 For obvious reasons, this Planning Commission meeting is not physically open to the public. Limited staff are present in the council chambers and Planning Commissioners are participating remotely by a video call. Members of the Planning Commission can use the reaction choices in Zoom to indicate who likes to speak, similar to raising a hand. As always, this meeting is cable cast live on charter communications cable TV channel eight. It is being recorded to be rebroadcast on the following Wednesday at 8 a.m. and Saturday following the first rebroadcast at 1 p.m. on charter channel 71 and Comcast channel 25. Meeting can also be viewed live from the city's website and the Zoom meeting link also available on our website. Our commission tonight is Victor. Public comment can be emailed or called into the Planning Commission. Members of the public may submit public comment once for each item. By email or phone call, you may not submit more than one email or call per item. There will be instructions on the screen, but just to review them before the item, you wish to comment on and call the phone number and enter the meeting ID displayed. Press the hash key when prompted for a participant ID. To raise your hands and make a comment, press star nine on your phone, wait to hear that you're on mute and then make your comment. You will have up to three minutes to speak. If you are watching me by Zoom, you can use the participant option for raise your hand and make a comment when unmuted by our moderator. For email comments, identify the item you wish to comment on your email subject line. Email comments will be accepted starting now up until I announce that public comment for the item is closed. Each email comment will be read loud for up to three minutes or displayed on the screen. Emails and calls received by outside, received outside of the comment period outlined will not be included in the record. Before we go on to oral communications, any members of the public who are going to make comments on items not on the agenda, please send them in via email or otherwise, and we'll have them when we get back. So next item is additions and deletions to the agenda. So if you think it will be well tied, ATT crashed me out of the meeting for the last draft because of a leak that I wouldn't have any questions about. No, we were just going through the script. Okay, very good. Thank you. And in the public comment instructions. So again, any additions or deletions to the agenda? We did receive two public comments on item 5B with via email after the packet was published and all planning commissioners should have received those through email. The Grand Avenue pathway two comments came in. Was that being, was that item going to be continued? No, that item is not being continued. The item that is being continued is four, I'm sorry. Let's see. It was originally. Is the baller is being continued, but that's not the case now, right? 4B is going to be continued. That the baller, yeah, but 5B, we did receive two public comment after the update. Yeah, okay. All right, so then the next item is public comment and that would be as I mentioned about an item that are not on the agenda. We'll take another 60 seconds or so to see if anyone has any comments they wanna make. I'm looking at the participants and I do not see any hands raised for items that are not on the agenda for public comment. And Sean, do you see the email? Comments and then if we get any public comments that come in a little late, we'll go back to those. Do we have any comments from commissioners at this point? Comments. Hearing none, staff comment. I did have one comment this evening. I just wanted to acknowledge that Liz Nichols who has been helping us out with the planning commission meetings. This is her final meeting for helping us out with the planning commission. She is retiring after 18 great years of the city and her help has been much appreciated. So thank you, Liz. Commissioners here in that sentiment. So the next item is approval of the minutes for October 1, 2020. We are moving forward on the minutes now. Do we have any comments, additions, corrections to the October 1 minutes? I move approval. Okay, do we have a second? Second, commissioners. Any further discussion? Hearing none, we'll do a roll call vote. So, Mr. Welch? Aye. Mr. Ruth? Aye. Mr. Wilk? Aye. Mr. Christensen? Aye. People, aye. And I... Aye. Karen? Chair, just that I do them. Okay. That takes us to the consent calendar. We have two items on the consent calendar. One is 201-Esclonod and one is capital availability policy, which is up for continuance, correct? Correct. I'd like to take those one at a time. Well, first let me ask, does anyone want to pull any of those from the agenda? Any member of the public who'd like to public hearing on either of those and the second one, the capital availability policy is just to be continued. So, if you have a comment on the substance to that, you can say that for another night. So, if you have any desire to have use of those herds by public hearing, please let me know. I would like to have 201-Esclonod for public hearing. So, we'll take item 4B, which is the bill of follows. And I think that Commissioner Wilk and myself are recused from that. So, Commissioner Wilk, you can take the vote, please. Okay, let's go vote to continue the ballers. All in favor? I think it was roll call. Oh, roll call, that's all right. Commissioner Wilk? Commissioner Wilk's? You, Commissioner Christensen? Commissioner Neubin? I'm recused, also. And Commissioner Wilk's, aye. We need a vote from Commissioner Christensen to continue this item. I can't, can you hear me, aye? Yes, okay, thank you for the motion, Mary. Sorry. Did we need a motion? I think we didn't get a motion in the second one. Yes, we did. Commissioner Grosz will make a motion that we approve item 4B to continue the couple of votes ballers. Oh, I'm sorry, I thought we did. This is the second. All set, ready? That's it. All right. Thank you. Can you get a look? Thank you. Now, let's go back to 4A and 2L and S9 and just have a quick public hearing on that and first we'll have a staff report, please. Thank you. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. Good evening, fine question, everyone. This is 2-1-X-1-Od for a new wall sign. It's in the central village zoning district and it requires a sign permit because, sorry, my commission because it is a new sign if that's removed the original. Tacos Marana is a restaurant at the eastern end of the S1 on the wall sign. Shum here is centered on their street front and should be able to get them on in a long way. To promote a sign with the wall sign, it has a total sign area of 32 square feet. Sign is made of wood with raised lettering and does not have any elimination internal or otherwise. As part of this application, the original sign that was on the two on the front was removed. The applicant also removed an existing non-conforming menu box that would exceed its allowable size and placed it with a aluminum menu box that does conform to the two square foot maximum size. I was pretty much in with that. The staff recommends approval of the project-based non-condition and approval of binding. Any questions or staff? I'll repeat a question that I asked Matt earlier and he gave me an answer, which I guess is satisfactory, but thinking about it made me not. So the question I had before was, wasn't there a sign there before? And the answer came back, no. There was no sign, it was just awning. But my question is, when did you make more general? I mean, that's been there a long time. I can't imagine back in the days when it was those El Pirata, you know, it's been a bunch of different things over the years that there was never signage there. And if there was signage there historically, and you're just adding signage that's been there in the past, maybe not real recently, but in the past, does that even require a permit? Katie, I can take that if you like. Go ahead. Who was that? So Sean here, you're absolutely correct. There has been, and what is up and tell, Papa's brand moved in a ride of signage. That signage has changed over the years. The previous tenets have two awning signs, the signage right on the front of the awning that did go to the planning commission and was approved by the planning commission. This, if the applicant had so desired to replace the face of those awnings with their new name, the logo, they could have done that in Mr. Izley. This was a proposal to completely change the kind of signage they had, which does require a approved by the planning commission. Well, my question is really, let's say the previous owner, which was a philosopher's guy, didn't have a sign with the top of the brand of sign, but the owner before that did have a sign exactly in that same box, and wouldn't sign the range lettering the whole thing. Does that like set precedent for that building such that, even though it's changed owners a couple of times, you know, unless you would need a permit because it's been accepted that that's a good place for a signage that's been approved in the past. I can answer that one as well. Yeah, so it is not so much based on the property or business owner, it's based on what was there and if it was there within a time frame of abandonment, after a sign is removed or replaced by something else, whether it's through just taking it down or a new type of sign was approved, there's a period that's only about six months of which if it's not a place, it's considered abandoned and the entitlement to have that particular sign is not good enough, Mr. Robertson. That makes sense, this is okay, the abandonment. In this case, it wasn't so much an abandonment as it was they wanted a new sign layout. No, I get you answered my question. Okay, all right, I have a question. Am I, did I read this correctly that there was some violation that brought this to the planning department's attention? There was a sign violation. I can answer that two days too much. Please. All right, yes, the signs as you may have noticed exactly show in the presentation was an actual physical sign on location. The reverse order there is a result of a code enforcement which they put the sign without getting the proper approval. We worked with the business to get them to apply for a sign permit and that's why we're here today. Okay, if there are other questions, I'll open the public hearing and do we know whether anybody is planning to participate in? I'm checking right now for the participants on Zoom and I don't see any hands raised. I'm now gonna go to the public comment emails and I'm also not seeing any new emails coming in. So there's no public comment at this time. I'll conditionally close the public hearing if anybody shows up, but while we're discussing it, we'll reopen it. So I'm the one who removed this and I guess we can't go out of order so people know where I'm coming from is, I don't have any problem with their sign. I have a problem that they're not abiding by our laws and regulations on every kind of a pattern, which seems to be the story for this property. We had problems with prior owner and I'm particularly concerned with the public walkway, which they keep filling with tables so people can keep high and now the sign and this business owner, I mean, I'm happy that they've come into town and they have a nice business with their experience. They have at least one other location and maybe two that I'm familiar with. So I mean, my question is how do we get across to them that this is not like a total Wild West care and who needs to comply with the city rules? Is there any communication with them about the alleyway and the further communication? Chair Newman, I did stop by and speak with them at one point about removing one of the tables, explaining that with the social distancing that's in place, they are, so they're allowed to have the three tables and six chairs, but because of social distancing, it's pushing the tables into that walkway. We had a very informal discussion. I can make that a little more formal and we can also send out a letter and let them know. Is that what you're referencing in the back facing Zelda's? Okay. I mean, I've actually had some informal conversations with, I don't know if it's the owner or someone works there and I don't know whether it's just lack of understanding or disregard, but I have a hard time approving anything for an applicant who is, in violation of rules. Important, but I consider the important planning rules. So that's coastal permission requirement. Are you saying that they are currently not in compliance? Correct. If you try to walk through that, they have their tables, it's locked away. And that wasn't a COVID exception? No. To this case, I don't know. Is there COVID exception to the coastal commission access requirements? No, they actually, they were given more outdoor seating out front that they're allowed to use for COVID-19 purposes, but they still, they've got a conditional use permit, which allows three tables and six chairs off the back, but because of COVID and the need to separate, have six feet between parties, which means nine feet between tables, it's pushed them into that walkway. So we can revisit that. And you could this evening add a condition to the sign that they must be in compliance with their CUP for outdoor dining, you know, as part of your decision. Okay. Let me then make that motion that we approve it with the condition that we, we add a condition to the fine approval that they're in compliance with the coastal commission seating requirements and access requirements. Okay. Do you mind if I have a second? Oh, okay. Can you turn to your question? Did we get anything more from the public from not just engage? Yeah. No additional public comment at this time? Just for a sake of discussion, I agree with what you're saying. And just to know if it's relevant, it is time to assign permit. To me, it's important that whatever you do if you're taking a sign down, it's a good job. No, I get that, and I have the same feeling, but it's just like, I don't, they keep doing it and I don't have any other letter. Yeah, I mean, I'm all for taking some form of action. I just don't know how relevant it is to try to assign terminating, but either way, I support getting signed if there's some done correctly and hopefully getting them on board to understanding what the coastal commission expectations are for access. Well, I mean, we have precedent for this, and it's definitely, it's a building permit of sorts. We're focusing on the sign, but when we approve a modern-day building, we take into account the entire building and we want to make sure it's all in compliance. So I don't see why this is so odd to have this condition. Can we get a second back here, remember? Yeah, so I think, oh yeah, so it's under discussion, thank you. I was just creating discussion about applying both types of things to permit. Okay, point well taken. Are we ready for a vote? Commissioner Welch. Commissioner Root. Hi. Commissioner Welch. Hi. Commissioner Christensen, are you there? Yes, I'm here, hi. Okay, and I know that I do. So that takes us to public hearings. The first public hearing is 1360 First Avenue, then your application for the sign for underuse permit or mixed use development, adding two new residences to the particular property. Commercial structure located within the CC Sony district. You have a staff report. Thank you, Chair Newman. Sean, next slide, please. The different structure at 1360 First Avenue is a non-conforming two-story commercial structure previously occupied by Anderson Fertiching. A lot of the 1460 Commercial Corridor is run by a one and two-story commercial building. Next slide, please. Did you think it was two-story? Yes. I mean, it has two stories, and then the one, the helm building has one story, and then the office building on the corner has two stories, that is, it makes them one and two stories in the air. There's a large parking area behind the 1360 First Avenue that belongs to the adjacent parcel of the 1408 First, which is in the helm, and the office building at 1350 First, which is in the office building. Actress to the parking area is provided by two driveways, one off the 41st Avenue, and one off the Page Street, which is in the air and down low. Next slide, please. This is the existing person's second-story floor plan. The second story is on the left, and the first story is on the right. If you look to the left-hand side, you'll see the existing upstairs office space that's really not very visible through the street and the previous image, but that's the area that's being converted. And then if you look at the first-story plan on the right, this is the retail area. I think that's the front portion of it. And then in the back there is the existing garage that would be mainly for loading and unloading zone, and then eventually a garage doors were added and it would use forced storage. Next slide, please. You're at the proposed person's second-story floor plan. And see on the bottom right, the existing garage on the bottom right is going to be converted to residential garage parking spaces that would be reserved for the residential units above. And if you look at the second-story plan on the left, that previous office space would be converted into two residential units. Next slide, please. Under the capital and municipal code, multiple family residences are a conditional use in the CCW district. The use may be permitted by the planning commission if the use is secondary to a principal permitted such as a commercial on the first floor on the same lot. Subjects, certain limitations, which are listed here. The proposed project involves the conversion of the existing floor area that has not changed the feeling guys of the existing structure. However, the existing person's second-story floor, sorry, person's second floor ceiling guys are both only eight feet. So they do not comply with limitation number one and two. Therefore, the structure is a legal non-performing. Next slide, please. The municipal code under the consideration section in 1760 and 020 states that in considering applications for a transitional use, the planning commission shall be due regard to the nature and condition of all adjacent producers and structures. Due to the limited size of the parking area behind the structure, at 1360 Forty-first Avenue and the close proximity of the parking areas on the two adjacent parcels, the proposed project has the potential for adverse impact on the availability of parking on those adjacent parcels. Next slide, please. The proposed parking also does not comply with the minimum number of parking, regarding parking spaces, the minimum parking space mentioned or the minimum covered parking space mentioned. However, because the proposed project is not adding to the floor area or increase the intensity to use by requiring more parking than is currently required, the non-performing parking does not have to be brought into compliance. The creation of a new residential use on the property, too, actually, has the effect of reducing the number of available parking spaces for the under-parked existing commercial use and has the potential to negatively affect the availability of parking on the adjacent parcels. Therefore, a parking space is conducted to analyze whether or not the nine proposed on-site parking spaces are adequate for a commercial and residential mixed-use lane use combination under a shared parking arrangement. The parking space conducted by Timothy Horn demonstrates that the nine proposed parking spaces will be adequate for a resale and residential use combination, which are part of nine spaces, but will be one parking space short for an office and residential use combination which are part of ten spaces. Next slide, please. A new office used in the commercial space has been completely revamped with non-reparation planning permits in the city of Capitol One. So in order to ensure adequate parking for a potential office, residential use combination in the future, the planning mission could include an additional condition in the commission's approval shown here, requiring a parking study on an adjacent parcel and a long-term lease of one additional parking space on that lot if it is found to have an extra parking space available. Next slide, please. So that separates the planning mission with even an approved project and the commission's approval deadline. We do. Any questions of staff hearing none? Well, there's the public hearing and do we have any requests to be heard from anyone on this item yet? Yes. Bill Kemp, the architect and also Steve Allen, the property owner. I will start. Okay, Anna, can we pass them in? Yes, we'll see if you can do that. This is Steve Allen, the property owner and Bill Kemp, the architect and project that they're going to... Okay. Okay, Steve, you can now speak. Mr. Allen, it looks like you are unmuted and... Mr. Allen, are you with us? I'm with you. Can you hear me, Chairman? Yes, thank you. Right, thank you. Mr. Allen, thank you for your time. Steve Allen, the managing member of the ownership of this property. He purchased this property about a year ago on Peckin and Zasko, you know, I'm a broker by trade. I've leased property on 21st Avenue over to San Francisco County for 20 years. I've never seen it explode in finding new tenants. It had to happen during the 2020 pandemic year. We're really struggling to find a commercial tenant that could leave on the entire process for $4,400 or so for a few years. Don, I think that I really like this project that they'll get open and put together for a couple reasons. Number one, it provides additional housing units which we all know are needed. And number two, and my understanding is it's been existing, parking will be grandfathered, continued the office or retail use because it's historically continued. But the Timley Horns on parking studies is the city had a commission, you know, if it's residential upstairs and then retail down below, for the study that would be at 20% on the intensification of parking. Office would be at a 33% reduction. So we talked to the neighbors and they seemed to be in the coordinate and the apartment upstairs would be much easier to rent and then the smaller, once you get it down, what else would be usually. No, that's how I like the project. Thanks for your time. Do you have any questions of Mr. Allen? Other than mine? Okay, so there seems to be an issue in terms of the parking requirement for retail versus office on the downstairs portion. Is it your intent to be leasing it for retail or for office or do you not? So Harry, we really don't know at this time. We, we intimately leased four parking spaces on the adjacent property, the Elmstown Valley property, thinking that would help us find a tenant this year who has not. So, you know, if necessary, you know, we could do a parking study continually for the duration of the office tenant, but simplifying, you know, the goal is probably to start a retail tenant, but we really have no process at this time. Yeah, okay, I understand. Thank you. Any other questions? There's not the, does Mr. Kemp want to join us? Yes, I will now open the mic. Mr. Kemp, are you coming here? Okay, would you like to address the commission? Yes, I would. Thank you, commissioners, for hearing this project. I've been involved with building some good shoes from, I think, Mr. Ball in the late 2000s to have his own brand shoes. And there's a couple things going through conditions with Google that I thought were a little excessive. There's conditions nine and 10, which, on a small matter related, we're not doing any work outside the building. Everything is in terms of, except for a couple of new nos, and, I don't know, we're not planning to disturb any of the sites. So, I just, I just know that, how do we use kind of requirements to take time and money on the applicant's product to, I mean, on this part, to get through that process. So, I just think that the range you guys were talking about is huge. So, the public could maybe put things into this. So, those are the items that we can do with the drainage plan and the stormwater management plan? Correct. Okay. And then, do you have anything I wanted to point out? Is that, in the staff's homework, they talked about the sharing heights of the building. And the answer is that we have the building that has the apartments on some of the feeling heights is lower than here, and they're starting to go down. The main retail floor of the chair kind of drops off each. So, some of the people are, I mean, now we've got all those professions. Any questions of Mr. Kent? None. Thank you very much. And, does anyone else, in the meantime, indicate that you're to address the commission from the public? There are no additional. They're not so awful as the public hearing. Conditionally, again, if anybody crops up, we'll re-open commissioners. Anyone want to start out here? Go ahead. Oh, no, I was just going to say that I think this is a really great piece of the building. I agree with the conditions, but the, I just think that making an extreme building seems like a very great solution, just want to offer support. Okay. And Commissioner Root, you were going to, actually I was going to say it was Courtney's, so I don't need to say anything, but I think that you have to cover Courtney. Commissioner Wilk, or Wilk? Commissioner Wilk has a question, gets more questions of staff, based on Builder's comments about conditions nine and 10. So these boilerplate conditions, or were there some thoughts put into the need for a stormwater and drainage plan? There are boilerplate conditions, but I believe, if I look back, I thought it was a step forward, but I believe they are specifically requested by the public works department, because they're the concerns, the past, some site-related deep drainage in the back, kind of flooding those garage parking areas. I believe it was a draft, there's some kind of a surfacing plan, but I believe that's why they want to feed those stormwater plans to make sure that the transition stormwater will function without causing issues in that residential garage. Can you believe that there's an existing stormwater drainage plan that needs to be dusted off to look out again? I believe that they can probably do that from my understanding of the benefits here in the back parking lot. Thank you. And I will add that the condition number 10 says to the satisfaction of the director of public works, and I'm sure director Jesberg would be happy to work with the applicant, so they don't go beyond what's necessary, but I would suggest leaving that condition in. Commissioner Wilk, should you have any thoughts on that? Yeah, I know for the comment of the district project, I understand that we have conditioning and I agree with how we condition that, so I think some of the people in the motion. Well, I just did, I mean here today, I agree with Commissioner Christensen that I, I think this is a terrific concept of the property. The only thing I question is how we handle this issue of satisfying the parking requirements for retail use, but not for in office use. And the way that the condition reads that I'm reading it correctly is, if they want to put an office in there, then they have to do another parking study to show that they have another state someplace else that is acceptable. And I guess the staff would be, I mean, can't we just approve this for a retail use and then if they decide they have an office and addresses at that time? I think you could, except as I mentioned, the staff report would be able to know permitting for a use change like that, so there would be no reason to even know of commercial opportunities in the legal space. But if they didn't have a permit, it was a conditional use permit, right? Mm-hmm. So can we make it a conditional use permit for just retail use? Good. And then they could, if they want to do an office use, might be, you know, maybe it wouldn't be in the parking study, and then they'll say we've got spaces there and then put it that way and it'll save some time and money. I think that's a matter of conditional use for a modernization in that certain space for the office to have an office use to it, and then any more work in time and money. If there's a new commercial knowledge, I would be willing just to add a condition that if it is used in an office space, that they have that lease in place that we don't go back to the little parking study, and it could just, to me, to make it a vehicle that we have happen at the county and so that we can come back to the crime commission. So I don't know. Hi. Can you work? I agree with Commissioner Wells. I just, I feel like doing them as many tools as possible to get their commercial space leased and rented and occupied is pretty paramount in their interest, you know? Yeah, I agree. And I mean, all we really need to say is that they do a retail use, they're fine, if they do an office use, they need to range for another space. Yeah, the reason the parking study requirements in there is that the New Jersey property helm actually does not have position parking currently to provide one extra space to them. They chose to simply read that, you know, required parking for one person cannot be used for another person's requirements. So they have to prove that the other lot actually has an extra space. And we actually know, because we've done that as part of this in the early part of our discussion, that adjacent lot does not have a space. So you have a plan that I think they're gonna pursue eventually as we add, I forget how many space, like nine spaces maybe, to that home lot. And at that time they would have extra space to use, but currently they do not have an extra space to use. So what could we study here? Yeah, I think we could change the terminology that they need a lease from an adjacent property with adequate parking, with available parking. And they would need to show that they've produced enough parking on that site, if it's through lifts or some other mechanism to create more parking. But they may not have to go so far as a study, unless they were trying to prove that a mixed use in some fashion could decrease the time. Yeah, but I think we could say lease. The reason it covers both the home lot and the office lot, because the office lot actually has, on the other side, has a much larger parking lot that potentially can have spaces, but there are quite a few different uses in there, and I do have to do the thing to determine what the parking intensity of requirements are for that large office building to determine whether a large parking lot has extra space as well, so that's a high point. I think we should do a case and just say they need to do, if they search this office, they need to demonstrate that there's parking, they need to collect the wall and they can figure out whether they can do that. Anyone agree with that or disagree, or fix it today? I'm on board with them. All right, so have we had a motion? I just want to follow up on one thing as Director Hurley, is we were talking about keeping condition ten, but we're okay with nine being taken out. I would suggest keeping them, from what Matt said at the Ark and Sight meeting, this did come up, their conditions, public works always provides us with the conditions that they'd like on a permit, so although they seem standard, they did, Danielle always reviews the projects and attaches the conditions that are relevant, so if the public works department can waive them if it's unnecessary as Mr. Kemp was explaining, but at this point, I think we should leave it on the permit and leave it up to public works whether or not the requirement has already been satisfied. Okay, with that, I'll just make a motion that we improve as staff's proposal with additional condition on the parking of the office to be determined by the tenant showing that they have nothing to park in. We have. Any further discussion? We'll do a roll call. Commissioner, I will. Aye. Commissioner Root. Aye. Commissioner, it's been. Aye. Commissioner Wells. Aye. And I vote aye. So that's unanimous, and good luck. Good project. Next item is the Grand Avenue Pathway Improvement. This is an application for coastal development for drainage improvements between Oakland and Hollister Avenue on the Grand Avenue Pathway in front of 100 Oakland Avenue and 404 Grand Avenue in the R1 Single Family Residential Zoning District. Project in the coastal zone, obviously, and requiring the coastal development for what we're actually doing. Do we have any recusals on this? Commissioner Wells, are you okay on this one? Yeah, I'm fine. I'm not afraid of fiber. Drops out to 500 feet, okay. Good. Staff report. Thank you. As said, this is an application for a coastal development permit, or CDP for drainage improvements in the public redway in front of two residential properties in the Single Family Residential Zoning District. It is, as you can see in the smaller blue box to the bottom of the selection, it's actually right along the Grand Avenue Pathway or the pathway used to be. But this is on behalf of both those properties next to it. On December 2nd, 2019, Color Forest staff learned that a portion of the Grand Avenue pathway between Oakland and Hollister Avenue has failed. With a complete loss of a section of pathway, this failure had been anticipated in 2017 when the city council authorized the closure of this section of pathway and due to geologic instability. In response, the city authorized drainage improvements under an emergency coastal development permit that included a new drainage inlet, as shown here, and an outfall on Hollister Avenue. The CDP was subsequently approved by the Planning Commission in February of this year. To cite the drainage improvements, the failure site has continued to experience erosion due to soil exposure and partial surface flow towards the site. On December 28th, 2020, the Community Development Director approved an emergency coastal development permit for drainage improvements. These improvements included a 12-inch, the concrete drainage ditch, hand rating and contouring of the slope, receding and removal of damaged materials from the pathway and private improvements. The activity of also proposing landscaping of disturbed areas and repair of retaining walls those are subject to this CDP, they were not included as part of the emergency CDP approval. The above site plan created for last winter's city improvements indicates the intended path of surface drainage. The current proposal will help restore a continuous pound of travel for surface drainage between Hollister and Oakland Avenue. A particular concern in the original CDP as it, this fall, proposal of the permit is that area in red. The proposed site plan with a reverse orientation that shows the ocean at the top of the edge and the bottom. The proposed project includes drainage improvements completed under a emergency CDP. Under the Capsule Municipal Code, a coastal development permit is required for repair and maintenance activity requiring the presence, whether temporary or permanent, of mechanized construction equipment or construction materials on any sand area or flood or environmentally sensitive habitat area as defined by the Coastal Act or within 20 of the coastal water streams. The proposed work here is adjacent to flood along former sections of the pre-adjusted pathway. Therefore, across the water current, they require. A condition of approval hasn't been added to reflect the coastal commission recommendation for last winter's improvements. It works over the same condition, requiring that to the best of their ability. The old material that's being, overhauled and has the damage as a result of the failure be cleared as much as they can possibly. I'll ask you a question on that real quick. Is that? I think you need Sean. Oh, Sean, I'm sorry. Yeah. On the removal of those materials, says how big a distance back to the edge of the block where we were talking about? Or were we just talking about items that are overhanging the block? We're talking about items that have been affected as a result of the failure. Or are almost, you know, about, yeah. So, yeah, basically things that are already impacted. For example, some of the stress cracks and the beginnings of failure. Okay, for example, the pictures you're showing, the fence on the left, that would be removed. Yes. If they can do so, safely, yeah. Okay, thank you. I believe Commissioner Christensen has her hand up. You just cut you off right at the important part of your presentation. All right, this is a public hearing and I'm guessing that we have someone from Public Works that would like to address us. Yeah, this application came in actually from the property owners to do the same work that our Public Works Department had done. So, we do have the two property owners and John Hart who actually did the work on available via Zoom. And it looks. So, the city and the property owners that are jointly applicants here? You know, the property owners are the applicants here and they've applied for an encroachment permit to do the work. Other than that, I know we've got some written. I have anyone that wants to address us? Yes, it looks like John Hart and then followed by Jim Castellanos. I'm going to, I've just opened this up to John Hart. John, it's your turn to speak. John, are you there? Can you hear me? Yes. Oh, okay, good. Yeah, I'm on a 404, what was now 404 Grand Avenue, which is the house that's sort of next to Jim's, which is 402 Grand Avenue. And I think it's important, if you have any questions about what we're planning on, I mean, the effort, et cetera, is John Davis on a call that he would be, he's the person that's basically doing all of this. So, I would suggest that, I mean, he's the expert. But what we've done up to now is we put in the V-Ditch so that the flow of water will safely go around the opening and when it starts raining. And what remains to be done is to see the area under it so that eventually we can slow up erosion, et cetera, and sort of replace the plants to get all washed away. I mean, so that's the only, that what's left to be done is the seeding. That's all that remains to be done. And, but that was left for to gain approval by the planning commission. And also we'll clear out, you know, any of the old pipes and things like that are being done. But again, the details of this. Can you tell if John Davis is on the call or on the Zoom? He is. So, I might want to turn it, if you want any detailed discussion on the subject, I would suggest that he do the discussion, not me. Okay, well we'll probably hear from him also. Okay, I'll be back to it. Okay. Okay, and then we had someone else? Yes, next. I'm opening it to Jim Castellanos. Jim? Yes. Can you hear me? You can hear me. Okay, yeah, I'll echo John's comments, but our intent really is not to do anything obnoxious or doesn't look good, but really just to slow the process of erosion down as long as we can and try to write off the clock. That's our intent. So, you know, I appreciate your understanding and cooperation. Thank you very much. And John's right, John Davis from Primaline State has spearheaded the whole project and he's done a really great job. And he's actually a lot of erosion control work along with Chris in fact, he's a very knowledgeable guy and he's the one that needs to be speaking to himself. Anyway, thank you very much. Okay, so I guess we're going to hear from John David as he's with us. Okay. Mr. David? Okay, Mr. David, you're now. He's showing up on your screen. He's muted? I'm not seeing him at all, I'm fine. And I think, John, David, do you need a... He's muted. He's muted himself. He's muted himself. Mr. David, if you can hear us, please unmute if you'd like to address us. Okay, we'll come back to him. Oh, here we go. Mr. David? Yes. I believe? He's not there anymore. Yeah, okay, well let's conditionally close the public area, we'll hear from him as David shows up, commissioners, thoughts. I have one question. And under discussion in the staff report, item four states the landscaping of the served area consisting of restoration of the stone retaining wall. Are some of those items, for example, the stone retaining wall, are they encroaching into the public property? Anyone? Lanare, Sosanto? Yeah, Milo. Well, I'm just curious, if the stone retaining wall is encroaching, why would we, the city, be repairing it? You're not. That's not what the item says. So this work, this work is being... They deterred me to reseeding the landscape here. Are there conditions on that, like native plants, or something like that? Or are we gonna get complaints that people looking at the flip side see some horrible, non-invasive, whatever, up there? Sean, Marianne, the seeding varieties were lifted in the work synopsis on one of the attachments. So that is what they would be following. Did Daniel, the area, or anybody take a look at that to make sure those were accessible plants? I'm going to... Did you hear that? They're California native grasses, they're six species. Okay, yeah, that's what I'm looking for, some reassurance that they would get off the native species. Thank you. So now we have John David on the line, if you have any specific questions for him. And that was John David speaking. Yeah, I'm sorry, I don't know how I lost you, but for me to finish, all we wanted to do would be to initiate vegetation on both sides of the v-ditch as native and on the base. So there's just a little bit of clean up, a couple of posts to be cut off. We were gonna do that one. You know, there's just a big chunk of the pavement that's still left, the asphalt pavement that already has a big fissure behind it. So we're wanting to be cautious and not do too much. We don't really want a lot of compression, a lot of death camps. Well, it looks like we found him and we lost him. But I think after just a little bit. Yeah. If he gets back on, we'll let him finish. In the meantime, do we have any other commissioner thoughts on this before we go to vote? Yeah, sure, of course, I'm not sure. You know, I like to say a couple things. Sean, if we could go into the pictures and kind of show the overview of the plot from two different views, I'd appreciate it. Well, this one is overhead view. And that works, enough. So in the upper left-hand corner is where this last failure was. The original failure that caused the closing of the plot is actually the lower right-hand, which is further to the beast of dislocation and I think it was a bulldozer of surprise that that area went before the suspected area where the drain is on the lower right-hand picture. But part of that is I think the maintenance of that pathway and the water was getting behind as you can see where the Grand Circle was running and caused this problem. That area, the city property line actually goes in which it has solenoids that kind of follows along and as you can see right in the Grand Circle is a fence line and it kind of goes right behind. There's a little fire pit by the bench there. I just happened to be on the planning commission when that project came through. So that's the city property, I've seen that thing. One of my concerns has always been what have we got and what has the coastal commission allowed us to do to protect this property. We've lost our roads and now it's slowly leading the way of these properties and probably one of my biggest contingents with the coastal commissioners and the other commissioners know that the ability for us to protect it. In fact, the city of Capsula has a deep oil health law safety and protection measure and if you read the purpose of it, it's to promote the stabilization of the deep oil health law that I just added and thereby enhance the safety of those persons who walk above and below the people he'll walk and it talks about also protecting the property and the structure in the deep oil health law and honestly, I think the coastal commissioners have for this and it's unfortunate I understand the need for the property where it actually has to be managed and that's probably some of the questions that the coastal commissioners have on how this is coming through and it's actually not the city doing this. This is the property where it's doing this work which obviously they have a destination to do that. So I fully support it. I hope that when you look at that water that comes out of that deep ditch, comes out of the street and it does slow the road a bit off the ground going towards Oakland where it seems to me like we still need to be concerned about the drainage on that door as a whole and I'd like to see the city council just stay on top of this. Even our residents and I think we need to do our best to take care of that area as long as we can and we should catch the ones that have talked about until the time is ticking on people that are as long as we can. I support it. I wish we could have done more and I just hope that the city will do as fast to take care of the water that comes out of the deep ditch to make sure it doesn't affect the residents of that area. I don't know if that's something that's going to happen. I have a question. This is Commissioner Wilk. And maybe this is more for staff but one of the letters we got, I think it was from the minister, Skip Allen, he talked about a lot of issues that really, to me, this weren't directly a pertinent to this particular thing. If we wanted to address those, he talked about hedges and all kinds of things. Is it appropriate to bring those up as part of this motion or should we bring those to staff and put those on the agenda? I'm just confused about procedure and how to address this concern. Yes. I'd be happy to. I discussed this with the public works director today of how would we handle the removal of encroachments, how would we revoke one of our revocable encroachment permits? And we could do that. It would not be part of this but you could ask us to bring forward a revocable encroachment permit for review if there were an item that say for a safety issue, you felt it should be removed. We could definitely bring that to the Planning Commission for review. But it wouldn't. I'm not sure I followed that. You're saying that this fellow should bring up an item if it was a legitimate concern with the Coastal Commission or with safety, bring that forward to staff or bring it forward to the Planning Commission? Well, okay. So I believe the Planning Commission could ask us to bring that up. Let me do some quick research to make sure I get you 100% the right answer but it would be something that would come back to you for review. I'm not exactly sure of how it would get called up to the Planning Commission if it would be a city council action or the public works director suggesting that it go back before Planning Commission but all of these larger items that are along the bluff, the improvements, had to be, should have been approved by the Planning Commission. So it would be there, I believe it's Planning Commission's review to revoke the permit. But I'll check on that while we discuss. Okay, so I'm okay with you coming back to us at some later time. I made it clear that most of his comments, not all of them, don't apply to the state-wide application but I would hate to choose no harm. So if we can bring it up at some other time, I'm happy with that. Thank you. Okay, anyone else? I'll just say briefly that I always am amused by these applications when the GD's already out of the bottle. What happens if we deny this permit when the work's already done? I guess they have to put it back the way it was by the time the city's decisions and I just seem to be out of me. But I guess that's the process. I think it would be easier if the city just abandoned that property. No, it's very sad that it's losing it, but... I would be decisions by saying I think the city abandoned it a long time ago and that's why we were right after that. I would like to make a motion that we approve the plan. I commend the gentleman for trying to turn this into an old property. And then I would like to add a condition that the city, how much work's done as a threat, water issues is coming out of this drainage and make sure it's not going to impact any other concrete. I think that's a good idea but I don't know if it really fits to the application here. If they have to condition, you're not imposing on the applicants, right? That's true. I'm going back to what Skip's request was. You kind of want me to talk about the whole thing is... You just make a suggestion that it is the hack done. Yeah, I think public force needs to take a look at how we're doing this drainage. I would say it's out of the motion but if we can have that capacity, we need to pass those down in time. Well, I would like to put something in my motion that addresses the fact that public work is addressed in one way or the other. The water comes out of this drainage niche. I think it's appropriate. We've taken the water from the pathway to protect their properties and it's being directed into Oakland streets now and the rest of the clean. So I think it would be appropriate for a request to public works to appear as the water issue coming from that. This is not the applicant's water. It's been in the city right away. Now, they may have taken the initiative to do the work here because they're trying to protect the property but it is the property. This is not the applicant's property that's been taken in the sewage. I think that public works in Jetzal has some play in this and I think the application is right. Oh, okay. My understanding. You don't have her on me. No, I have her on me. I don't think the people wouldn't affect the city at all and affect the applicant. No, I think I understand that. So that's why I've been changing the thing. Condition by request in the public works address the water that's gone off them. So we have the applicant to appeal to the public works department to do that. Director Jesberg will be, public works will be monitoring the water and keeping an eye on the change in flow. So I know that is part of the plan with once this work is done, they plan on monitoring. So. Okay, can we just put that word in there? The public works will monitor the water from this area? I see we talked to Steve about them. Yeah, Steve has said that they'll be monitoring the water based on our conversation. I don't know if it's. Like a chapter of the, this water that's coming onto these other properties that have been set the properties of them owners there. But it's honestly, it's honestly properly leading to the handle of that water. I understand we're having a conversation about it, but I'd like to get captured somehow what it's in the minutes. Obviously we don't want to make it a condition against the applicant or the home or so. I think I spend that time talking. Yeah, I think capturing that in the minutes is appropriate. Included conditions that aren't really the applicant's responsibility. I agree that you would. Okay. After my motion would be to approve the permit as outlined by staff. Do you have a second? Okay, roll call vote. Commissioner Welch. Aye. Commissioner Welch. Aye. Commissioner Christensen. Aye. Commissioner Ruth. Aye. And chair votes aye. So that's unanimous. Next is the director's report. Okay, thank you. This evening I just have one update for you that the city council just adopted a code of conduct and I was going to distribute that to the planning commission. And then I thought it would be appropriate in the new year that we could spend some time introducing what the code of conduct is, but I will send that out in an email tomorrow and then see you all time to review it and once with the recent election and I'm not sure exactly if Tida is going to be volunteering with the new council member to partner up. But anyway, at this point, I'm not sure exactly which planning commissioners we'll have moving forward. So I thought it'd be more appropriate to go over this in the new year, but I did want to let you know that it has been adopted and I will circulate. Other than that, the only new update I have that's the COVID-19 related in terms of land use is that we put out direction or guidance for tents and we worked really closely with Central Fire on that. And so guidance went out to all the businesses a little over a week ago. And at this point, I, Sean, can you let me, was there one application so far that's come into the city for a tent? I had a number of inquiries not have come into me yet, but I'm not exactly... Yeah. So with the winter months approaching and the desire to keep warm, we've put out some guidance and there's fire ratings that need to be followed and heating and there's, we tried to keep it simple, but due to the dangers of wind and fire, there's quite a few specific building related and fire related guidance in there. So we'll see whether or not they're utilized but that guidance has been published and is available and those permits of course are free because it's COVID related and any tent that goes up will be inspected by our building official and also the fire marshal. And that concludes the director's report. Any commissioner communications? Yeah, does the, why do you commission me have any comments on adding a tent to the outdoor seating? Or is that just for information? That was an informational update. Do you have any comments on them? I'd be happy to. I think I need to see the purpose of that so I'll be curious to know if the county health officials talk about creating closures outdoors. So you're only allowed to have one wall within these tents. So it's really not a full enclosure. It's just one wall can get closed. Otherwise it has to be 75% open. So the idea of these being really warm is, depends on the heating source they use but you can't have any open flame under these either. So I'm not sure that the tent will be any better than just having the open air with the nice propane heaters to keep folks warm. So I'm not sure if this is going to take off but it's an option if wanted. But it does have to remain 75% open. I've seen this done in Little Emily in New York City and what they do is they have like dropped down walls that roll up. There aren't ridges that you can run through. You can get out if you need to. That might be something to consider. So that. They roll up like a slice, they drop down when it's cold. It defeats the COVID problem, isn't it? Yeah. But a cruise net has it right now. A cruise net has a very large tent on the beach that has heating and it's a very comfortable place to have dinner even in the school or weather. So both of those are big with the knowledge to do well. So are we gonna have a meeting in December? Yes. Yes, yes we are okay. So that will be, since we are gonna have some changes in the makeup of the commission possibly, that will be our last meeting for this commission as presently constituted unless everyone is brought back by new council people. But I guess we'll see you all in first week in December. And let's say anyone has anything further while we're during the meeting. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Bye. Bye. Good bye.