Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

In whatever form you want, whether it's in your own water bottle or whether you buy it from the store, it's important to drink water.

Meeting of 10/08/2025 to order. Please join me in the flag salute.

Justice for all.

Can I get a roll call please?

Here here here here vice chair here

there any supplemental communications tonight? Thank you. Zoom participants wishing to address the Planning Commission can indicate through the chat feature which item you would like to speak on and click on the raise hand icon to let the administrator know you wish to speak. Anyone in the audience wishing to speak must fill out and submit a blue speaker card. The planning commission can take no action on the state unless the item is agendized.

Anyone wishing to speak on items not on tonight's agenda may do so during public comments. Speakers on items scheduled for public hearing or non public hearing items will be invited to speak when those items are heard. All public comments are allowed up to three minutes to speak. We will start with our consent calendar. On the consent calendar, we have the August minutes and that's the only item. Can I get a motion for approval of the consent item?

I'll move it. I'll second.

Okay. I've got a motion from Commissioner Brothers and a second from Commissioner Heumann. Vote please. I think on the tablet.

Cheryl, you have to take on it first.

It's a second online.

Is it unanimous?

Yeah. Well, sorry. I don't think we all do we have can we just get a voice vote?

Yeah. Yes.

Yes. Okay and the motion passes. We will now move on to our public hearings. We have three tonight. Before we start, I must note that it is customary for commissioners to visit applicant sites.

Unless any commissioner has further disclosure statements at this time, it may be stated that no contact was made during the visits with the applicant, his or her agents or neighbors of the proposed project. So we'll start with our first public hearing for T Quan acupuncture conditional use permit number 1938. Petition submitted by Kwan Tai Quinn to establish and operate an acupuncture clinic at 17720 New Hope Street, Suite 118. The item is categorically exempt from CEQUA class one section fifteen three zero one. I will now open the public hearing. Staff report please.

Hi good evening commissioners. My name is Kyle Hawk and I'm a contract assistant planner here at the city of Fountain Valley. It's nice to meet you all the following project is a request for a conditional use permit to establish and operate an acupuncture clinic at 17220 New Hope Street, Suite Number 118.

So here's the project's location in the broader context of Fountain Valley.

You can see it's over on the East Side, kind of along the Santa Ana River. And it's located in the Los Caballeros Sports Complex area area in the Plaza Del Lago Complex. So you can see there's five buildings in the Plaza Del Lago Complex over here on the right. It'll be located in Building 2 kind of in that last unit, that's Suite 118 right there where the acupuncture clinic is proposed to operate. So the clinic will occupy approximately 760 square feet of office space, and it will operate as a health care office offering cosmetic acupuncture treatments and pain management services.

Hours of operation will be 9AM to 5PM Monday through Friday, 9AM to 3PM on Saturdays, and the clinic will be closed on Sundays. The project is located in Planning Area C of the Werner New Hope specific plan. In this planning area, medical offices are allowed to occupy approximately 25% of the total floor area of the Plaza Del Lago complex. Currently, medical offices operate 19% of that unit area. So with the approval of this project, that percentage would increase to 21% of that 25% maximum.

Based on the figures, the parking will not be impacted in Planning Area C as the percentage of medical offices falls below that 25% that is outlined in the Warner New Hope specific plan. And it's also important to note, a parking study is not required for this project as it does not propose any new structures or expansion to buildings. So staff recommends adopting alternative number one, adopt resolution number 25Dash16, approving a notice of exemption in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and approve conditional use permit number 1938 for an acupuncture clinic located at 17220 New Hope Street. I'm available to answer any questions that you might have on this answer or on this item. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any questions for staff? No. Okay. Hearing none, is the applicant present? And would the applicant like to speak? Yes. Great. On up. And please state your name for the record.

Yes. My name is Kwan Nguyen and I'm acupuncturist. And today, I come for the hearing. Yes.

Great. Thank you.

Alright. You. Thank you.

Do we have any questions for the applicant?

Okay.

Is there anyone wishing to speak on this item? No blue cards great alright seeing none I will close the public hearing do we have any discussion from the commissioners or otherwise I can entertain a motion?

I'll

second.

Great. I have a motion from commissioner, Vu and a second from commissioner brothers, and we'll vote on the screens. Do we have it? Great. Motion passes. Five zero. Thank you.

Congratulations. Alright.

Moving along. Code amendment 25 dash o six, use table changes for breweries and distilleries, artist studios, ATMs, and large and small format restaurants. A code amendment to amend Fountain Valley municipal code sections twenty one ten o three o and several others to amend use requirements for breweries and distilleries, artist studios, automatic teller machines, and large and small format restaurants. This item is categorically exempt from CEQUA. I will now open the public hearing.

Alright. Just wanna point out one red folder item regarding the noticing. It was listed as a Found Valley register when it was the Orange County register. I just wanted to point that out.

Alright.

So to jump right in, before he's code amendment twenty five zero six for several code amendments to the Mount Valley Municipal Code. So a little background on the proposed amendments. Over course of two study sessions last year, staff conducted multiple study sessions to analyze and review the existing municipal code and what is permitted throughout the use table based off feedback from the planning commission and staff examination of the municipal code. We brought before you several code amendments that you've all recommended as well as staff found to be that would be suitable to be uses permitted by right and changed of which would be ATMs permitted by right in all mixed use zones, which were previously permitted in all other commercial and manufacturing zones. Increase a small format restaurants permit from 50 seats to 75 seats and permit artist studios and all commercial manufacturing mixed use zones, and allow breweries in commercial manufacturing mixed use zones.

The breweries is something staff have been analyzing for a couple years now. It's been on our to do list. We're finally bringing it forward with the code amendments, of which it's ways to encourage new businesses and advise growth, restaurants, breweries. We do have one brewery in the city that that brews beer in Long Beach, but has requested expanding his business in a commercial area to brew beer at the restaurant he operates. So it's Steady Brewery over there by the Crunch Fitness, if you're familiar.

Could you speak up? Yes. So as mentioned, the code amendment would modify sections twenty one ten thirty, twenty one fifteen thirty, twenty one nine ninety twenty, and add twenty one thirty one hundred, which is for breweries and distilleries. So a little bit on the small format restaurant. The only thing that would change would be the seating from 50 to 75.

The small format restaurant was adopted in 2019, which I had mentioned increased the city's stance on being business friendly. The proposed change would only be the seating. All conditions outlined within the existing small format permit would would maintain. Planning is required to go on-site and review the restaurant prior to building final. Hours of operation would be maintained at 5AM to 12AM.

No live entertainment unless permitted with the CUP. Permitted to serve beer and wine with approval of ABC, and they must comply with all building and safety requirements. This is the existing small format restaurant permit. It's pretty straightforward. Information about the business, operator, and then the conditions would be outlined on multiple pages in the application.

So if you recall, in 2024, we brought forward Code Amendment 20 four-one to allow for gyms that are 5,000 square feet or less to operate by ride in commercial and manufacturing areas, of which we modified the definition of artist studios to be more or less true artist studios to allow for photography, art, music, dance, etcetera. So we separated the two. Part of those study sessions, commission suggested we allow for artist studios to be permitted by Wright. So before you would be allowing these artist studios permitted by Wright in all commercial manufacturing mixed use zones. So the extent of the code amendment would be breweries and distilleries.

So we developed a definition for breweries and distilleries, which are on-site alcohol consumption, such as breweries distilleries with on-site alcohol consumption dining means any accessory use associated with alcohol beverage manufacturing facility that is devoted to the purchase, consumption, and tasting of beer, wine, or distilled spirits produced on-site. A facility with a tasting room may also have full service kitchen and may prepare may prepare and serve food on-site pursuant to the conditions of approval of associated small and large format restaurant. So stating that you're permitted to operate brew beer. You're promoted to serve food on-site. As I mentioned, with a small format restaurant, you are permitted to serve beer beer and wine with permission from ABC.

And then it's also note to mention that the city does allow for beer manufacturing, distilled manufacturing in commercial manufacturing or rather manufacturing zones. However, we don't permit on-site tasting or servings of food in conjunction with distilling and and manufacturing beer. Those uses are considered food and beverage manufacturing. So the extent of the code amendment would allow for that dining and serving element on-site, whether it's in manufacturing or commercial zones. Some provisions outlined within the municipal code that are part of your agenda and staff report would be, not to exceed 10,000 gross square feet for all distilling and manufacturing.

A tasteroom may not exceed 2,000 square feet unless otherwise conditioned with the CUP. An outdoor patio area would be permitted on-site in conjunction with the service. And then they are required to provide a security plan to PD and to staff. Part of the application will part of a business application. And they are permitted to have food trucks on the premises as long as they comply with all standards as far as parking, trash, refuse, all conditions outlined within the staff report.

So based off the information provided, staff recommends adopting resolution twenty five fourteen and approving code amendment twenty twenty five dash zero six. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioners, do we have any questions for staff? Commissioner Brothers.

Yes. Thank you. I have a lot of questions. Certainly. In the past, if you served liquor, you had to it it didn't say you may serve food. It said you must serve food. And the food sales had to exceed the sale for alcohol.

Correct.

Is that being changed here?

So the percentage of food to alcohol sales is based off the type of business license or rather ABC Alcohol License you apply for. So it's not being changed or I mean, we don't we don't make that assumption based off the liquor license. So it's it's I guess it's not being changed. No.

So the statement on page 43 that they may serve food, historically, it would state that they must serve food.

Right. If they were strictly manufacturing. So if they if they if they are a manufacturer brewing and distilling alcohol, they're not required to serve food, but they do have that option if they choose to open up their doors to serve alcohol and food.

I understand. But may serve food is kind of well, you can do it if you want, Where historically, I believe it was stated they must serve food Right. They're serving their alcohol.

In the sense of a restaurant. So if if they're a full service restaurant, type 47 liquor license, then they would be required to have a minimum a minimum sale of food. So that way, it's not considered a bar.

Exactly. So you're saying this is not a restaurant. It's a distillery and a bar.

Not necessarily a bar because they they you're either serving it's not a bar in the sense that you're only serving alcohol. Right? You're either a manufacturer or you have a tasting element in relation to your business.

Correct me if I'm wrong from what I read in the staff report. You can only serve alcohol that you've made

The thing

on premise.

Correct.

Okay. So you can't you can't just have a variety of other choices.

Right.

If you're brewery, it's you can serve the beer that you made at the

at the site.

Correct. So they have they have

But you don't have to serve food.

You don't have to serve food.

To answer to the question.

Correct. Yeah.

Yeah. So it's it's functionally different from a bar because you're manufacturing the product and then also being able to sell the products that you manufactured on your premises and also allow people to consume that product on your premises. So is that kind of a fair way to envision, you know, how this is a little bit different from how a restaurant is classified and how a bar is classified according to our code?

I would I would agree. Great.

Commissioner Brothers, can keep going.

Sorry.

Yes. Can keep going. Yeah. I have

no more questions.

Oh, that's okay. Any other questions? Alright. Is there anyone wishing to speak on this item? Do you have any comments? Maybe one is rushing towards the front as we speak. Just as I do this. Just

I can just

Hold on a second. So yeah. Lily, now you have three minutes.

Just listening to the comments and being a lightweight, when I go wine tasting in Napa, the wineries, I believe, are offering a taste of what they manufacture, and some may or may not offer food. So for me, that's something I have to think twice about because I don't wanna get behind a car or a wheel and drive afterwards. So just something for you guys to consider, which I think you guys bring up a good point. There is a difference between may versus must. And if I have a flight of beers, that's five different sips. For me, that's more than enough for me to know that I don't wanna be behind a wheel. That's all. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other requests to speak? Alright. With that, I will close the public hearing. Would the commissioners like to discuss?

No. I I don't have anything to discuss, but I just wanna say this code amendment, we bring it two time of the study session already. And, I think this one should we should start to looking to amend more code and all the business relate. Because if commissioner Brody remember at that time, I'm asking you like how long you recall have we changing the code in here. And you told me it's like you don't record with like more than ten or twelve year already, we don't see when

It it has been a standing code.

Yeah.

For years. Yeah. So actually we're changing it now.

Yeah. I think that is the one we should be doing more often because a lot of item and this one is outdate already. And I think it's a to me it's a good first step to encourage more changing, to enhance our city code and get more business favor for our city, come to our city. So that's all I want to say. It's really something we we should do.

I I wanna add to that and appreciate that. It it was a I think and I know commissioner view view view in particular spent a lot of time with with the code matrix and all all looking at that. And we had some good study sessions last year, into this year. So just wanna acknowledge that and just and appreciate staff too for taking the direction that we wanna make Fountain Valley business friendly. I think there's a really strong support for that on the planning commission.

We all have that mindset. And I think these are some good changes along with the changes that we made when this first came up to a couple of the other code elements. And I also agree we should continue this as a sort of an ongoing look and you know if folks have ideas my suggestion is to communicate those to our planet director Omar so that we can maybe get staff starting to look at some of these things. I really what we're able to do is only because staff does all the hard work of of actually understanding what goes beyond just the tables and the details of the code requirements and whatnot. But if as folks have ideas, let's make this an ongoing conversation for this body to continue to come up with more ideas to make the city more business friendly.

But I think these are these ideas that we have today are good ones and I support. So if there aren't any other comments, happy to have a motion.

Motion to approve amendment number 25 dash o six.

I'll second.

Alright. I have a motion from vice chair Lopez and a second from commissioner Hubner. Please vote on the screen. Okay. All in favor? Yes.

Yes.

Opposed?

Yeah. Opposed.

Motion passes four one.

Alright. Moving on to public hearing number three, code amendment 25 dash o five establishing development guidelines for S B 92 unit developments and urban lot splits. A code amendment to Fountain Valley municipal code adding section 21 o nine compliant with state law. The item is statutorily exempt from CEQA under certain code provisions. I will now open the public hearing. Staff report, please.

Thank you, chair, members of the commission. So this is a big one that we've been kinda working on and a long time coming, but we'll probably bring it for you today. So, again, before you, s b nine and two unit developments and urban law splits, code amendment twenty five zero five. So a little history on s b nine. So in 2020, the state enacted s b nine or senate bill nine s b nine to write a new pathway for home ownership to create additional dwelling units on property zone for single family developments.

S b nine allows also allows the original single family lot to be split into two roughly equal lots. The number of units on both lots combined, however, cannot exceed four units. SB nine does not require a lot to be split, but it is but it but it is an allowed option for homeowners. So a little on the configurations for both. So a two a two unit development is the property owner with with a single family home may construct a second primary home on the property and may also build an accessory dwelling unit and junior accessory dwelling unit resulting in the development of a total of four dwelling units on a single family parcel.

The urban lot split, however, is the property owner may subdivide a single family parcel into two lots. And in these scenarios, each of these lots can then be combined with two unit development concept, which may result in each lot having a total of two units. ADUs and JDUs are not permitted with urban lot splits. So there's several configurations for an SB nine project. The ordinance defines the development opportunities for both two unit developments and urban lot split as mentioned.

And, again, there are a variety of options and layouts for both projects. Below, you'll see multiple configurations. On the left, you see a two unit project where the units are identified as the primary units, both having an ADU, one ADU and one JADU. The middle and right would be a urban lot split. One roughly right down the middle, the other a flagpole lot, each having two units on each lot totaling four each.

So each lot split would have to comply with the subdivision map app, which regulates design improvement of the parcel map in the city. SB nine requires the city to ministerially approve a parcel map for urban lot split that meets the specified criteria. Current parcel splits are approved by Planning Commission and City Council. So the state does allow some discretion for some of these s b nine projects. However, the state minimum requirements would be minimum four foot side and rear setback similar to ADUs, units at least 800 square feet in size, a minimum 500 square feet, a parcel map for urban lot split as previously mentioned.

So subdivide existing lot to create no more than two new lots approximately equal area provided that one lot shall not be smaller than 40% of the lot area of the original lot proposed for subdivision. Both newly created lots must each be no smaller than 1,200 square feet. Up to two primary units as mentioned. And then continued, SB nine does not require local agency to approve a parcel map that would result in the creation of more than two lots. So two lots would be the max for these splits.

And a local agency may choose to allow more than two units on the lot, but it's not required. So we're permitting maximum two units per lot. The local agency shall require the applicant for an urban law split to sign an affidavit saying that the applicant intends to occupy one of the housing units as their principal residency for a minimum of three years from the date of the approval of the urban lot split. And then, obviously, a big issue for ADUs and any future SP nine project would be parking. So off street parking of up to one space per unit, except that a local agency shall not impose parking requirements on either of the following instances.

The parcel is located within one half mile walking distance to either a high quality transit corridor as defined in subsection twenty one one five five of the public resource code or major transit stop as defined in section twenty one zero six four point three of the public resource code. So that would be a high efficiency high efficiency public transit, light rail, rapid bus system, something along those lines. And there there's a car sharing service nearby. So some city requirements that we are imposing on any future SP nine project or urban lot split. The primary units will not exceed 800 square feet.

One story structures at ground level and should not be more than 16 feet in height. Maintain 10 feet between all detached structures on the lot similar to an existing ADU project. This would include all residential units, garages, and accessory structures. A maximum lot coverage of 60%, which is the existing lot coverage requirement. Minimum continuous private recreation of 25 225 square feet with a minimum interior dimension of 10 feet, similar to any condo project or multifamily project where we have a requirement of minimum lot space per unit.

So I think this is really great condition to add to this these SP nine projects. It must match the existing architectural features of the existing home. This includes roof pitch. No windows or doors of the dwelling that is constructed on the lot may have direct line of sight into adjoining residential properties. And each new primary unit shall provide a minimum of 200 cubic feet of of individual enclosed, weatherproof, and lockable private secure storage space.

And each new dwelling unit shall have independent laundry space. And you must notice all adjacent neighbors prior to any s b nine development. So these are some requirements that the state doesn't require us to implement, but these are conditions we're applying to all future s b nine projects.

Ron, if I may just add. So right now, we have one application before the city, which is taking advantage of s b nine. Without an implementation implementing ordinance, we're just following state law. So this list of the reason we're doing this is so that, yes, we have to follow state law. We're following state law now, but we can add, some items, some requirements in addition to state law so that, it's done in in a style and a fashion, that the city, would like to see.

So regardless of whether or not we do an ordinance, SB nine is state law and we have to follow it. This just allows us to add some standards that are consistent with SB nine as well. Thank you.

So moving forward, all SB nine projects will be required to record a covenant with the county clerk recorder, which no unit will be leased for no less than thirty days, prohibits any nonresidential uses on the lot, prohibits primary dwelling units located on the same lot from being owned or conveyed separately from one another, and prohibits more than two dwelling units of any kind from being constructed.

Yep.

So with that, as Omar said, SB nine is something that is in effect whether we move forward with this ordinance or not. Based off our information and our staff report, staff recommends planning commission approve and adopt alternative number one and approve code amendment twenty five zero five for s b nine projects and urban lot splits. That concludes my presentation.

One other item I'll just add is that since, you know, the the bill took effect in 2022, we're about three and a half years after that. So we've had the luxury of seeing other cities implement SB nine and are able to take advantage of best practices, which we know hopefully will also not conflict with any state law. So HCD now state HCD reviews all of our ordinances and make sure that they conform to what they expect. And so these standards have been in other other municipal codes and have stood the test of time so far. So we're we're hopeful that we can have these simple regulations in there.

Thank you.

Do we have any questions from staff for staff? Commissioner Brothers.

So I'm assuming these new bills would contribute to our arena numbers. Is that correct?

The units, if constructed, would. Yes.

Okay. And does that new lot is it required to be sold or can it be leased?

Excuse me. They would be leased. State code does allow cities to determine whether homeowners can sell the ADUs and sell the lots. However, cities do have discretion as to whether they allow them or not, and the city does not allow any secondary units secondary primary units to be sold. So it would be strictly leased.

Well, I'm I'm not talking about an ADU. I'm talking about if you split your lot. Are you selling the half that you split away?

No. If you if you record a map, then the two primary units could be sold separately, I believe. If you leave it as one property with two units on it, then no, you couldn't.

Okay.

But if you go through the action of creating separate lots through the map, then you could.

So if you sell that second lot, I assume it's reassessed at today's market value or the sale?

Would be my assumption. Yes. So

it would increase probably increase the property tax?

Yes. Okay.

And it says in here that any new structure would be built at ground level. Do we have still have flood zones in Fountain Valley?

We do in certain areas.

And so are we allowed to build at ground level?

You you can build that grade. You do have to provide elevation certificate and I'm blanking on the the actual other certificate, to remove your home out of that flood zone in compliance with FEMA, but you are permitted to build with within the identified flood zone with approval from FEMA.

Anytime we built in a flood zone, historically, they had to be up on a foundation of a certain height.

Mhmm.

And that

that still would apply? Yeah. Even with ADUs now, they they we do require them to reinforce any foundation. Generally, for these foundations are anywhere between six to eight inches from grade. So similar to ADUs, I review a lot of ADUs. Everything is measured from finished grade, from grade, maximum 16 feet.

I think we had some zones that were higher than that historically. There's houses on, I wanna say, Bouchard Mhmm. That are on a pretty high foundation because they were in a flood zone.

I believe over time I'm not sure what year those, units were built, but I believe over time they've made improvements to the flood channels. So, we've been working through some other properties one city owned and so there have been some some improvements. Some areas are being exempted out of it. We just worked with the flood plain the federal government to, recertify our flood plains and and work through some of that as well. So if as a baseline, they could do that ground without any additional improvements. If they're in a flood zone and and there's additional requirements layered on top, then they would be required to build higher.

Even though the existing structure may not be the same?

Yeah. It would be to today's standard. So if the floodplain if the channels have been improved and the issue is no longer there, then they could build it normally without having to build up. K.

Thank you.

Vice chair Lopez. Okay.

I just wanted to go back. We talked about when in the lot splits, you have two primary units.

Mhmm.

So those two primary units can also have an additional ADU?

In the lot split, no. So if they split the lot, they can there'll be a total of four units between the two lots. So each lot would have its own primary unit and then a secondary unit. So it's a two unit development, they call it.

Okay. But that's not in the lot split?

No. Okay. So if they do split the lot, they would be required to I mean, they would not be able to do any additional ADUs or JDUs. It would split the lot and then

Just the two units. Right.

So I have another question about lot splitting. So Cheryl had mentioned if you split the lot, is there a possibility that you can, you know, sell half of it? My question is if you split a lot that would have a singular address and you split it, how does the address change? Like, how do you keep track of, you know, what was once identifiable as one thing, now you have two things in that spot?

I believe we do something similar now when there's ADUs built, we give it a new address. And so if you have one unit and then it becomes two or three or four adjacent to each other, we would go through the numbering mechanism and give them each a number based on the addresses around it.

So the city already has, you know, a

A protocol for

that.

A protocol. Okay. Great.

Yeah. I have a couple questions. So can you go back to the list of city requirements? So just well, I'll start with a couple specific questions. So it says that you said we're limiting to 800 feet, but is that also I'm sorry. 800 square feet. The city is proposing to limit the size of any of these individual units to that. Is that also the minimum required by state law? Minimum would

be 500 square feet. Sorry. Is that the

Maximum.

Is that the minimum maximum?

So Or could we just could

we have a lower number, I think?

Yeah. Could you just say 500 square feet and that's it? Or is the law that you have to allow up to 800?

We'd have to allow up to 800. Yeah. Right? Yeah. You'd have to allow up to 800 square feet.

You could allow higher, but minimum maximum that you have to allow is 800. So you can't you can't go lower than this.

This is like the ADU conversation we had. Yeah.

Like deja vu.

Where it was like you had to have a minimum maximum of a thousand, but you could go somewhat higher if the city wanted to. And

As mentioned previously, how similar to we can allow for more units on these lots or on some of these lot splits, but but we don't have to allow it.

Right? But we could but just to be clear Yes. We have to allow 500 to 800 feet per the law. We could say 500 to 5,000 square feet. We're we're limiting it at what the law requires.

Yes.

Okay. So just to make it clear, I believe this would be true. So we have to allow for 800 square feet. If a homeowner wanted to come in and build something between five hundred and eight hundred, they could do that, but we have to in our zoning could allow for up to 800. They could choose to build it minimum 500 or more up to 800, but the most the maximum or the the amount we have to set it out is at least 800.

Okay. So what is it when we don't set it? So that this is my next sort of place I wanna take the conversation. So if we The city requirement just real quick. The city requirements, if so well, Omar, you said right now we're processing these if they come in and we're just processing them according to the law. So right now if you walk through the door and you apply, none of these requirements that are being shown on the screen would actually applies is currently. Right?

Right.

Okay. And so if we vote for this, then you add these requirements to what the state law require requires. Okay. But on that point about the square footage, could someone come in now? And as long as they met the other state requirements, could they have a 2,000 square foot unit? Like, is does that 800 bind now?

I I believe I do believe it's a 1,200 square foot maximum similar to ADUs.

Right? So is so we're actually by doing this, we're limiting we actually are limiting the size to from what's available today to Right.

Folks that come in the door? Yes. And even with that, they're still able to build a secondary ADU in conjunction with that new primary unit. So, realistically, they're still able to build potentially 1,500 square feet, 1,400 square feet between two units. So limiting, yes, in the sense of individual unit, but they're they can still maximize their potential square footage by building multiple units.

Okay.

I think that was my original question when I asked how many units you can build a primary and an ADU.

Without the lot split.

Yes. Without the lot split. With the lot split, there's just the two primaries and that's it on each lot.

Two primaries and they can do the ADU. So if we go back to the graphic. So I

mean, bottom line, can get four units in there.

Yeah. Yeah. They can do four units.

Either way.

Yeah. So even with the urban lot split, it's two units.

Mhmm.

Yeah.

Okay. And then that's what I was trying to ask.

Yes. But they're defined as primary units?

Mhmm. Mhmm. Yeah. Okay.

I wanted to go back to the list of all of the city's requirements because we're having this conversation about the square footage. And so one of the things that I'm seeing that is a counter to wanting to come and pack your lot with these 800 square foot units is the fourth bullet point of the maximum lot coverage. I'm interpreting that as you know, you can make your structures as large as the city requires, but at the same time, you can't exceed that 60%. So you can't fill your entire lot with units. So Correct. I see that as like a stop gap Yes. Overbuilding.

Yeah. And I agree. And I would also point out for the open space requirement and then the storage requirement, that would also reduce the size of these units and create a hospitable place to live without I mean, I often see eighties where homeowners tend to maximize the square footage, whether it's bedrooms and bathroom counts and little to no common area. So I think with that, it kind of gives it forces these designers and architects, developers to be kinda considerate and mindful of the people who are living in these structures. And then they kinda have to reconsider how they design these units and then how big they are in lot coverage, setbacks.

So a lot of these were, like, step setbacks, FAR, a lot coverage, open space storage. They are a stop gap, like you said, in in creating a well designed project.

So that was actually the last thing I wanted to ask about is conflicts because there's a big discussion on that. So my understanding, correct me if I'm not reading this, is if there's conflicts between either the city's requirements or even conflicts within requirements in the law that they can still build and they they can get a waiver. And then we have a we have an order of priority for granting waivers.

There's sections of ADU law that state that if we have a requirement that would inhibit the production of those units and what's allowed through state law, then that would we couldn't enforce that. If you're asking if that's the same with SB nine, I'd

I mean, it is. It was in the it was Okay. It's an ordinance. Okay. So just wanna clarify that.

So, like, we can't really if we put on two I mean, I I don't just to be clear, we're not at the discussion, but just so that to clear what I'm trying to say, I don't think any of these requirements are problematic, but I'm just pointing out and clarifying, making sure that we have all have it that, to the extent that any of these are limiting to people actually being able to build, like if it gets down to where it's like you can only have it there's only room to do a 200 square foot unit on one of these lot splits, then we actually have to waive those requirements that are limiting them down. So we it's good we have, lot coverage. We have setbacks. We have a certain amount of parking, like all the stuff, but they can get all that waived if it's kind of a small lot and they can't do that.

Right? Yeah. We do have, concessions for whether it's an easement or an obtuse shaped lot or or something that's like a hardship on the property even for ADUs. So we we are pretty mindful what those can be and and what we allow based off these lots.

Yeah. I just want folks to have the like a realistic expectation Mhmm. Of like, they they write the law so that we can't then come in and make it so that you can't like, so you have it on paper, but you can't actually do it in real life. So I think these are good requirements. Don't get me wrong. But if it's it's not gonna prevent these things from happening because we're gonna have to actually let them that it's a ministerial approval. Right.

So there is the possibility that the applicant could come in and try to say, you know, use whatever, you know, legal mechanism they can to ask for, you know, concessions and waivers. And that's kind of typical of what happens with a lot of the projects we review. I imagine it's something that we'll just have to make those decisions on a case by case basis. At least these requirements give us a baseline within reason that expectation is a majority of these will probably be followed with some exceptions on a case by case basis. Is that a fair assessment?

Yes. And in the last two years since this ordinance has passed at the state level, we've had maybe few inquiries I can count on one hand and then the one project that was submitted. I think people tend to see, one, the cost and then, two, the time frame for these s p nine potential projects. And we kinda, look at the plus and minuses between s p nine and the ADU project. Because even with an ADU, you can still potentially have four units on a property, whether it's the main unit, the internal unit, the j d u, and detached unit, which is a lot easier, method.

Right? So they tend to go that way if they do what their if their hardest set on a four unit parcel. But in in our experience, most developers have been extremely amicable and and understanding of the municipal code and the desires of the city and what our code reads. So I would imagine moving forward, we would have that same sentiment with other potential developers.

So if we got those acceptance waiver application, did we need to bring it back to the planning commissioner to forward, or the planning department can take care?

It would be ministerial. So it would be through the planning department or over the counter, if

you will. Okay. Any other questions for staff? Commissioner Brothers.

There's some allowances if you're adjacent to a high quality corridor. Do we have those in the city and and how many?

I think the nearest one would be the orange Metrolink station. So it would be based off of, like, a high cal like, high high efficiency, right, rapid bus station. We don't have any of those here in the city.

I believe so there's an exemption for parking for ADUs Mhmm. Which is a different standard

The

which affects probably 90 plus percent of our homes in the city so that they don't have to provide off street parking. The definition I believe that they use for SB nine is a higher standard which I don't believe will qualify in most the city, if at all.

Okay. So we don't have any of those Yeah. To worry about. Alright. Thank you.

Was there another question? Someone?

Great. Thank you.

Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. We're great. Thank you, Steph. Is there anyone wishing to speak on this item from from the public?

Yes, sir. Mister

Kwan

we'll

call your name when your turn.

Yes, sir. Mister Kwan Nguyen, you can come forward.

Okay. Kwan.

I had a question.

In the city of Farn Valley, what the minimum of the lot requirement for you to be able to split into the zone? Like like what he mentioned, like, you put the minimum requirement for the lot to be like built for the ADU.

So we'll we'll I wanna make sure. I don't know if there's other public commenters. We we can't do a dialogue, but we'll make sure at the end after people have done public comment that we get your question

Okay.

Do we have any other requests to speak?

I have none in person. Lisa, there any on

Zoom? No.

No, sir.

Okay. Is there a minimum staff? Is there a minimum lot size for lot split?

No minimum lot size, but as mentioned, minimum for splitting lot would be 40 of the total lot size. So if the existing lot was a thousand square feet, the minimum would be 400 square feet. No less than 1,200 square feet once that lot split. So there is a minimum for lot size.

Great. Thank you. Alright. If there's no other folks wanting to speak. Alright, we'll close the public hearing. Alright commissioners discussion any comments. This one again, I say I think this one is fine

State mandate already, so we cannot do anything less benign. This law is already around for the last couple of year. I think the good thing is same thing like the housing element, so we can start to be get this one going approved. So the city can have some control into this state, this Senate bill. So that the only way we can put our government over a little bit to control it.

Well, I think there is some degree of relief that even though this is something that is unpopular and that you know, there's not really much we can do about it. It's state law. It's been around since, I think, what, 2022 is when this passed, and there hasn't really been a lot of interest in it. It's now 2025. So, hopefully, with, you know, the action that we take tonight, that kind of keeps, this as something that, you know, yes, we have to do it.

It's required by law. But at the same time, we're adding additional requirements on top of that that will hopefully have an effect on mitigating how often this option is chosen in the community. Like commissioner Vu says, this is our best way of still maintaining some local control over something that is unavoidable because it's state law.

I'll just say I think those are good points from commissioner Hummer, commissioner Vu. I think this is another example of the city taking a pretty savvy approach to handling these state mandates, which is if we do nothing, we get the worst version of it. If we do something, we can shape it and try to make it as good as we can. So with that, I'll entertain a motion.

Nobody wants to move it.

I'll move to code amendment twenty five zero five establishing development guidelines for SB nine two unit developments and urban lot splits.

Okay. I have a motion from vice chair Lopez and a second from commissioner Vu. Try the screens. Please vote.

Motion passes five zero.

Thank you. Alright. No new business, finished business. Are there is there anyone wishing to speak on non agendized items?

I have no request to speak, sir.

Alright. Do we have any comments from staff?

No comments from staff, sir.

Do you have any comments from the commissioners?

I have a question of the other commissioners. Are any of you getting phone calls from they say they're from the state offering you money to build a d u? No. I get them every day.

Wow. Wow.

Get them every day.

Oh. That's crazy. On your

mobile or on a landline?

Landline.

Oh. Because I I block all my landlines. Because my mobile is spam and I block all the spam.

It's a pretty substantial amount of money, which shocks me. Does

it show you the number that's calling? Like, do you have caller ID? It

would. Yes. But I assume that's nothing. It's a it's a call center.

Just right now, you have a mobile. It's always say, yes, ma'am. Then report to spam.

Yeah. Just curious. I'm the lucky one.

Makes me glad I don't have a landline. Alright. Any other comments from commissioners? Alright. With that, I will now adjourn to the next planning commission meeting, is scheduled for 11/12/2025 at 6PM. Thank you all.