body Shop, all those places, I see those neighborhoods, even though they're older homes, they're now spiffing up the property.
287. SYLVIA DODD They're landscaping, they're cleaning it up. The other thing I see is the engagement of our law enforcement is coming out to the community. That's a safety factor and that comes from Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 123 revenues from development and people buying here. I see Grover Beach along the corridor, all along Grand Avenue, it's over years. 288. SYLVIA DODD We've gone forward. Yes, we can go back and recite what something happened years ago but that's like going back to the cowboy days, "You can't hook your horse up here. You're only allowed two horses." We're not in that era anymore. Thank you very much and your time.
289. CHAIR MANN Thank you, Ms. Dodd.
290. SYLVIA DODD Hope you approve it.
291. CHAIR MANN Okay. Did we have anyone else in the room who didn't, uh, hand us a slip who'd like to speak? Please come on up and we will hear from you. You have three minutes.
292. BRENDA AUER Thank you. Again, Brenda Auer, and I just want to clarify, Grover Beach has less than 14,000 people as of the last census and the population actually went down from the previous census. Who knows if we'll ever get to 15,000? Who knows? Um, but again, they say the reason we have poor population is because we have, um, housing that's unaffordable.
293. BRENDA AUER You can blame me. I'm part of that. And we don't have jobs. And I want you all to know that I, I'm all about building, that's what, that's how I make my money, um, but I want to come back to, uh, we've seen that maybe the count, uh, the, the Development Department is not maybe guiding the applicants in a way that maybe the community would like and maybe that needs to start here with all of you.
294. BRENDA AUER Maybe we need to go back to the roots, not horse and buggy by any means, but back what the people want in Grover Beach.

And look at these higher buildings, that's not what the people want.

You hear 'em. Have you all asked your neighbors? Maybe try it. My question is, where's the water coming from?
295. BRENDA AUER I hear you're gonna try increase, the city's gonna try increase my rates again. Is that to pay for developments like this or new infrastructure? We're already paying for the sewer.

Please, ask the city who's gonna pay for the infrastructure, who's gonna pay for those new sewer lines? Because we see what's happening now.
296. BRENDA AUER Uh, uh, I don't know, have you looked at your water bill lately? Have you looked at your sewer bill? It's gone up and we seem to be paying for it. Maybe the builder should, and I know it's, it's an expense, it's huge, but there's no reason for me to use my vacation money to pay extra for water.
297. BRENDA AUER I don't think there's a reason for you either, so please look at that. Where is the water coming from? I'm gonna repeat that once more. Where's the water gonna come from? And if you're not asking that of our city and you're approving this, you could be part of that problem of why we don't have water. 298. BRENDA AUER Where's the water gonna come from? Pray y'all make the right decisions in the future and you, you think about it. Maybe a building moratorium till we figure out the answer to that question. Where's the water gonna come from? Because it doesn't matter about density. You can't, the state can't force you to build Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 124 where you don't have the water or you don't have the sewer infrastructure.
299. BRENDA AUER My take on it, just my opinion.
300. CHAIR MANN Thank you, Ms., very much, Ms. Hower. Is there anyone else in the room who wanted to speak to item two, please? 301. LOREN WESTPHAL Again, I did not plan on speaking this evening.

Um, Butterfly for Life, Curves, Blink Fitness, Fitness Connection, Bally Total Fitness, Yoga Works, InShape Health Clubs, 24 Hour Fitness, Gold's Gym, all these businesses, all these gyms all went bankrupt. A gym is not a good investment. I believe that pretty much they're saying this 'cause it's gonna end up being a, um, a lie. 302. LOREN WESTPHAL HAA does not mandate the approval of any project.

These you guys, developers are continuing to deceive us. You guys are approving stuff, and then six months from now, he's gonna come back request a waiver for an elevator. I don't see any exhaust fan vents outside the side of the houses.
303. LOREN WESTPHAL Um, I'm good with walk-in closets 'cause I do have a lot of junk. Um, 402 Grand Avenue started construction in 2024. It completed in June 2025. It's been three months. Those commercial spaces are still not ... Have been occupied. You read my next-door post? I'm good with housing, building houses, just not five uh, five stories.
304. LOREN WESTPHAL 95 of the people that ... 95% of the people that replied to my post also do not care for the five stories. Three stories, we were okay with that, but five stories is blocking people's views. It's not appealing whatsoever, especially when we're a beach town. Thank you.
305. CHAIR MANN Thank you very much. Uh, was there anyone else in the room who wanted to come forward? I feel like the gentleman has stood twice, but we'll get to you.
306. PAMELA STORTON Hi. Pamela Storton, Grover Beach resident. Um, a couple of things. On the commercial visitor serving, uh, you know, what happened at 402, uh, West Grand, there was supposed to be a deck that was for the public and that got shut down to the public.

So, will this gym happen too?
307. PAMELA STORTON This is ... You know, it feels like a bait and switch. Uh, commercial servicing or, uh, commercial visitor servicing is meant to be on the ground floor so the people that are visiting see it. So, when the developer talks about the gym being for membership and people, and ...
308. PAMELA STORTON How do those visitors get to that gym or/and know it exists, if it is a gym? Because it's in the context of the building, it's not separate, what if the HOA decides, "We're not gonna do that any longer, and that's for our ... The people that live in the building only." What recourse does the city have? 309. PAMELA STORTON So really, let's get back to commercial visitor serving and what it means, because I have a feeling this will go back to the use of the tenants only or the, or the residents only, and I don't think that's the intent of the LCP or the development code. Under, um, very low ...

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 125 310. PAMELA STORTON Are units 15 and 20 studio apartments, one-bedroom apartments, two-bedroom apartments? How many people will they serve? Um, and with all due respect, this looks like a parking garage to me. Um, I'm in real estate and its location, location, location, but come on, color, color, color, style, style, style. And, you know, uh, uh, it sounds like the developer, and the city have had plenty, many, many meetings.
311. PAMELA STORTON Why not have these meetings with the people and then see what they want and have input so they could give you this upfront instead of a hearing? I think that would've been a very wise idea for the developer and the city to have had a community meeting with the community and the people around.
312. PAMELA STORTON Okay, what do I have here? Um, Oceano has a visitor servicing zone. It's CR. 51% has to be commercial, 49% residential right down the street. We compare ourselves all the time to other communities and what they're doing. They actually have a number that they put on those in Oceano.
313. PAMELA STORTON It's just blocks away. So, I just think we're going against this commercial visitor servicing that our LCP outlines, um, for the highway uses, and I ... It feels a little bit manipulative to think that gym is really gonna service the community and the visitors. Thank you.
314. CHAIR MANN Thank you very much, Ms. Storton. Uh, yes, sir, please come forward. It's your turn.
315. BILL SOMMER Thank you. Hi. Bill Sommer.
316. BILL SOMMER... of the property owner directly across the street from the project, and my main concern is whether you have studied and have completely met the parking requirements for the building.

Um, it looks as though they are taking away part of the public parking in the city parking lot, on the street side, for access, and same thing on Rockaway, and I don't know if that has been accounted into the parking requirements or not.
317. CHAIR MANN We'll answer your questions after your time. 318. BILL SOMMER Great.
319. CHAIR MANN Okay. Was there anyone else in the room who wanted to speak? Yes, please come forward.
320. WILLIAM MORGAN Good evening, Council members. My name is William Morgan. I live in Pismo Beach, and I've lived on the Central Coast for, uh, the past 25 years. Um, so I'm here today as, uh, a member of the public and an investor in the proposed project. First, I want to thank the Council and its leadership for adopting the West Grand Avenue Master Plan.
321. WILLIAM MORGAN That plan was created with community input and a long-term vision for revitalizing this corridor, and this project is a direct reflection of that vision. I know some concerns have been raised about the building's height and views and I want to acknowledge those concerns, but I also think it's important to remember why the master plan specifically calls for higher density development along West Grand Avenue.
322. WILLIAM MORGAN We're facing a housing shortage across the Central Coast. Adding 20 new units in a location already planned for growth Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 126 is a step in the right direction. Every additional home we put here is one less person competing in an already tight housing market, and ultimately, that helps reduce housing insecurity in our community. 323. WILLIAM MORGAN This project is not just about housing; it's about investing in Grover Beach. It will bring residents who will shop at our stores, eat at our restaurants, and contribute to the local economy. It will create construction jobs in the short term and tax revenues that support our schools, parks, and essential city services for decades to come.
324. WILLIAM MORGAN The design also contributes to a more vibrant, walkable, pedestrian-friendly corridor. Instead of under-utilized lots or sprawling... sprawl pushed into open space, we are creating compact, sustainable growth in exactly the area the City has designated for it. Yes, there are trade-offs, but if Grover Beach is to thrive, we need to follow through on the thoughtful planning that has already been done.
325. WILLIAM MORGAN This project represents that future, one where housing, economic growth and community vibrancy go hand-in-hand. I urge you to support the project. It is a positive step for the City of Grover Beach. Thank you.
326. CHAIR MANN Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in the room who wanted to speak to item two? Please come forward.
327. JOSE NAJARRO Hi, my name is Jose. And, uh, I'd like to speak on the aesthetics of it. Um, I had asked there were gonna be any windows on my side, and I'm looking at, I think, I believe this is my side? Right there?
328. APPLICANT Not the interior.
329. JOSE NAJARRO That's not it? That's gonna be facing... Where's your residence? Uh, I'm at 277 Rockaway. So, you are... You'd On that side?
330. APPLICANT No.
331. APPLICANT Yeah, and that's Rockaway.
332. JOSE NAJARRO doesn't, it doesn't sound correct.
333. APPLICANT Well, it depends on where in Rockaway.
334. JOSE NAJARRO I don't believe that's correct.
335. APPLICANT This is Rockaway.
336. JOSE NAJARRO Facing State Park?
337. SR PLANNER BELL Yes.
338. JOSE NAJARRO Oh, that's Rockaway? This
339. SR PLANNER BELL This is the city parking lot.
340. SR PLANNER BELL You're right here. And your property would be right there.
341. JOSE NAJARRO right... What, who's right there?
342. SR PLANNER BELL I don't know, it's property.
343. SR PLANNER BELL He's right here.
344. CHAIR MANN Perhaps a map.
345. SR PLANNER BELL You're here. Right here.
346. JOSE NAJARRO To the side of it.
347. SR PLANNER BELL Right. He's right here, this is the brown, this is the brown corner. Right here is where he's at. Yeah. That's the brown corner.

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 127 348. JOSE NAJARRO Okay. So, I now have walkways on that side? 349. JOSE NAJARRO What's that?
350. JOSE NAJARRO So, there's walkways now on that side? 351. Uh, yeah.
352. JOSE NAJARRO Um, also the aesthetics of
353. CHAIR MANN Could, you do have three minutes, um, and we would like to hear your opinions.
354. JOSE NAJARRO Well, I'd like to maybe, if you guys could see the, a change in maybe the aesthetics or, you know, what it's doing to the neighbors' views and stuff like that also. I'd appreciate it.

Thank you.
355. CHAIR MANN Thank you very much. Anyone else in the room who wanted to speak on item two? Seeing no hands, I will invite... Is there anyone online who wanted to, who has called in to speak? 356. CLERK Yes. We have two callers. Um, the first one is Yu Ming. 357. CHAIR MANN Yu Ming, can you hear me? We're ready for your comment.
358. CHAIR MANN Hello?
359. CHAIR MANN Hello, Yu Ming? We can maybe move on to the next person, we'll come back to Yu Ming in case, uh, they are coming back. Would that be okay? All right.
360. CLERK The next one's Krista Jeffries.
361. CHAIR MANN Krista, we're ready to hear your comment. 362. CHAIR MANN We could be having a problem with call-in. 363. CHAIR MANN We may be having a problem. Okay. Um, so what would be the appropriate thing to do? Shall we reopen public comment in a little bit and see if that resolves? Like move on and then come back to it?
364. CLERK Um, I can log out of call-in and try to log back in. Um, and then we can try that, but I'm not sure why it's not working. 365. CHAIR MANN Okay.
366. CLERK Chair Mann, I, I might suggest we could take a five minute 367. CLERK take a quick recess.
368. CLERK ... and see if we can reset and then come back to the phone lines.
369. CHAIR MANN I will close us to take a five-minute recess. We will resume at, um, well, let's say 7:15. It's 7:00, almost 7:09 here. 370. CHAIR MANN I'm gonna reopen the meeting. Um, so uh, apologies to the folks who tried to call in. Thank you for the effort. We will, uh, hopefully be figuring this out quickly, uh, after this meeting.

So, um, we will continue the public hearing if there's anyone remaining in the room. We are not able to hear from the folks online.
371. CHAIR MANN Uh, so at this moment I can close the public hearing.

And we move on to instead of commission asking staff, talking amongst ourselves. Um, so I will begin with, uh,
372. COMMISSIONER HALVORSEN Well, are we going to respond to questions that have come up in the public hearing?
373. CHAIR MANN Uh, yes, we can, we can do that in this... Should we do that before we talk to each other?
374. COMMISSIONER HALVORSEN I think so.

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 128 375. CHAIR MANN Okay, let's look at questions. Um, I think each of us probably captured different things, so.
376. SR PLANNER BELL Probably so. So, I'll take a, a swing 377. SR PLANNER BELL Take a stab.
378. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN... some of the other ones. So, we've heard a few times about the trees that were removed from the property without permits. Um, I, I'm wondering, in my ignorance, I'd never...

Well, I have removed a few trees from my property. Actually, it was in the public right of way, and I didn't get a permit.
379. COMMISSIONER HALVORSEN are permits required to remove trees in the city?
380. COMM DEV DIR BELL No, permit’s not required. You are required to obtain what's known as an encroachment permit if it's in the rightof-way and/or if you're doing any work within the right-of-way. An encroachment permit was obtained here as it relates to the removal of the trees themselves. As it relates to the removal of the trees themselves, um, so the, um, the tree removal did begin without, uh, the city's permission.
381. COMM DEV DIR BELL However, uh, we stopped work immediately once we received the complaint. We requested a nesting bird survey, a monarch butterfly survey, and a complete bio survey was done. There were no findings of any sensitive or endangered species on the property. The trees were then able to be removed with the approval of the encroachment permit.
382. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN And a CDP was not required as the removal of the trees did not pose any, based on the surveys that we received, did not pose a significant, um, threat or impact to any endangered species or habitat.
383. COMMISSIONER HALVORSEN Very complete answer, thank you. The, uh, the water source, of course, is a subject that's come up many times in the past and I know we have lots of regulations and guidelines that tell us when, uh, for instance we have to put a, a embargo on new construction. So, could you enlighten us once again? 384. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN Uh, sure. So, starting with the development application itself and each project that comes under our review and analysis. So, um, mixed-use projects such as these require a water demand analysis as well as a wastewater, um, demand analysis. And, um, based on Public Works' review of those, of those, um, of those studies, uh, the project is in compliance with current, um, current supply versus demand.
385. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN Um, now citywide as a whole, uh, based on current conditions, there are there is sufficient water supply, um, projected to be available over the next few years. Uh, to meet said demand, the city will need to increase future supply, um, given our long-term needs. Um, I think some of the other questions that were asked were whether or not, um, the rate increases, um, will be, you know, that residents will be subject to whether or not they're then offsetting, um, the improvements that are made.
386. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN However, this is a common misconception. Rate increases may only account for existing deficiencies. So, if you're a current resident, any rate increases that are applied to you, um, Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 129 and/or any other current resident of the city or property owner of the city can only address existing deficiencies in the system. 387. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN developers are required to pay what's known as a development impact fee. A common acronym is known as DIF, and those impact fees goes, ... goes go towards, excuse me, water, wastewater, storm water, traffic, et cetera, um, and those fees are due prior to occupancy. So, this project will be subject to those DIFs or development impact fees and will address any necessary system upgrades, um, in the right of way and/or in the system itself relating to water and wastewater.
388. COMMISSIONER HALVORSEN Okay. Another complete answer, thank you.

Um, the next one I had noted is, well, I, guess, in general, you know, uh, there's a lot of concern about the five story building, and, um, we haven't had five story buildings because the, the, uh, mixed commercial use, uh, usually resulted in a higher, uh, first floor, uh, ceiling height which, took away the opportunity to have a fifth floor.
389. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN In this one, um, it's more of a standard height 'cause it's just a garage, uh, and so the opportunity now has presented itself to, to add a fifth floor. Um, so I guess the question that maybe some people would have is, how did the development code for this zone get to be a 55-foot-high max which, uh, if anybody had done the math at the time would've said, "Well, we ...
390. COMMISSIONER HALVORSEN Somebody could build a five-story building."
391. SR PLANNER BELL Uh, yes, and the, uh, development code was updated in 2020 to 2022, I believe. Uh, that was the last time the, the code was updated other than the one we're currently working on.

Uh, during that code update, that was when the objective design standards were created, um, and there was a, there was public involvement with that process.
392. SR PLANNER BELL I was not around, so was not... can't speak to it directly. Um, however, the, uh, the maximum height was increased through that process as part of the, um, the zoning code, uh, development code update. And so, the, uh, chapter, uh, two which included the design standards associated with this commercial development were amended to reflect what we have today. 393. SR PLANNER BELL And so that's, uh, that's the story of how we got to the current code requirements, um, and, uh, unfortunately I don't I know there was a lot of public involvement during that process, but I can't speak to it directly.
394. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN Well, I think just to, to add on one additional statement is that that additional, um, that additional story, um, you know, that additional story or that additional height takes into consideration that, um, the city recognized the need for more housing within the community, but also at the statewide level. 395. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN I mean, that's when everything kind of started to come down the pipeline as increase density, increase density. Uh, and so that 55 feet provided that opportunity as you indicated to have that commercial ground floor while also allowing Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 130 for that upper level residential and that additional, um, area provided for the additional units that could be accounted for under that density that was, um, envisioned, so.
396. COMMISSIONER HALVORSEN Okay, so but I guess it's, it's clear, I've, I was being a little facetious about nobody doing the math.

I'm assuming the city council when they passed this was aware of, uh, of, uh, what 55 feet would, would entail or give the opportunity for. Um, so anyway, it wasn't part of, um, you know, we don't make Unfortunately the planning commission doesn't get to make policy. 397. COMMISSIONER HALVORSEN We don't get to create code, building code, um, we just get to try to interpret it. So that's the end of that. Uh, parking limits, um, again, I, any of you have been to the meetings before, you know I'm a, I'm a spokesperson for having adequate parking and, uh, also as a critic of the state for taking that, that, uh, control away from us, the cities.
398. COMMISSIONER HALVORSEN Um, so the state pretty much dictates how much parking is required for a development, and, um, this one meets the requirement, um, so there's not much to talk about there. Um, and the stairway overlooking the residence, um, I guess if there was a weak point to, um, to the design as far as, um, impinging on the surrounding existing residences, that's, that, um, be the southeast corner there where there's, uh, hello, there's, um, the stairway, the, the walkway that, that serves, I guess, the, uh, the doors, um, to those, those four units on the end. AND TO ALL THE OTHER RESIDENCES TO THE NORTH AND AROUND.
399. COMMISSIONER HALVORSEN Um, I, I just wonder if there's anything that can be done to, um, I don't know, afford a little more privacy for, uh, the people on that side of the building. Um, and then my other related question is the... It came to me when he was, when we were commenting about that, the, um, uh, I think the last meeting or the meeting before, we talked about the opacity requirements for, for, uh, balconies and for, uh, roof decks and what have you. 400. COMMISSIONER HALVORSEN Uh, is there an opacity standard that should be applied here?
401. SR PLANNER BELL Uh, yes, it's part of the conditions of approval. 402. COMMISSIONER HALVORSEN 'Cause it looks like there's... It looks like it's clear glass, maybe that's
403. SR PLANNER BELL I, I
404. COMMISSIONER HALVORSEN the rendering is
405. SR PLANNER BELL Yeah.
406. COMMISSIONER HALVORSEN... accurate
407. SR PLANNER BELL I didn't require them to update the project design, uh, so that you could see the project as proposed. However, the condition does... was included with the final conditions so that, that when we get the construction documents, the opaque design will be included Okay, so it's gonna be a, a standard height, uh, wall of some kind that, that provides the pedestrian safety, uh, and 408. SR PLANNER BELL Yes.
409. COMMISSIONER HALVORSEN and the opacity requirement. 410. SR PLANNER BELL Correct.

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 131 411. COMMISSIONER HALVORSEN Okay. So that helps a little bit as far as the, the privacy issue. All right, thank you. That's all the things I had.
412. CHAIR MANN Okay. Uh, Commissioner Hoffman.
413. COMMISSIONER HOFFMAN I had a question. Are there protections for resident, existing residents in relation to their solar on their roof if this building were to overshadow their solar panels? 414. SR PLANNER BELL Uh, yes, it's, um... There is some protections in place. It's mostly a civil matter. Uh, however, um, the project has been designed with that in mind. Uh, you can tell the, the massing is oriented further away from the adjacent single-family residence to the east, um, that provides, uh, some, um, leeway from solar. 415. SR PLANNER BELL Uh, however, the, uh, the solar... 'Cause this project is east to west along Grand Avenue, that's where the sun rises and sets, um, so the, the shading will, um, will have a minimal impact. Uh, we do have a solar study, our website that offers a solar study that we took a look at, and it doesn't seem to be a, a significant impact.
416. COMMISSIONER HOFFMAN Thank you Uh, and then my next question might be for the applicant. I was wondering, so a building like this with this many units is required to have an HOA. That's correct, right?
417. SR PLANNER BELL Correct.
418. COMMISSIONER HOFFMAN And so, would the commercial unit fall under that HOA, or would they be outside of that?
419. SR PLANNER BELL Yeah. There would be separate... Uh, CC&Rs required for the commercial as part of one CC&R package. Um, and, uh, and I can also speak to the, um... If the gym was ever to be only used for the residences, that'd be a violation of the, of the project approval and would be subject to code enforcement. 420. COMMISSIONER HOFFMAN So, uh, keeping it open to the public would keep the project consistent with land use requirements and, uh, and would not subject it to further code enforcement.
421. COMMISSIONER HOFFMAN Okay. Thank you.
422. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN Yeah, so, so I just want to reiterate just so everybody understands. So, the commercial component of this is what makes the project mixed-use. Again, we discussed earlier what is the threshold for what we all believe to be mixed-use versus what it actually is. And looking at other cities, um, to provide a comparison as to what we, we could look to prescribe in the future. 423. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN But if the project were to have the commercial space be solely for use by the residents, then this would no longer be considered a mixed-use project. It would be considered a single residential, mixed use, uh, multi-unit attached development, therefore would be non-compliant with its conditions of approval as a mixed-use development.
424. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN And so, they would then be subject to code compliance, and they would have to open that up for the public. So there, the question was asked earlier, what's the recourse if this closes to the public and it becomes a private gym? That would not Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 132 necessarily present itself because then it would no longer be a mixed-use project itself and then it would be out of compliance. 425. VICE CHAIR SWIFT We're going to belabor this point some more when it's my turn.
426. CHAIR MANN That's okay.
427. VICE CHAIR SWIFT Okay. Fine.
428. CHAIR MANN It's your turn.
429. VICE CHAIR SWIFT It's not.
430. CHAIR MANN Oh, it's not. Sorry.
431. CHAIR MANN uh...
432. CHAIR MANN Commissioner Holden's turn.
433. CHAIR MANN I... Yeah. Take it over.
434. CHAIR MANN Vice Chair Swift, I will call on you. You're... I see you're chomping.
435. VICE CHAIR SWIFT I'm going, I'm going to belabor that point.

Audio recording on And I'm going to belabor that point with, with a reading of the development Is now joining.
436. CHAIR MANN Looks like the technology is back.
437. VICE CHAIR SWIFT So, so in chapter two of our development code, “purpose of commercial zones, coastal visitor serving zone,” which this is, “zone applies to areas of the city appropriate for pedestrian-oriented commercial development near the beachfront and encourages active evening uses and street life. Appropriate uses include lodging, restaurants, recreational use, and retail and commercial services primarily for convenience of visitors.” 438. VICE CHAIR SWIFT That same language is reflected in the in the LCP. And that same language, I think, is reflected in the West Grand master plan. And, and even to the applicant's own claim, this will be a members... Uh, a membership-required rec facility, which says right there that it is not a visitor serving commercial use. 439. VICE CHAIR SWIFT So, this is not a visitor serving commercial use in what is supposed to be a mixed-use development in coastal visitor serving.
440. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN It is a commercial development. It's a gym that would be open to the public, but that public would be membership serving. So, our ability to dictate how that commercial space operates is a little bit out of our purview. Um, I, I 441. VICE CHAIR SWIFT says right here, services primarily for the convenience of visitors.
442. VICE CHAIR SWIFT I
443. VICE CHAIR SWIFT In the
444. SR PLANNER BELL I would like to add that gym is just currently foreseen as the, the
445. SR PLANNER BELL As
446. SR PLANNER BELL ... tenant. It is a shell space, so any potential commercial suite that's appropriate with the CVS zone may occupy this space. We don't... We do not know at this time.
447. VICE CHAIR SWIFT And, and so will the, will the conditions of use be written such that that 900 square feet will be a public, open-tothe-public access commercial use facility? 448. SR PLANNER BELL Correct.

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 133 449. VICE CHAIR SWIFT I'm getting a skeptical look from your sidekick there.
450. SR PLANNER BELL So, it again, as, as I mentioned earlier, um, the public component is required for it to qualify as mixed-use project.

So, the, uh, the project itself, whether it's spelled out in the conditions, would need to provide for that public, uh, use. 451. SR PLANNER BELL Well, and if I can just provide a comparison.

There are certain membership only clubs and bars and wineries that the only way to get in is through membership. Costco being one of them.
452. COMMISSIONER SWIFT But are they in a zone that requires visitorserving services? 453. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN not necessarily. I'm just giving you an example of membership only spaces that are still potentially visitor serving. So, are they locked into a gym? No. The market will dictate what actually goes into that space, but they will be required to be public. Our definition of public may also need to include a form of membership if that's how they choose to model that space that they own. But it has to be open to the public, yes. Whether it's membership based or not is not for us to dictate. No, I think it's whether it's visitor serving or not. Visitor serving is the key operator here even in the LCP. Visitor serving, and that is 454. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN Visitor... Visitor could be resident, visitor could be transient, visitor could be a tourist, visitor could be a, a city employee. I mean, visitor has a broad definition. 455. VICE CHAIR SWIFT So, this?
456. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN But I would look to our attorney as to whether or not there is an issue with the definition of visitor serving here. Our analysis is that it's consistent with the land use element as well as, um, the rest of the general plan, the LCP, as well as our zoning code.
457. VICE CHAIR SWIFT They all really stress that it's for visitor serving.
458. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN I guess I would just add that, um, visitors could also potentially be members. I don't think that that's necessarily precluded. I don't have the level of detail of knowledge of all of the different code language to be able to provide an analysis of what exactly visitor serving means, but I would say that a visitor could potentially be a member depending on how the membership is structured. Now converting that open space in the middle to multi-level parking garage, that would be visitor serving. 459. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN So, if your commission finds that you would like to condition the project specifically to, say, public visitor serving, we can add that condition of approval with the understanding that any use under CVS zone would be allowed to go in there with a business license, potentially some with a use permit that would be subject to planning commission review and approval. 460. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN We can add that. It's kind of systematically already built into the conditions itself because the approved project is mixed use which allows for, um, the uses that are proposed. So, the intention is a gym, but whether it's actually a Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 134 gym or not will be dictated by the market and we can draft up some language if that makes you feel more comfortable.
461. VICE CHAIR SWIFT I want to make sure it stays as a visitor serving space consistent with the
462. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN So, all uses under the CVS zone are considered visitor serving. So, if the CVS zone in chapter two provides for a gym, whether it's membership or not, that's an allowable use within the CVS zone, we would allow it with a BTC, a business tax certificate.
463. VICE CHAIR SWIFT So, I guess I just... I apply far more, um, weight to these services primarily for the convenience of visitors, meaning not the residents of
464. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN Well, you should apply Chapter Two's allowable uses under the CVS Zone to see what's allowed. What's allowed is a permitted by right use versus what would be provided for as a use permit subject to planning commission review and approval. If it's listed under Chapter Two's allowable uses in the CVS Zone, then it's technically unallowable and considered coastal visitor serving use.
465. VICE CHAIR SWIFT Okay. Uh, parking. Somebody asked the question about how many parking spaces were removed from Rockaway and from the public parking structure to make this, uh, possible. 466. SR PLANNER BELL Um, yeah, I don't have a number in front of me but, uh, the, um... Due to the traffic study that was conducted, the frontage along, um, Rockaway is required to be red curbed and so there will be no longer any front street parking along Rockaway. Um, and I believe at least, uh, three spaces were removed from the city's parking lot.
467. SR PLANNER BELL Uh, we did review this with the public works director, and he did not require replacement parking at this time. 468. VICE CHAIR SWIFT So how does that work? If a... If a facility is required to carry a certain amount of parking and in the process of creating that parking, they remove other parking, why is that not a ding against the project for removing parking?
469. SR PLANNER BELL There's currently no code requirement for replacement parking, uh, along the street frontage or within the city parking lots. Uh, if there was, we would definitely, uh, be applying it. Uh, certainly could be considered through conditions of approval to look at that, um, and, uh... And yeah, so we will be... 470. SR PLANNER BELL As part of the project process, we will be conducting a shared easement agreement with the developer with that parking lot to indicate access and requirements and any further improvements that are necessary along that frontage.
471. VICE CHAIR SWIFT Okay, I'm not done belaboring yet. Go on. You have the floor. Um, let's see. Yeah, so... So, I think... I think we belabored that point although I do want to touch back on, on what one of the question... one of the people, uh, commenters said is that when 402 Grand was, uh, was sold to this commission it was sold with a public access roof deck and by the time it was commissioned it was no longer a public access roof deck.

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 135 472. VICE CHAIR SWIFT So, so we already have a precedent of one that took away a originally advertised public access space.
473. SR PLANNER BELL I'm not familiar with the approval process of that project. Uh, however we've already indicated that the public requirements for access to that gym is going to be a component of the project.
474. VICE CHAIR SWIFT Okay. Um, and when will we get an answer on final roof height from the applicant as to whether they think they need something more than the flat roof that's drawn?
475. VICE CHAIR BELL The next stage of the project is to submit for construction documents where we will review the project's consistency with building code. Uh, as part of the process if amendments are needed to the elevator shaft, we will review it at that time. The, uh, the elevator shaft in this project offers more room than the previous one you've seen, uh, so there are other alternatives for elevator styles and designs that this project may be able to accommodate without having to go any taller. 476. SR PLANNER BELL So, we will, um, I can also defer that question to the architects of the project if you would like a more specific answer for the elevator access. It would be nice to know sooner than later.
477. VICE CHAIR SWIFT Um Mm-hmm. I, I think on the aesthetics, I think we touched on that a, a couple of times, and I will just say generally the aesthetics of buildings we're getting in town right now, um, for lack of a better description, looks like all the architects graduated from a Soviet architect school in 1992. 478. VICE CHAIR SWIFT You know, they're all, they're all very 479. VICE CHAIR SWIFT '60s, '70s, you know, block industrial-looking buildings, and how do we, how do we do something to encourage more creative looks to these? I know we, I know we had things that, you know, undulated the facades a little bit, but it seems like whatever is in our objective design standards is producing industrial looking buildings.
480. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN We're getting the opposite feedback from developers. They find it very flexible. I think the issue here is that Grover Beach needs to find its brand and find its identity, similar to Avila Beach, similar to Morro Bay, similar to downtown San Luis Obispo, similar to The Village in AG. We need to find our identity and our brand. And when we can do that, we can apply an additional standard to our objective designs to say, "Within one of these three types of architectural styles, this is what we'd like it to be." but until we do that, uh, and you know, we, we ... 481. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN In the event that your commission wanted to look at this, we have the objective design standards checklist that show just the variety of items that architects and property owners can choose from, um, but we're getting the opposite from the development community. They find that it's very variable, they have a lot of options, but at the end of the day, they own the property. 482. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN It is their decision what they want to present to the commission. And so I do want to bring it back to your commission's authority this evening, is that if the design is as the Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 136 community has suggested, they'd like to see something more, if your commission, which you've indicated that you'd like to see something more from the design, again, you cannot outright deny the project because of the design, but you can ask the direct staff to work with the applicant to come back with an alternative that shows a different style.
483. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN The caveat there is, is that, again, full circle back to the Housing Accountability Act as well as State Density Bonus Law, we cannot deny the project because of its design.

And if it is not economically feasible to make the changes that they are looking to see, that you're looking to see and the community is looking to see, they are not mandated to redesign the project under the act.
484. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN So, you know, I think it's just, it's, it's twofold. It's we need an identity and a brand that we can all come together as one on, that then can help developers when they come here, present something that the community knows without a shadow of a doubt that they're going to like, hide aside.
485. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN Um, and then secondly, if your commission wants to see more as it relates to the design, that is something that we can talk about during your deliberations and how you'd like to move it forward.
486. VICE CHAIR SWIFT Okay. Uh, let's see, we talked about the rooftop solar. It sounds like if they're shadowing, you've basically set up a civil action between neighboring rooftop solars and the project.

It's not something that can be addressed at the time of building. 487. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN No, but I do, I do want to, I do want to clarify, um, just on the record. So, when this was brought up, um, we, we took a look at some free online, um, software and mapping that shows during summer and winter solstice, because this property is essentially east-west, you have a direct line of the sun traveling across.
488. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN Um, this would likely have an impact to solar on the immediately adjacent residents, um, I think that individual is here this evening, should they wish to pursue solar. Um, but the actual impacts to that, I would say staff would need to do additional research, but it isn't something under CEQA that we can say that ...
489. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN significant or adverse impact that would require us to deny the project or make a finding to deny the project. It's also not a standard in our development code, um, that would lend us to condition it in any way, or to, again, deny it because it's, it's not a current standard within our code. 490. VICE CHAIR SWIFT there is, state language that, that doesn't allow you to shadow somebody's, uh, solar voltaic system and I'm wondering how that comes to play. Is that something that we should have, should be under CEQA or isn't under CEQA and, uh, and isn't part of the project review at all?
491. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN Uh, it's not under CEQA to my knowledge, but I would have to do more research into the building code or state code requirements. Maybe it's a Title 24. Um, I can, I can reach out Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 137 to our building official to ask, but I don't have that answer for you. But it was something that we looked at and it showed that there would not be an impact to any immediate residents except for potentially the resident that's just next door, but only, um, only in the late evening hours when solar panels aren't necessarily, uh, collecting that energy same as they would midday.
492. VICE CHAIR SWIFT Yeah. Is it a, is it a five to six o'clock in the summer or uh, I guess it'd be nice to have that answer, so who can do that analysis for us?
493. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN Which analysis? That
494. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN Just,
495. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN... the shadow?
496. VICE CHAIR MARTIN The, well, that shows that there is not a shadowing issue with any adjacent residential properties that would either damage an existing system or preclude a future system. 497. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN Sure. If you'd like to take a look at that, we have that ready for you on, on, um, on the computer. So, what we did is we showed, we provide, we provide inputs into, I believe it's called Shadow Map, Shadow Land, Shadow Map. I forget the name of it now, but no, that's the checklist.
498. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN It's the next tab over.
499. SR PLANNER BELL Yeah. I'm trying to get my mouse there. 500. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN It's... So, the black line denotes the shadow that it would make. This is December 21st, 2025, so winter solstice.

So, if up on the top...
501. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN Okay, this hard to see.
502. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN Yeah, up on the top.
503. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN What does that tell you?
504. VICE CHAIR SWIFT Oh, wow.
505. How plot?
506. so, you have to go up to the top.
507. SR PLANNER BELL I'm trying to get my mouse there. Um, can just and drag.
508. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN So, along the top, along the top line you'll see that there's time. So, it's from the evening, it's, it shows a 24-hour clock calendar. So, the date itself is December 21st. I don't know why it's not working. Can you give him complete control or are you able to control it?
509. It's got control. Do see...
510. There. Shh, She's gonna shh. gonna shh. Okay. see the wall. 511. Can I see?
512. Let's see here. There we go.
513. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN There it is. So here, so what we do is we take a look at how the shadow will impact, will impact at different times of day. So again, the black line denotes the shadow. This is during the winter solstice, so the shadow, uh, but this is not to say that the shadow actually extends as far as the black line does, but it shows the path of it.
514. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN And then if we change the date to June 21st, 2025, it shows summer solstice and essentially shows that along that 180-degree, 90 degree, um, axis.

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 138 515. VICE CHAIR SWIFT So, it looks like, looks like it... 516. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN So again, the black denotes that shade. 517. VICE CHAIR SWIFT so that's summer. So, in the summertime, go ahead and swing it through its arc again.
518. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN Mm-hmm.
519. VICE CHAIR SWIFT Okay, so the summer, the summertime, it looks like you don't cast shadows onto the adjacent... Uh, yeah, that's a sun, that's sunset right there.
520. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN Yeah. So, so
521. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN Yeah.
522. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN we found is that it is not anything that would be as a significant impact. Um, but, um,
523. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN these are the tools that we have available to us. Otherwise, um, what, um, other jurisdictions often require, uh, again, I know, um, I believe it's either Pismo as well as the county or just the county. Um, will sometimes require that, um, a 3D rendering showing shadowing is provided to show that there is no impact to neighboring properties.
524. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN But we don't have that within our code. 525. VICE CHAIR SWIFT And, and if it is a problem, the suit ends up being between the affected party and the building owner. 526. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN Correct. Correct.
527. VICE CHAIR SWIFT Okay. Not the, not the city?
528. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN No.
529. VICE CHAIR SWIFT Okay. Uh,
530. VICE CHAIR SWIFT I'm done.
531. CHAIR MANN Okay. Um, I do recall that someone had a question about the very, what does very low income mean in terms of these.

And I, I have my little chart here, so I'm happy to, um, explain.

So, um, what I can see in the project is that the two, uh, units that are, uh, designated as very low income are one bedroom, 600 square foot, um, and those are on like the fourth and fifth floors it looks like, right?
532. CHAIR MANN Um, so this is the 2025, April 2025 table. This is available if you google income limits housing, um, California. Every year the state updates these numbers and you go, and you find San Luis Obispo County and then it will tell you, um, based on, so the kind of basic base number is for a family of four, looking at the median income of a family of four and then low income is considered 80% of that.
533. CHAIR MANN Uh, very low income I believe is 50%. Extremely low income is 30% and then acutely low is 15% of that. For a family of four this year, the median income was $125,600 so we're looking at one bedroom, think it's maybe one to two people there, right? AndAh, the attorney will halt me if I'm overstepping my information, right?
534. CHAIR MANN Um, so for very low income, for a single person, that would be someone making between $29,200 a year and $48,650. Just as a point of reference, in Lucia Mar, staff are making ... The staff of Lucia Mar schools, uh, not the teachers, but other staff would Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 139 be, you know, the kind of people that would qualify for this kind of thing.
535. CHAIR MANN Uh, for a two-person household, those numbers are between $33,400 and $55,600. So, if you just think about someone making, for the, for the math, um, uh, $48,000 a year who would qualify, uh, to be eligible to purchase one of these homes, right? 'Cause they're for purchase. Um, that's someone bringing home $4,000 a month, um, and then an affordable home would be, I think, around If you look at 30% would be, what, $1,200 a month?
536. It's in there we're ballparking this,
537. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN Yeah, $12 to $1,300 for rent, um, and I think the sale price was $140,000. Is, $140,000.
538. CHAIR MANN They, you know ... In the construction, uh, I mean, the, the market rates are subsidizing being it ... Because the, the cost of construction for a one bedroom is more than $140,000. Um, I don't know what it is in this case. That's not really our purview, but um, the market rate units end up subsidizing those affordable homes.
539. CHAIR MANN Um, but I wanted to remember who these people who are in that bracket are. And these are people like our home health aides and our house cleaners and people working at our schools and maybe some people working here at city hall, you know? Some of our city staff, maintenance workers, people that we need in our community who are getting pushed out.
540. CHAIR MANN Currently, uh, I try to take a look at rents. I ... In Grover Beach, the least expensive apartment I could find was $1,700 a month. Um, I have neighbors that just last night were working on moving out. They're being evicted.
541. CHAIR MANN I'll close my comments here. Anything else from anyone?
542. CHAIR MANN All right, uh, so, uh, are there any conditions, uh, pursuant to the things we discussed that anyone wants to add to the, uh, what is it? The resolution that we have in terms of the ... Or do we feel that the, um, the rest of the code and the review and in the building permit will cover that visitor serving use? 543. COMMISSIONER HOFFMAN Do we wanna have staff revisit with the applicant about the aesthetics of the building?
544. CHAIR MANN I guess a question I would have is We're not approving the paint colors with this. The paint colors could change after we approve this. We ... I don't feel we need to, to hold that up. Are there ... I guess, what is the extent of changes that require us to ...
545. SR PLANNER BELL Yeah, if I can clarify, there's, uh, two ways to go about it. Uh, one is you can direct staff to work with the applicant towards a, an objective that you would like to achieve such as colors. Uh, the second option would be actually to amend the conditions to identify a requirement that you'd like to provide on the project, uh, when we review the construction documents. 546. SR PLANNER BELL So, we can, we can handle any comments through either of those means.

Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 140 547. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN And any full-scale architectural design changes would require continuance to a date certain should your commission choose it or date uncertain with the understanding that should the applicant choose to not pursue that design alternative, again, the commission, um, does not have the discretion to deny the project unless, uh, you make the findings that there are significant unavoidable adverse impacts to, um, the community.
548. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN So there ... That is an option as well. 549. CHAIR MANN I don't ... I personally don't find reason to delay, um, on this project.
550. VICE CHAIR SWIFT I guess I would just like to know what, what the, the strength of the language is. Whether it's gonna be written here real-time or written with the legal staff to, to really make sure that this is appropriate for that zone going forward. I mean, those conditions on the, on the building, how do, how do you, how do you put enough teeth in
551. VICE CHAIR SWIFT... that it doesn't, uh, fall out of compliance with the zone. uh, the,
552. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN I don't necessarily know how to answer this.

I mean, again, the, the CDS zone has a list of allowable uses under chapter two. Any PU use or permissible use or a use that's listed that's subject to a use permit is allowed in that zone. 553. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN So, writing it into the conditions of approval is almost a moot point because they have to comply with it anyways. But if your commission wants to, we can craft something. I just, I, I, it's not best practice. So, It's not something that we typically, it's not something that we typically do, is prescribe that the use is allowed within the zone because it's already mandated by chapter two in the list of allowable uses within the zone.
554. VICE CHAIR SWIFT And so, the issuance of that use permit will come back to us to make sure it meets the intent of a use permit for that zone. If a use permit is required, correct. So, for example, if it turns into, um, if it turns into a, um, wine bar or what do we got?
555. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN Not residential. Um, that's recreation. So, let's say, huh? That's permitted use.
556. CHAIR MANN No batting cage, I presume.
557. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN If it's, if, if it came back as a small restaurant, it would require a use permit subject to your review and approval.
558. VICE CHAIR SWIFT Bar and pool hall would be, okay? 559. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN If it's accessory to the restaurant. So, use permit for a bar. So, there are certain uses that are permitted but for example, if it was going to be a plant nursery, that's a permissible use.
560. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN If it is a health fitness facility less than 3,000 square feet, it looks like it is a use permit. Um, 561. COMM DEV DIR MARTIN, I mean, I would just recommend that I'll, go back to it and look ... commissioner, look at it and look at the Appeal of Development Application 24-54 | 261 Rockaway | Page 141 allowable uses under CDS zone. Were there any other conditions that came out of our discussion? Nope.
562. CHAIR MANN I don't believe so. No. Okay. So, are we ready? 563. CHAIR MANN Do I have a motion for item two?
564. COMMISSIONER HALVORSEN What are we approving?
565. CHAIR MANN This is, I will repeat, development application 2454. 566. COMMISSIONER HALVORSEN All right. Well, I'll take the stance. Um, I move that we adopt uh, resolution, uh, development application 2454. Um, yeah.
567. UNCOMFIRMED I second.
568. CHAIR MANN we have a second. Clerk Cortano, would you please call the roll?
569. CLERK Commissioner Halvorsen.
570. COMMISSIONER HALVORSEN Yes.
571. CLERK Commissioner Holden.
572. COMMISSIONER HOLDEN Yes.
573. CLERK Commissioner Hoffman.
574. COMMISSIONER HOFFMAN Yes.
575. CLERK Vice Chair Swift.
576. VICE CHAIR SWIFT No.
577. CLERK And Chairman.
578. CHAIR MANN Yes. The motion passes.