Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

started to see anything. Okay, this is the regular meeting of the house for planning commission on November 20th. The meeting is now called to order and it is 6 p.m. Vice Chair Carlo here. Commissioner Damian Perez here. Commissioner Rodriguez present.

Commissioner Peter Hernandez for the record is absent. Bar and before the record, chair Steven also commission. Thank you.

All right. Ready to pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. Thank you. And this ends the time for anyone in the audience or public comment um for an item that's not on the agenda within the subject matter jurisdiction of this commission. Sphere cards are available of the lobby and are to be completed again to staff before speaking. Um, when the commission sent off your name, please go to the podium, state your name, city for the record, speak to the commission. If you're joining us by Zoom, click on the bottom of your screen and raise your hand. If you're joining us by Zoom using a cell phone, press star 9. Each speaker will be limited to 3 minutes with a maximum of 30 minutes per subset. Please note that state law prohibits the commissioner from discussing or taking action on any item on the agenda. Do we have any?

We have no speakers. Do we have So we can move on to consent items. Do we have questions uh from the commission on items on the consent agenda or are there any items that commission would like to hold? Do we have staff? Do we have any public comments on items from the consent agenda? We have no speakers. Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda?

I'll second. All in favor? I. Anyone opposed? No obstacles. Motion carries and moving out of the public hearings. May we have the staff report for item 6.1.

Good evening. Uh the project before you is uh an amendment to ten map 2021 sub. Uh so this is the location of the project uh is uh along Temple Road uh anticipate ways and just south to west of uh Highway. Uh so the project location the project is approximately approximately 18.24 acre block. Um it's in the low density residential performance overlay zoning district. Uh this zoning district allows for single handling of entire units. Um but it also allows for modified development standards with approval of conditional use permit for planning development. Uh this project does have 2021-5 does have an improvement for that. Um so this project is part of the Chapel Road master plan um which includes um other uh housing developments in commercial components um which offers different benefits uh like commercial proponent um proposed dog parts cats like that. Uh so project description uh so the project is proposal to amend the map 21-5 is a single family resident comments. Um what the amendment will do is it will reduce the total unit count unit lot count from 90 to 80 subs. It

will designate 70 lots for single family detect um and 16 lots for detect uh single family lots. Um parcel G will be designated as civilization for a required sanitary service station. Um the streets will be re realigned to allow for relocation of uh the 16 details. Um the 16 duet style lots are being moved and uh the next slide will show the uh the map. Um but the uh duet style lots are being moved from the north part northern part of the parcel to the southern part of the property and that's so they can better achieve soundational requirements because as is the homes are closely to 25. Um and then also as part of the amendment um if the park will increase from um about half um access will continue as is currently included between class 5 where primary access will be along and the secondary access. Uh so this is the proposed map. So he doesn't Anyway, so the lots running along the southern part of the property, uh there's 16 lots there, um there's think 16 of those lots. Um they've been relocated from the very northern part of Roong Highway 25. Um those lots in uh also uh the park runs from the uh south portion of the parcel and it runs along highway 25 to the northwest

part the park if you can uh so as I mentioned uh the amount 2021-5 was also additional development and what that did was the project specific uh development those development standards were not uh so briefly these uh this table shows the development standards the uh for the R1 one district located that's on the left and then there's the approved uh private specific development standards on the right. Uh so for example uh the minimum lot size will go from 5,500 square f feet now is 4,400 square ft and the average lot size and see um and so this is uh the this coin is specific to single family flux um and this table is specific to the development standards of the US side minimum block size is 500 and then under for these the project specific uh development standards the minimum block size is 360 with an average block size of 3. Um so a little bit more about that amendment. Um the project was um uh previously approved under resolution 2022. Um and the project has been granted an

automatic extension 8279. Um and the the new extension dates the exist current extension date would have been November 175. It's since been extended to excuse me 1724 has now been extended to um also being amended along with map the conditions to make them project specific be reflective of the amendments. Uh so a couple of the the conditions are changing. Um this is the uh condition former condition uh 11 reflects the time of construction for the duets in single family. Um so the building permits for the 16 dwell units uh must be issued prior to the issuance of the building permit for the 35th single family and occupancy must be granted for all 16 units uh ahead of occupancy single family. So that condition is just being revised to reflect the uh reduce lockown. Um also condition 81 um that's been revised to reflect the current fair share of cost uh for uh infrastructure in 2016. So the project is uh complies with the general plan. Uh it's in the low density residential general plan designation um which uh is intended to promote and protect single family neighborhoods while providing sites for single family uh detached units. Uh also zero lot line single family units and planning unit developments. As I mentioned, this

project does have initial initial use permit for a planned unit development that was approved with the engine 25. Uh the project also needs to be is within the uh required uh density of 1 to 84.72 per. Um it also complies with the health and safety uh goals set forth in the health and safety element uh namely uh for noise reduction uh because of the location uh uh because the the farel highways uh there's noise requirements for this. Uh so the applicant had uh when we originally uh applied um they submitted a noise study and that noise study outlined um mitigation measures and then also uh continuation measures that the applicant um would put forth uh for the project. Um and then um uh those u noise requirements also comply with the uh the healthy safety element. Um one of those requirements is that uh a firm along as opposed to wall a firm along Highway 25 would be a minimum of 10 ft tall. And then also that when the Apple amplifies for the site architectural uh for the uh the duets that they have to provide uh documentation showing that further attendation will be during the time. Um the project is uh complies with the

zoning code. Uh again I mentioned some low density resolution uh which fosters development that means uh densities um uh that general plan that has flexible standards um and implement policies and programs um of the general fund. Um and again this uh this project complies with uh the zoning code uh because it's got specific it has the has an approved condition permit planning and development that designates specific project development centers. Uh the project is comp in compliance with sequence. Uh so for the uh chapel road uh master plan um there was the city of Hollister certified environmental impact report for that project. Um that project studied a certain number of homes um having the map from 21-5 uh um was included in that and still continues to meet the study um with the uh no further uh study with the project. Uh so uh just to summarize uh the project amends uh tending map 2021-5 which have been safe and adopted um in need amendments uh is the requirements mitigations and um the project has proposed system for low density residential plantation And there's also uh compliance with the

uh the R1 LPC the low density overlay the low density residential overlay by zoning district. Um so you have a couple of options. Um uh you can one adopt the resolution approving pending map 215 amendment uh subject to the findings and conditions in the draft resolution and you can adopt the resolution to approving that amendment with findings or conditions of approval uh that is modified commission or you can conceal the hearing indirect staff provided you information for clarification if that's needed. Uh staff does recommend off.

Thank you. Do we have questions from the commission?

Um just for clarification. So the the changes would be the duvetses. Correct. It sounds like reducing the single family um homes for um duets basically you so the duets were already approved as far and you're just reducing total lot count and that was normally so they could relocate the det blocks from the north part to the south. Got it. Okay. Yeah. So the the UF block town isn't changing. Okay. Yeah. The single block.

Gotcha. for the entire project or just for the minute. It's for the invement because the tenants had already been free from the doctor. So you're basically right. Yeah. Reduction in units and then the the change to the design which is what we and the CD similar to

uh no. So the the conditional use permit for plan development is the way that the city previously um did planned developments which we we've since modified I believe that was in 2022 we changed the code but at the time that this was approved the that was the way that projects would get their own development standards. So essentially this project kind of has its own zoning because of that CP. So they have a reduced sideyard setbacks. Um the reduced lot size which comes with the performance overly zoning to allow smaller lot size. And then they also needed it for setbacks for the US because they share a wall. So that was a zero lot. So it has slightly different standards from their standard R1 zoning because of that CG and that's still valid because the map is still valid and they didn't change this report. They qualify for an automatic change. So the the current map is still valid until next May and then this would be amending it. So instead of the current map they would see moving forward through the process to develop this

question. I have a question I'm just curious why this is to reduce the noise. is to mitigate the noise or is that the purpose? Uh generally to yeah to to better mitigate the the voice contacts. So my follow question is I'm just curious we know the 25 has been there. Why wasn't that a consideration from the beginning? Do you know sorry the highway highway 25?

I I can speak to the original approval a little bit. I think that um at the time that this project was originally being reviewed, the city was not processing the site and structural design of the duets at the same time as the map. This was a monarchy model. We would make sure those design were incorporated into the project. So we did review it as a whole. Um, but part of the Chapel Road master plan overall, which this is just one of 13 lots that's within it, was the goals of the council were to avoid sound walls on Point. And so there was always a BRM requirement instead to mitigate noise, but there was also a desire to have homes fronting onto that linear parkway to avoid them, you know, backing into it so that they had more direct access and the view of it. So this part this parcel in particular needed additional noise analysis and it it seems through their the applicants working on getting towards their civil and their specific improvement plan submittals to the city to develop the map that in order to design those duet lots to meet the noise study that they did and the requirements for the duets because they had that slightly different requirement of the detach single family. it made more sense for them proposes amendments so that they can use the datalism um other question.

Yeah, this is kind of a question like the millions. So I I do know on highway 25 and this may be completely the scope of this but I still it's important for me to get this on record. So I know highway 25 the the sound walls that are on highway 25 that's a cow trans mitigation right those big sound walls that are are built it it's not necessarily a cow transmit mitigation it would would have been to mitigate noise in those subdivisions so we have the sorado subdivision to the south

and when the the chap master plan was going through the annexation process of the part of the council's direction was that they did not want to continue the Soundwall corridor that we have as we move north. And so this project and other projects in the back road master plan area are obligated to mitigate noise from the highway still because that's required to develop but in a way that doesn't include sound. Okay. Yeah. I was I'm the opposite like why didn't but now that makes sense.

Yeah. So it was, you know, all these past developments that are currently built created this wall corridor and the city wanted to move away from that as we continue to develop on and around. So this this project is not putting in a wall. Oh, awesome. Which city council was a release?

This would have been in 2018 2019. So uh the the annexation was in 2019. this upper master plan EIR began in 2015. So it's been quite a few years that not this map in itself but the top of the project overall if I'm not mistaken this project was considered an infill project was proposed and it you know there was a lot it was a hot topic because ultimately it's still the obstac

yeah it's upon interpretation I guess the That's the illegal um Thank you. Uh let's go ahead and open the public hearing at 6:22. And do we have a presentation from the applicant on this item?

Yes, we have Peter Smith online. Hi, my hi, my name is Pete Smith. I am the civil engineer for the applicant. I'm here to answer any questions and help u resolve any questions you might have. I didn't have a specific presentation. It's not him. It's our system. It's not him. Mr. Excellent. This one I'll live on.

He if you could if you could uh just see if your sound comes out. I think we're just having an issue on our speakers on our end, but we can hear you. It just we might not have the best recording, but if you could just Can you hear me now? Hello. We Yeah, we can hear you. I think just very quiet. I think we can move forward. I think it just might affect the recording, but I think it'll be okay. All right, go ahead. You'll have five minutes.

I'll talk loud if that helps. Um my m Madame Commissioner, members of the commission, my name is Peter Smith. I'm with HMH Civil Engineers, uh, working for the applicant. We didn't have a presentation tonight, but I'm here to answer any questions you might have, uh, to help understand the project and the changes. Looks like we do not have any questions. I think the only thing I just I noticed which was a positive is the um in one of the slides about the park.

Yeah, parks inclusion. That turned out was there any other changes besides just the park increasing or Yeah, the the park increased um when we re rearranged the loting to move the duets to the south side. Uh we had a few more lots near the culde-sac that were kind of awkward to begin with and um it made sense to when we cleaned up the alignments and the layout to remove those so that it's just north of the culde-sac got larger um which increased the park.

No other questions. Thank you. Um we'll go ahead. Do we have any public comments on this item? You have no additional comments. Okay. And we will go ahead and close the public hearing at 6:25. Is there any further discussion from the commission on this item?

I'll make I'll make a motion to adopt agenda item. for the amendment by school. Do we want to go ahead and vote or is there any discussion? Okay. All in favor? I I

Any oppose? Abstensions? Motion carries. Item seven. So, Madam Chair, really quick, before we move on to the item, I just I I you weren't at the past meeting. And so, just a quick update, you know, um ultimately saw the agenda. It was I didn't get a chance and I apologize for being late. I have a very busy day, but um the minutes were incorrect. They didn't have any input. Um which brings it to my next point the input commissioners were here where I made recommendations basically recommendations defended the city council on the mandate bonding process or at least considering a little bit more transparency and uh um you know I would argue efficiency. It sounds agreed and uh there no minutes reflected any of that information. Um and then also there's and I know the current uh the city council attorney would said that they would consider she would consider basically whatever the items I had made recommendations if there was any legal issues um about no information on whether that was the issue or not which I would argue it wasn't. Um but regardless the um final point is there's there was no added um you know we all agreed and so there was no added agenda item that talked about these because there was really supposed to be a discussion on the policy uh the policy considerations or recommendations of the city council. So um I'm really disappointed. You know I I don't understand there's no really excuse in my mind why these didn't come forward. Um so and I I did talk to uh city council more attended about it and he's been like rich address it. So um I I I mean I'm even interested in maybe suspending the rules and I know we can attempt to

approve that item but I think it's really important. I mean if we really want to see economic development it's technically the goal of the general plan and ultimately the city council it then we need to address these issues. I keep getting called about issues with the funding processes yet. We got a presentation which I appreciate but now we're looking into revenues and somehow it's being sidelined which is so procedurally are we is there a request to um amend the to minutes understanding was that what we're asking for

and I appreciate that but ultimately there was no there was no followup right that was That was the commitment. It's a recorded meeting. You can pull up yourself. Hey, we're going to let you know if there's any issues. I mean, at the end of the day, we're asking to recommend the case, right? We're not actually making policy itself. They could say full time, right? But it doesn't at the end of the day, it's like it's something that considerations and we have general discussion about it. There's a whole reason for whole agenda agenda conversation about all these different issues. We even had uh applicants here even giving them input about the potential amenities and so it was just false flat. I mean, as far as I'm concerned, if that's the way the planning person wants to run things, uh, than than staff, then then personally, I think I can do my time better if our our input doesn't matter, right? At that point, like it should be just a facto, the city planning department making decisions without the authority of the planning commission as their volunteers in this position.

And I do remember that you we had asked some similar questions two months ago. I believe it started. Yeah, we were asking about policy and so it sounds like it followed up. Is there a way I guess then procedurally how do we go back and so you can reconsider approval of the minute that if you're asking so to reconsider an item that's been approved somebody who voted in favor needs to make a motion to reconsider make a vote to reconsider. If there's a majority vote then can go back and reconsider that item. Is there so that would be is there So I'll make a motion if we can reconsider. It has to be seven people in favor. So any of the others speak

reconsider the minutes. So to reconsider the minutes you're saying to open it up. Yeah. You'll just go back to um the consent to item 51 and just see whether you are detailed essentially. So the chair will first vote to reconsider if there's a majority that votes yes. The chair will say this will now open item 5.1 and just basically redo the item that the agenda reconsider meeting the agenda 5.1 right was it five. Yeah. Um I was

you're ultimately going to make two votes. The first one will be like do we all want to reconsider it? Yes or no? And then if you vote yes then you know go back reconsider and skip that. Oh gosh. Um, I'd like to make a motion to open up agenda item 5.1 approving the October 23rd, 2025 minutes. Second all in favor. I Okay. So now we go ahead and we have a question about the agenda.

So I'll I'll try to just I don't want to hold people up right. But uh these really considerations and rupture right that the whole goal is I give rough recommendations you know the professionals in the room can help clean it up and and present them as potential recommendation to the city council. So in the beginning of the conversation I remember mentioning that I you know for the sake of clarity for an applicant right there partly the issue was applicants come they apply and and there was even discussions about $1,500 uh required review uh fee and so um and technically it's it was almost like a non uh it was there was no there was no like um record keeping and there definitely was any any real formality to the meeting. So, I had asked for an addendum. Number one is an addendum that actually explains the rights to the applicant. Um, and lets them know what they can expect as far as the process goes. Number two was we don't I I personally I made them sentiment that I don't agree with the fee if there's not any seriousness to it. And even regardless of it, I still think it's an important stage, right? Because when the applicant comes, they're expecting ultimately like they really want to invest in this community. They want to pay the the fees because they want to get direction on the planning process, making sure that follows the law. Um, and but there was no record from the city manager has mentioned that they didn't keep records. I completely disagree with that. We should know what's going on from the first time with the communications, especially when they dump money and they're already anytime someone does a check, they're not just putting $200 on it. They're probably like buying the property. They're already securing things. So, there should be a time clock from that time. And that's why there needs to be recording of that everyone and basically it I don't think there should be a pause.

Can I make a suggestion because really what we're talking about is inaccurate and so I tell I'm making my recommendation. So if I could finish well so but what if if the minutes needs to be amended maybe the best approach would be for staff to go back and listen to again and then run the minutes. Well, so if it's okay with you, um, actually, if it's okay with the client, I'd like to vocalize them to repeat it so there's no there's no ambiguity, right? These are the items I choose with my first.

So, um, so and then three to five days I asked, and again, this is not hard to ask, but some kind of a response time. That's one of the things the applicants would basically uh get upset about. It's like they take two weeks sometimes or a month to respond. Um so some kind of required response time and then by default especially if there's no real response there needs to be a trigger for an early appeal process that a lot of the time we don't even know how to how to understand what's the breakdown especially when a lot of time lapses um and ultimately I firmly believe that the brain we trigger and the appeal process and you know right away from the front end what's going on because we have that information right because we're on the we're deciding at the long distance, right? By the time a lot of the issues have developed, um, and and I I would argue there should be at least a two week trigger, right? So, it's been two weeks, no response, fine. Then the applications bring it forward to that final solution. Uh, and then, um, one of the last things was just like an organizational flowchart, right? something that kind of really good included um that basically explains what is the process who's involved what are you know who would be the authority in the room when it comes to the architectural review or the design and the standard and ultimately the um legal requirements any violations of municipal code the potential if you don't follow these rules like all this stuff needs to be on front and so the the that really knows how to scope out their project and cost and everything right um I keep getting called like they're I've dumped a ton a ton of money into this Peter and I still don't know what's going on. Like that to me is crazy. Um I for the sake of economic development I think these things include most of projects for sure.

So I think we all heard the items that I think we want we want to be reflected in the minutes. So then with that then do we then do we have a motion we make a motion to approve the minutes as as if we can get a motion I'll make a motion to adopt amendments um as you stated by missionary and others

I have a question so what should we convince them. So we have discussions like where are we expecting the votes? So, so generally when we take action minutes, we don't take verbatim minutes, but it sounds like there I've written down that Commissioner Hernandez would like it to be reflected in the minutes the discussion of and I've written down five uh recommendations and so what that will do is add them. So, a a concern regarding a $1,500 review fee, a request to write down people's rights on I'm not sure if that's on an application, but we can re-review the the discussion. um that a recommendation for it to reify the response time, a early appeal process and that there should be an organizational form. So essentially we will amend the minutes to reflect that those recommendations were made as part or or part of the discussion at all. I could type up an email or you know um your staff and you know I know that there's brown act requirements. So ultimately they they can at least clean it up and send it to you. But um I I it's already publicly stated but I one of the things that was wasn't mentioned was the required documentation of the process which is extremely important. I I also just wanted to also add to um that I don't know if you guys can I can retract this um motion but you know it's

going to be a whole another month before this gets done. It sounds correct. The rest of that sound like exactly that correct? I I suppose it would depend. So your motion right now is to amend the minutes and approve them. So we would just amend them. And if if I've not stated these now six items correctly, we will Okay. I would ask for correction. However, your motion is to have staff amend them and bring them back to you. So your question

so it's it's actually seven items and it would reflect it should reflect in today's agend meeting because by amending it you're actually adding these minutes into the appropriate third uh minutes. So you should have that in record on file through the the city website. Is this now does this impact because the minutes the minutes what you're saying were not reflected correctly. Does this We no actions was something you're saying.

No. Well, so here's the other thing to clarify. Um, you know, with all the respect to, uh, Director Kelly, um, the reality is is the experience that I've had in elected office, you don't you don't just take action. You take minutes of the discussion. So, you know, the the the direction is technically any kind of recommendation is still action because it's recommended, right? So if there's a vote that supports something that's a recommendation, you can consider that an action because it ultimately has to by default it's a voted item and it's it's it goes forward to to whatever the recommendation is whether it's a you agendaize another item, have a discussion or actually have forward a vote. Um it still is something you report. I would miss you having minutes and at least have summaries on every single item. you know, commissioner said this. This was what we wanted. The the the uh commission disagreed. He was voted down. She was voted down like or or they all items to approve, right?

So, you know what that item what they you know otherwise minutes gives zero direction as far as what what was the context of any meeting and then the the whatever the direction was from that meeting you lose context completely. You don't appreciate that. Can I Okay. inter because I think for me then now I want to clarify so first you know let's amend the minutes right we're through that as procedurally but or maybe even before I would like to know were those items part of like you're saying an action item that you requested like as a commissioner

okay and then that would be then I think yes then it would be something that we would want to know like you know where do we go from there is that and obviously we're going to have to wait another month and reality is that

and that's exactly the frustration I think of the community is you know a month it's a long time for somebody and then if we're make you know and I don't think it's anybody's not blaming anybody but but either way if a mistake or something didn't get recorded properly it pushes the you know what can tangibly be fixed or be done, but another and and I know a lot of frustrated um citizens in the community who really felt like the process needs to be cleaned up and just to kind of, you know, not not to belabor the point, but you know, the economy is really rough right now and nobody's going to want to be opening a business if if the planning process is is confusing. and there's an ambiguity and like I said this is not a but um almost in favor of and I know you guys are you know favor of coming back even sooner than pushing it back on because I think the community deserves

I just want to remind you that this item is about the minutes from the last meeting and so if we don't want to get off again and start discussing another topic that's not on the agenda there is an opportunity at the end of the meeting on the agenda for commissioners to consensus request items for a future agenda. That would be a more appropriate time to talk about what you want to talk about in the future really just about the minutes. I just want to clarify and explain uh there was a style of being you know action and now what we're I believe what we're asking already that is a change in practice

so we can we should talk about that back to

well to clarify when I asked to suspend the rules if you read the bylaw laws. The consistency in the bylaws say technically the majority has the authority to adjust or amend their own meeting. It's the meeting of the commission. It's not the meeting of the city. It's not the meeting of the attorney. It's the meeting of the commission. Which means you can give the directions. You can suspend the rules. You can say we're going to add this item in because it should have been added in because that was the request in the prior meeting from what the city attorney is recommending. It's basically pushing it out another month. Right. This was requested and we've already been leading this direction. Technically speaking, a mistake from the city staff whether intentional or not by default delays the will of the commission.

You can suspend Rosenberg's rules of order, which is what you did when you reconsidered this item, but you cannot suspend the Brown Act. And the Brown Act says that you may only speak about things that are on the agenda. Well, so so technically the the violation would have been from the fact that the the there was already a public notice meeting that made those recommendations and they weren't put into the agenda. They weren't even considered and they weren't even added into the committee. So there's already a violation. That is not a Brown Act violation regardless because I get it. Brown Act is about electings. It still is a violation

when the Brown Act is about appointed officials as well. So you are subject to the Brown Act. I think your expectations weren't met is what happened. Not there wasn't a violation of law or rule. Um but just

I would say it's at least an ethical violation because it was it was an asked and it was very So here's the thing right all due respect. You specifically stated I would recommend everybody to pull up a meeting. You said I don't know if you can do that commissioner the reality is you're qu you know I heard you know Miss Kell mentioned we're quasi judicial right. of trying to re restate our authorities. Understood? I'm not asking for a policy vote on the municipal code. What I'm asking for is a recommendation to Senator Council. You said, "I'm not sure if you can do that. I'll look into it and we will get back to you." Nothing at that sort.

So, I did say that and I didn't intend to prepare that myself. So I maybe there was the expectation was that it would be back at this meeting and maybe that's not the stuff. that statement that you just stated that's what commission and this item is just right the minutes and so there is an opportunity at the end of the meeting to by consensus recommended items for our future agenda which is what that's what I was alluding to earlier because I think the items you mentioned I think they're all with answers to so in this spirit of moving forward

and acknowledging that I think you know we've gotten validation Yes, those things were stated. Yes, those are items that we want to look at. For now, procedurally, we will approve with the amendments. If we have a second, I'm not talking what you did, but if we have a first and a second and then at the end, let's remember to bring this up as an action item. I don't know if I can

just and just to ensure you you know the commissioner's done by intention. I really do want to increase and encourage the integrity of the commission. When things like this happen that break down the will and ultimately the momentum that the commission is trying to create in solving these issues, then by default you're you're disintegrating the you have no reason to come if what you're saying has no value, right? You're disregarding. I'm not saying that will happen, but that's definitely at least the visual, right? The optics is is there was no regard. It's not even in the limit. It's not even on the agenda like by default. And so, you know, we've had almost a month. I've had zero communication. City staff never reached out. So, I would imagine that would be a serious thing. But if it's not serious, then we

So, we will have the thing. So, first we have we have a motion on the table. That was I think it was uh

the motion was to approve the minutes with the amendments and then I did read out five and then there was one added. So if if what I what I've read out is what the commission wants to to put in the minutes that's a motion on the floor and then what will happen to staff will just revised so many agenda know your rights number one number two zero fee preliminary leave process um I define number three to five day required response time. Number four, early appeal process. Number five, uh triggered after that there's a trigger after two weeks of no response that early appeal. Number six, an organizational flowchart, right? With all sorting who responds for what position or what portion of the process and number seven is required documentation to allow. So we have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. And all in favor?

I I

I one oppose extension. Okay, motion carries on that and then we will finish our agenda and then we come back in our support. Thank you everyone. Uh 7.1 review of portals phase three zoning ordinance amendment language of city hall and I got a separate This item is a continuation of the overhaul of the zoning ordinance. Phase two was recently adopted by the city council and those amendments have taken effect and that was related to cleaning up the use tables, some legislative requirements as well as making sure there were definitions for each use listed in the right now. The right now staff and the planning commission is currently reviewing phase three which is the revision of permitting requirements and this is the second study session that will be held regarding this space. Tonight we're just looking at two chapters site architectural review and conditions. uh site architectural review uh is for improvements that are typically done to the exterior of a property and there are some other acceptance that go along with that. Currently the requirements for signing the potential reviews are found in several sections of the zoning ordinance. So anyone reviewing the zoning ordinance would have to look to find out if they required either an administrative permit review or a site architecture review. Right now the way the code works is that it splits exterior improvements into three different permit types. So there is um administrative permit review over the counter and those are for very minor items and there is the noticing of those improvements. Then there's

administrative permit review which the city currently uses as both a permit for a minor conditional use permit as well as a minor um and for the exterior of the building. So it get a little confusing for all involved and again even with administrative permit reviews it's both in that section of the code as well as the requirements fulfillments are scattered throughout. So it is hard to determine even for staff um where the appropriate section is and what does require a permit um in order to clean it up and make it easier on everyone. staff is proposing to eliminate the administrative permit review type and then all exterior improvements would be within the SNA section and then all uses are considered additional use peri section so they're clearly can be clearly found with the changes to the site architectural review chapter um the current administrative permit review over the counter would change to administrative site architectural review and the way that new site architecture review chapter has been designed is it lists everything that requires a permit under that permit. So for administrative site architecture reviews these are considered very minor projects but which the city needs to uh verify and review to make sure that they do meet the code so that someone doesn't do a costly improvement and another the city and then they update. So um these are typically reviewed in under five days. Most are done over the counter um if not the same day. But we do do these very um some of the examples for things that would qualify for an over the counter are the removal or addition of up to two doors and windows. Murals painted on a building. That's a mural that's a art project, not a sign. That would be a different um project. And then minor minor accessory

structures. So those would all be wrapped into that very quick review where we're just checking some minimal things. and then we'll go through it quickly and there's no noticing so it does take effect minor site architectural review is what is currently listed in the zone ordinance as administrative permit review. So these types of projects are considered to be a little bit more um intensive in what they're proposing and what the process for that is of course they're going to apply. We do have our checklist online that lists everything that you need to submit for any project and we do route it to our development review committee. So everyone within the DRC will look at the project and either will comment on it or provide commitments. So some of the examples that you can see up there we have um a conversion to another use conversion to another use building might review it and say uh I reviewed the plans I have these concerns or I reviewed the plans and I have these conditions in place. saying the fire fire might say I review the plans you have to have fire or whatever the case may be during um these do require noticing so once they are complete you do notice it so of the project gets notified of the upcoming project and they're invited to discuss it with staff if they chose to and then it is approved at staff and any any of these decisions can be um one thing that staff is recommending is that housing developments with up to 10 units now be staff level review. That falls in line with the state seeking to um streamline residential developments within the city and 10 units is a lower number. We do see conversions and and other minor projects. So they do have um more than what is allowed right now. It requires plan review if there was 30 minutes and that's a long process and not necessary.

And then we would have ded site architectural review which is the same as our site architectural review. Now these are projects that have the potential to create um citywide impacts or impacts on the neighborhood and it's appropriate to review them during public hearing. I know it's public hearing so everyone has an opportunity to speak. Again, it's processed the same way that we would process the minor s architecture review where we do route it to the the city DRC and there are comments provided and then um once complete we schedule the plan. Examples of these types of projects are major facade remodels. So that would be fair to plaza which is undergoing an a massive overhaul that changed the entire look of that shopping center. balance before the planning commission and the drive-thru. Drive-throughs can tend to have significant impacts depending on the layout and traffic and then of course new structures. So any you know commercial building, industrial building, a housing development of both 11 and more units will come with and then along with this these changes um conditional use permits. We do have an existing chapter for conditional use permits but as I mentioned we would like to shift it so that there are now minor and major conditional use permits. Minor conditional use permits will be the same as what we require for administrative permit reviews right now. And if you recall in use tables we list what requires an APR and those are uses and then what requires a C and then those are uses in the planning commission. Um so what we are proposing is that then the use tables get modified again and the APR comes off and it becomes a minor commission use permit which is really the appropriate use type. Um because what you're looking at with both a minor and then a regular commission use permit is the use and determining what are the impacts on the surrounding area. minor

are you know what the title implies they are uses that um maybe staff needs will get it to ensure there's enough parking or to make sure that the minor nature of that that business doesn't affect the surrounding area they will notice again similar to um minor site architectural reviews and then major are the uses which staff is concerned could have a major impact on the city. So, a bar or nightclub will be one. There's alcohol sales, there's security concerns, there's um lighting concerns. So, that would go with the planning commission during the public publicly noticed hearing and again gives people the opportunity to speak with federal planning commission who then issue the decision to have a minor the notice goes out and then the drop decision. So based on tonight, if you have feedback from your questions, uh the draft chapters will get amended as recommended. We continue to move along and phase three is underway. And so we have a few more study sessions and then once we are all complete, they'll be wrapped together in one public hearing to then move on towards the city council and have that phase four where the biggest portion of our overall will be.

Thank you. Do we have questions from the commission? for the business. The biggest open issue. Um but with phases different portions of the code.

Yeah. So what we what we did because to overhaul an entire zoning run at one time is is a lot of work and have the general plan going on at the same time as well as the housing element. We've broken it up into bite-sized pieces so that we keep looking at the code as we move along so that we're not waiting two, three, four years down the road. We know the code is problematic. There are inconsistencies within it which we've discussed. It is not user friendly whatsoever. It is very hard to read. There are things we need to do to make it more usable for both staff and the public because not everyone does want to call staff and ask a question. Sometimes I do just want to look it up online and so we want to make sure that they they can understand what what the law is if this is. So that's our overall goal. And as we do pieces, it's to make sure to to get the zoning ordinance in line with being more c, you know, being more customer service friendly and tighten up some of these permit requirements so it's not so confusing and really moving in a direction to help everyone out. Uh, with this phase and the permitting requirements that will definitely help out staff as well as the public. And then the next sections is the biggest section because we're talking again landscape parking val. But these are the ones that we have worked on so far are the most important. And I think just to add commission a couple months ago, I think I'm not sure if you might have I think that's when they started talking about um these pieces and really validates what you were just talking about earlier about the confusion and where do we go and who knows what and you know things are not don't make sense and you know why does it take so long all those things I think really is a big part of the work that you we're trying to clean up, right? That we we all know this is happening and so here this is I think the effort

and I do appreciate that it's in chunks because it's a lot of information to digest one. Yeah.

Yeah. And and just to add and the phases are what staff has kind of identified as being able to repeal a certain section and adopt the chunk at the same time. So, uh, phase one is is ongoing as needed, but it was state laws that we needed to update and implement into our code, which we've adopted a few chapters, AP 69 over the years. Um, phase two, I think we we pulled out the use tables was our what we decided phase two was I think it was originally three phases to become four. Once we get into four, it'll become more, but phase three is our procedures chapters, which we have to come to you with a few chapters at time. So we can really talk about them individually. But what'll happen is once we've come to you for all these study sessions for phase three, we will come back to you with a repeal and replace procedures ordinance that has all these chapters that

we come to these three. person first. So we so um if you recall the last meeting we went over uh the specific plans um review procedures and 11. So what we did was we took the existing 17.24 and the permanent requirements that are jammed into there and we essentially pulled it out. So now each one had its own chapter with the title in the table of contents on the zoning ordinance and we're just going piece by piece. The two that you're seeing tonight, we just pulled together. We have others drafted. The two that we pulled tonight are essentially the ones that we will use the most. And so it requires we wanted an in-depth review of these two that are really good permitting chapters who requires a permit for the city. So you can see that and because it is such a change even though it's just a it's just really a title over administrative permit reviews which are now function as use permit or an exterior and you're changing it to just site map

but also the change of so it's not just the names the titles right but also the like the specifics of the housing developments. So there are a few changes in there where we're trying to streamline money to make it faster for people, right? So uh there is the change to 10 and under would be staff for review for residential blinds. We're also recommending that additions that are not visible from the public right to Marshall buildings staff level because they're not going to be seen. You'll not see it. There really is no impact other than sight decoration. And then the biggest change though is instead of putting the requirements for permits in every chapter in that building, they're now in one list within within the chapter which Austin.

Yeah. So from the design review perspective, what what we're proposing in this draft chapter is really that change to to have the three different levels of site architectural review and yeah that that the 10 units or less in small commercial projects is is a big change but that is staff recommendation and then that's that's what we're here to get your feedback on. But we're recommending to both be in line with streamlining and and state laws as they continue to change. These things are coming up the pipeline of we might get forced to these things. So get ahead of it and get it the way that we want it. But also we just forget staff. We see a lot of these minor projects get hung up in this long process when if we implement group phase 4 through the design review process of the code and implement codes that are satisfying to the council of the commission for speed parking those types of things. Staff can just yuck meets the code. Yuck meets the code on these smaller projects and the ultimate goal be to these. What is the biggest change that you see online

right now based on where we're at let's say right now is mostly a function of format at this point and cleaning up the language within site architect site with this two that you're looking at tonight the biggest change really is changing what we're calling the permit to another name which you know does sound scary but it is just moving it to the appropriate product type and then within these uses that we listed there are two um different items that we're recommending get downgraded in their review level so like the ten and under residential dwellings and the smaller additions to commercial buildings and those will speed up the process minor facade models would still eliminate staff we don't tend to have too many of them there's a here and there. Mostly what we see is a major like chairs fall changing the entire design of that and then you know changing the door out or window out. It's basically over the counter and then allowing um for that over the counter permit type but also allow for minor modifications that don't impact anyone to an approved planet. So I don't know if the back of the building they have to change out a rollup door to a regular door, they can just do the over the counter and be done quickly rather than Yeah. Right. Right now um for like commercial changes for moving doors and windows up to two is allowed at staff level through that administrative permit review process which is this kind of midlevel process. Um whereas anything else is full site architectural review. What we're proposing is kind of a a shift of both of those down where really minor changes like relocating up to two doors or windows is going to be downgraded to that administrative site and architectural view. And then some of

those major what's major now, but it might be relocating five windows, you know, just like minor changes to maybe they're stuck building a commercial building. those types of things. We're proposing to get down right to that midle um review. There's nothing that we're proposing where the review increases.

So, we're trying to make it easier for everyone to get through the process quickly and then those things that are really important to the community. So a new residential subdivision which you have to see anyways because of the map or a 350 you know unit complex still goes to the pling commission which is the appropriate body but for these minor things it makes sense.

So and that's part of the law changes more. No. So the way that the state of California is moving towards residential developments is that residential projects are becoming more more um there is not a lot of saving. And so what we're seeing is the state is requiring streamlined review of certain uh residential projects and for 10 units and less those are really very minor within the city. I mean we're used to looking at subdivisions that are significantly higher. So um with 10 or less we we are recommending that that be more like the staff level. Now if there is a math associated with that. So Everland was nine units and there is a tenative map that has to go that would not be and that comes

but in general I don't know if you can in general like ministerial meaning we can't technically vote on it because state law dictates and therefore it trumps any voice that we have.

Yeah. So in essence we have less and less is all I'm trying to come to reality right and and for the sake of small town Sanino county the city of all very rural uh you know we already lose a lot of votes right representatively if you think about the reality what that means with the loss of of input when it comes to the housing element and the general fund and they by default have no choice urbanization in terms of the fact you're forcing and that in the most community I don't know about

I I and I would like to see um you know housing developments up to 10 units so it sounds like it's like um how long what's the turnaround time for something like that sounds like so any residential any residential development. So, a tenative map, an apartment complex, it doesn't add any residential development. The state requires city staff to review the application and to provide comments within 30 days. If we do not, the application is deemed complete and it

I would like to also kind of set those same state standards to also something feasible of course for commercial So we actually do as just a a matter of rule we follow the yeah we follow 30 days on everything it's easier for not only the planning staff it's easier for our involvement review committee to know they're getting a two week review that leads into planning so just for every application that planning is processing we're following a 30-day review period on a completed schedule commercial or residential it's easier than tracking to

yes it's just easier to follow the 30 days and as a little practice we follow that and not all students do. Um, you know, for an example, I have an application right now. It came in, it got assigned uh to me within a couple days and it got writed for two week review because that allows authority on their comments and then I have to put them all together in one clear and concise letter and then it gets to them. And we almost always exceed that 30 days because the one thing you don't want to do as a planner is to miss that 30-day window because then especially with residential projects, it's now complete. There's nothing you can say.

I mean, at the end of the day, even if you did say something, housing development, you do say something, what's the next round? So, for like a housing development, um let's say they submitted a map and there's no utility plans in there and so we're not sure are the lines working. How does three how does this work together? If I don't ask for it within that first 30 days and it has to be everything. I can't ask for three items and then pick up three items on the second review. And so as planners, it's just easier to follow those rules for every project because it allows for consistency and you're not constantly thinking, well, what is this project? What is it that they have to tell them? And also for customer service, um, they're going to want to know, I need a floor plan, I need a whatever it is, an elevation of the rear. Um, so we give it to them all at once. I will say that sometimes pretend they forget to give us a floor plan and we say I need the floor plan and the floor plan has to have you know the square footage and it needs to you know dimension this room and we will get a resubmitt and it'll be a floor plan and they haven't given us the dimensions and they haven't given us the square footage so it's not incomplete. That is why we give them a list so they can literally check it off. And then

what's the worst case scenario if an applicant comes in and they didn't have a utility plan. What what happens in that?

It depends on the type of project. So this is this is the the situation for any project. Some things that they forget to submit can be conditioned and some they just can't because we need to look at it for uh whatever reason. So, for example, if I have a new commercial building coming in and we don't show the location of the trash enclosure, then it's going to be incomplete that you need to show it. And the reason that we can't condition that one is for several reasons. One, we need to make sure that it meets the size requirements for the college. Two, we want to make sure that wherever that crash enclosure is going that the that it can actually be serviced. And three, does that impact circulation at all? Because what we have seen is when it goes forward the site then has to get changed and your and the way the code works is they have to come back to planning measuring if they're messing with the site changing. So that to them is a disadvantage to move. If there is something that we have asked for and we feel like it could um be pushed to a later date, we make it a condition. So I think in some cases the landscape plan was incorrect and didn't have a proper tree sizes. So there's a condition that says

I just to what I'm trying to get at was because you guys were under this immense pressure if if you you know again because there's a lot of stuff and there's no um it doesn't immediately what do they call those trees? What do they call that? There's a tree over there. Whatever. Well, you get what I'm getting at. Um there's not enough what do they call that? Trees enough. I think I understand. But so so if we miss the 30-day deadline, it seemed complete or whatever it might have been.

Um then so what would happen is we we'd move it through the process. So if it was something that was coming to the commission, then we'd move through the process of bringing it forward to the commission. Um and then we would talk about whether it meets the code or not. that if it was a commercial, you'd have a lot more discretion on whether you could deny a commercial project and have them revived to meet the code. But if it was something that was deemed complete and it's a housing project if the standard that it's not meeting isn't objective and then um you're going to have a lot less say. So staff is really diligent about hitting that 30-day deadline, but also making sure we're thorough in those first 30 days to make sure we're not having incomplete applications so that we can make sure we thoroughly are able to review the concept against

but it would come forward and then there would be a potential discussion about what it

sounds like and it's my assumption that the fact that you're going to end up having a priority of residential because of this require irements over commercial and the only other reason why it I still don't understand on a commercial side because if you meet you're you're applying the same standards why is there so much issues on the commercial side so and I really don't really so I think in this city especially most of what the planning commission looking at is just a subdivision map and engineers can print those out and those standards are in the subdivision map act in the subdivision ordinance and then they have to meet development standards And those are pretty straightforward, right? There's not much they have to do there. And then that's it. They don't have to show us the design. They don't show us the landscape and plan. Nothing. So that is essentially for those types of projects. Easier to get through um planning commission. And most of the engineers that are doing that, they're doing tons and tons of tons. They know how it works. Um most map requirements are safe. with other sorts of projects that we see what we are running into. I think part of the confusion may be that when people are trying to modify an exterior building, there are different things that come into play. And also, if you're modifying the site and it is an older site, there are definitely other extenduating circumstances that come into play. So, if I'm trying to stick a trash enclosure in the middle of an alley, that's not your alley. you're going to make a comment. If I need to put in a trash enclosure and I'm trying to stick it in a fire blade, you are going to get a comment. And I think that's the other part is our code is very hard to leave and that's what we're trying to fix to make it easier for everyone. Most commercial projects that I have had with the exception of Heritage Plaza that did take a while do very quickly. Heritage Plaza took quite

a while because there was two problems. One, the applicant wasn't responsive and it took the designer a while to to modify the plans. And two, they could not figure out where to place the trash enclosure and that we have a lot of sites in the city, especially our commercial sites, existing commercial sites that are constrained by the fact that they were built so long ago that they don't meet the code now. Also, when you want to do an upgrade, it's difficult because you have to bring the site into compliance. And so, there's a it's a it's a challenge with parking and landscaping and trash enclosures is a difficult one, too. So, we have a lot of issues with existing sites and trying to make them work into the their features and that's that happens a lot in our commercial. Um, and then we don't see too many multif family residential, but they they tend to take a while as well in the process to get through comments.

Well, and and I would agree with that. I mean we've to be consistent with that what you know director Kelly mentioned basically I mean I've heard of plenty of issues that there's there's um if there's any discretion to address the issue it's it's on the side of the planning not on the business right so their their their lack of understanding or maybe um the fact need to code and trying to bring it up right like I've noticed And I' I've had so many people tell me like how you ask the question is the most important because if you ask the wrong rate, they're going to turn all these requirements and all of a sudden you're getting a ton of money, right? And it's and and because there's discretion technically there's less it it it becomes easy to to downgrade priority wise that project. Whereas if it's cut and paste or whatever on the residential side, it's a lot easier for that to become de facto like it's going to end up getting maybe because it's compliant, whatever that means. It just sounds like there really is no strong support on the commercial end, right? Because the the front end of it and I I mean I'm just I'm just stating specifically and I'm getting I'm seeing my head disagreeing with me. Um, I'm just I'm seeing there's so many different circumstances about the calls on scenario where literally it's like I'm trying to reach out and I'm getting no response or I you know I'm they're saying that I abandoned the project and I'm here's my email. How did I abandon it? I'm responding then and you know so there's all these just nuanced issues. It's just hard to not imagine, right?

Unless all these people are liars. They're calling me one specific example. It's hard to say because in the planning process it's not just planning, right? engineers involved, players involved, collect

I think the best example is the one that we ended up basically troubleshooting ultimately on the dis right here where that feed lot right tune forward and we had to ask a ton of questions and we dug in and all we asked was oh so you actually as long as we don't change the ground and the the material then as long as you leave it undisturbed If there's any in grading that's the same material then there's no violation and the engineer says no there's no violation. Okay. So if we amended it to include do not change the material then then it'll pass. Yes it'll pass okay and we voted and we agreed and and move forward. So we had the troubles all that issue planning issue. So the hard thing I think that is hard to understand with you is that we do involve all the departments because what we don't want to have happen is you come through a beautiful commercial building, you find attention and you approve it and then it goes to engineering for grading and improvement lines and they say absolutely not new design. Nobody wants to go through that. That is a very expensive mistake. So we involve departments because different departments are looking at different things. buyer is looking from a life safety standpoint. Engineering is looking at um their requirements. So such as that project and then planning is looking at what does the zone one say? So if the zoning ordinance says I don't know it has to be 10 feet from the property line, it has to be 10 feet from the property. If the zoning ordinance says you will have a tree every 30 feet on center, you have to have a tree every 30 feet on center. And so that is what plane sticks to. we are sticking to the code and with commercial there's a little bit of leeway with design but we usually take it to you for your opinion um but other departments have their own things that they're

yeah um that's that seems very challenging the project with so many department ultimately the planner leaves the project because they're pling it either at planning stage the planner meets the project at the planning stage

so um if a department tells me that that is their requirement, then that's their requirement. I will alert the applicant that that is the requirement and they are free to call engineering. They get if they get a letter, pretend they're complete. We have no issues. Obviously, they're going to get a notice only seeing that complete. But if they get a letter from staff, that letter says these are the the comments that we received and I'm listing them out for you and these are the departments that made that comment and then you can contact them and that department may then later call me and say I remove said comment and I'll you know make a note of it and said comment is removed and that's how that process and sometimes they say take it to the commission and recommend denial because of the parking and then we break it to the self. Yeah, I mean it's it's on a whole separate conversation. There literally was um I'm pretty positive director literally that

technically speaking it's almost like CN the left or the you know the the one hand doesn't talk to the other hand like you had what code enforcement having an issue that's fine and they're like I'm I'm I'm doing what the plan is telling me. I'm actually following the rules but I'm getting fined and now I have $3,000 in fine. and then they're like well that's not our department so it's your problem kind of thing and it's like at a certain point like it just comes to a head right the quantity by itself grows up because there is no continuity there's no communication um yeah it's still a lot of questions I I I just want to add on that I'm not an elected official but I think so I can't give direction to you guys but I think what I don't I don't want to necessarily speak for the council but I'm going to speak for myself I think what we're trying to get at Because I get it. Housing is more modular. Correct. It's it's it's it's new developments are easier because they're modular. In other words, it's just kind of go. These guys are really good at keeping you home. We built thousands of these things. They're modular. So for you guys,

they're the ones that make big.

Yes. But you understand they're more modular. It's it's kind of one and go boom boom boom. The professionals got it. When you have a small business, it's going to be more okay, like as Peter's point, it almost seems like like an old supervisor once said, sometimes it's easier to to ask for forgiveness than for permission. And I'm not that's not advice, you know, but because once you do something, you open this Pandora's box because you're not allowed to go over here, you're not here, you have to do these modifications, remove the land, whatever it may be. But it sounds like newer developments are going to be inherently easier for the planning department of engineering.

It depends. I mean obviously residential subdivision again that we're working on very well like a formal

um a groundup commercial project right on vacant land and still have many issues from the first getgo because sometimes the circulation does not work and just because they've had an expert design it doesn't mean it's going to work in the context of the city. Um and so they'll get problems on that. It is harder when you're an older business and you want to do anything to your property because if I am a tenant and I upgrade the inside of my building which for the most part that doesn't involve praying but you have to come to front building vote and there's nothing we can do that's state

and I think just to carry on like I can't speak for for the planning uh unapplying the commission or city council but I think what we're trying to say is there was an applicant that came in and we troubleshooted. We troubleshooted it. All they had to do was one minor adjustment and everything went away. And I think that's the frustration is is I personally would have liked to see more discretion from the planners. Hey, why don't you call the apple camp and do this and then you didn't know but I think it's a discretion of like somebody could get hooked up on one minor thing and that's the frustration I think that that I personally seen is is they almost walked themselves into this like and I that's the and I get that's not your job. It's like your job is just to see what they submitted. But it's like

I mean I I I will try not to speak to this project too specifically, but there was a lot of conversations between the planning department and the engineering department throughout this process of how to make that comment go away and and engineering was standing firm on it. So we could not change the comments of the applicant and then it changed. Um, so I do understand your frustration. I think part of where we're trying to go with what's within our zoning code and within the planning department's ability to reflect changes is to work on these procedures. And then ultimately as we get into phase four and really talking about design and talking about zoning regulations to make amendments, the whole code, like Erica said, needs to be repealed and replaced with a modern code because we do have outdated standards. Um, as we get into those standards, that's going to be really kill conversations that we're having with the commission. You know, we're going to be talking about trees and that's going to be his favorite study session. um because she's really into landscaping. But what our ultimate goal, and this is a long project, it is a phase project. We're going to be having study sessions talking about one chapter at a time, two chapters at a time for a while with you guys. But the ultimate goal is we need as a city to have these updated standards so that staff can apply them. Now, is it going to solve all our problems? No. because we have title 16 and we have title 15 and we have building codes and these types of things that also are impacting projects as they come through. But where we have power as the planning department, the planning division and the planning commission is to fix our zoning issues and talk about what requires planning permits, what

conditions we can put on projects to make them, you know, if if we have a standard set of conditions from planning perspective, then we don't have to talk about whether or not they'll meet those things, right? So that's where we're trying to go with these zoning upgrades with these study sessions, fixing our planning procedures, working on our planning permits, downgrading them, and then ultimately as we get into place for which hopefully will kick off more so um after the general plan's adopted because then we can work on zoning that meets in the general plan policy, right? Because if if right now the general plan says one thing in regard to landscaping and then in the future the general plan says something else then go to anything. So design requirements, zoning requirements, that's that phase four that's going to follow once we have general plan policy to get people met with new code. But I think that that we do hear you. We do hear applicants uh internally. We are working on better communication with our fellow departments and our fellow agencies. But where planning has for you is kind of at the planning stage. Our job is to kind of say what are your requirements? what are your requirements? What are your requirements? And try to package those things together. It's harder for us though we do try to facilitate, you know, conflict. It's harder for us to say you can't have that requirement in department. You can't have that requirement because that's that's why they have their review and their requirements as well, right? We can custom mesh those into our permits

and if the project is denied they don't have to pay these complete

uh the project is brought like like a sign review if we get to a point where the applicant we can't make a recommendation for approval it will still come to the convention but it would be the only thing that would be an appeal where there's an additional fee for processing appeal is if let's say it was a staff level decision in this example minor minor SNA right in our new in our new code policy a minor SNA is approved or is denied then someone can appeal that to the commission that's processing the appeal application but for a major site review that will still be before the commission so whatever the recommendation might be that's not the the decision is still at the commission whether it's a recommendation for approval or denial or discon by staffing status. Uh it would be the community development director or for probably the the lesser of major and minor or minor and administrative it would be staff level. Yes, but ultimately would come under the community development directors are pass it. I see the all the attachments of the email request certain um to the right is holding strong and I feel like that's something that it's not really a process is more of a personal coach right um then like this last it was talking to individual project and computers that we d I'll say that instead of today and I recall the engineer for some applicants asking their questions and asking and but you can enforce

I think it's I don't know if this will again this could only be so much but there's still individuals decision that I've made that will say but

we do continue to try to work on that process to make it easier for everyone in the last I don't know two maybe we've created a comprehensive list of all the submitt requirements that's listed on the website and people can easily get on the list and check it off what applies to them and that um has actually been the review of most projects We continue to post additional information or focused applications so that people can get through the process um more quickly. So metically on that application that really guides people into answering questions on that application form whereas what we found before was people give us the submitt and they're missing out information they actually need to process it. So we're guiding them through the process to make it easier. Um it is a a you know kind of a fact of the way this goes that people will submit and they will omit a lot of unnecessary information and we will have to ask them to resubmit. Reasons do typically tend to go faster unless it was they did not submit anything we had and they basically reapplying on the second round. Um so we do tend to do the second round faster. Most of my projects have gone quite quickly to you. the the poly tech was held up because we're waiting on a focus traffic analysis that takes time to prepare and review and then for the sending of failures and that went through two reviews because um the first review was missing by and so we need that question but so for right we're looking at

do you have any comment com. Public comments. We do not have any public comments. Thank you. And is there any further discussion or motion on this? I don't have discussion, but I'll make a motion. If we're all waiting to What would that motion be? I don't think it's not till what final page or whatever.

So yeah, so we're slowly and this is going pieces and your next one will probably be along with the previous one was and then until get stuck together into one for them. Thank you. So then let's move on. I think this is what they'll talk about our action 8.1 planning commission for is there any board and is this our opportunity then to also request

yeah the so you look at your agenda it says that this is the time for commission to refer to refer public or commission questions to staff request staff to report to the commission on a matter at a future meeting or direct staff to place a matter on a future agenda And then so anything nothing would be discussed tonight but rather brought back.

Perfect. So who would like to start? Well, you know, I've talked to you in a few shapes to bring these the recommendations back or the seven items for discussion ultimately to vetting and ultimately um to to uh tighten up the recommendations to be forwarded to the council for then their consideration and then you know at that point it's discussion about so that's my my recommendation. So, but we're on the end from what is it on the commission request support. So, one just final point on I think kind of putting a cap on the whole discussion at least on my end is um you know speaking to Councilman Lendez and kind of obviously pay attention in the meetings and sensing the consideration of the council or at least what I would imagine it sounds like the the will of the body in general is there's a big sense of urgency for economic development. We need to grow our economy. we need to focus on commercial uh small business right creating opportunity or at least facilitating opportunity and uh you know they're at the high level right and we're dealing with obviously a huge deficit at the federal level and now it seems to be the um you know uh just mentioned that there was an 80 billion deficit expected this next year. So the bottom line is it looks like the trend is going up from the deficit which the old you know oversimplified interpretation means at the local level there's going to be resources cut or there'll be less revenues for autoies uh to address uh you know the city services necessary. So that being said that's why they're they're wanting to see where are we at with commercial development and how do we get to where we need to be to grow. That's you know biker rally is another example. um where do we need to be? So that's why I think these things have to have sense of emergency. I would maybe like to at least consider uh

having a maybe another uh order of presentation on the current layout of the land of what is our zoning with our appliance for commercial. What are the amount of projects that we have that are in the cubes? which ones have not been able to go through maybe potential issues and and maybe even what is the potential of these economic projects if they actually uh get fulfilled by they actually get passed and ultimately come into something that kind of gives us at least a better understanding and I think that could also twist it back to like summary of current applicants. Yeah, I mean I I didn't know banana was coming into our backyard until it was pretty much coming up, right? Uh

just I want clarification. So what was the action item? I'm sorry just you gave recommendation last two recommendations. The first one was the seven items correct for the review process and you wanted to see that implemented or you said no. So that would be a recommendation for us to have a conversation about it at the next meeting and that way we can basically make sure that they're they're you know to the attorney and ultimately staff to clean up the language to make sure that it goes forward as as certain recommendations from the council. So that should have been reflected today if it would have come.

Is that your interpretation that I don't know I just want to make sure we're on the same page. So should it Mr. felt like it should I don't know. Did you guys get that interpretation? I just want to make sure.

I I understand the the reflection today. I think where staff was at at the last meeting um and and we will reflect it in the minutes that that was the reflection, but where staff was at at the meeting and and where I think we'll we'll have to continue to be at is that as far as discussions of the body of the planning commission, we we can only have a discussion about things that are within the purview of the planning commission. But what we can do is provide an additional memo to the memo that was provided if there's more that we can we can justform informationally provide you about these things. So at least to the end of the response because I'm just there was something more actionable something tangible. I mean I sorry I sound like I'm going to say it again. It's just putting these recommendations into a basically something that gets forwarded to the council and and gives them the discretion to consider those as potential amendments to their policies, right? Because we're not policy makers, they are. And that way they can start to implement it into the planning policy if that is the will of the city council.

Well, that I agree with that. I haven't this body is for, but I did agree with your recommendation or our recommendation. Um,

I mean, and technically it's it's kind of going into next month to really at that point is to tighten that list up, forward it to the council, and then at that point on their end, they're like, "Okay, we we know exactly what the what the commission wants. Let's talk about it." And we could say, "Yeah, we don't agree, or maybe we should talk about it." on their end, they would have to go into a whole cleanup process to make it legal and ultimately something that they can officially adopt into their process if that's their will, right? Not it's not Yeah. At that point, we're just handing it off to them for And so right now each of us will add if you have like a report or an additional No, I don't have anything else to to add.

Well, I and I have made two recommendations. The second one was for another agenda item that actually talked about we have projects, what do we have to do for the potentials and hopefully the um you know if there's any delays, right? And just to set expectations on that one, we'll have to keep it very high level likely not meeting the project because we can't bring a project that isn't publicly noticed for any sort of discussion. So it might be like there's a restaurant, a gas station, so something general and high level if that's brought back.

Well, I mean even if we had that and then maybe just a number of those projects and you know even if we industry I think we could easily surmise what the potential is right.

Yeah. And and I think I think just two expectations again. I I can definitely work on a memo. So at least from anformational perspective, I can address all of these items to the commission with information, but from a what the planning commission can discuss and and as it relates specifically to projects that aren't before you, we you know, I could I could work on a high level list, but it we might not be able to discuss it here even if it is tangentially planning related um like things like fees that even to make a recommendation to the council that is not the body of the planning commission's perview to make recommendation on a fee like that but I can I can provide information but to the planning commission informationally um about all these items and I will bring back what can be brought back for discussion

another item I think was the way that minutes are ready um that is a change from that is one that we want to discuss to say it's changing the word if that's even it should be that's pretty standard practice in those boards regardless of so on the agenda as of discussion okay for next what's the expectation that's anything else

I mean yeah so I'm I'm trying to dissect a little bit of what my what director Kelly has done with this Anything that we say is not policy um decisions. I'm not technically there's no violation until I ask for a vote or something that's not even within our own making recommendations. It's literally just this is what we're thinking. You tell us if we're wrong or if we completely disagree. So here's the reality, right? Again getting back to the what I had mentioned earlier if this doesn't happen if there is no real discussion about the actual granular elements councils elected bodies especially um are are very high level in the policy right they have to get into the weeds a little bit to understand what are the intrinsics otherwise you're making a decision that might have a negative impact not even realizing it because you really don't understand the implications of that decision. So, it's really important that we're able to give recommendations so that they can say, "Okay, we have the info, we have staff, you tell us, and then they can clean up whatever their thinking is and then apply that in a policy uh process and ultimately with the direction or at least the the guidance of the city attorney, then you make it an actual legal element in your own policy process." if we don't even give them anything, they're not the All I know is anytime I talk to Council Member Mendes and at times when I've talked separately to Mayor Stevens um as an example, they only know what we know, which is very little,

which means they're not able to solve the very problem that we're talking about because they don't know, we don't know. Then who knows besides that? And so if unless you have I wanted to add to the request that you have you have um on that data report the general data is there also an opportunity to know how many were denied how many projects in whatever categories were denied this year for example if there were two restaurants that were denied. Uh yeah, we could definitely provide anything that's had a decision is a lot easier to give information than an an improcess application. I suppose what if I could ask just so I make sure that I provide the information that you like. But the purpose of that is just to kind of give us a because we have just you know what we hear, right? So you have a narrative of different people what they have but this

I was confus I think what was denied but maybe you guys can give like a list of why it was it could be it doesn't have to be a nuanced list like each one needs to be completely nuanced but you could have four category three categories one maybe is engineering something like that two is something just to give us some kind of indication. And then if you know four, four or five, one equals fire, two equals circulation or whatever. You guys get general point, right? And then you have the projects. So then we can then identify what's holding most of these projects up. Oh, circulation holding most of these projects up. And you have a list of the projects in Excel, however that would look. So I don't know if that makes it easier or over

No, I I I think where I was just going with the question and I understand was you know this is all all planning applications correct. Yes. Okay. So I can definitely do that. I I I from an expectations perspective I can't give you building and and engineering application because that's not application process. Um, but I can tell you that there's probably incredibly few. That's kind of the idea.

And I think and then for for me a follow up with this discussion we had is also are we going to be reviewing in any of these chapters, not just an appeal process, but a complaint process of for example, if there's a specific department that's not getting back to somebody, right? or there's a specific entity or person. I think with any business, government, what have you, there's always a complent process, right? And so I think when people only change when they're held accountable, right? If you just, you know, turn around and oh, no big deal. But if we hold people accountable, then people are more apt to follow and respond appropriately, right? So I think is there a complaint process or is that part of the things that we would and if it's not in our purview then um I guess it's justformational and then and then we could figure out you know with our city council maybe they need a complete process. Does that make sense?

It does. I'm trying to I well it's definitely not something in the zoning code. So it and I think from a what is the process by which to complain about your planning algorithm that is an appeal process right um so I think I think complaints it's definitely not something appropriate for a zoning ordinance it would be just the you know

yeah I mean the I think you're talking about complaining about a particular employee leave and I think that the process with the city is the same as it is with any business you're going to talk to their boss you're going to talk to the city manager I mean, it's not documented as such in the code. Not that I've seen, not in the zoning code for sure, but I haven't seen it anywhere else in the municipal code, but I don't think that it's typically in municipal codes because the municipal code is the law, right? So a complaint process might be a form on the city's website or it's just talking to the person's boss like is it like if you go a department well you were on the board right so technically speaking and I I understand the reality of privacy elements with speaking to about staff

um potential liability but technically speaking that's why whether it's a commissioner you know or elected body they can have a discretionary element to the process to create a post close post close post close post close post close post close post close post close post close post close post close session type conversation to basically allow but technically as the appointed body or even the elected bodies they have a right to that information you know they should have the right to discuss it for understanding again it's it's all for the sake of implementing the will of the voters are the ones that the vaccinators that pay for yeah for all the services

yeah thank you for answering I think you're I was just kind of thinking because we're all kind of circling around something, but you know, maybe it goes to another another, uh, entity. So, um, and I'll speak to who I need to speak to at city council about that. Okay. Do we have any other We're good. I'll make a motion to Oh, uh, we have one more go 8.2 planning division report staff. Do you have any reports?

Um, yes. I'll just reiterate that I I will work on at least a memo and and bringing back what is within the planning commission's discussion 300 certainly. Um, and then we are having a an objective design standards workshop on December 2nd. It's Tuesday. It's at 4 in on the end time. It either goes till 7:30 or 8. 8. So 4 to 8. Tuesday, December 2nd. It's at K's restaurant in the back room. It's going to be essentially a like kind of walk in, come say however long you want to talk to staff, talk to our consultants who are working on the project. We are talking about objective design standards for new mixed use and residential projects in the downtown. um to implement objective design standards so that we have some local say over how development happens in our downtown. Um and then it is going to be there's going to be a brief feature at the beginning just about the process and then we're going to do another presentation I believe at 7:30 same presentation. You don't have to go to the presentation and then the whole time you can just walk and talk to staff see some um like images and things like that feedback and then cut it out. Um, so December 2nd, 4 p.m., please help us spread the word.

And attorney, we don't have to necessarily be worried too much about Brown Act for that one because it was a posted meeting kind of. It was crossing my mind, but then when when Eva described it as they walk in one at a time, talk to staff. It is like made me feel more comfortable with it not to be put if you're all there at the same time because it's not really not a meeting where there will be one big discussion. Does that make sense? Yeah, I'm presenting it for the public and then for the commission to help spread the word objective design standards will return to you as a as a body when it's drafted as well. But yeah, help us spread the word to the public and to your physicians and those nice things to lots of people

and tech technically the there is no violation even if the whole body is there as long as they're not discussing actual business. So but the optics is obviously not not appealing which means most bodies will separate at least to where it's at most two people next to each other. Um, so it's it's there's no serial meaning that way. So all get together in this case. I just want to say that it's nuanced. So that's not necessarily true. But how is that not true? Because they are talking about something within your jurisdiction which is design standards. And so if you're I know

it doesn't require you to it doesn't require you to necessarily discuss it. So if you think about a situation where we're here in this meeting and maybe staff is giving a presentation to you about a particular topic and we don't engage in discussion, it still needs to be identified. So it's similar. We're all hearing the same information that you'll eventually come back to your board for decision. But I think the way that you described it, this particular meeting, I think that if you each chose to attend, you wouldn't necessarily do so at the same time or you wouldn't necessarily all go to the same discussion. It is it's community or

yeah it's a community workshop that we were trying to get community feedback at this point in the process we have a survey online as well and then so that we can finish drafting and to be clear though technically it's information that's the whole public right the whole idea of this is is it's private and it's basically intentionally trying to avoid um you know basically trying to include to a certain extent behind closed doors. I just know that when the county had their meeting about highway 75, they knew DMT requirement for law had passed it now changed the the whole thing with the cost mechanism of physical trouble. um all the supervisors were there and it was specifically about policies but they won't get it right. So, so I guess there's there's disagreeing interpretations of these. There was

we can attempt Yeah. Right. Obviously, who we talking about? Yeah. And it depends on who's holding the meeting. In this case, it was supposed to be holding the meeting and your friendship. Yeah. Just say hello. That's okay.

We don't we don't not have to make a motion to adjourn. Everyone have a little note here that says so we're good. So meeting ajourned at 7:54. Thank you. Thank you everybody. I love the happy face by the You can see that spark.