Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Alright. No. That's not mine. Is there a name on

it? Oh. Oh,

everyone has one. I didn't even notice. Oh, you know what it's from? It's from the city dinner I wasn't able to make. All right. Everybody ready? All right. Good afternoon, everybody. Welcome to the December 5 Regular Planning Commission hearing. I'd to start off with the Pledge of Allegiance.

Please stand. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, All right. Thank you. Report on posting the agenda and roll call, please, Ariana.

The agenda was posted on Wednesday, 11/27/2024 at 02:34PM. Roll call. Commissioner Eli?

Present.

Commissioner Liengaard?

Here.

Commissioner Lewis? Here. Commissioner Ramirez? Here. Commissioner Valdez? Here. Vice Chair Kushner? Here. Chair Bondo?

Here.

Thank you. As a reminder to please turn on your mic when speaking. Thank you.

You. Argonia, are there any comments, public comments for items not on the agenda?

There are no speakers.

All right. Thank you. Consent Agenda, November 20 sorry, 11/07/2024, Commission meeting minutes. Commissioners, any questions,

comments, concerns? I move that they be read as written approved as written.

I will second.

Commissioner Alley? Yes. Commissioner Landgard?

Yes.

Commissioner Lewis? Yes. Commissioner Ramirez? Yes. Commissioner Valdez? Yes. Vice Chair Kushner?

Yes.

Chair Bondle?

Yes. That was unanimous. Thank you. All right. Moving on to public hearing 6.1 Amendment to the Glen Loma Ranch Development Agreement. Welcome, Cindy.

Good evening. The item before you is a public hearing because it's an ordinance and it requires a planning commission recommendation to the city council. We are asking the planning commission to recommend an extension of the Glen Loma Ranch development agreement. When the specific plan was approved twenty years ago, there was a development agreement that went along with that, and it had a twenty year horizon. And the development agreement is about to expire at the 2025.

So in the, the city council recently approved a fourth, memorandum, operating memorandum to the development agreement that speaks to the extension of the development agreement. And this is necessary to make sure that the development is built in compliance with the development agreement. So staff is recommending that you recommend approval of the three year extension through the 2028, and this would go to the city council in January. And this concludes my report. Happy to answer any questions. The recommendation is on the screen for you.

Thank you, city commissioners. Any questions,

I'll

go ahead and move. Do I make two different motions or can I put them together?

In this case, because one is

a CEQUA motion, it's better to do them separate.

Okay. So I move to determine that the First Amendment to the Glen Loma Ranch development agreement does not require independent CEQUA review beyond EIR Addendum two undertaken in connection with the adoption of the fourth operating memorandum.

I will second.

Roll call. Commissioner Ellie? Yes. Commissioner Lingard? Yes. Commissioner Lewis?

Yes.

Commissioner Ramirez? Yes. Commissioner Valdez? Yes. Vice Chair Kushner? Yes. Chair Bondle?

Yes.

Can I interrupt for just a second? Did we ever actually tentatively open

a public hearing? Did not actually.

Could we do that now?

Of We

adopt that motion. We can unadopt it if necessary, although there's no one in the audience, but

All I'm going open it to public hearing. Any speakers?

There are no speakers.

All right. I'm going to close public hearing.

Thank you.

Thanks for that catch.

So now second motion is now appropriate to recommend that the council adopt the ordinance.

Okay. I'll go ahead and move for the second motion, recommend that the city council adopt an ordinance approving the First Amendment to the development agreement between the City of Gilroy and Glen Loma Corporation for the Glen Loma Ranch project to extend the term of the development agreement by three years.

I'll second that.

Roll call please.

Roll call. Commissioner Ellie? Yes. Commissioner Lingard?

Yes.

Commissioner Lewis? Yes. Commissioner Ramirez? Yes. Commissioner Valdez?

Yes.

Vice Chair Kushner? Yes. Chair Bondo?

Yes. Thank you, Cindy. All right. Moving on to New Business 7.1, Planning Commission review of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission complete streets checklist for 2024 Climate Program Implementation Grant. With that, Mr. Mark Johnson.

Good evening, esteemed measure members of the Planning Commission. I've been with the city for three months, and I'm thoroughly enjoying my time here. In preparation for today's meeting, I realized I have included information about this project that extends beyond this commission's purview. The purpose for the item I'm presenting today is to seek a review and comment specifically on the complete streets checklist. The additional project details included are meant solely to provide context for the checklist.

In October, staff was notified of the funding availability for the MTC Climate Implementation Grant. This grant provides financial support for the development of sustainable transportation infrastructure with funding ranging from 300,000 to $5,000,000 per project that meets the program objectives. Grant funding ensures comprehensive support for all aspects of the project from the initial planning and conceptual design to the acquisition, installation and maintenance of the EV charging equipment. This funding covers every critical step needed to implement sustainable infrastructure. Additionally, it supports the necessary capital investment to ensure long term success and functionality.

As part of the grant application, we must complete and submit the MTC Complete Streets Checklist ensuring alignment with regional sustainable transportation goals. All equipment purchased under this grant must comply with the Build America Buy America Act supporting domestic manufacturing. Additionally, this grant requires 11.47% non federal funding match. We're actively working with Silicon Valley Clean Energy to fulfill this match. Lastly, the application deadline is 12/20/2024 emphasizing the importance of moving forward promptly.

I'm missing a slide. Our preferred location for the Chargers is the parking lot at the rear of the library. This site is strategically positioned directly across from a senior center and conveniently adjacent to both the police headquarters and City Hall. By placing the EV chargers here, we are creating a central charging hub that serves residents and visitors accessing any of our primary municipal buildings all within reasonable walking distance. The blue dots on this slide indicate the proposed placement of the chargers, which includes two direct current vehicle chargers and four level two chargers.

This location ensures compliance with both California and federal ADA codes due to the immediate proximity of a second sidewalk to the path of travel. As per ADA standards, at least one accessible route within the boundary of the site originating from the site arrival points must connect all accessible buildings, facilities, elements and spaces on the site. This site is the only footprint within the library's immediate grounds that offers an unobstructed second path of travel while maintaining a central location accessible to all nearby public facilities. Now that we reviewed how this location ensures compliance with ADA requirements and serves as the optimal site for accessibility, let's turn our attention to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's Complete Street Checklist. This checklist is a key part in the grant application process ensuring that all funded projects align with MTC policies for safe and inclusive transportation infrastructure.

The MTC Complete Streets policy requires that all projects within the public right of way applying for regional discretionary transportation funding submit a complete streets checklist. The reason we are here today is to present this checklist for your review and input. The checklist you have before you was generated to the MTC's online portal and reflects our initial responses. At this time, I'd like to go through the checklist with this commission reviewing it page by page. This first page includes my contact information and provides project. Please take a moment to review this page and feel free to share any questions or comments you may have.

Commissioners, any questions? Mark, how would you prefer? Do you want to wait till the end or do

you Does want go page the question pertain to the checklist itself?

I don't think so.

I think more better understanding of what it would look like. I think your checklist on this page is complete, but I just wanted to understand a little bit more.

I would prefer if we wait till we get through the checklist if that's acceptable.

That's fine.

Okay. Yes. I'm going to move to the next slide. Moving to the second page, please take a moment to review the content and share any questions or comments you may have. Okay.

If nobody has any questions or comments, I'm going to move to the next page. As shown on this page providing today's meeting notes is a requirement is a required step to complete the checklist. Skipped ahead. Do you guys have any questions or comments on this page? Okay.

I'm going to move to the And next so this page shows that the review of the checklist is a requirement to have a completed check list. And if you guys do not have any questions or comments, I will move to the next page. And this is a we've now reached the last page of the checklist. So we would like to incorporate any comments you have into this checklist before submitting the application by the 12/24/2024 application deadline. Since the posting of the agenda, we have received one comment from the Gilroy Bicycle and Pedestrian Community Group.

The group has requested the inclusion of U style bike racks to future designs for the Gilroy Community Library. This is outside the scope of this grant application. If the grant is successful, this concept will be incorporated into the development of future capital improvement projects. This request has been forward to staff managing the library bond project. Thank you for your time. Danielle Padilla, the City Engineer and I are available to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you, This

might be for once it's once the design is done, but those 12 spaces now we see will take up that whole side of parking lot. There's not a lot of parking spaces there already. Would conventional vehicles be allowed to park there if there were not parking spaces available?

We don't have any plans to enforce any kind of parking restrictions in that area. We just want to provide the chargers. If the parking I guess I'm going to defer that question to our city engineer.

Yes. I mean, I think, Mark, good evening, Planning Commission. I'm Daniel Padilla, City Engineer. Yes, we will right now, our focus was to apply for the grant, but we will consider the parking requirements. And we haven't finaled the grant application, but that's something we'll consider.

If we are losing parking spaces, we may limit the charging stations we want to provide. So we haven't fully determined the exact application for the grant and project. I mean and we haven't really vetted all of the potential locations where we might be able to install those charging stations. But no, that's great input and we appreciate it.

Yeah. And I'm 100% fine with, you know, this might be a little, too much into the future. But just the discussion is nice to have. And then, they said that the grant pays for the I don't remember the terminology that you had on your slide, but talked about maintenance and ongoing functioning of those. Who pays for the electrical usage? Does the grant pay for that? Or how does that work?

So the fiscal impact, to the city, it's minimal at least for the upfront capital cost, the grant. And, there is a grant match. Both grants we're applying for would cover 100% of the cost to install them. But Mark, maybe you can maybe you have an answer about ongoing maintenance and payment of the electricity?

I think we would mirror the maintenance contract of Eigelberry parking lot where we have the chargers there, where we have the contractor that maintains those and they would, I believe, receive some of the they would add on to the electrical costs of using those chargers to recover their costs as well as our cost of providing the electro.

I'm sorry, can you explain that again?

Okay. So my understanding is that the electrical chargers that we currently have, we contract out the operation and maintenance for those. We pay the electricity, but then the users also pay a fee for that electricity and the operation and maintenance costs of those chargers is tagged on to the electrical costs.

Clarifies that. And then for the ADA spot there, I just quickly looked on Google. I don't remember there being ADA spot there. And again, I know it's still you've not developed that.

Yes. There is no ADA spot there. The ADA requirement is because it's so close to an existing sidewalk.

Okay.

The ADA requirement is that we have a secondary sidewalk that's accessible to provide that path of travel.

So will one of those charging stations also be required to be an ADA compliant?

No, I think Mark was just touching on the fact that all the facilities in that area are ADA compliant. And existing sidewalks, ramps, everything there is already ADA compliant.

So there's no requirement for one of those charging stations to be ADA compliant?

Correct. I

have a question. Was it considered to, put, covers on those parking spots and have solar, collectors up on top?

Not for this grant application. We are solely seeking to, get apply for the grant at this part. We haven't really developed any conceptual designs other than, thinking that we might place the chargers at this location. Right now we're just trying to acquire the grant funding to move forward with this project. Yeah.

I don't think we would have, covered, parking in this location, covered parking or solar because you have to have columns. Parking is tight and that would impact it would have a domino effect on the parking stalls. So most likely they would not be covered.

Well, I've seen a lot of parking structures where there's just on the sides, but then it's just one long stretch where it doesn't end up taking away from parking spots.

Or you can go to the top of the library room and then just run a cable because you probably have to run a cable anyways.

It's just basically kind of great. Commissioners, I don't think they're this far ahead yet. They're just on the application part. I think they'll come back to us

when think need to think about this because and all the they need to have our feedback. And also, so when they develop that, they come back here to us, then they're going to have a better understanding what kind of, you know, everybody thinks and opinions. Well, especially the clean

energy, the Silicon Valley clean energy is involved, right? They're going to

be matching this grant. And I would imagine that they are very gung ho to actually kind of make more out of this instead of just the charges, but actually how are we feeding the charges, the charging stations themselves and it's a cost

thing long long term anyway. Right? Because

Yeah. Well, no. We can definitely take your input and consider it. I I was just mentioning that

Yeah.

As of now, we hadn't considered it. Our our main goal was those EV charging stations. But we can definitely consider consider I

think red shade. This is actually a health consideration.

We currently have a project to install solar parking facilities here at the Civic Center. So, you know, we already we already doing solar covered parking lots and installing solar panels. But for this small footprint of, what was it, six or 12 EV charging stations, we hadn't really focused on those aspects, but we'll definitely take your input.

Is that grant also takes e bikes charging or those scooters, so or just cars?

That grant could incorporate the e bike charging. It is not something that in this short period of time we were able to identify a location for that. This grant came up so fast with so little time that I was just trying to secure any kind of funding we could for the city.

Yes. But when you apply for a grant, much information and details you can provide them, I think is the best. And also kind of which kind of charger, you know, because not everybody has Tesla, not everybody has Rivian, you know, if you're gonna incorporate I think the details, it does matter. So I think those, you know, more information you give to them, more research you do, I think the, you know, the chance of being approved, it's higher. So I think those, you cannot limit it because I see a lot of limitation.

You know, we don't have space, we don't have this, it's very small, then don't do it. Then we can do it someplace else, then maybe nice school or, I don't know, someplace else where parents like, you know, once they drop off the kids, they can charge the car or some some difference, you know.

Yeah. And I think this is just, you know, a phase, if you will. We saw an opportunity to install some electric vehicle chargers here at no cost to the city. So we're we thought we would apply for that. It doesn't mean we can't apply for grants elsewhere. And, we have, like Mark mentioned, installed EV chargers in other locations. So this wasn't a design of the facility. It's just a grant application at this point. We don't have the specifics on what it the cost estimate. We are working with, with the consultant to help us come up with the cost estimate and see what it's gonna take to get it done.

So it's very preliminary right now. You know, the focus of tonight's meeting was just to make sure that the checklist is correct because because, though we wanted you to review those answers because it's a requirement of the grant. But, the exact details of what we're going to design and construct, that's to be determined. You know, we will draft, you know, a CIP project for the city council's approval and, you know, details on how that funding probably shouldn't have been in the staff report to begin with.

So this for me, yes or no, doesn't mean anything. I don't know what it means yes or no. Like the traffic road is legally prohibited for the use of bicycle and pedestrian, yes or no. Like, so what does it mean? So it needs to be more detailed. And I think you I think, this is very limited. Don't know.

Commissioner, if I'm not mistaken, that's coming directly off of the grants process or the website, sorry.

Yes. Checklist is a standard checklist that we're just filling it out.

But you should be able to explain what that means and provide it to us like

Sure. We can go through it, Mark. Do you want what question what

number? Question?

Point to which page?

Yes. Go bring it up

to the And I think as Mark had explained, there was a very short turnaround for the grant. So he's trying to just secure can much running is possible in a short amount of time. And the goal tonight is for the commission to review this checklist. It's a requirement from MTC.

Can I ask a quick question before we kind of even move on? I've had years of experience with grants. So I can appreciate the rush and things like that. Could it be possible that and I can appreciate that we don't always understand everything that these items are saying. Is there an assumption by the grantor that, you both, the grantor and the grantee, both understand what these means so that when you say yes or no, there's a mutual kind of a communication and understanding even though perhaps we might not understand what it means?

Yes. That's correct. These are these should be very standard questions that, you know, in the engineering world, you know, when we're looking at streets, it's very common in standard language. But I'd be more than happy to explain any question any exact, you know, question that you want me to elaborate on, I'd be more than happy to explain it. You know, what question numb did was it a question?

So first of all, they are not numbered, so it's hard to I have to read the whole question. So the effect roadway is legally prohibited for use by bicyclists and or pedestrians. Yes or no? I think it's the third page. The third page. Yeah. The page doesn't have a number, and the questions, they don't have numbers.

It's just below the middle.

So it's saying are we prohibiting bicyclists and pedestrians? No. We are not prohibiting them. So that one's pretty simple. It's asking, are we outlawing pedestrians and and bicyclists? So the answer to that question is no. There's not much explanation needed. It's a public right of way for all, for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists.

Roadway.

Yeah. And I think the intent is, you know, yes questions. There's nothing to explain. And as the engineering and public work staff, these are relatively straightforward questions.

Well, when you say that just the electrical cars can go to that spot, that's in a sense, you're kind of limiting access to regular cars to that space.

So but we talked about that earlier, though. There's at this point in time, there's not gonna be any restriction.

I understand. I just wanted them to think through it. And then it just Right. When they apply, they So have all that

in this the question is referring to the roadway. So the roadway is, provides access to, pedestrians, bicyclists, and cars. It's the roadways. Okay. Yeah.

I want to say I appreciate that you found that this grant was available and that you jumped on it and you're here before us, so close to the deadline. We have had speakers come forward and say that we've missed opportunities with grants. And so thank you very much for putting this together, and thank you for answering my questions, just so that I can have a better understanding. So I look forward to hopefully receiving this grant and having them installed and seeing the next phase of this project.

Thank you. We appreciate that.

Is there any reason why this was sprung on you guys?

No. You know, Mark was looking for grant opportunities, and he and he saw it. You know, we're both relatively new. And we we saw an opportunity to get a grant. We thought why not apply and see if we can get some free money to install some electrical vehicle charging stations. This would be great for the community. And this these are large grants. So we you know, he Mark quickly jumped on it and and and wanted to get your approval of the checklist or your review and concurrence with the checklist so we can apply for the grant. Again, we're not committing to exact details at this point. We're still working on exactly what the project is going to look like.

You know, we'll talk to the grantors and see, you know, what our likelihood is of obtaining the grant. You know, should we apply for more on the other side of the library? You know, there's still a lot to be determined. And the design is, you know, 10% done. We're just we haven't really started the design. We're we're preparing for that.

And I I really appreciate also the you know, going after a second kind of resource, trying to pay for the rest of the project. That's I think that's very appreciated. Yes.

Again, this would be no fiscal impact to the city, and we thought it'd be a great opportunity.

Great. Thank you. Commissioners, any questions?

I'm just still trying to wrap my head around why the commission wouldn't automatically send these grant opportunities to the municipalities, right, to every city in the that could be included. Because for you guys to have to hustle, you know, to get this application in. But my other question is, you're saying you don't quite know yet about the dollar amount. Will that be difficult to reverse later on?

No. I just meant that the grant you know, Mark knows this more, but here, the minimum grant is 300 all the way up to 5,000,000. So we're thinking we're applying for about, you know, between 300 and 400,000. But if we hear that there's a more likelihood that we might get a larger grant, we could we could do more and do like I said, the east side of the library, we can install We

include the e bike charging in another part of the library or something else that can also attract other kind of beneficiary from that action as well. So I think and again, this is like the feedback we're giving here is just

Go big.

Is yeah. Go big, think

it

through it, and maybe even I don't know if the library has solar or partially solar. They may even the grant you can also put it like the the library fully solar big, you know, big with that grant even though it's for the EV charge, but then you can, you know, in a sense also help the library. I don't know what it takes, what the situation is, but those are the kind of things that it's good to think. And also when you do the infrastructure to think about the expansion, I think they they like to hear that. Oh, we can put five cars, 10 cars, and then we can also like, the way we're gonna build is gonna be able to expand for more cars.

Those kind of things that what they would like to hear as well. Like very specific ideas, you know, concept very defined.

They can always say no and cut it down to size, right? But by you showing that you think big and like Commissioner Lengard was saying, set it up in a way that you can expand it, right? Because once that base infrastructure is there, you can always add like I saw the still thing you should throw in there to actually put some kind of structure with it, with solar panels on it. So that you're self generating. I think that's going to go over really big because the whole point of that project and these grants are climate, right?

Climate change and going green. So if the maximum is €5,000,000 as you can ask for, go for it, then say so not only are we putting charges in for people to use the vehicles, but we're actually going to create our

Yes. So I think also we have Mark, he's more of the expert on this specific grant, but solar panels are not eligible costs of this grant. This grant is solely for, electrical vehicle charging stations.

Then that piece could maybe come then from the, SV Clean Energy?

Yes, that's correct.

Make it a true collaboration.

And you can even say that depends of the area you put it, that extension could be even for more people to be able to stay cool during the summer because I know the library they serve lunch during the whole summer. So people instead of staying inside of the library serving lunch, they could, you know, have another place like to be outside. So kind of like almost creating another kind of environment with that being on the another kind of roof for something that I think that could help too.

Yes. No, thanks for all the feedback from the commissioners. So, CSAT, we actually have a monthly meeting with a grant consultant that reviews all the grants that they become aware of and we become aware of and we discuss all the opportunities. So thank you for the feedback and yes, we will look at all of these at every monthly meeting. Thank you.

Commissioners, any more questions? All right. Ariana, any public comments? It is open for public comment.

There are no speakers.

All right. I'm going to close public comment. Possible action. I don't know if we're voting on anything here or do we make any recommendations in the council?

I don't think so. Yeah. Did not hear any criticism of the actual checklist. So we're so that's okay. Yeah.

And, Mr. Faber, the requirement of the grant said that this body, shall review and comment. So I'm not sure if we need a vote or if we need concurrence because it said review and comment.

I think well, the body has reviewed it, and I think that there are no comments that have been, issued on the checklist itself.

Comments that necessitated changes Perfect. To the

Thank you. Thank

you, team.

Thank you.

All right. Moving on to 7.2, zoning ordinance update, preliminary draft planning permits part one. Cindy?

The city is conducting a comprehensive update to our zoning code, and we, presented the introduction to that back to you in back in September, and you reviewed three of the sections of the code, also in September. And then, we've had a couple of cancellations with the Planning Commission, so here we are tonight to talk about planning permits. And this is going be the first of two meetings to talk about planning permits. So tonight, we're going to be looking at the planning permit draft procedures for architectural and site review and minor modifications, conditional use permits, minor use permits, temporary use permits, variances and minor deviation permits. I've said this before, and I'll say it again.

There's this is one of many meetings that we're going to have. It's a it's a large document, and it's going to take us a while to get through it, and we want to present it to you in in bite sized chunks, so that you feel comfortable making the recommendation. Tonight is just preliminary feedback. We're going to take your feedback. We're going to incorporate that into the document.

We're going to do track changes. If we receive feedback from the public and we think that that's something that we want the Planning Commission and the City Council to consider, we'll bring that back to the Planning Commission as part of a comprehensive draft showing those track changes and providing the reasons why they are being proposed and then eventually this would go to the city council. And I anticipate this will be about a six to nine month process. It will get through it quicker if if the planning commission has study sessions on the Thursdays of the month, and so we can talk about what the Planning Commission's availability is for that. So the next study session will be February 6.

We're gonna skip the first meeting in January because it's a pretty that evening, we're gonna be talking about the Glen Loma tentative maps and also potentially the Renfrew development villa development. And so that's gonna be a pretty your packets are going be pretty large that evening. So to help you review the materials, we've provided a summary table showing what the major changes are between the existing code and the draft code for each section. And, we've also provided you a digital copy of the existing ordinance so that you can quickly, click on the link to find the code section that's being updated. And also, we provided comments for each section of the existing code showing you where you can find the information in the draft code.

When looking at these draft sections, we're asking the planning commission to ask themselves, do the standards implement the purpose of the zoning ordinance? Are the changes logical and acceptable? Is there language from the existing code that we should keep? Is there something that we should add, modify, or delete from the draft? Are there streamlining opportunities that we can explore?

And it's possible that we'll hear from the public requesting those type of streamlining opportunities, but also it's an opportunity for the Planning Commission to think about how we can better serve our residents and our business groups. And then is the information easy to interpret? For the most part, staff is not recommending major changes to the code, but again, this is an opportunity to think about those changes. So the planning permits are each planning permit has a follows kind of

a

general template. So what is the purpose and intent? We so applicants need to get permits for various types of things they want to do for their property, whether they want to do an addition to their home or build a brand new home or build a brand new warehouse. There's certain types of permits that they need to do that. A number of single family homes can just be approved through the building permit process, but there are certain types of single family homes that do require architectural and site review.

Some of those can be approved at the staff level and some things they will need to come to the Planning Commission if they're associated, for example, with a tentative map. And then the format also includes what the applicability is in exemption, what requires certain types of permits, do they do the permits need to be noticed to the public, what type of review is required, whether it's a staff review or a public hearing, what are the findings for approval, What are the potential conditions of approval, especially when it comes to, for example, conditional use permits? And then what happens after the decision is made and if they want to make changes to their approved permit? So your packet includes an introduction kind of summarizing each of these different types of permits. I'm not going to go through this here, but I'm happy to discuss these with you.

There are a couple of things that we would like the commission to consider this evening. Hopefully, are pretty straightforward amendments. This was drafted following feedback from the city attorney. So changing how the find the introduction to the findings of approval for each of these permits, this is the a standard, introduction that's included on all the permits. And so, adding, first off, removing the word deny, because you you don't need findings of approval to deny an application.

And then adding in some more information to make sure that when we are making a decision that we have all of the information we need to make that decision. And so there's these additional language If from the information presented in the application or at the hearing, where required, the review authority makes the findings. And each permit type has its own findings. So are there any questions about this change that we're proposing?

Yes. Are we adding a requirement for a hearing or are we just modifying the language?

No. So this is just an introduction to each different type. So under the

let me go back.

Under the notice and the type of review, that's where we let the applicant know what type of decision needs to be made, whether it's at the staff level or whether it requires a planning commission or a city council public hearing.

Okay. I just wanted to make sure we weren't making any changes to what required a public hearing?

No.

Okay. Cool.

Thank you.

So any questions or comments about this proposed change? Okay. The other item that I would like Planning Commission to consider, and this is something that we have staff meetings every week and we talk about, you know, kind of our interactions with applicants at the counter and, you know, some things that maybe don't really require a full on permit that takes time and money to request. So for example, this so when someone wants to make a minor change to a previously approved permit, they can apply for what's called a minor modification. And there are certain things that have been listed in our existing code that maybe don't really require a full permit.

So for example, this includes these different examples, relocation of door. Does that really require someone to come in, pay for a permit, have staff review it, wait for a decision, put it in a document, the decision, file it away. So we've we've removed these examples, and we've kept in the threshold of whether or not the proposed minor modification will affect the use, intensity, general character, architectural style, circulation or other site function of the project. And so I think our staff has the capability of making this determination. And obviously we also have a community development director who has oversight of all those decisions.

And so we are asking that the Planning Commission consider this change and happy to answer any questions that you may have.

I actually have a question about the previous slide. Do you mind going back? Mhmm. Thank you, Cindy. Where so the strikeout text is the original text?

Yes. Where is that? Okay. So if you go let me pull up the packet. Okay.

So here, for example, is the architectural I'm sorry. In our code now. Right? So that's so that is one improvement that we're making to the proposed code is making sure that all the permits have consistent language. And so you're not going to find this exact language in the current code. We just want to make sure that as applicants require different types of permits that, you know, it's just not confusing And why is it word worded differently here?

Right. So okay. So I just wanted to be sure. So we're editing the the already the drafted. Is this, a second draft? Yes. Okay. Because I I was unable to find that in

the original code, and so

I was, where is this? I do like I'm an engineer. I like consistency, so I'm very excited about this, but I could not find or the original source.

Okay. And so that explains it. Makes sense. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Any questions? Okay. So one thing I would like to have kind of a discussion about, and this is a study session, is, are we giving you the information that you need to provide feedback to us? And if not, what can we do better to help you help facilitate you looking at these drafts and providing feedback?

I will say, right, you know, as we start to get into some of the other sections of the code, that's where I think that you're really going to kind of want to dig in. So for example, at some point, we'll be bringing back, a table of what type of uses require architectural on-site permit or what type of uses require a conditional use permit. I'll be working with the economic development manager on those tables to make sure that they make sense, and, we'll be spending quite a bit of time going through that. And so when we get to that point, when we start to get into these sections of the code that, really you'll want to really dig into, how can we help you make, you know, give us good feedback?

So I think, if you go back up to one of your earlier slides, okay, hold on. This slide here for example, if here's the packet, it's got however many bazillion pages, right, and it's not like to the point that Commissioner Elle said, you know, it's not like you can go directly to, okay, this is how it was stated and now this is how it is stated because it's just kind of not drafted that way. Knowing when you give us the packet,

this is

what what we want from you. Okay. Okay. This is kind of this is this is what we're looking specifically looking for feedback on. I think that that kind of helps direct the focus as you're reading through the packet. Okay.

And I think too, I know that there's a lot of different documents that we're combining into one to make this more streamlined for the community which is great. But I just think this is such a big thing for all residents that I want to make sure that we're not agreeing to something that changes things that could affect their livelihoods. I think that's what's really important to me. And just having, like, all those different to all the different pages that we're comparing to, that would be really helpful because I'm doing what Stephanie is doing and looking through and trying to Google and see all the different sections and it's I understand the reason for this and so just having those available for us.

Thank you.

Yeah. And I Great. I appreciate that. And I hope that we are conveying that in that summary of changes, but we'll make sure that we really take a hard look at that and make sure that we're really highlighting those things that are kind of a big change that could affect how our residents do business with the city. Would

you mind clicking through to the second modification? So as far as asking for feedback, I'm wondering whether having all these examples in there isn't actually helpful for somebody when they're looking at it because it kind of prompts you to think about like this is what this refers to. When you take it all out and you're saying staff can make this determination, That that's that's true. Right? Okay.

But but for somebody who's not in this business when they're looking at it, I I typically I like having when when somebody is discussing something when I see the oh, for example, and then you kind of get to give some various option because you're likely then to recognize your own project that that that's the category fits in and then you you kind of know that you're on the right path. As opposed to keeping it so vague. You you might read that and still not be sure that that's what the

Okay. Why don't we break this down a little bit then? So exterior lighting, is that something that we think, needs to have a permit, from the city to change?

For my in my and the reason is there are people who has those string lights, and they live there in the backyard for forever. And I know because the code enforcement had a problem before. And and eventually those things, they catch on fire because it's under the sun, under the weather. So in that case, actually, it might. You know?

So that I I recommend you to talk with the code enforcement because there is a reason for it. And the reason is because I actually talked with the code enforcement at the time regarding some outdoor lighting, and he explained to me the reason why needs to have like a permit because there are fire that happened because people they give string lights, even like Christmas lights, those lights forever outside and they ended up catching fire. So that specific one maybe,

you know.

Okay. So let me ask you this. So this I think what this is really trying to get at is more of the permanent fixtures, the light poles, the fixtures on the building as opposed to Christmas lights. Do we want to require residents to come in and get a permit to put Christmas lights up?

When you say light, exterior light, again, it's very vague because if you don't put the electrician to do that, it can interrupt again causing a house fire. But if you talk about light fixture, that's a different thing than lighting, you know.

Okay. So change it to

Light fixtures.

Permanent light fixtures as an example.

Just a just an idea.

So just can we can I get a consensus on from the planning commission

on on the

Well, my question is, I'm just doing a quick search? Where do we have anything that tells the public, our code requirements for exterior lighting. Because I just did a quick search for exterior lighting, couldn't find anything. But I'm, like, just looking fast. So on our website. So I guess

So we do have a standard that, the lights can't spill off of the property, so they can't be pointed out and spill off of the property. They need to be downward facing.

And we see that when they come in, but what section would that be under? And I think that's the question. It's not necessarily, you know, people stringing up their Christmas lights incorrectly without any support. But more of like, oh, so what are the codes for for exterior lighting that's permanent. Where where do I find that?

So that yeah. That'll be coming to you at a later meeting. We'll be talking about

But I mean, where do

we find it now? I could do a search with the existing code for down, you know, light lights. When

we put examples, can we put the like, some similar code that further explain what that means? So for example, exterior lighting and then put a code there that the person the person can go and search for let's for that information. Okay. This is this you can do. This you cannot do. So next to each example has like the code number there?

I think that would make for a very lengthy city code. I think there may there certainly are probably things that we do want to define, and we will actually be bringing a whole section on definitions to you, for things that really do need to be defined. And when that section those definitions come to you, if there are things that you think are missing from the definitions, then we can certainly talk about that.

I my point is not really about the lights themselves, but about the conversation, the bigger question of my other commissioners were asking is that when we are looking and there is a con possibly a concern, it's hard to find that spot in our code that we don't know. Do do we have a concern about it or not? I don't know because I don't know what section that would be referencing. Like, I'm I agree. I believe we have highly qualified staff here, and I believe that they can make decisions without having a permit for every little thing.

I used to live in a city where ages ago, you had to have just to swap the faucet out, you needed a permit. Just the faucet. So I I believe that that can be that can happen. But if there was a concern, where would we go to look? It it's difficult when we get a document like this, and you're right.

It's a lot of information, and then it's a conglomerate of several different documents, so we don't see the original source. That's, I think, the the challenge on our side. And I had a resident call me and say that in the document we received, but we couldn't find it, that there was something about you have thirty days to identify a a home as historic or a building as historical. It's nowhere in here. But they saw it somewhere. So, you know, we couldn't figure that out. But that when you get these sort of calls, like, it's hard to bring it all together.

Okay. And

I know we're working with what we've got.

And of course, can always ask staff for assistance on that. Just since you brought up historic resources, we have a web page dedicated to historic resources and then we list all of the properties in the city that are on that historic list.

Right. But there was some confusion that there it was in this this packet and it's it's not there.

Yeah. So we will be bringing permits for historic resource to you at the next meeting. Okay. So is there anything in these examples that you would like to consider removing or do you want to keep all of them in here?

For example, relocation of doors, does that require a permit? I'm sorry. Commissioner

you Kushner, are you I understood your question one way and so maybe I just misunderstood it. I think that what your or your comment was that you like just having instead of taking the it wasn't about what specific examples were in there, but that you just felt that having some examples would help someone in terms of well, is this a minor thing or is it something I'm well, let's see it's, know, oh, these are such little things I don't think I would need one type of thing.

That's right.

That's So I don't I don't

think That could be a guide.

You know, I don't think it's like you weren't looking at, okay, do we keep relocation of doors in there or not or do we keep equipment screening or not.

My comment was that all about having examples in there is helpful for the reader to qualify their own project and whether that whether just by comparing it to other minor modifications that, oh, you're in the ballpark. Yes, I'm on the right track as opposed to if there's nothing there and it just says if there's modification of architectural features which do not affect the use. Well, that's pretty ambiguous and vague, because my God, I mean out of the entire universe of modifications that I can think of, them you know you're suggesting that

part in the parenthesis be still included in the

Yeah. That's And what she asked. Do you wanna remove it do I wanna keep some?

Yeah.

That's what she asked.

So would it be helpful to have a guide? So like we have with the ADUs and it kinda goes through because when I think of doors and I think, well, maybe they moved a door, but in doing so, they moved it to a place where they've removed a load bearing

That's right. Hose lines or any other sort of Okay.

Like, a sliding door like four together. That's the door still like open a whole wall.

It opens up an entire area of Yeah. That's why

you have to be moist. Give example specific, regular standard

No, I actually think, but but

So if somebody has a plane

No, I think this just needs to

plane. Be linked.

It needs to be linked. Is it It can possibly, we can't throw It doesn't say

HVAC equipment for example or full equipment like

Because it's because the whole point of this is how do you interpret the word minor,

right? Small equipment screening.

Yeah.

Instead of equipment

I like commissioner Ali's point like where do we find this. So maybe we could actually maybe there could be a link in there that goes to someplace else where there's more information about the detail as opposed to packing it all in here because we can't be all inclusive, It even says specifically including but not limited to. You just got to give me a quick few examples of kind of what this is talking about.

Okay.

Then maybe hook people up with the way to go to actually dig a little deeper and get more information on on on that.

Then we did the name of the the code, the police that can start from there.

Is your hope that residents call the city at this point once they hit this point and be like, hey, I'm gonna do this. Does this require a permit?

Yes. They do all the time.

So I think that's why she's removing those things just so a resident can call and say, hey. I'm you know, if you're gonna put in a nana wall, the big giant wall doors open up, you call and be

like, hey, I'm gonna put

this in. Does that require a permit? I think that's what her the intention is of this cutting it out. Is that

So my intention is to, you know first off, for example, in terms of structural elements, this is a planning permitted. We still require building permits for any structural changes. But do we need a permit to change the location of a door? Why I'm just wondering, is there things in here that we can take out that don't really require formal application to the planning department? Or do you want to keep all of the examples in or some of them?

I think the door should stay. Okay.

Okay. Why don't we okay.

Just include a link. I think a link to the engineering department or something so they can call as well. I think it's better because people don't even know who, what, how to call, where, you know. So I think at least the all the engineering or the code enforcement, that will be helpful so you can, you know, keep the simple version but then put some kind of link, some resource out there.

What if you put a disclaimer at the end of each section for, you know, just a simple sentence, you know, for additional information or clarification, please call the planning department at 408 blah blah blah blah. We're happy to answer your question.

I think that information, that would be on our website. I don't know that putting that in the zoning code is the right way.

If I may, I think in writing the zoning code, it should be written at a level of somewhat generality like as you're doing here. But suggesting that to get further information, you have to call because there's no other way to do it is not a good idea. Because then to a court, if this is ever challenged, it doesn't look objective. It looks like, hey, we just have a code that doesn't mean anything. That's not the intent.

So I think the consultants and Cindy in writing this are trying to strike a balance between making it clear what things are, but not having a very totally exhaustive list. Because whenever you have an exhaustive list of things that are covered, people always question, what about things that are like that? Does that mean that other things are not covered? And lots of court cases that cities have gotten embroiled in tend to ride on those kind of distinctions. So I think there is sort of an art to balancing a level of detail that's objective, but gives flexibility to the reviewing authority to grant or deny these permits.

So I think what I'm trying to say is that there's sort of it's a difficult balancing task. And by the way, it's also difficult for you and us and everybody to look at a whole new zoning code and figure, is this a good idea or not? Because unless you have specific ideas in mind, it's a mass of documents and that's true for planners and lawyers who look at it as well. So if you're feeling a little overwhelmed by getting this, you're not alone.

Okay. So what I think I'm hearing is just not make any changes to this section. Okay. And then in terms of the website, we are going to be developing a more user friendly website. We're going to be calling it an entitlement roadmap to help our applicants really understand what the processes are. And so we'll have that kind of information on that web page.

Okay. Maybe she's sending did we keep this? I'm sorry.

You're keeping the original Yes. Text. Okay. Wouldn't that conflict to what Andrew just said though?

I think

I can't speak for Andrew. You would have like a whole list of things that would be that would sort of talking about, like a whole inclusive list.

What I would say, it is a balancing. And I would say that actually the text that was there were it says including but not limited to and it gives some examples is a reasonable amount of examples. And it says including, but not limited to implying that clearly there are more. This is not an exclusive list. But we don't want to have a list of 40 examples. We don't want a list of we don't want one example. So I think this is actually a

good complement.

Looking for the resource, putting the resource there, like the code enforcement, is that a good idea, Andy?

I don't think so.

Contact the city or

No. I I don't think so.

But I

think having the website where all of that information is available, contact information is available, And maybe at some point, the staff will develop guidelines for certain kinds of permits, which is often done too. It's very helpful. Just the way we have design guidelines for single family, multifamily homes. If the city has such guidelines, and they're very useful.

So basically And they're not

in the zoning code itself. They're ancillary.

Basically, I have not limiting to. That's what I understood.

So we're leaving it alone. One moment.

Yes. We're not changing it. Okay. No. No.

He's saying this is good. This is just right.

I'm saying it's okay the way it is. It's not necessarily the only way it could be written, but it actually works.

So I think Cindy was also trying to obtain from the commissioners whether you think each of the examples, do you want to keep it or not? But it sounds like the consensus is just to keep all of the examples to be requiring permits. Yes.

So basically, that it will stay like that. Okay.

But not limited to.

Well, that's already in there. Okay.

All right.

So again, I just wanna make sure that we are providing you the information that you need to make, good decisions. And so what I'm hearing is is tell you what we want to hear from

you. Exactly.

Well, not tell you not tell you what your decision is, but tell you what we're looking for.

Yeah. I think, you know, it's just, you know, for someone I, you know, this is a all new to me. I've never been in, you know, zoning detail like this and, so it's like, okay, well, you know, and it's not like I took this line out, what do you think? You know, we can't go back and forth and see exactly, I mean, on this one you did, but but some of it is just we combined all this and stuff and so, okay, what is it that you want will would help direct, I think.

Okay. Anything else?

Just the references to the existing stuff.

Okay. That so if you let me see here. So let me just pull this up for example.

Yeah. Or like the three documents that we're combining into one. Right? That's all I was looking for.

So in your packet, you should have this where it shows, you know, you can find this information under the notice and public hearing section. You can find this information under the purpose and intent and so on down the line. So this is the existing code. This comment tells you where you can find it in the draft code.

This word document was part of our packet? Mhmm. With track changes?

It you know what? It was actually in the previous packet. So I can email these out to you. Cool. Yeah. Mhmm.

That would be

really helpful. Okay. Alright. Any other questions or comments? Okay. Do you want to talk about, future study sessions in terms of the second or the third Thursday of the month?

Ninety days of only thirty year consecutive.

I would love

to discuss that.

So, what was intended with the use of the word aggregate is, thirty days over three hundred and sixty five day, year. So, right now, if somebody wants to use their you do a temporary use, but they only want to do, you know, maybe five days here and ten days three months from now, are they limited by the language of consecutive days? So the aggregate days basically has kind of the same threshold, but it provides a little more flexibility to have multiple events throughout year.

Okay. Anything

else? All right.

No more questions, commissioners? All right. I'm going to open it to public comment. Arianna, any public speakers?

There are no speakers.

All right. Thank you. I'm going to go ahead and close public comment. And I don't think there is any action item for this, just to receive it.

Right. No formal actions. Perfect.

All right. Moving on to eight point zero, informational items, planning division staff approvals. Any questions on staff approvals? I see none. Planning division report.

Just want to wish all the commissioners happy holidays. We will see you in January.

You. City attorney report.

Yes. The assistant city attorney, I think, would make the same wishes. She's has a conflict this evening, but, she wishes her having happy holidays as well. Great.

Thanks. And right before I adjourn here, I want to congratulate Commissioner Kelly Ramirez here for being elected City Council. And we are sad to lose you on this dais, but we'll see you on the City Council.

Thank you.

It's been a pleasure to serve with you all.

And I was going to wish Joni Lewis here a happy retirement from planning, but she's staying on for a while. Very good. And with that, I'm going to adjourn our meeting today to our next meeting of 01/09/2025. I brought some sparkling cider, if you guys would like some.