Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Well,

Thank you.

So they've got that back to you. Well, . Oh, cool. All right. Okay. Yeah, okay. Well, that's all right. Do you have any questions? Yeah. yeah and she doesn't say if you want to go there you can find out if you have trouble I know my name in the hat.

As you can tell, I'm ugly out there.

Thank you. All right.

All right. All right.

Yeah, we'll figure it out.

If not, you all can remind me. Ready?

OK. Are you talking to the conference?

Okay, good evening to our Planning Commission meeting. We're going to go ahead and call the meeting to order at 6 p.m. And we'll go ahead and take roll call.

Commissioner Hernandez.

Here.

Commissioner Perez.

Here.

And Chair DeLuna.

Here. Thank you. And would one of you like to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance?

Thank you.

Thank you.

I 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.

thank you and next we'll go ahead and have any public input for items not on the agenda so if anyone from the audience wants to speak on an item not on the agenda there are speaker parts speaker cards available in the lobby to be completed and give it to staff do we have any we have no public comment Thank you. We'll go ahead and move to consent items. All items listed under consent agenda will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless requested by a member of the Planning Commission, staff member, or a member of the public. There will be one public comment period for all items on the consent agenda. And then do we have a motion to approve?

Motion to approve. Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Anyone oppose? No. Approved. We'll move on to item six, public hearings, 6.1, a resolution approving minor subdivision 2026-02 for the Los Pinares apartment complex located at 1561 and 1603 Cushman Street. And we're ready to hear the report.

Don't wanna do it. Leave it at that.

The map before you is the Los Pinares apartment complex. It has not been constructed yet, but it is approved by the Planning Commission, and it is in for building permits. I think they're building permits of an issue. It's located at 1561 and 1603 Cushman Street. It's part of a larger residential development that was approved back in 2013, and there were some subsequent approvals and extensions from there. The project is a subdivision of the apartment complex to allow for financing. The subdivision is consistent with the mitigated negative declaration that was adopted for the entirety of the Los Pinares residential development. This subdivision doesn't confer any additional units. It's merely a subdivision to allow for financing. um the apartment complex if it's constructed will add much needed rental housing to the city and the proposed subdivision complies with the municipal code and has been reviewed by the city's DRC even minor subdivisions such as this one per our code do require planning commission approval so that is why it is before you tonight and staff is recommending approval as proposed And so, for this one, you have our standard or options, but staff is recommending that you do approve the minor subdivision as proposed.

Thank you, are there any questions.

This was sick like them, I saw in the documentation.

It's not CEQA exempt because CEQA was done for the larger project, but this subdivision falls within that project because we're subdividing an approved project. So there's no additional development. There's nothing that there's no additional land area being disturbed. So it falls within the approved mitigated negative declaration.

And that's back from 2013? And it still applies?

It still applies, yes. Any environmental document applies to the project.

Even with the current issues we're hearing about, the sewers?

Yes, because what happens is when a project gets approved, whenever it gets approved, that becomes a baseline project. So this project has been approved since 2013. These apartments have been approved. And the impacts related to this, the entirety of the residential development is always planned for in the subsequent subsequent projects, because it's a known project so any sequel document that comes comes right after this 10 years after 1020 years after it as long as it's still project you're counting it in as your baseline factors because. If I approve 20 projects tomorrow and I do a sequel document for number 21 and don't factor in the other 20, let's say in terms of water or traffic, that doesn't make any sense. You want to know now that we've hit 21, what does 21 do? What does project number 23 do? So we continuously stack on what those environmental impacts are for every project in every subsequent review.

Should we do questions now or do a public comment and then we can continue to

It's up to you.

Let me just ask one more clarifying before public comment. Just so that in very simple terms, in 2013, how many were approved and what is the difference now?

There's no difference. The only difference is we're drawing some lines on a map to subdivide it so they can get financing. They need to have property lines so that they can use that property to finance the construction of the other property. It's a financing thing that we've seen more often now in rental housing. And you've seen it a couple times now where we're subdividing the apartment buildings on a parcel so that they can use each parcel to fund the construction of the next parcel. And that's what most builders are doing now to finance construction. It's rare that we're seeing an apartment complex on one lot. They are subdivided.

It was for financial.

It's just financing. This is not giving us any. I could build tomorrow without this subdivision, but they need it to finance the project. If they didn't have it, they're unable to finance it and get it constructed. That makes sense.

You mentioned that it was. I just, I want to keep it brief, but you mentioned that it had to do with. It being a rental property.

This is an apartment project. And so they're not for sale. So it's a different type of financing. So typically what we see is if there are, this one is four buildings, we see each four gets its own property and they, the banks will finance the individual properties. I'm not a financial lender. I don't understand the whole thing, nor do I go out and get financing. But this is not something that, this is not unusual. We're seeing this more and more. The extension you had for 4th and Graff, I think in May, they had the same, they have the same scenario with the four lots for the buildings to allow for financing in phased construction.

Let's go ahead and open for public hearing at 6.08. Do we have any public comments?

Anne Hall.

Good evening. My name's Anne Hall. I'm with San Benito Engineering. I'm here on behalf of the applicant. No requests for changes. We're happy with what staff has put together. I'm really just coming up to say that I'm here and the applicant is here if you have questions.

Any other public comment online?

We have no public comment.

OK. We'll go ahead and close the public hearing at 6 or 9 PM. And do we have further comments or questions?

I think we've already had this item on before. And yeah, I think we've got an information.

So I think we had a lot of we had questions then. But I think those got answered. Did we have this one before us before?

I don't think so. I remember a lot being subdivided, unless it's a different that's the one you're referencing.

You're thinking of a different one. Most peanuts hasn't been before you. Planning Commission approved it in 2013 2016 and got extended.

Why did it get extended?

Karen Hollweg, instruction takes a long time oh California yeah it's a large development so they're single family, they have departments and there it's medium density and it's this wide variety of. Karen Hollweg, housing types within this larger project area and so being that it is large, it does take a while to build these sort of phased developments they don't happen in two years and didn't take a while look at. West of Fairview, that subdivision has been since 2007, the map was approved, and we're still building it.

So what would be the next time this project would be in front of us, if any?

We will not see it again. So it's already approved. The apartments are, the whole thing is approved. The apartments are the last phase of this project.

And it's only because of the lot line adjustments.

So you're only seeing it today because they're requesting a parcel map to split it into four lots. In most cities, it is done at staff level, and All-Star, it's done at the planning function. So that might be a little...

I did go pass by it, just a visual. And I'm just curious, the neighborhood was aware before?

This is an old project.

Just that traffic over there right on Nash Road. Why the high school? It's a lot of traffic. What if we were not to approve?

You can still build the apartments.

They're still going to go forward. So it's...

But again, we do need apartments in the city. We have a lack of apartments. This provides some much needed housing. It's identified in our housing element as a site we want built. It's in our pipeline projects. So it's not a project we want to discourage. It's been on the radar for 13 years, over 13 years at this point. And it's really just allowing them to get financing to build these apartments up.

And, and I would add to advise the Commission that this is a ministerial action, it doesn't change any of the approvals. So that's already down the road. So at this point, we would only be looked at as analyzing the developer because they're just trying to create for a financing mechanism. Right. So,

Yeah, thank you for explaining that. We, I understand that the only thing this is prompting is like this whole sequel mitigation and it's just outdated information that doesn't seem to address the infrastructure issues we're seeing right now. So, and it's not specific to this project as any project. And I do agree this would be a great project for the community. But the bigger picture here is like, when will the infrastructure issues be addressed if not through these projects?

So this project is planned for again. So all of our secret documentation acknowledges it. Traffic improvements in the area acknowledge it. It is a known coming soon attraction.

So where does the math fall off then? Because what we're seeing in the discussion and the issues, it just doesn't line up with those being approved outcomes from the study saying this is the impact that the community is going to be experiencing. I don't think it's in line with what would have been acceptable.

So I think that's a separate conversation we'd have to have about what is CEQA? How do we move forward with older projects? What do we do about traffic in the city? Separating that from this project, this is a residential project. We have limitations from the state on what we can impose on residential projects and how we can deny projects. Now this is just the subdivision, but one could infer that denying the subdivision would in effect deny this project if they need it for financing and so i wouldn't recommend that that be a reason that we're going to deny it any housing development that we deny we have very specific findings that we have to find and it's health and safety and this is an approved project so i want to separate this one from maybe one that you would see you know down the road And within that project, it's easier to discuss what are the direct impacts of that project, this new project that we are looking at. This project has been planned for.

I propose a study session separate from these projects just to understand the infrastructure issue.

100%. I mean, I totally agree with you, Commissioner. I mean, to me, it's hard to, like to what Erica was mentioning, Any infrastructure issues, regardless of the developer, the development is technically an issue that pertains to the City Council and addressing through their budgetary process and all the things that are necessary to address it. And I'm totally on your side. I mean, I'm as frustrated as I live in the street where the school literally locks me in. when kids get dropped off and and kids get picked up but separate to the point you know that's there's there's nothing that i mean we're tasked with addressing the zoning the code and also making sure that there's the public safety element right there but all that's supposed to be considered and County, I'm sorry, city staff. So outside of that, I mean, maybe we should have a conversation about what that means to address it, but the development itself, you know, it's hard to apply it to, especially, I do believe there are rules actually that say we can't necessarily penalize a developer for any kind of infrastructure issues or, you know, that's something that has to be addressed at the county or city level.

But I would even say, like, we can get a little bit more information because... We should understand. Yeah, because I'm with you, too. Like, we're not saying we don't understand that it was approved. That's out of our hands, whatever. And it's going to happen. But when do... What was the plan when it was approved for the traffic mitigation? What was the plan...

to think of sewer like was there a plan and if not why not and so and so if there wasn't that plan here we are we're just like rubber stamping then why are we here honestly my understanding is because of the state burdens that the unfunded mandates you're literally having a lot more deferred maintenance i keep hearing about things like you know cockroach abatement things like that being deferred down the road It will come back to bite us, but that's something that needs to be addressed, but it's separate from the project itself, I would imagine.

I'm not going to say we can't deny, but can we ask for more information? We should.

i think information on them on this one because we need to separate this one from what you're talking about okay yeah on this one so for this one it's a map of an approved project there's nothing you can change at this point you would be denying not changing the map you would be denying we were denied this map you're denying a map of an approved project that meets code and i would not

We're not denying. What I asked my fellow commissioners was if we can get more information. That's what I said.

I said not denying. So what I think I'm hearing is that you would like a study session separate from this issue. They're their own issue. They have to be on their own here. Separate from this issue is a discussion of CEQA and infrastructure issues. and what we do in this city to plan for improvements for projects. That's for the future.

Yes, and I still want to understand this. I do. I still want to understand it a little further.

Are you talking about this, the project?

This, the project, yeah, the traffic plan. I know that it's already a go, but when people move in, what's going to happen? What's the pedestrian walkway understanding? What's the traffic mitigation? Was there a plan?

But the map doesn't trigger the improvement. The apartment's already approved. So the plan for how we were going to mitigate it has already been approved by the planning commission.

I understand.

And that's in effect, they have to follow the mitigation measures, they pay into the traffic impact fee, they have to abide by everything in that mitigation, the mitigations in that plan. There is nothing that changes with this map or no.

In the session, will you be able to reference past projects?

We can go understand. Yeah. If there's some past projects you'd like us to give you more information on, we can for sure do that.

You will still get what you're after. Yeah. Um, just by separating it from this and just understanding the whole process in general.

Sure, but I think she's going to make a suggestion. I would ask the commission to take an action on this item separately. And then when we get to those staff and commissioner reports at the end, then we'll ask that we discuss the study session a little bit more in depth in that section, please.

We could do that.

Thank you.

Thank you. Are you all ready to make a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve this project per staff recommendation.

Second.

All in favor.

Aye. Aye for option one. We didn't clarify.

Oh, you didn't clarify. Yes. Do you want to go ahead and clarify which one are you making a motion for? What? One, two, three, or four.

Oh, to approve the project.

Okay.

Yeah. The recommended, the staff recommendation, like I mentioned.

Second.

All in favor.

Aye.

I'm going to abstain on this one. I don't feel comfortable. So it's two.

So it dies for life. Yeah, like a majority.

Yeah, it dies.

That's fine, but we have a vote, and this is why we're here. Yeah. Right?

But there are no grounds to deny the minor subdivision request.

Yeah, but I mean, to be fair, the chair has every right to say no. Otherwise, it's, yeah. And I'm not.

We have to have some sort of action. So it's either to approve or to deny.

Yeah, so there's two yeses.

There's two yeses. You got your majority.

So let's call for a second motion. I guess we have to bring it back. I'll call for a second motion.

Because you didn't like my vote?

No, because we have to have three votes.

We have to have a definitive vote.

It is.

It's a no, basically.

You want me to say no? Oh, that's fine. I'll say no.

Oh, instead of abstaining. Oh, that's fine.

I'll say no. And then you have your two to one.

Okay, I'll make a motion for option one. Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Anyone opposed? No. Motion carries.

Okay. I'm going to check our code real quick, but I think the motion doesn't care. Without three in any direction.

It will still go forward to the city council.

Yeah, it goes back to the council at this point. But I do disagree with the ministerial element because I think that in and of itself is going to create confusion. It kind of fast tracks things and it doesn't allow for, I mean, ultimately proper vetting, which I get it, the state wants fast tracking, but there's collateral damage at the local level when we fast track things.

Are we able to move forward or do we have to do something with this one? we're checking okay and i haven't met you mr um jeff crusher crusher nice to meet you it's french right yes and you are the

Well, my regular job is airport director. I picked up acting planning director. Okay. Okay, so you're the acting planning director.

Okay, thank you. I was not aware.

I'm going to defer to Daisy because I don't see anything about it.

I believe it just dies, but I'm just confirming right now.

Okay. Don't worry. Yeah.

What's his hat? Oh. What's the plan?

Okay.

Okay.

Chair, let's go ahead and move to the next item. Okay. This just dies for lack of having a 3-0 vote. So at this point, we'll have to ask for...

I don't think we want to... I think the applicants here would like some... So we can wait to see what Daisy says, or you can defer your decision-making authority to the City Council.

Did you want to give the applicant... Are you saying... Yeah, that's fine. Yeah.

I think you have to open the bulletin.

Oh, let's go ahead and open the public hearing back up at 624 p.m. Good evening.

My name is Al Valles. I represent Valles and Associates. We've owned this property for a little over 20 years. And just to give you some background, we were before you because we had to get an extension. And just to refresh your memory, Peter and I, you and I had a real long conversation at the community center when we all got together on my project. The only reason we're here is because of the building department. You know, every time we were ready to pull permits, we had financing in place, they moved the goalpost. And I think you guys are well aware of this. I don't want to go and rehash everything. I'm not trying to talk bad about anybody. And at the end of the day, all this is, just so you know, and if you need time to do that, then you're going to have to do what you have to do. But the project is going to go forward. The difference is the financing. When you're trying to go finance two parcels instead of four, obviously, let's just use round numbers. If you had to borrow 5 million, you have to borrow 10. Which one's easier to get? Which one is more attractive to a bank? So in this case, obviously, it'd be easier to borrow 4 or 5 million instead of 9 or 10 million. So that's why we're doing the lot line adjustments. Nothing in the subdivision changes. You can't take it away. No one can take it away. You can say no to this tonight. But that's all this is about. So as you have admitted in your last or previous meetings, we've seen that there's a lot of changes being made because of how things were handled in the city. And that's the only reason we're here tonight is because of how things have been handled for 15 years on this problem. So that's all I got to say.

Thank you so much. Anyone else?

All right.

My name is Steve Spada. I never expected to be here tonight. I live in the immediate area, as some of you. I'm trying to understand the process. I'm a businessman, a contractor, a voltage contractor, and I'm here caring for my mom now after 15 years, okay? And I've seen all the changes in Hollister. I was born and raised here. So I get a thing in the mail a few days ago, I think. The mail doesn't, isn't real. Fishing here in Hollister, I guess. And I look at this thing and I see what it is. Know what it is because I see the back. I didn't have to read it or anything. I saw the instructions to come on down and voice my opinion. How does a project get this far with all the issues in Hollister? And I understand the gentleman's problem as a business, but it's been 13 years. Things have changed. That road has got busier. As an off-site observer, it got busier because my mom at 93 years old can't walk around the block anymore. Too much traffic, too many cars, too many in and out. The Gold's Gym, the parking lot for Gold's Gym is in front of our house down the street, up and down Cushing. If this project is, Done? Great. I don't want to be anybody's thorn in their side. All right. But at the same time, were the residents in that area really considered? That area that we live in is severed as a trap, okay? When I was growing up 50 years ago, no locking the doors or nothing, right? The communities that were the upscale were out in the hills, sunny slope and all that, right?

College was already growing 50 years ago.

Then it had one place that grew was Severance and Track. Clowers and Severance and K&S Market and all this stuff, right? Great. But now, Severance and Track isn't what it used to be anymore. It's got traffic and little... apps that where you try to find the best route out of town and Hollister, you know, weaves you in and out of some of the streets, whatever. But the problem is, is nothing has ever been addressed in 50 years with the growth of Nash Road, the main drag downtown, one way street now, then through Nash Road. And you got Highway 25. Wonderful. It's about time to have something that addresses traffic in Hollister. But what do they do about the local streets? Not a darn thing. So I'm just curious of how it gets to this point. And I don't see anybody else here that represents the community immediately right there, right across the street in the Gold's parking lot. So something to think about right on. If I had my way, to be honest, I'd suggest do something else with the property. Okay. Less traffic. You got a new school going in down the street on Nash Road. More traffic.

Thank you, sir. Thank you so much. It's okay. Thank you. No, no. You're representing your community. Thank you.

Okay. So can, yes. So it's up to the commission. You guys made a vote. You can move on to the next item. If you want to reconsider, someone in the voting, in the majority of the voting, yes, can make a motion to reconsider the item and then make a motion for whatever you're choosing to vote for.

Okay, let's go ahead and you can make a motion to reconsider the vote.

Motion to reconsider the vote.

Okay. Ah, thank you. Sorry. Sorry, I didn't see you. I was over here.

No problem. I just want to point out or clarify that when this project was approved, it was conditioned. It went through CEQA. It was given things to do, obligations, one of which was build half of Cushman Road, which was done. It was widened. There was curb better sidewalk put in, underground electrical poles. I mean, this is not... a project that didn't have obligations. Those conditions have been met. All the public improvements were met several years ago, and I understand maybe not everybody's happy with the conditions that were placed on it at the time, but it went through a process. It came to a public meeting, and it has built those public improvements that were required. That I just wanted to clarify that that did happen this wasn't something that happened in a vacuum, this is the last step of this project, which has been a long project and. spend quite a bit on public improvements, although it may not be all the public improvements that everyone wants it has built the ones that was required to build so.

Thank you, thank you for explaining Okay, we will go ahead and close the public hearing at 632.

Can we mention a few things? Yep. And we still have a little discussion on it. Let's actually close it.

Oh, amongst, amongst, yes, sorry.

We closed the public hearing.

I think what we heard, and I can't comment exactly what we heard, but to my earlier point, I understand the studies were done and the measures were mitigated, right? But it's just what was done on paper is not matching the reality of today. And that's just my concern. Right. Not particular to this project. And this project, even whatever results from today, is still going to move forward. Yeah. But I think we should address this separately from the project.

Okay. So do you have a motion?

Motion to adopt option one to reconsider. Yeah. Certainly.

Okay, so now we'll go ahead and make the motion to option one to option one. Okay. And that's what. Okay. And all in favor. So I'm going to be backtrack. I think it's important that we're up here because we're representing our community. And so whatever we vote is what we will vote for. And so I don't think that it's appropriate for anyone to question that. And sometimes it's because we don't have information or we didn't understand, which was in my case. And so I appreciate the people that came up to explain. Because then it's like, oh, okay, it's, you know, and I know you all presented your report, but sometimes there needs to be more clarification. And so I think that is why I feel okay agreeing and saying yes. So motion passes. Thank you. I said yes. Next, let's go to 6.2, a resolution determining that the proposed vacation of right-of-way of a portion of Nash Road is in the conformity within the City of Hollister 2040 general plan and that the proposed vacation does not meet the definition of a project. Can we hear the report, please?

all right so does not want to work today uh the item before you is the vacation of a portion of nash road it's shown in the light blue line on the map before you the area is currently closed to through traffic next slide please uh the san benito high school district has requested that the city vacate its right-of-way over that portion of nash road it's between between uh That portion on hash road, the City Council previously approved the temporary closure of that area, and it has since been closed and continues to be closed to this day for health and safety. And it's to allow the children at the high school campus to travel between the two portions of the campus it's split by national. And the district would like to make this temporary closure permanent and the city council has previously reviewed this idea and directed staff to take it to take it through the required process and the district will compensate the city for the vacation. Next slide please. And this is before you, due to the requirements of the government code. The government code for any vacation of right of way requires that that vacation go before the planning commission, and the planning commission is required to make a determination of the proposed vacations consistency with the general plan. The closure of this area of the road would meet the goals and policies of the general plan because it would allow for a safe path of travel across that road for the students of the high school. And there are several goals and policies that speak to safe pedestrian access, travel, safe travel to schools, etc. And this would meet all those goals of the 2040 agenda. With this determination, the determination is not a project, so it would not be subject to CEQA. But again, the City Council has reviewed it and directed this process forward, and it is close to it. This would just be comfortable. Next slide, please. So there are, on this case, three recommended options. One is to determine that the proposed vacation is in conformity with the 2040 general plan. The second would be to adopt a resolution determining that it is not in conformity with the general plan. And the third would be to continue the hearing. Staff is recommending that you adopt a resolution determining that it does comply with the 2040 general plan.

Thank you. Are there questions, comments?

I have a question. I mean, remind me, but I believe part of the mitigation of the safety is access to the police from the fire department side of the emergency, because they need that easy path to either travel instead of going around. I'm trying to remember.

That is correct, and the gates have an electronic device on there that provides. So the school district provide us a nice support letter to the item to your agenda item and it's specified in there that that's the case. Okay, shall we open to public hearing 638pm.

Villa Vera.

Good evening, chair and commissioners. If I might, if I can ask for 30 seconds as we start to talk about something that I think is absolutely more important is kind of the situation we just ran into. You as a commission deserve to have a city attorney here every time you have a meeting. I sat there for 25 years and right here there was always a city attorney to make sure that you don't have to ask Daisy to make a phone call, right? It should be smooth operating. So please ask Your council and city manager to make sure that you have somebody available and probably not by zoom. I would suggest I don't know how you guys feel and I don't mean to step on your shoulder.

It's public comment. We can talk about it. I think we should talk about it.

You guys can have your study session. It won't be the first time you and I have disagreed, Peter. Moving on now to the vacation, I had a conversation real quick with Sean and he said that we have a new traffic study that went through and everybody seems to be happy with that. I am not here to throw a wrench in this boat. Absolutely understand the child's safety. My daughter went there. I think Carson's, you know, everybody's been down there and knows that, especially during the evening time activities, sports, going back and forth across the street is very dangerous for the students that are there. So I'm not here to say anything. But I do want to just point out again about a city attorney type thing is that in our municipal code, there's a, and I got hemmed up on this once when we were doing Walgreens, is that we have a process in the city to dispose of real property and we are not using streets and highway code in order to do that so i just want to make sure that the city attorney and staff and everybody else is super comfortable with where they're the way we're going about this process not that i'm i don't want to stand in the way i'm there's always a way to get to where you want to be i just want to make sure we're doing it the right way we ask everybody else to follow procedure we should be doing it too that's it thank you

Next speaker is Sean Tenenbaum.

Thank you, Daisy. Well, good evening, commissioners. Nice to come before you. I want to thank staff for their support on this particular project. I also want to thank the city itself. And we have many members who have contributed to us getting here tonight before you. in terms of the amount of work that has gone on. And I know Peter knows that in terms of the background, former council member, Carson Clower, and so many folks have really contributed to this. I can answer any questions, but for the health and safety of our school community and everybody around, we are requesting a permanent closure, which was the intended goal all along of the interagency cooperation agreement. And just to answer Peter's question, yes, HFD calls to fire does have the Opticom system, which we provided as part of our mitigation early on. And they're actively using that probably almost every day when they come down with their little sirens and the gates open. So our ultimate goal would be to close it 24 hours a day, seven days a week. But we will not be building on that particular property so that we can have access for first responders.

So I imagine you have location makers when Opticon gets triggered and all that stuff.

Yeah, run. No, but obviously we have campus supervisors. We have everybody that is alerted to the situation. But we can't tell time of day, Peter. So for example, with 3,400 students and it's lunchtime, the Student Union Cafeteria, which is our 35th project, which was built right next to Nash Road, which was the goal, We may have a large congregation. So, you know, it may take us a minute or two to really try to, you know, disperse our student body. But we've become efficient at it. And we have great partnership with the fire department.

Thank you. Are there more questions?

No, those are my main question about if it was going to be converted to more, to not be a road, but.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for being here. And we'll close the public hearing at 642. Do we have any more question, comments or motion?

I guess only question to staff is, does it comply with all the regulations that are subject to this project?

Yes. So this is a vacation of a right of way. It's not a property purchase. So it's a little bit different. And

pathway forward went through this agency and it is for it is going to be safer okay a motion do we have a motion

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Anyone opposed? No. Motion passes. Thank you. Next item, 6.3, a resolution recommending City Council approval of a zoning ordinance amendment to repeal and replace Chapter 17.32.

I'll try that one more time and see what happens. It worked. Yay. The existing accessory dwelling unit is located within the zoning ordinance. It's chapter 17.32. And we amended it in 2023 to be consistent with state law up to that point. Since 2023, as you can see in the staff report, a number of bills have been signed into law by the governor, which changes how we can regulate ADUs. And this is a requirement. It's not an option, any of these rules. Our ordinance doesn't... isn't consistent with state law at this point so staff is required to follow state law, which leads to some confusion and HCD is requiring us to update our ordinance so we are bringing you the updated ordinance tonight. And then it stopped working. Next slide, please. So just a very brief summary of all those bills that are listed in your staff report. Owner occupancy is only required if in a junior accessory dwelling unit you share sanitation facilities between the house and the JADU. JADUs can share the bathroom with the existing house.

So there's a door into the house to allow them to use the bathroom.

Only in that case does owner occupancy come into effect. Otherwise, it's waived. The definition of JADUs has been modified by the state. The state expanded HCD's authority. There is further clarification on the waiver of impact fees. There's modifications on how staff can process reviews and then approve ADUs, timelines, and information that we're required to have. There are now state-mandated ADUs, and if an ADU complies within those state-mandated requirements, the city has little oversight on them. There's requirements for amnesty of ADUs built before 2020. And the state now authorizes up to eight detached ADUs for multifamily developments. Multifamily development does not have anything to do with the zoning district that they are in. It only applies to properties where there are attached primary dwelling units. So a duplex, apartment complex, condominium complex, attached units. and the location of the adu laws were moved within the government code so they have a new location outside these staff was proposing a number of modifications and i'm just going to briefly go over them because we are repealing and replacing the ordinance there is just too many changes that we had to make that showing it to you in a red line would have looked a little crazy and also in addition to some of the required changes we've added some additional information in to make it easier for the public to understand the adu laws and also some information that hcd has been asking cities to include within their ordinance so i'm trying to get it as up to date as possible so the purpose section of this of the ordinance the very first thing that you read was modified to comply with all the amendments that I just went over. It goes over the requirements. It changed the government concession that we're referring to. Definitions, the definition section was modified several times to comply with the new definitions in the government code and also to add some definitions to provide clarity. Sometimes it does get a little confusing for new staff and for the public. This is a very intense law. And so we've added some definitions to really clarify what certain things are that apply in this code. One of the biggest changes with the most recent update is that single family properties can now have up to three accessory dwelling units.

They get one conversion, which is a conversion of space either within your house, within an existing structure you might have on your property, like a barn or shed.

Obviously, you have to bring it up to make it livable. So you do get one conversion. You get one junior accessory dwelling unit. And that is a specific type of ADU that's located within your garage. And it's limited to 500 square feet. and you get one detached accessory dwelling unit. So that could be wherever it may be on your property. Again, multifamilies, the law has also significantly changed here. Multifamily properties may now have a minimum of two accessory dwelling units and up to eight accessory dwelling units. They can be attached together, they can be separate, they can be wherever they are on a lot. but they get up to eight detached as long as that max number that they're hitting is no more than the number of units on the site. And what that means is if there's a fourplex, no, they don't get to build eight ADUs, they're limited to four. If there's a hundred apartments on the site, they don't get to build a hundred ADUs, they're limited to eight, but they do get a minimum of two. They also get a conversion of existing unlivable space. So the conversion of a laundry room, a rec room, a boiler room, anything within the interior of the building, they do get conversion. And that's capped at 25% of the total number of units on the site. So they get a combination of conversions and conversion and separate ADUs. Next slide, please.

and whatever conversion.

State law, again, is now exempting the city from certain regulations. In the ordinance, I'm referencing them as Section 66323 ADUs, and really what they are is state-exempt ADUs. We cannot impose certain standards on them as long as they're up to a certain size. They get to waive some of the requirements that we have, so design guidelines wouldn't apply to them. and some other regulations. You don't get to have one state-exempt detached ADU and then another other ADU that complies with our other requirements because there's another section in it. You just get one. But if you go with the state-exempt, there are fewer regulations we can impose on. Again, we added with the with this new state exempt we added a new section to clarify what the rules are for non state exempt typically we do see ad use that aren't 750 square feet they're doing it to avoid impact fees so they'll most likely be the exempt ad use the next slide please. The approval procedures were modified. We now have specific deadlines that have changed. One of the major ones is where staff used to have 30 days, 30 calendar days to review an ADU for completeness. We now have 15 business days. So it shrunk that window. And then once that completeness review period is over, we have specific deadlines on approval if it was complete. And those are all in the ordinance now. We added a section on building and safety. We added a section on impact fees. And again, any ADU under 750 square feet, 750 square feet or less, we cannot charge an impact fee. Once you go over that, so 751 square feet or more, The impact fee is proportional and it gets a proportional charge. So it doesn't automatically kick in a full unit fee. It's proportional based on the square footage of the unit and the square footage of the house and the building official determines that. And then lastly, we added a non-conforming zoning code conditions. There are a number of requirements that we are required to follow for ADUs that were built that do not conform to code. If they're built before 2020, we have to allow them to go through a process to legalize them. There's an exception for an existing structure on the property. If it doesn't meet proper setbacks, but they're converting it to an ADU, that structure gets to remain as is. They don't have to move the structure or cut it back to confirm the setbacks.

So that's codified in the code. Next slide, please.

I know this is a lot of information. But we last modified this in 2023. And again, just a number of changes have occurred since then. Staff with the general plan and housing element has had a hard time working on this. And we're about to come to you. And then right as we're about to come, the state changed the law again. So hopefully we're going to not have too many changes in the next year. Again, with the number of changes and additions, we're just proposing to rescind the existing and replace, just for clarity in the ordinance before you. Next slide, please. You do have three options here. You are making a recommendation to the City Council. It is an ordinance. The City Council makes their final determination, but staff is recommending that you do adopt the ordinance, do adopt a resolution recommending approval so that we can move forward with getting an ordinance that complies with state law.

Thank you. Any questions, comments?

A lot. Yeah, I mean, it's just in general, you asked the question earlier of why it looks like it doesn't have issues with the purpose, right? I mean, basically, the state says you have to do it, you don't have a choice. You know, obviously, it sounds really nice to be able to have impact fees to the applicant or whatever. It still doesn't change the impact, right? Their impacts are real, regardless. But yeah, I've read a lot of those, and all I could think is local authorities literally shrink them. And now we see the considerable ministerial, which means we, you know, we're all kids, but we're up here basically. This might be thought, but you know, I understand the amendment.

The changes.

Does this impact any existing applicants?

No, because we do have to follow state law right now. So the risk here is that HCD has put us on notification that we have to fix it or repeal it. And if we repeal it, we lose some of the oversight we do have right now. we wouldn't be able to require a permit anymore. That's important because we do have a number of ADUs that come in and require staff work. So we know they're there. Number two, number three, sometimes when they come in, we find they have other illegal ADUs on the property. So we could lose our ability to, well, we would lose our, if we had to repeal, we would lose our ability to require a permit from planning. And then secondly, it would be much more hard for everyone to understand it. It's just, Even when I read the government code, it's not the easiest to understand. And thirdly, we do have some requirements that were optioned for us where we could limit sizes, where we can impose some design requirements. We would lose all the ability to have any of those if we didn't have those.

I appreciate the second idea, because I know that you go to the west side of Falls Trail or even the east side. You know, you see one house and like it's very hard to get more people into the family before the mortgage. Right, especially the way So the sentiment of the Navy that by default, that means one is yeah we're putting a lot more density density with impacts, but in the last result, everything is going to create a level of impact if the infrastructure is not It's not that

Any other question, comment, and then we have to open public hearing. Okay, thank you. We'll go ahead and open public hearing at 6.56. Is there any public comment?

There is no public comment.

okay then we'll go ahead and close at 6 57 p.m and do we have any further discussion question and or motion i think this is part of the conversation that we're gonna have at the end so yeah do we have a motion then

motion to adopt the resolution recommending City Council approval of amendments to the zoning ordinance to repeal and replace chapter 17.32 accessory dwelling units with a new chapter 17 17.32 attached as exhibit a. All in favor.

Aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? No motion passes. Uh, item number 7 informational reports, uh, brief report. So let's go to 7.1. Do we have any planning commissioner reports? Or even this would be our opportunity then to.

Basically, what we're talking about.

we can have that conversation about the infrastructure, the impacts, us being educated on this process. Personally, I think it's a good idea. I get it. Staff is limited and it's only getting worse because the budget's being more restricted, right? I totally understand. Still creates a very, I think, ambiguous and maybe even puts us in a tougher position to make good decisions when we're not, there's not an educational process. I mean, I'm used to on the board, right, on board of supervisors, having an agenda review, you know, having my own questions, I'll review it myself. I'll sit down with, with staff. They, you know, any questions I might be completely off base, but they, they guide me right back on, right. It's a more, And at that point, it's very easy for me to walk in confidently to the meeting, knowing what to expect. Any questions were already prior answered. Actually, it simplifies the agenda at that point. Because unless there's any further questions or comments then by default, that means I'm either approving it or denying whatever the item in front of us is. Um, that's specific to that. But my other quick point that I wanted to make is what Bill Avera had mentioned, which I completely disagree. I get the city attorney sounds nice, right? Because of the legal, you know, there's legal requirements. I get it. I have to agree one. We're an advisory body. But two, I found myself, just my personal experience, and I've seen this happen more often than not with the city attorney, where it almost sounded like she was a sixth board member up here basically litigating the process instead of actually just becoming more informational. Almost, you know, we were debating Brown Act rules, and I was like, yeah, that's not true. The fact that I even asked as a simple example for an advisor, basically making a policy recommendation, right? And I just asked a simple question, which I already knew the answer to was what's the difference between me to making a positive recommendation for me as a public citizen, just walking up to the podium, making my recommendation from the podium. Technically speaking, I have less authority according to the city attorney's comments than someone from the public, which is just Mind blowing, right? At that point, you're going cross-eyed. It makes no sense. But that's the response that I got. So it just made it very, I personally thought, more combative because we should just get very straight answers based off of questions. That's it. That's not what was happening. And again, the hard part is with that comment is that's assuming that we actually understand the mind of the legal requirements and all that. So we might be duped, right? Not to be overly cynical. by what we're being told because we don't understand the legalities of things as much as she would or he or whoever a city attorney would be. That's my point of contention. If there's a question, I think it's going to be less versus more having to do with legal stuff besides the agenda. I think staff is competent enough to address.

May I ask that the commission form these into kind of a report on a request. So I think the report is we're frustrated with infrastructure issues and things and how they relate and shape that into a form of a request.

I think there was a request there. We're talking about the study session. Yes. And I think we were kind of all I'm going to chime in on that.

Because we did specifically agendize an item, so I'm concerned how in-depth we get.

I think it's pretty clear of a request for a study session, but I'll refer to you.

You would like us to formalize it, right?

To put it as an agenda item for the future.

I think it would be helpful for me if you would formally request that we...

agenda as a study session and or maybe two or maybe whatever but yeah tell me specifically what you want but i think little i i think just a quick you know clarification i think we what we've been normally doing is we have this discussion and then we kind of like naturally okay here's what we would like which i think we already are kind of saying this at the end but yeah we need a little bit of discussion yeah he has these ideas though

Yeah, I heard two things. Um, the first one is, it would be nice to have a walk through some of these projects before we come up here. I think I agree with with that because we may not be fully knowledgeable and, you know, we want to make sure we're the best informed. So formalizing some way to do that figuring out the other one. I do want to have a separate is it applies pretty much to all the projects in the city is How do we have an updated study or something? It's not just us learning about the infrastructure and the process is a study on the infrastructure status. Potentially by third party, because what you know, I don't want to. you know, not reduce anybody's efforts, but when you're in improving these projects, you're seeing things on paper, right? My daughter goes to the high school. I'm part of that traffic. I apologize, but you know, I have to, I go through Nash and I figure out the shortcuts, but you know, you have to, you, you, that's a reality that whatever was an idea on paper years ago. And for one reason or another, the project, it doesn't come to fruition until like 13 years later. times have changed. Some plans do not go as planned, right? And the traffic and the infrastructure toll that we have is a clear reflection on that. And that is not being addressed, right? It don't matter if it's a new business or apartments that we need, low-income projects. They always dangle the benefits of the community in front of us. But at the end of the day, it's just going to add more strain. And I feel like we have to have at least some type of intention to focus on that solely independent of projects just like what is the status of the infrastructure right now right regardless of what was approved years ago because that's just on paper so i i feel like we're not our reality is not being represented. And we heard from speakers today and their frustration. And it's hard because the rules say, if this is on paper, a study is stamped as approved, move it forward. But what we're seeing, the dangers of all this happening with the traffic around the school,

I completely agree with both of you on the study session and also feeling like, yeah, the paper and we understand, okay, it was approved, but and everything you said, the reality doesn't match. And so how does it, how do we catch up to 20, 15 year ago approved plans?

Yeah. So I think to start formalizing the request, I would say, one, having a study session for ourselves as a body to understand what it is and what is study, what are the components of it. And then after we walk out from that, maybe form another request, which is how can we get an actual study on the status of the infrastructure of the city?

Is that possible?

I think what we should do is do one study session where we talk about CEQA. i i don't think you've had an actual secret document before you in a while have you i mean the eir for the general plan but that's so raw but not project specific in a while right so i think what would be helpful if we did one study session that just talks about sequa how do we do sequel what is the process so you're more well informed And what happens if a project is approved 5, 10, 15, 20, 30 years ago, and now we have a project before us today? How does everything interact and play? The second study session would maybe be a discussion with more than just planning, but it would be a discussion of infrastructure. Because I can tell you we have sewer and water, but I cannot eloquently speak to that language of the engineering department. And so maybe we would have them explain Well, this is how we've taken this information from the sequel document. This is how we um do our traffic impact fees. This is what projects we put into there. This is what kind of what projects we require applicants to do, because there is there's there's a two-step level. Some projects identified in sequa are covered under our tiff and some are required for the applicant to do and spoke of waspinars and they had to build cushman so they paid the money and did the work but sometimes because there are 20 projects in an area and all 20 projects are going to let's say impacted intersections so each project as they come in pays into this And then once we have enough money, we construct it. So there's different types of methods by which we make, let's say, the improvements in the community.

Because it is a formula. But all I've ever been told in general terms is we never get enough from an actual project to actually cover the impact. And the laws technically say you can't technically put all the burden of that impact on this one project, right? This has been a cumulative effect.

That is true, you cannot make another project pay for you cannot make an applicant's project pay for let's say a project that's coming in the future, unless we're going to fan back. Or if we approve some projects in error and those projects really created a number of impacts, they are not required to fix the mistake that was made. The city will then have to, through the collection of the overall traffic impact fees, fix those improvements. And I think that this is a better discussion with engineering than it would be with me. I can only give you the basics, but we could do that as a secondary. You had the foundational understanding of CEQA, which is very complex. And then you have the how do we get to what happens if we hit we have no more water, I mean water is a finite resource, what happens if we hit sewer capacity. How do we plan, you know we don't want to all of a sudden go over that capacity, how are we checking and making sure that we are under that that cap.

I mean, I go ahead. I know you had, I think you said the key word. We don't have a cumulative view of the impact of the project because everything is independent by section. And my concern is we're seeing the greater impact of all these combined and the sequence study is not capturing the reality. Right. And I understand. And I think the reason it keeps. you know, moving forward is because nobody can carry that burden, not one project. And what we need is a separate cumulative study of what is going on in the city.

And we do do that. It is part of the traffic impact fee. It's just that I can't set my fingers and fund every improvement that we need, but we've identified them. We have Broadway plans.

Well, because impact fees as they're adopted, they're like only amended every so often, right?

I think we're now we're getting into study session. So I know what we're talking about. I think it's two study sessions. And then from those two, if there's another topic that you want to talk about, you go, Erica, now we've got all these housing projects. What's the Housing Accountability Act? We can add discussions.

I think, yeah, that's right. Session one, build a foundation. Study session two, be a little bit more informed with the next question.

In my perfect world, I'd love to jot down Um, a study session on the impacts of the state laws that force us to use staff time to do their will over the needs of our own community. Because I can guarantee you, if we can turn that into an actual. Like, bill an invoice, I'd love to send it and it might lead to that.

It might lead by if we start, there is an unfunded mandates commission.

I know I'm getting a little. There is unfunded managed commission where the state of California basically has to answer for any impact that we can't afford. Because it's at a certain point where. You know, like Erica said, we're under water.

And that impact right now is kind of hidden too. 100%. So I think we're able to uncover the impact and try to address the label, define it. Maybe the next steps will become more clear.

So two requests, two study sessions. And then do we want to consider just us or ask if any of our city council want to join?

Do you want to be useful for a joint one?

Just to let them know?

We can see if they'd like to have a joint. And if not, we can just do it with planning commission. We could try to schedule it for a non-regular hearing day. If that was a light day, we could just do it someday. We'll kind of see. I know.

City Council Chambers, September is going to be a long one, so maybe October and has this Commission had a kind of a. City Council Chambers, clarification of like a training on the role of the Commission, because you guys are a technical body and you operate within the purview of making technical findings and then making recommendations as an advisory body on to so. respectfully i understand how each of you can feel that you're you're very much aware and very much a part of the community and there are these points of frustration but that is separate from the role you play when you are commissioner Dave Kuntz, That makes zero sense though well. Dave Kuntz, yeah you again it's technical findings and technical recommendations, so I think it i'm asking the question have you guys as a group have you had a Commissioner. role training for like what the role of that has been clarified to us in the past and would this yeah i remember violation they were like here's what i'm just thinking it might be good for us to have that as as part of either study session is is like because we're not going to come out of that with recommendations because i i respect that you guys have have these feelings and you should understand how How can you carry that out?

I think if we move forward with a study session, and then if there's an action that we need to take that requires a better understanding of what our abilities or limitations are, definitely we can do that study. I think right now, I want to stay focused on just understanding the greater picture here of like, what is this and how can we understand it better as the problems.

The two study sessions I've requested.

Yeah, so a CEQA-focused study That takes in the bigger picture. And then, and then capacity and both as the infrastructure. Yeah.

I said it. Well, yeah, she had it pretty well. And I think we all know our roles and talked about it at least. Are there any more reports from anyone, any of the commissioners. No. Okay. And how about planning division reports. No? Okay. Then I think we're ready to have, I don't think we need one, but yeah, that's it. Thank you, everyone.