Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone. Thank you for your patience and some technical difficulties. I'm Eva, the planning manager. I'm gonna call this meeting to order as we do not currently till we have a chair, and it can just be by a majority motion.

Alright. For those of you just joining on, I'm Holy Rodriguez, but I called this meeting to order. It is, 06:06 in the meetings to order. So Oh, can the staff please, call the roll?

Commissioner Damien Perez?

Present.

Commissioner Julio Rodriguez?

Present.

Commissioner Steven Belong?

Present.

For the record, chair Carlo Torres de Luna and vice chair Perez Peter Hernandez are not currently here.

Can commissioner Steve Long, please lead us on the pledge of allegiance?

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

Okay. This is the time for anyone in the audience to speak on any item, not on the agenda and within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission. Speaker cards are available in the lobby and are to be completed and given to staff before speaking. When the commission secretary calls your name, please come to the podium. State your name and city for the record. And please, and speak, speak to the commission. If if you're joining us by Zoom, please, click on the bottom of your screen and raise your hand. If you're joining us by,

join us

By Zoom using a cell phone, please press 9. Each speaker will be limited to three minutes with a maximum of thirty, minutes per subject. Please note that state law prohibits the commission from discussing or taking action on any item not on the agenda. Staff per that's it.

Okay. Yeah. And, Miriam, do we have any speakers?

We do not have any speakers for this item.

Okay. Consent agenda. Do we have any questions from the commission on items on the consent agenda, or are there any items that the commission would like to pull for further discussion?

None for me.

Okay. Staff, do we have any public comments on items from the consent agenda?

We do not have any public speakers on this item either.

Okay. Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda?

Motion. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay. So it looks like we are at agenda item 6.1, site and architectural review, 02/2014 to construct a three shell industrial warehouse of a 1,200 square foot, 1,400 square foot, and 600 square foot at 1850 Airway Drive in 1791 Aerostar Way. Can we have the staff report then?

Good evening.

Can we have the presentation, please?

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Magda Gonzales. I'm presenting site site and architectural review twenty twenty four dash four. The applicant is Troy Fink with SONIO Incorporated. Thank you.

The project is located at 1850 Airway Drive and 1791 Air Aerostar Drive within the Industrial Business Park zoning district. It is mostly surrounded by vacant properties, although there are some developed properties. As you can see on the map, the there's a San Bernardino County Jail, a juvenile hall, but as I stated, most of them are vacant. The applicant is requesting approval of site architectural review, to construct three shell warehouses with varying sizes. One is, 16,000 square feet, 14,000 square feet, and 12,000 square feet respectively, a 105 parking spaces, six ADA parking spaces, two loading spaces, one bicycle space, and landscaping.

The hours of operation for the shower has not been established since we do not have the tenants identified yet. However, as per the conditions of approval, they will be required to submit an administrative permit review just so we, can ensure that the the user proposing is adequate for this project. Next slide, please. This is, like, the site plan showing that it's, both accessible via Aerostar and Aerostar Airway, Drive. It provides adequate parking.

It shows the location of the loading zones, the buildings as well. It will have, 35 foot landscaping on both street sides as well. Next slide, please. And here are the elevations of the warehouses. They will all have the same color scheme and designs. This is the east side fronting the street on Airway Drive. Next slide, please. And Aerostar. Next slide, please. The project has been analyzed, and it is both compliant with the general plan and the zoning district, which requires a site and architectural review application to be reviewed for the new construction in this area.

Next slide, please. The project is also exempt from CEQA guidelines sub guidelines subject to section one five three three two class two, which is infill development projects. Next slide, please. The planning commission can choose one of the following options. The first one is to adopt a resolution approving SNA 2022 dash 14 subject to the findings and conditions contained in the draft resolution.

Option number two is to adopt a resolution approving SNA '20 24 I'm sorry, 2022 dash 14 with findings or conditions of approval modified by the planning commission. Option three is to deny the project, or option number four is to continue the hearing and direct staff to provide additional information. Staff recommends option number one. And that concludes my presentation. I'm available for questions.

Thank you. Do we have any questions from the commission?

I do not.

I I just have one question. Who were the I know we're the lead agency. What other agencies no other agencies was notified or involved in this, decision? Not decision. But All

projects are, sent to the DRC to the development review committee, which consists of building, engineering, public works, utilities. Yeah. There's a number of different agencies that review the

Okay. Only question or concern that I had was just I I do see the like, I guess I want the record to reflect that my only observation was I do see it's really close to the the San Bernardino County Jail. I didn't know if there were any other outside agency comments. Or

We do not receive any. We do send notifications Okay. But we didn't receive any feedback.

Okay. That was just my question. Okay. I will now open up to public comment, 06:16.

We do not have any public comments at this time.

Any the applicant here, do they wish to say a few words?

Or Yes. He is here. Okay. Or I think.

Do they wish to say a few words?

That's your way through to, operating the project. It was initially Yes. Back in If

you could come up to the podium. That way, the record, we can

For the rep for the record, the applicant is Joy Joy, Fink.

Yes. My name is Troy Fink. I would just, hope that you guys can see your way through to approving the project. It was initially permitted back in 2008 and was put on hold due to economic reasons, and it's just basically bringing it back for preapproval and hopefully get some development going.

Okay. Awesome. Thank you. I just had one final question Yes. On the the color scheme. Was that the color that was blue, was that the same color as, like, the Amazon blue, or is that gonna be different

It's more like a turquoise blue.

Okay. No. It's just Okay. Colors. Okay.

We don't have any public comments on this item, so I'll go ahead and close public comment at 06:17. Do I have a motion?

I'll make a motion to adopt resolution s s and a twenty twenty two dash 14. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Aye. K. Motion carries.

Thank thank you.

Okay. 7.1 review proposed phase three zoning ordinance amendment language of City Of Hollister zoning ordinance. May we have the staff report, please?

We have the this is the same PowerPoint?

Good evening. This is the fourth and final study session for phase three, which is the revisions to the permitting sections of the zoning ordinance or for the bulk of them, it's chapter 17.2. Tonight, we have several that we're gonna go over tonight, and I'll go over each of these in detail, but we do have quite a few to finish out phase three. Chapter 17 o two, which is obviously not in the rest of the permitting section, but this chapter within the zoning ordinance right now does include some procedures. Some of them are proposed to be removed and put in the appropriate section of zoning ordinance such as our new zoning ordinance amendment chapter.

The procedure for that is in 17 o two, but no significant changes are proposed. Most of what is in there now either got relocated to where most appropriately belonged or we've grouped it together better within this chapter. Chapter 17 o three is a new chapter. I've pulled out the information regarding each of the zoning districts as well as the role of the zoning map from 17 o two and gave it its own chapter so that they're grouped together in the in one in one location. This chapter though is different in the sense that with the housing element update and the general plan update, our zoning categories will be modified slightly, the density changes.

And so those changes are now reflected in the draft that you have before you. It mirrors what we have in the housing element general plan that you will hopefully be looking at next month. Sick sections 16.4408 is new. This is exist this section is currently located within the zoning ordinance, but it relates to lot line adjustments. Lot line adjustments are regulated under the subdivision map act.

And so we are proposing to take it out of the zoning ordinance and place it into the subdivision ordinance so that it is with consistent with where our other requirements are for tentative maps and parcel maps. Minor adjustments are recommended for this chapter. Right now, it says that lot line adjustments are reviewed by the community development director and directs people to apply with the, planning department. But those are actually applied for from the building division or from the engineering division, and then the city engineer reviews them. So we've corrected that language to comply with current practices.

Chapter 17.98 is sign permits, and this is a new chapter for the zoning ordinance. Currently right now, the requirements for sign permits can be found in the sign ordinance, but they are scattered throughout as the different sign types are. And it's a little confusing along with our goal, which is to make everything easy to understand and to determine what type of permit you need. We've created a new sign chapter that goes over the permits, the different types of sign permits that the city requires as well as what the procedures are. So currently right now, the types of signs that require permit are temporary banners, downtown a frame signs, wall awning pedestrian signs, creative signs, a master sign plan, and monument signs.

And we're not changing any of that in the sense that we're not adding any permit types or requiring additional regulations for signs. We are however recommending that the monument sign requirement be changed. So right now, any monument sign, regardless of the height, requires planning commission review. So that tends to make the process take a little bit longer. I think you recall, we just took one for polar services and it's a wall sign and they had a five foot tall monument sign, and so they required planning commission review.

So staff is recommending that we make it a little easier on businesses in the sense that if the monument sign is less than six feet, they would just require staff level review. And then if they go over six feet, they would require planning commission review. Those signs tend to have greater visual impacts than the low monument signs. Try this again. There you go.

Chapter 17.102 is the new variances chapter. Variances are a permit that seek to ensure that a property owner whose property is different from the properties in the area is able to develop their properties similar to the property owners in the area. So an example would be if I have a very irregularly shaped lot with a high angle at one area, to require a 20 foot setback may be an imposition on them due to the shape of that lot. And so a variance could be requested to change that setback to allow them to add onto their house or whatever they wanted to do due to the, one half, they would have such a large setback. Variances though are only granted for structures, they are not granted for uses.

The requirements for variances do come out of the government code. So most of the regulations are rooted in state law. With this chapter, we're not proposing any significant changes. It's just a cleanup, make the language a little bit easier to understand. Of course, put in our, this is how you obtain a permit requirements, and we checked it to ensure that it was consistent with the requirements in the government code.

And for variances, the planning commission is actually a reviewing body for these. Chapter 17.104 is also a new chapter. This relates to ministerial review. And the city is required to have ministerial review, which means that it is a staff level project. There is a little overview that we have on the project.

They have to conform to the they have to conform to specific requirements, such as if the objective design standards are adopted, they would have to conform to that as well as obviously the development standards of the municipal code. But the state has required that there are several projects that are to be considered ministerial review, and those projects are things such as supportive services, including emergency shelters and low low barrier navigation centers, s b four, which is 100% affordable projects on lands owned by a religious or educational institution, a b two twenty eleven, which is a 100% affordable residential developments on commercial land, which meets the requirements of that bill. A b two one six two, which is supportive housing in multifamily mixed use zoning districts restricted to low income households, and there are specific requirements to be eligible for that. For all of these, there are very specific requirements within the law on how they actually do apply or are eligible for these. There's also SB 35, which is an infill project with at least 50% of the units dedicated to low income, and it does require prevailing wage wage component.

S b six eighty four, which is a small lot infill residential subdivision of 10 or fewer dwelling units. And then also residential projects which restrict 20% of the units to low income households and our non vacant sites identified as a housing opportunity in our housing element or have been included as an opportunity site for developed sites for at least two housing elements. This chapter has been designed to conform to the law. We've listed out the projects that are eligible as of today so that it's easier for staff and the public to understand which projects require ministerial review. And then the procedure and review procedure that is in the code comes from state law.

Chapter 17.11 o is also a new one. It is reasonable accommodations. The city is required to provide reasonable accommodations for eligible individuals, and this comes out of federal and state housing laws. And a reasonable accommodation is a modification to the required development standards, land use, or building regulations to ensure that individuals with disabilities have equal access to housing. An example might be if there's a height limit and the height limit would preclude the elevator shaft at the top of the building, they could request a reasonable accommodation to allow for an elevator if it was necessary.

A city does not currently have a reasonable accommodation ordinance, so this is new again. And this would be reviewed by the community development director for a reasonable accommodation. They would apply first for that. And then if there was a companion, let's say, site and architectural review, once the reasonable accommodation was reviewed, they would then apply for the site and architectural review. So the first part is done at staff level.

Chapter 17.118 enforcement. Again, it's just cleaned up. There's no significant changes, but it's the enforcement of the requirements and the zoning ordinance. So the next steps. Any changes that you've requested today, staff will incorporate them into the draft chapters.

Any additional minor modifications that are necessary because of the housing element, we will incorporate them into any of the prior ones that you've looked at. There are a few that might need to be done to address some of the requirement some of the goals and policies of the housing element. Those are minor, though. And then we will bring this back to the planning commission next month for review during the public hearing. The procedures chapter need to follow along with the zoning ordinance or sorry, with the housing element and general plan because it also codifies the goals of the housing element.

And the procedures are one of the things that one of the action items within the housing element as well as obviously the changes to the zoning districts, which are included within that 17 o three that I discussed earlier. So public hearing will be in March and then for recommendation and then to city council following that. But it will follow with the housing element general plan because it's now tied to it. That concludes my presentation. I'd happy to answer any questions if you have them.

And thank you. Do we have any questions from the commission?

I just had a question. If a sign is denied during the ministerial review, what recourse do those applicants have?

So if an applicant comes in and applies for, let's say, a wall sign or even the monument sign if this is approved at staff level, if if the director was to deny it, they can appeal it. So they would then appeal it to you for any sign.

Would they have to pay the appeal fee?

They'll have to pay the appeal fee, but it's, like, $200?

No. Right now, the the fee is the same for an applicant or an a community member to appeal. So I I wanna say to appeal to the Planning Commission's, like, $3,500 as adopted by the council. And then an appeal of a planning commission decision, I believe, is about $4,000 because it includes some additional public noticing requirements, things like that. But, yes, the the adopted fee, they would pay.

Yeah. I saw the six feet, and I think I'm gonna just add on to it. I think I would like there to be recourse or, say, the applicant, they have a seven foot sign. They're right over the threshold that gets denied. Is there a way or something staff can be trained or something within the code that basically because then the applicant then pays us, and then we say, oh, we'll just make the sign six feet or whatever. Do you I I I don't I think you're trying to yeah. Do you kind of follow what I'm

I see what you're saying. So the application fee right now for all monument signs is quite large because you the applicant is covering staff's time to write a staff report, write a resolution, attend a meeting, make a presentation, prepare a presentation. So those fees are high. A staff level fee is way lower than that. So even if they were to appeal it, it's still with it. You're still falling within range of if they just went to you in the first place, if that makes sense.

No. I'm I meant more like so what we're the code is suggesting

Mhmm.

It's below it's about six feet or under. It's just staff review. Mhmm. They're low cost. Yeah. What I'm concerned about, this has happened before, the applicant has a six and a half foot sign. He he goes through this whole process, and he has to then is kinda some initiative a mechanism that would kind of prompt staff to be like, hey. You know what? What if we did the six foot sign instead of a six and a half?

Yeah. I I completely understand you. What we are supposed to do at the counter then with with this changes, I'm gonna double check your plans and make sure it is in fact six feet. Because if you're telling me it's six feet so you can get staff level overview and I look at your plans and it's 15 feet, I don't wanna waste your time. Right? I'm gonna let you know right then. This is not the appropriate permit for you. This is. Now pretend they somehow get in because they're six feet four inches. The recommendation is going to be take four inches off Right. And then you'll be fine. We're not gonna just say denied.

Okay.

We would rather work with anyone to get them to a point of being approved.

Okay. I just wanna make sure that you said we've had other

Yeah. It's it's standard. So for any project, let's say I'm looking at an industrial building and we have a requirement of trees and how many you have to have in the parking lot. I'm not gonna go to you and recommend denial. That's because of trees. That's a waste of my time and the applicant's time. We're gonna work with them to get we always work with them to get them to the place where we say this project is, you know, we're we wanna approve it. It meets every every aspect of our code. That's always our goal.

Just for a point of clarification for myself. So any sign below six feet, staff would review it. Correct? And then make a decision anything above six feet. So you rec you you had said that the cost for anything above six feet, there's substantial cost because of all the process. So is the fees gonna be different moving forward?

So the monument sign over six feet would stay at the fee that we have right now. And And then the other sign is the lower cost the, like, the the Administrative. Permit review sign fee, which is

I think it's, like, a $170. Yeah. So so right now, we aren't proposing a fees change, but one of our next step goals, once we have all of our new applications in place and our application procedures, because as the commission will recall from some of our earlier study sessions, we're we're talking about, you know, a new three tiered site and architectural review. And and right now, the fees are not set up for a three tiered site and architecture review or a minor conditional use permit. So a follow-up project would be to readdress our fees to readdress our new projects.

And since we're proposing a lot of reduction in level of review, we would wanna propose a significant reduction in these fees that no longer need to come all the way to a public hearing. But with with this new proposal, we would have only these taller signs need to go through the current process, which is to come to you. And that's not the appeal fee, just to clarify. The that fee, I believe, is about $1,400 for freestanding monument sign, site, and architectural, like the one that Erica mentioned, the polar services that you saw a few months ago. That that was not an appeal.

That just the application came to you. But instead of having to pay that $1,400 for a six foot sign or a five foot sign, which you would have to do today, that could be something that could be done at staff level for a much quicker turnaround, no public hearing, all those things. So the change would be to add a new tier, if you will, of freestanding signs that can be done just more simply.

I think with requiring planning commission review for Polar Services, it added a month and a half onto their review time, and that sign was five feet tall.

Oh, Yeah. And and I I think also one thing I would I don't know if I can suggest this. I don't know if this is outside the purview of this discussion is maybe, like, a because because the the signs have been a big issue from other like, in the past talking to other businesses, signs have been a a major issue of contention. Perhaps, like, what you maybe making, like, a a like, a an image or something that kinda can convey this this issue. And I guess I don't know if that's, like I said, outside of the purview of this discussion, but I think a a photo or something that would that would kind of, like, give an example, like, so someone can look at it.

I along and we've discussed this before. Along with the permitting chapters, we are gonna have all new application forms and handouts and information available to the public that really helps them apply for a permit, understand what requires a permit, understand how to get through the process. And then with signs, signs will get in our next phase, which is the rest of the zoning ordinance. Signs will be a part of that. So we will look when we get there, we will look at all those regulations and see, you know, what you would like to tweak with the signs.

Okay.

But the goal of this phase and future phases is to make the zoning ordinance easier to read, to remove barriers for certain projects, types of improvements, and to make it easier on both staff and the public and developers, applicants.

Yeah. And just to to address, as we keep amending chapters and putting in the regulations, the we can put figures into the zoning ordinance itself. There are figures in some of our chapters signs, definitely, so we can do that. Do you I don't know if it makes sense, and the commission wants us to look at it in this procedure chapter or if you think it might make more sense in the regulation chapter, but we can definitely and definitely want to include more figures and, like, concepts in the code as we update it.

I don't know where you I I will leave that to your professional opinion, but I definitely would like a figure or something to basically sum up what we're saying.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. For sure.

I like I said, you can put it wherever you'd like, but that's my recommendation.

Yeah. Yeah. And we're trying to make it easier. I've already started working on, let's say, for example, the temporary banner application form. So you're a business owner. You are a first time applicant. You're what what are the rules? And it's it's on there to make it easier for them to apply.

Okay. Are monuments only ones that could go either way, plan commission or material?

That's the only change we're recommending. Temporary banners are typically approved at the counter. Sometimes they may require a day or two if we are unsure how many permits they've pulled in a year. Wall signs, which is our most consistent sign type that we see typically are reviewed about seven to fourteen days. It depends on the complexity of the sign, to be honest with you. And then those are the staff level permits that we're currently looking at. The things that you would still see are the master sign plan. That's the rules for the a shopping center like Heritage Plaza we looked at a couple months ago. That would still be with you. Creative sign, which has its own regulations for how you would qualify for creative sign.

That's planning commission because you're trying to do something that's not allowed by the code. And then monument signs would be the only one we're changing, and it's just to allow staff to look at some of the lower monument signs.

Thank you. What's an example of a creative sign?

We have not had one. But in my mind, a creative sign might be, let's say I'm opening a nineteen fifties style diner and I wanna have a cool nineteen fifties retro sign and our code doesn't allow it. And they would come to you and say, look, this is the design of my building, and I have this sign that goes along with the concept of my building. And you say, wow, that looks like a very nice sign. I really like it. They could apply for their creative sign where it's not ordinarily allowed by our code. But we have not had a request in

Yeah. I I've never seen one applied in specifically as a creative sign. We've seen some signs come through with master sign programs where they needed a change to the regulations allowed strictly in the ordinance, but it came along with, you know, probably a freestanding monument sign or something like that. And so it's not been processed as a creative sign, but it would be kind of the ability to get an exception because they have, like Erica was mentioning, some sort of unique concept that just doesn't fit in the box of a sign as the code outlines.

Thank you. Can you go back to the enforcement slide, please?

This thing falls asleep.

Uh-oh. That one.

Oh, it'll let I think it'll it'll let me take it. Yeah. It falls asleep real fast.

So this is nothing's changing here. Right? Like

No. No significant changes are proposed here. It was mostly a cleanup of language. Okay. And this is not code enforcement. Code enforcement is is ruled by another chapter. This is enforcement of the zone warrants.

Let's see. I'll go ahead and open it up to public comment.

Hi. Yes. We do have a speaker card. We have Chris Pito here.

Hi. My name is Chris Pito. I'm from San Diego. I have a prepared speech, but I'm kinda shocked at what I've just seen and the way that everything was glossed over. So I'm gonna try and through this quickly and hope you'll get into some q and a with me.

I'm a commercial developer and have been working with the city of Hollister on a proposed project in District 2 since last summer. Since that time, the city's held study sessions, meetings regarding general plan update, housing element, code updates, and at no time have I been given direct notice regarding any of these hearings or staff reports agendas prior to the meeting. I've already been required to adjust my submittals once because of code update that prevented the proposed commercial project from proceeding. And each time I start over, it's months of work with 20 different consultants in coordination with tenants because I have real tenants who are trying to be here. And I'm here tonight to ask your help so applicants like me can proceed without having to adjust a third time.

From my commercial development perspective, the updates, including what you're looking at here tonight, the general plan and the housing element are being driven by the same unilateral desire to promote residential development. There has been and will be negative impacts on commercial development, loss of economic development, job growth, services to the community. I can give real examples of how desirable tenants have committed to sites within your city and have terminated based on feedback from the city before anything can even go before the planning commission. I believe staff should have included in their staff report today a summary of projects that are pending that will get killed because of what you guys didn't see today. I request allowances and direction be given to projects like mine to proceed based on the current zone.

The changes that you are voting here tonight or the study session would stop it. Specifically, section 17 o two zero three or conformity required. So I have a pending project, and I've submitted an application. Based on the items before you, the code would be updated, and then the following day of the project could be deemed complete, but it won't be, by staff, and I would need to start over. And what would be a site plan review, maybe a CUP, would then have to go for a general plan in the zone out.

That's another nine months. I request paragraph one be recrafted so the pending application can be can proceed so long as staff deems the application complete within twelve months. So you're putting a sunset provision in there. This will allow time for responses back and forth, resubmittals if necessary in an appeal, and the items can be reviewed by the commission. Same thing goes for item e four, which is a which is a vesting tentative amount, which I've also submitted. I can get all through the process. You guys approve this, which you didn't see, so we'd have to start all the way over. And I apologize. I've got people texting me and reading stuff online. We are shocked, and I understand this is the third or fourth, and some things that have been posted are incorrect.

And I'm not here looking for consistency, but I cannot tell you the correspondence that is coming back that is killing projects. And we had an approvable project that should have been before you, and you had another code update when you changed the mixed use designation,

we did stop.

You you can keep can we give them another three minutes?

So we had an approvable project, and I was given direction. You have to understand, I'm working with actual tenants, and I can appreciate the project that was presented to you guys today. The package that I submitted to the city cost a $100,000 between those tenants between the consultants. This is a very sophisticated group of people that's working with Fortune 500 companies. You have additional Fortune 500 companies who are gonna delay coming to the town or are gonna wait for other things to happen because they're told they can't come in and that they will not support the project because of the housing element.

So I don't know what to do. I am shocked because you guys should know what projects are going to be killed. Probably just mine because we fit into a very weird and odd category of a miss miss mixed use designation, but you're not here to look at one particular project. I have no idea how long it's gonna take to get here. But if you don't give direction to staff to allow projects to proceed, which is standard and happens in other communities, then projects like mine have to start over, which we will do, and it's another $100,000.

Just the printing fees, you guys are talking about your signed permit, it was a hunt it was a thousand dollars just to print the plans to submit. And you guys have a backlog on intake meetings, so we had to have somebody sit here from eight in the morning until 02:30 in the afternoon, and we're gonna have to resubmit, and we're gonna have to resubmit. And that's part of the process. But if you don't direct staff to do certain things, they won't do it. The projects die, and you don't have the projects. And I can't get a form with anybody. We just are in the queue. So you can ask me any questions. I am getting feedback from tenants. I'm getting feedback from my consultants.

We didn't know about the hearing tonight. I had no idea that this was on here. We didn't know about the study session. I happen to be in the area, so I drove over here not expecting to even present tonight, and I am shocked. So I can answer any questions you have, didn't anything.

It's not project specific, but I can tell you that you have an opportunity to improve what's in the study session to promote development over a certain period of time. This isn't indefinite. But if you have a pending application, even if it's not deemed complete, you should allow it to run its course. So as an example, the project that we have, 30 jobs, $8,000,000 improvement, million dollar in off-site improvements, it might go away because we keep hitting walls that we don't know about. That's it.

Am I allowed to ask questions?

The commission's not, but but you could when we come back, we could you could ask staff and we can but, yeah, this

The report didn't have any limits on it. Didn't have any time limits on it. I mean, I've had we've had experts going through all this stuff. It's up to process. If they wanna go through Eva, to me, that is totally allowed. So however you wanna handle it, or you can get into a dialogue, but it's up to you.

Okay. Well, I'll go ahead and re reconvene with staff, and then we'll I I just have some clarification. Is that accurate from your understanding is when we do do these study sessions, it sounds like something happens, some mechanism happens where they have to resubmit. That's kind of my understanding.

I'm not a 100% sure what this project is. So in this instance, the bulk of the language that we are changing is related to state law. So some of the language like the ministerial review or we didn't have Right. Reasonable accommodations, etcetera, etcetera. This permitting section, the only person I could think of was if someone has already applied for a monument sign, they get get caught up in it.

Like, they could have been staff level, but we are literally just for the most part looking at permitting procedures. 17 o three is drafted to match the density within the general within the housing element because that outlines our zoning category or or zoning districts. There is nothing in here that is rezoning a property, changing the text of the residential or commercial mixed use, chapters or any, let's say, development standards or any other standards within the zoning ordinance. It's how do you process the permits. And again, most of the language is the same.

And what are the new what what are the density changes from the housing element? Okay.

Yes. And if I may, Chair Rodriguez, I I did pull up the section that was referenced by the speaker because we are not proposing a change, but that's the purpose of the study session. The speaker mentioned adding a sunset or extending and when the completeness effective date goes in, and that is definitely something that we could if the commission wanted to propose something, we can make a change and propose that to the council. So that is open. It's currently the same as it is now in the ordinance, but this is going to be in the draft.

It is 17 o two, so the attachment for 17 o two, and the section is 17 o two zero three o e one, which is attachment seven and page oh, I don't have a page number three, I think. So, essentially, this section is for if this code is adopted, it'll come into effect thirty days after the council adopts it. And this section, section e, says what how the code applies to projects that are in the progress, like the speaker was talking about. So this first section, number one, is projects with pending applications. We've talked in the past about completeness, which is that thirty day review against our checklist.

So that's that's what the proposal is. It's all land use permit and subdivision applications that have been determined by the community development department to be complete before the effective date of this ordinance would be processed in compliance with the ordinance that were in effect when it was complete. But it could be the commission might want to discuss, and we could talk about what your recommendation might be to say any project that's pending on the date that it's comes into effect. So, again, thirty days after it's adopted, and then, you know, six months or a year or three months or whatever it might be, and then that's the date that it needs to be complete by. That is something we could put into the ordinance. So I described something

So you're saying Mhmm. If we were just to approve it without doing the sunset provision, and I'm kind of asking the applicant. You're saying they would you'd probably have to resubmit, start all over.

Not closing. He's typed up. Well, this is this is a study session. It's not. You're not approving anything. We're approving something that was an impact project that we didn't know, and I had to restart. So I'm working on a mixed use project that we had commercial loan, which was a lot. City approved the requirement that all mixed use has housing. I have national tenants that don't do housing as part of their projects. We have to go back in Canada.

It's crazy, but we did. So and that took months because you don't see that type of stuff out. But we didn't know that that makes use language being adopted. So it takes months to go back and forth, get Fortune 500 companies to prove their stuff, come back. We're ready to submit all of a sudden it doesn't happen. And we are in that is fine. That's you're gonna have to do a general plan. Right now, we're allowed. Right? And that's the thing.

So we're submitting based on current. So we adopted it based on last code update, but, yes, if this goes through and it ends up getting a done, then projects like mine and I don't know how many projects you have that would potentially be stopped. Typically, I would have expected that to be in staff report. Mine might be the only project, but it's probably the one that you guys wanna see the most. Okay.

And I think that it's a disservice that you aren't evaluating it. I don't know if the council is evaluating it. Typically, when these are happening, I get brought into cities so that there's a developed review to see what's the incompetence. I'm in the holster because my tenants wanna be here. I don't have a relationship with the city, So I'm not being asked to participate. But but this is and, again, it's not the first time, so you don't wanna spend an hour going through this. And the signs are hugely important. They put in a sign or deal under five feet, so we're meeting with the government for all the stuff

we could do all. I think that

some of the stuff that wasn't discussed tonight is by far the most impactful. I mean, it is very

Okay. Thank you. I'll

I I think the what he's referring to is mostly the housing element and general plan. That's where those bigger changes are coming to get the housing element certified, etcetera, but that's not within this section. This section is not at this permitting section right now that you're looking at. It doesn't have anything to do with housing with the exception of the ministerial review information, the reasonable accommodations, that kind of stuff. It's not changing anything within those zoning districts.

I'm not having a if you are mixed use, you will be, I don't know, a 100% residential and then you get 5% commercial. None of that's happening with this. It is just how are we processing projects. The section where we talk about conformity to the the zoning ordinance that's in there now.

Okay. So usually, don't think they so the projects that are pending can't continue.

Okay.

And I'm less concerned. The housing element in and of itself is probably the most impactful and problematic for me. However, the general plan update has issued, but this allows you flexibility to allow business to continue. And, obviously, I wasn't expecting to do this. We never had different people here helping me and give you more information. But the request is you just make allowances out of it, and you don't want it to go on forever. Yeah.

Sorry. I I understand. I do have to run the meeting. I I do appreciate. I want you to hang out, and then we can discuss, get you know

That's fine.

Discuss, but I do have to move on. I I also would like the record to reflect. I I do know that there's a lot of frustration out there because there there was a general a general plan, and then there was the referendum on the general plans. That's also adding to the confusion. Correct?

Yeah. I think especially with our well, with any housing element, and then we have a general plan at the same time. There's a lot of changes that are gonna happen. That's a function of, let's say, the next meeting, unfortunately, whereas tonight, it's, like, how are we processing projects? What do we wanna see moving forward as as, like, how effective are we? Okay. How do we re wanna re reward how we process projects?

But I would like to put a sunset on what you had recommended. Secondly, I I I would I do think it's important. Does staff know going to the next meeting, the city councilman? Does staff know how many projects are impacted by the code or state law? I mean, like like

I don't have that number. We could look into it. It is also gonna be subject to change, right, you know, in a timeline. Things could be submitted and incomplete within from between now and when the code comes into effect. Is it So then they would not be affected.

Does anybody in the planning department know?

We could look into it.

I do not believe we have any projects unless they've been sitting as incomplete for almost eighteen months.

I can think of There's one current. Oh, that are incomplete? Yeah. We we could look into it.

Okay. Pretty sure he's the if I'm not I if I'm correct on what project he is, I'm pretty sure he's the one.

Okay. And like I said, I'm not trying to belabor the point. I get that there was a general plan, and there's people submitting things with certain expect I get that. I'm not I do think it's important that because this is just a study session. We approve this doesn't mean it's approved. It still has to go to the city council. Correct?

It still has to go to Kansas

City Council. It has to come back before you actually first. And so what what I think would be helpful for us tonight and what the goal tonight would be to get your feedback. And I think if we I don't know if the commission has the ability to pull up 17 o two, o three o e, and we can, like, I this is really the section that we're kind of talking about of when do these new procedures apply to things that are in various parts of the project. Right?

We're talking about pending applications that are incomplete, but this section also talks about projects that are approved that aren't under construction, subdivisions that are approved but aren't recorded. And so it talks about how and when the new procedures and the new chapters affect those projects? When do they get to comply with the rules that they're currently under? When do they not? So right now, it is drafted the same way the current ordinances, which when it was adopted, it's if they're complete, then they can continue through.

So, you know, you do the environmental review, and they still come to planning commission. We'd review them against the code now, not this code. But we would be looking for the planning commission's feedback on if we wanted to propose an extension to that. And then what we would do is we'd redraft this section of the chapter with your changes, and that would be the ordinance we bring to the planning commission next month is the theory for recommendation of the council. But this this is something that is not based in state law. It's based in what the city wants to when do you wanna apply this ordinance to projects that might be in the process in this transition?

In the past, we requested, like, updates on project and stuff and ran into, like, it's not within the purview to certain information, and that's why we have a joint meeting next month with, city council. Would you be able to add an impact study to your to all the work they've done to these study sessions? Applicants would be impacted by any of the changes that are gonna be you know? My understanding was that this is just mostly a reformatting of the Yeah. You know, of the information.

If you didn't, yeah, if you didn't adopt these at all, like, we Yeah. Hit an impasse, this existing section that still requires that conformity is still in the zoning ordinance. Okay.

So that was my next question. Has any of these items that we've covered in these 30 sessions, have any of that been enforced and impacted existing projects? Or was that just in bringing forth because of state laws or something like that?

Most of the changes are state laws. So they're there anyways, we have to follow it. So for example, that ministerial review, those things I listed, state law tells me how I have to process those types of projects, and so we just do it anyways.

So those items can be enforced or followed even before we approve all the changes that are being Yeah. Covered.

We're just codifying it to make it easier for staff and the public to see this is what requires a ministerial review. This is how you do it. Same with reasonable accommodations. We're required to do it anyways. It's just establishing the procedure and the regulate or the the manner by which you could apply for it. Again, these are just the permitting sections. Right? Like, how do you process these types of projects? It is not I am not rezoning a property. Again, I am not doing anything else as part of this. Now the other things will come later. There's things in the housing element that require changes to the zoning ordinance. But that's in the housing element. We're gonna be required to follow it.

It gets adopted. It sounds like the the provisions that will affect the affect possible projects or applicants is gonna be what the state law is mandating. Correct?

In the case of this project, it's the housing element, I'm pretty sure, is what he's referring to, which you're gonna look at next month.

I would just like a sunset provision on whatever on what's impacting projects.

Yeah. So we we can definitely look into how many or at least an estimate because we won't know exactly when the ordinance is adopted and in place. And but we can definitely look into and bring back at least a number of applications that would are potentially in the ballpark of being affected by these process changes. But for the purpose of the sunset, I would instead of it being complete before the effective date, my suggestion to the commission would be to tell us complete no more than or deemed complete, like, sixty days after 9180. Or I I don't know that I'd recommend a year, but it could be your recommendation for a year.

But I would like, what is how long after this ordinance comes into effect would the commission like to have that kind of transition period, if that makes sense? And, like, we're looking for your feedback on on how long of a sunset you want us to propose and put into this ordinance.

And, again, if a project's approved, they're not affected by this

Correct. Yes.

They get It would just be projects that are incomplete. Like, so in the review with staff, a resubmittal. So less than thirty days, we've had it. And or or we had it once, and we sent it back with comments. So those projects, when let's say this gets adopted on April 20 and comes so on May 20, any project that's incomplete on May 20 right now would follow the new procedures you adopt, but we could make it sixty days after May 20 or ninety or one eighty, whatever your suggestion might be. We could we could put that in the ordinance. That's something we can put in.

Bef I think it'll be good to review the chapter you're mentioning, as far as to guide our recommendation maybe, go through an example. But the meeting next month is gonna be really important, the joint meeting that we have. Would it be possible to invite any pending applicants of any stage, any unclosed application, whether it's denied or approved? Would you be able to send out an invite for that session? Or is it

I can I can send an invite? Yeah.

I think, no, that's one thing we can do.

Absolutely. I I yeah. Even denied projects too. Like, you just I I like that. Denied.

I don't think yeah.

I don't

have any denied. There's one, and it was two years ago.

Oh, okay.

It didn't meet fire code.

Yeah. I mean, to the to the twelfth, to the twenty sixth or both, what

I think inform them of both meetings, and then they can decide.

Yeah. Is there a recommendation for the change from the commission for this section, for the sunset that we're talking about? For how long?

To make sure I understand, do we have the even if it's a state law enforcement, what options do we have in the by selecting a sunset time period?

You have that is not a state law.

Yeah. This is this is our proposal for our ordinance when we want our ordinance to be effective.

It's in the code now that if the code changes, you automatically have to follow it. So we kept it the same. But if you wanna give people sixty days or ninety days to get to completeness because the the key trigger is ninety days. I'm looking at some of our projects, and most of the projects are complete, so it's not going to affect them except for a conditional use permit for alcohol, and that wouldn't be affected anyways.

Is it possible to get examples from surrounding jurisdictions? What what their sunset language is?

We certainly can look into it. Yeah.

If you don't want to make a recommendation tonight, we can as part of the staff report for March, we could have some recommendation in there and let you know who who in our surrounding area has a sunset date. I'm not aware of anyone, but I'm sure there is. Yeah.

I'm not real comfortable making any drastic recommendation or changes. I I I'm interested in doing some kind of with a sunset date. But either way, this is just a study session. Yeah. Everything. So what just for the audience or for anyone in the in the room, when is that planning commission slash city council meeting again, Ava?

The the there's a March 12. I again, I don't know if it's a workshop or a study session, but there will be a joint meeting, workshop, town hall, study session of some kind on March 12, but it's not about this ordinance. So

Correct. Yes. But I just want the record to reflect for the audience. So March 12, there's gonna be a meeting that'll encompass the entirety planning process. And I just think for those who want or interested in that, I think that would be very effective.

And then just so you know, this completed section, so phase three, you would be looking you would be reviewing it during public hearing, and we'll discuss the sunset at that. That will be our our our meeting in March. And then from there, we follow to city council. And Eva can correct me if I'm wrong. I think it's

April 20. Yes. So so staff's intention is to revise the these drafts based on your feedback to bring you a formal ordinance to adopt at the March 26 meeting.

And then because it's an ordinance, it's the April 20 is the first reading. Then we have to go to a subsequent meeting for a second reading. And then it's thirty days after that it takes effect.

Okay. And then

So we have at least thirty, sixty, ninety day plus ish hundred days.

Our next our next planning commission meeting is the twenty sixth. Correct? Correct. And that joint meeting is the seventeenth?

The twelfth.

The twelfth. Okay. So

And you're So I think I think what we could do is we could look into some of our neighboring jurisdictions to see if they have any enforcement language where they were suggesting a longer time frame. And then we would we can bring that back of of what we found, and then we'll have the draft ordinance

with a change.

We'll have it

If there's some kind of basis or probably something like sixty days or ninety days.

One does thirty days, we'll point it out.

Yeah.

Make the

Along with the impact report that I think that you said.

Yes. Yes. We can look projects that are in the Yeah.

Queue that are in

Yeah. So two things.

List projects and invite them to the study session as well. Yeah.

Well, it'd be public hearing, and then you also have the housing element and the general plan. I think that is more of the avenue that they are interested in. Yeah.

I'm not so sure about the time frame as far as the sunset. I'm more in I know we can direct staff or maybe put in the ordinance or something to notify. Anytime some ordinance is gonna change, it's gonna impact an an application in one way or another that they should be notified and acknowledged receipt of that and then determine, like, whether the time frame from that point. So it's just notifying applicants who are gonna be impacted Mhmm. By future adoptions of ordinance changes, I think, would be a step I would like to be added.

Yeah. We can do that. It's with this. We didn't change anything that was going to wrap anyone up in it. The of

the And of the impact, you know, study that you do the analysis, if you could separate it, it was impacted by state law or by local Yeah. You know, ordinance, that would help determine, like, the sunset.

And we do have a web page on the city's website dedicated to the zoning ordinance updates that we were doing, and it goes over all the phases. And Amber is updating it to include all the past ones that we've approved so people can see what we've approved in the past. And it's there for anyone that wants to follow along if they wanted to because the next phase is the biggest phase. Once we get past the housing element general plan, it's the rest of the zoning. And anyone can always request to be notified if they want to email planning, call me, call planning, and say they'd like to be notified of upcoming planning commission meetings.

We'll add them to the list. So there's many avenues to be informed.

We don't need to make a motion on anything. Correct? Okay.

No. We have direction.

Yeah.

Okay. So I'm going to close, unless there's anything other comments, seven point two. We're gonna move on to 8.1, planning commissioner reports.

Chair Rodriguez, this was seven one, so we actually need to move to 7.2, please.

I'm my apologies. 7.2, review, proposed object design standards.

We'll try to make it quick. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Amber Cameron. I'm a senior planner with the city of Hollister. The item before you tonight, the city of Hollister has been working on finalizing a set of objective design standards for our downtown multi multifamily and mixed use projects.

This is funded through a REAP two point o grant. These standards respond to recent state housing laws that require cities to use streamlined, objective, and measurable criteria when reviewing qualifying housing projects. The purpose of tonight's study session is to give the commission the opportunity to have reviewed the document and provide direction on how to refine the standards before they're officially adopted. Some key questions that we ask that the commission consider are are we covering the design topics that are most important to us as a city? Is there something that's missing?

Are some of the standards too detailed or maybe they're not detailed enough? Are there areas that need more clarity, consistency? Maybe they need to be more usable or could be improved in some other aspects. We're also asking that you give feedback on the overall approach, again, to some of the local goals for the downtown. So how do you want it to look?

How do you want it to feel? How do you want people to experience the downtown when they're in it? The city and its consultants, Placeworks, will be incorporating the commission's feedback into the final document. After this meeting, the team will revise the draft document based on the commission's feedback and any feedback we hear from the public this evening. We'll also be incorporating graphics, figures, and imagery into the final version, and we will be bringing back the finalized version before the planning commission for a recommendation to the city council at our next meeting, which will be March 26.

There is a presentation tonight. That presentation will be given by associate principal with PlaceWorks, Greg Goodfellow. His presentation will go over an explanation of the state's legislative framework driving the need for the objective design standards. We'll be reviewing policies and procedures that help place and shape how the objective design standards function and why they're important. We'll also summarize the key themes and comments that were received from the 03/13/2025 Planning Commission meeting, highlight community engagement completed to this date, and show how public and commission feedback have informed the current draft standards.

And with that, I'll turn it over to Greg Goodfellow.

Good evening, commissioners. Thank you for having me. As Amber said, we're gonna go through the progress of the, multifamily and mixed use objective design standards. I've been working closely with planning staff here, Amber, Eva, Erica, and, Zhi Xuan in my office. And, I'm actually it's it's good timing, the discussion that just followed, because there were some key points in that last discussion that are really tied into this.

One of them is state law, another is ministerial review, and another that, commissioner Rodriguez brought up, which is the value of having good visuals with what could be complex standards. And I'm gonna hit on all of those things tonight. And, again, the city has now drafted objective design standards for all types of multifamily and residential mixed use projects in the Downtown Mixed Use District, otherwise known as the DMU. We'll go over the background, look at the outreach, view some samples, and get your feedback. Don't need to go over that again.

Alright. I'll go over this somewhat quickly. The whole idea of an objective design standard is to speed up the review of a housing project. And why is the city of Hollister doing this? It's because state law has passed multiple legislation to speed up the housing process.

That's why there's this difficult housing element process where the city has to rezone for, thousands of new housing units, which is very difficult, which is gonna lead to that zoning effort that you'll hear about next, next meeting. Part of the state law is that the state has decided that, a, multifamily units are what we need right now, not single family homes, and, b, the discretionary review process whereby you can talk about how design looks with subjective terminology. Oh, is it attractive enough? Does it complement a neighboring house? That leads to a lot of discussion and a lot of delay, and the state has said, look.

From this point on cities, you cannot deny a project using those subjective guidelines. You've gotta use standards just as if they were a development standard, an FAR, a height, a setback, etcetera. So, again, these are quantitative design regulation, and that quote up there is from the state law. These must involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official. In other words, you can't fight over whether this complements the neighboring house or whether it's, quote, attractive. It's just gotta be numbers. And so, again, they're similar to development standards. They allow for ministerial checklist review by staff. They prevent delays. One thing that that a lot of city leadership understandably worries about is that, oh, they're don't they all end up looking the same?

Everything's one height, one angle, one anything? No. They're not. They can be customized. They're based on past design policies. They're based on community input. We look closely at the 1991 downtown plan, which has a lot of great historical priorities that the city cares about in terms of its design. We looked at the historic districts and try to make sure those are captured and taken care of so you can customize these standards. Here's some examples of the difference between a subjective guideline and an objective standard. I won't read them all. Rooftop mechanical equipment should be screened by this or another treatment. No. Roof prop Equipment must be screened or shall be screened. Provide articulation to reduce apparent mass. Well, what exactly is apparent mass?

No. At intervals of at least 100 feet of building length, there shall be a plane break along a facade. You know, everything is numerical. Everything is straightforward. Again, this is, the city is doing this because it facilitates the streamlining that is allowed by state law, and this is what I went over before.

The city does not need to adopt these standards. The problem is if they don't, the city loses all control over new multifamily and and multi and mixed use housing because it can't disapprove a multifamily housing project, including through design review, unless the project is shown to be inconsistent with objective quantifiable standards. That's straight from senate bill three thirty. That's now in the California government code. So although this is a difficult process and it's it's it's somewhat new to so many planners, wait. How can you turn design into a number? It just simply has to be done or you lose all control. And it's important to hang on to this control. So, again, what are these applicable projects? They're multifamily and residential mixed use.

Residential mixed use means a project that has at least 75% residential square footage. The rest can be retail. What are not subject to these standards? Anything nonresidential, that industrial project you looked at in your first item that would not be these standards will not apply to it. Single family homes, non infill sites.

So a project that goes out and is in a green space, for example, that one just can't skip the traditional review process or a a a housing project on or near a hazardous site or that, you know, impacts the natural resources on a wetlands or destroys a registered historical landmark. Those types of projects, even if they're multifamily, they still require review. Alright. We were here earlier in the year and got some great feedback from the commission. First of all, the commission made it very clear that we need to get the community's feedback on this, and they should know about events and outreach opportunities.

We should make that, accessible and online to all types of residents, young people, new residents, longtime residents. A survey would be good to do. We also heard from the commission that walkability downtown is always going to be key and that new housing shouldn't deactivate spaces downtown. It should still be this great place where the the city has parades and, events. The commission was interested in controlling the design of roofs, windows, and facades and making sure that those things still say still stay attractive, making sure that green spaces increase quality of life.

And the biggie, of course, from, the commission and from the public was we have to respect our historic resources and our historic aesthetic. So taking that advice from the commission, we did do a pretty, significant, objective design standards education and outreach process. Uh-oh. Okay. There we go. Alright. First thing we did was we put out this trifold brochure, which has all the basics for the public of where this is happening. What are object design standards? What's the purpose of doing it? Would they conflict with local preferences?

How can they preserve downtown character? So this went up also on a great web page that the city created so we could, advertise all our events and put those, materials up. We had an online survey out from October to December of, 2025. We got 72 responses from a range of residents. I put here some of the key responses to some of the main questions. What what what are your visual emphases that you wanna prioritize downtown? Again, the main one was walkability and sidewalks. What are the pedestrian amenities you wanna make sure are are prioritized? First one was adequate lighting, which I think is great and not necessarily surprising. The next was street trees, also consistent with what we heard from the commission.

What about the historic approach? What's the best way to make sure that, history is respected here? The main answer was not to just copy everything. We don't have to make sure that every building is a is a carbon copy of a historic architecture, but it should incorporate elements of an existing style. Let's make sure a roof or a a roof form has the nice red tiles of a Spanish revival building or some other element of architectural quality.

And that also a new building should respect the scale and form of a neighboring historic structure. Frontage priorities, what do you wanna see when you look at a building? Rooftop design and window design were selected as as high priorities. Landscaping, tree coverage again came back up, public art. And, open spaces, the community wanted to see benching benches and seating to make sure those spaces, out front and within, projects are open to recreation and to, play for children. Sorry. Uh-oh. Seemed to be frozen. One second here. Oh, here we go.

Alright. We also held, uh-oh, a community design workshop. Oh, that went too far. Pardon me. Oh, jeez. I'm sorry. Seems to have gotten out of order or else it's I apologize for this, everybody. Okay. There we go. So we did hold a community design workshop.

It was an in person event, what we call an open house. City staff were great in helping us mail out 8,000 postcards, which you see on the screen to residents. Residents. It was at Payne's restaurant in December. We had staff tables for different design topics, interactive poster boards, design priority exercise, and comment cards.

These are examples of the four foot by five foot poster boards with different topics. I know it's hard to see on the screen, but for each topic such as orientation and site access, we had examples of objective design standards and then asked in those spaces what what's the level of importance to Downtown Hollister, high, medium, or low? And, participants could put stickers on each of those squares or put, Post it note comments relative to each topic on the boards. Here's, an example of one of the boards, picture of it, asked if the dots were on it. We got some interesting feedback as far as building design.

There was, a medium prioritization of massing and volume. In other words, just about, not everyone, but most people thought that we should make sure that the the way buildings are scaled with their massing should be, controlled. There was focus on greenscape, landscape buffering. In other words, parking lots should be surrounded by green spaces or contain green spaces. One comment, make sure the trees don't drop sap.

Let's not have deciduous trees in our downtown that with sap falling on cars. Everyone thought that we needed to respond to historic context in these guidelines. These are just just a quick overview. It was interesting. This is something that was different in Hollister than in other, projects that I've done, which is that residents seem to wanted to stress the design of residential ground floor as much as retail, usually to focus on those mixed use ground floors.

But so, again, in our standards that you've seen, we try to focus on, residential ground floor design also. And these are just some other comments on orientation, public frontages. Alright. Now the structure and content. I know you've seen the word version of all those standards in your packet.

There's a lot of material there. I understand that. My experience putting these together was that doing these for Downtown Hollister, it's a it's a it's a much more compact space. Usually, these are citywide documents where there is such a diversity of of built environments that you really can't get too specific, or else you end up with a document that is just too long and and too detailed. But in a place like Downtown Hollister where there is such, a historic aesthetic, it was a challenge.

And I wanted to make sure, and we wanted to make sure that these standards at least hit on to a certain degree all of these important topics. And so in some ways, the structure of the document is similar to a lot of objective design standards because they're important topics everywhere. In others in other ways, they are much more targeted on key topics. So chapter one, we go, it's a has a background into the policy, into the legal issues. There's a quick intro on Downtown Hollister and the historic districts, the types of projects to which these would apply, the regulation to the zoning code, the general plan, etcetera, the different types of a pro of projects, and then, of course, the more technical submission and review process.

And then the document is split into two major chapters, the first being multifamily and residential mixed use. These are for those larger projects that are often called block scale projects, you know, that could take up a whole city block. The next chapter, which we'll get into chapter three, is for what are called house scale or small state scale multifamily projects. Those are the ones that you could see on a on an individual parcel or site, a small duplex or a triplex. And the fact of the matter is, as you can understand, you really can't create the same design standards for a four story mixed use building as a nice cute duplex in a neighborhood.

So we really wanted to separate these standards and make sure that these two types of projects were treated differently. So, for chapter two, we have different standards for projects that are in the downtown core, which is that really that key spine along San Benito versus those that are in the outer downtown. And we have these seven major sections, site design, pedestrian experience, building form, historic character, architecture, open space, and landscaping. And then in chapter three, like I said, these, you know, these images sort of capture what a small quadplex or a group of of three side by side smaller townhomes might look like. And these, we have a little bit more flexible standards.

And the four or excuse me, the four major sections, site design and orientation, building design, historic design compatibility, and then landscape and lighting. And then appendix to this will be a checklist. This really goes back to this idea of a ministerial review. So what staff will be able to do when they get an application for multifamily or mixed use housing project in the DMU zone is they will be able to take this checklist of standards and actually go through the package the way they would look at it for zoning consistency and just check it. Yep.

You've you've you've, you're compliant with standard three two three four four four five four six. Go through the document. And what this, appendix also allows is for the applicant to do it first. So she or he can go through and make sure before this is submitted that the document or, excuse me, the project is consistent with the ODS, and that will prevent that process or at least reduce the number of times that back and forth occurs. And, again, that goes back to this entire reason why state law is now relying on these is because they the state wants to reduce that delay process of discussion surrounding design.

They wanna keep it at the staff level. So this checklist is something we always include in our ODS for staff to use. Alright. The commission brought up earlier this idea that it would be great to have a visual to go with a sign ordinance issue. You've seen this this boring looking word document. I know that. We we release these with the staff to make sure we can go through them altogether before we spend the time to actually make the standards or, excuse me, the figures. So I now wanna give you now some examples of what this will actually look like if you're looking at these standards. And I I pulled up some different versions because there are different types of figures that go into a document like this. Here's an example of a site planning standard, new pedestrian connections.

So the idea here is if you have a street frontage that exceeds 400 feet along a single roadway, you need to provide a pedestrian connection to make sure you're not blocking, pedestrian access from street to street. And that that pedestrian roadway excuse me. That pedestrian path has to go street to street. That's a up there. It's gotta be aligned with the existing grid. That's b. And c is design. It shall have a minimum width of eight feet, including landscape strips on both sides. So you take all that text, and with that, you have a figure such as that that that clarifies these things. It shows you that middle ground 50% to make sure it's centered, that eight foot mark, those green strips down the side, which I know are hard for you to see now to to represent that landscaping.

So, again, it's not every standard in this document will have a figure, but the ones that are sort of complex like this with a, b's, and c's, it's always nice to have a figure. Here's an example of a totally different type of figure, but it has to be this way to really express what's going on. So we have the standard of ensuring that public sidewalks, again, this goes from what we heard from the commission and the community, need to be activated. So let's have a frontage zone that's nearest the building. This inner sidewalk area shall be designed to activate the public realm with visual and visual and, excuse me, visitation amenities.

The pedestrian clear pathway, that's the part of the street or, excuse me, sidewalk that's just for pedestrian movement. And then the landscape zone shall be dedicated to street trees, lighting, and required accessible infrastructure. There's that figure that goes with it. What you're not seeing here, because I just couldn't figure it all in the slide, is the table that goes with this, which has those the allowable amenities that you're allowed to put in each zone. Of course, in that pedestrian clear pathway, you can't put anything. The idea is to keep that safe for movement. But, again, this is the figure that will go with this standard at this point.

Quick question. Frontage zone would be like technically, that's part of the building. It's just like an extend.

Right. And this would be this would be specifically for mixed use buildings. So let's say you have that Ground Floor. It could be cafes or, you know, commercial businesses. Okay. That zone, you are allowed to place these different amenities that keep this a friendly chairs, seating

Gotcha.

Decorative light posts, things like that.

Okay. So something that's not necessarily gonna inhibit, like, say, housing project that'd be like, oh my gosh. I just lost.

No. Oh, yeah. Gotcha. No. And that's something I should clarify again here for everybody because this is confusing. It's for for the public, for staff, for everybody. What's really important here is that this document is not a land use map. It's not saying where housing can go. It's not, dictating the density of housing. That is the general plan, and it is also not the zoning code.

This is not going to say anything about setbacks. It's not gonna say anything about, floor area ratio or density. So we really all have to keep in mind that this is only standards for the design of residential and mixed use that are already allowed in this DMU district. And that's, you know, that's that's probably one of the, you know, more challenging aspects of that whole housing element process and general plan process is that that makes people nervous to know that that's allowed in the downtown, those types of mixed use and multifamily housing. But that's also the pressure the city of Hollister is under from the state law to provide this level of zoning for this level of housing.

So I want everyone to keep that in mind. This is a response or not a response. It is just standards for design. So, the issue of warehousing is, the density of housing, what's allowed where, that is totally separate. That's in the general plan land use map.

Here's an example of one where we we use the table, and this was a direct response to the community's input where, hey. How can we make sure that new project they don't have to look totally historic, but they should integrate these nice features of historic. So what we did was we looked at the downtown historic district paperwork and the Monterey Historic district paperwork, looked at the key architectural styles, and then pulled up some of those defining features. And I I'm sorry. It's hard to see, but there's a larger table than this in the document.

And so the idea here is you have to select from each of these groups, the roof, the window, and just it's just a small nod to that style or to a style in the downtown. Hey. Let's add, an overhang of three feet with those exposed, old wood beams that are so, prevalent in Spanish architecture. So what you'll see in the document is this table and then the associated photos that go with it. Here's an example of those vertical window styles of Italianate.

So, again, in the document you have in your package, I know that's just a big group of word. But, again, in this very well designed final document, you'll see these photos and these tables, and it'll be much more clear. Another example of of historic of approach to new development is to make sure that if you're next to what's called a historic contributor, those are the buildings that are listed in the historic the Downtown Historic District or the Monterey Historic District. If you're gonna build one of the next to one of those buildings, you need to reduce the mass of your building next to that building. So in other words, there's not a huge ugly wall right next to this cute 1845 home or whatever it might be.

So these are standards that that explain how you need to do that. That orange area is what's called the transition zone. That zone and the all this numbering of these is in the table. That's the area that you have to contain your building to. And then that blue area with the b, c, and e, those are the standards that you have to reduce that part of the building.

And it's basically you have to keep it within five, five feet of the height of the existing building. You have to keep it within 10% of the width and within 10% of the length. So in other words, you can see that blue area is basically matching the scale of the historic district or, excuse me, the historic building. And, you know, this is this is really it's difficult to create a standard to complement historic design. So this is, we feel like these two different ways.

One, you incorporate an actual visual element, and two, you reduce your scale to respect it or cover that that approach. Alright. And those were all standards from chapter two. Those were those larger, of course, multifamily potential multifamily buildings. That's why there's that scale standard there.

These are from chapter three, the smaller duplexes that are more neighborhood style multifamily. These would not be mixed use. So an example here is we wanna make sure that if you're walking on that street, you're not gonna just see a huge ugly garage, which unfortunately a lot of, you know, modern homes, it's that garage you see first. So these are standards for making sure different garage types don't dominate the street frontage. Because right now, I mean, I was just driving around earlier.

What's amazing about the side streets off of downtown is that they're not garage oriented homes. And so but the idea the fact of the matter is new development is going to likely have a garage element, so these are standards for reducing that input. If they're if they're in the front, let's make sure that they don't, take up more than 60% of the total frontage. They need to be, recessed back with an overhang, things like that. If they're off to the side, same thing.

They need to go, have a separate entrance off to the side and and and recess from the facade, and then same thing with the rear detached garages. Roof lines. Like I said in my earlier slide, we heard a lot about the value of roofs to to the viewer, and these are examples of ways that you can maintain an interesting roofline in these smaller units. Make sure that there's a change in height, not just one flat boring a, that you include one or more dormers, those those projections in that upper right figure, or just a change in design. So a projecting element that projects at least three feet above.

Again, all of these are associated with the number. A change in height of at least four feet, a roof dormer, a change in roof form that projects at least three feet above the main roofline. Again, you saw that in your package, but I know it really helps to see these figures to go with it. And, of course, that helps for anyone using these objective design standards. Historic design, a little bit different in these smaller units.

Our approach here, small scale residential buildings adjacent to historic district contributor shall incorporate at least two of the following design strategies. Roof pitch within 10 degrees of the adjacent historic roof. This is a way of ensuring that if you've got a nice, as you can see, sort of the Spanish style version we use there, you don't just put a boring flat roof right next to it or a steep a frame that really is just totally out of line with that roof. You have to keep that angle within 10 degrees. Historic articulation.

This is hard to see on this figure, know, but there's a dashed line that goes from the base of the new windows across to the existing ones. The idea is if you keep things parallel, you create a more cohesive visual from the street. And so this prevents the idea of of, you know, a totally different window variety at a different height versus the historic one. It's just a respect again to that design. Or the third one is use at least one material used on the facade of the adjacent historic structure.

So you don't have to have the roof pitch. You don't have to have that parallel, but that if that's the case, then you've gotta have the same stucco as that historic design, you know, or you have to use that same wood clabberding as the Italianate right next to you. So, again, it's it's providing some flexibility for developers, but responding to those long time priorities here in Hollister. I know that was a lot. As Amber mentioned, I mean, my idea here is just to make sure that these four points, if you got any question about them, first of all, the background. Second of all, the application process, do you have anything, any questions about that, about the staff review process, the topics themselves, or just the approach? I'll leave that up to you guys for questions. I'm happy to answer.

Any questions from the commissioners?

Yeah. On the checklist, are each category are they all the same points, or some categories worth more points if they meet those?

They're all they're all the same.

And is that intentional? Or

Yeah. That's always the case. I mean, yeah, I think the idea is what's not prioritized is just simply is not in this, and that's the same with diversity. That's why different cities different ODS if they're good. The the stuff that really is not that important to them, it's not in the standards. And, you know, one of the most difficult things about objective standards is some cities have taken the approach of weight. The more we do this, the more we're taking it away from a design professional, an architect who actually knows how to do this. And the more we do it, the more impetus it is on staff, the more detailed the standards to actually go through. Whereas other cities are thinking, you know what? No.

Let's let's keep it detailed because that maintains our control. So what ODS really is, it's a balancing act of of trying to make sure that the most important things to you are in this, but but not going entirely overboard because then the entire process gets so convoluted, and you lose that whole idea of streamlining because it's so detailed.

And you've implemented this checklist in other regions. Right?

Oh, yeah. I literally finished in the last year ODS for cities as different as Antioch and Cupertino and Sunnyvale, and they really like this checklist. I mean, not all ODS have it. Some some consultants would say, well, that's incumbent upon staff to decide how they wanna do this. We just offer it as a, you know, a a framework for how you might do it.

Another question on the material. That's not something that could be dictated. Right? Like, I'm trying to think of an example.

No. It it materials can be dictated. Okay. There are standards that say, yeah, more common is prohibited materials. Example that comes to my head right now, we've been asked for a I think I forget what city, but wanted to make sure that new residential homes in their in their fencing did not allow any chain link fence, any ugly, of those plastic corrugated fencing that goes in. Some cities have have prohibited, like, polyurethane siding.

You know? Okay.

Yeah. That's the only thing that like, trying to think of an example. I apologize.

That's okay. No. Visible.

It's just yeah. Like, for me, personally, I would like to prohibit things that, like, that that look cheap. I guess what I'm saying is, you know, when you go to McDonald's, there's, like, that, like, marble, like, that fake Yeah. Marble. Basically, I don't know how you're the expert. You know how to Well, did you

commissioner, did you see I know there was a lot of material in that, but what we did include, there is a standard that prohibits, corporate architecture. And we listed out things like, you know, faux facades. You know, you can't go in there if you're Chuck E. Cheese and put on a bunch of fake brick or whatever the most.

Awesome. Perfect.

That that That's in there, and it's spelled out. It's totally spelled out. No corporate architecture. No no branded faux frontages, I think, how I put it. No

yeah. Okay. That's perfect. Sorry. I didn't Okay.

That's alright. I know there was a lot of material on that.

Did do we have anything on fencing, on the Zodiacs?

We don't. We don't. I'd be happy to add

it. Yeah.

Do you tell me your thoughts.

Well, I I'd like to see the we I don't I wanna say eliminate, but I guess eliminate, chain link fencing.

Absolutely. I

I I think, the riot wrought iron, fencing look, I think that's, it's more appealing. Okay.

I totally agree. And, actually, in that table of distinctive architectural features, one of them is, you know, bring in that wrought iron detailing the way, you know, the old Spanish mission buildings have the the curvature in front or around there. So I I totally agree with you, but we that's something we can we can express further in in a, you know, a little maybe what we call wall we I think we've called it walls and fences subsection with, you know, two or three standards that really prohibit that chain link and and list out five or six. This is where objective design standards are hard. It's harder to say what what is allowed because you you might not list everything.

I mean, you might forget that, oh, wait. A brick might be nice too, but when you put in that, you know, so it's better to say what's not, and then you know that you're just making sure.

Yeah. I I I just feel the the the rod iron, it it maintains longer. Sure. The you know, fencing over time, it just deteriorates and you know? So so I don't know how many different types.

Well, I think what we could we could add a a standard that prohibits the use of of, metallic or or corrosion susceptible fencing such as wrought iron, traditional metal link, and that I think that that's a pretty solid expression of what you're looking for. I mean, I think an important phrase would be corrosive, you know, or or something like that.

Yeah.

But I can I'll certainly look into that. Thank you.

I was I was gonna look this up too, but Amber just spread over. So in our current fencing ordinance, which, again, this isn't an ordinance, but from a prohibited materials perspective, we currently prohibit sheet or corrugated iron, steel, aluminum, bamboo, or asbestos fencing. So if if that sounds like a good list or if we're missing or any of those are fine, we can like Greg is saying, we can add prohibited materials.

Yeah. Just copy and paste that

and then put

the will of the commission is.

Yeah.

I think the asbestos one, that's federal and state, though, already. Yeah.

That that

And then it doesn't have chain link, but we can we can also have chain link.

Heard about these is for the sake of applicants who are looking at so many different rules and regs, I feel like it's better to not repeat things in different places because then you get a a greater chance for an inconsistency. You know what I mean? And and so I've really made an attempt to not cross over into zoning and commissioner belong. That doesn't mean I don't respect your your input at all. I we could put it in, but I do think it's important to make sure that these standards really are separate from zoning for the sake of the applicant.

So they know that when they go somewhere, they're not gonna find out, wait. But it said it this one didn't say something, you know, and this one did. So so, certainly, if we added from zone, we need to make sure it's to a tee. And and you know?

Do you mean just any fencing visible from, like, the public space or to the main street? Is there is that a distinction that needs to be added? Or

Yeah. I think that would be important.

I would say street street flunting. Yeah.

Street flunting. Okay. Medium. That's my recommendation. Okay. And, also, is there anything that prohibits division of public spaces? Just like one business wants to carve out, like, this is our area by putting up fencing. Can that be addressed if the intention is to have it open? Like, two side to side businesses with.

Yeah. Like, in the right of way or more on the property?

Like, the shared spaces between businesses or stuff like that.

I don't know that we have anything into that level of detail of what they could or could not propose to divide or or I

haven't that. I haven't seen that in an objective standards document. I think that is more

So I think it would be allowed but not required right now. So allowed or or they could not propose.

So Just if I may clarify, are you what you're suggesting is, like, the quasi you know, those quasi public private spaces? Is that what you're referring to?

Yeah. And that that would be that's what that frontage zone would look like. You know? And and the difference between that frontage zone and the sidewalk would be the area, you know, if there's a fresco, if if if a of a mixed use building has, like, you know, a series of pillars and you can walk through that front, you know, along those retail buildings. I but but I that would be entirely within, I think, the the property line of that structure. So

Yeah. Are you are you thinking, commissioner Perez, like, the 400 book, how they have the the arcades, and that's on their property and they're divided?

Yeah.

Are you thinking you want to do that all the time, want to or just want to allow it if they wanna propose it? Like

I think that's my question is, like Yeah. Do we wanna take that into consideration as far as some guidance? Like, if it's attended as a public space regardless of who is operating within that you know, in relation to that space? Do you want to give the applicants the opportunity to just to section out their own space? Kinda like the parklets where they're pretty specific to which business. Yeah. Actually, that parklet was right in front of the business, and it was part of the open near the walkway. Do you wanna go from one business that's has some fencing around it just to isolate their space? And then when you walk over to the next one, there's no fencing that shows the tables or benches. So I think that's my example.

Two side to side business with quite a enough space in the front to kinda like, I forget what business it was, but, next to Johnny's, there's that little patio, kind of, like, if you wanna have that as an option to be able to fence it fence it fence it off and require access to, like, the business or something.

What are your thoughts? You've done these throughout the Bay Area. I'm always the assumption to group more flexibility, the better. I

don't Yeah. I mean, if I I in this case, I am of the mind that it might be better to not bring that up in this document. I I think it might be an unnecessary sort of barrier to to what you can do down there. You know? I I what do you think, Eva?

I'm Yeah. I'm I'm thinking it it seems to me like a lot of that division would happen on the private property side, like, past the property line, so outside of the right of way. I think it would be worth and we we can double check-in the things that are allowed in that frontage zone, that purple area in in Greg's slide, whether we want to prohibit or I would say lean towards more prohibit. If we don't wanna have a division, a vertical, like, fence barrier in that public 12 foot sidewalk adjacent area, I think it would be worth noting to make sure that we're prohibiting a a barricade in that way. But on private property, I don't think I would suggest putting one way or the other.

I think I'd leave it up so that if a a development like another 400 block with an arcade kind of a setback came through, they could or could not divide it, and they wouldn't be restricted. That makes sense.

Yeah. The only reason I bring this slide up is because I'm thinking in terms of that one building next to another. And first of all, you you no matter what, you'll have a a side setback that both, you know, parties would have to adhere to. And the when I say that I would be I would lean towards not regulating that is because this is an example of in the same way that you prohibit a type offense rather than say what's allowed, this is a case where you would prohibit something in a special case. In other words, this is sort of getting at that.

What can one building do when it's next to another? And I and, again, of the mind where where you really focus in on special conditions, such as historic adjacency. And and if we were to open that that I don't wanna call the can of worms up, but if we were to really even just include something like that in this document, I think it would lead to less clarity instead of more. But I'm I'm absolutely open to sort of sketching it out, you know, and and sort of looking at how you could deal with it.

I I I kind of agree. Like, I've like, I know, like, I lived in San Francisco for some time, so I know there that, like, you you know, you have your work delved out for you in San Francisco or San Jose. Here, it seems to not really be I mean, that's just me. I I do see what you're saying, though. I

Yeah. Yeah. I do too. Well, did did was my presentation did it help you to understand this, I hope? And I I hope you saw that we really tried to listen to the last commission meeting and and get the community involved.

Being a year out from the last meeting or last time we saw you, do you still feel a telling a describe downtown?

Yeah. I mean, I look deeply into those old historic district documents. I mean, they're literally, they were written on typewriters. And I was hoping there was gonna be a more of a, oh, yeah. This type of architecture defines it. But, actually, the statement is this is an insanely diverse group of historic architecture. That's why I sort of thought, alright. Maybe the way to do this is to just pull these different elements. I just didn't see another way to do it and also let the public and the city know that we are thinking about that. But, again, just walking around today, you do see those, you know, those arched colonnades of Spanish style.

You do see the Italianate. You see the Gothic Tourette's. You know? And it's it's hard to to really pinpoint a certain style. So I I think we needed to just say, look. At least pull in something of these three or four types that that do make this place special.

Yeah. And and that was one of the things that we got that was interesting feedback from the public, particularly in the survey, was one of the options was, you know, that they they need to duplicate. So duplicate a style of historic. So let's say Victorian. And if if that had that was not the feedback we got of the the highest priority, what we got was that they should incorporate that element, like an element of one of the historic styles, but not not necessarily duplicate it, which is what Greg kinda described in the table we're proposing.

But if it had been the feedback we got from the public where it was more, you need to you need to be in the style of, like, one of the historic things, we probably would have been bringing forward a standard that read more, this is Victorian and it needs to have three of these six things to be Victorian and you have to pick Victorian or you have to pick mission or you have to pick Italianate or Gothic. But instead, it's more, here's six, like, roof features. Some of them are Italianate. Some of them are mission. And pick one.

And, you know, and then in the windows, you could probably pick Italianate and then Victorian for the other because it's just pick one because the the community didn't feel strongly about focusing new development onto, like, replicating historic design. Yeah. So that was interesting feedback that we got.

It's I think it's a good thing he did because the other reality was if we wrote a standard telling every developer that they need to make their three story mixed use building look Victorian, a lot of developers will be turned away. That's that's a difficult thing to do. You know? And this goes back to this huge picture of the pressure the city is under to to get housing. And so, again, 10,000 foot view, the idea of these is to streamline housing, not make it more difficult. And, you know, that's a hard thing in every city, but but that's part of that balance. So

Yeah. Last time you described Santa Barbara downtown, I think it might have been a different town. How they have a specific, ODS is because they wanna continue a specific look, you know, that they have. And our downtown, unfortunately, doesn't have any any Yeah. Committed style. Yeah. So I and I think it speaks to that.

I've seen

it's Santa Barbara and maybe one other who took that approach. And, frankly, that's because they can afford to, first of all, because that is a tourist destination. All their economy is coming from that visitation to that style, so it's less of a check and balance for them. Every other city, it's just doesn't have that cohesive element. It just doesn't make any sense to say everything has to look that way.

It just And I guess that's my point. I don't think this deters any new development that, you know, might be a little bit cost prohibited from trying to serve the community. And

then do I open up for public comment?

Yeah. If if there's no more questions right now.

I'm Sorry. I just picked up and you guys were I open up to public comment.

We do not have any public speakers.

Okay. I'm gonna close public comment. I think that's that's no motion. Right? Just

No. Yeah. So we've we've heard some feedback about adding, particularly on prohibition of fencing types, making sure we have that clear for street facing, visible fencing. And then I think we'll look into that sidewalk zone. Do actually, do we wanna look into the sidewalk zone or just just kinda leave the division and barriers and those types of things as as drafted, which is kind of a loan proposed, if you

will. Yeah. I don't think there's competition, like you mentioned, in our town for outdoor space or Okay. Spaces. So I think we're good.

Did I miss anything? Is there any other things that we wanted to make sure we added or looked at?

No. No? There was a question about the materials, and he already covered that. It's perfect.

Oh, yes. Yes. We do have materials for, you know, what's allowed, and and then, yeah, like, the corporate architecture kind of thing is also a specific different thing in there. Rehibition. Okay. Well, I think thank you. Yeah. That that's that's the kind of feedback we wanna hear. And so our our next step, as we mentioned, is to get all these images in and get you a standards document that the goal is to bring that back. Next meeting's gonna be fun. Mark your calendars, 26. Make sure we come. It's gonna be a good meeting. Long one, but a good one. And this our goal is to bring this back.

Thank you, commission.

I I just was real quick. It looks like 8.1 commissioner reports. Do we have any reports? Because I I'm gonna be honest. I'm gonna break corners. I you really have to use the restroom, or do we have any? Or I don't have any report. No.

Okay. At

least no reports to the commission. No would they have to open up for public comment? No. No. Okay. Eight point two planning division reports. Do you have any planning division reports?

The only thing that I'd like to report, we've mentioned a little bit through the meeting, but the twelfth, there is a joint session of the council and planning commission. It's going to be the twelfth at 6PM in Vets Hall. I and more details are to come on exactly the format. I I don't have those details. And then the twenty sixth, the next regular meeting of the planning commission here in the chambers at six at a regular time is gonna be a big meeting, general plan, housing element, bunch of zoning to go along with those documents, these objective design standards, the procedures. We've got a lot of policy that that's been making its way through, and that's gonna be a big public hearing for consideration and recommendation of the council at March.

Okay. Awesome. I don't know if we were able to when you gave that direction, did you wanna were you including the notice for that March 12 meeting as well? Okay. I just wanna clarify. We wanted for that joint planning commission slash city council meeting. I don't know if it's a meeting. Or

It yes. It's it's open to the public. It's at Betts Hall, so anyone's welcome to

But we would like a notice for any applicants currently.

Yes.

And, also, you said denials. I think it was only one, but we would just like yeah. And that's it.

I believe those are my only report.

Awesome. Do I have a motion to adjourn?

Motion. Second.

To have roll call I'm just kidding. All in favor?

Aye.

Thank

you.

No. We'll wait. It's not a problem. Okay.

Like, we can let her see if she can come by

now. Yeah.