Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the June 25th, 2026 meeting of the City of Clovis Planning Commission. Members of the public are encouraged to participate in the meeting by attending at the Planning Commission meeting here in person, submitting written comments at least two hours prior to the meeting, or viewing this meeting via the webcast on the city's website. I'd like to call this meeting to order. Commissioner Hinkle, will you help lead us in the flag salute? Thank you. of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all Commission secretary if you can please call for roll Commissioner a bear Commissioner Hatcher here Commissioner Hinkle here

Chair Antuna? Here. And Commissioner Bedstead is absent.

I'd like to open a motion to approve the minutes for the May 28, 2026 Planning Commission meeting. I'll make a motion.

I'll second.

I have a motion from Commissioner Hatcher and a second from Commissioner Hebert to approve the minutes. Commissioner Hatcher? Yes. Commissioner Hebert? Yes. Commissioner Hinkle? Yes. Chair Antuna?

Yes.

Minutes for last month are approved for one.

Are there any commission secretary comments?

Yes, just quickly, I think Aaron already introduced, but we have Garrett Sanders, our new planning technician two in our planning division. He will be serving as the backup for Aaron as our planning commission clerk. And then just one quick thing in regards to the general plan update. We just had our last meeting on the 18th. Our next meeting is on Thursday, July 30th. I believe we're going to talk about public services and utilities. but we'll have another planning commission meeting before then, so I'll provide that reminder at that point as well.

Thank you. Very good. Do we have any commissioner comments? Seeing none, we're going to move on now to the public hearing. This is the opportunity for members of the public to address the Planning Commission on any matter within the Planning Commission jurisdiction that is not listed on the agenda. Do we have anyone in the public that would like to address the commission? Seeing none, then we will now move on to the public hearing portion of this meeting. Item two, consider approval of SPR 2026-008, a resolution recommending that the city council adopt a class 32 categorical exemption from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act and recommend approval of a site plan review for the site layout and design of the new City of Clovis Alternate Dispatch Center and associated site improvements located at 2288 Encino Avenue, City of Clovis. Marissa Parker, associate planner, presenting.

Thank you chair. Good evening commission. Before I hop into my presentation I did want to introduce you to a special guest which is Ben Little. He's right here to my right and he is a engineer over in our capital projects division and he is the project engineer for this new alternate dispatch center. So jumping in to the project itself, the new dispatch center is proposed for an approximately half acre portion of a 2.78 acre site that is the home of Fire Station 6. So this new alternate dispatch center would be just north of Fire Station 6 which is in the red square. This is located over at the northwest area of Loma Vista Parkway and Encino Avenue which is west of Leonard to the north is the Loma Vista marketplace. There's a portion of it and then further south you can kind of see the edge of it. That is where the village green park is. So this is within our Loma Vista specific plan which is a larger area and within the Loma Vista community centers north and south master plan. This site has been planned for public facility uses since the early 2000s. It was included in our public facilities master plan and also in the Loma Vista master plan. So it has been designated and zoned for public facilities for quite some time now. The layout for the new dispatch center is an approximately 4000 square foot dispatch center and we can get into some of the floor plan details in the next slide. But there are quite a bit of onsite and offsite improvements proposed here. So the first one is where the green line is that will be a rolling gate and behind it there are 20 parking stalls that meet city standards and then there are also seven parking stalls along Encino which will be a continuation of the existing parking in front of Fire Station 6 and it will match the curb gutter sidewalk of what is there now with the fire station. And then there will be associated landscaping as well to the west is the future trails that will also be established later on as well. And then moving on to the floor plan. So there is space for 14 dispatchers in a large open concept office space. And then there is also a training room which will be only utilized by Clovis police department. And then there are some other rooms in there as well, like the restrooms, break rooms, things of that sort. And there is also an exterior patio on this side, just like as a continuation of the break room. And then this is a conceptual rendering of the elevations of the building. So as you can see it does match that Santa Barbara style that we see throughout Loma Vista and it meets the intent of the architectural guidelines within the specific plan and the master plan. And it also will complement nicely the clock tower over at Village Green Park and also the Loma Vista marketplace to the north. This is another view, so looking east from along the trail over here, this is what the view will be. And then looking west from along Encino, that's what that side will be with the gated parking over here. So with city projects we do have to hold two neighborhood meetings. We held the first one on June 16th at the Village Green Park. We had no attendees at the meeting. We will be holding another one before the council meeting in August. But we have received no opposing comments from any of our outreach and from our internal or external stakeholders. The project does meet all of our SPR findings that are required and this land has been designated for public facilities for over 20 years. So based on that staff is recommending that the planning commission recommend that the city council approve SPR 2026 0 0 8 subject to the conditions of approval. Thank you. And Ben and I are happy to answer any questions you may have. Does the commission have any questions of staff?

I have one question. When this facility is fully staffed, how many employees do you expect to be on site at one given time?

Yeah, so the design intent of the facility at this time is for it to be maximum capacity, which is 15 employees, 14 employees, and one supervisor.

Thank you. Okay now we're going to go ahead and open the public hearing. At this time I'd like to ask if there's anyone in the public who would like to speak in support of this project. Seeing none. Is there anyone that would like to speak in opposition of this project. Seeing none, we're gonna go ahead and close the public portion of the hearing and bring it back for commissioners deliberation and discussion. Do we have any further discussion?

I'd like to make a motion to approve SPR 2026-008. I'll second.

I have a motion from Commissioner Hinkle and a second from Commissioner Hebert. Commissioner Hinkle?

Yes.

Commissioner Hebert? Yes. Commissioner Hatcher? Yes. Chair Antuna?

Yes.

Motion carries 4-1 with Commissioner Bedstead absent.

Thank you. Moving on to item three. Consider items associated with Ordinance Amendment 2026-002 and the Multifamily Residential Design Standards, City of Clovis applicant. Item A, consider approval a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an exemption from further environmental review under the California Environmental Act Guidelines Section 15061, Subdivision B3, for ordinance amendment 2026-002 and the multifamily residential design standards. Item B, consider approval of OA 2026-002, a resolution recommending the city council approve an ordinance amendment section 9.32.040 of the city's development code to modify the parking requirements for multifamily dwellings. Item C, consider approval a resolution recommending the city council approve an amendment to the multifamily residential design standards. Mackenzie Perez, deputy city planner presenting.

Good evening, Chair, Commissioners. Thank you for the introduction. Before I begin my presentation, I just wanted to note that we have Matt Galbin with Ascent. They are the consultant that has been assisting the city with the objective design standards. So he will be here as well to answer any questions that come up. And then before I get into it, I did want to note we did receive a comment related to this item this afternoon that was provided to you on the dais. We have a folder up front with those comments for anyone in the public that wishes to see those. And this comment will also be provided to the city council when the item goes before the city council. Just a couple of notations in regards to the staff report and the attachments. So just, I wanted to add to the record that on page 126, it refers to attachment A, however, that's attachment four. And then on page 138, there was no footer that referenced attachment five. So attachment five begins on page 138. Attachment six begins on page 146. And then attachment seven begins on page 178. Okay, so just to start with a little bit of background in regards to objective standards. So back in 2019, Senate Bill 330 was approved and it incorporated a requirement for objectives design standards for streamlined residential projects. Because of that Senate bill, the city adopted their own multifamily residential design standards that replaced the 1992 guidelines. And so since then, staff has been using those multifamily standards to review any multifamily projects that are subject to those objective standards. In 2024, the city's six cycle housing element was certified and one of the implementation programs of that housing element requires the city to update the standards specifically for open space and parking requirements for multifamily residential projects. So with the proposal today, there's two parts. It's replacing the 2019 multifamily design standards, as well as an ordinance amendment that will modify the development code and the parking requirements for multifamily dwellings. So I'll start with the objective design standards. So the proposed standards establish objective design standards that address a range of design topics to shape buildings and their relationship to the public realm. The standards are intended to apply to different projects and sites and different contexts while balancing predictability and flexibility in design. These standards serve as minimum requirements that apply to multifamily residential projects and then mixed use projects that include multifamily dwelling units. Projects that comply with the objective standards are considered ministerial and are approved at the director level. So just in the next couple of slides, I'm gonna outline a couple of differences between our current standards and the proposed standards. Our current standards in regards to setbacks refer you to the municipal code. So you could have multifamily abutting, single family as close as five feet. What we did with these objective standards is add a transitional setback of 15 feet minimum. And if the code requires something larger, then the larger requirement would apply. Another change as required by the housing element, which was a reduction in open space. Currently, we require 260 square feet per unit. That's a combination of common and private open space. What we are doing is the R2 zone districts would continue to use a 260 square foot unit requirement based off of the private and common open space. And the big difference really with open space was that we split up the requirement to separate a certain requirement for common open space and private open space. As you can see on the screen and in the report, it's based on the number of units that the project is providing and how much each unit needs to provide for common and private open space for the common open space one thing we did is we did increase the minimum dimension for the common open space to 25 feet and then another change was in regards to the children's play area the current standards require projects that are 25 units or more to provide a child's play area and a minimum of 600 square feet and We are removing that specific requirement and replacing it with a list of options and amenities. So applicants will have a choice from several amenity options and they have to incorporate two. A child's play area is one of those. So that's one area where we did see some with smaller projects requiring to provide that. So we've provided some options that developers can choose from. a couple of other things are roof articulation so right now our standards do not allow flat roofs and it will not allow flat roofs that are for sites that are or buildings that are close within 100 feet of a single family residence so if you're further than 100 feet then you can potentially have that flat roof articulation as part of the project Another change is in regards to windows. We currently have a requirement for two-story and more projects to have adjacency requirements for window treatments in regards to frosting, placement of windows, things like that. We have seen that there's been difficulty in projects addressing that requirement, and that's one of the reasons why we added that transitional setback. So that's a proposal to be removed with these standards. Another thing that is proposed to be removed is the requirement for the trash enclosures to be located within 150 feet of the units. We are removing this, however, this is still a requirement in our solid waste standards. proposed standards refer to the solid waste standards so applicants will still be required to comply with this standard we just didn't feel it was the right place for it because if it is modified in the solid waste standards then we have to update these standards so we rather just have it in one place and again it's still a requirement if it gets modified it's modified through that process Another thing that changed with these standards is the exceptions. Currently, if you want to deviate from our standards, you have to follow our current code process and then it kind of kicks you out of the multifamily design review process. So you'd have to get a minor deviation for up to 10% or anything more than that would require a variance. So through this process, we are allowing three exceptions that do not exceed 10%. So for example, if someone can't meet the 25 dimension for open space, then they'd request an exception. They can get up to 10%. Now if they want something more, then they'd have to submit for a variance and then they'd go through a different process for their project review. So one component of the objective design standards is an open space assessment was prepared. This evaluated the effectiveness of our proposed open space standards to reduce constraints on development. One of the things that it did, it compared our proposed standards to four other jurisdictions so the city of Fresno Lancaster Visalia and Merced and overall the findings included that there was a reduced it reduced the overall amount of open space it did yield more open space compared to some of the other cities we provided flexible options to meet the requirements in regards to open and private open space, sorry, common and private open space. And then also with these reductions, it did implement implementation program H8, which commits the city to reducing the requirements for open space for the R3 and R4 zone districts. Another thing that we did as part of the objective standards was feasibility testing. We selected three sites in the city of Clovis to evaluate based on our proposed standards. And I'll go through each site here in the next couple of slides. But it was based on different scenarios to explore the potential to maximize units and identify any constraints on potential development sites. So Site A, and it's kinda hard to read here, but Site A is located north of Barstow on Sylmar and Lincoln. I didn't include everything here, but in the report, it does outline each option that we analyzed and compared it to our proposed standards and determined if it complied or if there was any constraints. So you can see each site, we identified multiple options. In this case, there was three options. This site has a density range of 25 to 43 units per acre. So we went one with a low end, middle and then a high end density. And then you also see on the screen a breakdown of the units and the number of bedrooms because that has a lot to do with how we calculate our parking. And I'll kind of go over it a little bit in regards to Site A. So Site A the parking requirements you'll see there are no three bedroom units in options one and three that's again because of the site size limitation as well as our parking requirements so one of the constraints here is that you as a developer you'd have to try to find a mix of bedroom units to be able to accommodate the parking and the open space And then for the next site, site B, which is east of DeWolf and north of Shaw, this site is located in the Loma Vista specific plan and master plan. It's to be developed at 20 to 30 units. We explore two options here, again, one on the low end and one on the high end. And really with these two options, we didn't identify any constraints based on our proposed standards. So for Site C, which is east of Fowler and north of Alluvial, this is a little bit different. This site has what's referred to as the Regional Housing Needs Overlay, which allows developers or the property owner or developer to build at 35 to 43 units per acre. The reason for the difference here is the developer, the property owner also has the opportunity to develop at the existing zone district, which is typically a lower density residential. So they can develop as it's currently zoned or develop under their RHN overlay designation of 35 to 43 units. So with this, we reviewed two options, one at 37 units and one at 42. so the things that we found here that presented a bit of a challenge were open space in regards to obviously the higher density range here and then also again the need for changing up the mix of unit types and bedroom types so we opted for less three bedrooms and more one bedrooms to try to make the development fit so I think that's going to be one of the things that developers will need to try to coordinate with their development is how big the units can be based off of the parking standards and the objective standards so the last part of the project is the ordinance amendment which is proposing to modify the development code and reduce the parking requirements this is a requirement to comply with the housing element so currently our studio one and two bedroom unit require two spaces per unit and then anything that's three or more bedrooms requires three spaces what we are proposing is studio and one bedrooms to provide one space for each unit and one of those needs to be covered and then for two bedrooms it's one and a half spaces for each unit and then for three or more bedrooms it's two spaces for unit And then we're also requiring one covered or uncovered guest space for every four units. And this probably averages out to about 1.75 spaces per unit when you average it out. But again, it just depends on the mix of units and the bedroom counts. One thing I will note is that Whatever the total number comes in, if it's a decimal, if it's 0.5 or higher, we round up. And if it's lower, if it's like you're required to provide 30.1 spaces, then we'll go down to 30. And if it's 30.6, then we'll go to 31 spaces. So for the environmental assessment, the project was exempt subject to section 15061 of CEQA, which states with certainty that there's no possibility that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. so we did do some public outreach with the building industry in April of this year we did send out an email with the objective design standards to over a hundred members of the building industry we did receive two comments that was included in attachment seven of the report for notification because it is a citywide project we notified We published notification of this meeting on in the business journal on June 8th We did receive one public comment, which was the one that was provided to you on the dais today. I With that, I just want to outline staff's recommendation, which is to approve the resolution recommending the City Council adopt the exemption and that you approve the resolution recommending the City Council approve the ordinance amendment and that you approve the resolution that recommends the City Council approve the amendment to the multifamily objective standards. That concludes my presentation. I'm here and available to answer any questions.

Are there any clarifying questions from the commission for staff?

I have a question on parking with garages. We've said they've got to have a single car garage. Is there anything the city can do to make it an ordinance whatever that if they have a single car garage they cannot turn it into a Daryl's mini storage they must allow it to park cars in it so we can get them off the street?

So we don't have anything now. If we were to have something like that, it'd have to apply to everything. So it would be something in the code that we could explore. I know the city is working on or staff's working on updating or just doing general cleanup. So that's something that we could look into to see if we'd want it to apply to all multifamily projects. But we can do that through the ordinance. That's what addresses parking.

yeah because driving around i've noticed that there's a lot of garages that are daryl's mini storage and everybody's parking even you know two car garages so if you had a two-car garage you have to have one spot for parking yeah the one thing i would say it was it may be difficult like with code enforcement and verifying compliance so um unless we get um

complaints about someone reporting that, that's usually when we would address it. So it may end up in the code, but ultimately it's up to the property managers to verify Compliance and then if we get anything for code enforcement we go out and verify that they're in compliance if that becomes part of the code Explore it we can explore we can explore it and then once we talk to staff about Maybe modifying the ordinance For that specifically just check in with planning commission.

Okay.

Thank you Any other questions for

I have two clarifying questions. When you were presenting and discussing the garbage enclosures, you said it was going to be governed by waste. Solid waste standards.

What are the solid waste standards? It's 150. It's the same. It's the same. If it gets modified, it'll be modified through that standard and it's modified through our public utilities department since they're the ones that work with placement of the trash enclosures when doing our reviews.

Okay. And one other question. For the parking, you mentioned that The two bedroom units were would be one and a half spaces. Can you I guess expand on that. My my assumption is that there's just additional parking sprinkled in to equate to the half.

Yeah, so what would happen is, let's just say you have two units that are two bedrooms, so then that's gonna be three spaces. If you end up with a half, it ends up rounding up. So ultimately, it's always, in some instances, you'll get a whole number, and so then you end up providing more units but not like two where instead of our current code which would say two two spaces so then you'd have four this reduces it to three but again if you get that three and a half then it's going to bring it back up to four so in some instances it may be the same but in some instances you'll get a reduction but we'll always round up if it's at the higher decibel

Okay follow up on that and I just did staff evaluate the potential concerning adequate parking availability for residents and visitors including the possibility of overflow how this overflow parking would impact surrounding neighbors meaning if you're reducing the parking I my son lives in an apartment complex and there's never anywhere to park and they have I think the old standard I'm assuming and I visited other individuals who live in the same apartment complex and you're having to park on the street or there's so my concern is if we reduce this parking I understand that it's a requirement but in doing so did we evaluate how this would impact neighboring streets

we did go out to a few sites that were throughout the city for review of what their parking is like I don't remember the exact sites at the moment but what we did find was that the parking we went in the evening I think staff even went in the morning and we didn't find that the it was least the ones that we went to were were packed and didn't have any availability of parking i think the hard part for for staff and really with the reduction of parking is we have that requirement with the housing element to reduce the parking so we're trying to find a balance of of i don't i don't think we reduced it enough for for developers probably because they would have liked something lower but to try to find the balance of reducing it to meet our housing element requirement but also accommodating a reduction for development because we are required to provide additional housing and more density so One way to do that is through reduced parking. But as projects come in, we will evaluate to make sure that they accommodate the parking on site that's required. But again, it's hard to determine if we need to reduce it, what's really the right number to get to satisfy the housing element and then also be able to develop sites and work with developers on projects to get the housing that we need.

Yeah I think what my concern is that we are we just approved 20 lot 20 parcels that are going to be for higher density and they're sprinkled in already developed neighborhoods so if you have higher density that means more people will be living there and if we're only providing Parking for you know one car for you know a home that Family that may have two three cars depends on I guess how many people live there My concern would be that the impacts will be felt throughout that neighborhood McKenzie was there a requirement as to how How much you had to decrease parking or we just did the state just mandate?

You had to change

yeah our policy says for studio one bedrooms we have to go to one so it's a requirement for that um and then we we reduced um the two from two to one and a half and then the three from three to two and that's sufficient for the state that's going to put us in compliance with what yes for our for our um implementation so yes yeah

And then also when it comes to the children's play area. Again, I know that obviously they're wanting to build more and have more in there. Is there any concern as to if you have multifamily, where are these kids going to play if there's absolutely no play space for them?

So there would still be open space. It just may not have, yeah, that play structure that would be an amenity. Again, that's something that when we were trying to do a review of our standards is really what has been difficulty in developing these where projects come through depending on the size of the project. And so that was kind of one of the areas where we did see some concern from the development community on being able to accommodate that specific structure within the project but still provide other things like picnic tables barbecues things like that where people can still congregate but maybe it's not the structure itself or even with maybe communities that are for seniors right that requirement would still apply and so we wanted to provide options to the development community, depending on the type of multifamily that it is. Because again, if you have a multifamily project that's geared towards seniors, and you have 30 units, you'll be required to comply.

And then as for the windows and the setbacks, I'm assuming development was okay with that, but does that, have we received a lot of complaints in the past on other things about windows not being frosted? I mean, I know we hear when we have a lot of projects that when there's anything two-story, none of the neighbors want to have

window that lower looks correct I think it's just it's it's on what side right it's we've heard from the development community that it does make it difficult because trying to orient buildings to make sure that or even floor plans of units that that their bedrooms don't face it just makes it difficult and then frosting you know obviously you can do that but it just it the unit may become less appeasing to renters because you probably don't get the natural light that you would from a regular window or you don't get a window that's as large because you're you're placing it higher up in the room so it has made it difficult I think that's why one of the reasons we added that transitional setback was to make sure that it's set back further a lot of times we've seen projects come through where they have you know the drive aisles or the carports or parking structures closer so it it removes or it moves the buildings further in so it does remove that requirement but again we're trying to stop us trying to figure out a kind of a balance so that's why we added in that transitional setback okay yeah i just i know that was a huge concern especially with the infill so thank you

I'm just going to echo Commissioner Hatcher's concern. I also am concerned with the proposed removal of the ordinance requirement addressing secondary window adjacent to single-family residential properties. I think eliminating this standard may reduce privacy protections for neighboring residents and could be perceived as insufficient accounting for the impacts for the adjacent residential properties by the city. I mean, I'm really concerned. I personally had an apartment complex built across the street from my backyard and there's a whole street between us. And in the beginning, it was because the trees on my side, there had been some trees removed and it still felt like I was kind of exposed. So I can't imagine if you're only doing 15 feet, that would be concerning. So I understand what the city needs to do. We need to make room for all this development to take place, to adhere to all the requirements that we're being mandated. But I... I don't think that removing this ordinance is the answer. I really think that we need to be conscientious of the people who are already in those neighborhoods and how they're going to feel about having, they've had a vacant lot for a very long time and now you're building three, four story apartments that are going to go right into their backyard. and orienting windows in that direction. I understand what you said about the renters wanting to have natural light, but the neighbors also want to have privacy.

Are there any other questions for staff?

Okay. We're going to go ahead and open for public hearing. At this time, I'd like to see if there's anyone in the public that would like to speak on behalf of this project. Seeing none, do we have anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? Go ahead and step up to the mic and state your name and address for the record, please.

Yeah good evening. My name is John Liu. I live at 424 West Muncie Avenue. I am adjacent to infill rezone infill site 72 which is peach and knees across from Garfield Elementary. I think having these multifamily residential standards is great when you have going through the normal zoning process with you know working with the neighborhoods making sure that Everyone is okay just working with them, but when we had this, you know court ordered With Resolution without any very minimal say from the neighborhoods. And this is where I'm hoping that the city can have some additional sensitivity as some of the just previous conversations referenced specifically dealing with with sight lines and that 15 foot transitional setback which I feel is inadequate particularly when you do have a potential of a three story building with very minimal vegetation. And when we bought our homes 25 years ago, we understood that there was a potential for land use change. But certainly we did not expect it from going from R1-7800 to R3. That's just a very, very drastic change. And there's compatibility issues. And I'm really concerned by having these design standards, it just becomes ministerial approval that the city staff the neighbors would have no say as far as site plan any concerns. So I really would like to see more of a public process if these standards are approved. But really I think it'd be nice to go back to the drawing board and to have a little more sensitivity particularly with the infill potential projects that are going in. And I did send some written comments earlier but thank you very much.

Thank you. Is there anyone else in the public who would like to speak in opposition of this project? Seeing none, we're going to go ahead and bring it back to commission for deliberation. Do we have additional discussion? Okay, I actually have a couple of, I guess just a blanket statement, not so much a question. In reviewing the stated rationale to reduce open space requirements within the proposed development standards I understand the city and where we're at and why we need to do this However in this report or in the consideration. I didn't I didn't see any type of concern or consideration for future residents and their quality of life in these units and I know that quality of life is not something that's typically appears in ordinance language but the concept is reflected through availability functionality and adequacy of open space and related amenities for residents. The open space per unit is being reduced by about 50 percent. Private areas such as patios and balconies are being reduced about 40%. They went from 10 feet I believe to six feet. The requirement for play areas including specific criteria and dimensions are being eliminated and I know that now they're optioned but before we had a hard line like this is what we need to have and again I understand the city's position. I wonder if there was something different to do. And although covered play areas and seating areas are proposed standards, there doesn't appear to be a specific regarding size and design, a usability or a minimum functionality other than requiring 80% of the area being open sky. And according to the feasibility study that was conducted on those three sites, Some of the units were as small as 500 square feet. This raises, for me, it raises a broader policy concern regarding the message being conveyed to future residents. Now these could be our kids, our grandkids, other people coming in, first time home buyers, likely. that compact living units may be acceptable without corresponding requirements for developers to provide adequate and meaningful open space that promotes residents to encourage and physical activity, gather, relax, have neighborhood interactions and simply enjoy the area surrounding their homes. Again, I understand the challenges the city faces in addressing housing development needs. However, I'm not convinced that reducing open space requirement is solution. Additionally, I know that the city is making space for development. We don't dictate who develops. We don't dictate that it's lower income. But I'm just wondering what type of development we're going to see in our city if no one is required to build some type of quality of life into these areas. So again, not questions, just a comment. And with that, if there are no further comments, we're open for a motion.

I'll go ahead and make a motion to consider approval. Resolution 26, a resolution recommending the city council adopt an exemption from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, section 15061, subdivision B3 for ordinance amendment 2026002 and the multiple family residential design standards.

I'll second.

I have a motion from Commissioner Hatcher and a second from Commissioner Hinkle. Commissioner Hatcher? Yes. Commissioner Hinkle? Yes. Commissioner Hebert?

Yes.

Chair Antuna?

No.

With that, the motion passes 3-1 with Commissioner Antuna voting no. Commissioner Benson is absent.

I'll make a motion to consider approval 082026-002 a resolution recommending the city council approve an ordinance amending section 9.32.040 of the city's development code to modify the parking requirements for multifamily dwellings.

I'll second.

For this I have a motion from Commissioner Hatcher and a second from Commissioner Hebert. Commissioner Hatcher.

Yes.

Commissioner Hebert. Commissioner Hinkle? Yes. Chair Antuna?

Yes.

This motion carries 4-0 with Commissioner Bedstead absent.

And I'll go ahead and make a motion to approve a resolution recommending the City Council approve an amendment to the multiple family residential design standards.

I'll second.

Motion from Commissioner Hatcher and a second from Commissioner Hebert. Commissioner Hatcher?

Yes.

Commissioner Hebert? Yes. Commissioner Hinkle? Yes. Chair Antuna?

No.

Motion carries 3-1. Commissioner Antuna voting no. Commissioner Bedstead is absent.

Sorry about that. Very good. I think we have nothing else. We're going to go ahead and adjourn at, what is it, 6.50?