Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. It's 6 o'clock. I'm going to go ahead and call the meeting to order.

Sanchez Lopez, will you please lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance?

Thank you, Commissioner. Ms. Abdullah, can I have roll call please?

Commissioner Daly?

Here.

Commissioner Lopez? Here. Vice Chair Ivan Garcia?

Here.

Commissioner Quayle? Commissioner Galande?

Present.

Commissioner Pratt?

Here.

Commissioner Carloni?

Here.

Chair Sherrick? Present. Commissioner Orlando-Garcia?

Here.

Thank you. A three-minute limitation shall apply to each member of the public who wishes to address the Planning Commission on any item on the agenda, excluding public hearings. There is not a limit to the number of items that may be discussed within the three-minute time limit. Ms. Abdullah, can you have the administration of oath for our public speakers, please?

Please stand and raise your right hand. Do you solemnly affirm that the testimony you're about to give before this body will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? If so, please say, I do. I do. Thank you. You may be seated.

Thank you. I have one speaker who wishes to speak not on an item. So I'm going to go ahead and call her up at this time, Ms. Delores Armstead.

Good evening. It's not a particular item. Today I'm representing the Northwest Project Area Committee, and we are asking that anything that pertains to the west side, or definitely Ward 6, can we have someone present it to us, let us know, instead of getting this at the last minute. They used to do it a few years ago, and then it got lax, and so we're just asking. Either present it to the committee, we meet every second Tuesday of the month, second Monday of the month, or a forum, if you want a forum, we'll get some citizens to come and listen. But just so we know what's going on. I'm happy as heck we're having some housing built in the 6th Ward. Thank you. I do have a question. Is there any way we can make sure that they're for sale and we don't get duped into rentals again? Probably not, huh? That's a legal issue. This happened before. We had houses, and then the developer dogged us out and made them rentals. But we're happy to have housing. So that was it. If you can let someone on the Northwest PAC know when we have an item coming up, we really would appreciate it. And thank you for the housing.

Thank you. Is there any way to... I guess, really, the public gets notified when the agenda goes out, correct? Yes. Is there a way that maybe the PAC, the PAC president, can get on the list of when the agenda goes out? Because, like, the commissioners receive the information the same time the public does. So maybe...

when the agenda is posted then the pac president can get a copy of the agenda sure um madam chair um the northwest park actually holds a meeting every other every two weeks of every month or so and staff does attend those meetings i think what we're going to do going forward is if there are any projects that are within that district that we would make sure that we give that presentation about the project to the committee so that we can get some of the input now is the project in question is there any item on the agenda tonight that is related to the comment from Ms. Armstead yes I believe so is it item number two

Yes, the housing.

So that particular project was sold to the city as a for sale housing development. Now, I'm going to say you probably heard that before. and things do change, but in this particular instance, I don't know if, is Bobby's representative here this evening? So they can address that question when the item comes up, yes.

Thank you so much.

Also, Madam Chair, in case you're wondering, Mr. Castillo, Mr. Henry Castillo is representing BB&K tonight because Albert and Eloise are not available.

Thank you. Welcome. Thank you. We'll move on to consent calendar items. Consent items are routine in nature and may be enacted in one motion. All public and non-public hearings will be open at one at a time. Any item may be discussed separately upon request of a member of the planning commission or a member of the public. Do we have any updates to the consent calendar?

Madam Chair, the only item on the consent calendar is the approval of the minutes. Now, in case you were wondering, our last Planning Commission meeting, we didn't have a quorum, so there are no minutes. And because we didn't have a quorum, we couldn't approve the minutes from the prior month. So what the Planning Commission is going to be doing tonight is approving the minutes from April 14th.

Thank you. Is there anyone wishing to speak on the consent calendar item? If none, I have a point of clarification on the minutes. It does say that the planning commission of the city of San Bernardino was called to order by Vice Chair Larry Quill. And I don't believe he was vice chair at that time.

So at the time, had we done the reorganization, so it would not have been Vice Chair Quill. It would have been Vice Chair Garcia or Commissioner Quill, depending on whoever called the meeting to order.

I don't mind entertaining a motion to approve as long as we go back and make sure that that's actually who opened the meeting.

Yes, we can make that. We can watch the video and make that correction.

Thank you. So at this time, I'll entertain a motion for approval.

Motion to approve the minutes of April 14 with the amendment to the call to order by Vice Chair Quill.

Second.

Thank you. Roll call, please. Commissioner Daley?

Yes.

Commissioner Lopez? Yes. Vice Chair Ivan Garcia?

Yes.

Chair Sherrick?

Yes.

Commissioner Galande? Yes. Commissioner Pratt?

Yes.

Commissioner Carloni?

Yes.

Commissioner Orlando Garcia?

Yes.

Vote passes unanimously.

Thank you. The Planning Commission will first hear a report from staff, and then the public hearing will be opened. The applicant will have an opportunity to speak. Next, members of the public will be allowed to speak. Anyone in the audience wishing to speak must be sworn in and fill out a request to speak form. The forms are located near the table by the back door. When your name is called, come forward and speak your name into the microphone. Say and spell your name for the taped record. After all have spoken, the applicant will be allowed to respond. The public hearing will then be closed and Planning Commission will begin deliberations and make a decision. All decisions except general plan amendments and municipal code amendments are final actions unless an appeal is filed and fees paid within 15 days to the Community Development and Housing Department. If you challenge the resulting action of the Planning Commission in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this agenda or in written correspondence. delivered to the Community Development and Housing Department at or before the public hearing. I'd like to go ahead and start with item number two.

All right. Good evening. Thank you, Madam Chair, planning commissioners, and members of our public. Item number two is amendment to conditions number 25-06. This is a revision to the previously approved conditions of approval for the project located at Foothill Boulevard and Macy Street.

Okay.

All right, so just a little bit of background. As mentioned, this project was previously approved in August of last year. This was both to update the general plan land use designation as well as the zoning district from commercial to residential. In addition to that, there was a development permit for 138 homes and to subdivide approximately 15 acres into 138 lots as part of a planned unit development or PUD for short. SO AS A REFRESHER, BEFORE US IS THE CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS AS MENTIONED BECAUSE OF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ATTACHED TO THIS. THIS ULTIMATELY DID MAKE ITS WAY TO THE CITY COUNCIL WHICH RECEIVED THEIR APPROVAL BACK IN AUGUST OF LAST YEAR. HERE IS AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SITE. AGAIN, APPROXIMATELY 15 ACRES AND SOME CHANGE. WE HAVE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD TO THE SOUTH. WE HAVE MACY STREET TO THE EAST AND WE HAVE DALLAS OVER THERE TO THE WEST. Here is the site plan that was approved. You have their main point of access off of Dallas, I'm sorry, Macy to the east, and then the emergency vehicle access and resident exit to the west on the Dallas side. It is, you have a mix of the motor court style development, so some of the units have a shared driveway, and then some of the units, they're more of your conventional traditional single family lots.

HERE ARE THE RENDERINGS THAT WERE APPROVED.

IT'S GOT A MIX. YOU'VE GOT SOME SPANISH STYLE, YOU HAVE SOME FARMHOUSE AND PRAIRIE STYLE HOMES. SO WHY ARE WE HERE TONIGHT? THAT'S ULTIMATELY BECAUSE THE APPLICANT IS REVISING SOME OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, SPECIFICALLY THE PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. for larger development projects such as this one sometimes we find that there are constraints that actually happen in the field or let's say when you're actually starting to build just stuff happens right therefore we have to go and update the previous conditions of approval just to lend itself more to the development that's actually happening and why we're amending the previous approvals tonight REALLY THE SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IS REDUCING THE CORNER, LET'S SEE, HOLD ON. THE SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IS THAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO REVISE THE LANGUAGE PERTAINING TO THE CORNER RADIUS SPECIFICALLY ALONG FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND MACY STREET. They're going down from a 35-foot radius down to a 20-foot radius. Really this is to accommodate for the relocation of the existing storm drains, some of the catch basins down there, as well as removing the undergrounding of the electrical poles. This is largely in response to Caltrans and the timing of the improvements that they would be doing anyways. Their stretch of improvements is as far WEST AS PEPPER AND THEN AS FAR EAST AS MOUNT VERNON. SO THIS SUBJECT SITE DOES FALL WITHIN THAT JURISDICTION FOR THEM TO BE DOING THAT WORK. AS SUCH, BECAUSE IT'S A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT CHANGE, THIS REVISION HAD TO COME BACK BEFORE THE PLANNING That was really the bulk of the requested changes. And as such, the recommendation is for Planning Commission to adopt resolution number 2026-008, finding that the project is still exempt. It's still in line with the previous environmental determination before. Nothing changed with the project other than just the corner radiuses that we talked about. And then approving the amendment to conditions based off of the findings and the conditions of approval.

Mr. Velarde, for the benefit of the Planning Commission, can you show the radius on a site plan? Yes, certainly. Can you zoom that in or anything, make it a little bit bigger so that there's a better understanding of what exactly we're doing?

It's going to be the northwest corner of Foothill and Macy Street. I don't know if you can see my clicker right around here. But there is a storm drain that's going to be relocated about seven feet westerly, and then a catch basin that's going to be relocated about three feet to the north, which is why we need to shrink that 35 down to a 20. But it's right here. And that's all the change. But that does conclude my presentation. Staff and Public Works are here if you guys have any questions. Let's see. And that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. At this time, I'll go ahead and open up the public hearing at 6.11 PM. Did the applicant or the developer want to speak? Mr. Bonneman?

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Planning Commission. Thank you to staff for doing this. This is really Caltrans' fault. I'll blame it on them. Caltrans wants to spend as little money as possible to do the improvements. It's great that they're doing it. We met with them years ago and asked them to do specific things when they did theirs, and they just don't, and they don't want to do it. That one particular corner has currently a 15-foot radius curb return on it. It has two catch basins, one at the north and one at the west. The biggest... radius we can put in is 20 feet we were conditioned for 35 if i had to do 35 i'd have to move everything and rip it out there's no trucks turning southbound on macy going uh west so public works said that's fine you're making it bigger to 20 foot which used to be the standard why they've gone to 35 it's because of all the truck traffic it's residential you don't need it so this is a very helpful condition for this project we're almost done with the um The precise grading water sewer all the entire package. It'll probably be submitted in about a Month and a half and these are for sale as she'd asked currently So Hopefully you will approve this tonight. Thank you.

Thank you. I have no other speaker cards for this item. So I i'll go ahead and close the public hearing and have staff discuss closing it at 6 13 p.m i just have one question is it still fire trucks are still able to make that radius yes thank you any questions by staff i'd like to make a motion thank you to adopt a resolution uh where is it Staff's recommendation.

Staff's recommendation, 2026-008. I'm happy to second it. I just had a couple of questions.

I believe I heard something in your presentation about the removal of underground electrical power. Did I hear that correctly?

Yes, because part of and the public works manager can help speak on that as well. But and to Ed's point that Caltrans is going to be doing a lot of this work anyways. So that does fall within their jurisdiction anyways. So it didn't make sense for the to have the developer do that if somebody else is going to be doing that.

So at the end of all of this, the electrical will be undergrounded.

Hi, I'm the land development manager. No, they will not be undergrounded. They will be relocated. So Caltrans, when they're working through on Foothill, they will be relocating the poles. And our requirements are 33 KV and under to be undergrounded. These ones are 34 KV, which means they don't fall under the jurisdiction to be forced underground.

Okay. So the overhead electrical will be along Foothill? Yes. Okay. Will it be overhead electrical within the site as well? No. Okay. Okay. Fair enough. Thank you. Thank you. My second question is for the developer. Has a builder been identified?

I'll go ahead and reopen the public hearing at 6.16 p.m.

Sorry. Yes. And I'm assuming you can't share that information at the moment.

Correct. Fair enough. But they would be a very good one. Okay.

Yes. All right. Thank you. No more questions.

Thank you. I'll go ahead and close the public hearing. I believe we have a first and a second. I'll call for a vote. All right.

Commissioner Daly?

Yes.

Commissioner Lopez? Yes. Vice Chair Ivan Garcia?

Yes.

Chair Sherrick? Yes. Commissioner Galande? Yes. Commissioner Pratt?

Yes.

Commissioner Carloni?

Yes.

Commissioner Orlando Garcia?

Yes.

Vote passes unanimously. Thank you. If we can have a presentation for item number three.

Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the Planning Commission, and members of the public. I am going to be presenting a city-initiated amendment to section 1928.120 for the water-efficient landscape standards of the City of San Bernardino Development Code Title 19 in order to update the development standards for the water-efficient landscaping standards in compliance with recent changes in Senate bill, or in state law, Senate bill SB 1383. Thanks. Oh. So a bit of background, the City Council had adopted Ordinance M1368, Water Efficient Landscaping Standards, which included at that time the existing WELO standards by the State of California. In 2015, the State of California Department of Water Resources further amended that Model Water Efficiency Ordinance, or the WELO, as it's called, under Title 23, Division 2, Chapter 2.7. that required more specific irrigation efficiency and landscaping. In 2016, California State Legislature voted to approve Senate Bill SB 1383. A quick background on SB 1383 is it is also otherwise known as the short-lived climate pollution reduction strategy, which has the goal of reducing methane emissions statewide by 75%, statewide and then with the 75% less organic waste being sent to landfills as a target. And the reason why this correlates specifically with MWELO is because SB 1383 requires all jurisdictions to implement the MWELO as it exists within the state regulation. Most notably, the requirements that it is asking for is particular soil amendments that must be applied based on the soil management reports of certain projects, as well as incorporating a minimum amount of a three-inch mulch layer with some exemptions and then also classifying the types of the square footage and area of the projects that are required to comply with WLO. Even though it is a regulation aimed at waste reduction, SB 1383 generally has a lot of implementation of other state requirements, including Cal Green codes. In our current regulation, under 19.28.120, the project landscape area doesn't need to be changed. In fact, it is already compliant with WELO. However, one of the changes is that for projects that are greater than 500 square feet will be required to follow a prescriptive path, whereas those that are greater than 2,500 square feet must follow a more performative method, or what's called a performance method. The main goal of the ordinance is to adopt the MOLO standards that are required by SB 1383 and reference here into it under our Title 19. The reason for doing this is because SB 1383 is an enforceable law which carries penalties and contains penalties in civil administrative hearings for noncompliance for jurisdictions that do not meet the requirements. And at this time our ordinance does not fully comply with the Moello standards. And by adopting this ordinance to, and by adopting this ordinance for our or amending the ordinance for Title 19, it will meet those requirements by incorporating all those requirements from SB 1383. And then for that reason, The recommendation is that the Planning Commission take the following action of adopting resolution number 26-13, forwarding a recommendation to the Mayor and City Council recommending approval of Development Code Amendment 2613, amending section 19.28.120, otherwise known as Water Efficient Landscapes of the City of San Bernardino Development Code Title 19, This request is to update the development standards for water-efficient landscapes in compliance with recent changes in state law, Senate Bill SB 1383, and finding that the development code amendment is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act.

Thank you for your presentation. I have no public speaker slips on this item, so I'll go ahead and open up the public hearing at 622 p.m. Again, I'll state for the record, there's no speaker slips. Do we have questions for staff? Commissioner Daley?

Thank you. I'm a little bit familiar with 1383 and was curious if the city had received a JACE letter from Cal Recycle.

That's correct. We are actually undergoing a compliance evaluation at this time.

Gotcha. So this is part of getting out of the thumb of CalRecycle and getting into compliance for this particular part of it?

That is correct. For this particular amendment, that is the goal is to be in compliance with that section of the regulation. Most recently, one that we did separately was for the CalGreen building codes that are required under that ordinance.

And if memory serves, CalRecycle, and I think you mentioned this before, but I think it's important for everybody to know, is that 1383 is one of the laws that has some serious teeth to it. And CalRecycle has the ability to levy fines, heavy, heavy fines on the city for failure to comply.

Yes, they can administer administrative penalties as well as fines up to $10,000 per day for noncompliance. Thank you.

Commissioner Sanchez. Do you have any questions? No. Do you have any questions? No. Okay. Seeing no other questions, I'll go ahead and close the public hearing at 6.23 p.m. and entertain a motion.

I'll move staff recommendation.

I'll second. Roll call, please. The motion by Commissioner Daly is seconded by Commissioner Carloni.

Pratt, excuse me. Excuse me. All right, Commissioner Daly?

Yes.

Commissioner Lopez? Yes. Vice Chair Ivan Garcia?

Yes.

Chair Sherrick? Yes. Commissioner Galande? Yes. Commissioner Pratt?

Yes.

Commissioner Carloni?

Yes.

Commissioner Orlando Garcia?

Yes.

All right, vote passes unanimously.

Thank you. If we could have a staff report number four. Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Elliott, can we have that planner introduce himself? I don't believe we've seen him present before. Is that correct?

My apologies. My name is Matt Fisher. I'm the Environmental Programs Coordinator. I work in Public Works. I presented that on behalf of, even though it is a development standard because it is SB 1383 in particular. That is why I'm presenting on this particular item.

Thank you. Next item.

Good evening. My name is Michael Yarbrough. I am a real property manager, one of two here with the city under the Economic Development Department. I'm here today to present on a real property street vacation, number 15.30-441, which is a portion of the alleyway south of Rialto Avenue and west of South Muscott Street. and I appreciate the opportunity to Madam Chair and the commissioners on the roster. Okay, basically the proposal is to vacate a part of the alleyway which is about approximately 29,635 square feet of right-of-way area to be vacated as part of a consolidated lot owned by the city of Colton for their well and water reservoir site. There's a location map. It's showing where it's approximately located there, right near the intersection of Muscott and Rialto Avenue. Here's an overview of it. What do you call that? Aerials. Aerials, yes. Thank you. It's late. Aerial map of the area, and it shows the High Line Colton Reservoirs there, over in the vicinity of the vacation area. Okay, so an analysis. The proposed street vacation is consistent with the general plan. Planning staff concludes that proposed vacation is categorically exempt from CEQA and there is no significant impact on the environment. Utility companies notify new easement will be established for the existing 12 inch water line and 8 inch sewer line. Notice of this hearing was published. So street vacation 15.30-441, a portion of alley way south of West Rialto Avenue and west of South Muscat Street. The recommendation is to adopt resolution number 2026-014 of the Planning Commission of the City of San Bernardino, California. forwarding a finding of conformity with the city's general plan for street vacation number 15.30-441 based on the findings of fact to the mayor and city council and finding that the project is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA.

Thank you for your presentation. You're welcome. Go ahead and open up the public hearing and note for the record that there are no speaker slips on this item. Go ahead and close the public hearing and entertain a motion or do we have questions by the commission?

I'd like to propose a motion to approve staff recommendation for 2026-014. I'll second that.

That was a motion by Commissioner Carloni, actually this time, and a second by Commissioner Galande.

Commissioner Daley?

Yes.

Commissioner Lopez? Yes. Vice Chair Ivan Garcia?

Yes.

Chair Sherrick? Yes. Commissioner Galande? Yes. Commissioner Pratt?

Yes.

Commissioner Carloni?

Yes.

Commissioner Orlando Garcia?

Yes.

Vote passes unanimously. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Item number five?

Hello. Okay, all right. Good evening, Madam Chair, Commissioners, and members of the public. Before my presentation starts, I just wanna let you guys know that staff has made changes to the PowerPoint. I've provided two copies in the front, and those changes are with the entitlement, It was listed before subdivision 26-03, I believe. And there was an extra slide for photos of one of the images. So I just removed those to the PowerPoint. Okay. So moving forward, I will now be presenting this item number five, subdivision 26-07, tentative parcel map number 21056 and variance 25-03. This project is a request to subdivide an irregularly shaped parcel containing approximately 0.32 acres, which is approximately 13,993 square feet, into two parcels at approximately 6,996 and 6,997 square feet, This project will also include a variance that will deviate from the development standards. Those deviations will be the reduction to the required lot area, reduction to the lot depth, reduction to the rear setbacks, and this project will then develop two two-story single-family residential units at approximately 1,800 square feet on both parcels. I will further explain exactly what the variance is in the next coming slides. This project is located at 729 West Ash Drive at the APN 0151-172 and 07 within Ward 5. And the zoning of this site is residential suburban areas. As mentioned, the zoning of this property is residential suburban, which is consistent to the surrounding neighborhood showing in our zoning map. Most of the properties in the areas are single-family residential, and the outlier in this diagram is the residential low, which is located up north. But once I show the photos in the next slide, the residential low in that area is primarily the hillside. This is the subject satellite map. Unfortunately, this photo doesn't really do justice of what the variance is. There's a lot of disadvantage of this parcel, primarily the location of it. So the subject site is located behind the rear portion of nine adjacent parcels and is also located on the foothills of that hill. The next couple of slides will illustrate the disadvantages of this parcel. These photos were taken a couple of weeks ago, and this first photo is actually the entrance to the site. As you guys can see, it's a bit treacherous in how to get there. For me to get there, I had to get one of the trucks to access the site to kind of see, because it was a little bit of an off-roading just to get to that location. So once you go up that little driveway or drive aisle, you will then have to drive down to access the property. This is looking south, and looking up north of the property, that is the hillside that's adjacent to the northern property. Since the property site doesn't have any access to the main road, as part of the project, the applicant will propose a 25 foot wide street that will connect the two parcels to North G Street, which is on the eastern side of the property. It will also include a street light, as that is what's required per traffic division. The dimensions of the road and the street light location has been reviewed and approved by both Traffic and Public Works and the City of San Bernardino Fire Division. the project site offers a very unique characteristics as mentioned it has very tough challenges in regards to the location of the site there's this particular parcel unfortunately deprives the applicant from similar privileges that's that's within the surrounding neighborhood so the variance will include a reduction to the lot area. So in our development code, the minimum lot size is 7,200 square feet. This property is requesting to deviate to be under 200 square feet, which is 6,996 and 6,997. It also requires, in our development code, a lot depth of 100 feet. For these two parcels, they are under that. They're approximately 80 feet to 77 feet. It will also require to deviate a reduction to the rear setback from 20 feet from 5 feet. And one of the reasons why we were able to justify it is because of the location, the topography, and the shape of the parcel. The request does not constitute as extreme special privileges as looking at the diagram on the PowerPoint. Most of those parcels were created in 1950s, so that's approximately seven decades ago. When those properties were developed, some of them are approximately 6,000 square feet to ranging up to 11,000 square feet in a property size. So combining the square footage of all those properties, it's approximately 69,000 square feet, which is roughly around 7,600 square feet per parcel. Though that seems a little too high in regards to the standard, we'd like to take in consideration that five of those properties are extremely below the development standards of the requirement for the lot size. So that's one of the things that we were able to consider when presenting this to you guys. Here's the detailed site plan for both parcels. Because of the odd shape of the parcel, we have to identify which sides are which. So for lot A, which is the parcel up north, we've identified the ash drive as the frontage of the house, which leaves the eastern portion of the property as the rear portion of the site. For lot B, with the home facing north, that portion is the front of the house, while the southern portion of the property is the rear portion, which is where the reduction of the setback comes from. Lot B also identifies a required easement from SoCal Edison. It's a 10-foot easement that they've identified, and they do comply with those limitations. Here's the proposed floor plan for two homes, for both parcels. It's a two-story, three-bedroom homes and both design will be layout and will be incorporated in both parcels. Here's the landscape plan just to illustrate how the properties would look with the home and the landscaping. The proposed home will be consistent to the architecture of surrounding community with a similar color material. The overall height of the building is approximately 23 feet, which is substantially below the requirement of the development code, which I believe it's 32 for the residential suburban area zone. Lastly, granting the approval of subdivision 25-07 and variance 25-03 will one, allow the applicant the same privileges enjoyed by the others in the immediate area. It will also rehabilitate the existing property. It will enhance the physical and visual qualities of the surrounding vicinity. It will incorporate the necessary street improvements that would connect this parcel from the rest of the community. And lastly, it will develop two single family residential home. on this area. With that being said, staff's recommendation is for the Planning Commission to adopt resolution number 2026-015, finding the project categorically exempt pursuant to section 15332 in field development projects in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. and approving subdivision 25-07, tentative parcel map number 21-056 and variance 25-03 based on the finding of fact and subject to the recommended conditions of approval. I would like to mention that the applicant and the team are here for any questions that you might have. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll go ahead and open the public hearing at 6.38 p.m. Does the applicant wish to speak? If so, we just need to have you sworn in. Yes, no? Thank you.

Please stand and raise your right hand. Do you solemnly affirm that the testimony you're about to give before this body will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? If so, please say, I do. Thank you. You may be seated.

Thank you. If you wish to speak, you can come up to the podium. Oh, OK. Then I'll go ahead and close the public hearing at 6.38 PM. Are there any questions by the commissioners? seeing none i'll go ahead and ask for i'll entertain a motion i'd like to make a motion to approve staff's recommendation and adopt resolution number 2026-15. i'll second that thank you we have a motion by commissioner pratt second by commissioner carloni commissioner daly yes

Commissioner Lopez? Yes. Vice Chair Ivan Garcia?

Yes.

Chair Sherrick? Yes. Commissioner Galande? Yes. Commissioner Pratt?

Yes.

Commissioner Carlone?

Yes.

Commissioner Orlando Garcia?

Yes.

Vote passes unanimously. Thank you.

I believe that's our last staff report. Do we have any planning commissioner reports? No, seeing none, do we have any director reports?

I'm going to keep it simple, no.

Thank you. I'll go ahead and adjourn the meeting at 6.40. Thank you.