1
00:00:03,120 --> 00:00:09,800
Good evening. The planning commission of October 15th, 2025 will now come to order.

2
00:00:10,540 --> 00:00:14,320
Stephanie, we please call the rule to establish that we have a quorum today.

3
00:00:15,040 --> 00:00:15,640
Commissioner Barcelona.

4
00:00:16,620 --> 00:00:17,220
President.

5
00:00:17,820 --> 00:00:18,860
Commissioner Hurts.

6
00:00:19,340 --> 00:00:19,380
Here.

7
00:00:20,180 --> 00:00:20,920
Commissioner Hurrah.

8
00:00:21,940 --> 00:00:22,600
Commissioner West.

9
00:00:23,020 --> 00:00:23,120
Here.

10
00:00:23,680 --> 00:00:24,380
Commissioner Ross.

11
00:00:25,700 --> 00:00:27,620
Commissioner Laney. Here. Commissioner Reynolds.

12
00:00:28,060 --> 00:00:28,200
Here.

13
00:00:45,950 --> 00:00:46,550
Thank

14
00:00:50,550 --> 00:01:05,270
you very much. Good evening everyone. At this time it is time for citizen communication and that's the time where anybody would like to address the commission can come up who is addressing the commission on anything that's not on tonight's agenda.

15
00:01:05,270 --> 00:01:10,850
So is there anyone here who would like to address the commission on anything that's not on tonight's agenda?

16
00:01:12,630 --> 00:01:20,250
Okay, hearing and seeing men will close to the Sun Communication Commissioners. That takes us to the minutes of

17
00:01:20,250 --> 00:01:26,630
September 17th, 2025 one short month ago, were there any concerns or corrections on the minutes?

18
00:01:28,710 --> 00:01:32,770
Any objection to a unanimous roll call to say they're approved?

19
00:01:32,770 --> 00:01:37,270
Okay, hearing none, that the minutes are deemed approved unanimously.

20
00:01:38,910 --> 00:01:42,610
So that brings us to item number one of new business.

21
00:01:43,150 --> 00:01:53,030
PC-19-00122 Comstock Drive tentative parcel map and determination that the project is exempt from sequa.

22
00:01:53,550 --> 00:01:57,170
With Josh Kincaid on the front lines, hi Josh.

23
00:01:57,170 --> 00:02:01,150
Good evening, Chair Reynolds, commissioners.

24
00:02:05,660 --> 00:02:06,100
All right.

25
00:02:07,560 --> 00:02:07,960
This is the one.

26
00:02:08,100 --> 00:02:08,480
This is the one.

27
00:02:09,040 --> 00:02:09,220
All right.

28
00:02:10,460 --> 00:02:10,740
Yes.

29
00:02:10,860 --> 00:02:13,720
The developments before each night is a four-lot,

30
00:02:13,720 --> 00:02:17,420
tentative parcel map located on Tomstock Drive.

31
00:02:19,300 --> 00:02:21,620
Here we see some photos of the project site.

32
00:02:22,060 --> 00:02:24,860
It's mostly flat on the south side.

33
00:02:26,120 --> 00:02:26,240
Here.

34
00:02:27,520 --> 00:02:32,440
with some slope on the north side of Comstock Drive.

35
00:02:33,060 --> 00:02:38,160
The project area is mostly undeveloped outside an existing home and a detached garage

36
00:02:38,160 --> 00:02:43,080
and otherwise contains some fence things you can see here in several mature trees.

37
00:02:46,380 --> 00:02:50,500
The project site is located on portions of three existing parcels,

38
00:02:50,500 --> 00:02:54,680
including the entirety of the 14 Comstock parcel.

39
00:02:54,680 --> 00:02:56,680
You can see in blue here the blue little faint.

40
00:02:58,300 --> 00:03:06,100
Comstock Drive runs up to the project site, the right of way itself runs up to the project site.

41
00:03:07,440 --> 00:03:14,180
And an access easement goes through the site and onto the parcels to the south east before it dead ends.

42
00:03:15,120 --> 00:03:20,340
Comstock Drive intersects with Bidwell Street to the north up here.

43
00:03:21,540 --> 00:03:23,840
And has commercial land on the corner.

44
00:03:25,160 --> 00:03:28,320
Here, excuse me, here and here.

45
00:03:29,560 --> 00:03:36,520
Before transitioning to mostly single family residences with a duplex beyond, on Comstock,

46
00:03:37,140 --> 00:03:42,400
the applicant purchased the 14 parcel and the life-shaped parcel that you can see here

47
00:03:42,400 --> 00:03:49,300
to the northeast, with the intent of developing a four-lot subdivision, and have recently

48
00:03:49,300 --> 00:03:56,120
had a land exchange approved by city council, which results in the applicant obtaining a portion of

49
00:03:56,120 --> 00:04:02,300
the city owned parcel, this triangular shape parcel here, to the northeast to create a more

50
00:04:02,300 --> 00:04:09,240
developable rectangular parcel shape. I'll see what that looks like here. So this map shows

51
00:04:09,240 --> 00:04:14,260
what the resultant parcels would look like after the parcel exchange. A parcel A is the

52
00:04:14,260 --> 00:04:18,480
The developers parcel, parcel B is the city's parcel.

53
00:04:20,640 --> 00:04:22,100
This was a very long process.

54
00:04:22,280 --> 00:04:23,780
I'm sure the applicant's going to test too.

55
00:04:24,040 --> 00:04:27,720
But we were finally able to get the exchange in front of Council recently.

56
00:04:28,360 --> 00:04:32,800
It was approved unanimously as it does also make the city's parcel,

57
00:04:33,600 --> 00:04:43,080
which is on our regional housing needs inventory, larger and more

58
00:04:43,080 --> 00:04:47,720
tonight gets approved. We have a proposed condition of approval that this land

59
00:04:47,720 --> 00:04:51,300
exchange in Montline Adjustment be finalized prior to recordation of the

60
00:04:51,300 --> 00:04:52,040
arson map.

61
00:04:56,370 --> 00:04:59,250
So with that background out of the way we can move on to the analysis of

62
00:04:59,250 --> 00:04:59,970
the 10-year-old TENERAL TENERAL TENERAL TENERAL.

63
00:05:00,000 --> 00:05:16,860
We have parcel map itself. The applicant's seeking approval of four-lot, tentative parcel map, with parcels between about 7,000 and 11,000 square feet in size, shown here in orange, as well as right-of-way dedication between this northern parcel and the three seven parcels.

64
00:05:17,540 --> 00:05:27,060
The project site is located on a .91 acre area. It's in the R3 neighborhood apartment zoning district.

65
00:05:27,060 --> 00:05:34,220
The zoning allows for anywhere between a two family and four family residents on each parcel by right.

66
00:05:35,220 --> 00:05:40,380
Each residence is required to have between one and a half and two off street parking spaces,

67
00:05:40,560 --> 00:05:42,760
depending on how many residences are on each parcel.

68
00:05:43,640 --> 00:05:48,760
Development of the parcels would be subject to a future design review application.

69
00:05:49,880 --> 00:05:57,100
A general plan designation for this area is multi-family high density, which does not fully

70
00:05:57,100 --> 00:06:02,580
correspond to the R3 zoning, as it typically requires a higher density than what the R3

71
00:06:02,580 --> 00:06:08,100
can typically accommodate, especially at the smaller lot sizes. However, we do have a general

72
00:06:08,100 --> 00:06:12,700
plan policy in place that allows for development to occur under these circumstances, these

73
00:06:12,700 --> 00:06:18,040
same circumstances, as long as the project wouldn't interfere with the long-term development of the

74
00:06:18,980 --> 00:06:24,580
staff determine that this was the case for this map as the exchange actually helps the long-term

75
00:06:24,580 --> 00:06:33,340
development plans for the city's arena parcel and that the rest of Comstock drivers already built

76
00:06:33,340 --> 00:06:38,860
out and there's no no current development plans to do anything with those built out properties.

77
00:06:40,220 --> 00:06:44,660
There is, as I mentioned previously, an existing single-family residents and detached garage

78
00:06:44,660 --> 00:06:49,180
on the project site. They're pointed out on the map here. Here's the house. Here's the garage.

79
00:06:50,760 --> 00:06:55,560
The garage would have to be demolished prior to recordation of the map, as it can't be the primary

80
00:06:55,560 --> 00:07:02,820
structure on that lot. However, the house can stay up as is, since it was legally constructed in the late

81
00:07:03,680 --> 00:07:08,040
1940s. There is, unfortunately, some discussion and staff report about requiring the house to either be

82
00:07:08,040 --> 00:07:12,220
demolished or have a garage added to it, but staff ultimately after that was written,

83
00:07:12,220 --> 00:07:17,960
determined that this was not required, but the discussion was inadvertently left in the staff report.

84
00:07:18,600 --> 00:07:25,000
The condition referenced in that discussion, the staff report has been removed, though, and there's no additional action.

85
00:07:25,100 --> 00:07:28,180
It needs to be taken about that, so I apologize for that.

86
00:07:28,740 --> 00:07:29,520
Excuse me.

87
00:07:30,520 --> 00:07:33,600
All right, so now looking at the post roadway improvements.

88
00:07:34,200 --> 00:07:41,220
As part of Staff's review of the map, we are requiring a right-of-way dedication through the parcel site.

89
00:07:41,220 --> 00:07:48,160
Through the project sites, excuse me, including a street and public utility easements,

90
00:07:48,560 --> 00:07:53,840
the fire department also noted that because Comstock is over 500 feet long and dead ends,

91
00:07:54,420 --> 00:08:03,840
it does require a secondary vehicle access for the fire department staff or emergency vehicle access or EVA.

92
00:08:04,300 --> 00:08:11,200
So staff did work with the applicant on the location of that EVA, and ultimately determined that it made the most sense to put it

93
00:08:11,200 --> 00:08:14,540
on the city site right here,

94
00:08:16,560 --> 00:08:21,380
since if our parcel ever does develop, it would require an access

95
00:08:21,380 --> 00:08:25,840
anyway be multi-family housing based on the size of the parcel,

96
00:08:28,640 --> 00:08:29,860
and it's currently proposed

97
00:08:29,860 --> 00:08:37,740
state that would also be a gate on the north of the EVA is shown here on the map that would

98
00:08:37,740 --> 00:08:40,200
only be accessed by the fire department.

99
00:08:42,040 --> 00:08:45,580
The applicant is also showing in the red-hashed area

100
00:08:45,580 --> 00:08:47,860
that you can see on the map here,

101
00:08:48,460 --> 00:08:51,920
how adequate fire truck turn around would be met.

102
00:08:52,380 --> 00:08:54,040
Given the dead end, as you can see,

103
00:08:54,220 --> 00:08:57,700
they'd be using a portion of the EVA to address that.

104
00:08:57,720 --> 00:09:00,600
The fire department has signed off on these preliminary plans.

105
00:09:04,460 --> 00:09:07,060
Moving on to the preliminary utility plan,

106
00:09:07,060 --> 00:09:13,740
water, electric, and sewer would all be connected to the proposed parcels via the extended

107
00:09:13,740 --> 00:09:18,920
Comstock Drive. Typically, we have new developments underground, new electric facilities,

108
00:09:19,660 --> 00:09:25,060
but the existing electrical on and surrounding the project site are all overhead poles.

109
00:09:25,500 --> 00:09:29,460
So it makes more sense in this case for the proposed project to continue that pattern,

110
00:09:30,160 --> 00:09:33,820
rather than attempting to just have one small area underground to when the rest is still

111
00:09:33,820 --> 00:09:34,340
of a ground.

112
00:09:38,460 --> 00:09:42,260
Now looking at the tree removal and mitigation plan. As part of the utilities

113
00:09:42,260 --> 00:09:47,440
in a roadway improvements, the applicant's proposal to remove several trees in and around

114
00:09:47,440 --> 00:09:53,340
the right of way and the EVA road, as can be seen here in red, staff typically requires

115
00:09:53,340 --> 00:09:57,720
that new development and install sidewalks for pedestrian safety and the applicant is showing

116
00:09:57,720 --> 00:09:59,980
a sidewalk on the south side of the extended...

117
00:10:00,000 --> 00:10:11,620
Combs.drive here. However, installation of this sidewalk wouldn't necessitate the removal of three large trees, two of which are large enough to be considered heritage trees, based on the city code.

118
00:10:12,060 --> 00:10:19,200
Staff noted that outside of the commercial area near Bidwell Street, there were no other sidewalks on Combs.

119
00:10:19,200 --> 00:10:23,380
is as you may have seen when you, if you've driven down there. As such, we are willing to

120
00:10:23,380 --> 00:10:27,280
forego the sidewalk condition. In this case, if it doesn't mean saving those trees,

121
00:10:28,320 --> 00:10:34,660
we've created kind of a unique condition of approval to address this issue where if the trees are

122
00:10:34,660 --> 00:10:39,440
saved, throughout the development activities, the sidewalk would not be required, however,

123
00:10:39,460 --> 00:10:43,900
if the trees have to be removed based on these activities, the appropriate

124
00:10:43,900 --> 00:10:49,440
tree mitigation fees would be paid and the sidewalk would also need to be installed at the

125
00:10:49,440 --> 00:10:50,360
applicant's cost.

126
00:10:50,960 --> 00:10:56,000
Hey Josh, before you move on from that slide, could you know which trees are the big ones?

127
00:10:56,740 --> 00:11:02,560
Ooh, I've got them numbered in the staffer part. I believe it was folks, hello. 434,

128
00:11:04,820 --> 00:11:07,640
4, 4. Let me check

129
00:11:07,640 --> 00:11:10,980
the staffer part. Okay, well, I've got the number that we're going to do that when we talk about it,

130
00:11:10,980 --> 00:11:14,920
But I, during questions, but I just want to make sure that I wondered if they were all

131
00:11:14,920 --> 00:11:16,960
clustered together, if they were got it or they're part of it.

132
00:11:16,960 --> 00:11:17,860
Yeah, we can figure that out.

133
00:11:17,940 --> 00:11:18,380
Thank you.

134
00:11:19,160 --> 00:11:20,280
I don't know if you want to look.

135
00:11:20,620 --> 00:11:23,480
It's 434, 436 and 440.

136
00:11:23,940 --> 00:11:30,860
Yes, so 434, the roots here, 436 here, 440s, this is a big guy here.

137
00:11:32,490 --> 00:11:32,750
Thanks.

138
00:11:32,830 --> 00:11:33,150
Thanks.

139
00:11:33,310 --> 00:11:33,510
We sure.

140
00:11:33,690 --> 00:11:34,470
Thank you.

141
00:11:39,510 --> 00:11:39,850
All right.

142
00:11:39,910 --> 00:11:42,130
Now, I'm moving on to Comstock Drive itself.

143
00:11:42,130 --> 00:11:48,790
We did recently hear from some of the neighbors on Comstock expressing concern about additional

144
00:11:48,790 --> 00:11:54,030
cars on Comstock that would be associated with the project once it's built out and those

145
00:11:54,030 --> 00:11:58,970
letters have been shared with the commission. The issue generally stems from Comstock being

146
00:11:58,970 --> 00:12:04,650
a quite narrow street as you may have seen. I believe it's about 25 feet wide the street itself

147
00:12:04,650 --> 00:12:10,710
at this intersection here with Bidwell. As you can see here there are often several cars

148
00:12:10,710 --> 00:12:16,650
parked at the intersection along Comstock during business hours. Some even around the intersection

149
00:12:16,650 --> 00:12:22,730
as you can see on this image. It appears that most of the vehicles are likely associated with

150
00:12:22,730 --> 00:12:28,050
the commercial businesses on the corner, which include the glass shop and the left and the

151
00:12:28,050 --> 00:12:34,230
quasi-tut and the auto repair shop that you can see on the right here. Neighbors have stated that

152
00:12:34,230 --> 00:12:40,690
only one car can often get through this portion of Comstock at any given time when the

153
00:12:40,690 --> 00:12:47,770
these cars are parked like this, and turns off of Combs stock driver, also often treacherous

154
00:12:47,770 --> 00:12:51,770
due to reduced visibility at the corners because of the cars all being parked here.

155
00:12:52,910 --> 00:12:56,950
Based on these concerns, we are having code enforcement staff reach out to the business

156
00:12:56,950 --> 00:13:02,190
owners to see what they can do to get cars associated with their businesses away from

157
00:13:02,190 --> 00:13:02,910
these intersections.

158
00:13:03,670 --> 00:13:07,830
Public work staff is also actively looking at this portion of Combs stock to see what kinds

159
00:13:07,830 --> 00:13:14,250
potential hazards that they observe and what measures can be taken to alleviate them, whether that

160
00:13:14,250 --> 00:13:18,890
means a no parking zones, striping or something of that nature. We do have public works

161
00:13:18,890 --> 00:13:26,130
director Rebecca Neves here tonight who can speak to those efforts. However, because that would be

162
00:13:26,130 --> 00:13:31,190
a city-led effort, we did not include anything on to this effect as a condition of approval on the

163
00:13:31,190 --> 00:13:36,690
project, though we could certainly work with the commission to craft one that would be appropriate

164
00:13:36,690 --> 00:13:38,790
if the applicant is agreeable to that.

165
00:13:41,400 --> 00:13:44,020
So with that, staff does recommend a approval of the proposed

166
00:13:44,020 --> 00:13:45,100
tenant of parcel map.

167
00:13:45,580 --> 00:13:48,180
As conditions, and we can take questions from the commission

168
00:13:48,180 --> 00:13:49,040
at this point.

169
00:13:50,770 --> 00:13:55,330
OK, commissioners, do you have questions for our staff?

170
00:13:55,770 --> 00:13:57,470
Commissioner Lainey?

171
00:13:59,230 --> 00:14:02,850
I understand that under normal circumstances,

172
00:14:03,270 --> 00:14:06,070
we'd like to have sidewalks in the area,

173
00:14:06,070 --> 00:14:11,770
by just given the kind of uniqueness of calm stock drive.

174
00:14:12,490 --> 00:14:14,490
Is there are there any thoughts about, you know,

175
00:14:15,190 --> 00:14:18,970
if you can't save these trees just to replant trees

176
00:14:18,970 --> 00:14:22,150
instead of having just one strip of sidewalk

177
00:14:22,150 --> 00:14:24,450
and one kind of far down on the street,

178
00:14:24,610 --> 00:14:28,070
it seems like a little bit of an awkward section

179
00:14:28,070 --> 00:14:30,090
to require there to be sidewalk.

180
00:14:30,950 --> 00:14:32,850
I would, in my opinion,

181
00:14:32,930 --> 00:14:35,070
but I would think that if we're going to lose trees

182
00:14:35,070 --> 00:14:40,210
wouldn't be nice to just exchange and say that we need to have trees replaced if we're not able

183
00:14:40,210 --> 00:14:45,690
to save those heritage trees instead of having just this random piece of strip of sidewalk

184
00:14:45,690 --> 00:14:46,970
and on one area.

185
00:14:47,850 --> 00:14:49,090
So we do have possible.

186
00:14:49,470 --> 00:14:49,690
Right.

187
00:14:50,090 --> 00:14:54,950
The way the tree mitigation works, it would either be paying the correct me if I'm wrong

188
00:14:54,950 --> 00:14:55,090
here.

189
00:14:55,290 --> 00:14:59,970
It would either be paying the tree mitigation fee for trees of that size and then...

190
00:15:00,000 --> 00:15:19,760
That fee would be used to replants throughout the city, or on-site replanting, I believe, is also potentially fees. I'm not sure how feasible it would be on this property, but that is a potential option. With regards to whether we would want that instead of a chunk of sidewalk that doesn't currently connect anything I'll let her back and speak to that.

191
00:15:20,900 --> 00:15:28,900
I mean, this was something we kind of wrestled with a little bit too, just recognizing much more of like a rural character of the road itself.

192
00:15:29,400 --> 00:15:39,540
And it felt a little bit tough to have the sidewalk there while still also not having sidewalk for the rest of it. It was something we looked at.

193
00:15:39,720 --> 00:15:45,880
The conditions were worded loosely enough to where we could kind of figure that part out as we went through the design too.

194
00:15:45,880 --> 00:15:56,500
But I mean, kind of to your point to replant the trees, I think that that's something that's valuable worth pursuing, and it actually kind of helps the applicant a little bit offsetting some of the mitigation requirements.

195
00:15:57,860 --> 00:16:15,860
So the way the condition currently written, it would be, if those trees have to be removed, then we would make them do the sidewalk. And so if we, if we, you know, wanted to potentially modify that, that measure to just do replanting instead of saying it has to be a sidewalk.

196
00:16:15,860 --> 00:16:19,480
and you know, it could be replanting or sidewalk, we might be able to think of that.

197
00:16:21,000 --> 00:16:23,580
I mean, honestly, we're open to either approach.

198
00:16:24,680 --> 00:16:29,820
It was tough wanting to condition it with a sidewalk, even though that that was kind of our city's standard.

199
00:16:30,760 --> 00:16:32,740
But it was tough kind of conditioning at that way.

200
00:16:33,320 --> 00:16:35,820
Because we knew that there wasn't sidewalk any place else.

201
00:16:38,160 --> 00:16:44,720
This neighborhood is, you know, I really do have to extend my gratitude to the residents that have chimed in.

202
00:16:44,720 --> 00:16:48,720
because this neighborhood really is very unique within the city.

203
00:16:49,500 --> 00:16:51,280
It's very rural and character,

204
00:16:51,900 --> 00:16:54,740
and it's kind of like a little precious pocket.

205
00:16:56,140 --> 00:16:58,500
And so I really appreciate the,

206
00:16:58,500 --> 00:17:00,880
I mean, I've seen the applicants really making a lot

207
00:17:00,880 --> 00:17:03,400
of good faith effort in terms of trying to come up

208
00:17:03,400 --> 00:17:06,760
with a thoughtful project while still being addressing

209
00:17:06,760 --> 00:17:08,320
some of the cities housing needs.

210
00:17:08,800 --> 00:17:11,060
So we kind of wrestled with a little bit of,

211
00:17:11,080 --> 00:17:13,720
this one took a while to get to this point too.

212
00:17:13,720 --> 00:17:20,440
So, but I mean, we're up into what the commissions desires are and I believe the applicant

213
00:17:20,440 --> 00:17:24,400
is here this evening and so we can kind of talk through it a little bit as well.

214
00:17:26,280 --> 00:17:31,080
I think I would just love to see that at least that be an option, especially if you want

215
00:17:31,080 --> 00:17:37,160
to continue to have the character of that neighborhood, you know, have that kind of historic

216
00:17:37,160 --> 00:17:41,760
feel and that role feel feels like going down or road and then all of a sudden there's

217
00:17:41,760 --> 00:17:49,960
this strip of sidewalk, if the trees can't be saved, 20 years now might have been nice to

218
00:17:49,960 --> 00:17:55,580
have had trees replace trees instead of concrete replace trees. Yeah, I mean I'm not opposed to

219
00:17:55,580 --> 00:18:01,760
that either we kind of followed the what we require everywhere else, but I mean I will tell you

220
00:18:01,760 --> 00:18:06,440
we talked about this quite a bit and I kind of wrestled with it was like you know kind of the

221
00:18:06,440 --> 00:18:13,000
at my head that kept coming up was the sidewalk to nowhere, and I didn't want that for this little pocket,

222
00:18:13,280 --> 00:18:16,860
either, but I mean, I'm I'm amendable to making that change.

223
00:18:17,180 --> 00:18:24,980
That's a good option. Yeah. I'm going to show our slana. Thank you. I do have a problem with the sidewalk

224
00:18:24,980 --> 00:18:35,080
that goes to nowhere, and it seems like the biggest concern on Comstock is the width of the roadway

225
00:18:35,080 --> 00:18:39,860
being so narrow. And I think you mentioned here in the presentation that

226
00:18:41,100 --> 00:18:48,000
these new parcels would have two on-street parking spots as well.

227
00:18:48,460 --> 00:18:55,160
Between one and a half and two, if it's a duplex on each parcel, those units are required to

228
00:18:55,160 --> 00:18:59,820
have two off-street parking spaces each. If they're beyond, they're three to four unit.

229
00:18:59,820 --> 00:19:05,160
um, uh, parcels and they have to have one and a half on spaces per unit. Well, then, uh,

230
00:19:05,280 --> 00:19:12,800
I mean, my suggestion would be why not eliminate the sidewalk and make provision for a wider

231
00:19:12,800 --> 00:19:19,860
roadway in front of those new parcels. So, so you can have a on street parking, because it is really

232
00:19:19,860 --> 00:19:27,300
difficult. Everybody ends up going down that street when they, uh, when they go to full some motorworks

233
00:19:27,300 --> 00:19:35,000
to try to get out. And then they have to turn around and come all the way back. It is really

234
00:19:35,000 --> 00:19:45,200
difficult to navigate that area. Commissioner, could I clarify the new section of street will

235
00:19:45,200 --> 00:19:51,060
be our standard residential width, right Josh? Yeah. So it actually will be wider than what's

236
00:19:51,060 --> 00:19:56,760
there exists right now. Right. So we've got the, oh, point it on the map here. We've got the proposed

237
00:19:56,760 --> 00:19:59,980
36 foot right of way, including that.

238
00:20:00,000 --> 00:20:03,520
Mr. Street with another? From 23 to 36, then.

239
00:20:03,880 --> 00:20:11,360
Which is its own potential issue. But at least in this area, you should have the proper space for

240
00:20:11,360 --> 00:20:14,660
the two on-site, yeah, the street parking.

241
00:20:17,700 --> 00:20:21,980
But on-site means on the parcel, not on the street, right?

242
00:20:22,320 --> 00:20:28,620
No, I mean, it would be through the parcel, so it would be right of way that includes extension

243
00:20:28,620 --> 00:20:34,100
of Comstock Drive, and then beyond that, it would be just this private road easement that

244
00:20:34,100 --> 00:20:34,340
currently.

245
00:20:34,380 --> 00:20:39,540
But if we're requiring on site parking, that means each parcel has to have parking on

246
00:20:39,540 --> 00:20:40,920
their parcel, not on the street.

247
00:20:41,080 --> 00:20:41,400
Exactly.

248
00:20:42,080 --> 00:20:46,900
Yeah, it would be off, the two spaces, the one and a half to two spaces would be off street.

249
00:20:48,180 --> 00:20:50,540
So garage driveway, that sort of thing.

250
00:20:50,980 --> 00:20:55,340
Is this the residents proposed as part of this project to require to provide two off-site

251
00:20:55,340 --> 00:21:09,120
covered parking spaces. And I think it was mentioned this office at a desay off site per unit for two families or 1.5 off site parking spaces per unit per multiple family structures or complexes.

252
00:21:09,620 --> 00:21:17,440
Is that that's in the staff report. Okay, that's much the off shot. I think it's was to be off street street. Oh, okay.

253
00:21:17,440 --> 00:21:19,880
Yes, we can make that clarification. Okay, yeah.

254
00:21:21,460 --> 00:21:23,780
Is that answer your question, Commissioner?

255
00:21:24,600 --> 00:21:25,480
I'm not sure.

256
00:21:26,800 --> 00:21:31,300
So, if we're reading it with the understanding that that's supposed to say off-street,

257
00:21:31,960 --> 00:21:36,240
it's two parking stalls either in a driveway or a covered space.

258
00:21:36,860 --> 00:21:41,460
And then the way I read it then is also allowing one-and-a-half on-street parking.

259
00:21:42,180 --> 00:21:43,860
Okay, so three-and-a-half in total.

260
00:21:43,900 --> 00:21:44,540
No, no.

261
00:21:44,540 --> 00:21:45,640
The parcels are important.

262
00:21:46,580 --> 00:21:53,700
Yeah, sorry, so it would be the one and a half as if it's a if that's that's also off street parking

263
00:21:54,640 --> 00:22:02,700
And that's if it's a triplex or a fourplex it's one and a half per unit when it's a triplex or fourplex this is just out of the municipal code

264
00:22:02,700 --> 00:22:08,840
And then it's it'd be two off street parking spaces that have to be covered if it's a duplex

265
00:22:10,000 --> 00:22:14,180
Yeah, this is why I'm not the planner. He's way better at this than I am

266
00:22:14,180 --> 00:22:15,060
Okay,

267
00:22:17,240 --> 00:22:21,760
so the stream's 36 feet wide and the parking is so hard to be on the lots and not the street.

268
00:22:22,080 --> 00:22:26,980
Yep, so this is going to be the easiest section to turn around in the whole street.

269
00:22:27,440 --> 00:22:33,160
And we also have the portion of the EVA that the fire trucks of using the turn around to also accomplish additional turn around.

270
00:22:33,500 --> 00:22:37,880
So you can have it zone for up to a fourplex, right?

271
00:22:38,420 --> 00:22:44,440
And if it's, if four plexus built, it will have two parking spaces.

272
00:22:45,060 --> 00:22:49,140
The four plexus would have one or two half spaces per unit.

273
00:22:49,940 --> 00:22:51,540
So one and a half times four.

274
00:22:51,560 --> 00:22:53,280
See, thanks. Okay, thanks, man.

275
00:22:53,740 --> 00:22:55,420
Okay, all right, thank you.

276
00:22:56,680 --> 00:22:58,120
Go ahead, commission herra.

277
00:22:58,380 --> 00:23:01,280
So will there be parking on the street or available?

278
00:23:01,780 --> 00:23:05,000
If people are driving in, they can say they're coming to visit.

279
00:23:05,460 --> 00:23:09,320
there will be you wide enough for people to park on the side of the street.

280
00:23:09,760 --> 00:23:16,300
Considering the 36 foot, right of way, Rebecca, it's standard for a long parking

281
00:23:16,300 --> 00:23:18,460
both sides, yeah.

282
00:23:18,460 --> 00:23:19,120
Yeah, okay.

283
00:23:19,140 --> 00:23:21,100
We have our own street parking with that width, sorry.

284
00:23:21,520 --> 00:23:22,360
Oh, no, you're fine.

285
00:23:23,580 --> 00:23:29,160
So for units, so you're looking at there's a potential for 16 dwellings between these four units.

286
00:23:29,420 --> 00:23:34,220
If they can squeeze a fourplex onto each of these lots, they are pretty, at least the three lower

287
00:23:34,220 --> 00:23:40,940
lots or pretty small. I know the applicant initially wanted to do single family on all four

288
00:23:40,940 --> 00:23:45,640
lots, single family is not allowed by right in the R3 zone. Unfortunately, even though that's

289
00:23:45,640 --> 00:23:53,060
the vast majority of what's on Comps. Drive and so the duplex would be the next least intensive

290
00:23:53,820 --> 00:23:58,620
type of type of unit on each of these lots. And then just a quick question about on parcel one.

291
00:23:58,620 --> 00:24:02,100
And I believe this is out of his historic district,

292
00:24:02,140 --> 00:24:05,420
but has there been any evaluation of the existing home

293
00:24:05,420 --> 00:24:07,800
that is there any historical significance?

294
00:24:08,220 --> 00:24:10,640
Not that we could find, we did evaluate that.

295
00:24:10,700 --> 00:24:13,000
We reached out to the History Museum,

296
00:24:13,300 --> 00:24:15,320
Sachs State, who has their own resource,

297
00:24:15,940 --> 00:24:19,420
and none of them had any information on that house.

298
00:24:19,520 --> 00:24:21,000
And it was a long-term inventory as well.

299
00:24:21,260 --> 00:24:23,020
So we didn't see anything that.

300
00:24:23,140 --> 00:24:25,320
Those are the questions you get when you get stuck

301
00:24:25,320 --> 00:24:26,060
on a historic.

302
00:24:27,140 --> 00:24:27,720
Thanks Josh.

303
00:24:29,340 --> 00:24:39,420
Okay anybody else before I ask a few okay um as far as the trees go um I got stopped by that

304
00:24:39,420 --> 00:24:43,720
condition because I thought it was seemed very wishy washi and I'd seem like we're either

305
00:24:43,720 --> 00:24:49,440
going to tell them they need to protect the trees or but but this one just seems like okay well

306
00:24:49,440 --> 00:24:55,000
if you destroy these trees we'll then go ahead but we're going to make you put a sidewalk in it just

307
00:24:55,000 --> 00:24:59,740
Okay, I mean I just I don't know because so I guess my question is

308
00:25:00,000 --> 00:25:07,680
Is it – I mean, is it – could we condition the project on preserving the trees?

309
00:25:08,920 --> 00:25:14,840
We can certainly condition that we don't require the sidewalk regardless of what happens.

310
00:25:15,540 --> 00:25:18,840
Actually, preserving those trees, I believe, that's reasonable.

311
00:25:19,800 --> 00:25:27,040
So I think if I understand the situation correctly, they're already – they already have to be preserved under the FMC

312
00:25:27,040 --> 00:25:29,740
because they meet the definition of heritage trees.

313
00:25:30,020 --> 00:25:31,700
Two of them, two of them, two of them, two of them.

314
00:25:31,880 --> 00:25:35,940
So, but if the commission wanted to basically overwrite that

315
00:25:35,940 --> 00:25:38,400
and say, no, these trees have to be preserved,

316
00:25:38,980 --> 00:25:40,280
I think we can do that.

317
00:25:40,480 --> 00:25:43,200
And is that appropriate at this stage

318
00:25:43,200 --> 00:25:46,120
at the parcelmav stage or at the design stage

319
00:25:46,120 --> 00:25:48,180
when they come in with their plans?

320
00:25:49,720 --> 00:25:51,260
Because I mean, we don't really know yet

321
00:25:51,260 --> 00:25:52,700
what's going to be built there.

322
00:25:53,260 --> 00:25:53,400
What?

323
00:25:54,600 --> 00:25:56,400
Right. And the designer view may be a staff level.

324
00:25:57,320 --> 00:26:01,500
decision depending on how large, if it's a duplex, those are staff level.

325
00:26:04,400 --> 00:26:07,220
So I feel like it'd make more sense on the map.

326
00:26:08,880 --> 00:26:13,480
But that would just have to be carried over if the developer does the parcel map

327
00:26:13,480 --> 00:26:25,600
and then sells the lots, then the next folks would have to be, you know, of course, the

328
00:26:25,600 --> 00:26:41,120
and general plan is on this area, I mean, it's not a high density neighborhood, yet we've got this thing that we're kind of stuck in a box about having a deal with it because of the way our planning documents are.

329
00:26:41,200 --> 00:26:52,740
Yeah, it's unfortunate timing that we have, you know, we have parcels throughout the city that we've found these inconsistencies and we want to clean those up as part of the zoning cut update.

330
00:26:53,380 --> 00:26:58,100
because it's completely crazy that they couldn't come in and do single family there.

331
00:26:58,200 --> 00:26:59,400
You know, it's just very...

332
00:26:59,400 --> 00:26:59,900
It's unbelievable.

333
00:27:00,560 --> 00:27:02,140
And comfortable that this is happening.

334
00:27:02,380 --> 00:27:04,600
You know, we're having a deal with this.

335
00:27:06,440 --> 00:27:06,520
Yes.

336
00:27:06,740 --> 00:27:07,940
It doesn't as a comment.

337
00:27:13,650 --> 00:27:14,170
There's a...

338
00:27:14,710 --> 00:27:18,310
There's a couple areas of the city that have this thinking systems.

339
00:27:18,350 --> 00:27:23,070
We also have a down-along-cibly street where it's got this apartment,

340
00:27:23,070 --> 00:27:30,330
You know, multi-family designation, but a lot of the homes along there are homes or duplexes.

341
00:27:30,570 --> 00:27:38,110
So we have a similar, it gives us to say there's a couple areas of the city like this.

342
00:27:39,070 --> 00:27:47,370
And I think some of this may stem from some of the rezoning efforts that we did back around 2000

343
00:27:47,370 --> 00:27:54,450
and when we were having to rezone land to allow for more multi-family development,

344
00:27:55,210 --> 00:28:01,810
enforcement, as a result of challenges from the state and from legal services and other

345
00:28:01,810 --> 00:28:08,910
California and their lawsuit. The challenge that staff runs into is that for those

346
00:28:08,910 --> 00:28:15,930
folks that are happy with the home that they have, they don't have any problem with us changing

347
00:28:15,930 --> 00:28:23,810
the land use or zoning designation back to the appropriate designation. But those folks that maybe

348
00:28:23,810 --> 00:28:28,590
want to sell their home or want to do something different with their property, they don't want to

349
00:28:28,590 --> 00:28:34,790
see their property down zone because in their point of view, well, then you can do less with it

350
00:28:34,790 --> 00:28:40,230
and it's less valuable. We often run into that kind of dilemma when we try to go back and fix these

351
00:28:40,230 --> 00:28:46,670
of things. And that's sort of the historic district in the nineties. Yeah. So just some context around

352
00:28:46,670 --> 00:28:53,010
kind of the difficulty of actually going back and cleaning this stuff up. To you and I, it looks

353
00:28:53,010 --> 00:28:57,070
pretty simple. There's single family homes there. It should be single families zoning,

354
00:28:57,750 --> 00:29:04,470
but in reality trying to go back and unravel that, you know, pull it back to what's on the ground

355
00:29:04,470 --> 00:29:09,850
is sometimes trickier than because then we're now we're all of a sudden taking away somebody's

356
00:29:09,850 --> 00:29:15,470
Right. No, that's a very interesting point, doesn't it? Yeah, they're property actually is more valuable with this designation

357
00:29:15,470 --> 00:29:22,130
And it's a potentially a general plan amendment as well to to make that happen. So secret implications to that

358
00:29:22,130 --> 00:29:27,410
They he just piggybacking off that question. Josh that general plan designation is that

359
00:29:28,030 --> 00:29:34,630
What part of that is this is it the neighboring parcel of the city owns is it the single family homes to the south of this parcel?

360
00:29:34,630 --> 00:29:39,650
Where did that boundary drop? It's I believe it's all of the residential parcels on Comstock

361
00:29:39,650 --> 00:29:40,710
I'd have to see the zone out.

362
00:29:40,710 --> 00:29:42,950
Our designated multi-family high-density.

363
00:29:50,490 --> 00:29:56,810
So I had asked, if we split this parcel up, it wouldn't be amenable for high-density

364
00:29:56,810 --> 00:29:58,410
multi-family development.

365
00:29:58,410 --> 00:29:59,050
So

366
00:30:00,000 --> 00:30:07,360
So I'm wondering if the city has allocated rena numbers to this parcel. And if we end up reducing what we, if there

367
00:30:07,360 --> 00:30:13,440
has to be some changes, if we end up splitting this lot, splitting the city own law? No, sorry. This, this,

368
00:30:13,440 --> 00:30:24,080
this one lot here that is owned high density, right, multi family. The, the, the city owned lot is on our rena inventory. The, the other lots on, on, on here. I don't believe are.

369
00:30:24,080 --> 00:30:26,000
are not afraid. Yeah. Okay.

370
00:30:26,560 --> 00:30:28,560
Potentially underutilized land for a

371
00:30:28,560 --> 00:30:31,220
14 bit. Okay. Be on that. Yeah.

372
00:30:34,640 --> 00:30:35,520
On that issue,

373
00:30:36,080 --> 00:30:41,160
this the whole kind of the parcel map and the

374
00:30:41,160 --> 00:30:44,340
the transfer of one of our

375
00:30:44,340 --> 00:30:48,180
a portion of our parcels to to them and to the

376
00:30:48,180 --> 00:30:51,040
to the owners and the owners transfer of a part of their

377
00:30:51,040 --> 00:30:54,980
parcel actually ends up resulting in in better

378
00:30:54,980 --> 00:31:01,400
parcels for both parties, ours was kind of a triangular shape, which was pretty difficult

379
00:31:01,400 --> 00:31:08,240
to develop. This actually makes that that property more developable for the city, if the city

380
00:31:08,240 --> 00:31:14,240
develops, it's developing or sells it or leases it at some point in the future for the development

381
00:31:14,240 --> 00:31:23,500
on housing on Riley Street. Thank you. And then so the EVA access road, we've talked about

382
00:31:23,500 --> 00:31:28,660
developing the city parcel and access to that parcel being off of this UVA access.

383
00:31:28,820 --> 00:31:33,040
I think there was concern from the community about there are potential for the public to drive

384
00:31:33,040 --> 00:31:39,200
through that and then on to construct to cut through. And is there some ideas that staff have

385
00:31:39,200 --> 00:31:46,900
if we do develop this to avoid that potential future issue? At the time that development is proposed

386
00:31:46,900 --> 00:31:52,280
and certainly something we would take into consideration as part of our analysis space.

387
00:31:52,280 --> 00:32:00,020
I think I think there's two gates on this ebay right there's one on the consoxide and there's one on the Riley side if I read the map correct

388
00:32:00,720 --> 00:32:03,200
Let's see here. Yeah, I

389
00:32:04,700 --> 00:32:06,560
Be at this one here

390
00:32:06,560 --> 00:32:13,160
It's right above the hashmark. I think yeah, okay. Yeah, so enough room for a turn around, but yeah, I'd like it. Great. Thank you

391
00:32:15,540 --> 00:32:16,500
Commissioner Hurst

392
00:32:16,500 --> 00:32:21,520
Hi, Josh. I'm also curious about the commissioner,

393
00:32:21,600 --> 00:32:27,500
lenient, I visited the Combsock Drive site and from my recollection,

394
00:32:27,720 --> 00:32:30,820
there was a difference in grade between Riley Street and Combsock.

395
00:32:31,580 --> 00:32:35,500
So to what extent are there concerns with cutting into the land to

396
00:32:36,460 --> 00:32:41,420
develop this EVA and we'll have any negative effects on parking on the street?

397
00:32:42,800 --> 00:32:46,260
Oh, luckily inside on that.

398
00:32:46,600 --> 00:32:49,620
We do have an option to kind of ramp it up a little bit.

399
00:32:49,960 --> 00:32:52,860
It would have slopes coming off of the EVA line.

400
00:32:53,060 --> 00:32:56,300
It's or the road itself, but it's not an impossible feat.

401
00:32:56,540 --> 00:33:00,580
There's enough distance from Comstock to Riley to meet that grade.

402
00:33:02,280 --> 00:33:02,740
Thank you.

403
00:33:02,880 --> 00:33:07,620
And then to the extent that that grade will be additional covered land.

404
00:33:08,840 --> 00:33:10,800
Perhaps intended or not, I would imagine.

405
00:33:10,800 --> 00:33:14,100
and there would likely be some parking on that EVA at some point.

406
00:33:14,100 --> 00:33:16,680
Has that been considered in the...

407
00:33:16,680 --> 00:33:18,980
Typically for EVAs, we wouldn't have it

408
00:33:18,980 --> 00:33:19,800
allow for parking.

409
00:33:20,140 --> 00:33:22,460
It's usually red zone to end no parking.

410
00:33:23,180 --> 00:33:25,040
And then our municipal code actually

411
00:33:25,040 --> 00:33:27,600
delegates the ability of the city manager

412
00:33:27,600 --> 00:33:30,220
to design the areas in no parking through records,

413
00:33:30,460 --> 00:33:32,240
which we do on EVAs throughout the town.

414
00:33:32,380 --> 00:33:37,300
We have, you know, the alleyways in the historic district

415
00:33:37,300 --> 00:33:40,380
as an area where we've had to implement those rules

416
00:33:40,380 --> 00:33:48,900
guidelines to allow for solid waste trucks to go through, and we do allow that we go through

417
00:33:48,900 --> 00:33:53,320
what I call like the three-legged stool is your education, your engineering, and your enforcement

418
00:33:53,320 --> 00:33:59,420
when we are dealing with parking concerns. But we typically, you know, parking is not allowed on

419
00:34:02,240 --> 00:34:18,040
I have one more thing as far as the existing homes on Comstock. Is it true that they were built before we had the current parking standards of two on site parking spaces per residential.

420
00:34:18,040 --> 00:34:25,720
Right. Okay. So I think that also exacerbates the park or the the wip because existing residents have to

421
00:34:25,720 --> 00:34:31,760
if they are if there are two or three car family, they are liable to have cars on the street. Right.

422
00:34:31,880 --> 00:34:36,900
Yes, I I believe that was discussed in the staff report, but not in the presentation, but yeah, I think the

423
00:34:36,900 --> 00:34:44,320
having one one car garage definitely leads to additional street parking. I believe the residents concerns were more

424
00:34:44,320 --> 00:34:53,160
about the street parking closer to bidwell street more than along the the deeper parts of

425
00:34:53,160 --> 00:34:59,980
of Comstock, but it certainly could exacerbate that a bit, and given the...

426
00:35:00,000 --> 00:35:06,000
The parking requirement. Now in place, we don't anticipate that the new development will lead to

427
00:35:07,300 --> 00:35:08,400
exacerbated on street park.

428
00:35:08,920 --> 00:35:10,100
Right. Right.

429
00:35:10,640 --> 00:35:20,440
chime in really quickly on the parking. It seems that there's, you know, and rightfully so that seems like there's a lot of comments and concerns around the parking right at that entry point at East Bidwallon concert.

430
00:35:20,560 --> 00:35:21,500
Sorry, Bidwallon concert.

431
00:35:21,960 --> 00:35:29,800
And so one area I really kind of want to highlight is, you know, even on Google Earth, it shows you the image of a trailer,

432
00:35:29,800 --> 00:35:35,280
part right in front of the curb return. Amazing. I just really want to clarify for everybody's

433
00:35:35,280 --> 00:35:40,900
education that that's actually illegal to park that way. California Vehicle Code does not

434
00:35:40,900 --> 00:35:48,740
allow parking in or at ramps and in crosswalks. It's actually a California Vehicle Code Section

435
00:35:48,740 --> 00:35:54,680
2250. So we'll be doing that education part of that three-legged stool here pretty soon with

436
00:35:54,680 --> 00:36:01,200
businesses. And then also as I mentioned earlier, there is provision in Title 10 of our Municipal Code

437
00:36:01,200 --> 00:36:05,980
that does allow us to designate areas as no parking whenever we see it becoming a potential

438
00:36:05,980 --> 00:36:12,680
safety hazard. I would qualify this as one we made the decision as staff when this law came into

439
00:36:12,680 --> 00:36:19,660
effect. It's fairly new. When this law came into effect to not paint the curves of every

440
00:36:19,660 --> 00:36:28,620
curb ramp in town, which, you know, you think of like the historic district in areas two where that would be applicable, but rather just address it with enforcement.

441
00:36:29,420 --> 00:36:37,840
And so that's something that we can follow up with our PD and more and more importantly, we're going to do that touch point because these are residents, these are our people.

442
00:36:38,260 --> 00:36:43,660
So we would want to go and have a conversation with them and just say, hey, FYI, please don't park there, you legally can't.

443
00:36:43,660 --> 00:36:51,840
And it does seem like there are a lot of cases where there's a sign that says, no parking here, two, two, one, or something like that.

444
00:36:51,840 --> 00:36:56,420
That's an effective tool that we might be the type of thing to do there to so people know about.

445
00:36:56,780 --> 00:37:02,180
And I'm not opposed to, you know, having talking to our streets guys and seeing about getting a post up like that.

446
00:37:02,220 --> 00:37:06,580
We'll go and talk to the, to the businesses and then we can, we can look at getting that in place.

447
00:37:07,160 --> 00:37:08,380
Okay. Well, that's good.

448
00:37:09,220 --> 00:37:11,780
Okay. Any other questions for our staff? Commissioner Barcelona.

449
00:37:11,780 --> 00:37:22,780
So I have an R3 question, can you, can you meet the two family criteria by a single family dwelling with an ADU?

450
00:37:24,580 --> 00:37:27,520
ADU's don't count towards the disc.

451
00:37:28,340 --> 00:37:28,660
Okay.

452
00:37:30,060 --> 00:37:31,100
All right.

453
00:37:31,360 --> 00:37:31,600
Okay.

454
00:37:31,900 --> 00:37:33,500
Is everybody done in questioning staff?

455
00:37:34,560 --> 00:37:34,740
Okay.

456
00:37:34,880 --> 00:37:35,900
With that, thank you, Josh.

457
00:37:36,060 --> 00:37:36,080
Okay.

458
00:37:36,140 --> 00:37:37,280
We really put you through it.

459
00:37:37,460 --> 00:37:38,120
And thank you, Rebecca.

460
00:37:39,200 --> 00:37:39,400
Okay.

461
00:37:39,400 --> 00:37:44,980
Okay, now we'll hear from the applicant to the applicant, please come on up and make your

462
00:37:44,980 --> 00:37:45,540
case,

463
00:37:47,910 --> 00:37:49,550
come on up and introduce yourself, hi.

464
00:37:50,310 --> 00:37:51,370
I'm Patricia Agelie.

465
00:37:51,430 --> 00:37:57,330
My husband and I bought this property back, I believe it was spring of 2017 and soon

466
00:37:57,330 --> 00:38:03,990
out for that started thinking about what we would do with it and how and all that and contacted

467
00:38:03,990 --> 00:38:17,170
TST Engineering and since then we've spent a lot, a lot of time, effort, money on, you know,

468
00:38:17,310 --> 00:38:26,850
arborists and surveyors and city fees and engineers, and we were assured that this would

469
00:38:26,850 --> 00:38:29,910
be all finalized before Steve Kron retired.

470
00:38:30,090 --> 00:38:31,050
That didn't happen.

471
00:38:31,670 --> 00:38:34,590
Fortunately, with the good health of Rebecca

472
00:38:34,590 --> 00:38:38,330
Neves and Josh Kingcade, we've gotten it to this point.

473
00:38:39,190 --> 00:38:41,490
We think that on the map has gone,

474
00:38:41,590 --> 00:38:43,190
so I'll stop referring to their screen.

475
00:38:43,810 --> 00:38:46,870
But we think that it will be a great improvement

476
00:38:46,870 --> 00:38:49,750
to the neighborhood and to the city.

477
00:38:50,170 --> 00:38:52,350
And our little surprise that there's

478
00:38:52,350 --> 00:38:55,710
in any, you know, pushed back from neighbors.

479
00:38:57,490 --> 00:39:01,250
But the EVA will make the neighborhood safer,

480
00:39:02,070 --> 00:39:06,350
allowing for emergency vehicle or fire truck right now

481
00:39:06,350 --> 00:39:07,330
is to pull down the street.

482
00:39:07,530 --> 00:39:09,350
I guess they'd have to back out.

483
00:39:10,310 --> 00:39:16,450
The concerns about the EVA being a pass through really

484
00:39:16,450 --> 00:39:19,750
is not a concern, because it will be gated off.

485
00:39:19,950 --> 00:39:21,470
As far as the parking goes,

486
00:39:21,470 --> 00:39:27,390
I do want to mention that, you know, when these homes were built people did have fewer cars

487
00:39:27,390 --> 00:39:37,130
and they are small homes with single garages, but a lot of the neighbors have converted

488
00:39:37,130 --> 00:39:45,280
those one-car garages to living space with or without permits and I would say quite a few

489
00:39:46,020 --> 00:39:52,940
without permits. And that has resulted in a lot of the parking being moved from the garage,

490
00:39:53,100 --> 00:39:59,960
you know, and from the driveway out into the street. So we won't be doing that, our property.

491
00:40:00,000 --> 00:40:08,220
We'll be, of course, structures would be constructed according to current code with the parking that Josh suggested.

492
00:40:08,520 --> 00:40:15,420
So we don't think we're going to be adding to the parking issues at all, even though some of the current residents have added to the parking issues.

493
00:40:16,340 --> 00:40:25,340
And as far as the commercial property, that does need to be addressed. And we don't think that a commercial business,

494
00:40:25,340 --> 00:40:31,920
you know, overflowing into the street should create any restriction on residential development.

495
00:40:32,620 --> 00:40:38,160
So we think it will be an improvement and will increase property values and look nice.

496
00:40:39,280 --> 00:40:42,280
That's all I really have to say, but if you have questions, shoot.

497
00:40:42,440 --> 00:40:45,060
Thank you. Thank you very much. Any questions of the applicant?

498
00:40:47,580 --> 00:40:49,420
Okay. How is your what's your feeling on trees?

499
00:40:50,240 --> 00:40:50,900
I mean, if you could.

500
00:40:51,060 --> 00:40:51,460
Could you say.

501
00:40:51,880 --> 00:40:56,440
We would say right now since we don't really know exactly.

502
00:40:56,440 --> 00:40:59,960
I know there's been some talk about, if it's going to be two units for units or whatever,

503
00:41:00,100 --> 00:41:05,000
and we haven't gotten to that point yet because we've just been focused on, let's skip this

504
00:41:05,000 --> 00:41:11,460
map, and then go from there. Initially we had thought, you know, well maybe we'll just do single family,

505
00:41:11,580 --> 00:41:15,940
okay, well that's not an option. So the question about single family with an ADU,

506
00:41:16,060 --> 00:41:21,120
we've thought about, well maybe we could make it look like a single family with an inlaw like a,

507
00:41:21,120 --> 00:41:25,940
like a second unit that would be smaller. So it won't look like we're not trying to build a big,

508
00:41:25,940 --> 00:41:33,440
apartment complex on this little street. And so we don't really know in the end what we're going

509
00:41:33,440 --> 00:41:38,380
to do and how we'll develop it. So we'd like to say well let's save the trees for now

510
00:41:38,380 --> 00:41:42,980
because why cut them down and then later say oh we could have saved that tree. So let's keep

511
00:41:42,980 --> 00:41:49,080
the trees for now and then later when it comes time to develop and we see oh you know drive way

512
00:41:49,080 --> 00:41:53,380
has to go there the tree has to go. Then we would pay the mitigation fees and there would be

513
00:41:53,380 --> 00:41:57,300
some trees planted, whether it's someplace else in the city or there or whatever.

514
00:41:57,780 --> 00:42:00,140
And if the trees could be saved, then they would be saved.

515
00:42:00,880 --> 00:42:04,200
We also agree that, you know, a sidewalk to know where it's kind of goofy.

516
00:42:04,320 --> 00:42:08,740
I mean, I think the thinking on that is that if we had to put a sidewalk now,

517
00:42:09,680 --> 00:42:12,380
then later on, somebody else wants to do something to their property,

518
00:42:12,720 --> 00:42:16,080
they would have to put a sidewalk, and then so there would be, like, sidewalk, no sidewalk,

519
00:42:16,160 --> 00:42:21,660
sidewalk, no sidewalk, and eventually 50 years or 100 years from now there would be all sidewalks.

520
00:42:21,660 --> 00:42:28,660
So, we are just fine with no sidewalks, because it says savings for us and also we think it's a little goofy to have

521
00:42:29,420 --> 00:42:36,580
no sidewalks at all and suddenly you've got these new structures with sidewalks or no structures with sidewalks.

522
00:42:36,880 --> 00:42:42,280
So, we're just fine with saving the trees and not having sidewalks and then take it as it comes.

523
00:42:42,580 --> 00:42:46,060
If the trees have to go later, we'll pay mitigation and plant some trees.

524
00:42:46,060 --> 00:42:48,220
If they don't, we like to keep them.

525
00:42:48,220 --> 00:42:53,340
understand. Okay, anything else for the applicant. Okay, thank you very much for coming up, sure.

526
00:42:53,640 --> 00:43:00,220
All right. Okay, now is the time for public comment. So we are going to open public comment.

527
00:43:01,960 --> 00:43:09,620
Traditionally, I should have announced this before. Traditionally, we have you fill out an orange card back there and hand it in before you speak.

528
00:43:10,080 --> 00:43:13,620
So that we have record for the public record of your spelling of your name.

529
00:43:13,620 --> 00:43:20,480
Um, if you'd be willing to do that, um, if not everybody's looking at me like they they're like, are you kidding? I don't want to do that.

530
00:43:22,380 --> 00:43:31,140
So if you feel like you can't as long as you pronounce your name adequately and let us know, um, you know, how you're related to the project, we'd appreciate that.

531
00:43:31,240 --> 00:43:39,740
So you're welcome to come on up, uh, whoever wants to be your spokesperson or as many as you want, but please know we have a three minute limit per person.

532
00:43:39,740 --> 00:43:46,020
So, you're welcome to come take the floor, but yes, if you give us your full name for the record.

533
00:43:46,380 --> 00:43:57,900
I can. My name is Joe Kingsley. I live at 815 Comstock Drive. And I'd like to say, we have none of the

534
00:43:57,900 --> 00:44:06,080
people on the street that I have spoken to nor have any problem with the building of the duplexes.

535
00:44:06,080 --> 00:44:13,120
we think that's fine and I agree. I think it will increase the value. Our problem is with the width

536
00:44:13,120 --> 00:44:22,480
of our street. And yes, we do have to park on the street. We have a garage. But even if it hadn't

537
00:44:22,480 --> 00:44:30,800
been converted years ago before we bought the house, you can't fit a modern vehicle in it. It was built

538
00:44:30,800 --> 00:44:32,220
in 1959.

539
00:44:33,800 --> 00:44:37,640
And I know Bob's house was built in 1947.

540
00:44:42,980 --> 00:44:47,360
And Bob wasn't that street originally a driveway

541
00:44:49,520 --> 00:44:53,340
to the, to the end of the street

542
00:44:53,340 --> 00:44:56,120
where there was a mining company,

543
00:44:57,980 --> 00:44:59,980
a ton of mining company from what?

544
00:45:00,000 --> 00:45:07,220
What I've heard about the history of the street, it was a driveway, and so Comstock Drive came about.

545
00:45:08,060 --> 00:45:20,420
So really, that corner is one of the biggest bugabus. We get honked at and get gestures to us when we try to turn on to our own street.

546
00:45:21,040 --> 00:45:33,020
Because only one car can go through there, and if there's a car there, they'll have to back up so we can get in or we're going to be hit by traffic, so it's a very dangerous corner.

547
00:45:34,180 --> 00:45:38,040
Our concern then is the width of the street and the amount of traffic.

548
00:45:39,260 --> 00:45:47,560
Generally only one car can go through if there are two cars parked on one on each side of the street.

549
00:45:47,560 --> 00:45:59,560
If there's a truck on the street like the garbage truck, everybody stops, pulls off as far as they can so that that truck can do its business.

550
00:46:00,500 --> 00:46:13,900
So that's our main concern. No problem with the building. We think that's the way it is. And we need the density and we need housing for people who can't afford to make mansion.

551
00:46:13,900 --> 00:46:16,700
So that's all I have to see.

552
00:46:17,160 --> 00:46:17,940
Thank you, Mrs. Kingley.

553
00:46:18,620 --> 00:46:20,820
Is there anybody else who would like to address the commission

554
00:46:20,820 --> 00:46:21,700
on this issue?

555
00:46:25,450 --> 00:46:27,910
Hearing and saying, men, we will close public comment.

556
00:46:30,110 --> 00:46:33,890
Commissioners, that leads it to us to deliberate.

557
00:46:35,010 --> 00:46:37,050
Anybody want to kick us off?

558
00:46:37,330 --> 00:46:38,190
Commissioner Hurst.

559
00:46:40,150 --> 00:46:45,450
I think for me, I don't see a strong argument for the sidewalks.

560
00:46:45,450 --> 00:46:49,350
given that it sounds like it wouldn't help with the parking situation.

561
00:46:49,610 --> 00:46:52,550
There would be more concern with the tree situation.

562
00:46:54,570 --> 00:46:58,870
So I would say I'm just in favor of there being no sidewalks.

563
00:47:03,600 --> 00:47:04,320
Commissioner Lenny.

564
00:47:05,420 --> 00:47:07,140
I agree with that.

565
00:47:07,320 --> 00:47:11,260
I also would like there to be to your point.

566
00:47:11,340 --> 00:47:12,400
It seems a little wish you washer.

567
00:47:12,760 --> 00:47:18,680
We really focused on saving the heritage trees and saying do everything you can to do that.

568
00:47:19,320 --> 00:47:23,820
I would like to see it be a little stronger in that direction.

569
00:47:24,800 --> 00:47:25,640
The sidewalk thing.

570
00:47:25,860 --> 00:47:26,980
I didn't think of the purpose.

571
00:47:27,260 --> 00:47:31,280
It just seems very awkward to insert that into this neighborhood.

572
00:47:32,520 --> 00:47:35,180
To maybe what we could do is throw out the sidewalk.

573
00:47:36,720 --> 00:47:40,540
But the beauty of it is they haven't figured out their design yet.

574
00:47:40,860 --> 00:47:44,280
So design can take into account saving the trees.

575
00:47:44,520 --> 00:47:48,500
I think that issue is whether we want a mandate that the trees be saved.

576
00:47:49,840 --> 00:47:52,000
But I think I like where you're headed.

577
00:47:52,720 --> 00:47:54,600
I'm just going to clarify, when you say trees,

578
00:47:54,720 --> 00:47:56,460
you mean those specific ones that have been,

579
00:47:56,460 --> 00:47:57,540
that's in the direction.

580
00:47:58,220 --> 00:47:58,680
I think that's in the direction.

581
00:47:59,620 --> 00:48:00,740
So it's like three, I think.

582
00:48:01,120 --> 00:48:03,340
Well, two areas trees is what I hear in the trees.

583
00:48:04,040 --> 00:48:07,440
And for some reason, the other one was fairly nice tree, I guess.

584
00:48:08,160 --> 00:48:09,480
There it was.

585
00:48:09,480 --> 00:48:10,300
It was a good shape.

586
00:48:10,400 --> 00:48:13,120
Yes, it wasn't a large enough.

587
00:48:13,120 --> 00:48:16,420
The trunk width wasn't large enough to be considered a heritage tree

588
00:48:16,420 --> 00:48:18,040
and the species wasn't either there.

589
00:48:18,040 --> 00:48:19,740
But it was rather large of it.

590
00:48:19,740 --> 00:48:22,300
You call it out because it's pretty big and it's healthy, right?

591
00:48:22,520 --> 00:48:24,040
Yes, that's the numbers looked at.

592
00:48:24,040 --> 00:48:24,620
The trees in there.

593
00:48:24,780 --> 00:48:26,000
Those are the three that she identified.

594
00:48:27,400 --> 00:48:31,340
Because I mean, I also think preserving trees tends to be good for a property value,

595
00:48:31,420 --> 00:48:38,340
you know, in addition to there's owning and general plan or general plan designation.

596
00:48:38,900 --> 00:48:39,600
It's going to be interesting Ross.

597
00:48:40,080 --> 00:48:45,700
I have no problem removing sidewalk requirement because I've run into that a lot sometimes

598
00:48:45,700 --> 00:48:51,920
in communities where it's just a dead end of a public walkway or a bike trail and then where do

599
00:48:51,920 --> 00:48:56,300
you go from here? And this would be, it doesn't connect to anything. So I have, I see no reason

600
00:48:56,300 --> 00:49:01,100
to have it. I also wanted to just quickly say to staff, please urgently fix the problem at

601
00:49:01,100 --> 00:49:06,560
Comstock because I took my daughter down that street to see this during rush hour. So I could

602
00:49:06,560 --> 00:49:13,000
myself experience the traffic and I blocked traffic with my, uh, Subaru and someone tried to

603
00:49:13,000 --> 00:49:16,900
and probably my neighbors, I'm so sorry, that was me that didn't let you get into your

604
00:49:16,900 --> 00:49:21,160
streets because there were trucks on both sides. Now I thought you couldn't park at a stop

605
00:49:21,160 --> 00:49:26,200
sign. You can't, and I actually have an email up I'm already sending to my streets guys,

606
00:49:26,200 --> 00:49:30,600
okay, because I think that would definitely clear up at least. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah,

607
00:49:30,600 --> 00:49:35,720
I mean, I think it's just helpful for the businesses to kind of be situationally aware of

608
00:49:35,720 --> 00:49:39,820
what they're causing to, because it's not a flattering look for them either, right? So, okay, thank

609
00:49:39,820 --> 00:49:47,360
It's a difficult place. I was there today just to remind myself that I used to take my car there to one of the businesses.

610
00:49:48,040 --> 00:49:52,580
Yeah, I was one of the people that had to go down the street to turn around and it's rough.

611
00:49:52,900 --> 00:49:54,360
Yeah, it's really rough.

612
00:49:54,940 --> 00:49:55,120
Okay.

613
00:49:56,080 --> 00:49:57,400
Okay. Anybody else?

614
00:49:57,640 --> 00:49:58,760
I'm going to win.

615
00:50:01,200 --> 00:50:10,680
So, I already voiced my anti-sidewalk position. I'm a little concerned about mandating the trees right now.

616
00:50:10,840 --> 00:50:22,220
Because we really don't know what the doplex or a quad. How you're going to build it. How you're going to design a driveway for that if we lock them into these trees.

617
00:50:22,220 --> 00:50:25,400
I don't see how that's going to make those parcels.

618
00:50:25,400 --> 00:50:28,320
It could make it invisible in certain circumstances.

619
00:50:28,780 --> 00:50:38,200
I think I would suggest we have a little bit more flexibility here and have it dealt with when it comes time to develop those parcels.

620
00:50:39,020 --> 00:50:46,940
So Josh, do you feel that our current language at least emphasizes that the trees should attempt to be protected?

621
00:50:47,320 --> 00:50:52,540
Does that cover that? And then when design review comes in, I mean the applicants hearing this concern.

622
00:50:52,540 --> 00:50:58,880
And so, I mean, when design review comes in, do we have adequate grounds to,

623
00:51:00,900 --> 00:51:06,720
I mean, to me, I don't know, just seeing like, we so rarely leave something so open ended, that's just what way it feels.

624
00:51:07,540 --> 00:51:18,240
So the way the condition currently reads, mentions those three trees and states that if they are retained and protected through construction activity.

625
00:51:18,940 --> 00:51:24,940
the sidewalk should not be shall not be required. However, if they are removed or damaged,

626
00:51:27,360 --> 00:51:31,060
then to the point where the city of Arbor's determines that they would need to be removed.

627
00:51:31,740 --> 00:51:39,280
The sidewalk shall be constructed as shown and the three mitigation shall be paid basically.

628
00:51:39,960 --> 00:51:46,140
So, I think if I chair Reynolds, I think so our tree preservation ordinance already requires

629
00:51:46,740 --> 00:51:50,280
protection of the heritage trees, which isn't all of the trees that were under

630
00:51:50,280 --> 00:51:55,580
consideration. But if the commission looks at condition of approval 22, I do

631
00:51:55,580 --> 00:52:00,000
think it might be sufficient to cover the issues that are under consideration right

632
00:52:00,000 --> 00:52:06,880
now. So at least one option is to potentially delete condition of approval 23 and

633
00:52:06,880 --> 00:52:13,720
maintain condition 22, and that could get us potentially, I think, to what's under

634
00:52:13,720 --> 00:52:16,620
or serritate out onto that?

635
00:52:16,840 --> 00:52:20,400
We made 23 in replace it with something stating

636
00:52:21,120 --> 00:52:24,740
that no sidewalk shall be included on the 10-bit parcel map.

637
00:52:25,300 --> 00:52:30,580
If that's, if we're saying, no to the sidewalk regardless

638
00:52:30,580 --> 00:52:33,700
of what happens with the trees, then we could potentially

639
00:52:33,700 --> 00:52:36,600
replace condition 23 with that.

640
00:52:37,900 --> 00:52:39,900
Yeah, we got to deal with the sidewalk issue too.

641
00:52:40,820 --> 00:52:43,100
So, but I'm not sure, do we want to call out?

642
00:52:43,100 --> 00:52:58,300
If we do that, would you recommend in Cere, would we want to call out those three trees by number, though, like the way it is in 23, in 22, or do we want a tree permit application?

643
00:52:59,880 --> 00:53:07,620
The normal tree permit application process would require the arboristic gain at that time determine which trees are healthy and we want to preserve and do all of that.

644
00:53:07,620 --> 00:53:13,980
So that's the normal process that's covered by a condition 22, and the normal pre-preservation

645
00:53:13,980 --> 00:53:18,200
ordinance would cover the arboris getting to say, don't get rid of those trees.

646
00:53:18,760 --> 00:53:23,960
I think I could call it attention to condition 15 too, because we actually site deferred

647
00:53:23,960 --> 00:53:27,260
improvements, and we specifically call out including sidewalks too.

648
00:53:27,620 --> 00:53:31,280
So we do say prior to recording the parcel map, the underapplicant shall enter into deferred

649
00:53:31,280 --> 00:53:35,160
improvement agreement with the city, identifying public improvements to be constructed, including

650
00:53:35,720 --> 00:53:37,800
sidewalks and undergrounding of dry utilities.

651
00:53:38,740 --> 00:53:40,800
The owner applicant shall be provide security applicable

652
00:53:40,800 --> 00:53:43,860
to the city guarantee and construction of the improvements.

653
00:53:45,100 --> 00:53:46,640
So one thing I want us to kind of captures,

654
00:53:46,820 --> 00:53:49,920
we did briefly talk about the undergrounding of dry utilities.

655
00:53:50,180 --> 00:53:51,540
We felt that that wasn't necessary.

656
00:53:52,160 --> 00:53:54,380
So we may want to capture that too.

657
00:53:55,000 --> 00:53:58,960
And then in this one, we would need to delete the including sidewalk.

658
00:53:59,260 --> 00:54:01,460
I mean, I would just say, perhaps the suggestion

659
00:54:01,460 --> 00:54:03,980
would be to revise that condition to say,

660
00:54:03,980 --> 00:54:08,800
identifying public improvements to be constructed period and eliminating the

661
00:54:08,800 --> 00:54:11,040
including sidewalks and undergrounding or dry utilities.

662
00:54:12,140 --> 00:54:15,060
Does that sound like a reasonable approach and then we can kind of address

663
00:54:15,060 --> 00:54:20,040
condition 23 then to pull out the sidewalk and that route?

664
00:54:20,360 --> 00:54:21,500
Question mark?

665
00:54:22,060 --> 00:54:23,000
Yeah, that makes sense to me.

666
00:54:23,020 --> 00:54:25,120
Okay, that makes sense to me too.

667
00:54:29,060 --> 00:54:36,020
I pulled the tree removal mitigation plan up again to also note that you'll see 436 and 440

668
00:54:36,680 --> 00:54:39,840
are not shown on here as being removed.

669
00:54:40,920 --> 00:54:43,900
It's the city arborist in reviewing these plans

670
00:54:44,580 --> 00:54:48,200
had concerns that because of their proximity to the sidewalk

671
00:54:48,200 --> 00:54:50,400
that they would necessitate removal

672
00:54:51,040 --> 00:54:52,320
because of that sidewalk.

673
00:54:52,540 --> 00:54:54,740
So as shown on this plan here, they're not

674
00:54:54,740 --> 00:54:57,900
those two are not shown as being removed on their plans.

675
00:54:58,220 --> 00:54:59,760
It's just based on our analysis.

676
00:55:00,000 --> 00:55:03,220
We would have had to have been with the sidewalk in place.

677
00:55:04,360 --> 00:55:04,540
Okay.

678
00:55:05,000 --> 00:55:05,960
Before thought.

679
00:55:07,020 --> 00:55:16,860
What sounds like everybody's feeling like that type of motion. So we're talking about the motion with the amendment to condition 15.

680
00:55:18,280 --> 00:55:22,080
So let's just put a motion on the table. How about that and make sure we do it, right?

681
00:55:22,340 --> 00:55:26,460
Does somebody want to do that for us and then we can go from there?

682
00:55:26,660 --> 00:55:28,220
All right, I always have fun trying to do that.

683
00:55:29,660 --> 00:55:35,400
There's a couple of conditions that we've wanted to make sure before, if that's fine.

684
00:55:36,120 --> 00:55:43,180
So, a condition 15 striking the including sidewalks on the ground of dry utilities, correct?

685
00:55:44,240 --> 00:55:58,200
Condition 19, striking the mention of sidewalks from condition 19, and then replacing condition 23 with no sidewalk shall be included on the tender.

686
00:55:58,200 --> 00:56:03,680
personal map. It was everything that we discussed here. I think we want to remove 23 altogether.

687
00:56:03,920 --> 00:56:07,980
And there's like no point to it without the sidewalks, right? Remove and replace. There's currently

688
00:56:07,980 --> 00:56:11,440
a sidewalk showing on the tentative parcel and absolutely want to ensure that, you know,

689
00:56:11,480 --> 00:56:17,800
if we're saying the tentative parcel maps approve, we want to ensure that that sidewalk is not included.

690
00:56:18,720 --> 00:56:25,080
That's part of the parcel map. So 23 will become a whole different condition about sidewalks.

691
00:56:25,080 --> 00:56:30,260
Yeah, a condition that would say no sidewalks shall be included on the tentative parcel map, something to that to please.

692
00:56:32,000 --> 00:56:33,880
Excuse me, on the on the parcel map.

693
00:56:35,680 --> 00:56:35,940
Okay.

694
00:56:37,920 --> 00:56:39,220
I may suggest.

695
00:56:40,320 --> 00:56:49,280
So on condition 23 perhaps something along the lines, if if if trees, 434, 436 and 444 as identified in the three mitigation rule plan.

696
00:56:49,280 --> 00:57:08,620
attachment seven are retained and protected throughout construction activity. I would just, I would say shall be retained and protected throughout construction activity period. And then strike out the proposed sidewalk shown on the project plans should not be required. We're just not going to.

697
00:57:09,220 --> 00:57:11,680
I think we're just going to strike all of that all together.

698
00:57:11,760 --> 00:57:18,320
And actually three will just become something along the lines of remove the requirement for a sidewalk from the tentative parcel map.

699
00:57:18,320 --> 00:57:19,300
We just want it gone.

700
00:57:19,320 --> 00:57:21,760
We're not going to call the trees anymore, yeah.

701
00:57:22,160 --> 00:57:22,320
Okay.

702
00:57:22,560 --> 00:57:23,360
Go for it, commissioner.

703
00:57:23,540 --> 00:57:23,920
Okay.

704
00:57:24,220 --> 00:57:27,800
On condition 19, do we want to remove the underground infrastructure requirement also?

705
00:57:28,000 --> 00:57:29,260
Since we don't want them to do that anymore?

706
00:57:30,080 --> 00:57:30,480
Yes.

707
00:57:32,420 --> 00:57:33,360
Oh, I'm 15.

708
00:57:34,000 --> 00:57:35,140
That's on 19 also.

709
00:57:35,480 --> 00:57:37,340
15 and 19 both have those things.

710
00:57:37,340 --> 00:57:39,660
Yeah, so I'll remove it from both.

711
00:57:40,580 --> 00:57:44,240
Well, undergrad infrastructure would be, uh, sewer.

712
00:57:44,500 --> 00:57:46,980
sewer, oh, okay, so we don't want to get rid of that one.

713
00:57:47,200 --> 00:57:48,000
Okay, dry.

714
00:57:48,040 --> 00:57:50,260
So we do have existing underground utilities.

715
00:57:50,480 --> 00:57:52,660
We're not going to run a sewer service on top.

716
00:57:52,820 --> 00:57:56,000
It wouldn't be standards if that helps any.

717
00:57:56,000 --> 00:57:59,080
But I think the context of that was intended to be for dry utilities.

718
00:57:59,680 --> 00:58:00,040
Okay.

719
00:58:00,440 --> 00:58:00,680
Yeah,

720
00:58:05,510 --> 00:58:08,270
so I mean, I guess I could leave underground infrastructure

721
00:58:08,270 --> 00:58:12,970
because it says just in accordance with what the city of Falson wants so it doesn't hurt

722
00:58:12,970 --> 00:58:15,430
anything to have that one in there. Right. So you just do it out of 15.

723
00:58:16,150 --> 00:58:23,800
All right. Here we go. Thank you. We have to confirm staff's determination

724
00:58:23,800 --> 00:58:29,660
that comes out by a tentative parcel map. Project is exempt from Sikla and approve a tentative

725
00:58:29,660 --> 00:58:36,040
parcel map for the project PC-19-001-22 based on the findings included in the report findings

726
00:58:36,040 --> 00:58:42,960
through N and subject the attached conditions of approval, conditions 1 through 28 with the following

727
00:58:42,960 --> 00:58:50,240
changes in condition 15 and removing everything after 2B constructed, so removing the section

728
00:58:50,240 --> 00:58:59,160
including sidewalks and undergrounding of dry utilities to condition 19, striking the word sidewalks

729
00:59:00,600 --> 00:59:05,720
and striking all of the existing condition 23 and replacing it with a condition to

730
00:59:06,040 --> 00:59:09,860
remove the requirement for the sidewalk from the tentative parcel map.

731
00:59:10,040 --> 00:59:12,920
Beautifully done. We have a motion on the floor. Is there a second?

732
00:59:13,580 --> 00:59:17,960
Seconded by Commissioner Ross. Is there any discussion on the motion on the floor?

733
00:59:18,960 --> 00:59:21,400
Hearing and seeing none, Stephanie, please call the roll.

734
00:59:22,720 --> 00:59:24,380
Commissioner Barcelona. Hi.

735
00:59:25,420 --> 00:59:28,460
Commissioner Hurst. Yes. Commissioner Herrera. Yes.

736
00:59:29,040 --> 00:59:34,080
Commissioner West. Yes. Commissioner Ross. Yes. Commissioner Laney. Yes.

737
00:59:34,080 --> 00:59:59,100
Commissioner Reynolds. Yes. Okay, not measure passes. That was the way you see things be done on the fly like that, which I think we did very well as far as this. I think our city staff has gotten the message loud and clear from the neighbors about what difficulty it is at your intersection there. And then that will be somehow alleviated. I think very soon.

738
01:00:00,000 --> 01:00:05,360
So I appreciate you giving us a pressure on that, because I think it needed to be done. And congratulations,

739
01:00:06,400 --> 01:00:11,440
property owners, to go ahead. We look forward to seeing you. If we need to see you on design,

740
01:00:11,600 --> 01:00:15,760
we might not need to, depending on what you decide to do, it would be a staff level.

741
01:00:16,420 --> 01:00:21,700
Okay. All right. Thank you very much. And we are on to our next item.

742
01:00:23,970 --> 01:00:25,310
Yes, it was nice that.

743
01:00:28,490 --> 01:00:32,290
All right. Well, we look forward to what you're going to do. All right. Thank you.

744
01:00:32,290 --> 01:00:36,690
All right, our next item is,

745
01:00:37,090 --> 01:00:38,330
where that was them.

746
01:00:38,950 --> 01:00:39,630
Thank you guys.

747
01:00:39,670 --> 01:00:41,950
That one was pretty tough, and it was well done.

748
01:00:41,970 --> 01:00:42,670
Well executed.

749
01:00:43,350 --> 01:00:44,150
Where's my agenda?

750
01:00:44,470 --> 01:00:45,110
Here it is.

751
01:00:45,770 --> 01:00:48,730
Our next item is item number two.

752
01:00:49,090 --> 01:00:56,390
S-P-E-C-24-O-O-O-1-7.

753
01:00:56,730 --> 01:00:59,290
Objective design or development and design standards

754
01:00:59,290 --> 01:01:04,730
and determination at the project is exempt from Sequel. I'm in up for this, we have Desmond

755
01:01:04,730 --> 01:01:10,250
Parentan, and a little birdie told me that today's Desmond's birthday,

756
01:01:12,330 --> 01:01:13,370
so rather than

757
01:01:13,370 --> 01:01:16,330
saying, we're going to say happy birthday, Desmond.

758
01:01:19,170 --> 01:01:22,750
We should be part of the public as trying

759
01:01:22,750 --> 01:01:29,610
to sing from up here. Anyway, well, because it would be recorded. Yeah. Thank you very much.

760
01:01:30,530 --> 01:01:32,750
So, Chair Reynolds, members of the Commission,

761
01:01:32,990 --> 01:01:36,250
Desmond Perryton, Planning Manager in the Community Development Department.

762
01:01:36,790 --> 01:01:40,150
I'm here tonight to talk to you again about objective design and development,

763
01:01:40,510 --> 01:01:43,650
or objective development and design standards.

764
01:01:45,230 --> 01:01:46,570
Tonight we'll be asking.

765
01:01:46,610 --> 01:01:47,970
Mike and Interrupted your real quick.

766
01:01:48,110 --> 01:01:50,090
Josh, I didn't say thank you to you, and thank you.

767
01:01:50,190 --> 01:01:50,870
That was a toughie.

768
01:01:51,050 --> 01:01:53,030
So appreciate your hard work on that, okay.

769
01:01:53,370 --> 01:01:54,410
And we're back at you too.

770
01:01:54,530 --> 01:01:57,910
That was like, you know, making sausage right there, but we did good.

771
01:01:57,910 --> 01:02:00,250
All right. Thank you. Go ahead, doesn't.

772
01:02:02,490 --> 01:02:07,270
And just, you know, I have been in contact with code enforcement and they talked to the

773
01:02:07,270 --> 01:02:13,050
auto shop business about the parking because they appeared to be the main violator of

774
01:02:13,050 --> 01:02:18,830
that provision. That was, in fact, the honors truck and trailer there. So, they, they have

775
01:02:18,830 --> 01:02:23,570
been, been talked to. And as you heard Rebecca, it was going to be additional follow up on that.

776
01:02:24,670 --> 01:02:30,350
So, I'm before you tonight to talk again about objective development and design standards.

777
01:02:30,690 --> 01:02:36,130
We had a workshop last time to kind of familiarize yourself with what these are.

778
01:02:36,330 --> 01:02:46,370
As you are aware, the state has is now requiring objective development and standards for all development.

779
01:02:47,310 --> 01:02:50,370
that's residential and more than two units.

780
01:02:51,110 --> 01:02:56,890
There's been a number of laws that require the use

781
01:02:56,890 --> 01:02:58,850
of objective design standards.

782
01:02:59,770 --> 01:03:03,270
So this will be putting those in place for those areas

783
01:03:03,270 --> 01:03:06,990
where we did increase the densities and the height.

784
01:03:07,790 --> 01:03:13,690
So the goal of this is to ensure that the more intensive

785
01:03:13,690 --> 01:03:21,630
development that occurs in the areas that were where we established this new general plan overlay

786
01:03:21,630 --> 01:03:28,390
that allowed for our greater densities, greater heights, higher FARs, or floor area issues

787
01:03:28,390 --> 01:03:35,350
that we would have objective design standards in place to ensure that they developed in a way

788
01:03:35,350 --> 01:03:42,830
that was consistent with Folsom and enhance those areas rather than to track from them. So we are

789
01:03:42,830 --> 01:03:50,930
No longer able to use our multi-family design guidelines will be talking about the repeal of

790
01:03:50,930 --> 01:03:58,490
those in just a bit, but really these are to go along with the general plan amendments we

791
01:03:58,490 --> 01:03:59,630
did at last August.

792
01:04:01,990 --> 01:04:08,550
So the general plan is a number of guiding principles that really kind of speak to this

793
01:04:08,550 --> 01:04:16,850
issue and really were the reasons behind why we looked at and ultimately adopted this overlay

794
01:04:16,850 --> 01:04:23,130
that allowed for mixed use in the residential development along the East bit where a core or

795
01:04:23,130 --> 01:04:30,470
around our iron point light rail station and then the the Glenn or Robert G. Holderness Light

796
01:04:34,800 --> 01:04:42,280
So the idea is, as I mentioned earlier, is to ensure quality site as well as architectural design.

797
01:04:42,760 --> 01:04:48,660
And these are some of the images out from our objective development and design standards.

798
01:04:49,100 --> 01:04:55,360
Again, bringing the buildings in these areas where we want to encourage pedestrian traffic,

799
01:04:55,900 --> 01:04:59,360
bringing them closer to the street, having the parking generally in the sides.

800
01:04:59,360 --> 01:04:59,860
Thanks for watching.

801
01:05:00,000 --> 01:05:10,960
And then having that differentiation in terms of the top middle and then base with kind of corner features.

802
01:05:12,740 --> 01:05:23,960
So we've done extensive outreach throughout the summer. We began the effort in 2022 with our targeted mixed use of multi-family housing study.

803
01:05:23,960 --> 01:05:31,340
we brought in Optikos design, they're an architectural firm, and then they worked with us

804
01:05:31,340 --> 01:05:39,370
to show the public how sites along these corridors could develop consistent with

805
01:05:41,520 --> 01:05:47,380
consistent with our general plan and in a way that enhanced these corridors. So they did several

806
01:05:47,380 --> 01:05:54,540
different examples, one at the park and ride lot, which is the city owns, at the Glen Station,

807
01:05:54,700 --> 01:06:03,300
another one at the Snowline Thrift store site. Again, these were with the idea that in Sunday

808
01:06:03,300 --> 01:06:10,280
in the future, these could redevelop, and they showed that how they could develop in a manner that

809
01:06:10,280 --> 01:06:16,580
would really kind of complement the area. We also did an extensive survey, and got about 400

810
01:06:16,580 --> 01:06:22,440
responses, getting feedback from residents and business owners about, you know, what height,

811
01:06:22,500 --> 01:06:27,980
what design features, what massing issues that they were interested in or concerned about

812
01:06:27,980 --> 01:06:33,720
or felt were appropriate in the various different areas from, you know, these bit more corridor

813
01:06:33,720 --> 01:06:40,920
to the light rail stations to the town center in the full-sum plan area. So, so then we continued

814
01:06:40,920 --> 01:06:49,040
You know, once we got that feedback and got the support from the city council, we then of course

815
01:06:49,040 --> 01:06:56,740
did establish those overlay areas in August of 2024 through the General Plan and specific

816
01:06:56,740 --> 01:06:57,480
plan amendments.

817
01:06:57,940 --> 01:07:07,940
And then we got to work with Opticos on preparing a draft of the document, which we released

818
01:07:07,940 --> 01:07:16,140
in 2024 and then we reached out to local architects and developers as well as the general public

819
01:07:16,140 --> 01:07:21,160
to get their input on these in terms of how workable they were.

820
01:07:21,320 --> 01:07:27,300
In addition to that we talk with other jurisdictions that have been using similar objective

821
01:07:27,300 --> 01:07:32,080
development of design standards and then got their input on how well that they had been

822
01:07:32,080 --> 01:07:37,300
working through the process, what were the aspects they really like or the aspects that were

823
01:07:37,300 --> 01:07:45,180
not working and needed refinement, and so we got some really good feedback, and then we worked

824
01:07:45,180 --> 01:07:51,180
again to revise the document to make it simpler and more straightforward and easier to use.

825
01:07:51,960 --> 01:07:57,620
So we went from about 120 pages down to about 80 pages. Now keep in mind, 80 pages still

826
01:07:57,620 --> 01:08:02,100
sounds like a lot. It's a lot of graphics and a lot of the imagery in there. And the whole

827
01:08:02,100 --> 01:08:09,960
idea is, while these are objective design standards, we wanted to use the diagrams and the imagery

828
01:08:10,840 --> 01:08:17,960
to show to developers and the property owners and to architects, these are the kinds of things

829
01:08:17,960 --> 01:08:23,780
that we're looking at, so that they're absolutely clear on what the expectations are from the city.

830
01:08:25,080 --> 01:08:38,220
So, as a result of that, we released a revised version in July of 2025, and then of course we had that workshop with you at the last meeting to go over this.

831
01:08:39,100 --> 01:08:41,720
These are the areas that I've talked about.

832
01:08:41,720 --> 01:08:49,220
This is from East Bidwell, we're settled middle school is right here all the way down to Highway 50.

833
01:08:49,940 --> 01:09:00,460
Then we have the area around the Iron Point Rail Station and the area around the Glen Station up in this area here.

834
01:09:00,860 --> 01:09:03,520
So the Glen Station is right about there.

835
01:09:03,520 --> 01:09:14,020
In addition, that we have the Folsom Plan area, it's actually a little bit further to the west there, it's actually right there.

836
01:09:15,040 --> 01:09:30,200
Just for some perspective, this is East Bidwell Street, this is Alder Creek Parkway, this is the new UC Davis Medical Center Building that just opened, this is dignity health Folsom Center for Health, that will be starting construction there soon.

837
01:09:30,200 --> 01:09:37,840
And this is the town center, which we'll have, as you can see here, a mix of, you know,

838
01:09:37,920 --> 01:09:43,400
they'll have mixed use as well as higher density residential along with some town homes,

839
01:09:43,540 --> 01:09:45,760
and then this per se, like part.

840
01:09:46,180 --> 01:09:52,160
So we felt these were good areas for these types of standards to apply to ensure that we

841
01:09:52,160 --> 01:09:55,680
get quality design in all of those areas.

842
01:09:57,060 --> 01:09:59,860
This is the sampling of

843
01:10:00,000 --> 01:10:29,980
The diagrams that are in the document, that identified different aspects in terms of the form and the character, and that there's, they identify the different features and aspects here. So there's really kind of, there's, there's four key elements to this document. So obviously there's the introduction, which provides architects and with developers with kind of a cheat sheet of how to go.

844
01:10:29,980 --> 01:10:33,140
through and what sections would apply to their project,

845
01:10:33,700 --> 01:10:38,620
then we have the actual development standards and themselves that relate both the site development

846
01:10:38,620 --> 01:10:43,200
and then building development standards, and then we really, it really dives into

847
01:10:43,200 --> 01:10:49,960
massing in articulation, the building form, how it's broken up, how it should be broken up when

848
01:10:49,960 --> 01:10:56,040
it's closer to existing residential, you know, step back so you don't have a mass of building

849
01:10:56,040 --> 01:11:03,120
of budding a two-story home. And then also provisions about adjacency to open space.

850
01:11:03,620 --> 01:11:10,180
And then we have the standards for larger sites, three acres or larger. These are envisioned

851
01:11:10,180 --> 01:11:16,620
for those sites where there might be a big box retail store that goes under and then eventually

852
01:11:16,620 --> 01:11:22,680
they want to do something different with the site. So this shows them how they can break up that site

853
01:11:22,680 --> 01:11:27,120
to make it more, more kind of a human scale.

854
01:11:27,220 --> 01:11:30,800
What I mean by that is not one massive building,

855
01:11:30,980 --> 01:11:32,760
but breaking it up into smaller buildings

856
01:11:32,760 --> 01:11:36,220
that have maybe the ground for a retail or have active uses,

857
01:11:36,640 --> 01:11:40,260
even though it might be live work studios on the ground for.

858
01:11:41,840 --> 01:11:45,940
So the street lengths, it's not one huge street,

859
01:11:46,080 --> 01:11:49,140
but you have interior streets, maybe some open space area.

860
01:11:49,140 --> 01:11:53,340
elements like that that kind of really create the kind of lockable and

861
01:11:53,340 --> 01:11:58,080
little-able community that folks that we would be looking for as those areas

862
01:11:59,740 --> 01:12:04,960
redeveloped. Then in addition to that we've got a few more kind of administrative

863
01:12:04,960 --> 01:12:11,120
chapters, one deals with exceptions to standards. When you start dealing with

864
01:12:11,120 --> 01:12:18,680
infill sites, that's where it gets tricky because there's often a reason some of

865
01:12:18,680 --> 01:12:20,580
because they may be littered with easements,

866
01:12:20,760 --> 01:12:23,600
there may be topography challenges, things like that.

867
01:12:23,720 --> 01:12:27,980
So we've got exceptions to that that provides some allowances

868
01:12:27,980 --> 01:12:30,520
when they're dealing with those kinds of things on site,

869
01:12:30,540 --> 01:12:33,460
because we've had situations where easements interfere

870
01:12:33,460 --> 01:12:37,880
with our ability to bring the building closer to the street.

871
01:12:37,940 --> 01:12:39,460
That was one of the issues that we dealt

872
01:12:39,460 --> 01:12:41,040
with with the Herings and Grove project.

873
01:12:41,380 --> 01:12:44,000
As there were several easements that they had to work around,

874
01:12:44,380 --> 01:12:47,520
that kind of hamper their ability to bring that kind

875
01:12:47,520 --> 01:12:49,080
of close search of the street.

876
01:12:49,260 --> 01:12:50,920
If you remember that, not a affordable project

877
01:12:50,920 --> 01:12:52,240
that we did.

878
01:12:52,660 --> 01:12:56,380
So we've got those kinds of exceptions in there.

879
01:12:56,580 --> 01:12:58,400
And then of course we have the definitions

880
01:12:58,400 --> 01:13:00,440
because there's a lot of architectural terms

881
01:13:00,440 --> 01:13:01,240
in this document.

882
01:13:01,500 --> 01:13:03,580
We want to make sure that those are clearly defined.

883
01:13:04,240 --> 01:13:06,500
And then if we have our measurement methods

884
01:13:06,500 --> 01:13:09,500
for how those should be used,

885
01:13:10,260 --> 01:13:13,400
measuring the site and the building elements.

886
01:13:14,780 --> 01:13:31,240
So, as I mentioned last time as part of the workshop, we while we are referencing these in the zoning code and we are going to be updating the design review section of the zoning code to refer to these.

887
01:13:31,700 --> 01:13:38,560
We are not pulling these into the zoning code because the zoning code is part of the municipal code.

888
01:13:38,560 --> 01:13:43,980
it takes an ordinance to amend that. We realize that this is going to be new for developers

889
01:13:43,980 --> 01:13:49,720
and for staff and for architects and all of that. We wanted the ability that things are not working

890
01:13:50,340 --> 01:13:56,980
to be able to make adjustments without having to go through the ordinance process, which is,

891
01:13:56,980 --> 01:14:01,320
you know, bringing it to commission, then two hearings with the City Council, then 30 days before

892
01:14:01,320 --> 01:14:07,280
I can go into effect. We wanted to be able to do this through a resolution. So that's why we refer to

893
01:14:07,280 --> 01:14:10,020
in the zoning code, but the dock would actually

894
01:14:10,020 --> 01:14:12,540
lives outside the zoning code, and it will be adopted

895
01:14:12,540 --> 01:14:13,440
through a resolution.

896
01:14:14,120 --> 01:14:16,760
However, that being said, as I mentioned,

897
01:14:16,960 --> 01:14:19,940
we are going to amend Chapter 1706, which is our

898
01:14:19,940 --> 01:14:23,000
design review section, to create a new subsection,

899
01:14:23,400 --> 01:14:25,700
talking about the ministerial approval

900
01:14:25,700 --> 01:14:27,860
by the community development director

901
01:14:28,460 --> 01:14:30,240
for these types of projects.

902
01:14:31,320 --> 01:14:34,800
So the feedback that we got from the city council,

903
01:14:34,800 --> 01:14:43,160
As we've taken some of these controversial multi-family projects, the vintage apartment, it was a classic case up here and on a tone mystery,

904
01:14:44,620 --> 01:14:54,680
was that they've said, under state law, we cannot deny these projects unless there is a significant health and safety finding that we can point to.

905
01:14:55,040 --> 01:14:59,980
And so some of the council members said to us, we don't, if we can't actually take it.

906
01:15:00,000 --> 01:15:19,620
Any real action on this? Then why are you bringing these to us? Because the state has changed the rules. And by bringing it to the council, you're giving the community the expectation that the council can actually do something about this, which they can't, unless there is a health and safety issue.

907
01:15:19,620 --> 01:15:28,220
So we have taken this and brought these to minister also that they're staff level, but that means is there's there's there's no appeal.

908
01:15:28,960 --> 01:15:32,660
There is there's no noticing on it.

909
01:15:32,840 --> 01:15:34,260
Staff handles the staff level.

910
01:15:34,260 --> 01:15:40,660
We will of course provide information on the website about the projects so that people are aware of what's going on,

911
01:15:40,880 --> 01:15:43,840
but it won't go through the hearing process.

912
01:15:43,840 --> 01:15:49,560
Again, more and more of the state law changes are making these kinds of things

913
01:15:50,180 --> 01:15:54,660
Ministerial, so they have to comply with objective design standards, and you've got to approve them

914
01:15:55,460 --> 01:15:56,020
Ministerially

915
01:15:56,020 --> 01:16:02,480
So I mean we just had a fairly major one that was approved and signed by the governor just a few days ago

916
01:16:02,480 --> 01:16:08,860
Which is SB 79 which was a pretty significant change around our light rail stations

917
01:16:08,860 --> 01:16:13,740
We're gonna be looking at whether the work that we did last year might qualify

918
01:16:13,840 --> 01:16:25,040
as an alternative plan to achieving SB 79, which is allowed under the legislation or under the new law, so we're investigating that.

919
01:16:25,600 --> 01:16:29,120
We would also be rescending our multifamily design guidelines.

920
01:16:30,020 --> 01:16:35,640
The reason that we're looking to rescind them is because, number one, they're outdated.

921
01:16:36,220 --> 01:16:40,840
Number two, they actually conflict with some of the language in our zoning code.

922
01:16:41,880 --> 01:16:48,640
We will hopefully be doing objective design standards for the rest of the city because we acknowledge

923
01:16:48,640 --> 01:16:56,060
that this is not the only area where multi-family can occur or residential next-use can occur.

924
01:16:56,700 --> 01:17:02,500
But we wanted to get this in place sooner rather than later because this is the only area in

925
01:17:02,500 --> 01:17:08,560
the city where we can have densities above 30 doingers per acre and we can have those taller

926
01:17:08,560 --> 01:17:12,120
heights for residential of three, four, and five stories.

927
01:17:13,140 --> 01:17:18,380
So that's why we wanted to put those in place now, and then we'll start looking at the historic

928
01:17:18,380 --> 01:17:24,760
district and other areas of the city to look at doing something along the same lines.

929
01:17:24,880 --> 01:17:30,640
It may not be quite as detailed as these, but we do feel given the way the legislature is

930
01:17:30,640 --> 01:17:33,520
going that it would be prudent to put those in place.

931
01:17:36,190 --> 01:17:42,390
So, just to kind of walk you through, we talked about this last time, but to walk you through,

932
01:17:42,590 --> 01:17:46,390
tonight we're seeking your recommendation to the city council.

933
01:17:47,650 --> 01:17:53,670
This would be heard on the 28th, if the first reading, then the second reading and adoption

934
01:17:53,670 --> 01:17:57,650
would be on the 12th, and then we'll have it go into effect, I mean, it's required to go

935
01:17:57,650 --> 01:18:03,830
into effect at least 30 days after the second reading, we're going to have this go into effect

936
01:18:03,830 --> 01:18:11,790
on January 1st, and the meantime between the 12th and the 1st, we would be doing outreach to

937
01:18:11,790 --> 01:18:20,010
architects, we'll be having our own checklist that we would use and we'd share with the applicant

938
01:18:20,010 --> 01:18:24,970
so they can fill out that checklist so they can see what elements are required, and then we're

939
01:18:24,970 --> 01:18:30,030
going to see how well they work and what's the feedback that we've gotten from them and then make

940
01:18:30,030 --> 01:18:32,150
adjustments as needed.

941
01:18:34,440 --> 01:18:37,960
So tonight, we're asking you to do two things.

942
01:18:38,140 --> 01:18:46,740
One is to adopt the resolution that indicates that the project is exempt from sequo, adopting

943
01:18:46,740 --> 01:18:52,660
proposed objective design and development standards for these overlay areas that are in the

944
01:18:52,660 --> 01:18:57,780
general plan, and then repeal the city of Folsom multi-family design guidelines.

945
01:18:57,780 --> 01:19:17,200
And then the second action relates to the actual change to the design review portion of the ordinance of the zoning code, and that would be an, you know, the ordinance amending chapter 1706 to reference the new objective development of design standards and established this ministerial review process.

946
01:19:18,060 --> 01:19:22,820
So with that, that concludes my presentation and I am happy to answer any questions you may have.

947
01:19:23,700 --> 01:19:26,060
Okay. Thank you, Desmond. Are there questions for Desmond?

948
01:19:27,400 --> 01:19:31,760
I think I just had one as a result of your presentation.

949
01:19:32,500 --> 01:19:38,280
The resolution that it would take to amend the appendix once adopted, is that a city council

950
01:19:38,280 --> 01:19:38,860
resolution?

951
01:19:39,320 --> 01:19:39,480
Yeah.

952
01:19:39,600 --> 01:19:40,380
It would be a city council.

953
01:19:40,380 --> 01:19:46,180
So if staff sees there's something that's really not workable in the document we recommend

954
01:19:46,180 --> 01:19:49,940
to prove before, then you guys formulate a resolution.

955
01:19:49,940 --> 01:19:51,040
You don't come to us.

956
01:19:51,040 --> 01:19:58,140
Well, no, we actually would because this is under your purview, because it's part of it's referenced in the zoning curve.

957
01:19:58,220 --> 01:19:59,980
We would come back to you a demo.

958
01:20:00,000 --> 01:20:06,000
I'll justify the issue, ask for a recommendation of support for that resolution and then bring that to council.

959
01:20:07,380 --> 01:20:12,680
That's an easier step than going to you at the council twice, waiting 30 days and then, yeah.

960
01:20:12,820 --> 01:20:15,620
Right, right, right, right. So it just streamlines the process.

961
01:20:16,120 --> 01:20:18,280
Yeah, okay, very good.

962
01:20:18,960 --> 01:20:23,720
So no other questions for Desmond? I think this is a result of the thoroughness of last time's meeting.

963
01:20:24,340 --> 01:20:28,000
So yeah, good job. It's a late been a long labor of love.

964
01:20:28,000 --> 01:20:30,140
Thank you very much.

965
01:20:30,620 --> 01:20:32,860
Okay, is there anybody from the public?

966
01:20:32,960 --> 01:20:35,860
We will open public comment now on this item.

967
01:20:35,940 --> 01:20:40,200
Is there anybody from the public who wishes to comment on this item?

968
01:20:41,620 --> 01:20:43,820
I don't see droves of people coming to the microphones.

969
01:20:44,380 --> 01:20:46,720
So I will close public comment.

970
01:20:47,540 --> 01:20:49,420
And that leaves it to us, commissioners.

971
01:20:49,600 --> 01:20:51,340
Anybody want to kick us off?

972
01:20:56,540 --> 01:20:57,660
Why don't?

973
01:20:57,660 --> 01:20:59,360
One of us make a motion.

974
01:20:59,360 --> 01:21:04,040
And you want to bring the motion back up, Jasmine, it looks different from the one on our

975
01:21:04,040 --> 01:21:05,520
paper, but I'm assuming it's the same.

976
01:21:05,540 --> 01:21:06,500
It should be the same.

977
01:21:06,500 --> 01:21:11,800
Okay, so then I will go ahead and move to recommend that the City Council, a dock resolution

978
01:21:11,800 --> 01:21:19,040
number 11464, a resolution determining that the proposed project is exempt from sequa, adopting

979
01:21:19,040 --> 01:21:24,420
proposed objective development and design standards for certain overlay areas, and repealing

980
01:21:24,420 --> 01:21:30,220
the city of Folsom multi-family design guidelines. And number two, adopt ordinance number

981
01:21:30,220 --> 01:21:37,420
one three five seven and ordinance of the city of Folsom amending chapter 17.06 design review

982
01:21:37,420 --> 01:21:41,920
of the Folsom municipal code to reference the objective development and design standards

983
01:21:41,920 --> 01:21:47,520
and to establish a ministerial review process. The recommended approval is subject to the proposed

984
01:21:47,520 --> 01:21:52,420
findings, findings A through C. I still move. Is there a second?

985
01:21:53,220 --> 01:21:57,940
Seconded by Commissioner Barcelona. Is there any discussion on the motion on the floor?

986
01:21:58,520 --> 01:21:59,700
Hearing and seeing none?

987
01:21:59,940 --> 01:22:02,360
Stephanie, please call the rule. Commissioner Barcelona?

988
01:22:02,980 --> 01:22:03,240
Hi.

989
01:22:04,120 --> 01:22:04,720
Commissioner Hurst?

990
01:22:04,940 --> 01:22:05,320
Yes.

991
01:22:05,980 --> 01:22:06,700
Commissioner Hurra?

992
01:22:06,980 --> 01:22:07,380
Yes.

993
01:22:07,920 --> 01:22:08,540
Commissioner West?

994
01:22:08,780 --> 01:22:09,420
Yes.

995
01:22:10,040 --> 01:22:10,380
Commissioner Ross?

996
01:22:10,460 --> 01:22:11,920
Yes. Commissioner Leanie?

997
01:22:12,220 --> 01:22:12,560
Yes.

998
01:22:12,960 --> 01:22:13,480
Commissioner Reynolds?

999
01:22:13,880 --> 01:22:14,280
Yes.

1000
01:22:14,920 --> 01:22:21,220
Okay, that labor of love resulted in us approving it and handing it to you in a package for your birthday, doesn't it?

1001
01:22:21,300 --> 01:22:24,440
Congratulations. Sorry, we had to take you away from your family tonight.

1002
01:22:25,240 --> 01:22:28,020
All right, last up is the principal planner's report, Jessica.

1003
01:22:30,400 --> 01:22:31,600
Oh, my gosh. Okay.

1004
01:22:32,360 --> 01:22:34,720
I'm so principal planner report.

1005
01:22:35,960 --> 01:23:00,720
A couple of you know, because of your service on the start district commission, there was a approval or recommendation for approval related to taking minor permit reviews down to a staff level and some other kind of administrative changes to projects in there that's going to the city council on the 28th.

1006
01:23:00,720 --> 01:23:16,680
We are also taking a set of minor amendments and cleanups to our community development department user schedule on the 28th and then the odds are also heading over to the city council on the 28th.

1007
01:23:17,260 --> 01:23:23,660
So we have all sorts of stuff, but yeah all sorts of stuff going to the city council in two weeks.

1008
01:23:23,660 --> 01:23:28,660
The next planning commission meeting is scheduled for November 19th.

1009
01:23:29,800 --> 01:23:31,500
We have two potential items.

1010
01:23:32,360 --> 01:23:36,860
One is a consideration of the inclusionary housing ordinance.

1011
01:23:37,140 --> 01:23:38,180
Yep, getting a nod.

1012
01:23:39,320 --> 01:23:46,960
And then the other is the Hubod use permit for their facility that they're looking at it on a way.

1013
01:23:48,300 --> 01:23:59,820
And just, you know, request from staff that if you believe you're going to be absent, if you could let stuff know, or one of us, that's always helpful to make sure we have a quorum.

1014
01:24:00,580 --> 01:24:05,740
And then last month, design reviews have gone there a little bit of an uptick.

1015
01:24:05,960 --> 01:24:14,220
We approved at a staff level, two custom homes, two residential additions, two residential accessory structures and one EDU.

1016
01:24:14,220 --> 01:24:16,800
And that is a staff report. Thanks.

1017
01:24:18,360 --> 01:24:19,540
Okay, thank you very much, Jessica.

1018
01:24:20,300 --> 01:24:23,920
I'm sure there's is there anybody who'd like to bring up anything else under the good of the order.

1019
01:24:24,820 --> 01:24:29,420
Okay, with that, with seeing none, I am going to adjourn the meeting at 7.55. Thank you, everyone.