Planning - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone. Thank you for coming to our planning commission meeting this evening starting a few minutes late at 06:34. We'd like to, do the pledge of allegiance and invocation. If everyone could stand, please.

Earl, would you like to give the invocation? Ready.

Begin. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God and indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Okay. I'll give everyone the invocation. Thank you, Lord, for letting us meet this evening. May we do the honorable justice in delivering good work this evening, having good deliberation, and keeping everyone safe, everyone safe at home, in our community, with our safety, police, and fire. And for everyone out there who's might be mourning our any great loss, We wish everybody well. Amen. Can we have a roll call, please?

Chair Roger Abreo absent. Vice Chair Sophie Stino. Here. Commissioner Del Burke.

Here.

Commissioner Earl Hodson.

Here.

Commissioner Timothy Ammon.

I think we'll postpone the reorganization of the planning commissioners until we have everyone here. Are there any agenda revisions and announcements please?

Sorry, Vice Chair we have to do a vote and we have to do a motion on it to continue I the

move to continue then. I'll second. Reorganization.

Is it allowing you to vote? Not yet. Nope.

We can do a verbal.

Okay.

Commissioner Burke?

Yes.

Commissioner Hudson?

Yes. Vice

Chair Estino?

Yes.

Commissioner Amin?

Yes.

Thank you. Motion passes four zero.

Thank you. Now may we have any revisions and agenda announcements?

Vice chair, we do. We have a couple of green sheet items on item five, six, and seven.

Thank you. We now move to the public comment section. Any person wishing to address the planning commission should complete a white card and hand it to the clerk. Comments are to be limited to three minutes and should only concern those topics within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. Any person who would like to comment upon an agenda item should reserve their comments until the public hearing or public comment period is called for that item. Please remember that the Planning Commission is prohibited from considering or taking action on any issue not previously noticed on the agenda. We now open the public comment period at 06:37. Do we have any white cards or anyone wishing to speak? I have

no white cards. Thank you.

We now move to the consent calendar. We'd like to split that up please in considering the minutes for June. Do I have a motion?

I'll make the motion. I'll second it.

All in favor? Aye.

Aye.

And I have to abstain. I was not at that meeting.

Aye.

Motion passes three one.

Thank you. Now move on to the consent calendar. Do I have a motion to approve the minutes from 08/14/2025? I make a motion to approve the draft minutes from the planning commissioner regular meeting on 08/14/2025. Do I have a second?

I'll second.

Call for the vote. All in favor say aye. Aye.

Any

opposed?

Motion passes four zero.

Thank you. Now we move on to public hearing number three, the appeal of APP 20 five-one and we have a staff report from Leilani Henry. Thank you.

Does it look like that on your end?

Does it look like that on your end?

No. Do you want to switch out the screen? Now we should be ready. Good evening, commissioners. Tonight, I present the adoption of resolution p c twenty twenty five ten denying appeal APP twenty five zero zero zero zero one and upholding the Development Review Committee's decision to adopt the Mitigated neck deck associated with the approval of the site plan review SPR230018, also known as the Bickmore Warehouse.

To begin, on April 23, the development review committee approved the site plan review along with an associated mitigated negative declaration. One week later, on April 30, Lisu Drury, on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility, submitted an application, APP2500001, to appeal the decision of the DRC to the Planning Commission. Before going into detail, I would like to first familiarize the commissioners with the project SBR twenty three zero zero zero one eight. It consists of two conjoining warehouses just shy of 80,000 square feet on 5.2 acres within the general industrial zone of the Main Street and Freeway Corridor specific plan. And it is located on the Southwest Corner Of Mojave And E Avenue.

Additionally, due to its size and significance, it was subject to an environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Here's the overall site plan which was approved. Now let's skip forward to the appeal, which suggests the medicated net declaration does not adequately analyze the project's impacts and request the preparation of an environmental impact report to analyze potential significant impacts on biological resources. A qualified CEQUA consultant prepared the initial study per CEQUA guidelines, which included concluded that all potentially significant environmental impacts from the project would be reduced to less than significant with the implementation of specific mitigation measures. As a result, a mitigated neg declaration was prepared for the project.

The document was released for a thirty day public review from 02/26/2025 to 03/31/2025. During the review period, a total of four comment letters were received, two of which were satisfied with the proposed mitigation measures. The third letter received was from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, which suggested additional measures. And the last letter from Lazu Drury requesting the preparation of an EIR. As you can see here, the mitigation measures and conditions were applied to the project to address all potentially significant environmental impacts that were identified in the initial study as well as the comment letter received from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, which included incidental take permit, a burrowing owl and nesting bird survey, as well as a stream bed alteration agreement.

With that said, the initial study and mitigated negative declaration were prepared and completed in compliance with the provisions and local and state guidelines. All potential impacts have been mitigated to less than significant, and the conditions of approval further protect the project's impact on biological resources. There is no substantial evidence to support the need for a preparation of an EIR, which is why it is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt resolution number PC twenty twenty five ten denying the appeal APP twenty five zero zero zero zero one and upholding the development reviews committee's decision to adopt the initial study along with the mitigated negative declaration for the project. That is the end of my presentation, and I am available for questions.

Do any commissioners have any questions of staff at this moment? Okay, then we'll move on to open the public hearing. Would anybody like to speak on this item? I have no white cards on item number three.

I do believe the applicant is here today.

Would the applicant like to come and address the Planning Commission? Seeing there are no public comments requests, we're closing the public

Oh, please

come to the podium. Can you come to the podium please? And when you're done, you finish out a white complete a white card so we have you on the officially registered as being in attendance. Thank you.

Sorry, I didn't realize the appellant was required to fill out speaker card, but I'll do that right after.

Thank you.

Good evening members. My name is Kyla Staley and I'm an attorney with the law firm Lozo Jury here on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility or SAFR. SAFR respectfully requests that the commission grant the appeal and refrain from approving the project at this time because the mitigated negative declaration or MND contains several deficiencies and there is substantial evidence that the project may have significant unmitigated impacts on biological resources, warranting and environmental impact report or EIR. In the staff report, city staff asserts that there's no need to prepare an EIR because there is no substantial evidence that indicates that one is needed. Under CEQA, an EIR must be prepared where there is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that a project may have a significant adverse effect on the environment.

SAFR's comments supported by two expert biologists, Doctor. Smallwood and Mr. Winchell, demonstrate just that. A fair argument that the project may have significant adverse impacts on biological resources. The city staff's disagreements with the findings made by SAFR's experts don't automatically render them insubstantial.

The findings made by Doctor. Smallwood and Mr. Winchell are based on direct observations of the project site made during wildlife surveys. To the extent that city staff disagrees with the results and the conclusions drawn from these surveys, there's no contrary evidence that the city staff can point to as they have not conducted wildlife surveys of their own. A wildlife survey conducted by Doctor.

Smallwood showed that the project site supports at least four special status wildlife species that were not analyzed in the MND, including the California Gull, California Horned Lark, American Kestrel, and Loggerhead Strike. Mr. Winchell's survey results also showed that the site has the potential to support the burrowing owl, another special status species, and a candidate for listing under the California Endangered Species Act. Based on survey results, Doctor. Smallwood concluded that the project may have significant unmitigated impacts on special status species that were not analyzed in the MND, including habitat loss and fragmentation, barriers to wildlife movement, and vehicle wildlife strikes.

The staff report does not respond to these findings. The MND also failed to analyze potentially significant impacts that it has adopted mitigation measures for, which include impacts to the burrowing owl, nesting birds, and an unnamed stream bed on the project site. But without any analysis the impacts to these biological resources, there's no way to assess the adequacy of these measures. And the same approach was taken for the project's potentially significant impacts on Western Joshua trees. The MND doesn't analyze the impacts to this special status plant, but rather skips over right into the gets right into the mitigation measures, which are far from adequate.

The MND provides that mitigation for the Western Joshua Tree will include an incidental take permit and a payment of a fee or otherwise be mitigated through off-site conservation measures. The doesn't demonstrate that obtaining a take permit or paying the fee will adequately mitigate the project's impacts. In fact, before a permit, a take permit can even be obtained, the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act requires that measures are taken to avoid and minimize impacts to the species. Neither the MND nor the staff report demonstrate that this has been done. Lastly, the MND's alternative commitment to off-site conservation is improperly deferred mitigation because it puts off uncertain mitigation measures until after project approval.

The result is that there's no way to assess how this measure will actually mitigate the project's impacts to Western Joshua trees. For these reasons and those stated in SAFR's written comments, SAFR respectfully again requests the Commission grant the appeal and direct city staff to repair an EIR so that the project's impacts on biological resources may be adequately considered. Thank you. Thank you.

Do we have anyone else wishing to make a public comment on this item? Seeing that there are no more people wanting to speak, we close the public comment on this item at 06:48. And we'll open it for commission discussion. Timothy? No.

Oh, I have a couple of comments. I just want to confirm even though I did read it in the binder that we were given that an ITP incidental take permit has been conditioned for the project, correct? Correct. And a biological study was done to analyze sensitive species?

The project was also conditioned and the mitigation measures included the burrowing owl survey that would be required prior to grounds disturbance as well as a nesting bird survey.

Correct. VICE BERG: we had a peer review?

VICE Correct.

Of the EIR? VICE The initial study. Right. VICE I also wanted to point out that I noticed that the landscape requirement for this project is 36,387 square feet. That's about 10 less square footage in the smallest warehouse on this project of two is 39,350 square feet.

So I think although not being a biologist or an environmentalist that this seems to be a very large area allowed for any danger to migrating, settling, birds flying, squirrels running, as, staff pointed out. As is typical, I noticed, we usually require a thirty day burning owl letter in this instance it was restricted to three days before land disturbance. So I think that's adequate mitigation was taken. I went through the CEQA document and found that in the biological analysis nothing was raised higher than a less than significant impact with mitigation. With regard to the comments by the public, I'd like to say that I think some of the items brought forward come into conflict with other state agency guidelines as with respect to the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act and should not necessarily be that fight should not be taken up in battle at every city or municipality where a project has Western Joshua trees.

I noticed that the CEQA document satisfied other state agency, tribal and local agencies' reviews as well as showing less than significant traffic and circulation air quality issues. Did I miss anything?

I believe you covered it. Okay.

So with that, unless we have any other comments, I call for a motion.

I'll move to adopt resolution number PC-twenty 20 five-ten, denying appeal APP25-one and upholding the Development Review Committees, DRC, approval of site plan review SPR 20 three-eighteen and adoption of the associated mitigated negative declaration.

I second. Call for the vote. All in favor say aye.

Aye. Any

opposed?

Motion passes four-zero. Thank you Vice Chair.

Thank you. Moving on to item number four, conditional use permit CUP 20 intended to parcel map TPM 20 four-three. Principal Planner Ryan Leonard will now give a staff report. Good evening, Ryan.

Good evening. Thank you. So the item before you tonight is a proposal for a conditional use permit to construct two warehouse buildings. Each building is approximately 75,894 square feet in size and is located on approximately 20.4 acres of vacant land. In conjunction with tonight's item, the applicant is also proposing a tentative parcel map to consolidate the five existing parcels into two new parcels, effectively bisecting the overall site.

And we'll explain that in just a minute. In addition, the Planning Commission will also be considering whether to adopt a mitigated negative declaration that was prepared for the project, and that is the environmental document that was prepared for this item tonight. As you can see, the project is located on the South Side Of Poplar Street and East of Highway 3 95. The zoning for the site is commercial industrial business park within the Main Street and Freeway Corridor specific plan. The CIBP zoning designation allows for these types of large industrial warehouse buildings.

As some of you recall, the Planning Commission over the past year or two has recently approved a number of very large industrial warehouse buildings. Immediately to the north of the site is an approximately 400,000 square foot industrial building. To the Northeast of the site is just over 1,000,000 square foot industrial building. And then to the northwest of the site is about 742,000 square foot industrial building. Those are all located on the North Side Of Poplar Street, immediately north of this site.

So this is an aerial of the site. As you can see, the site is vacant. Poplar Street, which runs east west, is located immediately to the north of the site. And then also Mesa Linda, which runs north south, is also located to the north of the site. The site is also located adjacent to the I-fifteen Freeway and it's located East Of Highway 395.

The four parcels that you see to the north, as I just mentioned, were all recently entitled with those large industrial warehouse buildings. Currently, they are all vacant. The building that you see on the west side of the project is an existing commercial industrial business park. That is where if you're familiar with it, the Oak Hills Brewery is located. And that's more of a newer commercial industrial business park that's located immediately to the west of the site.

And then to the south of the site is the Little Sisters truck wash. So this is a site plan that was prepared for the project. As I mentioned, the proposed project consists of the development of two warehouse buildings with each building totaling approximately 75,894 square feet. And then the site also includes the associated truck and trailer parking. The project is proposed to be constructed in two phases, with Phase one consisting of a warehouse building located on the western portion of the site.

As a part of Phase one, the entire street improvements for the overall 20 acre site will be constructed. Phase two would include the construction of Warehouse Building 2 on the eastern portion of the site. As you'll see in just a minute, each building is designed to be identical with an approximate 15,900 square foot three storey office component that will overlook just over a 50,000 square foot warehouse component in the building. As a part of the site improvements, an eight foot high decorative block wall will be constructed down the middle of the site. That will be located if you can see my mouse here, it will be located down here, effectively bisecting the two sites.

As I mentioned, there's also a parcel map that is proposed in conjunction with tonight's item. That will consolidate the five existing parcels into two new parcels. It will be Parcel one that accommodates Building 1 here. The boundary will be the new eight foot high wall and then you'll have Site 2 located to the east. The parking regulations require two zero eight conventional parking spaces and the project provides two sixty four conventional parking spaces.

The conventional parking spaces are located primarily in front of and then to the west of Building 1 and directly east of Building 2. In addition, each warehouse building includes 28 dock doors. The dock doors for Building 1 are located along the southern elevation, while the dock doors for Building 2 are located on the west elevation. Phase one provides 70 truck and trailer stalls and then 59 tractor stalls. Phase two provides 38 truck and trailer stalls and 51 tractor stalls.

In total, the project accommodates 108 truck and trailer stalls and 110 tractor stalls. To minimize the visual impacts from the freeway and the adjacent rights of way, the site will be enclosed by an eight foot high decorative screen wall around the entire perimeter of the site. In addition, there is a 30 foot wide landscape planner that will be located there's a 30 foot wide easement that will be landscaped, and that's located adjacent to the I-fifteen Freeway that will provide some additional screening. Primary access to the site will be provided by four driveway approaches, all located off Poplar Street. Each site will be served by two individual drive approaches.

The overall project will be responsible for the construction of curb gutter and sidewalk along the project frontages of 3 Flags Road, which is located immediately to the west of the site and then along Poplar Street, which is located immediately to the north of the site. Implementation of the project will also require the construction of certain off-site improvements, including a traffic signal at the intersection of Highway 395 and Poplar Street or the payment of fair share fees if that signal is constructed by others. With those conditions of approval, the project satisfies all the city's minimum development standards, including the parking regulations, landscape regulations. These are some of the elevations for the proposed project. As you can see, buildings will be concrete tilt up.

The buildings have been designed to incorporate a number of prominent glass and glazing features at the corners of the building along with the stone veneer accent wall, which I'll show in a little bit more detail in just a minute. On the north elevation, you'll see that I'm sorry, in addition to the buildings, they feature tower elements, accent panels, accent walls and of course the decorative windows that you see here. The building height will be approximately 41 feet. This is a color rendering of the site. This is the accent wall that I was describing.

You can see a little bit more detail here. In addition, as I mentioned, the commercial industrial business park that currently has the Oak Hills Brewery is located immediately to the west of the site. This design incorporates some of the same features as that adjacent development. Those circular features that you see at the top of the building kind of mimic what is has been done on the site to the west. In addition, the blue wanes or the blue trim that you see on the bottom and top of the buildings also mimics kind of the building that is to the west of the site as well.

So as a part of this project, the applicant did prepare a mitigated negative declaration. The MND was circulated for a thirty day public review period from June 18 to July 21. During the public review period, there were five comment letters that were received. And we received comment letters from the Mojave Water Agency, and they stated that they did not have any objections to the project. We did receive two comment letters from the firm of Lazu Jure, who is also here tonight.

In addition, they also provided another comment letter just prior to tonight's meeting, and that comment letter was provided to the commission prior to tonight's meeting. The comments that were raised effectively claim that the mitigated negative declaration is inadequate and that an EIR should be prepared for the project. A comment letter was also received from CDFW and they requested certain mitigation measures either be added or that existing mitigation measures be revised to ensure that proper protocols are in place for Joshua trees, the Mojave ground squirrel, brewing owls and nesting birds. The mitigation measures were all revised to incorporate CDFW's comments and those are reflected in the final mitigation monitoring and reporting program, which was included as an attachment to the staff report. And then lastly, a comment letter was also received from Caltrans in which they requested that certain intersections or additional analysis be performed in the mitigated negative declaration.

Formal responses to those Caltrans comments were provided in the response to comments. In many cases, the response to comments explain why some of that analysis was not necessarily required. And in many cases, was not required because the project was not anticipated to generate as many trips as were asserted in the Caltrans comment letter. So the MND that was prepared for this project determined that impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, traffic transportation, travel cultural resources, that those would all be less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated. The remaining CEQA topics were all found to be less than significant without mitigation.

As I mentioned, the mitigation monitoring reporting program was included as an attachment to the staff report and is available for review as well. And so with that, staff is recommending approval of this project. If the commission approves the project tonight, the commission will be approving the conditional use permit, the tentative parcel map and then adopting the mitigated negative declaration. All three of those findings are included within the adopting resolution tonight. And so with that, that concludes my presentation and I'm available for any questions.

Thank you, Ryan. Any other commissioners have any questions of staff?

Just one question, the traffic signal decision on that whether it's paid for or put in and installed, was that related to the letters that were received by Caltrans or is that something that was in planning?

No. Many of the projects in this within the street or this area have either been conditioned previously to construct that signal and or are conditioned for it currently. So all those industrial projects I mentioned to the north are conditioned for it. Projects in the past have been conditioned for it. Effectively, any trips that are generated from the project, it's very difficult to make a left hand turn from Poplar on to 395, especially with truck traffic coming from an idle and then merging onto oncoming traffic along the highway. So the signal is warranted for safety issues there as well.

Understood. Thanks.

We now open the public comment period. I have one white card request to speak form by a Kyla Staley from SAFR. Hello again.

Hello. Kyla Staley again for SAFR. SAFR respectfully request that the commission refrain from approving the project at this time due to the projects impacts on biological resources. Safers Wildlife Ecologist conducted a survey of the project site and based on his observations at the project site determined that the site supports at least four special status species including the red tailed hawk, American barn owl, American kestrel and California horned lark. SAFR's expert ecologist concluded that the project may result in significant impacts to these special status species including habitat loss, barriers to wildlife movement, and vehicle wildlife strikes.

SAFR's expert also noted that the biological consultant for the applicant failed to conduct the requisite surveys for burrowing owls as a candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act. These species require more thorough detection surveys to ensure that the species isn't harmed during the construction and operation of the project. For these reasons and those provided in SAFR's written comments, SAFR again respectfully request that the commission deny approval of the project and direct city staff to prepare an EIR. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comment cards or anyone wishing to speak on this item? Seeing no more comments, we'll close the comment period on this and move to commissioner comments and discussion.

Nothing from me.

Earl? Timothy?

Nothing from me.

Again, I thank you for your public comment. We'll have you please take note that the burrowing owl has always been something that the city has always conditioned to do a burrowing owl survey, as we do on all projects and we will continue to do so. That's a condition that has to be done prior to land disturbance. So if there are any burrowing owls found

on

the site, then no construction is allowed to begin, no disturbance of land. With regard to the other species, I can appreciate the beauty of them in our in and around our area. As I see them come on my property and off my property as they know no boundaries, particularly the birds that take flight. We love our natural species in the area. We feel that we have done the proper mitigation, gone through the proper resources for review and acceptance. And with those comments, I look to a motion.

I'll make the motion. Motion moved to adopt resolution number PC-twenty 20 five-fifteen approving CUP 20 two-sixteen and tentative parcel map number 20883, TPM 20 four-three and adopting a mitigated negative declaration.

I'll second. Call for the vote. Aye. In favor.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Anyone opposed?

Motion passes four-zero.

Thank you. Now we move on to agenda item number six, specific plan amendment SPLA 20 five-four. Staff will now give a review by not Leilani.

Chair, we're on item number five or I'm vice sorry.

You reading the wrong thing?

Development code amendment is DCA 20 five-three.

Page six seventy nine.

Development Code Amendment twenty-twenty five-three. Sorry, Edgar. Hi, Edgar. We will now remove Item Number five, Development Code Amendment DCA 20 five-three. Edgar Gonzalez give us a staff review.

Good evening, Vice Chair and Planning Commissioners. Alright. So today's item is a development code amendment. This is to modify the standards associated with the accessory dwelling unit ordinance. So again, a little bit of background.

We did receive as part of this amendment, we did receive a common letter from the Department of Housing and Community Development on 06/19/2025. There was six comments that we received. Most of those comments were incorporated as HCC required, but there was two comments that were not that were not incorporated and I'll go in detail of why. So comment number three. So instead of kinda going through the whole changes, I think there was minor changes that were done.

If you see it on exhibit a, there were some minor changes that don't really change any of the ordinance, mean, wording and maybe add additional details. So I won't go to every single detail. You could you could see it there on the green sheet exhibit a. But the I'm just kind of talking about the major ones that changed, which was HED comment number three. So as part of this comment that we received, HED is increasing the allowed number of detached ADUs on multifamily lots up to eight for existing and two for proposed multifamily dwellings.

So our current code only allows two detached dwelling units for multifamily lots as of now. So as part of this ordinance, because it's it's clearly stated as being a state law, we added we're adding this section on an ordinance but kind of specifying that within an existing multifamily development and the keywords existing there up to a maximum of eight detached ADUs may be constructed or provided not a total of or not the provide not the total of number of ADU does not exceed the total of existing units on the loss of saying that you could you have you're allowed to have eight detached dwelling units, but you cannot exceed the number of total units existing on the loss. So an existing project that has eight units, I mean, you're not only allowed to do eight units. If it has seven, only the total number will be only seven. The second adoption to that ordinance, which is developed on the bottom, the keyword again is proposed as existing versus proposed.

So within this section, again, multifamily developments up to a maximum of two detached dwelling units may be constructed. So if it's proposed, if it's a new proposed multifamily, they're only allowed to have two. If it's an existing and they come in to propose ADUs, they're allowed for maximum of a detached. Again, not exceeding the number of existing dwelling units. So this is kind of a big item that will be our AD owners will be amended to to include this item, again, to be complying with state law.

The two the other section as part of this comment number three is added on Subdivision D 12 on the Exhibit A. We pretty much states that unless prohibited by state law government code section 66,310 to 66,342 and ADU should not cover, convert the required parking for an existing or proposed multifamily dwelling within an enclosed garage carport without the concurrent replacement of an existing required parking elsewhere on the property in accordance with the size, placement and the signs standards development code. So this is pretty much saying that if you're if they're converting the existing required parking, if they if they're converting the garage or a carport that's required for multifamily, they need to provide that that require parking somewhere else on-site. So if it's converted as a part of the ADU, they need to provide that somewhere on-site. This is also consistent with our recently amended ADU which was I think done this year for the ADU which again stays the same thing.

If you're converting the garage for a gen ADU, you need to provide that somewhere on-site. And again, this is not specifically restricting parking for ADUs. It's it's pretty much saying that you need to provide the required parking for the existing development on-site either. Again, GNRDU for single family, in this case, would be for multifamily development. So again, that was the major comment that will be incorporated.

Comment number two and five, so we're kinda objecting to that comment. So this comment from HD HD came along with along with three types of ADUs in single family dwelling. So what they're we're saying is that you're allowed to have or the city should amend the ordinance to have a conversion of an ADU, a detached ADU, and a junior ADU. The current code only allows two types, which is a conversion of an ADU or a detached ADU and a junior ADU. So based on on the government code section six three twenty three a, the what they're interpreting as a word any for them is kinda meaning all.

Instead of any, they're saying that all of them require what we're The word any doesn't mean doesn't mean all. So under this code section, the city kind of specifies the ministerial approving application to create any of the following. So it doesn't say all, says any. It does not say any it does it it does not say a final item indicated that that it says all the following nor does it say one or more of the following nor does it say and. So so after that final item, it's indicated that the list is inclusive.

So applicants are entitled to ministerial approval for only one accessory dwelling unit and one junior accessory dwelling unit per single family. So again, section eight two specifically allows an ADU under a subsection to be combined with a June ADU under a one, but not an additional ADU, which limits the applicants to one ADU and one junior ADU. So we're kinda saying again that going back to the word any does not does not our interpretation is not that is all. So we're still keeping the same requirement of two types of ADUs that are allowed. Comment number five from HUD mentions that the removal of maximum size restriction for the conversion of ADUs with single family dwellings and detached ADUs within multifamily dwelling units.

So so they're saying that they're removing the existing restrictions on the size limitations. So there won't be any size limitations for, again, the conversions of ADU under single family and detached ADU under multifamily. Our current code allows the maximum size of 1,200 square feet for the conversion ADU as well as the detached ADUs for multifamily. So again, we're now removing the maximum size requirement of the 1,200 square feet. We're adding subset Subdivision D 13 on that exhibit 13, which is, again, says, notwithstanding any provision on this section, 16.12 through 60, the city should administer the approving application for June ADU or one or more ADUs if the proposed unit meets the requirements of the government code section six six six six three twenty three.

So so now remove the maximum size restriction. The city is adding a new subsection which is this section, which, again, this the reflection of the city intent to ministerially approve ADUs is meeting the requirement of government code section, again, six six two 23. Under this section, there's also a, I guess, underlying section that says that that that you could cities could limit ADUs to a maximum of 800 square feet. Our ADU right now is limiting them to 1,200 square feet, which in a way is less restrictive than what the state is saying under that section. So pretty much that section that we're adding is saying that we're we're still we're still being compliant with us that requirement that HED is bringing on, but we're saying that under that section as well, there's a requirement that HED is saying that you could have 800 square feet, but our requirement is 1,200 square feet, which is less restrictive than that.

So in a way, we're compliant it, but we're still keeping that restriction of the size limitation. So with that said, the plan again, establish recommend that the Planning Commission adopt resolution PC twenty twenty five dash 12, recommend that the city council introduce and place some first reading and ordinance approving development code amendment DCA 20 five-three. And I'm available for any questions.

No question. No,

I No. I have a question. Has there been much request for ADUs in multifamily projects right now, existing Malta?

As of now, we there's been I've been talking to an applicant about an a d a potential a d u for multifamily, but I I believe we haven't received a request yet for any type of multifamily. An official request for an application. It's all been through a d u's for single family homes.

Right. And the code 66323, refresh my memory. What's that about? It meets code 66323?

Yeah. So that code section is a government code section on the planning and owning laws that kind of specify different restriction. And going back to what kinda what I was saying about their interpretation of three ADUs, it mentions there were any instead of all. So our interpretation, again, is that you only allowed two, a junior ADU and an ADU or a junior ADU and an ADU with your conversion or a detached for that. There's always kind of regulations about the size requirement, but again, the cities has adopted their own ADU ordinance to instead of 800 square feet allow, again, ADUs to a maximum of 1,200 square feet.

And has this been given back our proposed changes to the state? Have they

No. So as part of this kind of process that we're going with the ordinance, once we go through, again, the planning commission, eventually the city council, then once this everything's adopted, again, any changes that might have to be made on the ADU ordinance, this will be provided final copy will be provided to the state saying that we had a we have adopted their their I guess, anyway, comments and requirements that they put into the city. And then we can have a conversation to see if, again, if they do agree with all these comments or if they do have an additional comment later based on these modifications.

Great. Thank you. Do I have a motion?

Sure. I'll make a motion. Move to adopt resolution number PC twenty twenty five-ten PC twenty twenty five-twelve recommending that the City Council introduce and place on first reading an ordinance approving DCA twenty five zero zero zero zero three modifying development standards associated with accessory dwelling units, ADUs and junior accessory dwelling units, junior ADUs. Specific plan amendment SPLA. No, That is six. Sorry.

That's my motion. I second. Do I have a call for the vote?

Oh, you got a second? You second Tim?

I second.

You second. Sophie second.

All in favor say yes? Aye. Aye. Aye. Thank

you. Motion passes four zero.

Moving on to specific plan amendment now, we move on to SPLA 20 five-four which we have Leilani. Thank you for a report.

Commissioners. Tonight, I bring to you resolution p c twenty twenty five eleven recommending the council place specific plan amendment SBLA twenty five zero zero zero four on for first reading. The proposed specific plan amendment pertains only to the commercial industrial business park zone of the Main Street and Freeway Corridor specific plan, which is shown on this map in the dark purple. As you can see, a majority of the zone is located West of Interstate 15, while there is a small portion which is located along I Avenue and Smoke Tree just North of Main Street. Tonight, staff is proposing an amendment to the development standards which would remove the exception to building height which allows the potential for buildings to be as high as a 150 feet.

Additionally, staff is recommending an increase to the overall maximum building heights allowed in the the CIBP zone. Staff began research by analyzing building height restrictions within surrounding zones, including adjacent San Bernardino County zones. Data showed that the maximum building height for residential zones is 35 feet, while commercial and industrial zones range from 35 to 75 feet. Staff also considered the increase of industrial projects West Of The 15, such as Hesperia Commerce Center one and two, Kiss Logistics, and Newcastle, to name a few. Of these active projects, the maximum proposed building height was 51 feet with an average of 47 feet compared to the zone's current height limit of 60 feet or the exception which allows up to a 150 feet which is set by increments with setback increases.

As you can see on this chart, the exception leaves potential for buildings that are significantly larger than those surrounding developments and zones. With all this in mind, staff is recommending that the maximum building height exception be removed from the development standards and that the maximum building height within the CIBP zone be set at 65. In conclusion, the specific plan amendment, SBLA twenty five zero zero zero four establishes clear and consistent building height standards within the CIBP zone. Additionally, and ensures compatibility while preventing future developments from significantly exceeding the scale of existing and anticipated projects. Lastly, this amendment supports the city's for balanced growth while maintaining flexibility necessary to support industrial options.

With that said, that is why tonight I am suggesting the planning commission adopt resolution PC twenty twenty five eleven recommending the city council place on first reading an ordinance approving specific plan amendment SBLA twenty five zero zero zero four. That is the end of my presentation, and I'm available for questions.

Anyone have any questions of staff? No.

One question. So currently in that area there, they could build without this building up to a 150 feet potentially on a decent sized property?

Correct.

Well, I would definitely take the view of the mountains away for a lot of people. All right, thank you.

Seeing no more comments, do we have a motion?

I'll make the motion. Move to adopt resolution number PC twenty twenty five-eleven recommending that the city council introduce and place on first reading an ordinance approving SPLA 20 five -four.

Do I have a second? I'll second. Call for the vote. All in favor say aye. Aye.

Aye.

None of those.

Motion passes four-zero.

Great, thank you. Moving on to item number seven, draft objective design standards for multifamily and mixed use developments. Staff report given by Ryan Leonard, Principal Planner. Hi, Ryan.

Hi, thank you. Give me just one second. Let me pull this up real quick. Alrighty. So as you recall last month, we had a fairly detailed workshop where we went through each chapter of the objective design standards.

Tonight, I'm not gonna go through that level of specificity and that level of detail. I'm not going to go through each chapter again. Really, I'm just kind giving a broad overview of why these objective design standards are important and how they're going be applied here in the city. I just want to make sure everyone understands what the objective design standards are. If you have any questions about any of the individual chapters, any of the development standards, we can certainly go over those.

But I'm really just kind of talking about big picture type stuff here. I also want to mention, I'll also be talking about the municipal code changes that we are required to make in order for the objective design standards to become effective. So the main purpose of the objective design standards is to provide the city with clear and measurable design standards for multifamily and mixed use development projects. These standards ensure that we comply with state housing laws, which now require that many projects be reviewed and approved ministerially, which essentially means that they are approved at a staff level without a public hearing. As a part of that ministerial review, the state law only allows cities to impose objective design standards, and cities are restricted from applying design guidelines, if you will.

Within our existing municipal code, we currently have design guidelines, which use terms like should or encourage, but those are not considered objective design guidelines. The purpose of the objective design standards is that we created we tried to mirror many of the standards that we have in place in the existing design guidelines. We try to keep it consistent, but they are now enforceable requirements. They're measurable and quantifiable requirements that an applicant can demonstrate whether they complied with or not. So it essentially takes out that element of subjectivity.

And then ultimately, I think one of the key objectives with the objective design standards is that it gives developers predictable and easy to interpret requirements and provides a level of certainty for staff to also review their project against those development So historically here in the city, we have gone through a discretionary review process for multifamily development projects. And that typically consists of a site plan review that's reviewed and approved at a notice public hearing at the DRC level. In some cases, the site plan review application may be referred to the Planning Commission if there is significant opposition that's raised. Those cases are pretty rare, but we did have an instance a couple of months ago where we had a number of people who had voiced concerns over an apartment project, and that was referred the Planning Commission for your determination. Over the past year or several years, the state has enacted several housing bills that aimed at increasing housing production.

These laws require that multi family projects be reviewed ministerially, as I mentioned, and that is without a discretionary review and without a public hearing. In addition, the state law only allows cities to use those objective design standards, as I mentioned, and cities are restricted from using design guidelines, which we currently have in place in our municipal code. So the objective design centers are a requirement under state law. And then also, they are a requirement within our housing element. So Program 14 and Program 22 in the city's housing element essentially promised to the state that we would adopt objective design standards.

And then lastly, you'll see tonight that many of the municipal code changes are necessary in order to incorporate the changes that we made as a part of the general plan update that was just recently adopted a couple of months ago. If you recall, as a part of that general plan update, we increased the density across three different zoning designations that included the regional commercial zone along the freeway corridor, the C2 zone along Bear Valley Road as well as the R3 zone, which is primarily located along Sequoia Street in the northern section of the city. And we essentially increased the density to 30 units an acre for those three zoning designations. Within the two commercial zoning designations, mixed use would also be an eligible project type. In order for us to effectively implement that, we have to modify some of our standards in the municipal code to reflect those increased densities and allowable uses.

So some of the key features of the ODS is that we drafted it as a standalone document, meaning that it is referenced in our municipal code, and that's why we're required to make a number of municipal code changes. And that means it will be a separate stand alone document that is outside of the municipal code. However, it's an enforceable document, and it's referenced throughout the municipal code. It will be available on the city's website. It will be essentially next to and in line with the municipal code.

It's just a separate stand alone document. The ODS addresses all of the major elements of the project design, including site planning, open space, building massing and scale, architectural details, utilities and lighting and development standards for mixed use developments. As I mentioned last at our last meeting, we went through the eight chapters of the objective design standards, and we went through kind of in detail. I'm not necessarily going to go through each one of those chapters. But one thing I did want to touch upon is a number of comments that Commissioner Stino raised at the last meeting.

We attempted to address all of your comments. And so some of the changes that we made to the objective design standards are that we removed the fire pits that you had mentioned. So those are now removed from the objective design standards. We did add a new open space or common open space requirement. So an option now is a dog park or a dog run that includes some permanent seating and shade structures within that dog park, but that is now an allowable type of facility. So we replaced the fire pits with a dog run. We also added additions to the primary colors. If you recall, we previously limited it to three primary colors. That was increased to four. So we did increase the primary colors.

And then we clarified the pedestrian path of travel so that I think there were some questions about whether or not that could be incorporated into the asphalt parking lot. We did clarify that. We also clarified the section about the driveway approach being not being asphalt, so that we clarified that, that is strictly within the right of way. And then on-site, you can have the stamped concrete and then asphalt on-site. But by and large, I think we tried to address as many of your comments as we could.

And then lastly, one important tool that we added for the objective design standards is what is called a compliance checklist. So applicants, when they submit an application for multifamily or mixed use development, will also submit the checklist as a part of their application. The checklist contains each one of the development standards or design requirements, and they will state whether or not they comply with it or whether they don't. And then staff will review that project against the checklist. One of the other key things that we added to the objective design standards is an opt out provision.

So if a developer prefers, they can choose to not use the ODS. And instead, they would rely on the city's existing design guidelines that we currently have in place. However, if they were to do that, they would not be eligible for that ministerial review that I mentioned, and their project would be subject to a public hearing. And as the project otherwise doesn't comply with city requirements, it would also be potentially subject to a well, would be subject to a public hearing, but it could be subject to a denial if it doesn't comply with certain requirements. The intent of the opt out provision is really to provide some flexibility to applicants.

However, I do want to point out that if an applicant were to choose not to apply the ODS and they wanted to rely on the city's existing design guidelines, they're going to be they're going to kind of match. It's not like those standards are going be drastically different, if you will. As I mentioned, we really tried to base the objective design standards on the city's existing design guidelines. So if one were to opt out of the objective design standards, they would be subject to the city's existing design guidelines, which by and large should generally match some of those requirements that are in the objective design standards. So some of the municipal code amendments that are incorporated or that are proposed here tonight are adding clarifying language that multifamily projects with three or more units can now be approved ministerially as long as they comply with the objective design standards.

We updated the R3 zoning standards to reflect the increased densities that were adopted in the recent general plan update. And so we and we also increased the maximum building height from 35 to 45 feet. As I mentioned, in the R3 zone, the general plan update already allows for densities to go from 15 to 30 units an acre. And so we just reflected that in the city's design or development standards. In the C2 zone, multifamily and mixed use projects are added to the allowable uses, and the density is up to 30 units an acre, which was already approved as a part of the general plan update.

Also, in compliance with state law, group homes of six residents or more will also be permitted. This is consistent I'm sorry, group homes of up to six residents will be permitted. Seven or more would be subject to a CUP, and that is in compliance with state law. And then lastly, the Main Street and Freeway Corridor specific plan for the RC Zone. The multifamily and mixed use projects will be allowed with densities of up to 30 units an acre.

And they will be allowed it'll also allow up to 100% residential uses of up to 30 units an acre. And those uses would be allowed on the East Side Of The 15 Freeway as a by right development. On the West side of the freeway, South Of El Centro, it would be subject to a CUP. As we discussed in our when we did our general plan update, North Of El Centro on the West side of the freeway, so that's in and around the Target shopping center, that area is not eligible for mixed use or multifamily. It's only on the East side of the freeway and or South Of El Centro.

And then overall, the changes to the municipal code are necessary to reflect the densities that are were already adopted in our general plan update, as I mentioned. So the objective design standards are really a critical tool for the city moving forward. They hopefully will provide very clear and enforceable development standards and help streamline the review process for developers. They also ensure that the city remains compliant with state housing laws and that we are able to satisfy some of the programs and requirements that we have already in our existing housing element. For this item, the Planning Commission is a recommending body tonight.

This item does have to go to the City Council for final approval. And so with that, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the adoption of the objective design standards as well as the adoption of the development code amendment and specific plan amendment to reflect those changes to incorporate the ODS as a standalone document. And so with that, I'm available for any questions. If you want to go over any details of the objective design standards, we can do that as well.

And do we have any comments or questions for staff?

How many hours do you have into this?

Well, we started this with a general plan update. And so this has been about a year and a half process. Our general plan update included six workshops, believe, multiple public hearings. The objective design standards with all the changes to the municipal code and going through and kind of once you change something, it affects something else in the municipal code and it affects something else. So we put in quite a bit of work and a lot of hours honestly for the entire general plan update and objective design standards.

Thank you for putting in all the effort and then also considering our suggestions. I do appreciate that.

Just one question on that slide that was before the, changing of 100% yep, right there, 100% residential use on that East Side Of The 15 in the RC zone.

Yes.

To

the RC zone here density, allow 100% residential East Of The I-fifteen. What's the purpose of just changing this here and not rezoning it out of the RC zoning?

We essentially rezoned it already. So when we did the general plan update, we didn't give it a new zoning designation. We our general plan land use map includes the allowable densities. It's a combined zoning map and general plan land use map. So when you look at our general plan land use map, it will specify the permitted density within that zoning designation. What we essentially did was we added 30 units an acre as a part of the permitted density to that existing zoning, but we didn't have to give it a new zoning category. So we didn't take those properties in the RC zone that would qualify for mixed use. We didn't give them a new zoning classification of whatever mixed use or something like that. We kept it all as regional commercial, but we just added those allowable uses now.

Okay. Thank you.

Great work and done in a record amount of time, I should say as well. So why was there a placeholder on Exhibit on page seven ninety two for the pallet yard placeholder?

You know what? We'll have to fix that. That was a placeholder because we did a recent development code amendment that restricted pallet yards within the essentially within across the city and within those industrial designations. The table that we took the municipal code amendment takes a couple of months for it to be reflected on our website and within that. So it was a placeholder as a reminder that we needed to manually put that in that table to reflect that recent development code amendment. So we'll add that.

So they're not allowed anymore, right?

They're not. That's already been adopted. It just takes a couple months for that website server, like whoever maintains our municipal code. Right. Have to update it. It takes couple of months.

Sure. Okay. Well, as I wrongly forgot to open public comment on the last item, I'll do that on this item. We're opening up public comment on this item number seven at 07:42. Any white cards or?

I have no white cards, Vice Chair.

Okay. Seeing there no one wishing to comment, we'll close the public comment period And move on to any further discussion or a motion, please.

I'll make the motion, I guess.

Okay.

There we go. Alright. Yeah. So I'll move to adopt resolution number p c dash two zero two five dash one three recommending that the city council, one, adopt objective design standards, ODS, for multifamily and mixed use residential projects. And two, approve a development code amendment, DCA 25 dash zero zero zero two and specific plan amendment SPLA 25 dash zero zero zero zero two incorporating the ODS into the Asperia Municipal Code and the Main Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan MSFCSP.

Second. Call Second. For the vote. All in favor say yay. Yea. Yea. Yea. Whatever I was supposed to say. None opposed.

Motion passes four-zero. Thank you.

Do we have planning division reports by Ryan Leonard?

Thank you. I do not have any updates for tonight.

Thank you. And visiting attorney welcome.

You. Thank you. For those I did not meet before the meeting, I'm Bethany Burgess, and I will be substituting in until your regular assistant city attorney is back. Nice to meet you. No other report.

Thank you. And a director report from Nathan Freeman.

Good evening commissioners. I want to thank everybody for their time this evening. Want to especially recognize Ryan and his planning staff. This was a very large agenda tonight as evidenced by the almost 700 pages that you received. Ryan and his staff did an incredible job getting this agenda ready. As always, Ryan, his staff, myself, we want to put you in the best possible position to make the best decisions you can on behalf of this community. So again, thank you for your time this evening. Thank you for your service and kudos to staff for a wonderful job.

Planning Commission comments. Let's start with you, Timothy.

Okay, I'll start. Yes, thank you everybody staff for putting this all together. A lot of work goes into this. I printed out about that much paperwork myself over the past week. So doing this this much and making sure it's all in order, I know that's a lot of work. Hope everybody stays safe out there this week until we see each other again. A lot going on in our communities. Let's hold each other close, keep each other safe, and keep the town going. Thank you.

Same. Staff did an excellent job. I really appreciate when I don't have to really think about it. It just kind of flows through us. It was nice to be able to, sit here and listen and understand everything you guys were talking about and making it very easy on decisions. Thank you.

I don't want to jam anybody up, but, just curious about if there's any new news on Aqueduct Crossing at Ranchero. Is are we still I don't know who would have that information. Maybe Cliff notes. It

doesn't If you'd like, I can ask the engineering division to provide an update to the Planning Commission at our next regularly scheduled meeting.

Okay. That'd be great. Yeah. Thank you. I think there's a lot of a lot of people asking about when when that's gonna fire back up.

Yeah. I I know there are plans in the works. I don't wanna represent what another division is working on, but I'd be happy to ask them to come and report out.

That'd be great. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Well, it's nice to be here again and kudos to staff again. Stellar performance, hard work really shows and it's wonderful that you all work together and for our consultants who have helped the city so much. We appreciate all of your work all of the time.

I did attend an American Planning Association training session. It's very informative. A lot of refresher on the Brown Act, what constitutes a meeting, what's not a meeting, our behavior on social media as planning commissioners, some updates to state laws, which Ryan and Nathan keep us abreast regularly on. Just wanna hope everyone can take advantage of the upcoming Hesperia days. It's gonna be fun.

It's one of our great moments to see our parade in motion. And everyone keep safe, and thank you for coming as always, the regulars who attend the meeting and online. And until we meet each other again at our next meeting, 10/09/2025, we close the meeting at 07:52. Thank you.