Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. Good evening everyone. We'll call this meeting to order at 6:06 p.m. Can we have a roll call, please? Commissioner Kulie is absent this evening. Commissioner Copeland present. Commissioner Quueva present. Vice Chair Smith is also absent this evening. Chairman Sard present. Perfect. We'll go ahead and uh stand for the pledge of allegiance.

Right hand over your heart. Ready to begin. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay. Do we have any adjustments to the agenda tonight? No changes. Any conflict of interest disclosure?

Seeing none, we'll go ahead and move to our public comment period. This is for items not on the agenda. Any one person may address the committee on any matter not on this agenda. If you wish to speak, please fill out a public comment form provided at the back table and give it to the committee chair or secretary. There is a threeminute limit on public comments. There will be no sharing or passing of time to another person. State law prohibits the committee from discussing or taking actions brought up by your comments. Do we have any public comments on items not on the agenda? I have no written requests. Kylie, do we have any callers on the line? No, no callers.

Okay. Then we'll go ahead and we'll move on to item C. This is our action items, public hearings and request. Item C1 is approval of our minutes. Can I ask for a motion, please? So moved. Second. All right, we have a motion in a second. Can we have a roll call vote, please? Commissioner Copeland, yes. Commissioner Qua, yay. Chairman Suther, yes. Right, that moves us to item C2. This is to hold a continued public hearing for the introduction of an ordinance amending title 17 zoning of the Bumont Municipal Code. Can we have a staff report, please?

Good evening, uh, planning commissioners. Um, our presentation will be conducted by our, um, zoning code update consultant, Stefano. Great. Um, thanks Melody. Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, commissioners. Um, we're happy to be uh back here in front of you. I know we last spoke in the spring, so let me go ahead. Melody, should I go ahead and start the presentation? Yes, please. Okay, give me one moment here. All right. Can you all uh see that? Yes.

Fantastic. Okay. Um Well, yes. Thank thank you very much. Um the last time we were here in front of the planning commission as I mentioned was in the spring. That was to discuss the public review draft. Um now we're back before you with the public hearing draft zoning code and zoning map. Um so yeah, we're excited to be back at least here virtually. And um I will say we are we are getting close toward the tail end of of this project. So today is a recommendation hearing. So, what we are looking for is for the planning commission to uh recommend that city council ultimately adopt the zoning code and zoning map update. So, uh my name is Stephano Riki. Uh I'm a senior associate and project manager for Lisa Wise Consulting. I'm also known as LWC. Just a little bit of background, LWC's worked on over 80 zoning codes throughout California, the United States, and even some international work as well. Um, so been doing that, LWC has been doing that for almost 20 years now. I'm joined by Jen Marillo, a director at LWC, and by Jaden Gerson Friedberg as well. And then on the city staff side, right, you see many, many bullets, many names there. Um, so Melody Arche, the project manager on the city side. Um, of course with I think everyone else in the department, um, Steven Jones, community development director, Aaron Leang, Jillian Fountain, Katie Jensen, and Kylie Presiato. So, it really is an all hands on deck project. We've been fortunate to, um, be able to work with, uh, multiple city staff on this project and to work closely with them. So tonight we're just going to give a little bit of background on the project and then uh talk about key changes or or noteworthy changes to this public hearing draft since you all saw the uh public review draft um beforehand. So

this is a new draft that we're going to discuss key changes on. Um we are going to touch on the California Environmental Equality Act. As you um all know projects are are subject to to SQA here in California. And then lastly, um get to the uh the recommendation and answer any uh comments or uh questions that you have. So just stepping back a bit um there are a few project objectives or goals that we have wanted to um accomplish through this project. So number one, you can see there modernizing and making the code easier for everyone to use. So that's, you know, for the public to be able to understand and and navigate more easily um and and making it more easy for staff to be able to administer this code. Um we also wanted to implement the 2040 general plan, right? So that's typical for zoning code update projects. the city will adopt a general plan which sets the vision for how they want to develop over the next several decades and then we come in and and help write the the zoning code to help implement that vision as set forth in the general plan. And there there were other city policy documents we looked at as well. Um but then also streamlining the code to make it more succinct, better organized, and then lastly creating uh really industrial design standards to address aesthetic impacts and compatibility with neighboring uses. Uh the city actually already has um some commercial design standards on the books. So in terms of the project timeline, um this project started in early 2024. Um so it's been almost a two-year project. We started with our analysis and recommendations phase. Um moved into drafting the code when we saw you last for that public review draft. Um and then now are at uh hearings like I said getting toward the end of this project um looking for adoption of the final code and map.

So you've heard at least the information on this slide you've heard this before but just to recap um we do propose compared to the existing code a new structure to organize your zoning code uh in here in Bowmont. So you can see the the five divisions there. They're they're lettered divisions. We letter them to um break up the text and the numbering strings as you can see uh for the for cross references and for reference purposes on the right side of the screen there. So division A is your introductory provisions relationship to the general plan kind of a thing. Um division B are the zone regulations for the various zone groupings within the city. So residential, commercial, mixeduse, downtown, industrial, etc. [snorts] all the different standards and uses allowed within those zones. Uh, division C, citywide standards, includes things like parking, the signage ordinance, landscaping ordinance, um, etc. So, division C are things that apply citywide, not within particular zones necessarily. Uh, D, administration and procedures, all of your your permitting, um, noticing requirements, hearing requirements, etc. and then division E definitions of terms, uses and and signed terms as well. So, this uh proposed restructuring that we that you've seen in prior drafts and in the current draft uh really we think helps hit some of those goals that we identified on a prior slide in terms of making the code more modern um and userfriendly here. So that that's really structural changes from the existing zoning code. Um we also of course received comments from from you all and from city council on the public review draft. So I wanted to talk about some some of those changes. Um this first bullet here, we did also hear uh appreciation for improved user friendliness and graphics in the code.

So so that's great. Seems like we're we're um you know on the same page there. Um, we did revise the proposed tree preservation ordinance. We did hear some concerns from you all and from council on that. Um, so we do revise that to allow for tree removal if an applicant has secured a building permit or or a grading permit. Right? The purpose of the tree preservation ordinance isn't just to quash or or stopped development. Right? So, we um we added that in. Um, I will also say that we are um also proposing to exempt trees in the backyard uh from having to get a tree removal permit as well. And that's in response to one of Commissioner Koul's comments. I know Commissioner Kie is not not here today, but um we want to be responsive um to to those comments as well. We did incorporate also the recently updated ordinances for home occupations, uh non-conforming the non-conforming section and uh off-site improvements. Um so so those are are in the draft. Um as well um added some some flexibility for the separation for fast food restaurants. And this is something um I think that that Carol Kendrick discussed way back when the prior interim community development director including should language instead of shall language um for that separation for fast food restaurants. And then this last bullet here is also in response to one of Commissioner Pulley's comments. uh he wanted the refugees and recycling area reference to be more broad. I think right now you guys use waste management um for for waste management. Um but we we brought in that to uh include just any city authorized refuge contractor should that change in the future. Um so at the October planning commission meeting on the 22nd there was an RADA um submitted with a few other changes identified. I just wanted to read in um a few more uh IRA that we wanted to

discuss with you as well. So, this next one is also in response to one of Commissioner Kulie's comments to remove the requirement that um when 10 or more bicycle parking spaces are required to remove the requirement that a bike repair station um needs to be installed. So, we're we're planning on on striking that requirement. Um, also as as some of you may know, uh, zoning code amendments require a 20-day notice for planning commission hearings. So, for tonight's hearing, notice had to be given at least 20 days in advance. That does not actually apply to city council hearings for zoning code amendments. Um, so so we propose to to clarify that um, in the text as well. And then just a few more minor things. Um there's an instance of uh industrial quote unquote industrial zone in the code that we proposed to change to manufacturing zone for consistency. And then lastly um the public comment that we received in October and then a similar letter from from Cal HDF on the ADU ordinance accessory dwelling unit ordinance. Um, we we think that the code as written actually addresses all of Cal HDF's comments in in sub subsection C, excuse me, of the accessory dwelling unit ordinance. However, we do propose to just add a little extra clarifying text um to to clarify that stateex exempt accessory dwelling units um are not subject to any other standards. So those are just a few other um aa that we wanted to um discuss with you today and introduce into the record. Um we talked about planning commission and council comments on the prior draft. We also have worked uh with the city attorney's office and and staff more generally on uh addressing additional edits. So this first one's from the city

attorney just updating this is terminology update residential care facilities to community care facilities um and then worked with staff to allow mini storage on western nles in the urban village zone. We understand there are some mini storage uses existing there. Now um this third bullet here is from public works. They wanted to prohibit signs within 5 ft of all rights of way and require sight visibility at at corners. So which is which is normal to require sight visibility at corners. So, we we've done that. Um, and then this last bullet here, just clarifying that of course, you know, state law controls, especially when it comes to defensible space requirements in very high fire severity zones. Um, you know, if there are um, uh, differences between what the state requires and what the current landscaping or what the proposed landscaping ordinance, excuse me, uh, requires as well. I will say there aren't too many very high fire severity zones in in Bowmont, but um just on kind of peripheral areas of the city. Um so more specifically then we did also work with staff to update the um downtown use tables. So, as described in the downtown area plan and the downtown re uh revitalization plan, which is is also newer, um one of the goals right in downtown is to promote a walkable kind of active, vibrant downtown. So, we did work with staff to revise the use tables to allow bars and breweries uh at the staff level through a minor use permit instead of by conditional use permit in downtown. And again, that's consistent with this streamlining uh goal that the city identified for this project. We also removed the thousand ft separation that was required between alcohol serving uses and schools, daycarees, and youth centers. Um again, you know, wanting downtown to be a more happening kind of active place. And then we

updated the use tables to remove some automobile oriented uses um and and really only allow gas stations at intersections and only allow car washes in downtown. And then this is all in downtown and only allow car washes as accessory to gas stations um in downtown as well. So no standalone car washes um allowed under the uh proposed zoning code in in downtown. And then lastly, this last bullet, removed vehicle oriented uses such as tire stores, vehicle rental sales, and vehicle repair from uh from the use tables in in downtown. Um, other notable revisions, you know, I mentioned in response to the Cal HDF uh letters, we did update the ADU ordinance to cover stateex exempt ADUs. We set a 25% threshold to distinguish uh restaurants from from bars. So 25% threshold for the bar area and that's in the definitions in part E. Um this third bullet here we did want to get um I mean we want to get your u input on you know the whole thing but especially wanted to focus your attention on this third bullet. [gasps] We did revise the thresholds for what um requires a minor versus major plot plan. So so these are revised thresholds compared to the public review draft. Um, and this also was done in response to um, the previous interim community development director, Carol Kendrick. She had a comment to set these uh, square footage thresholds lower so that more major plot plans would require the major plot would be would be required, excuse me, the major plot plan goes to planning commission versus the minor plot plan which is a staff level approval. Um so previously we had set that threshold between staff level approval and planning commission approval by 25,000 square ft for commercial and mixed use zones and um

50,000 square ft for for industrial. So those have since been reduced so that more things require or larger um uh commercial mixed use and industrial buildings require planning commission approval. So so is that something that that the city wants? Um, you know, again, we talked about one of the goals being uh, you know, streamlining uh, development where it makes sense as well. So, that's just uh, uh, something I'll highlight here for you all. Otherwise, we distinguished uh, sing uh, family daycare homes from commercial daycare facilities. So, these are uh, like uh, inhome daycarees versus commercial facilities. And that's just a kind of a minor cleanup, but that but that is required by by state law. And then we did consolidate the various types of mobile home parks. Um we just didn't see the the different nuances as um as really important for mobile home parks. So we consolidated those into one one type um as well. So those are other other notable revisions for the zoning code. Um, in terms of the zoning map itself, we didn't have much in ter in terms of edits, but we did change the Noble Creek Vistas, took that out of the specific plan zone and made it consistent with the underlying general plan land use designations. So, I think, you know, it's largely residential there, um, but also maybe some recreation uh, conservation as well. One other thing that I'll mention um because I think it's kind of current in in Bowmont is that Bowmont Point is separate from this project. Um so so staff's working on that separately from this comprehensive zoning code update and we're getting close to the end of the presentation so I appreciate you bearing with me. Okay, SQA. Um, everyone's everyone's favorite topic, SQA. Uh, in terms of the California Environmental Quality Act, we need to um docu uh or identify, you know,

compliance with SQA. So, the main takeaway here is that the comprehensive zoning code and zoning map update is consistent with the general plan um and consistent with the general plan program EIR for the secret document that was prepared for the general plan. Um so there are no substantial changes uh no no you know even minor technical changes that are are necessary to the general plan program EIR. Um so consistent with you can see um section 15168C2 of the secret guidelines um the consultant team and staff believe that no further environmental documentation is required for this project because it's covered by the general plan program e and I will just say that that is um we find that's typical for for a lot of zoning codes right so long as they're consistent with the general plan. Okay. Um, so as I mentioned at the outset, um, city staff is recommending that the planning commission recommend that council adopt the comprehensive zoning code and map update. Um, one thing I will add here too is that um, you know, this includes obviously the the whole record, right, including the um, ARA that you all saw in in October um, as well. So, so that is the recommendation from staff and and what we're looking uh for from you all tonight. Of course, want to hear your your comments and questions, but otherwise then um the next step here is a city council adoption hearing and I believe that's scheduled for December 2nd for the first reading and December 16th for the um second reading. Staff, please correct me if if if I'm wrong on that. Um but I think that's what we've discussed. Um otherwise, yeah, we're available for questions and I'll turn it back over to Melody. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Stfana. Um, yeah, staff's available for any questions or comments. Perfect. Thank you for the report. Uh, do we have any questions from the commissioners here?

Uh, I've got a question. Um going back to the downtown use table revisions um where we talk about removing the thousand foot separation between alcohol serving uses and schools daycarees and youth centers is kind of the thought there that those are operating at different time periods. So we're giving them some leeway there. It is. I think that the downtown specific or the downtown area that will have a specific plan is reserved for uses that are conducive to the vibe that the uh revitalization plan is is seeking. So to have a zoning code update align with that is appropriate. And so yeah, those times are different. Generally uh the children are gone at the end of the night.

Perfect. Thank you. Okay, I will go ahead and uh for no other questions at this time. Mine is about that. Can you pop your microphone? Yep. Thank you.

My question is regarding the document that was attached. Um and I know I thought I brought this up before these microenterprise home kitchens um which is on page 226. Um, and this is under section F. And I was concerned about hours of operations on these micro kitchens because um it doesn't really specify anything in here about it. And I thought when I asked the question, there was something about we need to either had we had to have some additional research or it was going to be part of um county of Riverside full food permit.

So the microenterprise kitchens, those are through Riverside County. Um we don't have jurisdiction to approve or deny them. So, so that's why they were removed from the home section or home occupation section. Oh, so then okay. So I'm incorrect in that this is part of this document's part of it or so in the AATA um what the consultant is going to do is just update with the home occupation ordinance that the council adopted earlier this year. So there's no changes from what was adopted earlier this year. is just a a cleanup item to to make sure it's it's consistent with what was adopted.

And that is Thanks, Melody. And that is number nine or I guess row nine um in in the sheet submitted in in October is what that's trying to get at. Okay, I'll let that go. Okay, perfect. We'll go ahead then. and we'll open our public hearing uh reopen our public hearing at uh 6:30 p.m. Are there any requests to speak?

I do have uh three written requests that I can read into the record um that have been received. Let me check with the phone line first before I start with that. Kylie, do we have any callers on the line?

No, no callers. Okay. First comment is from Treml Crow Company. It says, "Dear members of the Bowmont Planning Commission, Traml Co Company is pleased to submit this letter in a strong support of the proposed City of Bulmont zoning code update. We recognize the significant effort, time, and professionalism dedicated to the city staff to this critical revision process. TCC purchased 30.9 acres near West Fourth Street and Highway 60 in 2021 and received entitlements to build a 60 sorry 600,000t warehouse in 2024. During this time, TCC has presented the planning commissioners with numerous favor favorable impacts and economic benefits that the devel that the development will provide for the city and its residents. As property owners of Bulma, we believe the updated code successfully incorporates modern commercial development principles, resulting in a document that reflects a clear vision for Bulmont's future growth. TCC wishes to commend staff for their inclusive approach and responsiveness throughout this process. This zoning code update represents a fundamentally important step for the city's economic vitality and long-term prosperity. It modernizes outdated regulations, promotes predictability for development, and strategically positions Bowmont to attract highquality investment encourages job creation within the region. The proposed changes are consistent with the best practices adopted by neighboring cities in the region that have successfully leveraged updated zoning to stimulate economic development. By approving these changes, the planning commission will signal a proactive commitment to facilitating

facilitating growth and enabling Bumont to benefit from development, job creation, tax revenue, and infrastructure upgrades. We urge the planning commission to approve the zoning code update as presented by staff. This update is necessary, well executed, and essential for ensuring Bulmont's sustained health and economic competitiveness. Thank you for your consideration. Next comment is from CalHDF. Dear Bulmont Planning Commissioners, the California Housing Defense Fund, CalHDF, submits this letter as public comment regarding item C2 for the planning commission meeting of November 19th, 2025. An update to the city's zoning text. Specifically, CalHDF writes to comment on the city's proposed regulations for the construction of accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units. Cal HDF would like to thank the city for its attention to our previous correspondence for making changes to the draft ordinance. However, there are still specific portions of the city's ADU regulations that violate state law and the city should correct these issues before passing the ordinance. This is a lengthy email and the rest of it is background. Um, so I will be happy to forward this to the planning commission. Um or I could continue to read for the next

forward as a commission. That would be okay. Perfect. Thank you.

I think the gist of it was in the beginning. Um the last one I have here, this is from Chino Valley Ranchers. Dear members of the Bulmont Planning Commission, I'm writing to you today is Kathy Nichols, the owner of the Nichols Ranch on West 4th Street to convey my family's support for the city of Bulmont's ongoing zoning code update. We recognize and appreciate city staff's substantial effort and dedication to the essential revision process. My family purchased this ranch over 44 years ago to establish and grow our poultry business. As our family looks to the future, we want to ensure we have the flexibility and clear process needed to essentially develop our property for another use. The zoning code update will modernize development codes to make that process smoother and more predictable. The zoning code update is fundamentally important step for the city's economic vitality and long-term prosperity. It modernizes outdated regulations, adds much needed predictability for future development decisions, and strategically positions Bulmont to attract highquality investment, encourage local job creation. We respectfully urge the planning commission to approve the zoning code update as presented by staff. This update is necessary, well executed, and essential for ensuring Bulmont's sustained health and economic competitiveness. Thank you for your consideration of our recommendation and for your service to the city.

Kylie, I just want to double check. Do we have any callers on the line? No, no callers. No other speakers. Perfect. Then we'll go ahead and close the public hearing at 6:35 p.m. and we'll bring it back to the commission for discussion. Uh just one last question for staff. Uh I know uh we're confident that our document addresses the concerns that were raised by HDF. Uh correct. Um I I'll let Stefano if uh if you wouldn't mind just summarizing um the response to the Cal um HDF letter.

Sure thing.

Yeah. So um the letter that we received from staff a couple of days ago from CalHDF and this was again this the second letter, right? There was a letter from October and then a more recent letter. So, in that most recent letter, um, and and you know, correct me if what you have in front of you is different, but they really focus on subsection G of the accessory dwelling unit ordinance. So, I guess just for for the record or for for clarity, I'll read the um the section number in, but it's 17 C1030. Um, and what we had specifically added for this public hearing draft of the code is subsection C, which specifically talks about and addresses um, stateex exempt ADUs and JADUs. So, you'll see in the Cal HDF letter, they reference government code section 66323. Th that's what um in in state law, government code section 66323 is what addresses these stateex exempt accessory drilling units. So those can only be subject to um certain height limits uh setbacks for side and rear yards. Right? So we believe that we are very explicit and very clear in this subsection C um that that they can only be subject to the height setback and maximum square footage requirement outlined uh there. So, um, so I don't know if if Calh, you know, CalHDF, I guess I'll say they've been reviewing, uh, ADU ordinances throughout the state, right? So, we've seen these CalHDF letters, um, before and we appreciate their comments and their concerns. Um, but really, I think everything they're looking for is in that subsection C. Um, as I mentioned just wise, right, and to be responsive to their comments. Um, we do

[clears throat] propose to add additional text that stateex exempt ADUs and JDUs are [clears throat] not subject to any other standards except for those within that subsection C. Um, but but we do believe that um as written um and including just that uh minor clarification, the ADU ordinance is uh is is legally uh defensible. Perfect. Thank you. With the caveat, I don't want to just undo all that. We're not attorneys, right? But given our experience working on ADU ordinances, um, we do believe it's defensible. Sure. No, I appreciate the context.

If I may, this is Jeno, director at LWC. We don't disagree with their comments. So, we're not saying anything is different compared to what they're asking for. We're saying we agree and we think we've addressed it clearly. Perfect. Thank you. Um I just I want to congratulate staff. I know this is a lot of work and um I think this is a really great document in terms of modernizing and u bringing all these documents into alignment. Um I think it really is kind of a forward thinking document. I think it really is going to set the city up for success going forward especially with some of the considerations that were made for downtown. So um with that I'll go ahead and I'll make a motion to approve the item. Second.

We have a motion and a second. Can we get a roll call vote, please? [clears throat] Commissioner Copelan, yes. Commissioner Qua, yes. Chairman Suther, yes. All right, that takes us to item C3. This is consideration of an amendment to the Bowont Village Sign Program Plan 2025-0275, APN's 404-190-001 and 003. Do we have a staff report, please?

Good evening, chairman and commissioners. Katie Jensen, planning staff. An application for a sign program amendment for the Bulmont Village was submitted to the city on September 9th, 2025 to relocate a monument sign in their commercial center. The original sign program was approved in 2024, which established standards for tenant signage within the commercial center. With the proposed with the proposed amendment, the applicant is requesting to relocate the monument sign from the west side of Bulmont Avenue south of the convenience store to a closer location to the intersection of Oak Valley Parkway and Bulman Aav. The proposed relocation is aiming to improve visibility of the sign from the intersection. The proposed project is exempt from SQA as a class 11 accessory structures categorical exemption. And this item is not required as a public hearing and staff recommends to approve plan 2025-0275 and direct staff to prepare a notice of exemption for the applicant to file with the Riverside County Clerk Recorder. This concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions. We also have the applicant in attendance tonight if you have any questions for them. Any questions from the commission?

Nope. No. We said we don't have to open a public hearing.

Do we have any uh requests to speak? Let me check. I have no written requests. Kylie, do we have any callers on the line? No, no callers. Okay, I'll bring it back to commission for discussion. So moved. All right. I have I have no questions. I have a second. Okay. I have a motion in a second. Uh can we get a roll call vote, please? Commissioner Coblin, yes. Commissioner Qua, yay. Chairman Sard,

yes. All right, that item passes unanimously two. Um, takes us to item C4, hold a public hearing to consider an ordinance amending food truck, peddler, and sidewalk vending regulations. Can we have a staff report, please? Good evening again, chairman and commissioners. Katie Jensen, planning staff. On April 5th, 2022, city council adopted ordinance number 1147, which introduced Bumont Municipal Code Chapter 5.72, food trucks. This ordinance addressed regulations for mobile and motorized food vendors along with the terms for permit processing. Prior to its adoption, city council requested a follow-up report to evaluate the ordinance's effectiveness. On September 2nd, 2025, city council held a discussion on food truck permit activity and directed staff to prepare amendments to the ordinance governing food trucks and similar mobile vendors. During this discussion, the key issues were identified. Frequency of inspections, designated vending zones and location timing, unclear processes and guidelines, and impacts on brick and mortar businesses. In response to this discussion, a draft ordinance is proposed to address these issues. Previous regulations required quarterly inspections while updated ordinance proposes annual inspections. This will be consistent with the renewal of their business license which is renewed annually and inspections will occur during the time of business license renewal. Timing and location provisions on public and private property are proposed to be clarified in the draft ordinance along with the feature on the city website that will display a GIS layer of the approved locations within the city for food trucks to operate in accessible and safe manner. staff is proposing an online application that requires food truck operators to log their locations with an associated

timestamp. Not only will this system work as an advertising layer for the operator, but it will also help staff monitor compliance. To propose a more streamlined permitting process, activities in the public rightway are to be supervised by the city engineer and administered through the business license process. Staff is also proposing provisions that would allow brickandmortar restaurants to use their own food trucks for their brick-and-mortar locations as an exception to the rule of maintaining a clarified oneb block buffer. Staff is also proposing provisions that would allow food trucks to operate on city parks through a park rental application with approval from the community services director. This would allow for food truck presence during certain activities including sport league events and city sponsored events. A public notice was placed in the press enterprise on October 29th, 2025. No comments have been received to date. At this time, staff recommends the planning commission hold a public hearing, adopt a resolution forwarding a recommendation of approval of the draft proposed ordinance to the city council. This concludes my presentation, and myself and the community development director are happy to answer any questions you guys may have.

Great. Thank you for that report. Do we have any questions from the commission? I go back to my question that I had earlier. Out of curiosity, why why fingerprinted on this? What was the question? Um, in one section it does talk about fingerprinting. Oh,

and I was curious that if if we're doing this, do we do this for CUPs also? We do not, but I believe operating in the public rightway is a specific concern for our public safety. So, the police requested or required that that be put in. This was prior to this ordinance, but it is something that's carried forward. [cough and clears throat] So, even on the roaming, so if if I'm a roaming vendor, the I saw the map, so I understand that that that has to be the area that you're you're operating in. How do they monitor a roaming vendor on the sidewalk?

It's self-report on the sidewalk. There's there's no way to do that there. The only monitoring requirement at this point would be for that is proposed would be for food trucks since they are specifically designed or required to be in a legally marked spot, for example, and not just anywhere uh that's unimproved and that could create a safety hazard for traffic or passers by. And so the requirement for them to monitor or to self-report where they are helps us ensure that they're on the appropriate streets out of residential areas away from parks when they're not specifically designed or require requested to be there and again out of the traffic and areas where there could be safety concerns.

So the vendors understand that are they the sidewalk vendors understand that they have to give right away to individuals who are in wheelchairs. Correct. So ADA is a concern and it is an an acknowledgement that must be uh recognized when they file for their permit. So while there's no specific way to monitor where they are and what part of the sidewalk they're in, there is an acknowledgement on the business license application that they should be aware they need to maintain ADA access for passers by. Okay. And so if they're found not doing that, code enforcement could site and or police could uh make the appropriate interactions. Thank you.

I do have a question. Um the uh inspection is done um when the license is renewed. The purpose of the inspection is to confirm u compliance with regulations.

That's correct. which presupposes that the vendor may or may not be in compliance. So, we do the inspection to make sure they are. So, I would suggest not doing it only at the time of the business license being renewed, but infrequently throughout the year. Um, they're prepared for it when they know their license is being renewed. They know the inspections coming up. If they are someone who opts to not comply, this would be a great time for them to be prepared for it. So they pass the inspection knowing it's not going to happen for another year and then they can go ahead and do what they want to do. So, since we're doing the inspection, it seems logical to me that we don't give them the opportunity to prepare for it and therefore have more at least one infrequent and possibly even two infrequent um inspections throughout the term

and they would be required to maintain that license. So at any time if a code enforcement or police officer or a complaint was [clears throat] lodged against them, they would have to be prepared to provide that. So throughout the year, it's required that you still maintain it and have it available. And if they don't, they're subject to citation. But uh we could add provisions in there that that reflect that that say you're saying based upon uh a complaint based upon a complaint based upon an interaction with again if there's an ADA compliance issue, right?

If someone says, "Hey, you're blocking the street here. You're blocking the sidewalk." They're subject at that point. I I I understand and I I don't disagree, but I'm looking at issues like um they have to have a permit for wastewater discharge. Uh they get the inspection when they get their license, but after they've got their license, they may say, "Oh, we're really busy. I'm I'm behind my schedule. I'm going to violate the the wastewater discharge and put it down the storm drain." U I may do that. I may um have other um inconsistencies. I'll put it that way and be polite. So knowing that code enforcement is making they never know when code enforcement might show up that awareness alone should be uh a major deterrent.

So agreed. So, okay. Does um I'm sure the the uh staff's looked at other cities that are operating similar ordinances. We've found that uh other cities have had success with the one-year um check-ins, inspections. We have the other cities we reviewed are local. So, local to the area and Redlands. I think the uh Sanosinto area al as well. They all have annual requirements for inspections. And then environmental health was the was the model after which we used our ordinance language.

This is a an open public meeting. So any discussions do have to be for the public. Awesome. Please. Yes, please.

May I? Okay. In response to your your your comment or your question about what do other cities do and have we um uh done any research on what other cities do and is the annual enough? Um, I would question that because as we progress in our society and we have more and more, there's more opportunity for those who choose to deviate, to break the rules, to break the law. And having the knowledge that there could be an inspection, I think that deterrent um is sufficient. Um just because nobody else does it doesn't mean necessarily we won't or our vendors won't. Um the vendors are from other cities in many cases. Some are local. Uh but the opportunity is there and knowing when you might get caught allows a potential window that I think we could easily um close. So, my two cents.

Any other questions? Okay, hearing none. Uh, we'll go ahead and open the public hearing at 6:53 p.m. Do we have any requests to speak? I have no written requests. Kylie, do we have any callers on the line? No, no callers. Okay, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing at 6:53 p.m. and bring it back to the commission for discussion.

I'll go ahead and motion. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Can we have a roll call vote, please? Commissioner Copeland, yes. Commissioner Qua, yay. Chairman Suther,

yes. That item passes. That moves us on to item C5. This is our public hearing to ad introduce an ordinance amending chapter 8.54 of the Bowont Municipal Code to expand registration and maintenance requirements for vacant and abandoned properties. Can we have a staff report, please? Good evening, chair, commissioners. Thank you for being here tonight. Can you see the screen, the

PowerPoint? Thank you very much.

Erin Leang, planning manager. Recently, recently uh last month, um the city council directed staff to evaluate and expand the proposed the subject ordinance uh that deals with vacant properties. As you recall the great crash in 2008, as a result of the crash, uh we may have had over 2,000 vacant properties here in Bowmont, vacant, uh homes, and the majority of those vacant properties were owned by private entities, bank, uh oversee investors. Um so, uh as a result of that, those vacant properties pose a real challenge uh for staff to deal with. uh including homeless encampments, illegal dumping and of course weed abatement which are which we deal with every year. Uh as a result of those vacant properties, the subject ordinance was adopted by the city council back in September 16, 2008. Over the years, the subject ordinance has helped staff manage uh those vacant properties. Uh fast forward, we now only have about 11 vacant properties on the books and with recent general plan elevate 2040 vision, we were instructed to bring this ordinance back before you tonight that would expand and require the registration of commercial, industrial, and other non-residential properties by the owners. Uh some of the key components in here Um expanded scope amends BMC chapter 8.50 to include all property types,

residential, commercial, industrial and mixed use, not not just foreclosed or abandoned homes. This is in your staff report. Uh mandatory registration requires owner of vacant or abandoned properties to one register within 30 days of vacancy or city notice. uh provide owners and 247 local contact information. So that'll help with in terms of uh clearing the information dealing with the subject property. Uh as mentioned some of these uh ownerships there were all oversee investors. uh maintenance standards. Owners must keep properties free of weeds, trash, graffiti, and hazards, and secure buildings and fencing to prevent unauthorized access. And those are just some of the key components. Um uh in summary, when vacant properties go unchecked, unmaintained, the city suffers. you talking about blight, city pride, civic pride, uh, public health and safety comes into play. And with that, staff's recommendation is for the planning commission to recommend approval of the subject ordinance. Thank you. That concludes my presentation and we're here to answer any your questions uh you may have at your pleasure. Thank you.

Perfect. Thank you for that presentation. Uh, bring it back to the commission for any questions. Mr. Qua,

so I was reading through this and and I understand what happened in the past. I I acknowledge that yes, a lot of properties were abandoned and what have you. My question comes to raw land. So if if an individual has a piece of raw land within the city and it is properly maintained and it doesn't show the quote unquote evidence of vacancies, are those property owners going to have to register? Good question. Uh yes. Um so we're talking about unmaintained property. So if if the the subject site that we're talking about here uh avoiding uh uh weed abatement purposes uh unmaintained uh vacant properties, unsecured properties, we're talking about those those kind of properties. And so if that's vacant site is maintained, they're keeping their yard, they're keeping their fences uh uh with the code requirements um and uh you know removal of blight um removal of any illegal dumping. So again, it's it's being maintained. It would not likely be under the radar for the registration requirements.

Okay? Because the the problem I had is this evidence of vacancy is very broad. And I understand that sometimes weeds will get away from a a good property owner, so to speak. Um, but I'm concerned that they happen to be caught up in in the having to register and I'm still a little unsure as to what the fee is for this registration, but that's and once you're on the registration list, you're on the registration list from what I understand.

Great comments. Great comments, Commissioner. Um uh and and certainly looking at uh what's being proposed here some of the key components as I mentioned uh under um new definitions update properties vacant it seems nebulous and then you're calling it out and I appreciate that we certainly will take the uh comments here and we'll vet that again to ensure that uh that uh clarity can in the interest of clarity we're going to get that defined and present that to to the council for consideration. Thank you for your comments.

And Commissioner Corvis, I would also add that I think the the direction was for a way to get to property owners in a in a more efficient and quicker manner so that registration regardless of a bad or good property owner actor for property or distressed or blighted properties, the city needed a way to contact somebody. So, if there was graffiti or if there was something that's thrown over the fence and and the good property owner didn't know about it, we needed to be able to to contact them in a quick manner to say, "We need this taken care of. We're giving you 24, 48 hours, whatever it is, so that we can either address it ourselves and then the city would have to bill or the property owner have the opportunity to ma maintain and be that good actor that they are." And so uh I think we can clarify that we we would like registries to include all vacant property so that again the city has the connection the uh opportunity to uh get in touch with the steward someone that's in control of the property within 40 miles again to get here so that people just don't think I can own a property in Bowmont and forget about it and and cash in on it later and not have the uh the maintenance and the responsibility or accountability rather that we require to make sure that the blight and the junk and salvage don't uh maintain and proliferate. I'm thinking of one example where there's graffiti on a property along Highland Springs and it's it may or may not be vacant, but um uh excuse me, may or may not be maintained well, but if it's vacant, we need to be able to contact that property owner and say, "Your property has graffiti on it. It's on the private property side, but it's visible. Can you come fix it?" And so that's that's part of the the genesis of expanding that just one of the items. Okay.

So we can clarify in our definition I believe to to just put that uh yeah or actually in a couple different places in the intent and then also in the definition for vacant. Okay. So now I brings up my second question HOAs. So, I know a vast majority of those properties that were issues back in the day uh were within HOAs. HOAs have a mechanism to go after those properties that have an issue. Does this program supersede HOAs or do they augment HOAs?

That's a great question. Uh Mr. Mr. Jones, director Jones, for sure. Uh, I would say at this point it it it would be to augment HOAs. We we work with them right now to say, you know, you have property that is within your jurisdiction and first of all, do we have contact information? So, that's another way for us to to work with them so that we can contact uh locally who's there. Um, but yeah, right now it would seek to augment what their process is. And there's a difference between, I guess, inside a gated community versus what's viewable and and seeable and knowable from the public right away. Those things we would have immediate sort of reaction and response to versus having to receive a complaint on something that may or may not be so visible. So, short answer, it's to augment the HOA. And if you think there's language we can add to to uh to certify that or to clarify, we can do that, too.

Yeah. Cuz I know that some HOAs had problems with collecting fees that were levied against properties for properties that had issues. So, if the city is going to then levy the fee, are they going to work through the HOA to collect the fees or are they going to put a lean on the property in the event that they cannot collect the fees? where there are collections, it would be our own separate process where if it gets to that point, we'd need to lean the property to recover the city's resources. So, it would not be in conjunction with HOA in that case. But to augment their process for resolution to a problem, that's something we would work with an HOA for. where there are already activities that needed to be reimbursed that the city has either boarded up a property or cleaned up a property or uh taking care of graffiti if it never got if it got invoiced and never was satisfied the lean process is separate from and apart from the HOA.

Okay. And then my final one is I know we talked about this um registration will not be prrated. My question is, can we add some language that reg registration fees after August of a calendar year will be prrated? Because if not, it goes into that con that the other concern I have is if we go late into the year and and you're in October, I'm going to have to pay for the entire year even though I was cited by the city in October and I had to register and now I'm paying a whole year instead of the balance of the year and then being on the the normal schedule of the year. I think we could take the recommendation and update the language and uh just flag it for the council to make the final decision, but we could actually add that in there and and uh share the commission's concerns on the prorated for a certain certain uh time of the year. So, you're saying after October? You said August.

I said October. I just picked a Yeah, maybe the last quarter of the year. I I would hate to see folks waiting until the last quarter of the year because they have to register regardless. And so, if they get a citation and then they say, "Oh, okay. Well, I'll wait till October so I can get prered." that that may be a concern, but I definitely see that um you know, getting some money is better than none and and we can flag that into the with a change and flag that to the council for their ultimate decision if that's appropriate. Okay, no more questions. Thank you.

I I have two questions and I'm sorry I must have missed it. What is the registration fee? Is it a schedule based upon size? um um um quantity or or uh degree of violation whether it be uh weed abatement or uh graffiti. Good questions. Um and that's part of

Yeah, I we could certainly research that for you uh and and uh break that down. Uh it's very um in terms of the depth of the question yes you have weed abatement issues you have uh illegal dumping issues uh you have uh homeless encampment so depending upon the topics I would agree that uh the levy should be uh you know across the board well balanced and not one heavyhanded um imposed uh fee. So again going back to the uh some of the key uh components here uh so we would certainly want to clean that up under the fee and cost recovery establishes an annual cost recovery fee set by city council under BMC chapter 3.39 to fund administrations and enforcement and then we could add a comma and explain a little bit further in terms of the the levy. Uh and then going back to the definition, I just want to [clears throat] make sure that we circle back and answer all your questions. Uh going back to the definition, uh uh update property quote [clears throat] and unquote uh vacant and abandoned to include any parcel or structure unoccupied for 90 days or showing neglect that creates a nuisance. again uh with your um comments, we're going to certainly um examine that and review the de definitions along with the feed recovery to ensure that uh we apply this uh evenly.

All right. Thank you. Um the other question I had is I'm sorry I zeroed in on a number earlier. You said um back in 2008 we had 2,000 properties. Now we have 11. Um did I miss something? 11. Uh that's that's based on our existing city records working with our code enforcement team. Um yes. So uh based on the the historical data uh back in 2000 during the great crash uh we certainly had overwhelming numbers of vacant properties here which created a lot of these then I have to compliment everyone and say to get it down to 11 is a phenomenal accomplishment. Um

thank you. I wasn't here. Well, [laughter] I wasn't either, but still, um, it still is great. I think having the city get a good handle on properties like this, um, is also very commendable and I know the amount of effort that staff put into it. Um, and I applaud you.

Thank you. and and in my presentation I qualify that uh you know this the septic ordinance that has assisted staff in many ways to uh in terms of managing some of these vacant properties. So without council directions and uh guidance the or we it would have been a big disaster and again the thankful uh thank you note should have should be really directed to the city council uh for directing staff to come before you tonight uh in co in coordination with the general plan the your recent general plan our our recent general plan uh Bulmont 2040 vision and so this is going to play right along in terms of help a lookout, if you will, on these uh vacant properties and and um

so you make me feel like I must compliment uh city council for its insight and foresight. So, which I do. So, I thank your staff as well. Thank you.

Uh just one question from me. So just looking at the uh new definitions and uh one of them is uh update property vacant and abandoned to include any parcel or structure unoccupied for 90 days or showing neglect that creates a nuisance. Uh just hypothetically if we had a property we call a commercial property that goes into construction gets half built something falls through and we have you know some just half finishedish buildings that sit for a period of time. Would that be considered a nuisance under this ordinance? Yeah, I mean it seems like it would fit under the definition, you know, the 90 days. Um, but I think, you know, in terms of site constructions and activities, they're subject to your building permits and other uh regulatory requirements. Uh, so it it's going to have to be evaluated on a a case-byase basis. Sometimes they have a valid building permits that keeps the site in continue in terms of operation. Um, so not just because it's 90-day vacancy and we're going to slap our hands on it. Um, so yeah, um, again, we would certainly examine the def the narratives here, uh, just to, uh, make sure that we provide that clarity that we're not, uh, applying this in in terms of inconsistencies. We want to make sure that the the updated information uh relating to cost recovery, mandatory registration, new definitions, those three main categories seem to jump out at me to for need to uh for cleanup uh for clarity. So, we'll certainly take that back and re-examine that um for your consideration and then we'll present that to city council. But certainly the issues that you bring up here tonight, it's exactly what we're looking for. uh so that uh so that you know checks and balance sis that uh uh

that we ensure that we do uh our job correctly um and uh there's uh the the the registrations it's applicable it's apply evenly and so we'll we'll take all the the comments we can get. Thank you.

Could I ask a follow-up question on that? So if we do use the 90 days and let's say it's a project under construction, I would assume that if we had a delta revision to let's say an engineering document that might have might take a little bit longer than that 90 days, the property owner has some mechanism within the city or within this these guidelines that they could bring up. The reason why we have the delay in the 90 days is because of a delta revision on an engineering document. Is that

exactly? And and I think it it's going to also depends on the site cleanliness uh maintenance of the site. Um you know, you got your WQMP. I know Commissioner uh Smith's not here. Uh his big thing is WQMP. You know, you you leave the site unmaintained. You you have debris all over the sidewalk, the wind conditions coming down, you know, in the winter season and uh no sweeping, you know, a lot of those things that come into play in terms of uh our consideration. So that yeah it's going to be even though you have um valid building permits those things still need to be maintained right site uh cleanliness operations so we're going to look at all the applicable how we would apply that um so yeah thank you

yeah and I should just clarify on my line of questioning so I have worked for two cities where we've had projects that were halfb built and sat for years uncompleted and created issues isues with homelessness and trespassing and those kinds of things. So that's where I was kind of seeing that definitely 90 days I think is a little short for that. But if we have projects that are sitting for extended period of time with no movement or or creating you know code enforcement issues that wondering if this document would help address some of those. Right. Thank you. Okay. Looks like we are out of questions here. So, we'll go ahead and open our public hearing at 7:14 p.m.

I have no written comments. Katie, do we have any callers on the line? No callers on the line. Okay, we'll go ahead and close the hearing then at 7:14 p.m. and bring it back to the commission. I move uh with those revisions or clarifications. Is that a possibility there? Yes. And if I may, I could I could summarize, okay,

what I took down as clarifications. Number one was the intent, definition, and applicability to bring clarity to the registration need for contact information and then the prorated fee after October 1st or around August. August is what I was thinking. Provision. And to clarify the fee, which right now we say it's by council resolution. So we could uh would you like to see some other language in there about the fee? For me, I just I was curious of the amount. So, right. Yeah.

And and with our chairman here also talking about how it's applied. So is a single family resident considered the same as a 18 acre parcel

and the fees accordingly or or is it [clears throat] one fee across the board? The thinking was that it would be the registration fee for the collection of information and the maintenance of the information and not necessarily development related or project size, excuse me, per parcel size related, but we could add the language in there that it should be prrated for lack of a better word towards size of property. Yeah, I I think it not knowing what the baseline fee is right now. Okay. Um and maybe if you know if it's a $50 fee then maybe I don't know um how it stacks compared to a resident versus a commercial property versus

yeah leaving it open to council consideration. So we could I I would go with again what uh what do you guys think of a baseline then? What do you what are you looking at on page five? It does say that the administrative fee shall not exceed 1,000 for each day

and that's for violate right. So that's once we get to a violation standpoint of we've cited and we've given courtesy notices and notices of violation and now you're still 30 60 90 days in violation of an ordinance. Now you're talking about assessment of fines and um fees. So that's for the fine but for the specific fee [clears throat] or rather it was unspecific for the fee for the registration again that's just for the collection of information and the maintenance of that list for us to be able to contact property owners or stewards of property. It says that payment of an annual registration fee is adopted by city council resolution. So we were looking to get direction from them on what they'd like to see. Uh so if you have a suggestion we could do that or leave the language open so that they could come up with their own uh suggestions or their own desire.

I would say leave it open so that they can come up with their own suggestions. Agreed. Yeah. The only thing I would caveat there with the recommendation from uh commission that uh ensure that residents are not uh there there's some dis or um I guess evenness in it right we don't want residents paying a driving compared to the commercial and the absolutely yeah okay so it should be different and we can note that to the council and say the commission's recommendation with this uh with these changes are your resolution should consider the different types of property owners that are involved. Yeah. Okay.

So, with those changes, we can forward to the council a recommendation as you see fit. Got a motion. I'll go ahead and second. Okay. Oh, shucks. I got to get one in there. Um, we have a roll call vote, please. Commissioner Copelan, yes. Commissioner Qua, yay. Chairman Suther,

yes. That takes us to item C6. This is uh consideration of voluntary participatory program reserving parking for Purple Heart license plate holders. Can we have a staff report, please? Good evening, chairman and commissioners. Kylie Presciato, planning staff. Item C6 on the agenda is to discuss a voluntary pilot program that reserves parking for Purple Heart recipients with Purple Heart license plates citywide. Tonight's request is for the planning commission to adopt a resolution in support of council authorization to launch the voluntary Purple Heart parking program. On July 15, 2025, council provided direction to develop a program that would honor veterans and carry on the city's tradition of veteran awareness and recognition. On August 13th, 2025, staff presented the draft plan before the economic development committee and received feedback that was incorporated into the program. The proposed program provides standardized signage, optional participation for businesses and shopping centers, and business recognition opportunities through the city's website. The next steps after the commission's recommended action is to receive further council direction for engaging the business community and implementing participation and reward. This presentation discussed council direction, economic development committee feedback, and key components of the proposed program, including standardized signage and voluntary participation. Staff is seeking adoption of a resolution supporting the council's

authorization of the program launch. Staff is available for pilot program questions or comments from the commission. Thank you. All right. Thank you for that report. Do we have any questions from the commission? I have a question. Um, the approved signage. Uh, so are would a a business get a sign, a set sign from the city saying this is what we want you to use or do they have some flexibility in what they put out there? I can answer that. They should be getting from us the standardized way in which they can get their own sign, but we're just telling them this is the size and type that you should be getting.

Okay. So, we wouldn't have a lot of different signs, right? It would be the same sign. Yes. Correct. Perfect. Um and then um my only other suggestion on this is um just as an incentive, I don't know if this is something that can be done on the city side of maybe just on the website having kind of a collection of the businesses that are participating kind of incentive to highlight them and maybe yes help encourage a little participation.

Absolutely. That's the intent. I apologize if it was unclear. So, the economic development department uh that monitors or runs the website would include those businesses as partners with the city for the parking program. So, yeah, they'd be acknowledged in in ways that could advertise for them that they are partners with the city, they are Purple Heart honores and that they could, you know, be a part of the business community in a larger way by being a partner with the city. Perfect. U if I may, um I'd like to just offer and say Bulmont Chamber of Commerce would uh like if they're not already, they will participate and support it.

Yes, we will reach out to them. We spoke with uh Mr. Jim Libridge today. He's not at the Bulmont Chamber of Commerce, but the VFW [clears throat] Post 233 has endorsed the the uh pilot program and and we're happy to have had their contribution. Yeah, I do have one one question that just prompted my head. Um, no permit, no inspection on installing these. Correct. Correct. No permit, no inspection. Okay, perfect. Um, all right.

Is there any enforcement on it or is it I mean, for someone who parks in a a designated area and is not a recipient and is not even a veteran, if they park there, is there any enforcement that the city, if called upon? I personally would throw chili on if you kidding. No, what we're having is it would be on the honor system obviously, but eggs are better. Eggs are better. Okay. Not chili. But is that something that the property owner could call correct the police department and say please cite them?

They could. I mean in any case uh a property owner could say uh issue a trespass for example. Hey, they're not doing what we asked them to and they we're asking them to leave the property. Uh but ultimately we would hope that on the honor system the the uh in as much as it's possible the private property owner whether it be security or managers would would monitor that and make sure that at some point these are being used appropriately but they could call the police. The sign the signage will not say violators are subject to I don't think so. Yeah. So far it hasn't um but we could we could add that. I mean, we could see about what what others are doing uh and see what the VFW thinks, too, but I don't think there's any sort of penalization language on the on the sign so far. Let's hope that it's not not necessary. Yeah,

but thank you. Agreed. Thank you. I'll go ahead and open our public hearing at 7:24 p.m. Sorry, clarification this one. This one does not require a public hearing. All right. Do we have any requests to speak? Correct. I have no written requests. Katie, do we have any callers on the line? No, we have no callers. Then bring it back to the commission. Move. I think it's great. Second. Second. All right. Uh, perfect. Yeah, great program. That's easiest decision I think we've had all night. Uh, can we get a roll call vote, please? Commissioner Coblin, yes. Commissioner Qua, yay. Chairman Sard, yes.

All right, that takes us to staff comments. Do we have any comments from staff? I think we've spoken enough tonight, but I'll leave I'll defer to Aaron. He's the planning manager. No further comments. Thank you. Any commissioner comments tonight? All right. Seeing none, we'll go ahead and adjourn our meeting at 7:25