Local Planning Agency - Regular Meeting

no yeah i do have a few questions go ahead so um it's very good to go completely digital um however what now when um a member of the public wants to have access to it because we don't have right now the smart gov capabilities like i said that we're paying for activated so they have to go and do a public record request to see any plans that get submitted

Okay, so that's the only way they can get it. Okay. And then I have another question because we kind of have this issue last year when we have an applicant with a site modification for the state of Aqualina for the parking garage. correct so in that moment it was said that we needed to do the site plan modification because it was not convenient for them not to have a CO on the parking garage and we went ahead and we had a discussion in here however In the event that it wasn't clear who had to pay for the undergrounding of the utilities, it was a recommendation of the staff that then it has to

Correct, correct. And I voted against it, basically, because when we have very specific conditions, and then later on, which is what we are codifying right now, correct? That when they come, the only way to change those conditions is with some site plan modification. Yep, correct. OK. I just wanted to put on the record that we did it before, that the recommendation was against the public and the residents. Now we have the resident, the taxpayer, had to pay for the underground, which was a condition for the certificate of occupancy of that specific property. Anybody can correct me if I'm saying

I went ahead and I did actually review it. That was February 25, if anybody want to check it out. And that's the issue that I have, that we are approving these projects with very specific conditions, and then they come here. Or in this case, I think it was really a big conflict of interest, because they brought it to us after throwing a very lavish party to the mayor. Once again, very conflicted, getting freebies from the developers, and then voting to give them this kind of site conditions approvals, general modifications. So I just wanted to point out on the record that whoever is sitting do

I'm going to read it. So the resolution explicitly states that this document will serve as the, quote, foundation and provide guidance for future amendments to the comprehensive plan and land development regulations, meaning that once it's passed, this document can be used for the pretext to rezone these districts. And they're doing it apparently. Once you read it, you can say that it states specifically that we don't need to do it, that this is just a vision, right? Do we need this document?

So it's not just a guidance. We need this document to then go and make the changes to the comp plan and land development regulations, correct?

So it comes to the process because it's not so much about the product, but how we got here. How much money do we spend on this? So we're working on something that we don't even know how much it costs? Are you asking the city manager? Whoever can answer, yes. on this process. How much do we spend on the staff, on time, on consultants, etc. How much? This is a product of how much money they will put on this and how much time.

Then we should not be voting on this. We don't have the information. We don't know how much. We don't know the time. I have another question. We're talking about the people was really involved. Surveys went out there. I might be wrong, but I don't recall receiving the data, the raw data of the public input. Did we receive that information?

No, my question is like when the people went into the website and they could give the answers, did we receive those answers? like that raw data from the public, whatever were the comments when they could open the survey in their computers. Because I don't remember receiving that information. I didn't read the comments of the people.

OK, precisely. So we don't receive the comments. We don't have the raw data. So we don't know what the people were saying. We have to rely on whatever was the process, how you guys processed the data. Another thing, the focus group. What was the process to choose who was going to be part of the focus group?

One second. Who established that criteria? I'm sorry? Who established the criteria to select the participants? Staff did. The staff did, like you guys did? Yes. OK.

Yeah, basically it was decided by you guys because I could not add somebody that I wanted to put in there. So we didn't have a set. Well, I remember seeing the list. We had that conversation here a few years ago. If I'm not mistaken, I think it was in 2023 when we were having those.

Oh, 2024. OK. Because they started working on January 2024. That was one of the first meetings, correct? OK. I remember seeing the list, and I remember having that conversation, because if we don't have part of the process, then it can be that like-minded people were chosen for this. On top of that, I spoke to the developer or the land owners. the biggest land owners of that area. And they expressed their frustration. They said that they had courtesy calls with the staff and with the consultant, but they were not part of the conversation. So we are here opening ourselves to big liabilities whe

Yeah. Yeah, it's been a long process. I do respect and like the feedback from the residents. I'm in agreement with the vision and with the comments from my colleagues here. And I just hope, because there's a lot of... factors that need to be completed so this vision can be implemented. Obviously, there's property holders there. You have RK, which owns a lot of the commercial property in that area. You have Desert as well. And I think that we as a city are going to have to work very hard to be able to translate this into our LDRs. and be able to bring this to fruition because we already had a v

Okay. OK. And to Alex's point, we are approving a 20-year plan vision. We should allow them, the new commission, to do this. In a few months, the majority is not going to be here. And they should be the ones making this decision. If not, we can put this in a referendum and let the people speak. So basically, it takes a majority of three people just to decide what is the vision of the city. The point is that I read it all. And we are not basically challenging anything. Again, when we don't even know how much this is costing us. So we don't have the full information. And we've been in this proce