Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Chair Lee, we're ready when you are. Thank you. Um, I'll now call the planning commission meeting of October the 15th, 2025 to order. May we have a roll call, please? Commissioner Bedard here. Commissioner Malikoff here. Commissioner McFale here. Vice Chair Me here. Chair Lee

present. Agenda finalization. Are there any changes to the agenda? Oh, I'm sorry. I'm skipping ahead. I missed a whole paragraph. Instead, as you are able, please rise for the pledge of allegiance. [Music] To the flag of the United States of America and to the standice of all.

All right. I'll try this again. Uh, agenda finalization. Are there any changes to the agenda? We have none. Chair, will the clerk please read the statement of participation?

This is the opportunity for members of the public to comment on any items not appearing on the regular agenda. Because of restrictions contained in California law, the commission may not discuss or act on any item not on the agenda, but may briefly respond to statements made or ask a question for clarification. The chairman may also request that a brief response from staff to questions raised during public comment or may request that a matter be agendaized for a future meeting. Public comment will be limited to three minutes. Chair, I did not receive any comments for the record and I do not believe we have any members that want to speak.

Very well. Thank you. Moving on to item two on our agenda, approval of minutes. Approval of the planning commission minutes of August 20th, 2025. Do we have any corrections or additions to the minutes? Do we have any public comments on the minutes? I did not receive any. Here, do we have a motion and a second to approve the minutes? Move approval. I have a motion by Commissioner McFale and a second by Vice Chair Meade. One second. We are missing someone on the vote panel.

Apologies, chair. Let me check something really quick. We're going to do a roll call vote for this one. Okay. Commissioner Baddard, hi. Commissioner Melikoff, hi. Commissioner McFale. Hi. Vice Chair Me. Chair Lee. I. Motion carries. All eyes.

Thank you. Item three on our agenda, non-public hearing items. Um item A, planning commission discussion of draft development code sections division six application procedures and division 7 code administration discussion and guidance item. So there's no vote on this item. Uh may we have an introduction please? Don't be shy. [Music] Good evening, commission. Uh, this is a a public discussion item for your consideration this evening. This is the item that was taken to the steering committee for consideration at their September 9th meeting. Uh, this is an item on the development dra the draft the development code update. you will get an a presentation from Mentor Harish from our team at Mier Harish on the questions and um specific specific issues that we'd like to get your guidance on as well as take your questions and comments on this. Um and if there's any questions uh uh Brent and Michael will help us out.

Thank you. Over to you. Just want to say I don't think our microphones are on and people at home might not be able to hear the presentation. I was wondering about that. Nothing. Oh. Um, well, we'll see if the clerk can fix that in a minute. Um, but I think we can proceed to the start of the presentation. Gentlemen, if you're prepared, before we start, what which which icon do we need to have so we can have the the presentation on our our desktop? Um, the clerk, uh, we seem to be having a problem with microphones and

Yes, I noticed that. I was trying I'm going to try something really quick. Okay. Commissioner McFale, can you speak into your microphone? Hello. Try one more time. Hello, chair. One second. I need to speak with our team. Do we need to take a five minute break to We do. Can we take a five minute break?

Yes. Five minute break while we uh work on the technic uh technicalities. Hello. Hello. Hello. I think last year I think yours was also Yeah, it says mute as well. Hello. Hello. Hello.

I don't think I've ever used that before. That's much better. Okay. So when you're here, right?

Where was it? Down here. It was already. So down here is your the this will be your like screen and this is always your one meeting when you want to find and it kind of goes away. Thank you. You're welcome.

Can you check Cynthia? I don't think we could hear Cynthia. Testing. Hello. Hello. One, two. Thank you for holding your patience. We'll be with you in just a moment. Please enjoy the hold music. La. [Music] Thank you for holding. Okay. All right.

Chair Lee, we're ready. Okay. Thank you. And we're back. Um, so handing this over to our consultants for their presentation. Fantastic. Well, good evening, commission. Nice to see you again. Can you hear me in the mic? I don't think your mic's on, actually. Yeah. Can you turn it up a little? Can you hear me now? That sounds a bit better.

And I can also I'm a loud person. I can project. Okay. Well, good evening, commission. Um, good to be with you this evening. This is a continuation of the development code update that the city is currently undergoing. And as uh, Miss Schultz mentioned, we previously met with the steering committee and brought forth um, two divisions of the draft development code for their initial review prior to bringing this to the planning commission this evening. What we're going to do is walk through the administrative provisions. That'll be division six and division 7. Um, but before we get fully started, I just want to give the a lay of the land of expectations tonight, what we're hoping to get from the planning commission that'll help us move through this process. U, so I'll go through how we plan to walk through the presentation and receive feedback and then go over a few items that are in front of you tonight. So, first off, within your packet, you should see a document that looks like this. It's a table uh with some black and orange highlighting. This table includes all of the feedback that we received from the steering committee at their last meeting. Uh both questions that were taken in person and questions that were submitted after the fact. We worked closely with your city staff to provide responses to all of these questions. It's part of your packet this evening. Uh so that you can see for transparency purposes what the steering committee had questions on, maybe some recommendations they had, and then what staff's response is moving forward as we proceed with this project. If there are specific questions on this matrix in your packet tonight, uh, feel free to ask questions. We can elaborate that. If we cannot fulfill the the fulfill fulfill the answer to your question, we'll ask city staff to jump in on some of these topics as well, but we're here to answer that. Our plan is to go through the presentation um, structured for each of the different divisions. So, we'll start with division six. At the end of the presentation, for that first component, there are a series of

questions. I like to think of those as icebreaker questions. I would love to get some responses to those, but I know some of you up here might have your own questions earmarked for this evening, too, and we can definitely take those. We'll get through as many questions as possible. Then we'll work through division 7. I made this appeal to the steering committee during our meeting that there may be lots of questions that you have that get into um very specific topic areas that may go beyond this meeting. And so I would ask if you have additional comments, if you have additional markups based on the drafts that you've seen, please provide those to city staff. They make our way uh to our consultant team and then we work with city staff on figuring out ways to evaluate and bring those edits and modifications into the overall uh drafts before you. Any initial questions from the commission before we begin? Perfect. Okay, so let's uh let's just give a brief overview of the administrative provisions. And the way I like to think about these is these are the the the inner workings of your development code. So your administrative provisions uh they lay out who is responsible for making decisions. So who is the review authority on planning decisions, applications that move forward? That's when the public brings forward uh different concepts and development projects. And the administrative provisions also focus on presenting your permit application process. So what are the steps that developers community members have to take in order to get a project across the finish line either passing staff must through the development code or making its way up to you u the planning commission. So as part of our effort we've divided uh your administrative provisions into two different components within the draft development code. The first being division six. This f focuses on application processing procedures and the different permits and their different requirements and findings attached to those. That's all

encompassed within one division. Division 7, that's the development code administration that looks into pe appeals, revocations, modifications, and so forth. And so tonight, what we'll do is we'll walk through each of those divisions, kind of give a highle summary of of the of what's within the draft before you this evening, walk through some a series of questions, and then collect feedback um tonight. [Music] So the purpose for division six. So the purpose for division six, this presents uh processing procedures for discretionary permits and other approvals required by the development code. So the overall contents for division six include your general provisions, home occupations, um design review, um minor use permits, conditional use permits. Those are both discretionary and action. and we'll get into the specifics behind each of those and who the review authorities are. Temporary use permits, variances, permit modifications. And so each of those topics are covered at a higher level here and then we'll go through um these more individually uh with some background information at the bottom of each of these slides. You'll notice that there are discussion questions. I pose these now not to get feedback necessarily from the commission, but just to get the gears moving. And these are the questions that are at the end of each of these division sections that we'll cover tonight. So, one of the questions that we'll want to ask the planning commission is, are the permit procedures that are laid out in the draft before you and that we'll speak to, are they appropriate? Based on your review of the draft, are they clear? And is the review authority clear? We want to make sure that you as the planning commission are fully understand the ramifications of these permits and what they entail. So in the general provisions and application section there are the different uniform procedures that uh

assist with the application process. So everything from preliminary review to the different application and filing application fees how those are administered uh public notice requirements and then which permits trigger uh public hearings. And what's important is when we worked through this with our team, we wanted to make sure that we codified current practices and then made tweaks and modifications maybe where the process isn't working to its fullest capability or where the current standards are not fully clarified. So within the draft before you let's start with design review. So the draft has design review broken up into two different segments and we're going to cover this first one uh which is a refined threshold for design review with the approval authority or review authority being that the director. So in the draft the threshold for design review and approval by the director focuses primarily on site improvements and modifications uh that are not associated with a project um that otherwise would require design review. In this case, the director has the ability as the review authority under under this draft to elevate any projects to the ARC and PC for review when it's deemed appropriate, when it doesn't necessarily meet the thresholds listed. There is some new design review criteria that's uh that's that's included within this draft that's meant to aid in the review of projects, mainly focusing on conformance with applicable plans and existing city guidelines. Consistency with the intended character of the area in which the project's being evaluated for, the appropriateness to the function of the project, provision of an attractive environment, and then overall design consistency. The second form of design review, uh, as listed in the draft before you, oh, sorry, take this back. I was jumping up

a slide. Um, the community development director also has the ability, um, to as part of the design review authority to manage the change of color scheme. So, when that's brought forward, that can be done at what's proposed is to be done at the uh, director level. Changes in facade that do not change or define the the character of the building. So these are more minor modifications to structures. This includes architectural changes that are required by a national chain um that matches corporate identity. Sometimes we see that with u more regional and commercial national scale retail. Other site improvements or modifications including changes to landscaping that are not associated with the project that otherwise requires design review. And then there's some specifics that were carried over from your existing development code including tennis court lighting uh additions of less than 30% of existing floor area to non-residential structures. So these are this is just a overall list of where the director has the review authority over design review. That second component that focuses on the arc is slightly different and that's where the thresholds go beyond the list that I had just gone over. So the design review as it pertains the to the ARC comes in when there are significant changes to the architecture of the building that changes the defining features. These are not minor modifications. These are large wholesale changes. The ARC would also um act as the design review arm when building additions to structures that do not meet the criteria by that of the director and are less than 50% of the existing floor. So there's a threshold in size of structure as well. pad structures in existing shopping centers uh that do not include drive-through facilities. That would also trigger review by the ARC as it pertains to design review as well as multif family developments within the R4 uh zoning district. Any items that move from ARC review up to planning commission basically include

those that are not mentioned above. So either by the ARC or by um by the director. So another question just to get the gears moving is are the types of projects that receive design um are the types of projects that receive design review by the director ARC and planning commission are those appropriate? Does the planning commission feel that that list should be modified? Should some of those items that are in draft form be shifted uh between different review authorities or is what's in uh what's before you tonight most appropriate to move forward? So, these are the types of questions we'll want to start to get feedback on, and those are the modifications we'll make in the draft after tonight's meeting. Let's talk about permit requirements. So, there is a new permit requirement that we're proposing as part of this effort, and this is called a minor use permit. This is new. The city currently does not have that. Minor use permit is a lower level um think of a conditional use permit. It's still a discretionary, but it's not reviewed by the planning commission. This is kept at the director level. So fire for a for a minor use permit. A public hearing um can be done if the director refers the item to the planning commission or if the director's decision is appealed. So this is a new permit requirement. It's mid-level. What it's trying to do is to streamline permit processing and not have everything go forward to the planning commission. It retains some discretion at the staff level to approve certain development projects. There still are conditional use permits. planning commission. You're familiar with this. This is a a development uh permit that comes before the planning commission, has a list of conditions attached to it, and goes for your review? Conditional use permits do require public notice and hearing. So, our overall question um to the planning commission is, is the new process for a minor use permit, which is a director level, not planning commission level, is that appropriate? Is that something that should get

carried forward? And then what are the types of uses and projects that you feel would be most appropriate to have such a director level approval and not require planning commission? Now I know that's kind of a larger bigger question for you when you don't actually have the zoning districts and uses in front of you and I know that that's the next phase of the project that's coming soon. But we at least want to start this discussion to make sure that the city and you as the planning review arm are comfortable with this lowering threshold of having more uh staff level permitting and discretion. Other types of permits would include temporary use permits. So these detail permit procedures for temporary or special events. Uh typically these would get routed to city departments just to ensure that everything is in line uh with the specific development standards as it would pertain to that event or with other departments, public works, environmental health and so forth. These typically include regulations governing special uses that are in a separate chapter. Temper use permits also must have meet a set of findings regarding nuisances to make sure that they don't cause any issues to the surrounding properties during the event and other impacts such as circulation or safety. Conditions of approval may also be required to achieve consistency with these findings and that's depending on the size and scope of the event listed within the temporary use permit. Division 6 also includes home occupation permits. These regulate home occupations including the number of employees cl and clients um that can service a home occupation. It's not a traditional commercial operation that's done in a commercial storefront. Uh within the development code, we will include a section on home occupation permits that does include or home occupations themselves that does include performance standards uh that will focus on limiting impacts to the neighborhood based on

some of the specific types of businesses that can get ruled as a home occupation. And that'll be part of your standards for specific uses. You'll be getting a draft of that early spring. Reasonable accommodations is also covered within division 6. Reasonable accommodations are procedures that are compliant with state and federal law. Uh requiring reasonable accommodation for individuals with disabilities. This is a requirement um that the state of California and federal government imposes. We'll make sure that this is um fully compliant within your development code. The administrative adjustment, this is a new process uh but it should sound familiar. So this is actually replacing what you currently have is known as an administrative variance. And think of this as not so much a full scale variance where it's there's a there's an issue on the property or there's um there is a a reason for why a development can't proceed or needs to have a variance from the height um or other considerations. This sort of adjustment is made for flexibility on smaller scales for projects. And so currently within your uh within your zoning standards, you have this administrative variance which allows a director approved threshold of different percentages based on different allowances. So just for example, you could have an an administrative variance related to height, related to parking, and that that may be on a different varying scale from a percentage wise. So, the director may be able to approve a 10% um allowance in increase of parking or decrease in parking or increase of height depending on on that use. Evaluating your current administrative variance with city staff. It um the process seemed complicated that there were a lot of different uh variables that come into play and it may be more simpler to standardize um that that variance allowance at the

director's discretion. So, as part of the draft before you tonight, uh what we're proposing along with city staff is to is instead of having that um varied allowance, which changes by use, we would standardize that. So, it would be a 20% um administrative adjustment that could be allowed uh specifically for um development standards that apply to a property. Not use standards, not performance standards, but development standards that could pertain to parking, that could pertain to setbacks. just as a few examples. So our question um our question for the planning commission is to just gauge your level of um comfortableness with that 20%. Is that too much discretion to allow at a director level um for certain development standards for flexibility? Should it be less 10%, 15%. There is no right or wrong answer to this. It's really jurisdictional based and this was our first crack at going well we're going to try 20% and then we'll gauge the temperature of all of you and the steering committee. I do also want to point out that as part of the administrative adjustment it is a separate process um unless it is running concurrently with another um another project approval. So if there were if an administrative adjustment was made as part of an application that was coming forth the planning commission then that would get ruled under that o overall umbrella but it it is currently a standalone uh standalone process based on d uh director's discre um discretion and I do also want to state that an administrative adjustment as listed within the draft before you uh also is appealable. Division 6 also includes a series of other permit types variances. These uh would exceed the threshold of what an administrative adjustment is. Again,

administrative adjustment are minor. These must be related to extraordinary circumstances on a property that don't allow construction or a project to move forward. As you are aware, variances do require public noticing and they require a public commission a planning commission hearing. implementation timeline extensions, time limits and extensions. As part of this, permits and approvals are um in the current draft are listed um for a 24-month default and allowance of a 12-month time extension with director approval. This is uh different for up to the this is different for what is now, which is up to the 36 months. This is just um one option that is being proposed uh as part of time limits and extensions. This gives more discretion to staff level uh for permit approvals. Another question that we would ask the commission is just based on that time allowance is that appropriate or should we maintain the 36 months. Division 6 also covers permit modification revocation. This is where a process where the city may consider revoking or modifying approvals or actions that were previously approved. Uh any permit modification or revocation would require a public notice um and hearing and uh would and would require the planning commission and potentially the city council depending on the appeal. So, I know that was a lot of information to put out there on division six and I had mentioned a few questions just to get the the gears moving. On the screen here, these are all of the questions we've extracted from the other slides. These are the same questions that we posed to the steering committee. So, as part of this evening, what I'd like to do is hand it back to the chair and ask the chair to um facilitate questions with the planning commission. uh these if if any of the planning commissioners

have responses to these questions, we would gladly take them. Otherwise, we'll take other comments you may have.

Thank you. Um my understanding is that this presentation as is already went to the steering committee. Is that correct? And we have two members of the planning commission that are on the steering committee. So, in this instance, I'd like to give some preference to the people have not been involved in those discussions. Um but that doesn't preclude all members from from raising issues because the discussion may bring up other questions that have not been addressed. Um and and I'd start just by a note of clarification. Um, I submitted two documents um to staff which were some detailed comments and um sometimes straying into policy um concerning the the draft that I've viewed and and I don't feel a need to go into detail in my own questions assuming that that docu those two documents that I I I gave to staff will be forwarded on to the consultants. Is that correct? So for clarification, I'll I'll clarify an answer to your question. I'll also give a clarification the rest of the board. So the document that you see as as you noted was exactly the same as what it went to steering committee. What we're going to try to do is capture all of the comments as steering committee put those into a spreadsheet and then as we go forward to the next body, we will continue to capture those questions from whichever body so that we capture them all together in one place. because I get comments from one member, comments from a body, comments from another member. What I'm trying to do is put them all into one place so that we have a central location that's feeding the information then back back either for discussion or over to the um uh the consultant for final uh

so is the preference that I raise all the points that I raised in those documents here so they they can hear them or are you going to consolidate them into another document

since we have them and you already you can raise them but I think it's fine if you just leave them in there and they'll be forwarded on to the onto the add to that though is those that perhaps stray into policy where it may be an opportunity for the commission to have a policy discussion to provide direction as a body back to staff and consult those would be good questions. Uh so those that may be more on a technical side uh we have them we've received them we'll share those with a consultant uh those will be documented those be tracked but uh for those of you who submitted comments uh I would encourage those that rise to the level of policy let's get them out on the table let's have a robust discussion on those

and that is fine I what I was just making sure of because the consultant was saying that they'll be getting everything from staff I wanted to make sure nothing was going to get dropped in that transition. Um otherwise, you know, I would want to make that original document available to the the consultants. But if you're going to consolidate that into a spreadsheet and give it to them as all the the content, uh then then I think that's fine.

And I think my my preference is to to consolidate all of that information into a spreadsheet, but I realize that as I'm going through some of the comments, I do have questions. So, I'll probably have questions as follow-ups. I think a lot of the questions that we've received from steering committee and from different members, individual members do fall under a lot of these categories that that uh they've highlighted here as far as the discussion questions. So those are definitely um policy where where do you want to provide guidance? Where does this committee commission uh want to have a discussion on that? What's appropriate? What do we feel is most appropriate? And that's what we're seeking.

Okay. Thank you. And and because there there is no vote, this is we're not going to be making decisions today. we can be a little freer in terms of the flow of question and answer and so on. Um so just to consolidate that discussion itself. So the the consultants have these questions for us which I think we should discuss here. If there are items that raise that um rise to the level of policy in general, we should also be raising those so that we can discuss them. um if we get down into the the detail of the draft where it's a question of you know a missing term or whatever those things can simply go to staff and and you know if it's a typo or grammatical error or whatever which hands up yeah I tend to report those um uh they don't need to be brought up tonight to go oh you missed a period in this sentence so you know that that seems to be the dividing line then yeah I think everyone's agreed okay so let me move then to uh first person who was not involved in in the steering committee and we're just addressing division six and these questions really to at the moment um Commissioner Bard

so oddly enough I'd like to actually hear from the two that were in the meeting the steering meeting to see what maybe has come up already is already being addressed Um, I am just really curious how things are. I think the the the the agenda packet included that consolidation of all the questions and responses. I didn't print it out but I

from from the members of the committee. So I have two questions then primarily one to understand the administrative adjustment a little bit more uh and how that would affect it gives more power to our director which on one hand I think is awesome because I think they're doing a great job and if he ever leaves and someone else comes in it gives power to someone who may not be working in the interest of the city. So I'm a little concerned how increasing that level trying to understand what that looks like. Um, I'm also curious about the home occupation. As you know, as somebody who's been sitting on the board of um some different chambers and business development, somebody who does have businesses in my home, uh it is I am very concerned apparent because of our our previous meeting about uh limiting home businesses and uh a perception about what a home business is or does and limiting that type of not expanding it but contracting is very curious to me especially when the state of California is progressing much more on home businesses and home occupancy and the SBD SBDC and all those types of things. So I don't want us to be out of alignment with that and I would love us to be more progressive. Uh but from previous conversations, there's a big push to kind of preserve a an old school idea of neighborhood identities. So these businesses are expanding in other areas and it's not affecting neighborhood identities, but there's a perception when you talk to people and it taps into their fear of what's going to happen and people coming into the

neighborhood and and different things of that sort. So, I'm highly concerned on that. And I already heard some of it if you go back to a previous slide where it did say, I think it was four slides ago where it did talk about home occupation occupation and um the need to preserve. So, I don't know if there's more to address there. Well, I mean, I can I can certainly speak to uh the administrative adjustment um and kind of our thought process our thought process there. So, as Brent mentioned, uh the city already has a process by which the director has some authority um to modify a requirement. In this case, as it stands now, that adjustment is dependent on the standard that is being uh adjusted. So height um setbacks those all have a different threshold for the what the director can authorize best practice and from just conversations with city staff we felt that that could be streamlined the uh different thresholds for different requirements can be difficult for enforcement. Um, and our view was that if we were to overall increase the overall threshold but create and clarify the findings that have to be made by that director, that would at least create some certainty on the planning commission's end as to what the operation

an example of that. I appreciate what you're saying and it's above my head. So, can you give an actual concrete example? Sure. Let me go to the uh section here and staff actually might be able to have a an actual example, but I can come up certainly with a hypothetical.

So, an example that I can share and and this is one that it played out the way that it did based on our current code. Uh this was a a hotel, a resort here in Cathedral City uh that had an expansion. they had uh a restaurant expansion and they were also looking at some additional uh units uh as part of that resort and that compelled them to increase their parking. Um as with a lot of infill development projects, they didn't have the space for that parking and as part of the entitlement process, they were required to find offsite parking for their use. Uh they needed 13 spaces in order to make their parking work. the way that the project was originally conditioned, they were required to enter into a long-term lease for off-site parking. Candidly, uh no property owner is going to enter into a long-term lease for parking. Uh property is too valuable for that. And as a result, uh, when they found that they they couldn't, uh, identify a property owner that was willing to enter into a long-term lease with them, they ended up acquiring another parcel specifically for the development of a parking lot in our downtown. And that scenario played out because we didn't have the flexibility in our code to grant a little discretion, a little bit of leeway. And I'll say this, greenfield development is easy. green field development, when you're dealing with a raw vacant parcel of land, it's the first time that it has been developed, uh you can make it conform, but when you have a second or a third project come in, um it can be challenging to meet the strict standards of the code. And you've seen variance applications before, the criteria for a true variance application is extremely difficult to meet. there needs to be something that is exceptionally different with that parcel of land than any other parcel with similar conditions. That is a tough standard to meet, particularly when we're dealing with an encroachment into

a setback or a parking reduction. So, I like to look at the administrative adjustment as defining that line between the flexibility that we want to offer a developer uh someone that is looking to come into one of these infill sites. uh what we can offer is flexibility versus a variance. If they go beyond that line, it's a variance and it is a high standard for them to meet that threshold. But below that line, there is discretion that can be exercised by the director or if this is processed in combination with another application that comes before the planning commission, you'll see that adjustment as well as part of that application. So, it's flexibility for scenarios like that, like this one that uh played out here in the last couple years in Cathedral City. Uh the last city I worked in, we dealt with a lot of infill parcels and it was common to see administrative adjustments. Um they weren't major. This was a couple of feet that we were talking about for a setback or for a building height. Typically it was related to an expansion, but uh it offered um flexibility, discretion, and enabled the city to find a way to say yes.

Let me just uh cut in. So So I think um in terms of the adjustments, I don't have a problem with that. Although I think in terms of CB uh CCBC's parking that was more to do with the parking uh regulations to do with the the amount of uh units and the amount of parking required, wasn't it? It was a little bit of everything that there was no discretion.

So, so let me but let me address your question as well. Um which is that I think the thing that you're really interested in isn't written yet. Um if we look at uh 917510 that defines purpose and intent for the uh home occupation and it says there'll be section XXX home occupation regulations that will define those things that I think you're more interested in. So really all we're looking at here is the process for for approving or disproving them, not what can be done. Yeah. It's it's the sort of the framework, the mechanics. Yeah, you're smiling, but I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing.

Thank you. Oh,

yeah. Go ahead. And there was a concern about um and I think I mentioned that in the matrix you gave us there is that's listed in there that it says one hospital resolution is adjustments i no more than 7 ft or up to a total of x to additional Is that sounds like [Music]

And I would say that yes, that is under consideration and evaluation by the city. And so part of us bringing this forward to the planning commission was for you to see what the steering committee was thinking and to weigh in on such a cap if that was proposed. Um, real quick, I do want to touch on the home occupation um, discussion and the the chair is right. The the the inner workings of the performance standards for what is deemed a home occupation, talking about employees, delivered deliveries, operational hours, signage, all of that will be handled in what's known as division 4 and that standards for specific uses. Uh, we are in the process of teeing up that section but haven't actually drafted it yet. This is just the mechanics of the permit that any home occupation would have to come in and apply for and then the director would go back to those standards to approve the permit using those.

I wasn't even going to bring it up because I understand that except I saw some language in there that I was kind of like, huh, that was already kind of And does this have to do with the adversely affect the residential care? Exactly. Yes. and we can have the discussion of what that constitutes and then how that plays into the standards for a specific uses. I appreciate that because the idea that people have about adversely harming a neighborhood is very different than application. So

I I think um one of the things that we might want to see at a future meeting is the state is interfering in local jurisdictions police power for land use um much more than they should my opinion. Um but that's going to affect what we can legislate in our ordinance. So for instance in the process for not just for home occupations but in the process for how we approve design reviews for homes um and how we approve other things that there's legislation that comes up. if we could get like a table of things that are going to be impacted so that we don't waste time discussing it. I mean, second, the additional dwelling units are not an issue that anybody's unfamiliar with, but let's say somebody didn't know about it and you put that on the list. It's like then let's not waste time talking about it. The state already took away our our authority on it. So, anything that the state may have taking away our authority. I I got a good example. Sandra told me about it the other day. Um used goods. Um I think used goods should have a not a conditional use permit, but they should go through some process. Um because they are different than um a normal retail store. Um they have more potential for um selling of of from criminal activity and things such as that. and they also have a lot more of maintenance issues. However, the state in their wisdom has gone ahead and said you can't do that. They're just like everybody else.

So, that's the kind of thing that you may want to give us a table on so that we don't waste time um coming up with ideas on how to how to regulate that. Thank you. Um, let me go to uh, Commissioner McFale.

Yeah, I I think I came into the meeting more with the mindset that you described at the uh, beginning of the meeting and the fact that you had sent uh, materials over to staff with some rather detailed questions. That was kind of where I was going to go this evening. So, I'm probably going to throw out half the notes I've written and we'll send them on to staff later. So, I'm going to do some mental editing of my my comments here. But, I guess it's a general comment. I'll just start by saying I think the format you've created of the each chapter is a very clear uh format. So I I I did like that. Although I think also um and we I think we talked about this maybe in the the RFP presentation or maybe some other point you know where you were talking about using graphics in some cases and there were some instances here where I felt maybe graphics could work and make things clearer. Uh maybe sometimes they they just can't be made into graphics. But I thought of like the the process of a uh getting a particular permit who who reviews it. Maybe there's a table in in in the document somewhere. But maybe you could have some rough timeline or it starts here then it goes to body X and then two months later it goes to body Y. If it's a more graphical format that might make things clearer to the general public. It's just a a general uh comment.

It's like a a flowchart of sorts.

Yes. Yep. Um a few of the questions I had which might be more I might send off to staff were to do with some of the definitions the appeal process not and also notifications who finds out about these these processes as well. Um so I'm going to try and edit down what I had as much as possible. Um let me see what I have here. So I guess I'll I might and if I am going off let just stop me. Um you know what one of the sections we have is to do with a minor use permit which is a new thing and um is this a form of permit that exists elsewhere in the state? Other cities do a a format of a minor use permit. Can you give examples of what's in that? What sort of cities are doing minor use permit?

Yeah, absolutely. So, a lot of counties and cities use uh use this tool. It's a newer tool. Um it's called different things in different jurisdictions. Here it's called a minor use permit. Other times it's called an administrative permit um or administrative use permit. Um so the we have structured it really based on on best practice and what and what we've what we see um other jurisdictions using it for. The idea is is that we would apply or we would require this entitlement for land uses um that are in compliance with the general plan, but that would likely require a little bit further discretion or a little bit more information from the applicant that the city would want to see, but doesn't necessarily raise to the threshold that a conditional use permit might. The idea is that if we can lower the threshold of the amount of items that are going before the planning commission, we can streamline development. We can make it easier for developers is what we keep hearing in our stakeholder um and our stakeholder interviews and some feedback from the development community is how do we make the process easier while creating more certainty. So that's what that minor use permit is is is intended to do. What we kind of plan on doing and what we'll bring to you next for your review is all of your zones will have all of the different land use tables or all of the um we'll create land use tables for all of the allowed land uses within your zones. What we'll start to do is we'll start to pick and what would be beneficial for this evening. Um we'll start to pick out certain land uses that based on city staff preference or based on planning commission, city council feedback that we can flag that we can almost downgrade to this minor use permit. Um the idea being is that we can remove the amount of land uses that are going to you that the planning commission might not necessarily want to see or that you can feel comfortable with making certain findings that the director would have to find and make in

order to approve a project. Idea being again it doesn't have to go through the formal public hearing process. So, at some point, we're going to flesh out when a minor use permit would be triggered versus conditional use or or one of our other permits. I'm not sure if I was a 100% clear what would fall in which bucket and is that going to happen at a later

correct. Correct. We're working uh we're working on that right now. Um if if the commission does have feedback on certain types of land uses that may have or at certain applications that have come before the planning commission though that you in your opinion don't feel necessarily rose to the level to go before the planning commission um or there are certain entitlements that you are seeing regularly that you feel could be handled on the staff side. We would be interested in hearing that because that would be our first kind of check box as to maybe some of these land uses or entitlements that we could require a minor use permit for. I I think Roy um I can just add to that so that you can have a little bit of a better understanding of what it could be is it would be like small commercial additions like if you were going to add a patio to a restaurant or you were going to add um to the rear of a building that's commercial. Um those are the kinds of things that typically are a minor use permit.

So I I just wanted to give you two small examples. So, I I might suggest u you know, if we think about a land use, right, like a a doggy daycare land use in a PCC zoning district, that's something that could potentially be a minor use permit. Uh it's a review of a land use. Um it would come with some development standards and the finding may be that if it meets those development standards, it can be approved at an administrative level through a minor use permit as opposed to coming before the planning commission with a a full conditional use permit. So there may be some of those uses that you determine that um don't necessarily need to go through a full conditional use review, but rather with some standards can be delegated down.

The same could be made for retail thresholds. So larger national chains coming in that are, let's say, over 100,000 square feet would require conditional use permit review by planning commission. But a retail um a retail outlet coming in that is under 20,000 square feet or under a certain threshold would fall under that minor use permit at the staff level. It would still have to meet findings. And the thing about a minor use permit too is it it's still appealable. So if if if the applicant is is does not like the desired action or direction by the director, it was appealable up to planning commission and would work its way through its normal process. Um in terms of the administrative adjustments um I think some I think you mentioned that currently there is administrative variance does happen and is allowed at the moment. Is that correct that there are administrative variances that happen?

Yes, there is an administrative variance although the code language it's a little peculiar. It references a dimensional standard. So we we couldn't use that for a a um parking calculation for instance. So I think part of the administrative adjustment it's not only contemplating the percent and what the appropriate percent is but really thinking about what it is that we might adjust or vary through that process. So if we're thinking dimensional standards parking calculations and then as well thinking about the percent u right now it's a 20% but uh are you more comfortable granting 10% for building height 20% for other uh standards. I I think all of that is in play.

It it just seemed to me percent is maybe a strange way of thinking about this in a way. If I think about like an ind individual lot or something on a lot, the one thing that just went through my head, very small example, maybe it's not a good example that we recently had concerned a wall height and um you know there there was a particular wall height allowed I think it was like 42 in and a variance was required to go higher and we ultimately uh did not allow that to go through and in if we were to do % first of all would work out to be a strange number 20% of 42 in is like 8.4 in are we you're going to say measure 8.4 four eight and a half. I mean, are there so many of these dimensions that we couldn't just attach it will be one foot bigger or 10t bigger or three parking spaces bigger because percentages seem to you could end up with fractions of things. So, just as a mathematical thing, I thought percentage was a strange way to go instead of discrete units, but maybe that's something that can be talked about. uh whether maybe it's not that big a deal really.

If I could just interject, but um I find this area concerning as well. Um and I hadn't really thought in terms of parking spaces for this the the question that was posed here is about dimensional standards, but we're we're looking I suppose parking has a dimension. I just hadn't considered it that way. Um so what is it we're trying to do in terms of of giving administrative uh license to to overstep the standard? Um I think we have to approach it from that. So CCBC would have been a good point where I would have said, well, yeah, you know, it's like two or three spaces or whatever, and it's just silly to block a big business from doing something when you've got that. I don't know what percentage of parking that would have been to make it administrative. Um on the other hand if I take a um uh 10story building then you know 10% would be another build another level of building. So you know you you could be making major changes and I think somebody in the steering committee comments made the same point that there's a big difference between 10 foot and 100 feet if you're adding 10%. you know, so unfortunately I can't tell you where we should be with that because I still haven't worked it out for myself, but I don't think simple percentages really work for every case. And I think we need to find some other way that we can still achieve the objective which is not to block things on a on a very, you know, a very simple standard like the three parking

spaces. But at the same time, we don't want to end up with with McMansion houses because we said everybody can have 20% more than we said they could have when building a house. So I I don't know where I should should be with that discussion. I think it needs more thought than simply saying 20%.

Would an example have been the um the convenience store that we approved that was going into the old appliance store. So there were two things we were being asked for there if I remember correctly. One was that the parking spaces were slightly not long enough and I believe that would have easily fallen into the 20%. Because it was like a 6 in or something like that. It was very small. But then the issue of the number of parking spaces, I think that because the number of spaces was so small to begin with and they were I think they needed 13 and they were providing seven or something was way above the 20%. So that still would have come to us. I think it wouldn't have fallen under this thing even though in the grand scheme of things that in my mind probably could have been an administrative variance because it really ultimately wasn't that big of a deal. But one of the things would have met the 20% threshold and the other wouldn't have. So I kind of agree with you. I think what both both of you are saying is that percentage may not be the best measurement. But what else do we use instead is the question.

Yeah, I I I my thought here is and yes, that is a good example. That's a good example actually not only for an administrative adjustment, but possibly also something to think about as a minor use permit. Did you really need to see a new tenant coming into that site? um that could have been done at an administrative level that could have been streamlined and with uh an administrative adjustment uh there would not have been a need for any of those variances. I think that's an excellent case of infill development. It's peculiar. Um these are challenging sites. Many of these sites developed prior to the city's incorporation. They were based on a county code. Uh they are not conforming to the current standards. Uh so for a new tenant, a new business going in, they're going to run into uh challenges just like those that you've described. So um the percent, whatever number it is, uh I think that's intended to grant flexibility. It's intended to grant discretion in cases like that where it just doesn't fit. Um I haven't seen an absolute number in an administrative adjustment that I've seen. Uh the percentages are are fairly small. Um yes, you know, when you apply it to 100 ft or, you know, a large number like that, uh it can be a little bit larger, but uh we don't have development of that scale or magnitude in the city, our our zoning doesn't necessarily support that. Uh and I would say too, uh if someone were developing a large residential project through density bonus law, they can get around this anyway without the administrative adjustment. They can use the the the waiverss and the concessions uh to add additional height, add additional stories. So, um, when you when you're thinking about 20% in terms of a a 35- ft maximum building height, that's not an additional story. That may be, um, an encroachment within that uh, plane, but, uh, it's not necessarily going to grant additional floor area. So, I I think this is something that we can explore. Perhaps we can uh find further examples to clarify how this would apply in

reality uh so that it's not just a a theoretical concept but we can back it up with examples where this has uh worked to streamline a process and to support development particularly infill development. Uh and as well I think we can give some more thought to you know how how we might restrict this so a a tracked home developer isn't coming in using this to uh bump up the uh the building height in a residential track. That's not the intent.

Well, I and I I don't think anything in this imp implies that the adjustment is by right. So if it was, you know, we have to work cooperatively here. Um so staff might look at a an application and go wa if we give them 20%. The planning commission is not going to be very happy with us, you know. Um, so, uh, I would expect that staff would use judgment as to whether or not to grant that administrative adjustment. Thank you. Yes. The other

that was also why you'll see there's a couple mentions which was my kind of big thing was it for all these things that are going to be administrative, I would really like to see some sort of transparency and whatever that actually is because if what you're saying is the planning commission is not going to be very happy. we don't have any say if it's administrative and ministerial and it's a director's decision. We have no say at all and we wouldn't even know about it unless it's published somewhere. So I think to your point that's still something that's important to me to be my next point that in creating this new kind of permit it's something that's not a public act and there needs I I feel in some cases perhaps we need some kind of notification this is happening. Obviously, we we're not going to do the notification procedures. If you're um within half a mile or whatever it is of this, you will get a notification. That's not happening. So, the public don't know. They are minor by definition. They're called minor, but I still feel that there needs to be some reporting out of what we're doing.

Mr. Chair, yeah,

I I think I think percentages do work, but I understand why you would question them. Um, when you look at minor variances or minor adjustments, whatever you want to call them, um, when they first started, I think they were meant they were used for mostly for dimensions, you know, like if you couldn't make a sideyard setback or for a rear yard setback. Um, you know, especially like, um, I ran into a situation once where there was a survey error and they had to get a full variance for 2 ft extension into the front yard cuz it wasn't surveyed, right? And this would have been if if something like this existed, that would have saved everybody a lot of a lot of effort. Um but I think there's three things that a varian a minor variance or a minor adjustment would cover. One is dimensions, two is parking and three is height and then the fourth one could be um lot coverage which is done in a different way also. So I think that what we should look at is you know diff you know we should look at what kinds of administrative variances there are because they're looked at a little bit differently. the dimensions of a of a of a house are very different than what a h the height of a building would be or the height of um the height of a building would be or when you're talking about the McMansions um if they already have 40% what's you know and for whatever reason let's say they want to add 2% they could apply for the variance for it but does that really make sense so that's why I think lot coverage dimension height and parking are the things that

we should look at and they might have different standards. And then to address the transparency, what I brought up in the in the um steering committee is that we should look at what Lintita does cuz I work with a guy from Linta and he's also a planning commissioner. So, you know, we talk and in his packet he gets a report of the administrative decisions that are made um so that they can see. Now, they're not appealable, but but at least they know what they're doing and and that um that might be one way of having transparency. And at the same time that report that we get if if if if the group thinks it's necessary, it could go on the bulletin board outside.

Well, yeah. Or on the or on the dashboard. I think in this and and various other instances which I' I've mentioned in in my comments, um it's key to involve the public at leastformationally even if they can't comment in a procedure. It's not a public hearing, but they still get that information, and this would just fall into the same frame. I I think that the city has a cheap or fairly um inexpensive way of conveying information just through our websites. The dashboard is great.

So, yeah. So um I would encourage in general for us to look through the the all these se sections where where we're saying something is is ministerial or or it's uh an administrative decision that that information is exposed in some way to the public. Um and as you say doesn't mean it's appealable. It just means it's informationational and people should know how their city is being run. So, I think it's important that we get that information out there and it should not be a big overhead on stuff because I'm sensitive to the fact that if we had to put newspaper ads out or whatever, that's a that's a lot of work. But, but simply passing it on to whoever the web designer or person is, you know, please add this note to this web page should be very very simple. So, yeah, I I I think in general we should be looking at that. I I want to bring us back to the the um slide that we've got up at the moment which is the discussion questions and um I think we have looked at uh minor use permits and administrative adjustment. Um I want to actually go back just a second and throw a little um rock into the pool here. Um because number two it says are the types of projects that receive design review by director ARC uh PC appropriate and I I have had this discussion with staff and we haven't reached any particular consensus but um considering that the number of things that are going to be going now to the um uh the ark um will reduce because of ministerial decisions by things that are done through um administrative um uh processes instead of being considered by

the uh the architectural review committee. Um and because our own workload will also be decreased, we've got some new responsibilities coming out of this, but we've also not having so many with also those things that are of right and and ministerial. I wonder if anybody's ever considered whether we actually still need a separate um uh architectural review committee or whether we only need one body. One of the problems with having a an architectural review committee is that often things will have to go to them first then come to us second. And if we have to cancel meetings in between, we could be four weeks or six weeks between those two decisions which delays that process unnecessarily for the developer. I don't much like that. So I'm not saying we shouldn't. I'm just saying we should be asking that question as part of this process. Do we still need an architectural review committee separate from the design from the uh planning commission? If if if you were to do that, one thing you might want to consider um is the cities that don't have an architectural review committee sometimes have seven commissioners and they have a landscape architect and an architect also sitting on the committee that can fulfill that role at the planning commission and um something to think about.

Yeah. Okay. I mean the architectural re committee also uh relaxes city of residence in order to get expertise in I think you don't have to be a resident am I right only the only the landscape architect there so you know I I certainly do not have expertise in landscape or architecture and I would be a bit uncomfortable opining on things like that but I I feel expertise would be needed if it was to be consolidated I think that's very likely But it don't put yourself down. Sometimes it just has to do with good taste.

But I I'm not trying to to propose a solution to that. I'm asking should that question be raised in this discussion.

So it is a provocative question and I think the short answer is yes. It is something that you should discuss particularly as you create more objective design standards that either can be operated at an administrative level or uh reviewed at the commission level. It is something that should be considered and I think your point that um it is an additional step. This may be a way of streamlining the process. Not saying I agree or disagree but I think it is a question that should be asked and discussed. uh the current code the current uh design guidelines are very much subjective and we are moving away from that. So I think this is absolutely the time to do that. And and just to share my own personal experience, I've worked in five cities. Only two have had an architectural review committee. the other three um it was either you know staff or the planning commission that provided the ar the design review

in in terms of your experience those cities how much of it was infill cuz like I feel like right now we're we're reducing the amount of workload for arc and PC but I don't personally feel like we have that many projects coming to planning commission like our our meetings are very spaced out a lot of times because there's nothing for us to consider. We don't have anything on the agenda. So, we're we're moving a lot. Like right now, to me, with a few exceptions, it does not seem like we're the holdup or that the public hearings are a hold up for people getting through this process quickly. Now, that's going to change as the city gets built out and as there are more projects where maybe things are getting torn down and rebuilt and there's a lot more things that could be discussed. you know, if you're building on, like you said, just open land, it's not that big of a deal. So, I'm just wondering in those other cities, were they built out and or were they more like us where there was not a lot happening?

It was a mix. Uh the last city I worked in that was uh Escandido down in uh San Diego County. Um they did away with their design review board uh I would say 20 25 years ago and there were a myriad of reasons for doing that but uh they pushed down uh much of their design review for infill projects to a staff level and they had clear guidelines. they had clear criteria um but they delegated that to the city planner and there was an internal staff working group that would conduct design review. Um their planning commission also considered design review on larger projects and it worked. Um so that was their reason for doing that. Uh the other two examples they were in Colorado uh one was in the Denver metro area and the other was Colorado Springs. Uh so you had a mix of green field projects and infill projects. um those examples, it worked for that community. But I I would articulate that in all of those cases, there were clear standards in the code that could either be administered by staff or by a commission.

And I just do want to point out that as part of this process, there's a whole objective standards component and that is concurrently running at this moment. Uh and that is to take the current design guidelines which are highly subjective. there's a lot of gray area that does not meet where the state is heading um for approvals and cutting red tape and streamlining. And so as part of this process, we will be bringing forth in in collaboration with city staff a whole set of objective standards that apply to multif family, mixed juice, commercial. And so it starts to streamline that process. And the way the state is is operating is those projects if they meet the objective standards within a code, they don't go before any review commission. They don't go before uh if you have an an ARC, a DRC or a planning commission, they're just buy right straight to building permit when they get a sign off. Uh so that's that's something that you know unlike unlike Escandido 25 years ago getting rid of it, objective standards weren't really as popular as they are now. Well, this is now a mandate by the state. And so as part of this process, we're coming in conformance with that. So you'll see more objective standards coming forward and the planning commission will have the ability to weigh in through this process on are those objective standards appropriate because those projects will not become will not come before you as a body.

One thing um I you know I can't speak for the council but I think one of the things that the council wants or maybe maybe I could I could actually say every council wants is to streamline and they don't want to get phone calls about why everything takes so long. So, it's not so much about our workload or staff's workload. It's about how to get the projects through the process. Um, and I also So, so that's one thing to consider when we're looking at how these these projects get processed. But the other thing I learned about this city in the past two or three years, um, this commission has changed a lot in the time that I've been on it. And the kinds of things that we discuss right now and the detail that we go into would never have been discussed three years ago. And so and then architectural review committee I've been going to their meetings and um I think they've also changed a lot in the past 3 years in what they discuss and how they discuss it. So what's going to hap? So so what we have to think about is not just like what used to happen, what happens now, but but what would happen three years from now with the planning commission and the architectural review committee also cuz you don't know, you know, you we're not going to know exactly how everybody's going to handle it. So we have to come up with the best way possible to get good projects but get them through in the most efficient way. So I think um um I'm watching the time here and we're only on division six. We have to get through division 7. Um so I don't think we have the tools or the information at this point to make any real decision about that. But what I would like to do is see if staff could

bring forward a discussion on that specific point with some information about the current roles and the and the projected roles the workload for for the two commissions for the for the committee and the commission so that we can come together and make a recommendation to council because I it's it's a council appointed body so I assume we can't just get rid of the the um the architectural review committee. If we decided that was the right thing to do, we'd have to make a recommendation to council. We can certainly prepare that for a discussion.

Okay. Thank you. So, do you feel you've got enough input in input so far from us on on um division 6? One more question on the list. I want to briefly appine on the time allowance the 24 + 12 issue. Oh, yes. Anything about Go ahead. Oh, u I I would be in favor of maintaining what we have. It seems to make sense to me that hey, you've got two years to do this and you have to come back if you haven't done anything as opposed to giving them three years uh three years not to do anything. So, I'm I'm in favor of keeping it as it is.

Yeah, my my own opinion was pretty much the same thing which I put in my comments. Any other items on that? I you know it's sort of carrot and stick but uh uh developers don't want to delay their projects but you know they may run into trouble like the the the uh gentleman we saw a few weeks ago um because of um Hillary um had all kinds of issues. So certainly there are reasons why you need to that continuation but um but I think keeping it at 24 months does keep them focused nonetheless on a deadline and and um what I would say is as well that um we kind of treat the 12-month extension as a right but I think we should be prepared to say you know it doesn't look like you've met any milestones from where you started. So, I don't know that this is appropriate to do. I'm not sure. I'm getting a look like you can't do that.

Yeah. Would that be the case that we we can't actually say, well, no, you didn't you didn't do well enough, so you don't get the the gold star. So, not getting the 12-month extension. I think that would be a hard line. I I think if we're going to do this, I I would suggest that we offer the 24 months and then we we require the 12-month extension. That would be my thought. Um, but I'm open to opinions from others sitting on the staff or consultant table.

Is it the only way that you can deny an extension is if the environmental circumstance has changed. So if if for instance it was a vacant lot and all of a sudden there was a new listing of a June beetle. You know that would be reason that you could deny a project. I'm not saying that I would do that for a June beetle, but I'm just was the first thing that popped into my mind. I don't have the answer to that.

Okay. Yeah. Um could it just be discretionary though? I think that's what you're getting at. Well, if it isn't, then why do we do it? You know, if if you can do 24 months and you haven't got anywhere with your project, but nonetheless, you automatically get 12 months, why don't we just say 36 months? That's why they're suggesting 36 months because it is by right. So, yeah. I I mean, if it truly is by right, then there's no point in having the extension. I

I was just going to say that in other cities I've worked at, the time extension has been done at the staff level for that reason. And it's it's not it's not a brand new re-evaluation of the project itself. It's it's a determination that a time extension granting of a time extension. And there's various reasons why why they come in for time extension. They you know there may be a reorganization within the developers corporation or LLC. Um sometimes it's the economy. Maybe the economy is just not right for it and they are hoping to get that extension. So it's not that the use has changed or their development is changing in any manner. If it was then we'd be looking at a different process.

So let me ask you because in larger cities, denser cities, um there has been a trend and there have been articles about it about developers buying properties, going through the entitlement process, getting the the land entitled for a certain thing and then they sit on it for as long as they can and then they sell it as an already entitled piece of land. And basically this happens over and over and over. where the price of the land goes up and up and up every time it gets sold. And that by the time anything gets built on it, it's out of everyone's price range if it's housing because they had to buy it for six times more than what the originally entitled land was originally sold for. So, how is there anything like that would be my concern is that someone sits on it for 12 months, not really intending to do anything even after they've gone through the whole planning process. They use the 12 months extension to find a buyer, they sell it, and then it's already entitled. So, like, do you see what I'm getting at here? That we're not in that position now, but we could be in the future.

Yeah. That that development model is happening everywhere, including Cathedral City. Uh, residential development is very different today than it was 10, 15, 20 years ago. Um, national home builders are are not entitling developments themselves. you have applicants that are exclusively going through an entitlement process uh creating a subdivision, creating a neighborhood and selling that as a package uh to home builders. Uh so that that is already happening.

So how does this affect that? I mean by giving by having this 12 months extension if we make it admin uh administrative are we enabling that more than we would be if we made it discretionary if it was even allowed to be discretionary? Like I think that would be an example of what Danny's getting at where maybe there is a not a good reason to give them a 12-month extension.

We can take a deeper look at that and see if that needs to include milestones, markers, or other information from an applicant to substantiate or justify the extension request. Okay, that would be great.

All right. I think also the more than just being I I think the the timeline also just forces them to okay they get their approval they have 24 months and you know it just prevents them from just waiting for 36 months. So, I think having that that that extension, it it just gives them it's another step for them to do something, but it reminds them, I've got to get this done. And I and I think that's the purpose of it. And, you know, for for these entitlements, it's 24 and 12, but for um for like a a map, it's for subdivision map, it's it's 24 months, and then I believe, can you get up to three? one year. You can get up to three one-year extensions each. Some cities do it differently, but again, I think it's just to remind them, get this done. And then it's a chance for us to say, you know, we don't want to see this property remain vacant forever. You know, how how long is it going to take you to do this?

So, I I I think staff have heard the concern. So, um if we can circle back to that at a future meeting. Yes. Um, okay. I think we have concluded everything. Um, just Commissioner Bard, I haven't heard anything from you in that discussion. Was there anything you needed to add? All right. Yes. Um, okay. Uh, back to you for division 7.

Wonderful. Okay. So, I'll take over this part of the presentation. Um, so division 7, this is the like to think of this as almost the howto manual division of your development code. I think it kind of paints a better picture of the types of content and topics that are addressed in here. So division 7 the purpose of this is to convey really the responsibilities of the development code and then the administration the various actions that would take place from the planning commission's perspective from the um city's perspective on how to actually administer and enforce these regulations. So within here we have the following contents. So we have the administrative and the review authority. So that's going to tie back directly to all these permits that Brent just went through where we have a table in there which I'll go through. It specifies who's the review authority, who is the appeal authority. We have a section on the specific plans, so the application processes, um the time limits, the application requirements as well. Um and then within here, we also have non-conforming provisions, which is going to be really important as especially as we're doing a comprehensive code update. Certainly, we're going to create some non-conforming uh to some degree. So, ensuring that we have robust non-conforming standards is really important as well. And then we also have the appeals processes and the calls for review which is an authority of the city council. So as we go through this division just think about the general question is are these standards as they exist proposed sorry are they appropriate? So uh in the context of the feedback that you've initially provided us in the context that we've heard in just the steering committee and our other study sessions. So to start the first topic that's addressed uh in this division is the review authority. So all of those permits and entitlements that we had just went through we have created a new table um in this division where we

lay out each of the entitlements the uh the advisory body if there is an advisory body in that decision. The actual approval authority of that entitlement and then the appeal body. So who can that decision be appealed to case of a grievance? So currently that was in a a paragraph format. We have tab we have put that in a tabular format. Try to make that easier to understand. That's going to be easier for not only the applicant but for staff as well um and for you the planning commission. So within there you'll see the various review authorities within the development code. So you'll see the ARC, community development director, planning commission and city council listed. The next section in this division has to do with actual text amendments to your development code and then resonings. So what is the application process for those? Who can submit an application um and the the timing um within uh with within an actual amendment. Important to note here is that the planning commission is just the recommendation body. uh the city council for zoning and zoning text amendments and reszones is a city council. Oh, so in this case, planning commission would be advisory that's existing. The other section that we have here has to do with specific plans. This is a tool that is um readily used in Cathedral City. You have multitude of adopted specific plans. This is a state guided process. The state actually provides very specific guidance on as to what can be included in a specific plan. It has phasing. It has uh infrastructure standards. Uh but the beauty of a specific plan is that you can almost kind of create your own development code for larger scale projects. And what we did in this recent update is we created a almost an applicability of to what properties would be eligible to receive a specific plan. And specifically what

we did is we put a minimum acreage that a specific plan could be applied for and that would be five acres. The idea here is that the specific plan is intended to be used as a tool for large comprehensive planning. Um not necessarily a tool to be used for smaller sites. We have other tools and other entitlements for smaller scale planning. But when we think of specific plans, we want to think much larger. So we've brought in this 5 acre minimum. One of the things that we want to know from you is does that does that track with some of the feedback that that you would like to see? is there desire to specify a minimum with this specific tool? Um, within here we've also specified some of the clarity um for state law and tied back to some of the references um that uh the state requires um specific plans include. The other section within this division has to do with development agreements. This is state regulated process. Um cities enter into development agreements with developers frequently. This is a way of um ensuring that development standards are going to be vested. They aren't going to change in the future um when a development actually might be built or be entitled. Um but it also allows the city to work with a developer to uh gain some public benefit potentially through through this agreement, whether that be infrastructure improvements or public land. The other large section within this division has to do with nonconformities. Um, so this section contains the all your non-conforming provisions, whether that be for a non-conforming land use, a non-conforming parcel, uh, or a non-conforming structure. So that be a parcel that no longer is in compliance with the development standards established, or potentially a use that was previously allowed and is no longer allowed. Um, so within here, we have specified the types of activities that can be done to structures. Can they be enlarged? To what degree can they be enlarged? Are there entitlements or

certain procedures that an applicant would have to go through in order uh to modify a nonconforming an existing nonconformity? Some of the refinements that we've made here um are for the adaptive reuse of existing buildings. So that we have brought in some new standards or clarified some standards about the reoccupation of abandoned non-conforming structures as allowed provided that the new use coming in is a conforming use. Also a standard in here uh on non-conforming site improvements those must be made um if affected by improvement not just uh with a change of use. One of the things that I I think is also interesting uh about your non-conforming provisions is there is a um gosh totally forgetting the term amortized. Um so you have there is a period um in which uses have to become um conforming I believe it's 2 years um believe uh uses have to become conforming with the existing new adopted provisions. Um so that's something to keep in mind as well. Um typically these things can uh run in non-conformities can run in perpetuity. Um but there are is the option to require some sort of actual um change to a con change a nonconformity to a conforming provision. Could explain that a little bit better. And the last section within this division has to do with the appeals and then the calls for review. So the appeal authority, what pro what entitlements can be appealed? Who and what is that structure? Um so at least fundamentally the director of level approval can be appealed to the planning commission. Then a planning commission um uh appeal can then be appealed to the city council. Anything above city council would end up being maybe a lawsuit. Unfortunately we don't ever want to go there. Um but one of the actions within uh this section actually has to do with

the city council specifically. And so the city council has the the power to call up entitlements um applications for review before them um which is uh um not uncommon. It's a very common tool for jurisdictions and for city council specifically. So some of the questions that we want to pose to you this evening just generally is are these standards in line with generally how you would like to see your development code administered? um are there specifics within some of these time frames or maybe within some of the standards contained therein that we should refine? Um so we've talked about specific plans, non-conforming provisions. So have the list of questions. Um but I'll turn it back to the chair um to facilitate discussion.

Thank you. Um let me go to the other end of the bench here and start with um uh Commissioner McFale. Um okay I went through the the various sections and this might just be a small technical question. Uh it's in relation to um 9.215.050 050 and it also pops up in discussions speci specific plans where there's a a bit of text saying recommendation for approval or denial shall be made by a majority vote of the total membership of the commission. So does that mean if only four of us are present for some reason we can't do anything? Do we all need to be there? So for planning commission decisions on a specific plan that would be three of the five. Um if there were four members present three of the four present would need to support that.

The magic number is three whether there's three of us or four of us here. Okay. So if the if if we made quorum with three all of three of you would need to support it. Yes. Okay. Uh, next part I had was about specific plans. And I might be wrong, but do we have are we going to have a presentation that was discussed at one point maybe about what specific plans are and are they still valid anymore? I think that was going to be something we're going to be talking about maybe in the future.

Yes, staff was going to do an exhaustive review of our currently adopted specific plans to identify those that could be uh u repealed. uh versus those that still have some relevancy which ties in very well with what we're doing right now. So, one of the questions the consultant had was in relation to 5 acres. So, that's a new suggestion from you that 5 acres be the magic number for when a specific plan would be in effect or is that something is that our number that we have for our specific plans or our specific plans all sorts of sizes? Our specific plans today are a range of different sizes. Yeah.

So they could be less than five acres perhaps. Yeah. And we're just establishing a base minimum. And I was wondering if there's a point I don't think it's in in how things are written. Whereas it was written for development areas that there's a termination point for a development area agreement. But in terms of specific plans, is there language or something that would cause a specific plan to get decommissioned or repealed or is that something that we should do?

Specific plan is a legislative document. I I think that you can um find any number of reasons to to make that determination. I would say that a specific plan that's 30 40 years old that's run its course uh those uses are no longer relevant. The base zoning is a more favorable document. I I think that would be a reason to do that. But it's a legislative document and and there are many reasons that you could find to support a repeal. And for development agreements versus specific plans, um, when would there be a development agreement versus a specific plan? What's the distinction between the two?

The Does the city actually have an example of a current development agreement that you're in? We don't have an example of a current Okay. development agreement

is is so is maybe an illustrative example is a development agreement could be it could be for a larger site. You could have a development agreement in addition to a specific plan. A development agreements could also just be for for smaller smaller projects. Um I think the benefit of a development agreement is it uh one of the aspects of it is you can vest the development standards that are currently in place when you're going through um a specific application or a specific project. Um so from the applicant's perspective or developers perspective um they're ensuring that standards aren't going to change in the future if the project takes a longer time to get through the through the process. Um there is also the ability for negotiation within the development agreement from the city's perspective. So if there is an understanding that a development is going to have maybe substantial impact on infrastructure or roadways or is going to require um addition of um maybe sewer um there is the ability for the city to work with the developer an applicant in that process to potentially provide or pay have a developer pay for those um utilities. different from a specific plan which is really guiding the actual development creating the standards almost the the rule book for future development on that property.

And I noticed that um development agreements have a periodic review process that I guess we can check on how well they are correct

going where specific plans do not. for example, uh, non nonconformities. I guess the only question I had comment about nonconformities in the way that the language is written, um, we talk about the property owner is responsible for establishing their nonconforming status. Uh, am I right that in, you know, our recent um actions, maybe they're still not finalized regarding the cannabis regulation, though the city has finally improved it, but we we the city um caused may have caused some businesses now to be non-conforming through the actions that we took in changing the can cannabis regulations.

Yes. And that is a good example. Um, cities change regulations. When you go through a a process to amend or modify your zoning code, you create non-conformities. So, we did that in the case of the recent cannabis ordinance. And as we go through this process again, we're going to change some rules that create nonconformities.

So, we made them non-conforming, but it's their responsibility to somehow tell you we are we are non-conforming. we get some grandfathering and things like that or do we let them know that they are non-conforming because the way the language was it seemed like it was their responsibility to identify themselves as non-conforming but this is an example where we have we the city have made them non-conforming not necessarily a uh a standard in their them having to um come forward to identify themselves but in the event that an application comes through staff determines that there is a non-conforming existing on the site. Um it would be up to the applicant to prove to the city that that is a legal nonconformity whether that be they pulled a legal building permit for that that could go back years not just for this update. Um so the kind of the blanket requirement that it would be on the applicant um would because the applicant is the one actually submitting the application for whatever development it would be they would bear the cost and the burden of proving that they were legally established um as a non-conformity prior to the application.

Just finally the the appeals processes and everything. Um, I'm assuming that application applicants are made well aware that they do have the ability to appeal the various decisions of a reviewing authority at at each step. This is made clear to them in in packets that staff give applicants. It's not a they're they're not unaware of their their rights to appeal. That will be made very clear in any documents create. whether we will make sure that they're not. Thank you.

Yes. Let me go to commission. Anything for uh division 7?

Um not specifically. It was kind of alluded to though I recently I was on a book tour in Virginia and one of the problems that I've encountered in older cities is you get buildings that are just sitting there sort of like land aotments or entitlements and they're holding on to those buildings and it destroys downtown's ability to resuscitate itself or rebuild or that type of thing. Is there any thought about that being I would think this would the appropriate section for this to be in? Uh is there any thought about buildings that are sitting unused just being held on by corporations or something of that sort in a way that the city can respond to that? Like if a building is not used after so much time, the owner of the building has to do something. And is this specific to nonconforming vacant buildings or just vacancies?

Vacancies in general. I don't know if we have a lot of that here. I don't see a lot. It's not like we have those old downtowns, but uh

the director can give us some information. I I have I can't remember which jurisdiction it is, but there is a jurisdiction that I heard of recently where I think it's after 2 years if it's vacant, they actually start charging the land owner a fee uh every month that there's not a uh a tenant. Um that would probably be uh something that would definitely have to be discussed. uh but there are options. Jurisdictions can enforce and create vacancy standards. I think the the flip side on that would just have to be what are the potential cons um especially an economic downturns um if vacancies are um do increase um the potential cost burden on on a land owner potentially.

Direstein, can you give us some input? I I can and I I think this is a subject that is going to require a little bit more exploration as well. So we we've touched a little bit on abandonment uh thus far in the discussion and actually the the code today 90 days that's all it takes to meet the definition of abandonment in the code today. Um that does need to be revisited. Uh there's a difference between vacant um and abandoned. a vacant site where you know a tenant has gone out of business. Uh property is actively maintained. The uh a property owner property manager is actively marketing the site. It remains in good repair. Uh you know that's a sight in transition. That's a little bit different than buildings that have been abandoned. And we do have some that really are abandoned here in the city. Some of them have burned. Uh we've seen uh vacant uh residence on date Palm Drive that uh uh deteriorated and reached the state where it was abandoned. That property burned. Uh the former uh Elks Lodge on Palm Canyon that burned. Um there are other properties that are in that state where they have seen uh a lack of maintenance and they have deteriorated the state that there are very serious active code violations on those properties. Uh we prepared an ordinance about a year ago, took that to the city council to develop a program similar to the one mentioned by the consultants where we're developing standards. Uh we recognize that uh buildings go through transitions. We're not looking to penalize those property owners where their property, their building is going through that transition, but it's on them to maintain it and to maintain it at our standard. Um for those properties that decline or or have uh reached a point where you know they're 50 60 100% vacant um there is another standard and that's where you know you can start to uh charge a fee

put them on a list require them to um have uh security monitoring uh alarm systems uh doing more to uh manage their property so it doesn't become um a nuisance within the city. And that's that's where we've seen some of those negative externalities, those negative effects. U the council um didn't support it at the time. We did commit to make some revisions, make some changes, and to bring that back. Um that is still in our work plan. Um it does require a little bit of work here. Again, we're not trying to be punitive. We're not trying to um hurt those property owners that that are legitimately trying to reoccupy those buildings, but uh for those that are a negative, an eyesore, a nuisance within the community, you're right, that is something that we need to address. it it's probably more in title 13, our enforcement provisions, than it is in the zoning code, but there's spillover when we start talking about non-conformities and when a property reaches that that point of abandonment and those enforcement regulations kick in. So, I think it's an excellent subject and it's one that I I would suggest um if there's a little bit more discussion tonight, great. But uh that may be something for us to uh come back to uh in a more cohesive manner looking at the enforcement side together with the zoning code.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, can Yeah. Can I go next because I um my comment I only have one comment on this section and it has to do with this so it would be in context.

Go ahead. So on section um 92305 9230 050B um abandonment of non-conforming uses so basically you know in the planning commission recently um approved the Elks Lodge on date palm the only reason that it had to come before us was that they wanted to serve liquor so otherwise it would have been admin administrative approval. Um, coffee, um, which took over an old subway, went in administratively and didn't have to go through the planning commission. And this is all good and in the direction that the council wants in that streamlining, getting old buildings to be used again. Um, and I think that's a good thing. I didn't always think that was a good thing, but I do now. Um, but the section that I'm worried about, I don't think that it's consistent with the actions that we took on coffee or or actually on the Elks Club cuz it's basically saying after 12 months they lose all their ability for anything and they have to start all over. So I think we need to have that section address that if you have a vacant building rather than an abandoned building that somebody could go in there depending on what they want to do and have an admin and be able to be approved administratively and go in and start a business fairly quickly. So I think that that's why I wanted to follow on two comments that were made rather than wait. So, thank you both the other commissioners for letting me go and you.

Um, so I think it's a good thing what happened with coffee. I think it's a good thing what happened with the Elks Club, but I don't I don't think this section B would allow those. So, I I think we need to go back and look at that so that those kinds of things can go through. Okay. Thank you. Back to Commissioner Bad. I I'm good. Um, so I'm complete and I do need a bio break. Um yeah, we well let's let's take a five minute break so everyone can be comfortable for the the next section.

[Music] Chair Lee, we're back on commissioners. I'd ask if we don't hear through the speakers to just click on and off on your screens if you don't hear sound when it comes back on.

Okay. How is that? Good. Um so um I I think um Commissioner Bard we you you were okay. Um let me come back to some of the points that we've got here. The first of which well I think in general the the the first point the administration of the development code is generally appropriate. I had some specific points which are in my notes and you'll get those from staff um on the specific plan discussion. So my understanding is we have a quite a lot of specific plans. I don't know if staff have any idea how many we've got. We have some for the north and the south. Yes, they're divided up

off hand. I don't remember what that number of specific plans is, but we do have a list of all of them because we started that review process,

right? Um, and so I I'm concerned somewhat that that with smaller lots, you're developing a lot of specific plans and each one is going to be obviously by definition slightly different. Um, and then we have to keep track of those and um then they become redundant for some reason. Um, so I'm I my feeling is 5 acres is probably the the wrong size. It's too small. And I don't know if it should be 10 or 15. I I point out, not to boast that I have a friend who has land, but um I have a friend who has a ranch. It's a little small holding 5 acre ranch, and he has some horses there. It's not that big of a piece of land to give a specific plan to. It doesn't seem to me that that um couldn't be dealt with in some other way um in our regular development process. So, I would say 10 or 15 acres is more like it. And um really we we don't have that many big areas anyway left. Some of those may need to be reszoned and and we may need different specific plans. Um but anyway, my comment is yeah, I think that's too small. Um and there is again always in the in the uh discussion in the document there's a way for any limits to be overridden by a majority of the council. They can always say you know we do want a specific plan for this one acre lot. Um so so I I would say for generally speaking that should be higher. If if I just may add to that just uh I I I think you bring up a good point. We've worked with jurisdictions across the state where it they definitely have larger parameters. I've seen upwards of 25

acres for specific plans really meant for innovative creative projects. That's the the the intent. But I I I would ask based on on your recommendation that the five is too small if other commissioners agree with that perspective and if so are there is there do you feel a more appropriate size? I I I I I hear what you're saying as a chair, but that um I would like a little bit more feedback from commission to be able to process that better with city staff. that that was kind of why I asked what was our universe of specific plans and did we know their acreages and we'll we'll ultimately find that out in the presentation. I don't have a really good handle on what the sizes are. Um so I don't feel I can really weigh in whether 5 8 or 12 acres is a good size.

Wasn't the ren is didn't we always say the ren was five acres or is the ren bigger? The ren was 10.

Oh the ren was 10. And that even to me seems like I mean it's it's one residential development. Like I don't know why we would need even a specific plan for something that size. Like to me a specific plan seems more appropriate for if it's going to be a mixeduse corridor or a commercial corridor where maybe you want there to be a certain character. But if it's like all one big residential development, wouldn't it be fairly consistent? like they're not going to be well I guess if it was single f a single family development that they're not building all out at one time but like if you're building all residential development all at once what do you need the future like the specific plan to be set up to manage in the future

it seems weird to me for residential that small at least you could um there are certainly specific plans that are just residential um I think it all comes down to what's the intent for the developer and if the existing development standards are allowing the developer velment that they're envisioning. Um, and a lot of times what we see in specific plans is it's a deviation of those standards because the existing standards aren't getting the developer to where where they want to be. Um, so it it allows that additional flexibility.

Do we have uh any sense of um good standards from neighboring cities? Because the Coachella Valley, you know, has differences in each city but also a lot of similarities. So I'm wondering does India for example have a um a acreage size for specific plans? We would certainly have to to look into

we would look into that. Um just just throwing out some reference points. For instance um the Verono Rio Vista village that's about 300 acres. Um at buildout there there'll be about 1,200 dwelling units. And so that's not a development that would be built you know in a period of 5 years. And so the specific plan makes sense in those instances because it can be built out over time. Um you know the the north city that's I think over a thousand acres. Um right now staff is processing a specific plan for Forest Lawn. Forest Lawn acquired the property south of it and that's 5 acres. They are processing a specific plan because Forest Lawn does not build out um in a short time frame. uh but they wanted the assurance of being able to have a specific plan so when they do come in and phase their development the specific plan would have written into it that that could be done at an administrative level rather than a cup every time before the planning commission. So that's five acres but is is 5 acres too small? I mean it's up to

what do you see as the the key factors in deciding that uh any development needs a specific plan as opposed to being subject to our standard development code? I think the consultants shared that with you and that is, you know, it's an innovative concept. This is an innovative development proposal. It's non-conventional. It's not a project that fits or conforms with one of your standardbased zoning. It is bringing something that is different, that is exceptional. Um, and we may not always know what that is. Uh, so I think that is a little bit of a challenge when we're trying to come up with with those parameters when we don't see the project. I think each of the cases that Miss Molina has shared, those are good examples of specific plans. Uh those are cases where a project is intended to build out over a long period of time. Um the the Verono project, you know, that that uh original development, you know, there were small lots in there. There were some uh exceptional development concepts that in no way conformed with the conventional zoning. Um those were good examples. I'd say too, Forest Lawn, that is a good case study. That is a good example. Um, and that may be one that demonstrates that we can't always imagine every scenario where someone may want a specific plan. They've built out uh sites throughout Southern California and in other communities, they've used a master planning process to really identify the standards to identify how they intend to build out, but they intend to do that over a period of many years. So, as we were looking at tools in our toolbox, uh the specific plan was the way for them to essentially customize the zoning for the buildout of their site. Um we certainly can investigate this, explore this a little bit further to see if there are uh standards or if there's language that can better articulate the intent. Um but I think this is going to be one of those cases where it may be case by case. It may be uh an assessment as a project comes in through a preop to determine whether it should conform to one of the

the conventional zoning districts because it is a conventional project or if this is an extraordinary exceptional project that requires uh another tool and I think it's in

um I think with a specific plan it's there's there's different reasons why they could come up and one of them is like to have consistent standards across an area where you want to see something develop in a certain way. I think a good example in Cathedral City is Rio Vista. You know, they have certain standards in the houses there are different than any other neighborhood in Cathedral City and that's because they have a specific plan. Another reason to have a specific plan is you may want to see not a large tract of land develop in a certain area, but you want to see a corridor develop in a certain area. So you were talking about India and one of the things I'm familiar with with India is they India India and Linta both have a um a specific plan for the 111 and it runs along the 111 and the council identified goals as to what they wanted to see in the development on 111 and for instance in India they just did not want to see a whole lot of gas stations and drive-throughs on 111 and they made it very difficult ult for those to go in. They have like a long list of findings they have to um make. I I did one for a Wendy's and it was it was very hard. Got approved, but it was very hard. So, that's another reason you could have um a specific plan. So, those are those are the two main reasons you want to see it. And you don't want to have a specific plan on a small lot just to replace the zoning because you don't like it.

Well, that's my concern. Um, you know, uh, Rio Vista is certainly not 5 acres. No. Um, and, um, we have things like the the potential for that 500 acres, uh, development on the the north side, you know, sure that could be well be a a specific plan for that size of project. Um, Redlands. Oh, sorry.

No, it's all right. But but I I think yes the if if staff can look at that again and see if there there is some good research or or some um comparisons we can make that give us a good guideline. I don't think it's ever good to just reinvent the wheel for the you know just for the hell of it. Um if we can find reasons why we want a particular size I think that that is is a a better way of proceeding. So and and I think the specific plan is just one tool

to to achieve creative innovative projects that maybe are more progressive than what your code is. And we always want our code to be progressive and and modern and flexible. Uh so but the specific plan is costly. It's meant for larger phased projects. Specific plan of state guidelines you have to meet. Uh and so it's it's a big endeavor for a specific plan to take. And I think the better examples in Cathedral City are are the ones that um that Sandra pointed out that are 300 acres, thousand acres, but that's typical of where you see a specific plan go. 5 acres is quite small. There other tools that you can get innovative projects would be a PD, a plan development or a plan unit development. That is another mechanism um that we'll touch on later in in in this process, not not tonight. Um, but that's that's another tool that can still achieve something on a smaller scale but not have the same provisions and complexities that a specific plan would have. Right.

Well, and we're saying I mean it says here unless waved by the city council, right? So, we could set a higher threshold and say we want it to be 20 or 50 or something and then forest lawn could go to could basically say hey we want an exception, right? Because that is a really unique situation, right? And it could be, that's what I'm understanding, that's to say that the city council could wave that minimum for a very unique situation. Did it, didn't I read somewhere that the council or the the director could given a special situation could could allow a specific plan under five acres?

Did did I read that somewhere? Um, so even if we change it, you know, let's say we change it to 20 acres. I'm not saying that's the right number, but there could be some allowance in the code given a special situation to allow it if if if certain findings are meant to have a smaller specific point. Yes. I could have sworn I read that somewhere. It's in discussion questions. That's what it says. It says unless waved by the city council. So that's

Yeah. So the city council right now under uh 9.22030 B2 is the only authority that can allow a specific plan to be less than five. So if your r your friend with the ranch let's say that he or she comes in with a specific plan and they go do all the work and they do all the environmental and the council could say well it's less than five acres. I you know we we're not going to grant the exception. If

I can offer just a last staff comment, uh the purpose and intent in your draft code, this does a really good job of creating a a framework of u those types of projects that would be eligible for a specific plan. So I I think you have a good start and I think another part of this is really looking at what other tools in the toolbox are available for a prospective developer. So, uh, plan development, you know, that was mentioned. Right now in our code, plan development isn't a very strong tool. Uh, but as we continue through the development code update, we could look at what other outlets there are so that if it's not a project that rises to the level of the specific plan, how else can they accomplish those goals? And I think systematically that's a way for us to ensure that there are different avenues, that there are different paths for development projects of various scales in the city. Right. Okay. Um in in terms of uh nonconforming um well first of all I I assume that what we want to do is to encourage people eventually to to be conforming. So um in terms of maintenance and extensions I'm thinking yeah maintenance. Yes. Yeah. If you're non-conforming and you have to do maintenance, then we shouldn't be saying, well, now you have to completely redo all the electrics and the building structure and everything else and become conforming. Um, but in terms of extensions, I think that is a reasonable limit on on where you could go. So in that loca in that particular instance I would say split those two that uh maintenance is reasonable to remain non-conforming but um if you're doing some extension to the the property then it's reasonable to ask you to actually

make it conforming. Um uh yeah and um I just wanted to bring up one other thing which is actually not quite part of your questions but it it would have made life a little easier for me anyway. Um, and that is uh I'm not sure that we have quite the right structure in some places and you'll see that in the comments that I've sent you. Um, but I'm keen to understand that there will be a separate definition section somewhere that has all the definitions. Yes.

Yes. There'll be a separate division that is inclusive of all definitions including land use definitions for terms term. Okay. Um the the the one that got me in this whole document because unfortunately the packet was somewhat backwards. So I started going through the packet from the top and of course I read through all of the draft before getting to the point that said oh well actually these are the questions we want you to answer. So, um, one of the things I discovered was that it wasn't till way down in the in, uh, division 7 that we defined who the director was and who that could be in terms of a design as well. Um, those kinds of definitions I think belong somewhere in definitions um, not written into the the code. Um, so I I was just mindful of that in general that that um and it it may not even be appropriate to define it in terms of the the word director as such cuz the city manager keeps changing his title anyway. Um so you know his title may be void at some point and then we'd need to change the definitions again. So so the

title not the person.

Yeah. Well never. you know, but but so I I I'm just thinking about those kinds of things that make the document more readable and more flexible. Um, and similarly cross references because I do find those in here where you know the same language is used in in several places and it's easier if that is cross reference. So you you make that statement in one place and then you say as in section blah blah blah. We did that in some of the code recently actually when we were doing some tidy up. We we did that and I I think we want to maintain that. Um and the final point really on for both sections was and I'm agreeing with Commissioner McFale, the it's important that the public know what's going on in the city and how and when they can appeal those things. Um, and I I have noted, I'm not going to go into them now, but I've noted some inconsistencies in in that as well. Um, where at one point the loop wasn't closed. Uh, because it spoke about um it spoke about the the planning commission having to do something within 45 days, otherwise it was approved. But the planning commission, these guys here, we don't have the ability to call meetings or schedule anything. So if you just leave it like that, it means that it could just slip through the cracks without us ever getting to a meeting. So So those are the kinds of things that I was I was just noting. All right. The study group also Commissioner me can attest to discussed who and when can appeal and it's it's in the table I believe and it says that they're going to look into that and I I I think we all five agree that

you know there needs to be public input into that kind of decision and and people if they want to pay the fee should be able to appeal So, do we have any further comments on the division 7 questions here or any other comments about division 7? Yes.

So, this is a question I didn't bring up during steering committee because uh Commissioner Malikoff I think explained it to me, but I just want to confirm. Not that I doubt what you told me, but I just want to confirm. So, when you have non-conforming setbacks that are, we're saying they can be extended. If you have a house that extends too close to a fence and now it's non-conforming because of the new guidelines, does that mean they can extend the house closer to the fence because it's already non-conforming, so it's still going to be non-conforming? Or as Commissioner Malikov told me, it means you could extend the house along that same vertical line which would be the same distance away originally from the fence.

Your second one. Okay, that's what he said. But I just wanted to make sure. Any other comments? In which case, I think we are complete on division seven. Okay. And that's it.

So that that that concludes the overall presentation on the administrative provisions. Just to give you a snapshot of what to expect next, uh our team is currently working through the zoning district provisions. So, this is all of your allowable land uses, permit requirements, and then, uh, development standards within those zones, height, setback, F, uh, and so forth. All of that is going to the steering committee November 4th. So, that's coming up. And then it's slated for planning commission review just in similar to this format, December 17th. Uh, early next year, we'll be bringing the general development standards and specific standards. Some of those were brought up this evening. uh home occupations was one of those accessory dwelling units another one density bonus all of that will come to the steering committee uh uh the second week of December I believe I think it's December 9th if I'm correct and then it'll um come before you the planning commission late January I believe the week of the 20th so we're we're moving ahead through through the code uh once we get to that point objective standards will come in the ing and then we'll be bringing back back an entire public review draft code in its entirety. Right now you're only seeing it in pieces. When you see it all put together after all of your comments, uh the planning commission will have another round to go through it and then there'll be workshops early next summer where we roll out the entire plan and we're still on track for adoption September of next year.

Um the um clerk are and members of the public that would like to comment on this item. Chair Lee, we did not receive any comments for the record and we do not have any members that want to comment on this item.

Thank you. Um in which case, um I thank you for the presentation. I would encourage um all members of the commission if they have further comments or something comes 3:00 tomorrow morning and wakes them up and they have a thought for the developers uh for the um consultants, please put that in writing. Send it to um staff. staff will collect it and ensure that our comments are reflected to the the um consultants. All right. Thank you, gentlemen. Uh okay, moving on to item four on our agenda, commissioner's comments. And

I think we should all be very proud of our staff and consultants and and ourselves and that we're bringing up very important issues and we've dived into a lot of important details and many yet to come. So I I I think um we should give ourselves um [Laughter] Commissioner Bard any comments?

I of course echo that but and as I know it is only October but November is fast around the corner as December and uh scheduling I'm wondering if we know when we are having meetings if uh there are any dates that I can lock in. So, um I apologize for not getting future uh look ahead meeting dates, but we do anticipate a meeting in December. I'll got to check it for November. So, let me let me look talk to the staff, see where projects are at, and get an email out to the commission. I think you just mentioned December 17th. Is that or did I hear that wrong?

So, that would be the second or the third week of December. Yeah. And I hope I don't mess anything up next September in terms of needing approval because I'll be in Machu Picchu. So sorry. Good for you. Commissioner McFale, anything any other no comments? Vice Chair

only to say that I um had a great time at the APA conference. Um and to the note about the forest lawn, I actually attended a really great session about cemetery districts. lots of cool stuff that cemetery districts do and ways that they uh interact with the cities that they're in, even though they're their own separately governed independent bodies. Um, but one of the things that came up is that when they acquire land, it typically tends to be fairly cheap because people don't want to build next to a cemetery often. So, they can acquire land fairly inexpensively and for every a every acre that they buy will last them 10 years in terms of filling the ground. So if you get 5 acres, that's 50 years. If they a lot of times they'll get 10 acres, so that gives them 100 years. And then what some cemetery districts do because they're all really really strapped for cash. They have very very small revenue and small budgets is they will lease to the city that they're in that land or a portion of it to use for long-term projects like community centers, like um city cooling centers, city daycare, things like that. Um, there was a a cemetery district there that was represented. They got 10 acres. They leased five of them to the city on a 50-year lease to put up a community center. So, I thought that was really interesting and just something that I wanted to bring back to planning staff as I never really even knew anything about cemetery districts and I know we have one. Um, but there's all sorts of ways that cities work with them to do, you know, trees, arboritums, like they are basically public parks and so there's lots of ways that the cities can work with the cemetery district. But I thought it was interesting that you brought up forest law because it just reminded me of that. So, thank you.

Okay. Um, so I have a a few items to mention. First is that um I with uh Commissioner McFale attended a planning commissioner workshop in Riverside which was um very interesting. Um there was a a legal presentation that that prompted um some thoughts. Um one of the things that they were talking about is building a defensible record in a um public hearing. And um I I think we do it perhaps by accident, but we do a good job of doing that. Um what I think it would be valuable for the commission to hear is a presentation on building a defensible record. And that and that touches on things like during a a public hearing, not making any statements that might present bias like, oh, you know, I think this project's great. Well, you might, but you can't say that during the public hearing. Um, and similarly, if we make site visits, what we can and can't say to to people um at that property. So, so I'm hoping that staff could arrange a future presentation from our legal um in uh to go over that

and we we got the presentation, the hard copy that we can always supply uh staff with to help them. um the uh so so that's uh legal. I also think maybe they could incorporate that in a reminder of um meeting conduct so we're all on the same page about how the meetings are run and she can tell me who what I'm doing wrong. Um so uh there was that and then um I also attended the the APA conference in Montterrey. I also learned a lot about trees. Um although I was actually in a presentation about trees. So I think I win. Um the there was actually a lot of good content there. And what I'd like to do at some point is see if we can put together at least a a highlevel presentation from maybe both from staff that attended and and us of the the the key points we found about planning throughout California. One of the things that's nice is, you know, a problem shared is a problem harved, as they say. And when you look at all those other presentations, oddly enough, people don't have enough staff to do anything. They're short of money to do anything. They can't get engagement from city council to do anything. So, you know, these are problems we don't have. But it would be interesting to see how other people are addressing them. Um uh there was one thing I wanted to mention and and um Commissioner McFale me uh touched on this earlier in talking about non-conformance and um I was a little disappointed that in the um city hearing on the on the cannabis ordinance that they rejected

our recommendation um to set a limit on the size of indoor growing And um I I was trying to understand that from the video and I I think maybe I misunderstood this, but I think that C4 was would not have been affected because they already have approval for their extension. Maybe I got that wrong. Um but uh regardless of that, I think it's a shame because they they set themselves up for this point where where still we could have another C4 because there isn't that limit. Um so we tried.

Yeah, we we you know they are the they are the review authority. We're we can only recommend and and they didn't like our recommendation next to resorts. Yes. Yes. So anyway, um but thank you to the city and to staff um in arranging those those um attendances for us and I hope in future years other members of the commission can also attend um some of these meetings because you know it does really broaden your horizon about what's going on in planning across the state. Okay. Um city attorney is not with us I don't think so. No city attorney comments. some staff comments.

Sure. So, I'll address uh a couple items that have just been raised and uh yes, uh we'll come back, we'll add that to the future agenda items list. I think those are some good discussion points in terms of um getting a presentation from legal on parliamentary procedures, meeting conduct, and building a defensible record. Um I think staff agrees and we've already initiated some discussion on that to get that on an agenda. So, we'll we'll uh uh move that forward. Um, on the subject of cannabis, you're right. Uh, the city council on September 24th did approve on first reading the cannabis ordinance with the one modification to remove the 22,000 ft cap on cultivation. Uh, that would not have affected C4 as they already have a conditional use permit uh for their their phase 1. They do have a phase 2 as well. Um, that is something that is going to require further analysis. um that will be a legal non-conforming use. Um they have a cup uh but uh by removing cultivation as a um use allowed within the PCC zone district that does create a nonconformity. So that that itself will need to be uh uh looked at in a little bit more depth. Uh but uh that was approved on first reading and it is going back to city council October 22nd uh for a second reading and final adoption and the ordinance will take effect 30 days uh so effectively November 21st. Um and then uh council will also be considering a fee and fine resolution or resolutions on October 22nd as well. Those are implementation measures for the cannabis ordinance. Uh so a lot more to come on uh cannabis in the coming weeks and months and uh certainly a lot of work uh over the course of uh 2026. Uh so also as part of staff's comments tonight, I wanted to introduce Eric Castillo to the planning commission. Um, Eric is a new member of

our mobile home fair practices commission and in his interview with city council, he made such a positive impression that I think uh many staff were lining up to introduce themselves to him and it just so happened that we had an opening as well on our steering committee for the development code update. uh and Eric's presentation to the uh city council on the mobile home fair practices uh commission really spoke to housing and uh his interest and passion for housing. Uh so it is a great fit to have him as part of the steering committee and he obliged uh our request and invitation to be added to the steering committee. So u those of you that were on the steering committee, you'll be seeing him again here soon and uh I'm sure uh other members on planning commission uh you you'll be seeing him in other arenas too. So with that, that uh concludes my remarks.

Welcome on board, Eric. Thank you. Thank you. Um okay, in which case um I move to adjourn the