Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

This is

Oh, yeah. Yeah, she's um she's almost Yes, she's the planning commission meeting of April 8th, 2026 will come to order. All rise for the pledge of allegiance. To the flag of the United States of America. Before we proceed, I would like to make a clear record that this meeting is being conducted in compliance with government code section 54953.8.3. One member of the planning commission, Commissioner Tullson, is participating remotely under the just cause provisions of that section. At the earliest opportunity, Commissioner Tullson notified the legislative body of the need to participate remotely due to a

physical condition that is not subject to the Americans with Disabilities Act. A quorum of the planning commission is participating in person from the notice meeting location which is within the jurisdiction of the city of Seami Valley and open to the public. Madame clerk, please proceed with roll call. Commissioner Man, present. Commissioner Tullson. Commissioner Glad to be here. Commissioner Chrisman here. Vice Chairperson Rice here. Chairperson Kennedy here. I would now like to request that Commissioner Tullson respond to the following questions. Commissioner Tlson, can you hear me? Yes.

Are you participating using both audio and visual technology? Yes. Were you able to hear the proceedings prior to roll call? Yes. And for the record, are there any other individuals 18 years of age or older present in the room with you at your remote location? And if so, would you please state the general nature of your relationship with those individuals? No. No. No visitors.

Perfect. I would like to now ask any member of the commission to speak up at this time if such commission member has not been able to hear Commissioner Tullson clearly. Hearing no comment, the record should reflect that the Commissioner Tullson is participating via audio and video and is able to hear and be heard clearly as required by government code section 54953.8.3A2. I would like to now advise the chair, commissioners, and the clerk that any votes taken during this meeting must be taken by roll call. With those confirmations on the record, the meeting may proceed. Okay. Next item uh on the agenda is approval of the agenda. May I have a motion for approval of the agenda?

I'll make a motion. I'll second. All right. Uh motion was made by uh Commissioner Chrisman and seconded by Commissioner Coulson. Next item, item five, approval of minutes. May I have a motion for the approval of the meeting minutes of February 18th, 2026? I'll make a motion to approve the minutes. I'll second.

Okay. A motion was made by Commissioner Chrisman with a second by Vice Chair Rice. Ken, I like Ken. Uh, unless there are any objections, the minutes are approved. Decor declaration of conflict. The secretary will read the declaration of conflict. If any member of the planning commission may have a conflict of interest or any reason why that member must abstain from consideration of any matter on this agenda, he or she should so declare at this time. Okay. Hearing none, we'll move on to next item. Item number seven, public statements. I have one card for public statements at this time. Do we have any others? No. Okay. Call James McGillis. Chair Kennedy. Uh members of the planning commission, city staff. I'm James McGillis, 19-year resident here. I've only got three minutes. Monday, October 13th, marked the final day for Governor Nuome to sign bills passed by the legislature. The legislature passed last year a complete revamp of our housing laws. Buried deep in the verbiage was a clause that limited any association from leveling a fine of for non-compliance of rules of more than $100. That means that semi valley HOA's governed properties cannot find a short-term rental more than $100 for an infraction. Is having an STR an infraction? Or is the infraction every time you rent? Either way, the HOA property owners who thought that they were protected will soon find out what it's like to have a motel next door. or the $100 fine will simply be built into the price of doing business. Who shall remain exempt? Those with a gateguarded community. As you know, the Lost Hills

development of 364 homes is coming soon to the planning commission. There are 100 reasons to deny or massively modify the current proposal. I have a memorandum coming soon to each of you. But here is what is gerine to the planning commission. Current proposal STR ordinance will throw semi valley residential property values into chaos. There will be three classes. is number one will be those of us in neighborhoods who will be totally unprotected from rampant sales and conversions of dark money STRs. Number two will be HOA protected residences. They are about to experience what it is like to have a motel next door. Number three, gateguarded communities. Their property values will double while the unprotected will suffer. Uh through utilization of council agenda item 10b, two council members stripped away power from the planning commission, not to mention the neighborhood councils and the petition of the people. Those two council members along with our city manager and her discretionary budget now have the narrative they desire, an independent survey on STRs. And what is hidden right beneath the surface of these actions? The city council retain the right to approve a gateguarded community in Lost Hills Canyon. Lost Hills Canyon has the unique attributes of being in a seismic danger zone, a high fire risk zone, a liquefaction zone, a landslide zone, and a sensitive habit zone, and is being serviced by a road system designed for a golf course, not a 364 residence community. Because it will be a gateguarded property, prices will soar to heights on not seen since San Francisco. This commission should look deeper into what our city council is about to codify. It is a way of bequething super property rights to the few and dumping the burden of an Olympic poolsized flood of STRs elsewhere in this community. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone in the chamber wishing to be heard under public statements? Next item. Item eight, correspondence. Is there any correspondence from the deputy director or city planner?

Yes, chairperson Kennedy. Good, good evening and members of the planning commission. We do have one supplemental staff report for item 11 A1 regarding the proposed accessory dwelling unit ordinance. So that has been provided to you um at your table here and to the public out in the lobby. Uh, anything else on correspondence? That's the last thing I have. Thank you. Thank you.

Uh, next item. Item number nine, consent calendar, uh, review of potential fiscal year 2026-27 capital improvement program for conformance with the SIM semi valley general plan. May I have a motion for the approval of the consent calendar? I'll make a motion to approve the consent calendar. I'll second.

Motion was made by Commissioner Chrisman with a second by Commissioner Tolson. Unless there are any objections, the consent calendar stands approved. Next item, item 10, continued business. There's no items tonight. No, no continued business. All right. Next item. Item 11, new business. Item 11. A.1 public hearing. This is the time and place set for a public hearing on consideration of ZS Z-S-2026-00001 to consider recommending that the city council amend the city seami valley municipal code Z-s update regulations for accessory dwelling units and a determination that these amendments are exempt from the California environment Enironmental Quality Act. Are there any exparte communications to report? Seeing none, may we have an oral report on this matter by staff? Yes, Chairman Kennedy, members of the planning commission. Uh tonight's uh presentation will be on some requested amendments to the accessory join unit ordinance as requested by the state department of housing and community development. Um, with us tonight with for the presentation is principal planner Naron Sakara, associate planner Alex Klingman, and assistant planner Mark Nason. Mark, go ahead.

Good evening, planning commissioners. Tonight we will be reviewing changes to the city's accessory dwelling unit ordinance. Let me just um Commissioner Tlson, can you view the screen the presentation? No.

Share this. Uh, we could share the screen for you. Just one moment. Are you able to see the screen, Commissioner Tlson? Yes, sir. Yes, sir.

Okay. Thank you, Mark. You could you could proceed.

Okay. to provide excuse me to provide some background. The state of California introduced accessory dwelling units or ADUs in 2016 to combat the housing crisis throughout the state. Since then, the state has periodically updated the laws to streamline ADU approvals. The city adopted the ADU ordinance in 2017 with the last update in 2023. And since then, there have been numerous changes to state law. On October 25th, 2025, the California Department of Housing and Community Development, HCD, informed the city that the ADU ordinance needs to be in line with state law. In response, the city's proposed ordinance clarifies the distinctions between stateexempt and non-stateexempt ADUs and updates language and terminology to ensure the ordinance is in line with state law. This allows the city to impose local control where possible. To confirm, the changes are limited to the form of the ordinance language, not the content. The proposed changes include classification of different types of ADUs currently allowed. This change provides a clear distinction between stateexempt and non-stateexempt ADUs. Stateexempt ADUs are exempt from city development and design standards. Apart from 4 foot side and rear setbacks and a maximum height of 18 feet, currently the city approves combinations of up to three stateex exempt ADUs on a given lot per city attorney's guidance. By contrast, the city may still impose development and design standards on non-stateexempt ADUs, which are detached ADUs over 800 square ft in size and attached new construction ADUs. These existing standards include a 20-

foot front yard setback, 10-ft window placement height, no front-facing entrances, matching colors and materials, maximum rear yard coverage, and off- streetet parking requirements when applicable. As a refresher, the stateex exempt ADU options for single family homes are junior accessory dwelling units or JADUs, which are dwelling units contained entirely within a house and are limited to 500 square ft. Next is detached accessory dwelling units. This is a newly constructed dwelling unit that is a separate freestanding structure from the house and is limited to 800 square ft. and conversion accessory dwelling unit which is a dwelling unit created entirely within the floor area of either a portion of the house or from an accessory structure. The city has also clarified classes of ADUs on multif family lots. Stateex exempt ADU options are conversion accessory dwelling unit which is a dwelling unit created within portions of an existing multif family structure that are not that are not used as livable space. The city must allow at least one unit and up to 25% of existing units. The city also must also allow detached accessory dwelling units, which is a new freestanding dwelling unit located on a lot developed with an existing or proposed multif family dwelling. The size is limited to 800 square f feet and the city must allow on lots with an existing multif family dwelling 1 to eight units not exceeding the number of existing units and allow on lots with a proposed multif family dwelling not more than two detached accessory dwelling units.

The city also clarified the two classes of ADUs which are not stateex exempt. Detached accessory dwelling unit is a newly constructed dwelling unit that is a separate freestanding structure from the house and is larger than 800 square ft and up to 1,200 square ft. And an attached accessory dwelling unit is a newly constructed dwelling unit that is attached to the house. They're limited to 800 square ft or 50% of the square footage of the home up to a maximum of 1,000 square feet, whichever is larger. To approve the proposed ordinance, it must meet required must meet required findings for a code amendment pursuant to Semi Valley Municipal Code section 9-73. Staff has determined that the ordinance meets the required findings as detailed in the resolution. To reiterate, the changes presented to you tonight involve cleanup and clarification in the city's existing ADU ordinance to comply with state law. Staff recommends that the planning commission adopt a resolution recommending that the city council adopt the city initiated Seami Valley Municipal Code amendments to update regulations for accessory dwelling units and a determination that these amendments are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. This concludes staff presentation and we are available for questions.

Any questions, commissioners? I have um can you just uh confirm the set front setback for a junior ADU? The front setback for a junior ADU is limited to the footprint of the home. So it's uh basically subject to our normal development standards. Yeah. So it's 20. Are you referring to Jun ADU or ADU? Two different two different questions. I guess uh both. So a junior ADU is converted from existing space.

So that would be subject to our regular uh municipal code guidelines which in this case would be 20 ft. And what was the other ADU you you wish to know about? Detached. Like a regular ADU. Detached ADU. Detached. And are you asking about a stateex exempt or a non-state exempt? Basically, uh over or under 800 square f feet? Let's uh let's cover both, but I I I feel like I had know the answer to the second one. Yes. So, for a stateex exempt ADU, uh the state mandates that we have a 4 foot front yard setback.

Thank you. Uh to clarify uh state exempt ADUs which are ADUs which are 800 ft and under detached uh the state only allows us to impose 4ft side and rear set side and rear setback. So there is no front yard setback. Um for non-stateexempt ADUs we can impose a 20ft front yard setback. Um just to add whenever we get we we really haven't had a lot of requests for that zero front yard setback and whenever we do get it uh staff does uh kind gently requests uh that they consider extended setbacks and not do a front zero that's mainly why I was asking Thank you.

So it depends on which ones. uh for example, you can't have two stateex exempt detached ADUs, whereas you can have a junior ADU and say a detached ADU under 800 square ft.

So if I can just add to that. So the three stateex exempt ADUs are JDUs which are within the footprint of the existing home. uh conversion of an existing structure which is a detached structure or a within the existing home again. So those two um you can't have zero front yard setbacks because those have to comply with our existing municipal code. Correct. Yes. If for a detached new construction under 800 ft ADU, yes, you can get less than 20T front yard setback. So the answer is no. You would only be allowed to have a zero frontier setback for one of those units. Okay.

Yeah. One at 600 foot zero exemption and another 600 nonexempt. Yes.

Any other questions with staff? Okay. Okay, at this time uh we will open the public testimony portion of the hearing. And is there anyone in the chamber wishing to be heard on this matter? I have one card Joe Abala on this

okay comments only. Okay. Where where

Yep. Offering you to speak. You Oh, I saw 11A on here. Sorry.

11 A2. I'm sorry. All right. Is there anyone in the chamber wishing to be heard on this matter? Okay. Hearing none. Uh, are there any comments from staff regarding statements made during the public hearing? Nope. Nope. Uh, if there are no further questions, we will close public testimony portion of the hearing. Are there any comments or questions for members of the planning commission? Think we went down that' be a no. Okay. Chairperson, may I Oh, no. That's me. That's why they call it a script, right? May I have a please uh may I please have a reading of the resolution? A resolution of the planning commission of the city of Seami Valley finding that the proposed capital improvement program. Oh, I'm so sorry. I am reading the wrong my apologies. A resolution recommending that the city council adopt the ordinance Z-S-2026-00001 to update regulations in the Seami Valley Municipal Code governing accessory dwelling units and determination that these amendment are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.

The chair will now entertain a motion. Madame Clerk, if we could please do a roll call given the teleconferencing of Commissioner Tolson. Commissioner Man. We don't have a motion. Yeah. So that the the chair will now entertain a motion. We're We're looking for a motion. So moved. There's no motion yet. John, no.

Do you want Do you want me to make the motion first? Okay. I move to adopt a resolution recommending that the city council adopt a city initiated Seami Valley Municipal Code amendment ZS200026. Thought it was 00002 to update regulations governing density vote. It was 0001. Sorry. I'm on the wrong page. Yes, I know.

Okay, there we go. Got the wrong page. Okay. 0001 to update regulations for accessory dwelling units and a determination that these amendments are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. There we go. Okay. A motion was made by Vice Chair Rice. May I have a second? I'll second the motion. Uh, this is second by uh Commissioner uh Chrisman. And uh now it's called for the vote and it's a voice vote. Commissioner Man, yes. Commissioner Tullson, yes. Commissioner Chrisman, yes. Vice Chairperson Rice,

yes. Chairperson Kennedy, yes. Vote passes unanimously.

There is no appeal period for the Semi Valley Municipal Code text amendments and the item will proceed to the city council with the planning commission's recommendation. Great job. Great job.

All right. Um, next item 11, new business. Item 11. A.2 public hearing. This is the time and place set for a public hearing on the consideration of Z-S2026 00002 to consider recommending that the city council adopt city initiated Seami Valley Municipal Code amendments Z-S-2026-00002 to update regulations governing density bonus and incentives and a determination that these amendments are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Are there any exparte communications to report? Hearing none, may we have an oral report on this matter by staff? Thank you, Chairman Kennedy and members of the planning commission. The first thing I want to ask is is does Mr. Commissioner Tolson see the PowerPoint presentation on the screen?

No. We'll get that set up. Commissioner Tolson, can you see us?

Yes, sir. Thank you. All right. Uh shall we continue with the staff report? Yes. Thank you. Um again, this is a another municipal code text amendment to the development code to address um another state housing law of density bonuses. Um our senior planner, Eric Chen, will have tonight's presentation.

Good evening, Chairperson Kennedy and members of the planning commission. Tonight we will review municipal code text amendment to density bonus incentives provisions and align our municipal code with current California state law. As a preface, city staff has applied the state law when processing certain residential development applications to comply with the city's certified housing element. The density bonus law generally addresses housing availability. It is a tool to increase housing production. It provides developers with incentives to build more housing and increase statewide housing stock. The state law generally requires all local level governments, county and cities, including semi valley to accommodate more housing units beyond what local zoning code would have allowed. The density bonus law is designed to create affordable housing. It creates a nexus to grant bonus units and development incentives for qualified housing developments, including reduced parking and relaxed site development standards like reduced building setbacks. These bonus units are necessary to create mixed income housing projects that are financially feasible where the additional market rents received from bonus units can potentially subsidize construction loan repayments and operation costs to determine the number of bonus received over affordability offered by the developer. The amount of each bonus density adjustment is set on the sliding scale aligned with the number of affordable units. This sliding scale illustrated on the screen is expressed

in percentages and the range differs with each level of affordability including low, very low and moderate income levels and they are prescribed in government code section 65915. So why are we updating our code? The state law requires the city to adopt a local density bonus ordinance. We need to reconcile the city's municipal code with the state law and its ongoing changes and it will satisfy the state's certified housing element obligation. Regulating density bonus within the city will require changes to title 9 of the municipal code. Proposed ordinance would update the municipal code and align it with the state with the current state law. Generally, the draft ordinance would observe the following increase in percentage of the original density bonus cap from 35% to the current 50%. It would allow stacking or a two tier of density bonuses when more affordable units are provided. California Assembly Bill AB 1287 allows developers to add an additional 20 to 50% of density bonuses on top of the original 50% bonus cap, potentially doubling the base density and create the supplemental bonus incentives prescribed by the housing element. Since the state law generally addresses incentives in density, affordability, and parking, the draft ordinance would offer a menu of incentives, including additional density in designated areas beyond California

law, some flexibility on dens on development and design standards, some reductions in required common area and open spaces, and further reduction and parking requirements, but must first satisfy the state law requirements to approve the proposed ordinance. Staff has determined that the code amendment meets the required semi valley municipal code findings as detailed in this res in the resolution. Furthermore, the proposed municipal code amendments are not subject to additional environmental review under SQUA general rules also as detailed in the resolution. Therefore, it is recommended that the planning commission adopt the resolution recommending that city council adopt the proposed ordinance and the determination that these amendments are exempt from SQA. This concludes staff presentation. We are available for questions. Yeah, I have one real quick. Uh, can you just go over the uh parking uh is there a parking change at all in in the incentives and the density bonus and what does that look like? Parking requirements. If I may pull up, give me one moment. Don't know if I understand that. referring to your att.

U we're referring to the state law where the um state identifies parking maximums based on the unit size of number of bedrooms. So believe Eric's pulling that up. Right. So unfortunately I do not have a I don't know if I have a slide created for that one. However, uh for zero to one bedroom, you're looking at one on-site parking space. Two to three bedrooms is one and one half on-site parking spaces. Four more bedrooms, two and one half parking spaces. One bed spa, one bed and one bed space in a student housing development with zero parking spaces.

So, has that changed with this? N still the same. That is the same. Thank you. It's on page 39 of the text. You have a question? Any other questions? Yeah, I have a question. I pretty sure I know the answer, but I'm just going to ask it anyway. Uh, for the tens of people watching, um, what would happen if we didn't approve this?

So, if we said no and and city council said no, what what what would be the repercussions? Okay, so we don't all align with the state. What what would the state do? So unfortunately if or what could the state do? Let's put it this way. You may be up here. Approving this would continue to allow the city to be in compliant with our housing element. Yeah. So I think that alone should suffice the need to continue and observe density bonus. Okay. I I have a question. See, you're up.

Yes. So, it also puts the city in liability from um litigation from developers that would challenge the city's interpretation or lack thereof of the density bonus ordinance. But, as staff was saying, you know, clearly we have an ordinance on the books that isn't up to date. And this is what we're doing today is to bring it into compliance, but we've been functioning off of state law regardless of what it says in the ordinance. So, yes, you have the ability to deny and I understand. But but essentially couldn't it also lead to more court costs for the city ultimately? Absolutely. Okay. That's that's essentially where I was going with this.

Yes. And really um a high likelihood of loss, right? I don't think that we would be really successful here. But I mean it is it is something that is um difficult for cities to implement and you know based off of the different scenarios to understand given the percentages, ratios, consistent changes. So, yes, largely legal costs on the city's behalf and maybe even having to eat up some of the costs for attorneys fees on the other side as well. And less paved streets. And less paved streets. Yes. So, just to kind of add on that, what I heard was we we're in compliance and we've been operating in compliance. We're just catching up with the wording. Correct. Thank you.

I I have a question, too. So, uh, can you just maybe lead us through how these stacked B bonuses because I my my understanding is that we didn't have the stacking before can lead to more height and more density and what would be the real world situations in our city and with different developers and how would that necessarily ensure that we do have more low-income housing. Okay. So, an example, I think the best approach is to provide you with an example of a stacking would be the Lighthouse Bible Church project, which is an 80 unit mixed juice income apartment complex where developer received 100% in density bonus in exchange for 10 low-income units and six moderate income units. And also the church received um updates to their facility and it was recently approved just uh last year by the city. So um the way it's calculated is that the developer requested for double density and or stacking which is a two-tier uh component. The first one is the original and now let me let me go back to the other slide. regarding the two-tier. So it would be the base density plus the original bonus cap upwards of 50%. And to invoke tier 2, which is AB1287 bonus, they're allowed to add an additional 2250% in of the base density.

In order for the tier 2 to be ev invoked, invoked, pardon me, they have to maximize the original bonus cap first before they can get into the tier two. And there's additional requirements when they get into tier 2, what they have to do in providing for affordability. Generally speaking, when they say affordable units, they're also mention they also um reference moderates moderate income units. you're looking at approximately 120 120% of AMI, which is basically at a at a HUD standard 120% you're looking at about still for a three-bedroom unit, you're still looking at over $4,000 per per unit. So, it's pretty close to market.

Thank you. So can you go back to the lighthouse one us through the the example that you had? So their base was originally 40. Correct. Correct. And then with the bonus density and to get to the bonus density they just had to give 20% if I'm reading the table one state density of bonus law 20% of very low income or 20% were low income.

Right? So they provided so this particular situation they provided uh 24% and which um to maximize their 50% in the tier one and then they added an additional 20% uh at moderate to maximize the uh 50% of tier 2 and they doubled the density. Yeah. Now, can you walk through what the parking would be on this one because parking hasn't changed, right?

Parking would still Yeah. Even if they three or four bedrooms or two or three bedrooms, sorry to interrupt. Um, even if there was just one density bonus unit or one affordable unit, the state parking reductions will apply. So regardless of the number of okay incentives or density bonus, the whole site is subject to the reduced parking. Okay. And I believe this project had two or three different bedroom types,

right? So, some were calculated at the one one bedroom, some were calculated at the two to three, and if there were any fourbedroom units, it'd be that. So, we just add up the number of units in each category and then total the parking. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I remember this one also had some height uh issues on the backside and some setback uh as well. But those would be waivers, right? If I remember correctly, that's correct. We didn't really um elaborate in the presentation on concessions and waiverss. Nothing's really changed here. We're just recodifying what's already required. Um and just just reiterate for everyone everyone at home, stacking doesn't mean

height. Stacking height, vertical stacking is just a maybe not the best term this state uses to say you can get double density bonuses. It's nothing to do with the height or stacking units. So to add on to what Sean's saying, additional um three concessions were issued and multiple waiverss and because of the concessions and waivers, the developer was able to keep the project at three stories. What was the third concession?

Do you remember? It's likely distance from it could potentially be set back, but distance from like the the trash bins um parking from the units, those are pretty standard. So not not talking about this particular project, but it could mean height as well. Yes.

Thank you. Okay. Uh, are there any other questions for staff? Okay. Uh, well, we will open the public testimony portion of the hearing. Uh, is there anyone in the chamber wishing to be heard on this matter? And I do have a card from Joe Abala. Anyone else? Okay. Thank you. Three minutes.

Good evening, Commissioners. So, apparently I've learned that Commissioner Kennedy can read my mind as well as Commissioner Chrisman because you both ask the questions. I came here tonight to ask about um parking is always a sore point, right, with every project you guys see. I've been watching this for a long time and uh I was curious about what had changed. So, it sounds like nothing is substantially changed. And I was going to ask about some concrete examples. So, thank you very much staff for including the the Lighthouse Bible Church example. that really helps to clarify uh my understanding of a very complex pro um uh uh code. Um on exhibit A page 19, um I just want to get a little further clarification on um D parking strategy flexibility. So, it sounds like we have flexibility, but yet do we choose to exercise that flexibility or do we we're we're held to the state's code in terms of the minimums you were just discussing, Mr. or um how do we how do we manage through parking because that that is such a difficult situation uh here in Semi Valley and what what can we do differently to try and get more parking per unit than than we can't we've done in the past if you can answer that

or or Sean sorry Mr. Gibson. Thank you.

Are there any comments from staff regarding statements made during the public hearing?

Would you like to answer the question on Eric? Go ahead and um take a shot at the um one question the member of the public spoke of and I think that was on page 19. Yeah. So I I believe and correct please correct me if I'm wrong. I believe this is part of the parking strategy flexibility

on the menu of incentives. So this is part of what our housing element has prescribed that we need we need to provide incentives beyond those offered by state law. So let's say if some a developer comes in and is requesting for additional incentives, the the city has the authority to prescribe additional incentives regarding parking. Unfortunately, normally when they specify parking, it's not increasing in parking spaces, but rather reducing parking spaces. Nevertheless, council can simply state that no, we will not uh issue any sort of parking um reduction and we must maintain the minimum which is a state required parking standards.

So um and I'll I'll expand on that. The um the one parking strategy flexibility option that is being considered tonight is one of the four items on the menu incentives that could be considered tonight. What Eric is correct is the state our housing element and the state want us to suggest incentives to the comm development community that they could pick from. So we we're presenting four in the proposed ordinance to kind of give them ideas on what they may want to choose from. The However, the key is is that they could already pick any waiver or concession propose any waiver concession that is um an objective development standard in our code. So uh they have a lot of options to wave out of things. this to um reduce parking even further or to reduce the type of parking or location of parking, distance of parking spaces. They could already request that. And yeah, generally it's hard to disapprove those. There special ways to disapprove those. Um this parking strategy could be maybe a off-site parking situation or maybe a valet system or something. Uh it's kind of a wish list. HD wants to help have the city promote affordable housing by providing them guides or opportunities to develop housing. So these are the four we came up with. Um I believe we've even taken these from some other communities to uh something that HCD has already accepted in those jurisdictions. So we're not totally reinventing the wheel of these incentives. But um you know those these are the four items that could be up for discussion. I think everything else in the ordinance is just reformatting it to comply with the state.

Okay. Um are there any comments from staff regarding statements made during the public hearing? That was uh that was our response. Okay. Thank you. If there are no further questions, we will close the public testimony portion of the hearing. Are there any additional comments or questions from members of the planning commission at this time?

Sure, I'll go. So, the state already has a ridiculously low requirement for the number of parking spaces that they require for developments. And yet they're telling the city, "Hey, if you want to go even lower, you can, but we can't go any higher." Correct. Generally speaking, yes. Okay, great. I I don't have a question. I have more of a statement.

I feel like I I feel like it's very disconcerning uh that that we're mandated in a way to do this. And it seems to me that we can't really balance the growth for our city and housing goals with predict predictable outcomes that we want for our community. And not just that, I also think that in the long run, I don't I don't see how that necessarily will help lowincome housing and affordability in our city. I guess that's my state. I think I heard a question at the end. The answer was no. Okay. Um, any other comments, commissioners?

Okay. You know, if all of this house if if all of this housing was together and and we had some excess city land, we could put in a public parking lot and maybe alleviate some of this, but unfortunately doesn't seem to be working out that way. So, that doesn't really help. So, it's it's just not the nature of Seami Valley really. So be careful what you wish for. Yeah, exactly. So, okay. At this juncture, may I please have a reading of the resolution?

Resolution number SVPC05-2026. A resolution recommending that the city council adopt an ordinance Z-S-2026-00002 to update regulations in the Seami Valley Municipal Code governing density bonus and incentive provisions and a determination that these amendments are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. The chair will now entertain a motion.

I I move to adopt a resolution recommending that the city council adopt the city initiated semi valley municipal code amendment ZS 202600002 to update regulations governing density bonus and incentives and a determination that these amendments are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. I have a motion by uh Commissioner Chrisman. May I have a second? Second. I have a second by Commissioner Man. And I'll take We call for an oral vote at this time. Commissioner Man, yes. Commissioner Tullson,

yes. Commissioner Chrisman, yes. Vice Chairperson Rice, yes. Chairperson Kennedy. Yes. Vote passes unanimously. There will be no appeal period for Z-S2026-00002 and the item will proceed to the city council with the CL planning commission's recommendation. Item 11.B other and I show none here. All right. No, we have no items tonight, Mr. Chairperson.

Uh, item 12, oral communications and reports. Uh, are there any oral communications and reports? Nope. Well, Ellen and I went to the planning commissioners league of the city conference. Uh, that was Oh, it was staff first. Oh, sorry. From staff. No, nothing from staff. Staff. None from staff. All right. Yes. Now it's us. Now it's planning commission. Uh we went to the League of the City um conference in Anaheim. Um there was a lot of things to learn and we met a lot of great people. It was it was good. We learned basically that pretty much every city in this state

is feeling the same thing. It's the state sets rules. The cities have no choice but to comply. Otherwise, they force potential litigation which would cost the city untold millions of dollars. Some cities have tried some form of litigation and pretty much all failed and lost miserably only to cost their city huge amounts of money. So there's not a lot we can do as far as planning and even city council has so many regulations brought forth on them by the state from you know parking to density bonus to incentives to waiverss. So there's there's not a lot that can be done to say no to certain developers, but I think across the board, most cities try to work great with or work hard with the developers to try and lessen the the overall burden onto the community and or to the city. So we're not alone in exactly what's going on out there in our state.

So it during that did they make any distinction between charter cities? Not really because some of the some charter cities and some non-charter cities have tried to go against the state and both are having the same problems that each other's having just in a slightly different way that the court system is interpreting who has what rights and pretty much they all go back to the state. Great. Um any anything else for the commissioners to report? All right, then we'll move on. uh to the mobile home rent mediation board. Does staff have anything to report? No items tonight, Mr. Chair.

And item D, tree advisory board. Does staff have anything to report? Yes, on the tree advisory board, I'll just give an update. We did receive an inquiry from the city council regarding placing a memorial plaque on one of our pristine oak trees in the city. U staff is looking into that to see if how and if that could be accomp accommodated. Excellent. Thank you. Unless there's anything else, uh, this concludes the meeting of April 8th, 2026. The next scheduled meeting will be April 22nd, 2026. And I get to use the gavl. This meeting is adjourned.