Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, we call to order the planning commission meeting for November 12th. Can we get roll call, please? Commissioner Scarboro Echo, present. Commissioner Santos is absent today. Commissioner Ortiz here. Vice Chairperson France present. Chairperson Rodriguez here.

Okay. Um and then uh Commissioner Ortiz, will you lead us to the pledge? All right, we'll go into the agenda item for public comments for items that are not on the agenda. There are none. All right, moving on to our minutes from October 22nd.

I raise a motion to approve. I'll second. Roll call, please. Commissioner Scarboro Echo, abstain. Commissioner Ortiz, yes. Vice Chairperson France, yes. Chairperson Rodriguez, I'll abstain. Okay.

So, we'll move it to the agenda for the next meeting or Yeah, we can. We can.

Okay. Thank you. All right. Uh, moving on to our study session item 5.1, a presentation from our team. Thank you. So, good afternoon, chair and members of the planning commission. Uh my name is Gustavo Gomez, principal planner with the community development department. Um and the study session before you tonight is a presentation to go over landscape and EV chargers for um future proposed gas stations. So just wanted to give a quick um recap of how we got here today. So on February 12th of this year, the planning commission denied the Maverick gas station project and the project was appealed to the city council. On April 16th, um the uh city council approved the Maverick gas station, but they directed staff to work with the planning commission to study gas stations in the city of India. Um on July 23rd um of this year, the economic development director presented a gap analysis presentation um to the planning commission. And in that um the findings of that uh gap analysis determined that there was um still approximately $18 million of unmet demand um for gas stations. Uh the planning commission gave staff direction to research certain topics and issues pertaining to gas stations. Some of these um uh topics were for example how does the city of India compare to other cities in the Coachella Valley? Um how many gas stations does India currently have and um some of the environmental concerns associated with gas stations and we overlaid the cali viral screen with um that map over the existing cast

gas stations. Um on September 10th, the planning commission received that presentation summarizing those research topics. Um which um at the end there was a request for a visibility study and also a recommendation to the city council for a moratorum on gas stations. Um staff discussed returning to the planning commission to present those topics brought up by the city council and that's um the focus of discussion for tonight. So staff um did review um existing guidelines, reports and studies that um identified best practices and current standards for um sustainable climate and appropriate landscaping. And also we uh reviewed the green building code related to um the requirements of EV chargers. um not included in your staff report, but um staff did um take a look at the Coachella Valley multiecies habitat conservation plan and we reviewed their list of um native plants and recommendation for for landscaping. We did um read uh studies from the environmental protection agency, the EPA, regarding the benefits of trees and vegetations and also peer studies like the project evergreen on how landscaping and green spaces can improve air quality. However, staff wanted to focus um the studies and research uh that are relevant to our region and climate. So in our findings we were able to we came across um the urban greening guide. This was adopted by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments and it was created in collaboration with its member agencies and other professionals in the field. So staff wanted to look at the treat pallet and wanted to make sure that um these were native water efficient. They improved air quality through the absorption of filtration and pollutants

and also reduced greenhouse gases via carbon sequestration. So we provided a sample pallet of what um of those trees uh on this table here. Um the guide does have over um 40 um species of trees that are native or water efficient water efficient for here in the desert. However, these here on in front of you are um trees that are also they're both native and they're both um good at water conservation. So, here are just what those look like um when they're planted out um uh in in their you know whether it's going to be in a construction site or residential home. And they varied in different colors and sizes um and then they we I rank them from the most um that they do carbon secretation or they they reduce um CO2 um to the least. The other item that we researched was EV charging stations. So, we took a look at the existing California green building code. Um, I just want to note that the city council will adopt the 2025 green building code standards at the next city council meeting which will be um take effect on January 1st, 2026 until 2028. So, the EV um the green building code uh is updated every three years. um they aim to reduce greenhouse gases uh you know emissions, conserve energy and establish requirements for better design and construction. So this table here uh specifies the number of parking spaces for EB capable um based on the total number of spaces that are um available or they are provided when um we receive an application for for review. As you can see, um the the trigger to require

for um uh some of these EV capable spaces is 10. Um so through um you know conditions of approval or um you know we could ask for more than what is actually required. So the next steps is um you know um the planning commission to receive input on tonight's discussion and including the you know the discussion that we've had previously regarding the the request for the visibility study and for the recommendation to the city council for a moratorum. Um and then this will be u forwarded to the city council for consideration. Then at the city, the city council may direct staff uh commission at a later date or may direct staff to take immediate action based on the review of gas stations. And that concludes tonight's presentation and we're open to if you have any questions.

I do have some questions. Uh can we go back to where you showed the the trees like the you mentioned all the five trees that you selected? Yes, that one. Perfect. Um when you mentioned that you said that they're native trees like are you referring to the Coachella Valley to California to what region specifically are native to? They are. So so the study um they did it on the um um I'm not familiar with the region but it is for here for the coach. They did it for the nine cities and then those were native for our area here in Southern California.

Perfect. And then my other question is I mean they're beautiful trees and I love them but what I've noticed that they don't really provide a lot of shade and then personally when I go to like a parking plaza or like a shopping plaza I try to find the the tree that has the most shade obviously because especially during summer because we know that it gets pretty hot here. There's any way that we can incorporate like some trees that have like provides more shade you know so we can provide that to you know to the public to our constituents because I know that people would like for shade. Yeah, that's that's definitely something we could do. Our ordinance does require that a certain amount of parking spaces, we require a tree, but maybe we could have them install maybe a more mature tree that offers more of a shaded canopy. So, we could definitely do that as as as part of our conditions of approval.

And I just wanted to add, Commissioner Ortiz, that that's really the goal tonight is to receive that input from the planning commission. So, at the end of the night, end of this presentation, if that's the consensus of the planning commission to not only um require trees that reduce CO2, but also require trees that will provide more shade, then again, we'll bundle that up with the rest of the feedback and recommendations and bring that to the council. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Yeah.

So, I have one. Um, these trees are gorgeous, but I know that a lot of times trees that grow like like the branches look pretty, they don't look real sturdy, right? And we have winds and then half the tree goes falling off. So, how sturdy are the the trunks of these trees? And I'm not a tree person, so I know nothing. [snorts] Um, other than it's pretty or I don't like it. Um, so um can are these going to be able to sustain like an average wind? Because every that's one thing I see. We have these beautiful trees and then every time we have a wind, half the branches end up on the ground and now we don't have any shade because the branch is gone and the trees got to regrow. So that's something else I think we need to look at is how well would these trees take um uh the wind, right? Because to put them in great, but are they going to be able to sustain and be here for 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, whatever their lifestyle is. So I don't know if you guys looked at that at all and if one of these maybe has a stronger trunk um or branches than another. If not, that would be something else I think we need to consider because that happens every single time we have a windstorm.

Yeah, that wasn't part of the um our study tonight, but we could definitely include that um to make sure that the trees that are being installed are, you know, they could last when they're installed. Yeah. Okay. Well, um maybe we can open up for public comments if there are any and then we might ask you to come back if there are any questions. Oh, we have one.

Good evening, commissioners. Jackie Lopez, uh, longtime resident of the city of India. Um, my comments regard are regarding the, um, gas station and the moratorium discussion that happened last uh, Wednesday. I understand that staff's recommendation today is to receive the presentation and provide guidance not to adopt any moratorum or pause on new applications. While staff is asking for input on priorities and concerns, there's no formal pause in place and at least two new applications are already being prepared. When uh former director Kevin Snyder reported to the commission a few years ago, he noted that um INO had already approved its 22nd gas station, showing how quickly our capacity is being reached. Continuing to accept applications while we wait for a study risk undermining careful planning and targeted policy decisions. I strongly urge this commission to recommend to council an immediate temporary application hold until the study is completed and policy direction is established. A pause is not a ban. It's a responsible measure to ensure that the city's planning decisions are deliberate, data-driven, and in the community's best interest. Um let's make sure that this pause leads to meaningful progress and not miss opportunities for planning. I just want to again um thank you chair Rodriguez Sea for your leadership and your and the commissioners for continu continued service to our city and um Commissioner Sea I you know I had the honor of serving alongside you uh during my time as the planning as a planning commissioner. We didn't always agree with our goal. We better always agree, right? But we all had the same goal, which was aligned, and that was doing

what's best for our city. So, thank you again and um urge you to take action on that. Thank you, Miss Lopez. We appreciate your comment. Any other comments? Fair enough.

All right. Great. All right. We can um maybe we'll ask you to come back up. Do you have any questions? Anything? Um, I happened to watch the council meeting from last week and was a little bit confused that maybe what we recommended or what we said as a commission wasn't quite clear. I was under the impression that we were recommending to council that we would like a moratorum on gas stations and also a feasibility study. And I believe Commissioner Ortiz was the one that actually stated that. Um, but it seems that it it's been kind of lost and I don't know, do you want to add anything, Christian?

Yeah, I guess just the clarification because you did bring it up. So the the point for tonight is that we are going to give you feedback and in the agenda as part of a action for council is to take our recommendation that we made in September.

Correct. So I apologize if the communication wasn't clear at that meeting. So um they specifically asked if that we had completed a study. Um we said no a consultant hasn't been hired. We haven't done a study, but what we did do is research and um we did um also we've mentioned multiple times I think to the commission and the council is aware that the recommendations from the planning commission will be presented at a future uh council meeting. So we're going to go ahead and of course the moratorum this the feasibility study and then whatever we received tonight we're going to go ahead and bring that back to the council. So, if it wasn't clear, I'll take responsibility for that. But we we definitely have our direction to bring the input and the recommendations from the commission and then the council will decide on next steps.

Yes. Um I think I was in that meeting, but it did get a little confused. Did we actually vote to make a recommendation? because that to me I I've always thought when we're making an official request, we have a vote, a first, a second, and an actual vote. And we didn't vote. So I

Yeah. So I thought the conversation was that this is something we're still working on. It could be something we bring back in the future, but I I don't have the same recollection. Now, mind you, we could all be sitting in the same room and hear a very different story, right? But to me, if there's not a vote, then there was not an official recommendation. So, I just want to clarify that. Doesn't mean we won't do that today, but for that meeting, I just I'm I'm also a little confused as to where we actually ended up by the end of the meeting. But either way, it brought us to this point. So, I think we should just figure out what are we doing from this point, right? Take the information that we discussed at the last meeting, take this more information, decide if if we're going to hire a consultant, there's going to be a cost. If we're not going to hire a consultant, does staff have the ability to do a feasibility study and how long would it take? Because if we're doing a pause, I do not have a problem with doing a pause, but government moves slowly and everybody knows that. So, we need to decide is it going to be um I don't know what the minimum time is, 90 days, six months, you know, we need to set up some parameters so this doesn't get lost and we don't move forward with this feasibility, hire the consultant or staff doing it or what. So I just want to make sure if we do something there's going to be some set parameters. What are we looking for and what is the time frame to have this completed?

And just for clarification because I do think that we heard very different things. I specifically said we are making an action. We said we have a majority consensus that this is the action. And I said to them this is the recommendation. And we said yes yes it I I just watched the video um well and I can share it. Um, but it's there. And so I think to um what Megan was saying was it that wasn't what was um shared with the council the last time around and and we did specifically bring it up. And so I understand you're saying, "Yeah, you're right. There was no vote."

Um but I also think there was a lot of confusion, right? We were talking about whether it was an action item. Could we take some action? There was some back back and forth. And so I think but at the end of the item I did ask so is this we have consensus and then we said yes and then it was verified that yes we can make this recommendation. So um I guess I guess I guess because it it's not on an action item today does it become null? I guess that's a question for you Jennifer like does that what does that what does that mean?

So if I rec Okay so a couple of things. Number one is if I recall uh when uh we we did the the CL the planning commission acted via consensus right so there wasn't a formal vote etc um that said uh I could tell you that staff along with myself um you know have kind of been working behind the scenes to kind of prep city council um and if you listen to the city council meeting I think it was from last week as well during some uh city council comments um uh something was brought up as well regarding this issue. So, uh, staff is well aware. We're trying to, um, you know, I I've been working on it as well along with staff, uh, to, uh, bring something forward to the city council. We don't know exactly when that's coming because again, this is something that's in staff hands and and you know, art is collectively staff's hands. Um, but that said, what we're still trying, my understanding is what we're still trying to do is to collect uh, more data. Uh this specific action was brought up by the city council as I recall during uh the Maverick appeal. And so um this this although it goes along with gas stations from what uh I remember is it came up during the appeal of the Maverick gas station and city council had specific direction to please uh bring something like this forward to the planning commission so that we could get we meaning city council could get further input specifically related to landscaping EV charging stations because those two things were kind of earmarked I don't know if that's the right word but kind of pulled out um you know by the city council. So I guess kind of to everybody's everybody's concern this is a big issue right and so I think it's been done maybe in parts and maybe it should have you know come just as one big issue and that would have been it but I think what happened is also due to the maverick appeal uh and it went forward to council. So, we kind of got things in

bits and pieces and parts. And so, I I'm I'm kind of talking for staff here and staff could correct me if I'm wrong, but we're trying to put everything together in kind of one package to then present to council. And I know I'm personally working on things and I know today even staff and I had a meeting on this. So, with that, we'll see where what where council wants to take it. Um, planning commission is a obviously a recommendation body to uh city council. We do not make policy. city council makes policy. So if and when um if and when all that all that stuff is all all the the work etc um gets compiled by staff, we will bring it to city council for and then they could do what they would like either action or bring it back to planning commission or table it. They could do whatever they want with the information provided. So that was a very long winded um answer. Um but hopefully that provides some clarification and we're kind of where we are in the process. Yeah, I guess I guess just for me, I want to make sure that and this is why I asked about what will be on the agenda next time you bring this up to the council. And the reason is because we're here talking about all of the environmental um uh interventions that could be done for this particular land use, right? And that's great. Um I just I guess bec and to me those two things are separate. The recommendation for the moratorum, this pause had nothing to do whether we wanted to revisit how we designed gas stations, where gas stations went, did we need more or did we [snorts] not? That is the conversation that was to be had when we did the data. And what I remember the recommendation that was made to go to council was to say, let's put a pause on this. And part of the reason is because we have seen a an incremental of of applications coming in. So

the our previous commissioner was saying I when I started in 2020 we had 17. In 2023 we got the report and it was 22. And so today we're at 32 with two more down the pipeline. If those go through we've doubled that amount of gas stations in the city in 5 years. And so the conversation that was being had during that meeting was not whether we wanted to explore further uh data or if we wanted to better understand what were the interventions that could be um integrated into the design of these types. What we were saying is we have an oversaturation which is a very different conversation than design. It's a oversaturation and we should pause for now. And let let's just recall the it was brought up during comments from the council. It was not even anything that was on the agenda. So had one of our council members not brought it into the conversation from the dis, it wouldn't have even been a formal conversation that was being had and this was an ongoing conversation. So I just want to make sure that we are very clear because there's been a lot of input from the community. residents have taken the time to give us their input. They've at every time, not just this last year, always since we've started talking about this um issue or need in our community to evaluate gas stations as a whole, residents have been very engaged and have been committing their time to send in public comments both through email, showing up here, giving us direct comments. And so I just want to make sure that we are being fully transparent with the community that if they're taking their time to come and give us their input and the commission is making a recommendation to go to city staff then that is exactly how we anticipated and I was told during that meeting that it was going to be something that was coming in the next agenda and it wasn't the case. So and I

know that there had been somebody reached out to both of us Brian uh through email and said hey we were waiting for this you guys said it was going to be on the agenda and it's not on the agenda. So this is not this is not to point fingers but I do think it's important to set things um straight about what it is that we were trying to achieve and that the conversation and the recommendation about the moratorum was not about not doing studies as council had requested. It was about doing all of those studies but putting a pause on the number of applications we were getting so that we didn't continue to do the average of two gas stations a year which now we have two applications. So my I guess my question is here based on what we have in front of us today. Okay, we don't it doesn't seem like we have an do we have an ability to make an action at this point or are we just looking at this study session on the green urban and the trees and that I mean I know that there's multiple parts to this conversation. So today right now what is it that we can do and what is it that we cannot do? Well, it is an agendaized item. Even though we are talking about EV chargers and landscaping, it's okay because it's the same topic, gas stations. If we want to revisit this moratorum and the feasibility study, I I have been very clear about those two items that I would bring it back to the council. So, but if there's a change in that recommendation and that feedback, that input, then we can certainly receive it tonight. It's a generalized item as I said on gas stations. So the goal is tonight to get all that feedback including the the primary ones which is the landscaping the EV chargers and bring it to the council and then the council decide um regarding those two items. I will say um doing some research when it was brought up a few years ago regarding a a study we didn't have enough staffing. We don't

have the staffing in house with that expertise to do a market study. And then also we didn't um we basically did not do a study. Now it's come back which is fine. Issues are reoccurring in the planning world. Um but back then we didn't have the um funding or the staffing. But again we're going to be bringing it to the council. If they direct us to find funding uh to hire a consultant to do that study or if they direct us to work on a moratorum with our city attorney then we will do that. and any other things that are going to be brought up in regards to these other issues, landscaping and EV charger. So, um, again, I I'm trying to be very clear, but I understand because there's so many things that have been said, whether from the public or on the commission or at a council meeting, but in my mind, it's two items. It's to date is a moratorum and the feasibility study and then whatever we receive tonight.

So, I guess I do have a question. Maybe Gustav and Brian, you guys can help me. what's new about the EV um things data you guys showed us or what's going in because right now currently if you put a gas station for however many parking spaces you still need to have EV capability like that's we're not bringing anything new what's changed why are we reviewing it now

so we're reviewing it because so this is an opportunity to actually so there's a gap between the first 10 parking stalls so if we want to um do a condition of approval to add more parking or have have more EV cap like instead of having EV capable just having actual EV charging. So we could request that. So we can't go lower than the thresh threshold, but we could definitely ask for more. So that's what's before you tonight.

And and I guess just to follow up to that, how many of those EV capabilities have we been able to plug in because we have a electricity issue. So we've been having this conversation for quite some time now, right? The capability is there, but we can't put a charger there. So this is I I guess just to understand is what are we being presented with right now that is really different than what we are doing now. You can't you can't plug I can't even if I say let's add 20 chargers per one um stall will that happen will that make a difference or has it made a difference have we been able to make all of the all of the EV charger capabilities that we've been um requiring from all of these developments are they up and running? So, yeah, it's a it's a tricky question, but I'm going to do my best to explain that. So, it's state law. So, the green code applies. They have to do it. They don't have to actually put the chargers, but they have to put EV ready infrastructure on the ground, pre-plum, pre-wired, things like that. So, no, they have to. The the tricky part about it is they also have to get approval for the connection through IID. So, that's where it gets a little tricky. As you know, we're limited in power uh in various areas of the city. So, but as far as the the green building code, they have to do it. Now, if there's problems with IID, that could be a private matter between IID and um the person who's building the station. But the reason why we even have that topic is during that council meeting, they said, "Hey, I want you to look into EV chargers doing more or looking at that." because they they h there have been many comments by the council in the past that maybe one day gas stations would be obsolete and so now we're stuck with an abandoned station and so that could be the an option to have not just

a charging um station instead. So that's why we brought it back is specifically the landscaping and the EV charger discussion if you will um wanted the council wanted us to bring it back to you. Can you bring up the the chart that showed the minimums, you know, the under 10, over 10, yada yada, because that's where we can make recommendations, right? We can say uh maybe instead of zero under 10, we want one under 10 or or something, right? That's where we can actually have some impact today.

Correct. Okay. But to make sure that we're being responsible with the recommendations, I guess my question again from the gas stations that we've required to do EV charging capabilities, how many of them have we've put up a charger on there? Because it doesn't matter that we say 20. Not today.

Not to Well, no, not today. But but what I'm saying is let's just be let's just put it on the table that was this was this study session necessary at this point and stalling a recommendation to talk about how many EV chargers we should be putting per land recommendations if we know in fact that all if not most of the EVs that we've been requiring these developers to put up have not even gone on live. So I just want to make sure that we are understanding clearly that this session that you all thought that was necessary and is part of the reason why we're holding up our recommendation. I just want to understand what is the real added value to this conversation here if we haven't been able to make those uh EV stations that we've been requiring already live and if I was to make a recommendation of 70 will that really make a difference?

Well, I think again that's why we're here tonight. So, Commissioner Sea, if you want us to actually do that research, we can look at the stations and see how many actually have a sta have a charging station, you know, installed and, you know, the ones that had to do the equipment under the ground through pre-wire, pre-plum. So, that's something again you can add to it. Um, we are kind of running uh through a little bit of a deadline here to get things going quickly, but we certainly could do that as part of the recommendation tonight as well is to try to gather some facts on that. I think that's that's a good question to ask.

My question is when I know that it's a lot of moving pieces, you know, and there's a lot of conversations going on. So, when do you think staff or yourself, your department will bring to the city council that recommendation that we gave you guys like a month ago?

So, we're literally working behind the scenes right now. We're waiting for this input on these last two topics tonight and I'm working with the city manager, the assistant city manager to see how quickly we can get it on the agenda. So that's why this meeting is important to kind of button it up and um see what your last input is on these two topics so that we can quickly generate the staff report. We'll also um put together some of the information that's already been presented to the planning commission like the gap analysis as well as your recommendations so that now the city council has that in their hands and they can decide on how they move want to move forward. So, as quickly as possible to answer your question, Commissioner Ort,

like early next year, not necessarily. We we could uh we're looking at two options. It could be on the next meeting or the following meeting. So, we're looking at trying to do this very quickly, trying to wrap it up by the end of the year. So,

okay. So, I guess here's the feed. Well, does anybody else have any more feedback? We got great presentation. Thank you for the trees. My feedback is this. I guess I'll start. My feedback is this feels like stalling. This moment, this study session, we made a recommendation about a month ago. We were told it was going to be on the agenda. It was not. And then this study session came about. It was we were never against continuing to study and look at all of the possible land use opportunities, all of the metrics we should be evaluating. That was never in question. I think in fact the recommendation was let's get all of that stuff going. But the recommendation came after we were discussing oversaturation and a number that is alarming in comparison to other cities. In fact, if I remember from the public comments on that meeting, they were saying, "Your data is off. The the the the industry people came to us and said, "Your numbers are wrong. Your numbers are off. That's not even how the market works." And so we said, okay, that's alarming. We should really take a step back and see what it is that we should be measuring. What data are we bringing to our council to make the decisions if the market itself and and and I remember very clearly saying, let's take that pause and invite the industry to come in and tell us how we should be evaluating and maybe they'll give us the numbers. Heck, we don't we might not even need to spend any of our money. They might be interested in doing. They came to give a public comment themselves. So, one out of many representatives of our developers in our city, but they they surely did come and so maybe they would be interested in helping us look for all of that data that we just don't have the staff or the or the money to do. So, that was where that was coming from the recommendation to put a pause on applications, not whether we wanted to continue to

study the situation and see what the best land uses for this type of development was. And so I I just I I appreciate and this is not I don't want to this is not about pinning anyone against the team. I know you guys are working really hard, but I want to be very frank and transparent because I'm getting calls from residents saying what's going on? Why are we taking the time to send in our public comments? Why are we taking the time to invite our friends and neighbors to be involved in this conversation? The what came to question during that September 10th meeting was is this an action item or not? And I said it's an action item because people are reading the agenda. We in the community know how to read these agendas. We know about these topics. There are many advocates, many people who are looking into this. So we're not relying on one specific group of people in our city, just our staff to really understand the issue. And I think city council is interested in hearing from their constituents as well. and they have through us. They've heard, they've see the comments, they show up to our meetings. So, it's not something that they've been um not aware of. And in fact, the conversations are very public. And I think the reason it was brought up during the council meeting was because they keep up with the things that we're up to. So, just to say that the feedback is it's great that we're seeing all the possible EV options that we have. We have some stuff in place and in fact if we were to go hard and do the maximum allowed or we it really wouldn't make too much of a difference at this moment because there's no power to get them going live. I really appreciate the comment about the trees. Shade is really important in all of this. It's not just about the carbon sequestration. It's about the urban heat island effect by putting these slabs of concrete these types of projects especially in communities. And

this is again the question that was coming up. These are going in lowincome predominantly Hispanic communities. They're not going where our richest whitest neighbors live. So that was another question we were saying. Are are we are we adding these to the best places in our neighborhood? We're oversaturating them in areas that are already having issues of um pollution and we're having them in areas that are, you know, uh disadvantaged that are rent burden and we're making their neighborhoods just a little bit less desirable. So just want to say that by by doing this study is is going against I think what the intention of the recommendation and why we even brought the issue up in the first place. And so I appreciate all the time and the energy that went into providing us all of this information, but what we really wanted to hear and what we really needed to know is is the city of India inadvertently adding more burden to disadvantaged communities. Are we oversaturating our city with this type of development? not whether we should add more EVs to the requirement or if we should do something that's pretty, you know, we should be doing anyway, which is adding trees to all developments, which I think we've gotten really good about asking for. So that's that's just my feedback um to the team. So, chair, do you want us to then go through the process of making any changes to what they've presented to us or do we just want to say follow state of California rules and let's go? I mean, this is we have something in front of us either we do something or we don't do it, right? That's you know, we already gave some recommendations on the trees and I agree

with you. Trees are fabulous. The more the better, but they got to be the right trees and you've been talking a lot about that for years, right? Right. with the right shape. So, what how do you see this moving forward?

I mean, I think we're hearing great. By all means, I'm not trying to discourage I'm just giving staff my feedback on this presentation. I'm not trying to discourage you all from wanting to give some recommendations. I personally don't see there a lot of value for this conversation at this very moment because we don't understand the broader issue of gas stations. And that's what I'm trying to get across. So by all means, if you have recommendations, if if the presentation was illuminating and you were like, you know what, I am convinced I this is how we go about changing these types of developments, I mean, by all means, please.

I mean, I agree with chair. I I'm I don't feel the need to recommend anything for this because this is not even what the discussion is about. I mean, for me, just with Brian even bringing up going back to saying that we previously talked about this before I was on this commission about that Kevin Snder had talked about having a feasibility study and it wasn't possible. So now my whole thing is that well why are we even going to do that? That's a waste of public funds. We know what we want. We want a moratorum. I mean, I I agree somewhat with the chair and what uh Commissioner um Kaboro said, but at the same time, I do think my trees I love I do want to bring that recommendation. You know, we didn't we need the right trees with the right shade. So, I want to add that recommendation to the staff report or to to the city council. I do want Yeah. to that recommendation. But

um you guys said that um the city is going to adopt the 2025 California green building code here in the next few weeks. Does that in any way change the chart that we saw or is that going to continue to be exactly the same?

Great question. Um and it is next week that uh second reading of the ordinance uh for the California building codes including the green code. So the table would stay the same. There's no proposed changes to that table. And again, just reminding um the commission, even though the the topic hot topic is a moratorum, again, the landscaping and the EV chargers is a direct relationship to what the council wanted the commission to take a look at and you know, discuss and then bring back recommendation. Uh if if there isn't a consensus, I can still bring back to the council um some of your thoughts. For example, some commissioners didn't feel that it would make a difference. Others thought that um requiring um this type of landscaping for shade, for CO2 reduction would be useful. It could be as simple as that. Uh if you'd like,

I mean, I'm fine with that if that's where we want to go. I mean, if we're at least following the California Green Code, that's at this point maybe all we need to do at this point. um specifically because IID is not something we have a lot of control over and I know we're working on it but it's not um

not going to be fixed probably tomorrow. So um when we talk about a moratorum and the fact that this conversation to have a pause on applications until a feasibility um um andor marketing study is complete. My recommendation would be that if council says that's where we're going, which I think would be great because we do need to answer all of these questions. We need to be very specific as to what questions we want answered out of this feasibility market study. How much time we think it will take so we are realistic in our expectations and our community understands that we're going to do this and we're going to do it in 45 days, 90 days, maximum of six months. I I I don't know, you know, I'm not a feasibility study person, but I think if we're going to do a pause, a moratorium, it's a pause, not a moratorium, right? We're not going to eliminate ever having more gas stations. We want to better understand them in our community, and then create the proper uh rules and regulations around what the study comes back with. So, that that's my recommendation. If we're going to do it, we need to know exactly what we're looking for, how much time it should take, and when we should have this back before us because I'm assuming it would come to us and then it would go to council or would it just go to council and bypass us completely?

So, so if there is a moratorum, it would just go to council um under the government code, it could completely bypass a planning commission. So if council decides um to act on a moratorum possibly in the future, uh council could also dictate as to whether or not there will be studies and what those studies look like, etc. But it would uh not go before planning commission. But the but the council could say, "Okay, we're going to we're going to do a pause. We're going to do the study and then we want the study to go back to planning commission before it comes back to us." That's a possibility.

Absolutely. So always that would be a really good thing because we have been talking about gas stations for I don't know a while and it would be great even for our own ability for future development to understand what was in that feasibility study um versus it just going directly to council and we never see it.

So moratoriums go directly to council. They do bypass planning commission um per state law. But that said, if a moratorum were to go to city council, city council could always say, "Hey, listen. We're going to put this moratorium in place for however long and we're going to we're going to uh, you know, request that planning commission talk about it, discuss it, and provide us, the city council, with planning commission's feedback." So, council has absolute discretion in in doing something like that.

Uh, my question to staff is um when we talk about pause. Are we talking do we have an idea of like the time frame will be like 6 months, 12 months, 24 months? Like do we have an idea of like what the pause will be or So let me let me go ahead and answer that. So legally speaking there is no such thing as a pause other than a moratorum. So it it doesn't really exist. Council would have to uh formally act to quote unquote pause which would be a moratorum. uh moratoriums can last with as extended up to 24 months. So that is the longest time a moratorum can last. Is there is there a minimum what was that?

Is there a minimum 35 30 days 45 days?

So how how it works is a moratorum uh if council were to adopt something like this uh it would go to the city council um as it's it's an urgency item is really what it is. I mean it's really like these these are important matters. uh and for the it's not a forced reading but the the moratorum stays in effect for 45 days and then within that 45day period if council wants to extend it um we could go ahead and place notice in the newspaper and then it both that's a public hearing and then have a second public hearing for the extension that extension can last 22 months and 15 days. So you get 45 days and then the extension which is another 22 months and 15 days for a moratorum.

Uh another question that I have for staff is um so right now so we have two applications spending right for new gas stations.

No we do not there there's a lot of uh talk out there and people trying to predict what we have and what we don't. So the only thing that we have is and we will let the council know is one pre-application which is not an entitlement. It's not a full application that's under review that would be brought to the planning commission. One pre-application. Now we get calls and people inquire about different sites uh even express interest but as far as what we have pending is very very very little. It's one pre-application and even after that pre-application that's probably been I want to say between a month and a month and a half there's been no um full applications submitted. So there isn't more that are a lot that are in the hopper so to speak. So

Okay. And I think I introduced it too because I was watching the meeting with the council and you said there had been two but I think you meant interest like two people had called in and gave you interest or something.

Yeah. What I mentioned to the council is that there's pre-application. So I stated that and I also mentioned that yeah someone is interested in in a site but there's been nothing to move forward with that interest. Um I say I think it's clear that there's interest like from the community that for us to give the recommendation to city council which we did to like to look into this matter you know. Um, so I think with what we just talked right now, I think I don't know if we have to do it again, but I think it I think it's it's time for like for like for staff to bring it to city council and then they decide because like Jennifer said, we don't make policy. We only can be a recommendation, but at least I know the community is asking for it. So at least city council can give us guidance and can make make policy on that specific issue. So I I think it's time for the city council to wait on this issue. Do we need a motion to direct or or as because it sounds like we're all in agreement to,

you know, follow the California, you know, uh, green building code requirements at this point and we added the comments about the trees and the concerns and all that. Do we need a motion to do that or are we good with with that? Take a motion. So, because it's the I think it's an action item, correct? It's a study session item.

Study session action item. I would just for a formalization I would take a motion and the motion that I heard please go ahead and correct me if I'm wrong but the motion that I heard is uh to continue with the green building code recognize that um to the extent that we could add shade trees were appropriate uh add shade trees were appropriate and also uh you know continue with the if if there were to I don't know well I'll leave it at that and you guys could tell me if there's anything in addition to that

in regards to the trees one thing that we were kind maybe nudging the commission towards is if they wanted us to make changes um either to our code or we wanted to adopt some of the things that have already been done um at CVAC. So that guide that greening guide. So, I I didn't really hear that tonight per se, but I think Commissioner Ortiz was probably the loudest to say that he does want more trees and specifically, but I don't want to misquote you in order to help both with shade and reducing CO2. Is that correct? Yeah. So, does the rest of the commission, the green code, there's no recommendation to require more um just keep it status quo. But, uh as far as the landscaping, I have one. And are there others that would like to um make a recommendation to the council for additional landscaping such as what we presented tonight?

What's the gallon uh recommendation for the design guidelines? How many gallons are those trees that they're planting? No, that's a good question. I I don't know if it actually says uh the number of gallons. Um but we can go ahead. Do you have

Yeah. Um typically they say that the trees are supposed to be 24 bucks or 15 gallons um installed. Let's bump that up. We make a recommendation to increase that. Give us bigger trees. They'll do better. The problem the problem with those types of trees is that you don't always know if they're going to grow healthy because they're too immature and the sun beats down on them. So, it's actually part of the problem because they don't have canopy. Um, and so when you plant these type of trees, you want you want big you want bigger, more mature trees is what I'm saying. So, what size would you recommend? And when it comes to putting trees in a parking area, sometimes I thought there was limitations because of the island.

Correct. There's sometimes there's only so much space. That's why you trust staff when we're reviewing the landscape plans to make decisions on if a tree working with landscape architect. You can't plant a 24 in box. A lot of times in a small two or three foot wide planter, but you know, it can be done. Um, but like the trees that are being done that are being planted right out here, those are 24inch box. It's going to be very very hard just in the experience that I have to get larger than 24inch box for a couple reasons. Uh first it's very very expensive and then secondly a lot of those trees are just too big for the planting areas. Um I mean you certainly could still make that recommendation. I usually tell people that 24 in box is really ideal, but depending on you're right, if it establishes well, it's watered well, and then um you know, other factors. Of course, our climate is is a huge factor to see if these trees are going to become, you know, nice, vibrant, healthy shade trees, large trees. Uh but the 24inch boxes is kind of the sweet spot. I actually think we talked about this quite a lot when we did our general plan update ago and that was something that kept coming up that if they were too big they would not take or grow well in in the size. So I mean we could say something like if the area allows it

absolutely not no and we can tell developers what they need to design and how big those places need to be. That's part of our guidelines. We decide that. Let's just be really clear and put it out there. We tell them how they should design, not tell us what fits. Isn't that in our general guidelines though? The plans that we did.

It's now If we change it now, we're making recommendations. So, if our recommendations is to add bigger trees and to change the design guidelines so that those trees can fit, we can do that. So we could do either you could recommend either a code amendment or you can recommend this guide and then the guide also can be modified to require larger different trees. So those are kind of some options but Commissioner Sea is is correct. I mean we definitely make decisions when we're reviewing landscape plans for types of species, size of the of the species. So we definitely that's under our purview. Um, but if you want to recommend a code amendment, obviously that has to be recommended to the council. Then they would make a a change to the code.

Well, I think we're good. I think we're good. I think you've heard enough from us. I think we have some good recommendations. We want trees, shade trees, the trees that fit. Um, not twigs. Um, let's do what the state of California is requiring us to do. So, all of this is the bare minimum. Let's do it. Let's just do it. Okay. Let's make a I'll make a motion to do the bare minimum. Well, the green code and all the great things that everybody said. The green code is the bare minimum. But

I can second that. I'll second that motion. Commissioner Scarboro Eckle. Yes. Commissioner Ortiz, yes. Vice Chairperson Fron, yes. Chairperson Rodriguez, yes. Motion carries. All right. Thank you so much. Thank you for all of your work. Um, we'll move on to commissioner comments. Any comments?

Uh, India Barbecue Festival was great. So, thank you staff for putting that together year after year. You guys are keep knocking out of the party with so many events. I also went I didn't run it, but I also stopped by the 5K on Tuesday. So again, thank you for all the events that you guys put together for the community. Okay, I'll go. Um well, I'm sad to say that this is my official last meeting with the planning commission. I am stepping down uh in my role. It is um been a difficult decision after five long years. Um, but I feel like I've done a lot of great work and I feel like we have a great body up here and I can take some time to work on my personal projects, on my professional projects. The bandwidth is limited and to be completely frank, I'm not up here because I like being on the dis. I'm up here because I want to contribute meaningfully. And if I don't have the bandwidth to really study those agendas and to really get in here and provide something, I'm just added weight and I want to make space for someone who has the time and the energy to do that. Not going away. I live in the community. You will probably see me over there a lot of the times. Council will see a lot more of me now because I'll get to say all the things that I don't get to say up here because I need to be uh uh unbiased. Um 5 years ago when I started at the commission, I came and um I remember the first design review that I did and I was like where are all the trees and everybody was and it was in Zoom because it was during COVID and everybody was like giving me these like looks like what the hell is he talking about this guy? He doesn't know what he's talking about and I was like no really where are all our trees? Five years later, our developers are coming and they're spending at least two slides on the um on the uh uh landscape plan to really help us understand what that is with a different body. We were able to put a moratorum and a

prohibition for 5 years for the um storage facilities. That was a tough conversation. We didn't always see eye to eye and it was very much like this very you know going back and forth and we came I mean we did this because we felt this is really what the community needed and there were better users for the land use and even the conversation that we're having today is really heated but it's a conversation one of the very first projects that I was also reviewing was a gas station and I was saying we have so many of them we have 17 why do we have 17 look at the cities behind us why are we not talking about this and it wasn't a conversation that we were always ready to have and um just getting shut down. So, I'm actually really proud that some of the very first things that I started coming in and and kind of being the odd guy out and um being the voice that was sort of off to the corner um are the conversations that we're having now. And I feel really really proud that I've been able to bring this perception or this uh uh idea of um environmental justice. It's always been at the forefront of what I've been doing. And I just I want to share with the community and with you all that the way that I've seen planning, planning is not about giving the developers what they want. That's not the reason why you become an urban planner or why you should join the planning commission. What we're doing here is we are making sure that we are building a healthy, vibrant community for the residents that live here, the residents that will live here. And that means sometimes we're not going to say the popular thing. I've had developers cuss me out on Facebook. I got the receipts. Um because I'm saying things that they just don't like. I've had people come up to me and say, "Hey, you're going to piss a lot of people off and my work isn't planning." And so they're like, they're not going to want to work with you. And I guess just to to to end with saying that the responsibility that we have is to the

community, to the residents. And when the residents are coming here and they're saying there's a real need because people are suffering with environmental injustice and environmental racism is a thing in many communities. And what that means is that types of developments go in communities over and over again. And if we're turning a blind eye blind eye, we are making it worse for those communities. Our city has a large population of low-income immigrants that are trying to just put food on the table and cannot come to these meetings. So, it is our responsibility as the commission to speak on behalf of all of them. And so I just want to end with that and say that I'm very thankful for staff. Your patience with me know that my passion and where all of this comes from is that place is that I'm working really hard to give a voice to the folks who can't. They're too busy just trying to make it work. Thank you.

Comments still. So um I want to Thank you, Kristen. I've always loved trees, but I definitely love them more now. Okay. Um, and I know we don't always see eye to eye, like you said, but, you know, I agree with you. We want a vibrant, healthy community that we can all be proud of living in. And that's what we should all be doing up here, right? Um, we we need developers, but we also need quality development, and that's where we get an opportunity sometimes to make an impact on those communities. But I do thank you and I wish you the best of luck on your next adventure and I look forward to seeing you over there. Thank you. I want my three minutes. [laughter] Two.

I will say one, but um now that you said it, well, I just say uh I have I had to I had the pleasure to with you like little under a year. So um I want to say thank you. Uh like you said, like Gloria said, sometimes we didn't agree eye to eye, but I do believe that you had uh your heart in the right place. you want the community to be better. So, thank you for your service and then we wish you the best. All right, staff items.

Well, I also wanted to say even though I only worked with you for about 10 months, uh, Commissioner Seha, I do appreciate your your planning background and I do appreciate uh five years is a long time. So I I know it can be uh you know a lot of time to read the staff reports to come to the meetings. Sometimes you might have other plans. So even though only 10 months I do appreciate a lot of what you've done and um I wish you well. I know you're very busy with work. Uh I'm sure you want to have a life. So, thank you so much for serving on the commission and we hope we can get someone that's as devoted as you to come on to the commission because that is extremely important to for people to really want to see the the city um succeed and grow. Um I just wanted to make two quick little um items. One is our new city hall. We're very very proud of it. We have been moving into it and open to the public today. Today was the first day that we were officially open to the public. even though we've been booing boxes and going back and forth um as of Friday um we just opened to the public today. So um the old building um I'm hearing that next month the old building right next to us will be demolished um for um a plaza and for additional parking and things like that. So parking is going to be a little bit more difficult for a few months because there's going to be work being done in that area that will provide the additional parking. So, I just wanted to bring that up. And then, um, secondly is we wish we had enough items for a December meeting, but we don't. Uh, I know the Madison Point, uh, project is a big project. They're not quite ready, but most likely it'll be either January or February. So, even though uh, the next meeting um, would have been in December, we would um, ask that the commission um continue to the January 14th meeting instead of the December meeting. Um, and other than that, uh, that concludes the the staff

items. Thank you, staff. All right. If there's nothing else, then we will go ahead and adjourn to the next planning commission meeting on December 10th. No, Jan. That would be January. Yeah, January 14th. 14th. January 14th. Thank you. You're welcome.