Planning Commission - Special Meeting

Just double check your name tag. They move people around.

Oh, yeah? Well, for those kind

of people at the end. Yeah.

Hey, man. I wanna think Yeah.

You're their self.

Yeah. Because what's your new people? Yep. That's interesting.

Okay. Yeah. She didn't email me. So,

we are here.

All

right. Commissioners, everyone ready? All right. Good afternoon, everybody. I want to welcome everybody to the Thursday, 02/20/2025, Special Planning Commission hearing. I'd like to start off with the Pledge of Allegiance. Please stand. Thank you. Ariana, report on posting the agenda and roll call, please.

The agenda was posted on Thursday, 02/13/2025, at 05:54 p. M. Roll call. Commissioner Benson? Present. Commissioner Bondle?

Here.

Commissioner Donhauer? Here. Commissioner Ellie? Absent. Commissioner Kushner?

Here.

Commissioner Lingard?

Here.

Commissioner Valdez? Here. And just as a rewinder, if you can please turn on your mic when speaking.

Thank you, Ariana. Moving on to four, elect Chair and Vice Chair for 2025. Anybody would like to be Chair?

I'd like to nominate you, Manny, as Chair.

Thank second you. That. All right. There's a motion and a second. Any discussions, questions?

All right.

Roll call,

Commissioner Benson? Yes. Commissioner Bandal?

Yes.

Commissioner Donhauer?

Yes.

Commissioner Kushner? Yes. Commissioner Lingard? Yes. Commissioner Valdez?

Yes. Thank you, everybody. Vice Chair? Any candidates?

We

nominate. We need

a motion. Motion.

Okay. Nominate Brian.

I'm sorry. Downhauer. Second.

There's a motion and a second. Roll call, please.

Commissioner Benson? Yes. Commissioner Bondahl? Yes. Commissioner Don Hauer?

Yes.

Commissioner Kushner?

Yes.

Commissioner Lingard? Yes. Commissioner Valdez?

Yes.

Great. Congratulations, Ryan. Welcome. All right. Moving on to public comments. Are there any comments for items not on the agenda?

There are no speakers.

All right. I'm going to move to close public comment. 6.1, Consent Agenda. 01/16/2025, Planning Commission meeting minutes. Commissioners, any questions, comments, concerns?

I motion we accept and approve.

Technically probably should ask for public comment. I doubt there is any, but is there any?

There are no speakers.

I withdraw my suggestion.

We do need a second, please.

Oh, yeah. I will second.

Roll call, please.

Commissioner Benson? Yes. Commissioner Kushner? Yes. Commissioner Lingard? Yes. Commissioner Valdez? Yes. Vice Chair Donhauer?

Yes.

Chair Bondle?

Yes. Thank you, everybody. Moving on to Public Hearing 7.12 tentative map applications to subdivide approximately 6.7 acres into 42 single family duet residential lots, application TM24-two and approximately 41.36 acres into 84 single family residential lots, application TM24-three in the Glen Loma Ranch specific plan area. Melissa?

Good evening, Chair and Commissioners. Let me I just okay, I think this is on. Okay. Well, I am here before you this evening to present the last remaining subdivisions in the Glen Loma Ranch specific plan area. There are two tenant amounts that will be under consideration tonight.

And just to give you a general overview, one is the Town Center Flex neighborhood, which is in the Town Center portion of the specific plan area. The other three are Canyon Creek, Rocky Knoll and Malvasia Phase 2. And approval of these maps and the subsequent development that occurs after the approval will complete the Glen Loma portion of the specific plan area. The only portion of the specific plan area that would remain undeveloped after that would be the Olive Grove neighborhood, which the school district owns. This project did undergo an environmental review in 2005 when the specific plan was approved and the City Council adopted the EIR on 11/07/2005.

Since and the EIR originally analyzed the project that consisted of sixteen ninety three homes. Now since that time, the number of units has been reduced to a maximum of fourteen sixty seven, twelve oh eight of those would be developed by Glen Loma and then the remaining portion would be allocated to the Olive Grove neighborhood for potential future development there. Because of the reduced number of units, the city council did consider a traffic study that had been prepared to analyze the impact of reducing the units and subsequently adopted a second addendum to the certified EIR on 10/07/2024. And that addendum eliminated Mitigation Measures 36, 37, 39, 41, forty three and forty four, because the project did not reach the threshold that would trigger the need to implement those mitigation measures. And also it was determined that Mitigation 34 had been satisfied through the installed signalization.

So that was a resolution adopted last October. So this evening, we're going to talk about two tentative maps. The first one is the Town Center tentative map. This is TM2402. This is a 6.7 acre site.

It would be subdivided into 42 single family attached compact residential lots and it would be developed with 42 duet units. So they would be, again, attached single family units. The project consists of four private streets and also a parcel queue which would be conveyed to the city for development of a future fire station. That fire station conveyance would be determined through certain measures that have been agreed to in the fourth operating memorandum to the Glen Lumber Ranch development agreement. So there are certain provisions that have to be met and once all those provisions or measures are met, the city would be lot would be conveyed to the city.

And that operating memorandum was approved by the City Council again on 10/07/2024. Now there have been some questions that have come up concerning whether the Town Center Flex site neighborhood could be developed with all residential units, because the specific plan does talk about the intention to potentially provide a mix of, residential and commercial or potentially all residential or potentially all commercial. So the whole intent of this flex, this tenant center flex area is that it would allow for flexibility in development depending upon what the market conditions were at the time of development. So the City Council, when it adopted the fourth operating memorandum in October, determined that this site would not be developed with commercial uses, but that it would be developed specifically with single family attached homes. And the City Council determined that no specific plan amendment was required to accomplish that as the specific plan already allows for that type of development.

The next map is the TM2403, which is Rocky Knoll Canyon Creek and Malvasia 2. The Canyon Creek portion of this, tentative map is close to West LeChesse or comes off of West LeChesse Avenue, and this will be 40 lots. They will also be compact single family lots. This development will include construction of a portion of the Autumn Camp Trail and also it will complete the West Luchessa Avenue connection. This project would have a density of about 10.26 dwelling units per net acre and eight of the homes will back on to LaChesse Avenue, so West LaChesse Avenue and they would necessitate a six foot high sound wall.

The second portion of this tentative map is the Rocky Knoll neighborhood. This will have 21 compact single family lots and will also complete construction of the Autumn Camp Trail as well as the portion of the Santa Teresa Trail that runs through this neighborhood. This project would be 21 compact lots with a density of 10 units to the acre, and it will have five homes that back onto Santa Teresa Boulevard necessitating a six foot high sound wall there as well. And then the final portion of this map is Navazia II, which is 23 compact lots. This will also construct a portion of Santa Teresa Trail through the specific plan area.

It will have density of about nine units to the acre and there will be eight lots that will back on our site on to either West Of Chessa Avenue or Santa Teresa Boulevard and there will be a six foot high sound wall on those lots. So, tentative maps are a little bit different in the way that, the Planning Commission would make a recommendation. The Planning Commission would need to approve the Tendative Map unless it can make one of the following findings. So to deny a tentative map you would need to find that the project is subject to severe flood hazard or severe inundation, that is not consistent with the general plan, is not physically suitable for the type of development and the proposed density of development, that is likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, that is likely to cause serious public health problems or that it will conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivisions. Staff has not been able to make any of those findings and so our recommendation before you this evening is to determine that tentative map applications TM2402 and TM2403 do not require, independent sequel review beyond the EIR addendum number two adopted by the city council on 10/07/2024 and adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a resolution approving tentative map TM2402 subject to the findings conditions and mitigation measures provided in the draft resolution that, is in your packet.

And, finally, adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a resolution approving TandemAb TM2403 subject to the findings conditions and mitigation measures provided in the draft of resolution that is in your packet. And I can answer any questions you have. And also we have a representative of the applicant here this evening.

Great. Thank you, Melissa. Commissioners, any questions?

Melissa, I have two questions. On the information that we received from the Bicycle, Pedestrian Advisory Committee, I didn't think we had one of those anymore. I thought it was disassembled or whatever.

It is. It's an unofficial committee.

Okay. That's what they should say. Anyway, it talks about they want, a couple of things in here about all electric model and this and that. And do you have any comments regarding their claims here?

I do. So the city does encourage, provision of, chargers, electric chargers, but we can't require it. So, what the building department does is they, when developers or builders are building a home, they have them prewire for electric charger and that then if the future homeowner wants to install a charger, they can. But

it's

not something that we can require, but we can encourage it through that measure.

Okay.

And also as far as the trails and everything, I've never seen a subdivision with more trails and everything. So I don't have any problem with what staff is recommending at all. I should announce that I do live in the Glen Loma subdivision. However, my property is more than 500 feet away from these two tentative maps. It's in the over 600 range. And so I've been advised by staff and I've also advised the city attorney's office that I feel comfortable in voting that I don't

have a conflict of interest.

Thank you, Patricia.

It's unclear to me the recommendation item A when you say that on the second line, it says review beyond the addendum number two. So what do you mean by review beyond? That means past this, the addendum two is not going to account for it?

No. What I mean is that no additional sequel analysis is required to approve this project. There's, the CEQA analysis we've done up to this point is sufficient to for you to make a recommendation of approval if you choose to do that.

And regarding the fire station, is that possible to prioritize that first, put us at requirement until so they can develop that? Yes. But after the fire station, you know, go through the whole process?

I think the city attorney wants

to respond.

If I if I might, commissioner, the fire station is parcel is in escrow right now and it's right about to close, in fact. Maybe Armenta knows if it has closed, but it's just about to, that we had to get a bunch of documents in and various things, but that's all been done. So there's no need really at this point to make any condition related to it. And that escrow was set up pursuant to this fourth operating memorandum that Melissa was discussing that was approved last fall. So that fire station site is just about to be transferred.

I'm not talking about the site. I'm talking about the construction itself.

Well, the construction is going to be done by the city. So there's no prioritization that you really can do at this point. They will because of the way the matter was resolved with Glen Loma, they will transfer the property. They are transferring various amounts of money also at various times, including when these maps become approved by the city council. And then the city will use that money to build the fire station.

Yes. But because of the high risk area high risk fire on that area, is that something that we can wait until the city built on these lands, the fire stations, so then can we put that as a condition and then those units come after? No.

No. I don't think you can now. You don't think? No. Well, you cannot. All right. I will say, you cannot do that.

If I

may just add a little bit, I

know the city has been actively working on

the plans for the fire station.

Regarding the bicycle parking, do you have on the project, do you have an area for the parking? Okay.

So these will all be single family homes and so bicycle parking for single family homes is usually contained within the garage or within the home itself. We don't we don't require like a bike rack on an individual single family lot.

I'm not talking about the individual lot. I'm talking about the community in general. You know, for people that wants to take a walk and, you know, park their bike or, you know, so can have like a extra, you know, area for the bike parking and

So this is all going to be privately owned property. It'll be privately owned by either the individual homeowners or through the homeowners association. It would be privately owned and maintained. So there there's, no provision that would allow somebody else to walk on privately owned property and park their bike there.

I'm not talking on that area. I'm talking about like because suppose a trail is part of the the project.

Mhmm.

I'm talking about on the trail. Like bench, for example, those kind of like amenities I would say, like for the public space, is that is that included on this plan?

It's not included on this plan. There's nothing to preclude the developer from constructing benches if that's something they choose to do. I don't think it's something we could require of them. It's not something that was part of the development agreement or part of the specific plan. And so I don't know that we could require it, but it's if they choose to do it, they could do that.

Can we make a condition on that so they can we want to make sure that there is some sort of shade at some point and

As far as I know, the trails are not part of the maps. Are they Melissa?

They are. Yes. Glen Loma will be the builder will be developing the trails along with the maps. That's what they've done all along in the Yes. Specific plan

For example, trash cans, can we we make a condition on that. That's correct, right? Because that's part

of

the If we have a city

policy that would support it, I think we can. Otherwise, I think it could be a recommendation.

Yes. That's what I'm saying, recommendation.

I think we could recommend that to the council. I'm not sure the council will do that or not, but we Yes. Could recommend

Okay.

Like trash cans, parking, bike parking, bench and

Yes, go ahead.

In the City Casper Park, there is a bike rack, that's a bicycle like they have downtown, and there are benches there in the park area. And I know on the in the subdivision that's off of Santa Teresa is what's the name of the what I'm thinking about. But even on that, there's benches and all that, but that's an established trail on the levee and stuff like that. So I don't know how you could make them do it on where there's just going to be dirt and

things But like I don't know back then who enforced that, if it was the city, if it was on the plan already. I don't have that information.

Yes, I don't know So that

if are planning to do, then great. If we can make as a condition, it's just there.

I think this typically gets built in the very beginning of the planning process and the community facilities district is set up. That actually then gets paid into by each individual homeowner. It's a separate payment that because somebody had if you put garbage or trash receptacles, somebody has to empty them, right? There's maintenance as upkeep. So yes, you could ask the developer to put it in, but you really have to accommodate all of that, right? Whenever you put something in, who's going to maintain it?

Needs be money

associated. Usually developers, it's not an ongoing relationship where they're going to be on the hook for the next whatever how many years. That's it's a city thing and it would go through I think parks and recreation if anything.

The applicant's representative, Armintas Jensen is here. I'd actually like to have her speak on this issue because I I do believe the homeowners association is maintaining these trails. So Yeah.

That's because Yeah. The homeowners association. Yeah.

The HOAs are usually like the the parks that are in the middle of it, and I'm not sure about it.

Because this is part of the development. So it's part of the HOA, correct?

Were the trails required? The trails were part of the projects. And this project was unprecedented when it came through in the early 2000s as far as the number of trails and what the developers were willing to fund in the HOA. So you need to remember that these trails are open to the public, but they're owned and maintained by the residents out there. And they carry the cost of it. So anything you add, adds to those residents' cost. And adding benches and trash collection areas in the wrong location causes a lot of issues.

But but they can pick the location. You know? And Because that's even prevents fires, I would say, because people, they throw sick. I know they were not supposed to be smoking, but I live by the levee and that is like my front yard sometimes like a few cigarette So I think it's actually on their benefit to have that done because they don't have to pick up trash. I mean, up trash on the floor like I have to by my house because people they just go there and they, you know, they need a place to throw the trash.

So I think it's like for their own benefits and like how if you split that by all those units, you know, how how much can that be, you know? I don't think that's add it's even significant.

I'm not here to argue for or against it. I'm just setting what is out there. Think it needs to be something that's discussed at council level. But I'm just trying to explain how this project was set up. And there are places, I think the dog park might be the other one you were thinking of, that has the benches and the trash cans.

And the trails are connected to those public open space areas. So it's really up to the commission what they want to recommend to the council. But just as a background, there were not individual staging areas on all these individual parks. They were meant to go into the public the bigger public parks and public open space areas.

I'm sorry, ma'am. I didn't get your name.

Oh, I'm sorry. Armenta Jensen. I'm with Rogeri Jensen Nazar, and we are the planners and engineers on this project. And I was laughing last night. My daughter is 30 years old, and I started working on this project before she was born. So it's been around a long time.

Thank you. Melissa, I had a question. We received a public comment from somebody that was questioning why the Town Center Flex and the retail was disregarded in this project. Could you clarify that once again so the public can also understand?

Yes. So the way the specific plan was written, it was this area was intentionally flexible. The developer, I think, would have liked to have constructed commercial, but I think there was an awareness even at the beginning that that might not be viable. So the specific plan document states several different uses that could be developed there. It could be commercial, could be mixed use or it could be residential and a variety of different types of residential uses.

And the developer has marketed this property and so far, there's been no interest. So the developer worked with the city on that fourth operating memorandum, which enabled the, developer to convey the fire station lot to the city. And as part of that memorandum, the city council found that, this area would not be developed with commercial uses, but would instead be developed specifically with attached single family homes. And and they determined that that was consistent with the specific plan and no specific plan amendment was needed.

Thank you for that clarification.

Melissa?

Thank you, Melissa. I'm going to open it up to public comment. Arianna, any

We do have one speaker, Roya Cruz.

Roya, just so you know, you have three minutes. Thank you.

And in case anybody else wants to speak, we have some speaker cards up in the front that you can come up and fill out. Thank you.

Hi, thank you. My name is Roya Cruz. I live in the townhomes in Glen Loma. And I'm asking you to please deny the application for TM2402 today for several reasons. First, proper notice was not given for this meeting. None of my neighbors received a notice for this meeting. I only know because I e mailed a council member about this. Two, there are problems with the plan being accessible. The plan is not searchable for text, which means it's not ADA accessible and means it's hard for people to know about the details of the plan as additionally being 179 page document. Additionally, it is inconsistent with the Glen Loma specific plan, which our findings did identify.

Page 35 does state, as we've heard, the area is envisioned to be a mix of uses combining commercial uses with the final mix of uses being determined by market demand and timing of implementation. So we did hear that there is that flexibility. But also, I think that we can understand that a proportion if we're pitching a proportion, we're selling people on this mix. One area should not be adjusted to zero. To me, it seems wrong. Know I'm a child my daughter

is

a toddler, if I told her, I'm going to make you a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, and I didn't give her peanut butter, I didn't give her bread or I didn't give her jelly, onethree of that was missing, then she would know something was not right. Another problem is that high density areas have already been developed and built depending on those commercial spaces. The plan states about the apartments and townhomes that are already built, because of its proximity to the commercial and retail services within the town center, this area is expected to provide the highest residential densities within the specific plan. And this plan does not provide the specific the highest densities. Duets are, per the plan, considered moderate housing.

And so that means it does not fit its plan. Finally, the proposed application does not fit the site's plan aesthetic and community focused vision. Page 104 states, the town center is envisioned as the civic and community hub, not only for the specific plan area but for the Southern portion of Gilroy. To me, a community hub does not sound like a fire station and duplexes. I don't foresee people from other neighborhoods coming down to spend time amongst duplexes and a fire station.

So please deny this application. The developer has a history of shorting the citizens of Gilroy to save money. The developer still has not finished the lighted pedestrian crosswalk on Miller And Tenth Street. There was a dispute about maintenance on the dog park for West Tenth with the city. Page 11 also states that the developer would provide city parks including bathrooms, but Castro Park has no bathrooms. That's the one park that they have developed. And most recently, there was a dispute over whether or not to build a fire station. So over 1,000 people have already bought into this area based on this plan. I know my family was very excited about this. And we've already given the developers millions of dollars agreeing to this plan knowing that this would happen. So I would ask you to please not permit this inconsistent plan to pass. Thank you.

Thank you very much. If there are no further speakers, I'm going go ahead and close public comment. Thank you. I have a question for staff now that it came up. The claim of no proper notice.

I think can tell you that

I'm sorry. Is there

I'm sorry.

Came in the

room, but if

you had chance Sure. If you'd like, I will open public comment back up. You would have to fill out a speaker card. Sorry, Melissa.

Loud.

Jeff Hyde.

All right. Just for the record, am opening public comment back up.

Thanks for doing that. Live at 1465 Windsor Place. That's the Malvasia 1 neighborhood. And I've been in touch with this body in the past regarding the proposed Malvasia 2 and the other areas around it. We were initially not in favor of the density in that area, and I know that the revised or updated tentative maps show much reduced density and now to single family homes.

So I'm here representing a neighborhood that is in favor of that, and I just wanted to reiterate that. In addition, you brought up the idea of having trash cans and all of that. I wanted to respond to that as well. At least in our neighborhood, there really isn't a park. There are some benches along a creek, that's fine.

There are no trash cans at this point. I'm not particularly in favor of it as a landscape architect by profession. As soon as you do something like that, and granted it makes a lot of sense, unfortunately, it's not well maintained and that can be an area where trash and garbage accumulates if the maintenance program is not well set. So as a homeowner and one who also funds the HOA maintenance fee, we're not getting a whole lot of maintenance right now anyway. So to add something like that, I think, would be more of a negative.

And then lastly, on the commercial, in speaking with many of my neighbors, they're pleased now that it's actually going to be residential rather than commercial next to the fire department, mainly because we're not sure how successful that was going to be, how many people are going to use that kind of commercial area. Maybe I'm wrong, but if the businesses that move in are not successful, it's going to become an area of blight in our opinion. And we're concerned that, that's going to bring in unwanteds who are just kind of hanging out in an area that's not being maintained very well. So I think that's all I had to say. So thanks for letting me speak.

Great. Thank you so much. Thank you. And I'm just going ask one more time if there are any other public speakers. Please come up. If not, I am going to close public comment. Thank you. All right, Melissa. So back to the question of the no proper notice.

So on February 5, one of our staff members mailed out notices to all property owners within 500 feet of the site.

And there were no other complaints of no

paper No, haven't received any complaints of people not receiving notification.

I

have one more thing actually, Melissa. There's nothing that we can do about the complaints about the maintenance and the issues they're having with the developer, correct, as a planning commission body?

No. Because that's not before you here this evening. You need to just consider the tentative maps that are before you. Okay.

I just wanted to confirm. Is the inconsistency with the plans that the developer has through the whole path of developing Glyndaloma. Is that enough findings to postpone or even not approve this plan today? Like, for example, the sidewalk between Miller and Tent to the fire station, all those kind of things that initially was agree agreed on, and eventually, was some kind of problem later on. Is that those are those enough?

No, they are not. The issue is whether these maps are consistent with the specific plan and the general plan. The council, as Melissa points out, has actually determined last fall they are. The staff is telling you there are no facts that would justify that not being consistent. So therefore, they are consistent with the plans, and that's the only thing in front of you. The other development in the site or maintenance of the site or other issues that are simply not in front of you with these maps. They do not relate to the findings you have to make here.

And for those to be in a high risk fire area, it's not enough finding because I don't see any kind of, you know, preventative plan in case if some major fire happened, something similar to what happened in LA or even smaller. It doesn't have to be that degree. But, I don't see like any kind of I see a problem with the fact that it's in a high fire zone.

Well, staff can respond to that.

Yes. This actually is not in a mapped high fire hazard area. It's not in a wild and urban interface area. We do apply building and fire construction methods that reduce the risk of fires by sprinklers and non combustible construction that's applied to these projects just as a standard. And, but it's not in a, an area that is at any greater risk for, wildfire destruction than any, than most of Gilroy. There's there's nothing special about this area significant about this area, that would, expose it to a greater risk than anywhere else in Gilroy.

Where did you get that data from? From the fire marshal.

That might potentially change wildfire hazard zones are being revised in a very significant way.

There's the potential, but

For we the Bay Area, they're going to be published, they're supposed to come out February 24. Okay, so it's sort of a little early, to your concern, they're going to be widened and expanded. So for any future project, I think we will be talking about this again because it's really significant what I've seen in other areas. Okay.

Can this plan be postponed to another meeting just so we can make sure that because there is a resident who said, you know, she has her and her neighbors didn't receive any notice. And then there is you saying that the city is saying that they sent out notice but I how do you know, you know, it's true? Like, where is the proof for it?

We I can tell you that it was mailed and we actually have a statement from the person who mailed it, not notarizing, but, verifying that it was mailed. So I can tell you it was mailed. I can't guarantee somebody received it or didn't throw throw it away because that does happen sometimes.

And you have to remember it has to be within that 500 foot So zone if they're five ten feet out, they wouldn't have got the notice. So we don't know exactly where they're. Any other questions, comments, concerns, commissioners?

If we have my question is for the attorney. If we have to do approve that with a recommendation, you know, the benches, like or a dog park that's split between the smaller dogs and big dogs because we had a problem with the one of the developments developments that the city had a lot of problems with because the dog park was not divided between smaller dog and bigger dog. So there was multiple incidents included with myself. I was attacked by a bigger dog when I had a little dog, and I was nine months pregnant. It happened to me, and I saw happened to other people there as well.

So I actually, that's why I stopped going to the to the dog park. Is there a way we can put those things in and make sure that, you know, the dog park is split between, you know, smaller those kind of details that kind of can so the city doesn't have to deal with like twelve months later on down the line.

Is the dog park part of these subdivisions? Or we're talking about the existing dog park.

There's a dog park that is part of Glen Loma Ranch. Let me see if I can find it on here. It's The existing one? Yes. It's here.

It's split already between large and small dogs.

It's not part of this tentative math under consideration.

In that case, we cannot add that as a recommendation. Commissioners, if

you have any further questions, please bring them to staff now. If not, I'm going to move forward to disclosure of ex parte communication. No, I see there is none. Great. I'll move on to that. Possible action. Each item does require a motion and Three separate motions.

Three

separate motions. So A, B and C. They can't be done at the same time. So the floor is up for further discussion or motions.

I'll do the first motion.

Okay.

Planning Commission

recommends, A, determine the tentative map applications TM2402 and TM2403 do not require independent CEQA review beyond EIR Addendum two because none of the conditions described in CEQA guidelines Section fifteen thousand one sixty two are present.

I second.

I'm going to do a roll call for this one as well.

Commissioner Benson? Yes. Commissioner Kushner? Yes. Commissioner Lingarn? Yes. Commissioner Valdez? Yes. Vice Chair Donhauer?

Yes.

Chair Bondo?

Yes. And that passes six-zero.

Want me to continue reading?

Sure. You're more than welcome. Yes, of course.

We adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a resolution approving tentative map TM24 -two subject to the findings, conditions and mitigation measures provided in the draft resolution.

I will second.

Commissioner Benson?

Yes.

Commissioner Kushner? Yes. Commissioner Lingard?

Yes.

Commissioner Valdez? Yes. Vice Chair Donhauer?

Yes. Chair Bondo?

Yes. Thank you. That was six-zero.

And because it's so much fun, let's do another one. C, adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a resolution approving tentative map TM24-three subject to the findings, conditions and measures provided in draft resolution. Second.

Commissioner Benson? Yes. Commissioner Kushner? Yes. Commissioner Lingard?

Yes.

Commissioner Valdez?

Yes.

Vice Chair Donhauer?

Yes. Chair Bondle?

Yes. Thank you. That was six point zero as well. And I'm moving on to eight, new business, 8.1, fiscal year twenty twenty five-twenty twenty six and fiscal year twenty twenty six-twenty twenty seven, planning commission, work plan, training and budget request. Sharon?

We

had at the beginning of the meeting the item for public comments.

Come up, Eugene.

Yes. Say that again, please.

I said that we there was an agenda item for public comments. Do you wish to comment on something that's not on the any of the agendas? I think the commission would have to vote on as an order of the day to reopen public comment. So if they do that, if you'd wait just a minute, if the commission wishes to do that, they can reopen that right now.

Commissioners? Yes.

Yes. Yes.

All right.

I'm not an expert on that.

That's okay. In that case, we'll take your comments.

If you don't mind filling out a speaker cards.

This has to do with the Oi Ranch project, the house there. And I'm extremely concerned about the amount of noise out about. Santa Teresa. So my concern is if you put families in an environment that's going to cause problems for them to sleep and be comfortable. And that's night night. And in the daytime, you get motorcycles and your trucks, other cars accelerating

Great. Thank you so much. All right. Sharon, back to eight point one, please.

Good evening, Planning Commissioners and members of the community. So tonight, we're looking at the next two years commission work plan, training and budget request. As you know, the Steve Gore prepares a two year budget. And right now, we're in the second year of a two year budget cycle. So it is time we're starting to develop the budget for the next two years, which will start 07/01/2025 through 06/30/2027.

As part of the two year budget cycle, all the commissions are asked to develop their work plan and also make budget request. The planning commission will plan what identified tasks for the commission during the next two years. And staff also recommend that you include request for training to better prepare the commissioners for the duties for the commission. As you know, we've done a lot of training in the last two years off-site and also here, that's kind of being done by staff in collaboration with the City Attorney's Office also. Lots So of training to help you with all the duties for the commission.

And once you complete this process, staff will submit your work plan and budget request through the budget process and that will become part of the budget

extended for training for city staff?

This is for commissioners.

Specifically Yes. For

Commissioners. Yes, definitely. Yes. And we do budget separately for staff as well. Yes.

Do have what we did the last time

with that? Yes. That's going to be on my next slide. So I'm going to jump back to here, but you have this in your packet too. This is the draft work plan.

It looks pretty similar to what we created two years ago. Development review, for example, you just approved one project tonight and this is you see probably every almost every meeting, sometimes every other meeting, all the different development proposal that will come before you. And then the comprehensive zoning co update, as you know, we sort of started that last fall. And because of the staff transition, we are we've reassigned some of the projects, so we're trying to focus on the projects and the applicants and customers right now. So we will circle back to the zoning co update and the zoning map update a little later this year.

Capital improvement plan, general plan consistency. Two years ago, the council adopted a five year CIP plan. But this during this budget cycle, there will be some updates to the CIP plan. So the public works department will be working on those updates in collaboration with other departments, and they will come before you to review the CIP for conformance with the general plan. And commission and training, that's what I talked about a little bit earlier, lots of different kinds of training, state laws, housing laws and processes and all of that.

That's been part of your work the last two years and that will continue to be the following two years, too. And here's the training and budget request that's in your packet as well. This identifies some of the conferences and training opportunities similar to the last two years. And the first one, Planning Commissioners Academy, that's put on by the League of California Cities. We have two commissioners that are going, and then we typically have between one to three commissioners because I looked at our history over the last eight years.

It typically ranges between that. And the regional planning commissioner training by institute for local government and other type of bodies, such as the Silicon Valley Bike Summit, those come up from time to time, and we always share those opportunities with the planning commissioners. And some of those are free also. So there's a lot of resources out there that's available to the commission. Online training, those are also opportunities that come up, and we share those with the commissioners as well.

And they can either be free or they are pretty cost efficient because it's just not adjust, but it's a Zoom link that we can share that easily. And as I said, we've been doing some in house training here, too, with city attorney's office. So you have those as well. And for reference, this is shown at the bottom, but let me go back to this other slide, kind of the third and fourth bullet point on training. For reference, during the last two years, during that budget development, the council approved 1,500 per person per year for the Planning Commission, and that totals to $10,500 per year.

And we looked at the history, as I mentioned, for the last eight years, the highest expenditure was about $3,800 That was during fiscal 2018 to 'nineteen. And considering factors such as inflation, economic factors and also wanting to want to be able to provide all commissioners with opportunities to attend the training. We felt this number still appears to be pretty adequate for the commission as an annual budget. So there will be this amount we'll propose every year for each of the two years for the Planning Commission. So with all these things that you just saw, staff is requesting that the commission approve the work plan and include this training and budget request and recommend for approval by the City Council the fiscal year twenty twenty five to twenty twenty six and twenty twenty six to twenty twenty seven planning commission work plan, training and budget request.

Thank you.

Thank you, Sharon. Commissioners, any questions? Sharon, I had one question. The $10,500 is an aggregate for all commissioners, but there's no limit for one commissioner at $1,500 For example, if somebody on the diaspora would like to go to multiple trainings and their expenditure is, say, 4,000, but nobody else has used any of the funds, they are covered, correct?

Yes. That's why we are proposing it this way. That's right at the bottom. That's how it was derived before, but we're saying a total of 10,500.

That's the aggregate. Okay. Perfect.

Just wanted

to Yes. Annual budget, training budget I for the

just didn't want somebody to be capped at 1,500 individually if they were interested in going to more

I

have a question. It's not about the training. It has to do about well, maybe it has to do about training, it has to do about capital. And this is since the BikePed was split between Parks and Rec for education, but planning for capital. And so are we covered for that, for that part of the bike ped that we got? Yes. There have been some training opportunities that But how about in capital items, because I'm sure there was some capital items. I haven't talked to Councilman Hilton, but I know there was probably some things he was buying for capital items for Bike Pet. I don't know, maybe you know them.

Yes. We'll have to check because public work is working on updating the CIP plan. Yes. That will be forthcoming and we can look into that further. I

have a question more regarding to the kind of workload we do. So we are supposed I remember we we incorporated a commission that used to name the streets, for example, and somehow I never heard anything after that regarding, like, the, you know, the planning commissioners picking up the street names. I don't know if that was because of, like, the limited time we have or or who'd like, or somebody decided that way. But as far as I know, was was a commission that was the that you used to name the streets, for example, that got incorporated with the planning commissioner commission. And then we we just I just never heard of any anything from that previous commission, like, you know, how if

there

is a new street, who is picking up the name because then it's not supposed to come to us instead of whatever who is picking up the names?

Yes. There's an established policy and procedure regarding the street naming and I don't see anyone anything has come up for a project and one second, help me. Yes, that would come to the commission and that's why you have nothing.

But and who decides that?

So if you want to yes.

There is an issue.

It's just questions in general about what we do here.

For street names?

Yes, So the developer will

suggest street names when there's a new track. The only time there are new street names are when new streets are created. So it's through a tentative map process. And the developer will, propose street names based on a theme either, there's an existing theme in the area, they'll continue that theme or if it's an area where there's no theme established, they can they can establish a new theme. They suggest names, that are taken to the city street naming task force which is a committee that consists of members from, planning, engineering, police, fire.

The primary consideration for street names is public safety. So we try to ensure that the names are not the same as definitely not the same as, but, not too similar sounding to other street names in the city. We have certain criteria regarding street name length and the the way streets are are physically named.

But again, I'm confused because before used to be a committee that would I mean, used to be like a commission that used to oversee that.

No. Street names Well street names are, so for local streets they're always named by staff. The only street names that are named by a, there's a street naming committee which is the city council and planning commission committee. The only street they name are Arterials And Collectors and they will also review a proposed street name changes. So if there's an existing street and somebody wants to change the name of it, they'll review that. There have been no new arterials or Collectors for probably a decade or more.

And the other thing is regarding what come to us as a as a project. Is that a way that everything that goes through the city, it comes to us and we vote? Which one should we discuss and or not? Because I know that is I feel that, like I feel sometimes, like, blindsided because there are major things happening in the city that they there are plans for it, but then somebody decided that it's not gonna come through us and I don't know what's the criteria for that.

Oh, I see. Which applications go before you? Yeah. Oh, okay. So the zoning ordinance establishes that. The planning commission reviews tentative maps, architectural and site reviews that are within a planned unit development unless the city council has already approved design guidelines or specific plans that say that they don't have to go through that process. Conditional use permits and variances and zone changes, general plan amendments, that's what goes to the Planning Commission.

But not all of them. Those are sorted by somebody

who No. All of those categories go to the Planning Commission, but you might be talking about projects that have just gone through a staff level architectural and site review. It's all set forth in the zoning ordinance. What level of review occurs?

I mean all the projects that they have like a tentative map that it needs to be reviewed, like it shouldn't come to us. Tendant maps go All to of them. Yes. All of them. Mhmm.

What else besides the tentative map? Something like that's like or something that requires, like, a big bigger, like, involved community involvement, I guess. Is that doesn't come to us? Like, regarding like even permits, something that's like the public is the, you know, they are the stakeholders of, you know, that plan. Doesn't that come all of them? Does it come to us or it's sorted out by somebody and some of them?

It's it's specified by the zoning ordinance what level of review each type of development application requires. So items that go to the Planning Commission are general plan amendments, zone changes, tentative maps, architectural and site reviews within a plan to development, architectural and site reviews in historic sites, conditional use permits and variances. Anything outside of that, like you might see a large commercial building being constructed, if it's not in a plan to do development, it's not going to go to you. It's going to be staff level approval and then building

permits. And all of those that you mentioned, it has to come to us?

The ones, yes. Yes. Okay.

If it's not too much of a hassle, if there's a quick cheat sheet that can be sent commissioners, that would be great.

Yes. Got one. Thank you. Sure. Any

other questions? If not, I will make a motion that we accept the work plan and the request for budget. I second. Budget request, sorry. Finishing.

Does this need

a vote? It needs a vote. Okay.

It doesn't have to be a roll call, but it's some kind of vote.

Okay. All in favor? Aye.

Yes.

Any nays? Abstentions? Great. Thank you, Sharon. Thanks, Passes unanimously. Passes unanimously. Great. You. All right. Informational items, 9.1, Planning Division staff approvals. Any questions there? So Commissioner Liengaard, this is where they do the ministerial, and then it comes to us here for stuff that never came to Planning, but it was approved by staff. All right. I see there's no questions.

And if I can expand on that at the bottom of the Page two, we link you to the development activity table, so you can always look at that for any other projects you want to take a look at.

And I appreciate staff changing that over the years. It used to be very cumbersome. Used to be this huge list. Was crazy. All right. Thank you. Planning division. If

we wanted to discuss any of those items, we would then have to at this moment then request.

Sure, if there's any questions. You. Planning division staff report. Sharon?

No report, but want to welcome the two new commissioners. You.

Welcome. Thank you. All right. Eleven, City Attorney Report.

Okay. Have two quick things. One is the Assistant City Attorney sends her regard. She's ill, unfortunately, that's But why I'm second, I wanted to just read something to you briefly that came out in the legal newspaper today. It's how a Planning Commission can get a city in real trouble, okay? It's a story. Comes out of Los Angeles and involves a 50 unit, six story residential project. And the planning it had gone to the planning director who issued basically an approval for this. It was partly affordable housing, 50 units. That was appealed to the Planning Commission in Los Angeles.

So I'm going to read now a little bit what the article says. In December 2023, Council Member Kevin De Leon submitted a letter to the Planning Commission, essentially imploring it to ignore the mandates of the Housing Accountability Act and reject the project. The Planning Commission held four hearings project and continued each hearing for various administrative failings such as lack of quorum, failure to provide a translator and inability to reach consensus within the hearing time. At the final hearing, three of the planning commissioners stated an intent to disapprove the project and search for reasons, which the judge called a decision in search of a justification. So the Planning Commission ended up denying the project.

The developers sued. The judge found that the city had acted in bad faith because both the staff and the city attorney had recommended that there were no legitimate grounds to deny because as you know, under the Housing Accountability Act, a residential project that complies with all the objective standards must be approved. So this is an example of a planning commission that bowed to political pressure from a council member, reached a decision which is going to cost the city a lot of money in terms of fines and penalties and attorney's fees. I mentioned So that as an example of how things can go wrong.

Just a question. And the City Council later on voted yes or no on the project?

I think it's from the way the article is written, I think the planning decision was final. Because if it had gone to the council, it wouldn't really be a matter of the the Planning Commission would not be have been That's

why you have good lawyers.

Well, had good lawyers too, but they didn't stop the Planning Commission from yielding to political pressure.

They want a reason, they will find it.

Anyway, that concludes my report. It's kind of a sad story, but it's instructive.

Thank you, Andy. I appreciate it. If there's no further comments, I am going to adjourn the meeting to 03/13/2025, at six p. M. Thank you, everybody.

Yeah. Where is he going?

Well, just in case

When I walk in, I'll look for my name tag.

Oh, that's

Wherever it's at, that's where I'll sit. Okay? That's always a good idea. I try to keep it pretty simple.