Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening everyone. Thank you for your patience. Um some technical difficulties. I'm Eva the planning manager. I'm going to call this meeting to order as we do not currently. So we have a chair and it can just be by a majority motion. All right, for those of you just joining on, um I'm Holy Rodriguez, but I call this meeting to order. It is uh 606 and the meeting's to order. So,

oh, um, can the staff please, uh, call the role? Commissioner Damen Perez, present. Commissioner Julio Rodriguez, present. Commissioner Steven Balong,

present. For the record, uh, Chair Carla to Torres Duna and Vice Chair Paris Peter Hernandez are not currently um here. Um, can Commissioner Steve Long um, please lead us in 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. Um, this is the time for anyone in the audience to speak on any item um, 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 the 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 um and speak uh speak to the commission. If if you're joining us by Zoom, please uh click on the bottom of your screen and raise your hand. If you're joining us by um trying to by Zoom using a cell phone, please press star 9. Each speaker will be limited to three minutes with a maximum of 30 uh minutes per subject. Please note that state law prohibits the commission from discussing or taking action on any item not on the agenda. Uh staff per that's it.

Yeah. And Miriam, do we have any speakers? We do not have any speakers for this item. Okay. Um consent agenda. Uh, 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? I. I.

Okay. So, it looks like we are at uh agenda item 6.1, site and architectural review. um 2022 14 to construct a three- shell industrial warehouse of a 1,200 square foot uh 1,400 foot and 1600 ft² at 1850 airway drive and 1791 Aerostarway. Um can we have the staff report then?

Good evening. Can we have the presentation please? Good evening, commissioners. My name is Magda Gonzalez. I'm presenting site and architectural review 2024-4. The applicant is Troy Finink with Sonia Incorporated. Thank you. The project is located at 1850 Airway Drive and 1791 um Aerostar Drive within the industrial business park zoning district. It is mostly surrounded by vacant properties, although there are some developed um properties as you can see on the map. the there's a Sanino County jail, a juvenile hall, but um as I stated, most of them are vacant. The applicant is requesting approval of site architectural review um to construct three shell warehouses with varying sizes. One is um 16,000 ft², 14,000 ft², and 12,000 ft² respectively. 105 parking spaces, six ADA parking spaces, two loading spaces, one bicycle space, and landscaping. The hours of operation for the shell warehouse has not been established since we do not have the tenants um identified yet. However, as part of the conditions of approval, they will be required to

submit an administrative permit review just so we um can ensure that the pro the use they're proposing is adequate for this project. Next slide please. This is the site plan showing that it's um both accessible via Aerostar and Aerostar Airway um drive. It provides adequate parking. It shows the location of the loading zones um the buildings as well. It will have um 35 ft 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 um analyzed and it is both compliant with the general plan and the zoning um district, which requires a site and architectural review application to be reviewed. um for the new construction in this area. Next slide, please. The project is also exempt from SQUA um guidelines guidelines subject to section 15332 class 2, which is info development projects. Next slide, please. The planning commission can choose one of the following options. Um the first one is to adopt a resolution approving SNA 2022-14 subject to the findings and conditions contained in the draft resolution. Option number two is to adopt a resolution approving SNA 2024, I'm sorry, 2022-14 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. Um, do we have any questions from the commission?

I do not. I I just have one question. Uh, who were the I know we're the lead agency. What other agencies? No other agencies was notified or involved in this um decision. Notision, but

all projects are um sent to the DRC to the development review committee which consists of um building, engineering, um public works, utilities. Yeah, there's a number of different agencies that review the Okay. The only question or concern that I had was just um I I do see the um I I guess I want the record to reflect that my only observation was I do see it's really close to the the San Bino County Jail. I didn't know if there were any other outside agency comments or we did not receive any. We do send notifications um but we didn't receive any feedback.

Okay, that was just my question. Okay. Um, I will now open up to public um comment at 6:16.

We do not have any public comments at this time. Um, any the applicant here, do they wish to say a few words or Yes, he is here. Okay. What do you think? Do they wish to say a few words or that could see your way through to approving the project? It was initially back in if you could come up to the podium that way the record we can for the for the record. Uh the applicant is Dory Dory uh Frink.

Hi. Yes. My name is Troy Frink. I would just uh uh 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 bring it back for reapproval and hopefully get some development going. Okay, awesome. Thank you. I just had one final question 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 going to be a different color? It's more like a turquoise um blue. Yeah. Okay. No, it was just

Okay. Okay. Um, we don't have any public comments on this item, so I'll go ahead and close public comment at 617. Do I have a motion? I'll make a motion to adopt resolution SS SNA 2022-14. Second. All in favor? I I I Okay, motion carries.

Thank you. Okay. 7.1 review proposed phase three zoning ordinance amendment language of city of Hollister zoning ordinance. Uh may we have the staff report, please? We have the it's this the same PowerPoint. Right.

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 um for the bulk of them, it's chapter 17.2. Tonight we have several that we're going to go over tonight and I'll go over each of these in detail, but we do have quite a few to um finish out phase three. Uh chapter 17.02, which is obviously not in um 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 1702. Um but no significant changes are proposed. Most of what is in there now either got relocated to where it most appropriately belonged um or uh we've grouped it together better within this chapter. Chapter 17.03 3 is a new chapter. I have pulled out the information regarding each of the zoning districts as well as the role of the zoning map from 17.02 and gave it its own chapter so that they're grouped together in the in one in one location. Um, 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. S sections 16.44080 is new. This is exist. This section is currently located within the zoning ordinance, but it relates to lotline adjustments. Lotline 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 tenative maps and parcel maps. Uh 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 um 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 uh corrected that language to comply with current practices. Chapter 17.98 is signed permits and this is a new chapter for the zoning ordinance. Currently, right now, uh the requirements for signed 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 a 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 5-ft tall monument sign and so they required planning commission

review. So staff is recommending that we uh 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 we go. Chapter 17.102 is the new variances uh chapter. Variances are a permit that seek to ensure that a property owner whose property is different from the properties in in the area is able to develop their property similar to um the property owners in the area. So an example would be if I have a very irregularly shaped lot with a, you know, high angle at one area to require a 20 foot setback may be an imposition on them due to the the shape of that lot. And so a variance could be requested to change um that setback to allow them to add onto their house or whatever they wanted to do um due to like on 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 regula regulations are rooted in state law. Uh 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 um 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 min ministerial review and the city is required to have

ministerial review which means that it is a staff level project. There is little overview that we have on the project. They have to conform to the requ 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 in 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. uh SB4 which is 100% affordable projects on lands owned by a religious or educational institution. AB2 2011 which is 100% affordable residential developments on commercial land which meets the requirements of that bill. AB2162 which is supportive housing in multif family mixeduse zoning districts uh 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 um apply or are eligible for these. There's also SB35, which is an infill project with at least 50% of the units dedicated to lowinccome and it does require prevailing RA wage component. SB 684, 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 are 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 17.110 is also a new one. It is reasonable accommodations. The city is required to provide reasonable accommodations for eligible individuals. 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 um 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. The city does not currently have a reasonable accommodation ordinance. So, this is new again. And uh this would be reviewed by the comm community development director for a reasonable accommodation. Uh 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 uh done at staff. Chapter 17.118 enforcement um again is just cleaned up. There's no significant changes but it's the enforcement of the requirements in the zoning ordinance. So the next steps um any changes that you've requested today staff will incorporate them into the draft chapters. um 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 requirements, 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 um 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 um districts which are included within that 17.03 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 be happy to answer any questions if you have them.

Then thank you. Do we have any questions from the commission? I just had a question. If a sign is denied during the ministerial review, um 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. Um, so I I want to say to appeal to the planning commission like $3,500 um 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 um public noticing requirements, things like that. But yes, the the adopted fee they would pay.

I I saw the six feet and I think I'm going to just add on to it. I think I would like there to be recourse or um say the applicant they have a 7 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 don't I think you're trying to Yeah. Do you kind of follow what I'm reading?

I see what you're saying. So the application fee right now for all monument signs is quite large because you are 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 within you're still falling within range of if they just went to you in the first place, if that makes sense.

No, I meant more like um so what the code is suggesting if it's below it's if it's 650 or under, it's just staff review or 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 kind of some initiative a mechanism that would kind of uh prompt staff to be like hey you know what what if we did the sixoot sign instead of a six and a half. Yeah.

I completely understand you what we are supposed to do at the counter then with with this changes. I'm going to 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 review and I look at your plans and it's 15 feet, I don't want to waste your time, right? I'm going to let you know right then this is not the appropriate permit for you. This is now pretend they somehow get in because they're 6' 4 in. The recommendation is going to be take 4 in off and then you'll be fine. We're not going to just say denied. Okay? We would rather work with anyone to get them to a point of being approved. Okay. I just want to make sure.

But I 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 going to go to you and recommend denial. That's a 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 want to approve it. It meets every every aspect of our code. That's always our goal.

Uh just for a point of clarification for myself. So any sign below 6 ft, staff would review it, correct? And then make a decision. Anything above 6 ft. So you re you had said that the cost for anything above six feet there's substantial cost because of all the process. So is the fees going to be different moving forward? So the monument sign over six feet would stay at the fee that we have right now. And then the other sign is um the lower cost the like the administrative administrative permit review sign fee which is

I think it's like $170. Yeah. So, so right now we are proposing a fee change, but one of our next step goals once we have all of our new applications in place and our application procedures cuz as the commission will recall from some of our earlier study sessions, we 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 architectural review or a minor conditional use permit. So, a a follow-up project would be to readress our fees to readress our new project. And since we're proposing a lot of reduction in level of review, we would want to 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, um 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 6ft sign or a 5ft 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 5t 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 cuz because the the signs have been a big issue from other in the past talking to other um

businesses signs have been a major um issue of contention perhaps like what you maybe making like a a a an image image or something that kind of 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 we've discussed this before along with the permitting chapters we are going to have all new application forms and handouts and information available to the public um 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 um for certain projects um 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. Um, 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 let 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. Um, I've already wor 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 what what are the rules? And it's it's on there to make it easier for them to apply. Okay. Are monuments the only ones that could go either way, planning, commission, or material?

That's the only change we're recommending. Um, 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. Um, wall signs, which is our most consistent sign type that we see, typically are reviewed about 7 to 14 days. It kind it depends on the complexity of the sign to be honest with you. And then those are the 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 the rules for the a shopping center like Heritage Plaza we looked at a couple months ago. Um 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? Uh, we have not had one, but in my mind, a creative sign might be, let's say, I'm opening a 1950s style diner and I want to have a cool 1950s 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'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. Um, can you go back to the enforcement slide, please?

This thing falls asleep. that one. Oh. Um, it'll I think it'll let me take it.

Yeah, it falls asleep real fast. So, this is nothing's changing here, right? No, no significant changes are um proposed here. It was mostly a cleanup of language. Okay. And this is not code enforcement. Code enforcement is right is ruled by another chapter.

This is enforcement of the zone warrants. Um let's see. I'll go ahead and open it up to public comment. Yes, we do have a speaker card. We have Chris Pedo here. Hi, my name is Chris Pedo. I'm from San Diego. Um, I have a prepared speech, but I'm kind of shocked at what I've just seen and the way that everything was glossed over. So, I'm going to try and go through this quickly and hope you'll get into some Q&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 submitts 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'll 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 170203 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 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. That's another nine months. I request paragraph one be recrafted so the pending application can be pro can proceed so long as staff deems the application complete within 12 months. So you're putting a sunset provision in there. This will allow time for responses back and forth resubmitts if necessary and an appeal and the items can be reviewed by the commission. Same thing goes for item E4 which is a which is a vesting tenative map which I've also submitted. I can get all through the process. you guys approve this. What you didn't see is 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 mixeduse designation. We just stopped. You you can keep can we give him another 3 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 $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 going to delay coming to the town or are going to 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 mis mis mixeduse designation. But you're not here to look at one particular project. I have no idea how long it's going to 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 were talking about, your sign permit, it was a hund it was a $1,000 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 8 in the morning until 2:30 in the afternoon. and we're going to 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, get into 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 million improvement, million dollar and 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 could. But yeah, at 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, but if they want to go through Eva, to me, that is totally allowed. So, however you want to handle it or you can get into a dialogue, but it's up to you. Okay. Well, I'll go ahead and re reccom with staff and then we'll I just have some clarification. Is that accurate from your understanding? Is when we do do these study sessions, it sounds like something happened, some mechanism happens where they have to resubmit. That's kind of my understanding.

I'm not 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 reasonable accommodations, etc., etc. this permitting section. The only person I could think of was if someone has already applied for a monument sign, they got 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. 17.03 is drafted to match the density within the general within the housing element because that outlines our zoning category or our zoning districts. There is nothing in here that is reszoning a property, changing the text of the residential or commercial mixeduse um 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. Um 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 could 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 1702. So the attachment for 1702 and the section is 170230e1. Um, which is attachment 7 and page I don't have a page number three I think. So essentially this section um is for if this code is adopted, it'll come into effect 30 days after the council adopts it. And this section um 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. Um, we've talked in the past about completeness, which is that 30-day review against our checklist. Um, 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 30 days

after it's adopted and then you know 6 months or a year or 3 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 it describes. So you're So you're saying if we were just to approve it without doing the sunset provision

and I'm kind of asking the you're saying they would you' probably have to resubmit start all over. not clothing these types of this is this is a study session you're noting anything but approving something that was going to impact project that we didn't know and I had to restart I'm working on an excuse project that we had to work alone which was city approved requirement that all mix has housing I have national tenants that don't do housing part of the project we have to go didn't happen which is crazy but we did so and that took months because you don't see that type of stuff happen but we didn't know that that makes use so it takes months to go back and forth get fortune 500 companies their stuff come back we're ready to submit all of a sudden it doesn't happen and we are in that is telling us you're going to have to do but right now we're allowed and that's the thing so we're submitting based on current We adopted it based and 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 you guys want to see the most and I think that it's a disservice that you aren't evaluating it. I don't know the council evaluating it. Typically when these are happening I get brought into cities so that they're developer because my tenants want to be here. I don't have a relationship with this. So I'm not being asked to participate but but this is and again it's not the first time. So you don't want to spend an hour going through this and the signs

are hugely important. They included a sign under 5t. I think that some of the stuff that we discussed tonight is by far the most impactful. I mean, it is very Okay. Thank you. I'll um

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. um to get the housing element certified, etc. 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, 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. And so usually paid so that 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. I would have had different people here helping me and giving more information, but the request is you just make allowances and you don't want it to go on forever. Sir, I I understand I do have to run the meeting. I I do appreciate I want you to hang out. Maybe we can discuss get, you know,

that's fine. discussed, but I do have to move on. Um 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 uh a general plan and then there was the referendum on the general plans. That's also adding to the confusion. Correct. Yeah. I think um especially with our h well with any housing element and then we have a general plan at the same time there's a lot of changes that are going to happen that's a function of let's say the next meeting unfortunately whereas tonight it's like how are we processing projects um what do we want to see moving forward as as like how effective are we um okay

how do we re want to re reward how we process projects books but I would like to put a sunset on um 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 council meeting 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 going to be subject to change, right? you know in a timeline things could be submitted and deemed complete within from between now and when the code comes into effect. 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 18 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 which project he is. I'm pretty sure he's the only 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 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 city council. it has to come back before you actually first. Um, 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 uh has the ability to pull up 170230e and we can like 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 aren't complete. 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 um right now it is drafted the same way the current ordinance is 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 uh 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 reddraft 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 is this is something that is not based in state law. It's based in what the city wants to h when do you want to apply this ordinance to projects that might be in the process in this transition. Um, in the past we requested like updates on projects 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. Um, would you be able to add an impact study to your to all the work they've done to these study sessions? Uh, applicants would be impacted by any of the changes that are going to be, you know, my understanding was that this is just mostly a reformatting of the you know of the information. So if you didn't Yeah. if you didn't adopt these at all, like we hit an impass, the existing section that still requires that conformity is still in the zoning ordinance. Okay, so that was my next question. Has any of the items that we've covered in these study sessions, have any of that been enforced and impacted existing projects or was that just in reinforce because of state laws or something like that?

Uh most of the changes are state law. So they're there anyways, we have to follow it. So, for example, that ministerial review, all 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 these changes that are being Yeah.

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 regul 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? Um, it is not I am not reszoning a property. Again, I am not um doing anything else as part of this. Now, 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 going to be required to follow it if it gets adopted.

It sounds like the the provisions that will affect the affect um possible projects or applicants is going to be what the state law is mandating. Correct. Um in the case of this project, it's the housing element I'm pretty sure is what he's referring to, which you're going to look at next month. I I would just like a sunset provision on whatever on what's impacting projects. Yeah.

So, we we can definitely look into um 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 um 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 um complete before the effective date, my suggestion to the commission would be to tell us complete um no more than or deemed complete uh like 60 days after 90 180 or 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. Um 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 change. They get

it would just be projects that are incomplete like so in the review with staff, a resubmitt, so less than 30 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 20th and comes so on May 20th any project that's incomplete on May 20th right now would follow the new procedures you adopt but we could make it 60 days after May 20th or 90 or 180 whatever your suggestion might be we could we could put that in the ordinance that's something we can put in

um I think it'll be good to review the chapter you're mentioning um as far as to guide our recommendation maybe go through an example um but the meeting next month is going to 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 you know that's one thing we can do. AB: Absolutely. I I Yeah, even denied projects too, like you just said. I I like that denied. Um

I don't think it Yeah, I don't have any denied. There's one and it was two years ago. Okay. It didn't meet fire code. Yeah. I mean to the to the 12th to the 26th or both. What? I think inform them of both meetings. Um and then they can decide. Yeah. Um 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 a 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 want to give people 60 days or 90 days to get to completeness because the the key trigger is 90 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 conditional use permit for alcohol and that wouldn't be affected anyways. Is it possible to get examples from surrounding uh jurisdictions what what their sunset language is

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

Yeah, I I I'm not real comfortable making any drastic recommendation or changes. I I I'm interested in doing some cutting 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? Um, Ava,

the the there's a March 12th. 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 12th but it's not about this ordinance um so correct yes but I just want the record to reflect for the audience so March 12th there's going to be a meeting that'll encompass the entirety planning process and I just think for those who want are interested in that I think that would be um very effective.

And then just so you know, this completed section, so phase three, you would be looking you would be reviewing it during a 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 20th. 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 26th meeting

and then u because it's an ordinance it's the April 20th is the first reading then we have to go to a subsequent meeting for a second reading and then it's 30 days after that it takes effect. Okay. And then so we have at least 30 60 90 day plus is 100 days. Our next our next planning commission meeting is the 26th. Correct. Correct. Okay. And that joint meeting is the 17th. The 12th. The 12th. Okay. So, and

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. Um, and then we would we can bring that back of of what we found and then we'll have the draft ordinance with the change um if there's some kind of basis or probably something like 60 days or 90 days. one does 30 days or we'll point it out and make the along with the impact report that I think that you said. Um, yes, we can projects that are in the Yeah. Q that are in. Yeah. So, two things

list projects and invite them to the study session as well. Yeah. 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. Um 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 going to change that's going to impact an an application in one way or another that they should be notified and acknowledge received of that and then determine like whether the time frame from that point. So it's just not notifying applicants who are going to be impacted

by future um adoptions of ordinance changes I think would be a step I would like to be added. Yeah, we can do that. Um it's with this we didn't change anything that was going to wrap anyone up in it um that of the impact you know study that you do the analysis if you could separate it was impacted by state law or by local ordinance that would help determine like the

and we do have a web page on the city's website dedicated to the zoning ordinance updates that we are doing and it goes over all the phases and Um 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 um 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 limit. So, a dizzle and anyone can always request to be notified um if they want to um 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. Okay. So, I'm going to close um unless there's anything other comments. 7.2. We're going to move on to 8.1. Planning Commissioner reports. Uh Chair Rodriguez, this was 71, so we actually need to move to 7.2, please.

I'm my apologies. Uh 7.2. Review um proposed object design standards. We'll try to make it quick. Um, good evening, commissioners. My name is Amber Cameron. I'm a senior planner with the city of Hollister. Um, the item before you tonight, uh, the city of Hollister has been working on finalizing a set of objective design standards for our downtown multifamily and mixeduse projects. Um, this is funded through a REAp 2.0 grant. Um, 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? Um are some of the standards too detailed or maybe they're not detailed enough? Um are there areas that need more clarity, consistency, maybe they need to be more usable or could be improved in some other aspects. Um, we're also asking that you um give feedback on the overall approach again to some of the local um 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? Um, the city and its consultants, Place Works, will be incorporating the commission's feedback into the final document. Um, 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. Um and we will be bringing back the finalized version before the planning commission for recommendation um to the city council at our next meeting which will be March 26. Um there is a presentation tonight. Um that presentation will be given by associate uh principal with place works Greg Goodfellow. his presentation. We'll go over um an explanation of the state's legislative framework um driving the need for the objective design standards. Um we'll be reviewing policies and procedures that help place and shape um 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 March 13, 2025 planning commission meeting, highlight community engagement um 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. Uh as Amber said, we're going to go through the progress of the uh multifamily and mixeduse objective design standards. Um I've been working closely with um planning staff here, Amber, Ava, Erica, and uh Z Schwen in my office. And um 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 tie into this. One of them is state law. Another is ministerial review and another that uh Commissioner Rodriguez brought up which is the value of having good visuals with what could be complex standards. And I'm going to hit on all those things tonight. And um again, the city has now drafted objective design standards for all types of multifamily and residential mixeduse projects in the downtown mixeduse district, otherwise known as the DMU. Uh we'll go over the background, look at the outreach, view some samples, and get your feedback. Uh don't need to go over that again. All right. Um 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? Is 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 reszone for thousands of new housing units which is very difficult which is going to lead to that zoning effort that you'll hear about next uh next meeting. Part of this state law is that the state has decided that a multif family units are what we need right now not single family homes and b the discretionary review process whereby you can talk about how a 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 got to use standards just as if they were a development standard, an F, a height, uh a setback, etc. 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 got to 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, 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 uh 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 equipment must be screened or shall be screened. Uh provide articulation to reduce apparent mass. Well, what exactly is apparent mass? No. At intervals of at least 100 ft of building length, there shall be a plane break along a facade. You know, everything is numerical. Everything is straightforward. Again, this is uh 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 mixeduse housing because it can't disapprove a multif

family housing project, including through design review unless the project is shown to be inconsistent with objective quantifiable standards. That's straight from Senate Bill 330 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, right? 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 multif family and residential mixed use. Residential mixed use means a project that has at least 75% residential uh square footage. Uh the rest can be retail. What are not subject to these standards? anything non-residential that industrial project you looked at in your first item that would not be these standards would 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 housing project on or near a hazardous site or that you know impacts an actual resources on a wetlands or destroys a reg registered historical landmark those types of projects s even if they're multif family, they still require review. All right. Uh we were here earlier in the year and got some great feedback from the commission. Uh first of all, uh 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 uh 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 uh events. Um 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 uh 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 uh significant uh objective design standards education and outreach process. Oh there we go. All right. The 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 could they preserve downtown character? So, this went up also on a great web page that the city created so we could uh advertise all our events and put those uh materials up. We had an online survey out from October to December of uh uh 2025. We got 72 responses from a range of residents. Um I put here some of the key responses to some of the main questions. uh what what what are your visual emphases that you want to prioritize downtown? Again, the main one was walkability and sidewalks. What are the pedestrian amenities you want to make sure are are uh 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 uh 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 roof form has the nice um red tiles of a Spanish revival building or some other element of architectural quality. And that also new building should respect the scale and form of a neighboring historic structure. Frontage priorities. What do you want to 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 uh open spaces uh the community wanted to see benching benches and seating to make sure those spaces uh out front and within uh projects are open to recreation and to um play for children. Sorry. Uh oh, seem to be frozen. One second here. Oh, here we go. All right. We also held uh Oh, a community design workshop. Um 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. Um, uh, city staff were great in helping us mail out 8,000 postcards, which you see on the screen, to 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 4ft x 5 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 uh participants could put stickers on each of those um squares or put uh post-it note comments relative to each topic on the boards. Uh here's an example of one of the boards, a picture of it as the dots were on it. Um we got some interesting feedback as far as building design.

There was uh a medium prioritization of massing and volume. In other words, just about uh not everyone but most people thought that we should make sure that the the way buildings are scaled with their massing should be uh controlled. There was focus on greenscape landscape buffering. In other words, parking lots should be surrounded by green spaces or contain green spaces. Uh, one comment, make sure the street 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. Um, these are just just a quick overview. Um, it was interesting. This is something that was different in Hollister than in other uh projects that I've done, which is that residents seem to wanted to stress the design of residential ground floor as much as retail. So usually it's a focus on those mixeduse ground floors. Um but so again in our standards that you've seen we tried to focus on uh residential ground floor design also. And these are just some other comments on orientation public frontages. All right. 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. Um, my experience putting these together was that doing these for downtown Hollister, it's it's a it's a much more compact space. Usually, these are city-wide 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 um a historic aesthetic um 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 um the structure of the document is similar to a lot of objective design standards because there are important topics everywhere in

others in other ways they are much more targeted on key topics. So chapter one we go uh it's a has a background into the policy into the legal issues. There's a quick intro on downtown Hollister and historic districts the types of a projects to which these would apply the regulation to the zoning code the general plan etc. 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 multif family and residential mixeduse. 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 multif family 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 mixeduse 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, uh for chapter 2, we have different standards for projects that are in the downtown core, which is that really that key spine along San Bonito versus those that are in the outer downtown. And we have um 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 quadlex or a group of of three side by side smaller town homes might look like. And these we have a little bit more flexible standards. and the four, excuse me, the four major sections, site design and orientation, building design, historic design compatibility, and then landscape and lighting.

And then the 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 um an application for a multif family or mixeduse 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 um you're compliant with standard 323 44 or 546. 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. Um they want to keep it at the staff level. So this checklist is something we always include in our ODS uh for staff to use. All right. Uh the commission brought up earlier this idea that it would be great to have a a visual to go with a sign ordinance issue. You've seen this this boring looking word document. I know that we we we release these with to staff to make sure we can go through them all together before we spend the time to actually make the standards or excuse me the figures. So I want to 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. Um, so the idea here is if you have um 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 um pedestrian access from street to street. And that that um pedestrian roadway, excuse me, that pedestrian path has to go street to street. That's a up there. It's got to 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 clarifies these things. It shows you that middle ground 50% to make sure it's centered that 8ft 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 abs and cs, 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 visualiza and excuse me visitation amenities. Um 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 accessibility infrastructure. So there's that um figure that goes with it. What you're not seeing here, because I just couldn't figure it all on the slide, is the table that goes with this, which has those um 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 uh safe for movement, but again, this is uh the figure that will go with this standard at this point.

Quick question. Frontage zone would be like um technically that's part of the building. It's just like an extend, right? And this would be this would be specifically for mixeduse buildings. So let's say you have that ground floor could be cafes or uh you know uh commercial businesses that zone you are allowed to place these different amenities that keep this a friendly place chairs seating decorative light post things like that. Okay. So something that's not necessarily going to inhibit like um say housing project that'd be like oh my gosh I just lost No. Okay. 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 uh 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 going to say anything about um 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 multif family 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, um the issue of where housing 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 used a 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 uh old wood beams that are so uh 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 uh vertical window styles of Italian 8. So again, in the document you have in your package, I know that's just a big uh 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 uh clear. Uh, another example of of a 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 going to 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 uh 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 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 uh 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 are cover that that approach. All right. And those were all standards from chapter 2. Those were those larger of course multif family potential multif family buildings. That's why there's that scale um standard there. These are from chapter 3. The smaller duplexes that are more neighborhood style multif family. These would not be mixed use. So, an example here is we want to make sure that if you're walking on that street, you're not going to just see a huge ugly garage, which unfortunately a lot of uh 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 uh take up more than 60% of the total frontage. They need to be uh recessed back with an overhang, things like that. If they're to off to the side, same thing. They need to go uh have a separate entrance off to the side and and and recessed from the facade. And then same thing with the rear uh 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 roof line 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 u figure or just a change in um design. Uh some a projecting element that projects at least 3 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 roof line. 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, smallcale 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, I 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 um cohesive visual from the street. And so this prevents um 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 got to have the same stucco as that historic design, you know, or you have to use that same um wood collaborating as the Italian 8 right next to you. So again, it's it's providing some flexibility for developers, but responding to those longtime priorities here in Hollister. I know that was a lot. Um, as Amber mentioned, I mean, my idea here is just to make sure that these four points, if you have 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. So, 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, the I think the idea is what's not prioritized is just simply is not in this. And that's the same with every city. That's why different cities have different ODS. If they're good, they 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 wait, 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. Uh I literally finished in the last year ODS for cities as different as Antioch and Certino 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 want to do this. We just offer it as a, you know, a framework for how you might do it. Another question on the material. That's not something that could be dictated, right? Like um I'm trying to think of an example.

No, it materials can be dictated. There are standards that say um more common is prohibited materials. Um, uh, example that comes to my head right now, we've been asked for a, um, 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 those plastic corrugated fencing that goes in. Um, some cities have have uh prohibited um like polyurethane sighting, you know. Okay. Uh yeah, that's the only thing that like trying to think of an example. I apologize.

That's okay. No, I'm just like like for me personally, I would like to prohibit things that like 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 marble. I basically I don't know how you're the expert. You know how toulate. 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 um corporate architecture and we listed out things like, you know, faux facads. 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 in there spelled out. It's totally spelled out. No corporate architecture. No. No branded faux frontages, I think, is how I put it. No. Yeah. Okay, that's perfect. Sorry, I didn't That's all right. I know there was a lot of material on that. Did do we have anything on fencing um on the Zodius? We don't we don't I'd be happy to add it. Yeah. Do tell me your thoughts. Well, I I'd like to see that we I don't I don't want to say eliminate, but I guess eliminate um chain link fencing. Um absolutely. I I I think the ri rot iron uh fencing look I think that's it's more appealing.

Okay.

Um I totally agree and actually in that table of distinctive architectural features one of them is um you know bring in that row 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 it would be called 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 um 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. Uh, a brick might be nice, too, but we didn't 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 rod iron um it it maintains longer. Sure. You know, fencing over time, it just deteriorates. And, you know, um 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 um metallic or or corros corrosion susceptible fencing such as rot iron traditional metal link and that I think that that's 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. Um I was I was going to 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, um we currently prohibit sheet or corrugated iron, steel, aluminum, bamboo, or asbestous um 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. We just copy and paste that and then whatever the will of the commission is. Yeah, I think the asbesus one that's federal and state though already. Yeah, that

and then it doesn't have chain link, but we can chain part 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 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 Blong, that doesn't mean I don't respect your your input at all. 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 going to find out. Wait, but it said it this one didn't say something, you know, and this one did. So, so certainly if we add it from zoning, we need to make sure it's to a te and and you know,

um, 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'm going to say street street fronting. Yeah, street fronting. Okay, maybe that's my recommendation. Um and also um is there anything that prohibits division of public spaces? Just like if 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 ride ofway or more on the property

like the 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 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 that sidewalk would be the area um you know, if there's a fresco, if if if a if a mixeduse building has like, you know, a series of pillars and you can walk through that front you know, um along those retail buildings. I mean, but I that would be entirely within I think the the property line of that structure. So, yeah. Are you are you thinking um Commissioner Perez like the 400 block um how they have the the arcades and that's on their property and they're divided? Yeah.

Uh are you thinking you want to do that all the time? want to or just want to allow it if they want to propose it. Like I think that's my question is like do we want to take that into consideration as far as some guidance like if it's intended 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? kind of like the parklets where they're pretty specific to which business that parklet was right in front of the business and it was part of the open near the walkway.

Do you want to 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 and she has 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 kind of like um I forget what business it was, but um next to Johnny's, there's that little patio kind of like if you want to 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 am always of the assumption the more flexibility the better. I don't

Yeah, I mean I I in this case I am of the mind that it might be better to not bring that up in this document. Um I I think it might be an unnecessary sort of barrier to to what you can do down there, you know. I What are you thinking, Eva? Yeah, 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 rideway, 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 um slide, whether we want to prohibit or I would say lean towards more a prohibit. We don't want to have a division, a vertical like fence barrier in that public 12T 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 it 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 D, 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 am 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 want to call it a 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 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 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. Yeah. Yeah, I do too. Well, do you did was my presentation did it help you to understand this? I hope and 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 talate describes 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 going to 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, all right, 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. Um, but again, just walking around today, you do see those, you know, those arched colonades of Spanish style. You do see the Italian, you see the Gothic Tourettes, 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 a interesting feedback from the public just 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 kind of 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 more, you know, 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 Italian or gothic but instead it's more here's six like roof features some of them are Italian some of them are mission and pick one and you know and then in the windows you could probably pick uh Italian 8 and then Victorian for the other cuz 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 they did because the other reality was if we wrote a standard telling every developer that they need to make their three-story mixeduse building look Victorian, a lot of developers would 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's 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 uh 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 Road downtown, I think it might have been a different town, how they have a specific um ODS. It's because they want to continue a specific look, you know, that they have and our downtown unfortunately doesn't have any any committed style. Yeah. So, and I think 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

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? Uh yeah, if there's no more questions right now. Sorry I picked up and you guys were I open up to public comment. We do not have any public speakers. Okay, I'm going to close public comment. Um I think that's that's no motion, right? Just

No. Yeah. So, we've we've uh heard some feedback about adding um particularly on prohibition of fencing types, making sure we have that clear for street facing visible fencing. Um, and then I think we'll look into uh that sidewalk zone. Um, do actually do we want to look into the sidewalk zone or just just kind of 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 competition like you mentioned in our town for outdoor space or places. 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 for Okay. Well, I think thank you. Yeah, that that's that's the kind of feedback we want to hear. And so our our next step, as we've mentioned, is to get all these images in and get you a standards document that the goal is to bring that back. Next meeting is going to be fun. Mark your calendars. 26. Make sure we come. It's going to be a good meeting. Long one, but a good one. And this our goal is to bring this back. Thank you, Commissioner.

I I just was real quick. Um it looks like 8.1 commissioner reports. Do we have any reports? cuz I I'm going to be honest. I'm going to break. I You really have to use the restroom or do we have any or I don't have any report. Okay. I guess no reports for the commission. No. Would they have to open up for public comment? No. No. Okay. Uh 8.2 planning division reports. Do you have any planning division reports?

Uh the only thing that I'd like to report and we've mentioned a little bit through the meeting, but the 12th there is a joint session of the council and planning commission. And it's going to be uh the 12th at 6 p.m. in Vets Hall. Uh I and more details are to come on and exactly the format. I I don't have those details. And then the 26th, the next regular meeting of the planning commission here in the chambers at 6 at a regular time is going to 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 going to be a big public hearing for consideration recommendation of the council at March.

Okay. Awesome. And I don't know if we were able Did you when you gave that direction, did you want were you including the notice for that March 12th meeting as well? Okay. I just want to clarify we wanted for that joint planning commission city council meeting I don't know if it's a meeting or it Yes, it's open to the public. It's at Vets Hall, so anyone's welcome to come. But we would like a notice for any applicants currently. Yes.

And also, you said denials. I think there was only one, but we would just like Yeah. And that's it. I believe those are my only report. Awesome. Um, do I have a motion to adjurnn? Motion. Second. Can I have a roll call? I'm just kidding. All All in favor? I I

Thank you. Night. Oh, wait. It's not a problem.