Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Thank you. . .

Okay, I'd like to call this Planning Commission meeting of the City of Richmond to order for August 6th. Restorative business is the roll call, I believe.

Good evening, Planning Commissioners. Vice Chair, or Commissioner, Chair Harrison.

I'm here.

There we go. Vice Chair Brubaker.

Yes, here.

Secretary Timmons.

Here.

Commissioner Golovitz. Here. Commissioner Shahid. Here. And Commissioner Benitez.

Here.

Thank you.

Okay. Approval of minutes. We have several.

I'm sorry. Before we proceed, Benitez, can you make your announcement now? Thank you.

Yes, I am participating remotely because I have a contagious illness that prevents me from attending in person. I provided notice to the Commission at the earliest possible opportunity, and I can confirm that no other person who is 18 years of age or older is present in the room with me at my remote location. Thank you.

Okay. Boy, they've changed that announcement every time. Okay, now we can do, do we need to do introductions or I think we've gotten through that.

I CAN DO INTRODUCTIONS IF YOU'D LIKE. THIS EVENING, AVERY STARK PLANNING MANAGER, CHRIS STEIXEL, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WILL BE OVERSEEING THIS MEETING THIS EVENING AND THEN SAVANNAH LANE WILL BE THE PLANNING PROJECT PLANNER AND THEN NINA PERETA WHO WILL BE UP HERE AS SECRETARY WITH ME.

I THINK ALL THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE INTRODUCED THEMSELVES BY SAYING THEY'RE HERE. LET'S GO TO THE MINUTES. If I can get them. We have minutes from June 4th. Is there any need to modify those minutes? No. If nobody has something they need to change in the minutes, then we have a motion to approve.

I move to approve minutes of June 4th.

Is there a second?

Was it there?

Is there a second to approve the minutes of June 4th?

I second that to approve the minutes from June 4th.

Okay. Do we need a roll call on that?

I will take roll for the June 4th and to note that the Commissioner's present will not include Gullivets. Chair Harrison?

Yes.

Vice Chair Brubaker? Yes. Secretary Timmons?

Is this for the vote or I'm sorry?

This is for the voting.

Do I need to abstain because I was not here? I thought I did.

Yes.

Thank you.

Oh, thank you. I see. Thank you. Commissioner Golovitz?

Yes.

Will abstain. Thank you. And Commissioner Shahid?

Yes.

And Commissioner Benitez?

Abstain.

Thank you.

Were there other minutes? Yes. What's the other minutes we had?

July 2nd.

Maybe I was there. I'm on the list. Maybe I was there. I'm on the list.

July 2nd. Yeah, we were all here except we were all here. You were here.

I was?

Okay.

I'll vote yes.

Okay, sorry, you need to go back. Present at the June 4th meeting does include Commissioner Golovitz. My apologies. Commissioner Golovitz? I vote yes. Thank you.

Okay, now the July 2nd minutes. Is there any need to modify anything in the minutes? If not, I'll accept the motion to approve.

I make a motion to approve the minutes from July 2nd, 2026. I second it.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. Take a roll call, please.

Chair Harrison?

Yes.

Vice Chair Brubaker?

Abstain, absent.

Secretary Timmons?

Yes.

Commissioner Golovitz?

Abstain, absent.

Commissioner Shahid?

Yes.

And Commissioner Benitez?

yes thank you okay on to the next step consent calendar i don't believe we have any items on consent calendar so we'll move on to public forum this is an opportunity for anybody in the audience who wishes to address the commission on an item that is not on the agenda to present to do so at this time you have three minutes to present your your concern or comment. We have our.

We have our speaker Cordell.

So good evening, Chair Harrison, commissioners. For the record, I am Cordell Handler and I have three items to share with you all. So I was going back to the recording of the January meeting when you all approved the the Chevron gas station in the Hilltop District. One of the things that that was not mentioned in the in the the report was like, you know, the traffic study, because whenever I go up to Hilltop, it's like traffic is always, you know, is always backed up. It's a concern because that was not mentioned because, cause you got a number of parents that have, have to pick up their children. Like, you know, when three o'clock hits it, it always creates traffic chaos. So that was one issue. And then related to that is, um, when, um, When Fairmead Hilltop and the Hilltop District came before you all, we had raised concerns about stealing merchandise inside Chevron gas station. That's not possible because I don't feel comfortable leaving my personal belongings with somebody that is liable to steal it? And who's going to pay for it? Is it going to be me or is it going to be the store itself? That's my concern. That's one. Number two is, if you recall last month when we had the people who came from Transmontane, one of the issues that was raised, and I do agree with the president of Marina Bay Neighborhood Council, is the noise. It's very difficult because, especially at wee hours of the night, it's a concern because people have to hear it all the way from 10 o'clock in the morning, 10 o'clock in the evening, till midnight. And I feel that's not fair. And then number three, kind of same line as if we remember last month when you approved the Cascades Town Hall, I was all for it. But I talked to the Richland Addicts Neighborhood Council and they had similar concerns, you know, regarding the structure of it. And it's like, okay, that was their concern. It's like, hmm, I'm thinking like it is a good project, but But it should have been handled more tactful. So that's two. That's three. And then let's see what else. Ah, yes. I mean, I'm all for new developments. But as I stated last month and the month prior, any time when projects come before either the design review board or this body, when I say we, the neighborhood council has to get our input. We never hear anything what kind of projects are coming forward. So that's something to look forward to long term. And with that, that's it.

Thank you, Cordell. Do we have any other speakers here or online for the public forum?

There are no online speakers and no other in-person speakers for the Brown Act.

Thank you. All right, then we'll go on to the public hearings. We have one public hearing tonight, PLN 25-0212 on 237 Western Drive. And I believe one commissioner needs to recuse himself.

I am recusing myself due to proximity to the project.

Okay. Okay, then so this is a public hearing on for a conditional use permit for the construction of a new dwelling unit with accessory dwelling units in the RL01 district. So if we could have a staff report, please.

Good evening, Chair and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Savannah Lane and I am a CONTRACT PLANNER FOR THE CITY OF RICHMOND. TONIGHT I WILL BE PRESENTING A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT LOCATED 237 WESTERN DRIVE. IT IS BEFORE YOU TONIGHT FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS IT IS LOCATED WITHIN THE SHORELINE OVERLAY DISTRICT. THE PROJECT WAS HEARD BEFORE THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ON MAY 20, 2026 AND THE BOARD MADE A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. The subject site is a 6,514 square foot vacant parcel located at 237 Western Drive in the Point Richmond neighborhood, approximately 700 feet northwest of Keller Beach. The site has a general plan designation of hillside residential and is zoned RL1, single family, very low density. The shoreline overlay district applies to all land within 100 feet of the San Francisco and San Pablo Bay shorelines and requires all uses and developments to obtain a conditional use permit. In summary, development standards applied by the shoreline overlay require proposed developments to avoid encroachments into sensitive wildlife habitats to the extent feasible, avoid areas subject to hazards including differential settlement, slope instability, liquefaction, ground shaking, and rupture, and other ground failures and flooding, be sited, designed, and undertaken so that it is harmonious with the character of the site and the surrounding environment, to the maximum extent feasible, be oriented and located to preserve public views of the Bay from public rights-of-way, and protect visual access to the Bay in scenic vistas of water and distinct shorelines. In addition, the site is located within the Keller Beach sewer moratorium area and within the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, also known as BCDC, 100-foot shoreline band. These issues do not alter the applicable development standards, but they are relevant to the project's feasibility and require outside agency review and potential conditions of approval. The applicant requests that the Planning Commission approve the conditional use permit for the new 2,678 square foot three-story single-family residence. The proposed residence includes two bedrooms, two and a half bathrooms, and a two-car garage with additional driveway space for two vehicles. A pool is proposed near the beach below. The project also includes an attached junior accessory dwelling unit and detached accessory dwelling unit. Both accessory units are subject to separate ministerial review and approval by the zoning administrator under a separate planning application. The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15303A for new construction or conversion of small structures, which applies to the construction of one single family residence. The proposed project is subject to the development standards of the single family, very low density residential zoning district as summarized in these tables. The maximum density being nine units per net acre, excuse me, per net acre. One unit is proposed. Minimum lot size is 6,000 square feet. The lot size is 6,514. Minimum lot width is 60. As you can see, that complies. Moving down, you can see that the height, lot coverage and setbacks also all comply. The maximum residential floor area, the maximum allowed is 2,678 square feet for a lot of this size. And that is exactly the square footage proposed by the applicant. So that complies. Parking, single family home requires two spaces. They are proposing two spaces. That complies. So as you can see the proposed project meets or exceeds all applicable development standards in this table we move to the design standards Which were reviewed by the design review board? The one item that you can see says complies subject to design review approval was for the alternate entry proposed the design review board did approve that alternate entry design and This is a screenshot of the site plan and landscaping. I would just like to point out that you, I don't, is there a pointer?

Get the mouse.

I would like to point out that the applicant proposes extended landscaping out into the right-of-way, which would require encroachment permits, however, would help with some of the drainage issues that we'll discuss later. They also propose down along the bottom there is infiltration planters throughout the site, along this side as well. And these infiltration planters do capture much of the runoff from the roof, which is piped directly into them, as well as it captures, this driveway here is permeable paving, and so it does capture and pipe any water captured here down into an infiltration planter there. And again, we'll discuss the drainage a little bit later, but I did want to point that out here. The proposed residence has a contemporary coastal design with a flat roof and stepped massing and articulated wall planes that respond to the steep downslope site. The design breaks the home into multiple volumes, which helps reduce the perceived mass of the three-story structure. This elevation demonstrates the alternate entry that I discussed that was approved by the design review board, the alternate entry being this gate here into this little courtyard rather than having the front door directly visible from the street. Additional conditions have been recommended for right-of-way encroachments and pool drainage to ensure that the improvements are properly permitted and pool water does not discharge towards the beach or shoreline. You can see on the rear elevation down here this is where the pool is proposed. part of that condition that's recommended is that they submit prior to building permit more detailed plans demonstrating that no pool water would escape such as perhaps a raised lip around the edge and that is something that the BCDC and the Water Board also have concerns about and they will go through their own independent review of this project and may require changes to the pool on their own as well. Through preliminary coordination with BCDC, city staff discussed public views and public access to the beach below. And although there is a public access easement on the beach, the property itself has not to our knowledge been historically used as a public access route to the beach. Public access, as far as we know, has generally occurred from Keller Beach at low tide. BCDC staff has preliminary preliminarily indicated that the project appears to protect public views adequately and Likely would not require a formal view corridor However, because the proposed home would obstruct the street level views of the beach below BCDC may require signage on Western Drive just to inform the public that the beach does exist below and And I do want to note that these comments are preliminary only. BCDC has not made a formal decision on the project yet. And that will come after the city's review. Staff has reviewed the plans, visual simulations, public comments, story poles, and conducted two site visits to evaluate the potential view impacts. Based on that review, staff finds that the project has been designed to preserve the bay views to the maximum extent feasible through its flat roof, low profile parapets, stepped building form, and downslope siding. This is a pretty accurate depiction here of the story poles. The photo in the lower right-hand corner is a photo that I took myself and added the red lines to it. The photo to the left is the one that the applicant provided. So here again, these are two photos that I took during my site visits. And on this slide, I just kind of want to discuss the applicant's diagram here showing a person standing at the road. You can see this first red line here. The green outline is of the neighboring home. And so you can see how that compares to the proposed roof line of this project. This roof line being significantly lower from the street view. This is a view facing the other side. Again, the green outline is the neighbor to the other side, just kind of comparing roof lines. So when we're discussing how this project may impact bay views in comparison to other homes on the street, this gives you a pretty decent idea. So the Keller Beach sewer moratorium, the subject site, as I mentioned, is within the sewer moratorium area. And this moratorium prohibits building permits from being issued. Altogether at the moment it does not however allow us to prohibit or withhold planning entitlements So that is a separate related issue and the planning entitlement cannot be withheld due to the moratorium However, should it be approved by the Planning Commission? It cannot make it past the building department at this time and the city is in the process of developing an alternate solution using temporary holding tanks and The city has draft standards in the works and they are expected to go before City Council along with an amendment to the moratorium ordinance in September and so in this in these last few weeks in working with the Public Works Department and the applicant we were able to get a hold of some of these draft standards to allow the applicant to very preliminarily sketch out a what the tank might look like and whether or not he may have room on the site to even do the tank because that was kind of a concern this is likely a very large tank and where would you even put it right so the applicant has provided preliminary plans for this holding tank should it become an option because at this point we don't even know if it is This is the applicant's preliminary sketch and he's thinking about putting the tank under the garage. We did discuss this with Public Works. They do not foresee any issues with it being located underneath the garage. So we also have received eight public comment letters. regarding underground utility disruption protected Bay views in regard to the roof height and solar panels the floor area calculation and as far as the size of the proposed residence, parking, the ADU and JADU, which, as I mentioned, are not part of this application and not subject to review by the Planning Commission. Parking for the ADU and JADU, the Keller Beach sewer moratorium, the temporary holding tank, soil stability and stormwater drainage. I'd like to acknowledge the concerns raised by the members of the public, all of them, but I would like to spend a little extra time addressing concerns relating to the Keller Beach sewer moratorium, the temporary holding tanks, stormwater runoff, and soil stability. As I mentioned, with the sewer moratorium, planning entitlements cannot be withheld. However, building permits are required to be withheld. At this stage, because we don't know anything about the holding tanks and whether or not that's going to get approved. We'll say that it doesn't get approved. The applicant would theoretically be able to get an approval from Planning Commission. They would not be able to submit for building permits, not be able to receive building permit approval. They would just have to wait to develop the house until the moratorium is lifted. In regard to the temporary holding tank, as I mentioned, the draft standards, they're not yet approved. ordinance to amend the moratorium also has to be approved by City Council and then if approved the applicant would still need to submit plans to meet every engineering standard required and if the project could not for any reason meet those standards he would not receive approval and could not move forward with the holding tank. In that case he would be right back to waiting for the moratorium to be lifted. In regard to stormwater drainage, stormwater runoff on site is currently uncontrolled and unmanaged, and the neighbors have understandably experienced a lot of issues with this in the neighborhood and on the site. I WANT TO MENTION THAT THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE C3 STORM WATER REQUIREMENTS. HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT DOES INTEND TO INSTALL NEW CURB AND GUTTER AND HE IS WILLING TO FOLLOW ANY RECOMMENDATION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ON THAT. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES PERMEABLE PAVER DRIVEWAY WITH THE LINEAR DRAIN TO THE ADJACENT INFILTRATION PLANTER. Street frontage landscaping to capture runoff. Proposes the use of planters and bioretention to capture runoff. Roof and terrace runoff will be captured and piped to infiltration planters as well. In regard to soil stability, the north side yard has been planted with erosion control grasses. The south side yard planted with a hedge. The site is not in a landscape, excuse me, landslide hazard zone, though neighbors have provided photos of soil movement on site. Those are included in your packet and I do also have a slide later if you would like to see those on the screen. And a portion of the property is in a liquefaction zone and the applicant proposes engineered piles to mitigate this subject to a geotechnical report. I'D ALSO LIKE TO KIND OF BRING UP THIS TOPIC OF APPROPRIATE LEVELS OF REVIEW DURING THIS STAGE. STORM WATER SYSTEMS, TANK DESIGN, GEO TECHNICAL STABILITY ALL REQUIRE TECHNICAL CALCULATIONS AND ENGINEERING ANALYSIS THAT CAN ONLY BE MADE BY LICENSED PROFESSIONALS AND THEREFORE HAVE BEEN DEFERRED UNTIL THE BUILDING PERMIT STAGE AS IS THE ESTABLISHED PROCESS IN THE CITY. At the point that we get to the building department with plans, that is when construction documents, technical studies, and engineering calculations are required and can be properly evaluated by professionals. So at this time during planning entitlement, these are not documents that we have nor are they required historically. So I know that that is a bit of a concern for everyone. However, that has always been left to the building permit stage where the appropriate professionals can review. those documents. To approve any conditional use permit, the Planning Commission must make all findings below. The location of the proposed conditional use is in accordance with the general plan and any specific plan and land use designations. The location, size, design, and operating characteristic of the proposed use will be compatible and will not adversely affect the livability or appropriate development of abutting properties and surrounding neighborhood. Proposed use will not create any nuisances from the emission of odor, dust, gas, noise, vibration, smoke, heat, or glare at a level exceeding ambient conditions. The proposed use complies with all applicable provisions of the zoning code and site of the proposed use is adequately served by highways, streets, water, sewer, and other public facilities and services. Comments received from other departments include that the applicant must obtain a building permit before commencing any work, a site-specific geotechnical report is required prior to building permit, a topographic survey and analysis is required prior to building permit, submittal package for building permits must include analysis for compliance with the grading ordinance, The fire department has asked that the furthest projection of the exterior wall be accessible by an approved path of travel from within 150 feet of an approved fire department access road and water supply. And new residential dwelling units shall be protected by an automatic fryer sprinkler system. The engineering department has asked that encroachment permits be required. Most of the recommended conditions found in draft resolution 26-11 are standard. However, I would like to highlight the project-specific conditions that I've recommended. First, that a site-specific geotechnical report and review by a geotechnical engineer of the design criteria of the foundation design and review of foundation drawings by a geotechnical engineer be required prior to submitting for building permit. The interim holding tank should the city adopt standards for the temporary holding tanks and modify The keller beach sewer moratorium to allow them as a temporary alternate solution Then prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant would still need to submit engineered plans for the tank to the satisfaction of the city engineer building official and any other applicable regulatory agency The holding tank shall be installed, operated, serviced, pumped and maintained in accordance with all applicable local, state and federal requirements. This condition does not permit the tank as it is. Excuse me, it does not permit the tank as it's not currently an option, but it does provide guidelines for compliance should the tank become an option before the moratorium is lifted. The home would also still be required to be designed for permanent connection to the municipal sewer system and will be required to connect once the moratorium is lifted and is authorized by the city. That just confirms that the holding tank is required to be temporary. It is not meant to be a permanent solution. They would absolutely be required to connect eventually when the sewer moratorium is lifted. As for the pool and drainage, there is a condition requiring the applicant, as I mentioned earlier, prior to issues of building permits, submit more detailed plans of the pool, demonstrating that the pool water overflow, backwash, drainage, and any water containing pool chemicals would not be discharged onto the beach, shoreline, sand, or bay waters. AS A RESULT OF FEEDBACK FROM A NEIGHBOR AT THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD HEARING, THE APPLICANT SHALL BE REQUIRED TO FROST THE WINDOW FACING THE ADJACENT PROPERTY TO THE NORTH. LANDSCAPING SHALL NOT INTERFERE WITH VIEWS. THIS CONDITION WOULD PROHIBIT THE APPLICANT FROM INSTALLING ANY LANDSCAPING TREES THAT WOULD OBSTRUCT BAY VIEWS SPECIFICALLY REQUIRES THE APPLICANT TO CHOOSE TREES WITH A MATURE HEIGHT THAT WOULD NOT CONFLICT WITH PUBLIC OR PRIVATE VIEWS. Staff recommends conditional approval based on the conditional use permit findings with 18 conditions of approval. In closing, staff believes that this project is at the appropriate stage for the Commission's consideration and recommends approval. The recommended conditions provide a clear framework for the additional technical and regulatory reviews required. Staff and the applicant are both available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you for that. Before we open to public hearing, does the commission have any questions of staff at this time?

Yes, no. I do.

Maybe so.

OK. Or unless someone online wants to go first.

No, you, this is, right now it's closed public hearing. I meant like the online commissioner. Oh, yeah, that's a good point.

Diane?

You should go first. I'll go next.

Cool, thank you. Thank you for the report. That was very like inform and like definitely helped me understand one question I had was the Maximum floor area was two thousand six hundred and seventy eight on the project development page on section B It's two thousand and five hundred and ten. Can you explain why there's like a difference like how do you calculate this?

Yeah, let me look at that quickly. The last I looked, I had. No problem. Section 2. 2006-78.

It's section 2 of the project development information, page 2. Section 1, residential B, 1B.

Can I ask, is this in the plans or the staff report?

YEAH.

IT'S PAGE A2O, DOES REFERENCE PROPOSED AREAS BEING 2678 SQUARE FEET WITH AN ALLOWABLE BY CODE BEING 2678 SQUARE FEET. COULD YOU CLARIFY MORE PRECISELY? YEAH.

ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM, IF YOU GO TO SECTION 2, PROJECT DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION, THE FIRST SECTION IS RESIDENTIAL AND IF YOU GO TO PART SECTION B, It says 2,500 primary residents. I was just trying to figure out how do you guys calculate these numbers?

Yes. So my answer for that is if it's on the environmental information form, that was the original form submitted when the applicant first submitted their project plans. There have been many iterations and many changes since then. SO THE NUMBERS LISTED ON THAT ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM ARE NO LONGER UP TO DATE. IT'S NOT THE POLICY OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO REQUIRE THEM TO RESUBMIT THE ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM, THOUGH.

NEW SPEAKER GOT IT. THANK YOU. NEW SPEAKER YES. NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU FOR THAT. WHAT ARE THE C3 REQUIREMENTS FOR CEQA? I WAS JUST CURIOUS. THE C3 REQUIREMENTS? E3 and CEQA are two different things.

Yeah, there's no, under California Environmental Quality Act, there's no C3 requirement. It's not a portion of CEQA to do an analysis on C3. C3 is established by the county and through their guidelines establishes projects that are eligible and requires stormwater management and then the projects that are exempt from stormwater management, which is generally single-family homes and smaller lot developments of less than 5,000 square feet. So this project is technically exempt from producing and needing to do stormwater management. However, the applicant has very clearly indicated that their design will incorporate bioretention and a number of other aspects that would align with proper storm drain management. That will be further analyzed and addressed by the engineering department.

Okay. Thank you. regarding the Can you go back on this a couple of slides where I said it wouldn't prevent any noise or odor? Yes, or Yeah The proposed use will not create any nuisance on emission order regarding to the vibration part How do you guys figure that part out since there was no? analysis already done

Are you asking in relation to construction or the single-family home or the holding tank? What are you asking in relation to that?

In terms of the construction.

In terms of construction, every project would technically create those nuisances, but the findings are in relation to the use once construction is completed. During construction, there are many mitigation techniques that are used by the construction companies to try to mitigate. those impacts, but once the single-family home is complete, you're kind of evaluating the findings against whether or not the home or the use of the home would generate dust, odors, noise, glare, et cetera. Got it. Okay.

Thank you.

It says proposed use, which is a home.

Got it. Okay. Thank you, guys. I misread it. Thank you. That's all for me.

Okay.

Okay. Commissioner Benitez, did you have some questions?

Yes, I did. Thank you for that presentation. I'll just list my three questions. The first is, I may have been misreading, but the design render, Some of the design renderings didn't have the trees, but I believe it's in front of the ADU. There's three of them. And so just want to clarify that. The second question is, since BCDC is supposed to review after us, is there anything that if they give in feedback or things that need to change, that it would require this project to come back to us and the design review board. And then last question is for Avery. It just made me realize because it's on the shoreline thinking about C level rise in future planning, I know that the city is working on the sea level rise adaptation and resiliency plan and it's going to be completed next year and i'm just curious if this Commission has seen it or if the Commission will be seeing it in the future that's it Thank you.

So I will go back to see if I can find the view of the front. So these doesn't quite look like it here but there are three trees proposed along here. We can see those in the landscape plan a little bit better. And the condition that I had asked to be included requires him to alter the species of tree because the species proposed would have a mature canopy height that would interfere with the bay views. So that is one of the recommended conditions is that we change the species of tree to one with a mature height that would be much shorter. And that would also cover any other landscaping on site so that it didn't interfere with the views. And I'm sorry, could you repeat your second question?

Of course, of course. And for my brain was processing them as bushes. And I was like, I don't see trees. So thank you for that. The second one was for BCDC, if there would be anything that they would ask or tell the applicant that they need to change for this development to be approved, if it's how big does the change have to be for you all to have to come back to us and the design review board?

Yes, so I did ask that question of BCDC also and the biggest change that they may potentially consider is the removal of the pool and should that happen Avery and I met and discussed this and we don't believe that that would be a significant enough change to the rest of the home or the site just to remove the pool that they would have to come back. So essentially I will perhaps defer to Avery on the rest of that question about what would be a significant change.

Yeah, so the municipal code outlines when an applicant would like to propose amendments from their entitled plan sets that we review them and determine whether they're significant or insignificant. So I always think of significant impacts as being the building was proposed at 23 feet and they come back and they want to make it 32 feet. Even though that might be compliant with the municipal code, that was not what the public saw and that would be a significant change and then we would bring it back to the design review board and then we'd come back to this body if that was required in instances where things are insignificant let's say that we've identified that the front landscaping has a particular species that they have liked to use or have opted to use but then at the time of construction or time of further design that that species is maybe not as ideal and that there is a similar plant species that they would like to use, that would be considered insignificant and staff would administratively allow for that change to occur. Things like the pool or as an example is if through BCDC it is determined that the pool is not feasible or cannot be located or designed in that way, the removal of the pool would simply be less of an impact than the project currently proposes and it would not consider that to be significant. Unless we get to the point where the design starts to change and now like if we eventually just if you visually remove the pool from the image and that's just a wall for the sea wall. That to us wouldn't be considered significant they're not making the pool bigger they're not adding a second pool they're not adding a hot tub right, they would just be removing it back to not being present, so it does depend on. the review of BCDC's design review board and whether or not this project goes through an administrative review with BCDC or requires a formal hearing but if there were required changes the applicant would need to come back to the city first to planning to propose all those changes, we would evaluate each one individually against the municipal code and the standards that are in place to determine if it's significant or insignificant. If it was significant, it would go back through this process again with the design review board being the first body that would hear it. And that kind of leads to the third question, I believe, right, Commissioner Benitez?

And I literally just drew a blank.

I'm like I wrote down sea level rise and I was like what does that mean? So the sea level rise adaptation plan, yes. So the planning department is currently in the process of developing a sea level rise plan for the city of Richmond. This, actually this project itself was passed by our consultant team, ESA, and Mithun who are leading that effort. We asked them to provide feedback and input at this stage. there was anything that the sea level rise adaptation plan would have at this point would have called for that would have required any changes so far that we're not at that stage with the sea level adaptation plan that the design of this home would have been changed in any way and subsequently right BCDC and Contra Costa County that's also doing is kind of a countywide shore level plan sort of sea level rise plan those impacts are mainly going to be analyzed analyzed by BCDC so at this point Both staff and the consultants that are working on that plan don't believe that there's any proposed Mitigation measures within the sea level rise adaptation plan for the city of Richmond that would impact this particular homes design. I

Thank you. And through the Chair, just one related question to that. Are we going to be seeing that draft sea level rise adaptation resilience plan here at the Commission in the future?

Yes. The Planning Commission, so the Design Review Board, the Planning Commission, and the City Council will all go through the public process of study sessions at both bodies and then ultimately final hearings by both bodies prior to its adoption.

Perfect. Thank you. Commissioner Timmons, do you have any questions?

Yeah, can somebody give an overview of where the moratorium issue is with regard to that part of the point?

AS STATED, THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT WILL BE TAKING THAT FORWARD, THE PROPOSED TANKS AND THE MORATORIUM MODIFICATION IN SEPTEMBER AS COUNCIL IS ON RECESS IN AUGUST. I DON'T KNOW IF IT WILL BE THE FIRST MEETING IN SEPTEMBER OR THE SECOND MEETING OF SEPTEMBER. BOTH OF THOSE AGENDAS WILL BE QUITE FULL. BUT THAT IS CURRENTLY THEIR TIMELINE. IT'S BEEN ON THE CITY COUNCIL'S AGENDA AND IT'S KIND OF BEEN HELD OVER AND HELD OVER AND HELD OVER. SO THERE WERE A NUMBER OF OTHER ITEMS THAT CAME UP PRIOR TO THE END BEFORE THE RECESS THAT took a higher level of importance. So hopefully beginning of September, they will be able to have that hearing and that discussion, which again is the community's ability to then come and comment and discuss those designs, the findings of those designs and the implementation of that alternative if it is to be voted for approval. But at that point, it still hasn't been heard as a public item.

So is there any, do you have a sense of a timeframe

I GUESS IN TERMS OF THE PROJECT GOING FORWARD TO COUNCIL, I WOULD BE HOPEFUL THAT IT WOULD GO IN SEPTEMBER, BEGINNING OF SEPTEMBER, THE SECOND MEETING. IT MAY REQUIRE THAT THEY RETURN AFTER COMMENT AND DISCUSSION TO FURTHER ANALYZE. IT MAY NOT BE THAT IN THAT MEETING THE COUNCIL MAKES A DECISION ON THE MORATORIUM. I OBVIOUSLY CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT. anyone who is interested or continues to want to learn more i would you know take a look at the city council's agenda and attend those meetings as necessary to be kept in the loop as best as possible and also to be able to provide public comment at that time anything else thank you commissioner kolovets

I have a couple of questions. I wanted to confirm or clarify that these studies that would be done at the building permit stage, assuming this project gets to that point, are those public documents that will people have ready access to them so they can review them and evaluate them, or are they internal to the city only?

So the documents for a building permit are internal to the city until we get to the point where either a public records request has been made of the city. At that point, certain documents and certain things can be shared. But because they're a licensed product of engineers and architects, they are protected under certain rights. And so they do have to be released and authorized by those individuals. It's effectively their form of art. those documents are not intended to be reviewed by the public for scrutiny and or for evaluation because the matter is that the city's engineers licensed architects and professionals are the ones that are adhering the very strict standards of those codes for compliance and for feasibility and so there it's always been that the those analyses are not meant to effectively be like the planning commission here for the preliminary portion up for discussion right because at that point is it is about whether or not the building can be engineered and designed to meet the satisfaction of the building code civil design code and all the other california building codes that would apply at that point

Okay, thank you. And currently the stormwater runoff is more or less sheet flow across the property as I understand it. And with these infiltration planters, is there any way that they can be estimated whether or not they're going to have sufficient capacity to deal with a 20-year storm or something like that? Or is it just kind of... We hope they're big enough and that they don't overflow. How does that work.

I think as stated right currently it's uncontrolled right. There's many portions of point Richmond there are many homes that are uncontrolled point Richmond's roadway is a unique one that does not necessarily always have curb and gutter. So we see this as an opportunity to in fact add at least the ability to have curb and gutter and for our public work department and engineers to be able to do any kind of analysis as necessary to establish IF THERE ARE BIORETENTION OR RAIN CAPTURING DEVICES THROUGH THE ROOF, THAT THEY WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO SATISFY ENGINEERING PROPOSED WATER FLOWS. I CAN'T SPEAK TO A 20-YEAR RAIN STORM OR IF WE GOT 10 INCHES OF RAIN IN ONE HOUR. THAT'S NOT WITHIN MY EXPERTISE. BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT BOTH OF US WILL BE REVIEWING CLOSELY WITH THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AS THEY REVIEW THE BUILDING PERMITS FOR THIS PORTION OF THE PROJECT IF IT WAS TO PROCEED.

NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU. Well, then at this point, if there's no other questions of staff, I'd like to open the public hearing. This is a chance for the community to provide comments. Do we want to proceed first with a presentation by the applicant?

Yes, please. We do have, if the applicant would like, the applicant is entitled to 10 minutes to provide a presentation or simply come up to the podium here and speak. And then there can also be questions you may have for the applicant that they would be able to respond to.

on. I'm David Crimmins. I'm the architect for the project. And I think the presentation was clear. There's nothing really I can add. So thank you for your attention.

Does anyone have a question of the applicant? Commissioner Benitez? We'll go with Commissioner Timmons you have a question for the applicants?

Really short story. I grew up in a house where it was on a hill that my mother built. Because the elevations hadn't been shot properly the roof ended up being 10 feet higher than it was supposed to be. it's a very spacious house have all those elevations been solidified or are you confident in how this is currently laid out with reference as far as ceiling as far as roof heights and ceiling heights yeah um well i mean in short it the the the lot

If you look at one of the cross sections, the lot has a lot of drop. So we have plenty of ceiling height.

I'm very familiar with the lot. I've walked by that property many, many times.

So yeah, we don't have to increase the ceiling heights at all in the main house because we've got all that drop to work with. And the two structures we're trying to keep as low as possible is the ADU in the front of the property, because that's the one thing that impacts the views. And the garage, keep it as low as possible. But that has a practical, you know, cars have to be able to get into it. We're keeping the roof as flat and low as possible while still being a garage. But it's that ADU that we keep the roof down to the absolute minimum. That's where it gets to a low level. Again, that's for the views. So someone walking down the street can easily see the bay and the city in the distance. So. Just because I look through too much data all the time, as far as the tides are concerned, the water level. So just running through the numbers, just for everyone's information, mean high tide is 5.5 feet in elevation. And that's like the normal tide you might have in any day. And the king tide, which is the highest of the year, is 7.2. The first floor is 14.5 feet in elevation. So what is that? That's seven and a quarter roughly above the highest tide of the year. So we're seven feet and change the ground floor. And the patio is a foot lower than that, 13.5. So we're at, anyway, the floor is, the ground floor of the house is seven feet and change above the maximum high tide. And we have plenty of ceiling height. If we went up a foot because of engineering or the owner wants to be a little safer, it's not a big deal because we've got all that ceiling to work with on the main house.

CHAIR BAILET. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Commissioner Benitez, do you have any questions for the applicant?

No, I do not. Thank you.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. At this time, it would be an opportunity for others to provide comment. I believe you've all turned in speaker forms to staff, so they'll call you and you'll have two minutes, three minutes? Three minutes to present your thoughts.

All right. First, we have Elizabeth. Okay, we will start off with Jan.

Hi, I'm Jan Diamond. I'm the immediate neighbor of the proposed development at 237. So I just don't understand how even a preliminary or conditional approval can be given to this plan given that the current configuration is dependent on putting a sewer holding tank under their garage when there's as yet no approved Richmond sewer holding tank guidelines or ordinance. In the current plan, there's no place else where it can go. They would need a significant redesign to place it anywhere else on the property. From page four from their own application, they write that the city is required to withhold building permits pursuant to the moratorium until a proven means of sewage disposal is available. And they write that the applicant has elected to proceed with the interim holding tank option until the sewer moratorium is resolved, but the City has yet adopted the design standards for interim holding tanks. So they, and still, quote, unquote, because standards have not yet been adopted, the applicant's been not able to fully incorporate the final holding tank into the project plans at this stage, unquote. So that's all a quote from their application. But my research on holding tanks, they're typically not allowed under residential garages due to safety, engineering, and order issues, and I'm happy to provide some references to it. So I'm not saying, it's not a slam dunk that the holding tank require ordinance which has not been approved, it's just not even, it's just far from approval yet. is going to allow this and their plan is dependent on that. If they don't put it there, there's going to have to be a significant redesign to hold the holding tank someplace else unless they wait until the moratorium is done. So it seems like the owner is trying to fast track a conditional use permit before the necessary design elements are finalized. So I just don't understand how a conditional use permit can be granted when it's unclear what the final plans are due to the lack of approved sewer holding tank requirements and other resolved issues like especially drainage. And I'd like to stress that the builder has yet to address our major concerns regarding drainage and the risk to our property and that of our neighbors. And I think it's incumbent on the Planning Commission to ensure that this is addressed before the process moves forward on any conditional use. No.

Okay.

Can we nominate a slate and just vote on the slate?

Yeah, so there's currently a nomination for Bruce Brubaker to serve as chair. We would be looking for a second and then a call of any additional nominations.

So rather than doing them all in one, all three positions with one vote, we have to do a vote on each position. Okay.

It would be easier for me to have you vote for one and then do the nominations for each.

If there are no other nominations, do we need a second?

I second the nomination for Bruce.

Bruce. Okay, I guess there's no other nominations. Let's have a vote.

I'll take a vote. Chair Harrison?

Yes.

Vice Chair Brubaker? Yes. Commissioner, Secretary Timmons?

Yes.

Commissioner Shaid?

Yes.

Commissioner Golovitz?

Yes. And Commissioner. About this slide about preserving the views with the story polls. Okay, you put up a house, the view is basically gone. I can live with that. He has a right to build. You build a 4,000 square foot home with a two-car garage, five bedrooms, there are going to be more cars on the street. It's going to impact the neighborhood. That's the reality regardless of whether it conforms to the letter of the law and the code. It impacts the neighborhood. I can live with that. Some things I can't live with, I've been talking about drainage for months. They plan to divert, right now, a lot of the hillside drainage from the top of the hill goes underground and over the surface through the empty lot to the bay. At our house next door, we have extensive drainage system to keep the water from going under our house and taking it in four by four, four foot inch PVC pipes down to the bay. And I've been talking about drainage for months. And they're still talking about infiltration planters. You can't just put water in an infiltration planter. It has to go somewhere. And regardless of what I say, they don't pay any attention to us. I've seen these same plans virtually unmodified for months. And now after you give approval, they're going to be private and we have no input. We have no chance to review them. You put the water into the ground, it goes somewhere under our foundation into our basement. And it dramatically affects us. And that I can't live with. And I don't want to have to deal with this in court. The last people who can represent us and slow this down and keep it public and allow us to provide any input is you. And I thank you for your service. I hope you represent us and bring some reality to this project.

Thank you.

Thank you. Last, we have Elizabeth.

Well, I'm Elizabeth Tarr. I live at 251 Western. I'm the neighbor that is on the other side of this property. And I think there's a couple of things that make this a unique situation for the neighbors in the neighborhood. And one of those things is the fact that there's so little abeyance between the plans for this new house and our already established houses. In other words, I would be the person that would be right next to that garage under which there's this undefined holding tank that could smell, it could this, it could that, it's going to be pumped out. And I agree with my cohorts that There's absolutely no reason for this provisional permit to be issued now. Even if they do have to wait until September or when the holding tank designations are going to be made public, so what? I mean, the city is supposed to be supporting and protecting the neighbors that have lived there and paid these humongous taxes for this long. And in that respect, I mean, I don't hold you responsible, but I think with the Design Review Board also, it was really irresponsible to allow this to even get to this point. Am I all through? Oh, no, I have time. So I have a few other points, but and as they've already been spoken about, but they're really important, have important effects on us. And We need to have transparency throughout this process, which we are not going to be getting. And it's just not fair to us. And I think that because of that, this should not be issued. Let's see if I can see anything else here. I have the drainage system. The property owner has not been in touch. He's not taking care of other property on the street. And so we'd like to be able to actually have some contact with him, at least, because he hasn't been known to be a good neighbor. And I also have to say that during this 2019, when they had the lands slip into there and destroy their property, I also had that on my side and had to replace at my own expense a retaining wall and stairs and it wasn't cheap and so that's my feeling and i could say a lot more but thank you for listening thank you and don't pass thank you is there anyone else wishing to speak here

Well, let me make before you come up and read, but is there anyone online that wants to speak about this project?

No, there's no speakers online.

Okay, then one. Oh, there's one more. I'd like to have you be last in a response to what you heard from the community.

No, but you do have to just fill out the speaker card that's in there.

Okay, we'll have Susan speak now.

Hello, I'm Susan Glen Denning and I'm the property owner and resident at 240 Western with my husband Russell Shearer and the pink card asked me to vote whether I'm for or against or no position on this action tonight. I said against it right now because it's too premature. There's so many more studies needed for this site. There's public infrastructure FAILING KELLER BEACH SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM. THERE'S PIPELINES AND TWO MANHOLE STRUCTURES THAT ARE ON THE PROPERTY, IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, OR ON THE PRIVATE PROPERTY, BUT THEY ARE PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE. THEY'RE NOT JUST THE RESIDENTIAL LATERALS THAT ARE NORMALLY JUST WHAT A PROPERTY OWNER WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR. There's a lot more that needs to be studied before you can just excavate all the land mass out of that property and then cover it up and fill it up with a lot of concrete and other building materials. Also, so yeah, it's just premature. There's a lot more that needs to be done. And I think that the issue that I wrote about in my email, which I sent earlier today, I really object to approving this design at this stage without a drainage plan. The slope of the street, all the flow is just sheet flow, as you mentioned, but it has to be managed some way. You can't just push it downstream and hope that it's going to take care of itself. And I think that's about it for now. OK, thank you. But yeah, just I want to reiterate what I wrote in the email, too. I'm sorry, I did have one more question or two more points. One was that Savannah referenced that how the public works director or the public works staff reviewed the sewage holding tank and had no problem with it. But, you know, with all due respect, there is no, there are no design standards required or that have been adopted yet. Not only that, currently it's the county's environmental health department that has purview over that kind of review. So the public works department is really not where to go with this kind of review at this point. And the other issue is that Savannah referenced comments on the design review, I think, whereas she didn't reference the comments received by 3 p.m. today, so I wanted to know if you've seen the comments yet and what your responses are to those comments. Thanks.

Thank you. Okay, if the architect, you wanted to respond to a couple of things.

Yes, thank you, and just very briefly. We'll start with the owner of the property. He and his family has owned that property upward of 30 years. And he also owns another house in the neighborhood. And his name is Jeff Shea. He owns a business in ABS Ducks, which is a large duck work company in Richmond. I don't know exactly how many employees he has in Richmond, but it's a lot. He has factories overseas and stuff like that as well. He's a world traveler. It's his hobby. So he's hard to see. Just saying, the bottom line is they've owned that property at least 30 years. And he intends to move into the house. And it's not a development. It's not a profit thing.

Excuse me, could you repeat that?

He's not doing it as a development. He's planning on living there. That's one. That's just character. And two is drainage. So the infiltration planters are for the roof drainage. So they've been calculated. There's the standards there. So the water goes to the planter first and then drips out after the storm. And yeah, it's calculated for, I don't know, I'm just, I don't know exactly, but around a one inch, one and a half inch storm. That's what it's geared towards. But the comments were about street drainage, which I showed curb and gutter on the plans. And it's really up to Public Works to tell us what to do. We have planting in the right of way and curb and gutter, which is typical. That's, you know, until Public Works tells us what to do, that's the best I can put on the drawings. That's all. I mean, it's using the standard details. But if they have something special, it's Public Works that tells the owner what to do. So, you know, because as you know, the way it's, the property, the vacant lot right now is taking a lot of the neighborhood water. And so with curb and gutter, of course, it's going to redirect that. But again, it's above my pay grade to know what Public Works will say on how to deal with it. Maybe they wanted to put in a storm drain or something like that.

You already had your comments.

Yeah. And the final thing is holding tank. There's plenty of space underneath the garage for a holding tank because it's one huge crawl space, basically, because it slopes down so quickly. This might be obvious to everyone. It's a well-known technology. Yeah, Richmond has to adopt engineering standards, but this isn't like a new thing in the world. So whatever Richmond wants to tell us to do, just like Public Works, we'll comply to it. But we have plenty of space for a tank. The calculation is a 1,500-gallon tank. The one I calculated for 1,980. There's plenty of space for a tank. And again, you shouldn't be afraid of the technology because it's done all the time. Just Richmond's got to adopt the standard that we follow. And those are the three items.

OK.

Thank you.

OK. OK. If there are no other comments, I'm going to close the public hearing and bring it back to the Planning Commission for discussion. I know I have a few questions, but I thought I'd have my fellow commissioners if they have anything questions or comments to go forth go first I have a question for Avery

Um, if during the, let's say, holding tank design, the one we don't know yet, right? If during that phase, it will be discovered that it's going to create a nuisance, like there was like an order mentioned, does it a significant enough issue to come back to us or not really?

I guess it's hard for me to speak to the future public comments and discussions around the tank itself after speaking to Public Works and reviewing those preliminary schematics for the holding tanks. There was lots of discussion that we had around the frequency at which the holding tanks are emptied. There is an alarm system that's placed inside the holding tanks. So once it reaches like just about 75 percent, there's like an actual alarm that will go off that will alert them that will basically stop the ability for more to enter which helps also coordinate and is then connected to the city so we'll be aware and be aware of the alert and also then help for the hauler to effectively come and remove it in terms of you know whether or not there would be substantial odor i think i can't speak to it at this moment right i think when we're thinking about a comparison would maybe be a port-a-potty, right? That truck comes and services that. Yes, those can be unpleasant at times. What we're talking about, again, a very different design. I think we don't have other close examples for me to say, let's go stand next to. There are portions of Richmond, we do have homes in the hills that maybe at some point prior to being connected to sewer, we're also using... holding tanks themselves or were using other forms of irrigation, or not irrigation, but for the disposal of sewage, septic, thank you, that was the word. And in the many homes even within Richmond who are below grade from the pipes themselves often have pumps inside their homes to pressurize and move business up back to the hill because otherwise it wouldn't make it. Again, the technology itself isn't new. It's something we've been using. I think in terms of if we get to the council hearing and the issues around odor and design are so great that it doesn't proceed, then this project also doesn't proceed, right? This project is contingent upon the moratorium being amended to allow for an alternative or being lifted altogether. So your decision this evening about even though and that's where again I understand the concerns of why are we so OK moving forward if we don't know everything. Well that's most of you know. the universe is we don't know everything. But what I do know is that there will be a hearing to decide the design and the components of those holding tanks. And that also comes with public review and comment. And if that meeting is determined to not proceed with holding tanks, then this project's going to have to wait. It will hold.

When you say there will be a hearing, are you talking about a hearing on the ordinance in general or about this project?

Yeah, there will be a public hearing on the ordinance itself, the moratorium.

Not specifically on this project?

Not on this project. No, the moratorium discussion will be for the entire area that is affected by the KBS sewer moratorium.

Let me narrow down my question because maybe I didn't ask it correctly. So right now we're considering this permit, right? And it has certain descriptions in it. One of them includes statement that there is no, any nuisance impact beyond regular residential use. But there is an unknown parts, including the holding tank. So my question is, should during the permitting process, it is discovered that there is a holding tank technology It's all compliant, all good, but it does create a nuisance. Does that mean it would come back to us because we're approving it today if we decide to approve as not creating nuisance, but now that changes, it does create. Does it mean it comes back to us where we have to reconsider or it's up to city council to decide or like what is the process?

I'm gonna defer to the city attorney just for.

Yeah, hi.

So there's separate code provisions under our municipal code for nuisance and abatement. And when, so to answer your question directly, after you make a decision on this particular file today, and in the event that you were to approve it, and then later on there is an odor. And that odor is determined to rise to the level of a nuisance, that would then trigger a completely separate provision of our code, which gives relief to anybody being affected by that nuisance, including the public, under that provision. So that would be outside the purview of this legislative body. But to answer your question, there would still be relief available, just not before the Planning Commission. Got it.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Let's see.

Chair, Commissioner Benitez has her hand raised.

Oh, go ahead. Has anybody looked at the underground? Anybody who's lived at the point knows there's a lot of water that comes up out of the ground when it rains. Yeah, I mean, can I ask them a question? I mean, that's my experience with the entire point. I mean, even on my street, and I'm over in Seacliff, we have this nice little place that comes up wet every time it rains in the middle of the street. So I'm curious if they looked at that. And I think the architect might want to address that as well.

Commissioner, is that a question?

They have really a lot of, I guess, springs.

Commissioner, for clarification, is that a question to the architect? This isn't a point to have a discussion with the audience.

It's probably to the architect and to people who are in that area who know.

Okay. So I think if it's a question to the architect, that's a fine, okay question. You have closed the public hearing, so you would have to reopen the public hearing to have that. And then in terms of addressing the members of the audience, this is not, this wouldn't be the time for that. Okay.

But I can ask the architect. This would or would not be.

Would not be. Until you open the public hearing and then you can then bring the applicant back up.

Once I do that, we can call anyone up specifically that we want. After we open, we would have to ask, we can certainly call the architect up. If we open a public hearing if we wish to solicit anecdotal input from the community we can do that.

Not for anyone who's already spoken unless we're not for anyone who's already spoken I would have to let me review your bylaws in terms of how you would process I guess potential rebuttal of comment. But I believe since you've already closed the public hearing once I don't believe that option is currently available to you. But give me a moment.

Okay, we'll come back to that because I think we do need to get answers to those questions. So while Avery is doing research, let me ask another question and I guess we'll need to open the public hearing for this one because I want to talk to the architect about What else can be done to deal with runoff and the infiltrated water, which ties in directly to what you're talking about? Is it going to bubble up on somebody else's property? Do we need to put drains down to the bay or what?

The commission can always direct questions towards the applicant.

Yeah, without opening it up?

Without opening up public comment. Well, when Avery finishes reviewing the bylaws, which I'm kind of curious about too, but... a part of your deliberations you can ask the applicant questions so under our procedures here we have a period for commissioners to ask the applicant questions then we open it up for the applicant to present then we open it up for public comment and then any additional comments from the applicant close the hearing and then commissioners deliberate if commissioners wish to ask additional questions of the applicant during their deliberations, they may. When asking questions towards the general public, that then would trigger another public comment period which is not contemplated under our procedures. So let's look at our bylaws here and take a look and see what we can do.

All right, well.

But addressing questions towards the applicant is just fine.

Yeah, we could have the applicant answer a question, you know, Commissioner Timmons is talking about, is there any experience of, I'll call it artesian water coming up because there's so much in the ground it bubbles up somewhere whether it's in the street or on the site. My question is whether there is or not when you, I'm thinking that when this water is concentrated in these percolation basins, if you will, of the planters, that at some point they're likely to, they could under some conditions get saturated and overflow. So is it conceivable to put either regular drains at some level in them, you know, or put French drains that connect all of them to bring some water, excess water towards the bay rather than over the top and into an adjacent property? You need to come up to the mic.

I'm just drawing on past experience. I'm not really a geotechnical engineer. But take, for example, the roof drainage is clear. It goes into the infiltration planter. That fills up. And the intention of that is when the storm is past, it may still drip. So you don't have water flowing at the same time it's raining from the roof. So that's like a well. But that's not what we're talking about. You're talking about street drainage.

Both, really. I think some of it, right now, the street drainage goes onto the site. We're going to try it with your, so that's actually a separate question. I guess I really am talking about water that collects on the site. These planters may or may not have adequate capacity. So how do we accommodate excess water in those? Can we put French drains in or drains?

Well, for the roof drainage that goes into infiltration planters, they drip to the beach, basically. So the infiltration planter filters the water a bit and delays it so it's not an immediate flood, we'll call it. And there's a drip to the beach on either side. And the other concern was with the new curb and gutter, assuming Public Works makes us do that, which is on the plan. What do we do with the street drainage that currently the vacant lot is handling for the neighborhood, basically? And then you mentioned French drains, which would make good sense. But likewise, I don't know whether public works would allow curb drain that drains to the beach. I just don't know that's allowed or not.

When you say the infiltration planters have a drip out at the end, is that because they're coming out of a pipe or is it just at some point all the water is eventually percolated through the land and is dripping out?

The infiltration planters are hard-bottomed and And you have pipes that go from the gutters from the roof and go directly to the infiltration planters.

But they're hard on the bottom. So once that fills up, there's nowhere for the water to go?

And there's a drip that drips out.

So there's like a tube out of the top, somewhere near the top?

Yeah, yeah. I threw it in the drawings.

And then it just goes on the surface.

So it's designed for an inch of rainfall. And then after that, it starts dripping out.

Is there a capacity for those?

Yeah, there's a calculation for tributary area to volume of planter.

So it's full of dirt? Yeah, just dirt and gravel. So it's just a planter?

Yeah. And that's one of the mitigation measures for roof drainage. But that's separate then from the street drainage.

But I wasn't really talking about street drainage. What I was talking about is the fact that in that, throughout the point, if we, there are a great many springs.

Oh, right.

I don't know if you, when I looked in here I'm not seeing any information about that and that part on that particular lot, for example, or on the lot above it.

That's what I'm asking. Did you look at any of that? I haven't researched. I haven't looked whether there are natural springs that come on that property or not. It's never been mentioned. I simply don't know. I've not noticed, but then again... You have to kind of live around it to realize that it happens frequently and consistently. I don't know the spring, but then again, yeah, I don't live there. Like what happens in the middle of winter.

That happens all year.

Right. Well, when I visited the site, I've not noticed any wet spots, we'll say, but I haven't been there on a... middle of January but this year didn't count. It was a drought year. But yeah, I don't have an answer for you on springs. I just don't have that information.

The curb and gutter, you can only take it as far as the edge of your property. Public Works can't require you to do improvements beyond that. Is that correct?

That is correct. It would be disproportionate to the project itself.

That's what I thought.

If, as the water would get to the edge of the property, if something's going to be done to mitigate any potential for it going to the lower lot, either public works department would have to extend that curb or the owner of that property would have to do something.

Is that correct?

Yeah, that generally sounds correct. Again, until we get to that point, I can't speak to what the flow rate of water would be.

But that would be part of geotechnical analysis, right?

Yep. So again, so in understanding the scope of the project for a single-family home and the established set of regulations that we review for at this period in time, because it's exempt from C3 because it's a single family home and it's on a lot less than 10,000 square feet and it's not disturbing more than 10,000 square feet of total area, the trigger to then begin that analysis has not occurred. When we're talking about say a subdivision of land where you're creating more than five homes, as soon as you hit that subdivision of land, That's what triggers the need to do preliminary grading, preliminary draining, preliminary utilities, and that would include a preliminary stormwater plan. So again, there are instances where yes, that is, We analyzed that at the point where the project scope is bigger and more substantial, where the impact could be greater. But it is at this point in time that per our ordinances and our policies that this is not determined as being above that threshold. So I think, again, all of those requirements are still in place. They will still be required to submit a geotechnical study to the building department. They will still be required to comply with any onsite drainage that they propose and or design. So it's not that it won't be reviewed and it's not that it won't be considered. It's just not required as a part of this particular application process at this stage.

Question regarding the holding tank. One of the speakers suggested that the environmental health group at the county would be involved. Do you know if this ordinance that's being developed is looking into whether they're involved, excuse me, that county agency needs to also be consulted

I don't have the answer to that off the top of my head, but I do know that when we spoke to the engineering group and we did ask them this question, again, that county will likely still comment on this. I am not aware of provisions of our municipal code that would stipulate that the county has jurisdictional authority over this particular issuing of a permit. They may have review procedures and we may out of courtesy in many cases we do out of courtesy send these types of documents out to other organizations for their review for their comment if there are again the potential that they have a permit that's necessary to facilitate temporary holding tanks. But I can certainly again that is something that would then get discussed as a part of the public hearing process for the moratorium and the sewer tanks themselves.

One last clarification, just so I'm clear. I think we're done with you for the moment, but thank you. Don't go anywhere. Just so I'm clear, the tank would be an alternative solution if and when and if until the sewer correction is made to the area. If the tank solution that is developed by the applicant is not acceptable to our city engineer, then they can't go forward with that and they'd have to wait until the sewer line was completed. Is that correct? Correct.

If the city council does not move to approve an amendment to the moratorium to make the relief in this option available, they would not be allowed to be issued a building permit. They would then have to wait until the moratorium is lifted or there has been a remedy to the sewer system.

But if the ordinance is in place, will I assume it will require some kind of city engineering review that there's adequate capacity or blah blah blah about this thing.

Yeah. So during the building permit for a single family residence when we're looking at connection to water sewer power and everything else that's when our engineering department would review either a traditional sewer lateral connection or in this case a alternative if the alternative was available engineer determines that

The solution that comes forth, again, this is a preliminary idea they have in their plan now. But ultimately, if it were to go forward, the actual solution they would put forward has to be approved by the city engineer.

Correct.

OK. OK. Where are we at on your deliberations? Are we?

Can I make a comment? Yes, please. Thank you. So I just want to get clarification, Avery. So as an example, if we don't approve this today, then the preliminary engineering studies that everyone is asking for and that we're asking for will not get done. Is that right? Because then the project isn't moving forward.

So depending on the decision you make this evening, if you If you vote to deny the request, the application is still appealable to city council, either by any member or any party aggrieved by the decision you've made. If you do choose to deny the application, for example, the application, if not appealed, then effectively dies and would have to start all over again. So this evening, if it is, again, of the council or of the commission's desire to, you do have within your authority as chair to hold over an item to a later date for further discussion, this might be an opportunity to leverage that option. to allow for, I guess, the council to render a decision, but again, I'm hesitant to say that that's an ideal situation.

Yeah, I mean, we could be waiting forever for the, no disrespect.

Yeah, and we still have the stop gap that this planning entitlement is not something that we can uphold. It has, through due process and through housing law, we do need to be able to render a decision on this project. And our outstanding and should we approve it then these studies that we've been talking about they would occur during during an Application for a building permit correct all of this to all of the Geotechnical the soil the engineering all of those studies all the calculations gets provided to the building department which is then reviewed by engineers architects mechanical plumbing and civil engineers. It comes back to the planning department. It's going to be reviewed by BCDC. They're also not even quite to the place where they're even, you know, they still have BCDC's review process to contend with.

Okay. And then just the last question, because I heard from multiple folks that they were concerned that this was their last opportunity to be able to provide public comment. If we approve this and then it moves to city council, can folks provide public comment on this or is this their last opportunity?

If the council votes, commission votes to approve this evening, this would not go in front of the city council unless the approval was appealed by a person aggrieved by the decision you've made.

So if it were approved, the neighborhood could appeal it wherever they have to pay a fee to do that. And there would be opportunity for public comment at that city council meeting.

Correct if that appeals if a duly filed appeal was made then yes, we would schedule the item to be discussed in front of City Council particular to the Appeal in the nature of the appeal and the concerns that are raised within the appeal So we really don't we don't have the option of Re-opening the public hearing no not a not in a matter that

changes what is published for our procedures. There's limited authority to the planning director to expedite the hearing with a nod towards the small provision that if there's additional speakers in excess of 10, Expeditious modification of the hearing would be limiting the public speakers from three minutes to two minutes And I think that's kind of what's contemplated by the planning directors Authority to modify the hearing kind of as an audible.

Okay, I guess we're at a point and thank you for that I appreciate that and I guess we're at a point where we have to fish or cut bait Okay Any comments or any interest in putting forward a motion of approval or any other comments you wish to make before that? Seeing none. All right. I'll make a motion and see what happens. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NUMBER 2611 SUBJECT TO ALL THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONTAINED IN THE RESOLUTION.

I'LL SECOND THAT.

I WILL TAKE ROLL. CHAIR HARRISON.

YES.

VICE PRESIDENT BAKER IS ABSENT OR ABSTAINED. SECRETARY TIMMINS.

YES.

COMMISSIONER GULOVIC.

YES.

COMMISSIONER SHAEED.

Yes.

Commissioner Benitez?

Yes.

The item is approved.

Okay, and getting back to that appeal statement, the date by which the appeal must be filed is, I'm trying to find that here. Do you have that in front of you, Avery?

The appeal date, it will be submitted in writing to the clerk's office to appeal by 5 p.m. on August 17th, 2026.

So if there's a desire to appeal this to the city, have the city council act on it, you have until? August 17th at 5 p.m. August 17th. And if you need directions on how to make that happen, the staff members will be happy to give you further guidance on how to do that.

OK, that was an interesting.

At this point, we'll move on in the agenda. Maybe Commissioner Brubaker could return. I'll go. AVERY, DO YOU WANT TO DRIVE THIS ELECTION PROCESS?

I CAN HELP DRIVE THE ELECTION PROCESS. THE NEXT ITEM ON YOUR AGENDA THIS EVENING IS THE ELECTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OFFICERS FOR THE UPCOMING TERM. IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR BYLAWS, THIS WAS TO BE COMPLETED IN JULY. WE'RE PRETTY CLOSE TO LONG TIME SO I'LL ACCEPT THAT. SO IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR BYLAWS, AT THIS POINT THE CHAIR WOULD ACCEPT NOMINATIONS FOR THE OFFICE OF CHAIR AND THEN WE WILL ACCEPT THE NOMINATIONS FOR VICE CHAIR AND THEN NOMINATIONS FOR SECRETARY AND WE WILL GO IN THAT ORDER. We will start with chair requesting if there are any nominations for chair, if there are any names named, then we would go through the portion of motioning and voting, and then we would go through each one from there on. There's certainly time if you'd like to chat amongst yourselves prior to making any nominations, you're more than welcome to, but the kickoff would be you requesting if there are any nominations.

Well, we've been doing so much chatting. Okay, is there anyone that wished to make a nomination for chairman?

I'll nominate Bruce.

Nominate Bruce Baker? Okay. Any other nominations for chair?

Through the chair, I think it would be helpful if there are some definitions I know in our handbook there's definitions for the chair, but there are no definitions on the role of vice chair secretary. And I had sent an email requesting if Avery could please even if it's a few sentences just describe the roles before we continue with nominations, thank you.

Certainly. So the chair of the Planning Commission effectively runs and is the organizer of the meeting. The bylaws that we have in place stipulate the authority of the chair in terms of how the meeting is conducted. It is primarily focused on running a smooth and well-maintained meeting. It's, I think, for a simple statement. The vice chair effectively serves as an alternate to the chair in the event that the chair is unavailable and has some of the same responsibilities and duties to help run an efficient and effective meeting. The secretary position, although loosely determined and defined in our bylaws, is primarily in place to ensure that there are communications between the city staff, serves as liaison to the commission itself, to me, to help communicate things basically back and forth. CURRENTLY THE SECRETARY DOESN'T HOLD THE RESPONSIBILITY OF CALLING ROLE OR DOING ORDER THAT FALLS TO STAFF AT THIS POINT. SO OVERALL, THE ROLES THEMSELVES AND THE RESPONSIBILITIES ARE LIGHT IN DUTY.

OKAY. WE HAVE ONE NOMINATION FOR CHAIR.

I'd like some discussion here. I'm amenable to being chair, but I just want to confirm with current chair Harrison that you are open, you are not open to being chair again. You'd like to change your role.

That is correct. I've enjoyed it and I would do it again, but I think rotating it is an important part of the planning commission. So I think, having a new chair would be a positive thing for the commission.

And to the chair, I would like to note we have pulled up our bylaws here, and so Nino can certainly review and read out the defined terms and roles of each three positions. And then we will send it all to you as a copy as well.

Okay. Is there any more discussion relative to the position of chair? Any other nominations or discussion? Commissioner Benitez, do you have any other additional questions or comments?

No.

Okay. Can we nominate a slate and just vote on the slate or?

Yeah, so there's currently a nomination for to serve as chair, we would be looking for a second and then a call of any additional nominations.

So rather than doing them all in one, all three positions with one vote, we have to do a vote on each position? Okay.

It would be easier for me to have you vote for one and then do the nominations for each.

If there are no other nominations, do we need a second?

I second the nomination for... Bruce. Bruce.

Okay, I guess there's no other nominations. Let's have a vote.

I'll take a vote. Chair Harrison?

Yes.

Vice Chair Brubaker? Yes. Commissioner, Secretary Timmons?

Yes.

Commissioner Shaid? Yes. Commissioner Golovitz? Yes. And Commissioner Baker? Thank you. Planning Commission, your role will begin at our next meeting in September.

All right.

Congratulations.

Okay.

You're off the hook.

I'm on the hook. I'll be on the beach in Mexico.

Because you may be vice chair. So the next discussion is whether you would be amenable for a lesser role still being in leadership.

I'm happy to do whatever, but it'd be nice to get additional members of the commission involved. If we're talking about vice chair, I had a discussion with Ms. Planning Director Stark about the possibility of Commissioner Benitez being the vice chair. I don't know if she's interested or not. If she is, I would nominate her.

Thank you. Sure. Yes.

Okay.

I second.

Any other nominations? Nope. We're going to close that. We'll have a vote.

Chair Harrison for the last time vice chair Brubaker. Yes secretary Timmons. Yes, mr. Shaheed. Yes, mr. Golovitz. Yes, Commissioner Benitez yes Congratulations I'm becoming the new vice chair of Planning Commission. Our last role is secretary. I

I think Kay has done such a good job.

The main thing I do is show up.

Yeah, yeah. Anybody else want to be secretary? It's wide open here. Would you like to remain?

I'm happy to, sure.

Okay, so you're nominating her. I would. I don't know if anybody else has interest in stepping up to a leadership role.

Yeah, leadership. I wonder if the secretary does.

I can read the powers of the secretary, if you'd like.

Yeah, sure.

So the secretary shall be responsible for reading agenda items at meetings of the commission, shall act as secretary at all meetings of the commission, shall have all of the powers and duties conferred or imposed by law, shall have such other powers and duties as are ordinarily inherent in the office of the secretary of a planning commission, and shall perform such other duties as may from time to time be prescribed by the commission. The secretary shall be assisted in his or her duties by the planning director who shall be responsible for the accurate recording and production of the minutes of commission meetings and the maintenance of the commission's records and files, including its attendance records. In January and July each year, the secretary shall present to the commission a report of the attendance of each member of the commission for the last 12 months based upon the attendance records maintained by the planning director.

Seems like that's a change to the city ordinance. It's warranted.

And then in the absence of the chairperson and vice chairperson, the secretary shall preside over and conduct the meetings of the commission.

OK.

So generally speaking, your authorities have been delegated to the planning director as you have currently operated under for the past.

But I do want to do that January and July thing. Okay. I'd like to do that.

Sounds good. I'll certainly provide you with the attendance records and at our next meeting you can have that be a new item business of reporting out on attendance.

Okay. So Bruce, you nominated Commissioner Timmons?

Commissioner Timmons, yes. Is there a second? I'll second.

Okay. Let's have a vote.

Chair Harrison? Yes. Vice Chair Burbaker? Yes. Secretary Timmons? Yes. Commissioner Shahid?

Yes. Commissioner Golovitz? Yes.

And Commissioner Benitez?

Yes.

Thank you. Congratulations on your reinstatement as Secretary and your responsibility to report out on attendance. And if you'd like any other further duties or responsibilities, just work through me and we will certainly make sure you have that.

All right, I guess we have no other business. No other business, thank you. We'll adjourn the meeting at 8.19. Thank you. Thank you all for attending. Thank you.

Thank you.

You're off the hook entirely. Well, that's what you want.

I played my cards just right.

Now, don't disappear, though.

Recording stopped.