Name: Planning Commission Meeting - 10/15/2025
Uploaded: 2025-10-15T00:00:00Z
Duration: 1 h 24 min 29 s
Description: 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.

[0:03] Good evening. The planning commission of October 15th, 2025 will now come to order.

[0:10] Stephanie, we please call the rule to establish that we have a quorum today.

[0:15] Commissioner Barcelona.

[0:16] President.

[0:17] Commissioner Hurts.

[0:19] Here.

[0:20] Commissioner Hurrah.

[0:21] Commissioner West.

[0:23] Here.

[0:23] Commissioner Ross.

[0:25] Commissioner Laney. Here. Commissioner Reynolds.

[0:28] Here.

[0:45] Thank

[0:50] 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.

[1:05] So is there anyone here who would like to address the commission on anything that's not on tonight's agenda?

[1:12] Okay, hearing and seeing men will close to the Sun Communication Commissioners. That takes us to the minutes of

[1:20] September 17th, 2025 one short month ago, were there any concerns or corrections on the minutes?

[1:28] Any objection to a unanimous roll call to say they're approved?

[1:32] Okay, hearing none, that the minutes are deemed approved unanimously.

[1:38] So that brings us to item number one of new business.

[1:43] PC-19-00122 Comstock Drive tentative parcel map and determination that the project is exempt from sequa.

[1:53] With Josh Kincaid on the front lines, hi Josh.

[1:57] Good evening, Chair Reynolds, commissioners.

[2:05] All right.

[2:07] This is the one.

[2:08] This is the one.

[2:09] All right.

[2:10] Yes.

[2:10] The developments before each night is a four-lot,

[2:13] tentative parcel map located on Tomstock Drive.

[2:19] Here we see some photos of the project site.

[2:22] It's mostly flat on the south side.

[2:26] Here.

[2:27] with some slope on the north side of Comstock Drive.

[2:33] The project area is mostly undeveloped outside an existing home and a detached garage

[2:38] and otherwise contains some fence things you can see here in several mature trees.

[2:46] The project site is located on portions of three existing parcels,

[2:50] including the entirety of the 14 Comstock parcel.

[2:54] You can see in blue here the blue little faint.

[2:58] Comstock Drive runs up to the project site, the right of way itself runs up to the project site.

[3:07] And an access easement goes through the site and onto the parcels to the south east before it dead ends.

[3:15] Comstock Drive intersects with Bidwell Street to the north up here.

[3:21] And has commercial land on the corner.

[3:25] Here, excuse me, here and here.

[3:29] Before transitioning to mostly single family residences with a duplex beyond, on Comstock,

[3:37] the applicant purchased the 14 parcel and the life-shaped parcel that you can see here

[3:42] to the northeast, with the intent of developing a four-lot subdivision, and have recently

[3:49] had a land exchange approved by city council, which results in the applicant obtaining a portion of

[3:56] the city owned parcel, this triangular shape parcel here, to the northeast to create a more

[4:02] developable rectangular parcel shape. I'll see what that looks like here. So this map shows

[4:09] what the resultant parcels would look like after the parcel exchange. A parcel A is the

[4:14] The developers parcel, parcel B is the city's parcel.

[4:20] This was a very long process.

[4:22] I'm sure the applicant's going to test too.

[4:24] But we were finally able to get the exchange in front of Council recently.

[4:28] It was approved unanimously as it does also make the city's parcel,

[4:33] which is on our regional housing needs inventory, larger and more

[4:43] tonight gets approved. We have a proposed condition of approval that this land

[4:47] exchange in Montline Adjustment be finalized prior to recordation of the

[4:51] arson map.

[4:56] So with that background out of the way we can move on to the analysis of

[4:59] the 10-year-old TENERAL TENERAL TENERAL TENERAL.

[5:00] 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.

[5:17] The project site is located on a .91 acre area. It's in the R3 neighborhood apartment zoning district.

[5:27] The zoning allows for anywhere between a two family and four family residents on each parcel by right.

[5:35] Each residence is required to have between one and a half and two off street parking spaces,

[5:40] depending on how many residences are on each parcel.

[5:43] Development of the parcels would be subject to a future design review application.

[5:49] A general plan designation for this area is multi-family high density, which does not fully

[5:57] correspond to the R3 zoning, as it typically requires a higher density than what the R3

[6:02] can typically accommodate, especially at the smaller lot sizes. However, we do have a general

[6:08] plan policy in place that allows for development to occur under these circumstances, these

[6:12] same circumstances, as long as the project wouldn't interfere with the long-term development of the

[6:18] staff determine that this was the case for this map as the exchange actually helps the long-term

[6:24] development plans for the city's arena parcel and that the rest of Comstock drivers already built

[6:33] out and there's no no current development plans to do anything with those built out properties.

[6:40] There is, as I mentioned previously, an existing single-family residents and detached garage

[6:44] on the project site. They're pointed out on the map here. Here's the house. Here's the garage.

[6:50] The garage would have to be demolished prior to recordation of the map, as it can't be the primary

[6:55] structure on that lot. However, the house can stay up as is, since it was legally constructed in the late

[7:03] 1940s. There is, unfortunately, some discussion and staff report about requiring the house to either be

[7:08] demolished or have a garage added to it, but staff ultimately after that was written,

[7:12] determined that this was not required, but the discussion was inadvertently left in the staff report.

[7:18] The condition referenced in that discussion, the staff report has been removed, though, and there's no additional action.

[7:25] It needs to be taken about that, so I apologize for that.

[7:28] Excuse me.

[7:30] All right, so now looking at the post roadway improvements.

[7:34] As part of Staff's review of the map, we are requiring a right-of-way dedication through the parcel site.

[7:41] Through the project sites, excuse me, including a street and public utility easements,

[7:48] the fire department also noted that because Comstock is over 500 feet long and dead ends,

[7:54] it does require a secondary vehicle access for the fire department staff or emergency vehicle access or EVA.

[8:04] 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

[8:11] on the city site right here,

[8:16] since if our parcel ever does develop, it would require an access

[8:21] anyway be multi-family housing based on the size of the parcel,

[8:28] and it's currently proposed

[8:29] state that would also be a gate on the north of the EVA is shown here on the map that would

[8:37] only be accessed by the fire department.

[8:42] The applicant is also showing in the red-hashed area

[8:45] that you can see on the map here,

[8:48] how adequate fire truck turn around would be met.

[8:52] Given the dead end, as you can see,

[8:54] they'd be using a portion of the EVA to address that.

[8:57] The fire department has signed off on these preliminary plans.

[9:04] Moving on to the preliminary utility plan,

[9:07] water, electric, and sewer would all be connected to the proposed parcels via the extended

[9:13] Comstock Drive. Typically, we have new developments underground, new electric facilities,

[9:19] but the existing electrical on and surrounding the project site are all overhead poles.

[9:25] So it makes more sense in this case for the proposed project to continue that pattern,

[9:30] rather than attempting to just have one small area underground to when the rest is still

[9:33] of a ground.

[9:38] Now looking at the tree removal and mitigation plan. As part of the utilities

[9:42] in a roadway improvements, the applicant's proposal to remove several trees in and around

[9:47] the right of way and the EVA road, as can be seen here in red, staff typically requires

[9:53] that new development and install sidewalks for pedestrian safety and the applicant is showing

[9:57] a sidewalk on the south side of the extended...

[10:00] 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.

[10:12] Staff noted that outside of the commercial area near Bidwell Street, there were no other sidewalks on Combs.

[10:19] is as you may have seen when you, if you've driven down there. As such, we are willing to

[10:23] forego the sidewalk condition. In this case, if it doesn't mean saving those trees,

[10:28] we've created kind of a unique condition of approval to address this issue where if the trees are

[10:34] saved, throughout the development activities, the sidewalk would not be required, however,

[10:39] if the trees have to be removed based on these activities, the appropriate

[10:43] tree mitigation fees would be paid and the sidewalk would also need to be installed at the

[10:49] applicant's cost.

[10:50] Hey Josh, before you move on from that slide, could you know which trees are the big ones?

[10:56] Ooh, I've got them numbered in the staffer part. I believe it was folks, hello. 434,

[11:04] 4, 4. Let me check

[11:07] the staffer part. Okay, well, I've got the number that we're going to do that when we talk about it,

[11:10] But I, during questions, but I just want to make sure that I wondered if they were all

[11:14] clustered together, if they were got it or they're part of it.

[11:16] Yeah, we can figure that out.

[11:17] Thank you.

[11:19] I don't know if you want to look.

[11:20] It's 434, 436 and 440.

[11:23] Yes, so 434, the roots here, 436 here, 440s, this is a big guy here.

[11:32] Thanks.

[11:33] We sure.

[11:33] Thank you.

[11:39] All right.

[11:39] Now, I'm moving on to Comstock Drive itself.

[11:42] We did recently hear from some of the neighbors on Comstock expressing concern about additional

[11:48] cars on Comstock that would be associated with the project once it's built out and those

[11:54] letters have been shared with the commission. The issue generally stems from Comstock being

[11:58] a quite narrow street as you may have seen. I believe it's about 25 feet wide the street itself

[12:04] at this intersection here with Bidwell. As you can see here there are often several cars

[12:10] parked at the intersection along Comstock during business hours. Some even around the intersection

[12:16] as you can see on this image. It appears that most of the vehicles are likely associated with

[12:22] the commercial businesses on the corner, which include the glass shop and the left and the

[12:28] quasi-tut and the auto repair shop that you can see on the right here. Neighbors have stated that

[12:34] only one car can often get through this portion of Comstock at any given time when the

[12:40] these cars are parked like this, and turns off of Combs stock driver, also often treacherous

[12:47] due to reduced visibility at the corners because of the cars all being parked here.

[12:52] Based on these concerns, we are having code enforcement staff reach out to the business

[12:56] owners to see what they can do to get cars associated with their businesses away from

[13:02] these intersections.

[13:03] Public work staff is also actively looking at this portion of Combs stock to see what kinds

[13:07] potential hazards that they observe and what measures can be taken to alleviate them, whether that

[13:14] means a no parking zones, striping or something of that nature. We do have public works

[13:18] director Rebecca Neves here tonight who can speak to those efforts. However, because that would be

[13:26] a city-led effort, we did not include anything on to this effect as a condition of approval on the

[13:31] project, though we could certainly work with the commission to craft one that would be appropriate

[13:36] if the applicant is agreeable to that.

[13:41] So with that, staff does recommend a approval of the proposed

[13:44] tenant of parcel map.

[13:45] As conditions, and we can take questions from the commission

[13:48] at this point.

[13:50] OK, commissioners, do you have questions for our staff?

[13:55] Commissioner Lainey?

[13:59] I understand that under normal circumstances,

[14:03] we'd like to have sidewalks in the area,

[14:06] by just given the kind of uniqueness of calm stock drive.

[14:12] Is there are there any thoughts about, you know,

[14:15] if you can't save these trees just to replant trees

[14:18] instead of having just one strip of sidewalk

[14:22] and one kind of far down on the street,

[14:24] it seems like a little bit of an awkward section

[14:28] to require there to be sidewalk.

[14:30] I would, in my opinion,

[14:32] but I would think that if we're going to lose trees

[14:35] wouldn't be nice to just exchange and say that we need to have trees replaced if we're not able

[14:40] to save those heritage trees instead of having just this random piece of strip of sidewalk

[14:45] and on one area.

[14:47] So we do have possible.

[14:49] Right.

[14:50] The way the tree mitigation works, it would either be paying the correct me if I'm wrong

[14:54] here.

[14:55] It would either be paying the tree mitigation fee for trees of that size and then...

[15:00] 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.

[15:20] 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.

[15:29] 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.

[15:39] The conditions were worded loosely enough to where we could kind of figure that part out as we went through the design too.

[15:45] 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.

[15:57] 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.

[16:15] and you know, it could be replanting or sidewalk, we might be able to think of that.

[16:21] I mean, honestly, we're open to either approach.

[16:24] It was tough wanting to condition it with a sidewalk, even though that that was kind of our city's standard.

[16:30] But it was tough kind of conditioning at that way.

[16:33] Because we knew that there wasn't sidewalk any place else.

[16:38] This neighborhood is, you know, I really do have to extend my gratitude to the residents that have chimed in.

[16:44] because this neighborhood really is very unique within the city.

[16:49] It's very rural and character,

[16:51] and it's kind of like a little precious pocket.

[16:56] And so I really appreciate the,

[16:58] I mean, I've seen the applicants really making a lot

[17:00] of good faith effort in terms of trying to come up

[17:03] with a thoughtful project while still being addressing

[17:06] some of the cities housing needs.

[17:08] So we kind of wrestled with a little bit of,

[17:11] this one took a while to get to this point too.

[17:13] So, but I mean, we're up into what the commissions desires are and I believe the applicant

[17:20] is here this evening and so we can kind of talk through it a little bit as well.

[17:26] I think I would just love to see that at least that be an option, especially if you want

[17:31] to continue to have the character of that neighborhood, you know, have that kind of historic

[17:37] feel and that role feel feels like going down or road and then all of a sudden there's

[17:41] this strip of sidewalk, if the trees can't be saved, 20 years now might have been nice to

[17:49] have had trees replace trees instead of concrete replace trees. Yeah, I mean I'm not opposed to

[17:55] that either we kind of followed the what we require everywhere else, but I mean I will tell you

[18:01] we talked about this quite a bit and I kind of wrestled with it was like you know kind of the

[18:06] at my head that kept coming up was the sidewalk to nowhere, and I didn't want that for this little pocket,

[18:13] either, but I mean, I'm I'm amendable to making that change.

[18:17] That's a good option. Yeah. I'm going to show our slana. Thank you. I do have a problem with the sidewalk

[18:24] that goes to nowhere, and it seems like the biggest concern on Comstock is the width of the roadway

[18:35] being so narrow. And I think you mentioned here in the presentation that

[18:41] these new parcels would have two on-street parking spots as well.

[18:48] Between one and a half and two, if it's a duplex on each parcel, those units are required to

[18:55] have two off-street parking spaces each. If they're beyond, they're three to four unit.

[18:59] um, uh, parcels and they have to have one and a half on spaces per unit. Well, then, uh,

[19:05] I mean, my suggestion would be why not eliminate the sidewalk and make provision for a wider

[19:12] roadway in front of those new parcels. So, so you can have a on street parking, because it is really

[19:19] difficult. Everybody ends up going down that street when they, uh, when they go to full some motorworks

[19:27] to try to get out. And then they have to turn around and come all the way back. It is really

[19:35] difficult to navigate that area. Commissioner, could I clarify the new section of street will

[19:45] be our standard residential width, right Josh? Yeah. So it actually will be wider than what's

[19:51] there exists right now. Right. So we've got the, oh, point it on the map here. We've got the proposed

[19:56] 36 foot right of way, including that.

[20:00] Mr. Street with another? From 23 to 36, then.

[20:03] Which is its own potential issue. But at least in this area, you should have the proper space for

[20:11] the two on-site, yeah, the street parking.

[20:17] But on-site means on the parcel, not on the street, right?

[20:22] No, I mean, it would be through the parcel, so it would be right of way that includes extension

[20:28] of Comstock Drive, and then beyond that, it would be just this private road easement that

[20:34] currently.

[20:34] But if we're requiring on site parking, that means each parcel has to have parking on

[20:39] their parcel, not on the street.

[20:41] Exactly.

[20:42] Yeah, it would be off, the two spaces, the one and a half to two spaces would be off street.

[20:48] So garage driveway, that sort of thing.

[20:50] Is this the residents proposed as part of this project to require to provide two off-site

[20:55] 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.

[21:09] 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.

[21:17] Yes, we can make that clarification. Okay, yeah.

[21:21] Is that answer your question, Commissioner?

[21:24] I'm not sure.

[21:26] So, if we're reading it with the understanding that that's supposed to say off-street,

[21:31] it's two parking stalls either in a driveway or a covered space.

[21:36] And then the way I read it then is also allowing one-and-a-half on-street parking.

[21:42] Okay, so three-and-a-half in total.

[21:43] No, no.

[21:44] The parcels are important.

[21:46] 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

[21:54] 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

[22:02] And then it's it'd be two off street parking spaces that have to be covered if it's a duplex

[22:10] Yeah, this is why I'm not the planner. He's way better at this than I am

[22:14] Okay,

[22:17] so the stream's 36 feet wide and the parking is so hard to be on the lots and not the street.

[22:22] Yep, so this is going to be the easiest section to turn around in the whole street.

[22:27] And we also have the portion of the EVA that the fire trucks of using the turn around to also accomplish additional turn around.

[22:33] So you can have it zone for up to a fourplex, right?

[22:38] And if it's, if four plexus built, it will have two parking spaces.

[22:45] The four plexus would have one or two half spaces per unit.

[22:49] So one and a half times four.

[22:51] See, thanks. Okay, thanks, man.

[22:53] Okay, all right, thank you.

[22:56] Go ahead, commission herra.

[22:58] So will there be parking on the street or available?

[23:01] If people are driving in, they can say they're coming to visit.

[23:05] there will be you wide enough for people to park on the side of the street.

[23:09] Considering the 36 foot, right of way, Rebecca, it's standard for a long parking

[23:16] both sides, yeah.

[23:18] Yeah, okay.

[23:19] We have our own street parking with that width, sorry.

[23:21] Oh, no, you're fine.

[23:23] So for units, so you're looking at there's a potential for 16 dwellings between these four units.

[23:29] If they can squeeze a fourplex onto each of these lots, they are pretty, at least the three lower

[23:34] lots or pretty small. I know the applicant initially wanted to do single family on all four

[23:40] lots, single family is not allowed by right in the R3 zone. Unfortunately, even though that's

[23:45] the vast majority of what's on Comps. Drive and so the duplex would be the next least intensive

[23:53] type of type of unit on each of these lots. And then just a quick question about on parcel one.

[23:58] And I believe this is out of his historic district,

[24:02] but has there been any evaluation of the existing home

[24:05] that is there any historical significance?

[24:08] Not that we could find, we did evaluate that.

[24:10] We reached out to the History Museum,

[24:13] Sachs State, who has their own resource,

[24:15] and none of them had any information on that house.

[24:19] And it was a long-term inventory as well.

[24:21] So we didn't see anything that.

[24:23] Those are the questions you get when you get stuck

[24:25] on a historic.

[24:27] Thanks Josh.

[24:29] Okay anybody else before I ask a few okay um as far as the trees go um I got stopped by that

[24:39] condition because I thought it was seemed very wishy washi and I'd seem like we're either

[24:43] going to tell them they need to protect the trees or but but this one just seems like okay well

[24:49] if you destroy these trees we'll then go ahead but we're going to make you put a sidewalk in it just

[24:55] Okay, I mean I just I don't know because so I guess my question is

[25:00] Is it – I mean, is it – could we condition the project on preserving the trees?

[25:08] We can certainly condition that we don't require the sidewalk regardless of what happens.

[25:15] Actually, preserving those trees, I believe, that's reasonable.

[25:19] So I think if I understand the situation correctly, they're already – they already have to be preserved under the FMC

[25:27] because they meet the definition of heritage trees.

[25:30] Two of them, two of them, two of them, two of them.

[25:31] So, but if the commission wanted to basically overwrite that

[25:35] and say, no, these trees have to be preserved,

[25:38] I think we can do that.

[25:40] And is that appropriate at this stage

[25:43] at the parcelmav stage or at the design stage

[25:46] when they come in with their plans?

[25:49] Because I mean, we don't really know yet

[25:51] what's going to be built there.

[25:53] What?

[25:54] Right. And the designer view may be a staff level.

[25:57] decision depending on how large, if it's a duplex, those are staff level.

[26:04] So I feel like it'd make more sense on the map.

[26:08] But that would just have to be carried over if the developer does the parcel map

[26:13] and then sells the lots, then the next folks would have to be, you know, of course, the

[26:25] 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.

[26:41] 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.

[26:53] because it's completely crazy that they couldn't come in and do single family there.

[26:58] You know, it's just very...

[26:59] It's unbelievable.

[27:00] And comfortable that this is happening.

[27:02] You know, we're having a deal with this.

[27:06] Yes.

[27:06] It doesn't as a comment.

[27:13] There's a...

[27:14] There's a couple areas of the city that have this thinking systems.

[27:18] We also have a down-along-cibly street where it's got this apartment,

[27:23] You know, multi-family designation, but a lot of the homes along there are homes or duplexes.

[27:30] So we have a similar, it gives us to say there's a couple areas of the city like this.

[27:39] And I think some of this may stem from some of the rezoning efforts that we did back around 2000

[27:47] and when we were having to rezone land to allow for more multi-family development,

[27:55] enforcement, as a result of challenges from the state and from legal services and other

[28:01] California and their lawsuit. The challenge that staff runs into is that for those

[28:08] folks that are happy with the home that they have, they don't have any problem with us changing

[28:15] the land use or zoning designation back to the appropriate designation. But those folks that maybe

[28:23] want to sell their home or want to do something different with their property, they don't want to

[28:28] see their property down zone because in their point of view, well, then you can do less with it

[28:34] and it's less valuable. We often run into that kind of dilemma when we try to go back and fix these

[28:40] of things. And that's sort of the historic district in the nineties. Yeah. So just some context around

[28:46] kind of the difficulty of actually going back and cleaning this stuff up. To you and I, it looks

[28:53] pretty simple. There's single family homes there. It should be single families zoning,

[28:57] but in reality trying to go back and unravel that, you know, pull it back to what's on the ground

[29:04] is sometimes trickier than because then we're now we're all of a sudden taking away somebody's

[29:09] Right. No, that's a very interesting point, doesn't it? Yeah, they're property actually is more valuable with this designation

[29:15] And it's a potentially a general plan amendment as well to to make that happen. So secret implications to that

[29:22] They he just piggybacking off that question. Josh that general plan designation is that

[29:28] 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?

[29:34] Where did that boundary drop? It's I believe it's all of the residential parcels on Comstock

[29:39] I'd have to see the zone out.

[29:40] Our designated multi-family high-density.

[29:50] So I had asked, if we split this parcel up, it wouldn't be amenable for high-density

[29:56] multi-family development.

[29:58] So

[30:00] So I'm wondering if the city has allocated rena numbers to this parcel. And if we end up reducing what we, if there

[30:07] has to be some changes, if we end up splitting this lot, splitting the city own law? No, sorry. This, this,

[30:13] 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.

[30:24] are not afraid. Yeah. Okay.

[30:26] Potentially underutilized land for a

[30:28] 14 bit. Okay. Be on that. Yeah.

[30:34] On that issue,

[30:36] this the whole kind of the parcel map and the

[30:41] the transfer of one of our

[30:44] a portion of our parcels to to them and to the

[30:48] to the owners and the owners transfer of a part of their

[30:51] parcel actually ends up resulting in in better

[30:54] parcels for both parties, ours was kind of a triangular shape, which was pretty difficult

[31:01] to develop. This actually makes that that property more developable for the city, if the city

[31:08] develops, it's developing or sells it or leases it at some point in the future for the development

[31:14] on housing on Riley Street. Thank you. And then so the EVA access road, we've talked about

[31:23] developing the city parcel and access to that parcel being off of this UVA access.

[31:28] I think there was concern from the community about there are potential for the public to drive

[31:33] through that and then on to construct to cut through. And is there some ideas that staff have

[31:39] if we do develop this to avoid that potential future issue? At the time that development is proposed

[31:46] and certainly something we would take into consideration as part of our analysis space.

[31:52] 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

[32:00] Let's see here. Yeah, I

[32:04] Be at this one here

[32:06] 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

[32:15] Commissioner Hurst

[32:16] Hi, Josh. I'm also curious about the commissioner,

[32:21] lenient, I visited the Combsock Drive site and from my recollection,

[32:27] there was a difference in grade between Riley Street and Combsock.

[32:31] So to what extent are there concerns with cutting into the land to

[32:36] develop this EVA and we'll have any negative effects on parking on the street?

[32:42] Oh, luckily inside on that.

[32:46] We do have an option to kind of ramp it up a little bit.

[32:49] It would have slopes coming off of the EVA line.

[32:53] It's or the road itself, but it's not an impossible feat.

[32:56] There's enough distance from Comstock to Riley to meet that grade.

[33:02] Thank you.

[33:02] And then to the extent that that grade will be additional covered land.

[33:08] Perhaps intended or not, I would imagine.

[33:10] and there would likely be some parking on that EVA at some point.

[33:14] Has that been considered in the...

[33:16] Typically for EVAs, we wouldn't have it

[33:18] allow for parking.

[33:20] It's usually red zone to end no parking.

[33:23] And then our municipal code actually

[33:25] delegates the ability of the city manager

[33:27] to design the areas in no parking through records,

[33:30] which we do on EVAs throughout the town.

[33:32] We have, you know, the alleyways in the historic district

[33:37] as an area where we've had to implement those rules

[33:40] guidelines to allow for solid waste trucks to go through, and we do allow that we go through

[33:48] what I call like the three-legged stool is your education, your engineering, and your enforcement

[33:53] when we are dealing with parking concerns. But we typically, you know, parking is not allowed on

[34:02] 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.

[34:18] Right. Okay. So I think that also exacerbates the park or the the wip because existing residents have to

[34:25] if they are if there are two or three car family, they are liable to have cars on the street. Right.

[34:31] Yes, I I believe that was discussed in the staff report, but not in the presentation, but yeah, I think the

[34:36] having one one car garage definitely leads to additional street parking. I believe the residents concerns were more

[34:44] about the street parking closer to bidwell street more than along the the deeper parts of

[34:53] of Comstock, but it certainly could exacerbate that a bit, and given the...

[35:00] The parking requirement. Now in place, we don't anticipate that the new development will lead to

[35:07] exacerbated on street park.

[35:08] Right. Right.

[35:10] 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.

[35:20] Sorry, Bidwallon concert.

[35:21] 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,

[35:29] part right in front of the curb return. Amazing. I just really want to clarify for everybody's

[35:35] education that that's actually illegal to park that way. California Vehicle Code does not

[35:40] allow parking in or at ramps and in crosswalks. It's actually a California Vehicle Code Section

[35:48] 2250. So we'll be doing that education part of that three-legged stool here pretty soon with

[35:54] businesses. And then also as I mentioned earlier, there is provision in Title 10 of our Municipal Code

[36:01] that does allow us to designate areas as no parking whenever we see it becoming a potential

[36:05] safety hazard. I would qualify this as one we made the decision as staff when this law came into

[36:12] effect. It's fairly new. When this law came into effect to not paint the curves of every

[36:19] 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.

[36:29] 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.

[36:38] 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.

[36:43] 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.

[36:51] That's an effective tool that we might be the type of thing to do there to so people know about.

[36:56] And I'm not opposed to, you know, having talking to our streets guys and seeing about getting a post up like that.

[37:02] We'll go and talk to the, to the businesses and then we can, we can look at getting that in place.

[37:07] Okay. Well, that's good.

[37:09] Okay. Any other questions for our staff? Commissioner Barcelona.

[37:11] So I have an R3 question, can you, can you meet the two family criteria by a single family dwelling with an ADU?

[37:24] ADU's don't count towards the disc.

[37:28] Okay.

[37:30] All right.

[37:31] Okay.

[37:31] Is everybody done in questioning staff?

[37:34] Okay.

[37:34] With that, thank you, Josh.

[37:36] Okay.

[37:36] We really put you through it.

[37:37] And thank you, Rebecca.

[37:39] Okay.

[37:39] Okay, now we'll hear from the applicant to the applicant, please come on up and make your

[37:44] case,

[37:47] come on up and introduce yourself, hi.

[37:50] I'm Patricia Agelie.

[37:51] My husband and I bought this property back, I believe it was spring of 2017 and soon

[37:57] out for that started thinking about what we would do with it and how and all that and contacted

[38:03] TST Engineering and since then we've spent a lot, a lot of time, effort, money on, you know,

[38:17] arborists and surveyors and city fees and engineers, and we were assured that this would

[38:26] be all finalized before Steve Kron retired.

[38:30] That didn't happen.

[38:31] Fortunately, with the good health of Rebecca

[38:34] Neves and Josh Kingcade, we've gotten it to this point.

[38:39] We think that on the map has gone,

[38:41] so I'll stop referring to their screen.

[38:43] But we think that it will be a great improvement

[38:46] to the neighborhood and to the city.

[38:50] And our little surprise that there's

[38:52] in any, you know, pushed back from neighbors.

[38:57] But the EVA will make the neighborhood safer,

[39:02] allowing for emergency vehicle or fire truck right now

[39:06] is to pull down the street.

[39:07] I guess they'd have to back out.

[39:10] The concerns about the EVA being a pass through really

[39:16] is not a concern, because it will be gated off.

[39:19] As far as the parking goes,

[39:21] I do want to mention that, you know, when these homes were built people did have fewer cars

[39:27] and they are small homes with single garages, but a lot of the neighbors have converted

[39:37] those one-car garages to living space with or without permits and I would say quite a few

[39:46] without permits. And that has resulted in a lot of the parking being moved from the garage,

[39:53] you know, and from the driveway out into the street. So we won't be doing that, our property.

[40:00] We'll be, of course, structures would be constructed according to current code with the parking that Josh suggested.

[40:08] 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.

[40:16] And as far as the commercial property, that does need to be addressed. And we don't think that a commercial business,

[40:25] you know, overflowing into the street should create any restriction on residential development.

[40:32] So we think it will be an improvement and will increase property values and look nice.

[40:39] That's all I really have to say, but if you have questions, shoot.

[40:42] Thank you. Thank you very much. Any questions of the applicant?

[40:47] Okay. How is your what's your feeling on trees?

[40:50] I mean, if you could.

[40:51] Could you say.

[40:51] We would say right now since we don't really know exactly.

[40:56] I know there's been some talk about, if it's going to be two units for units or whatever,

[41:00] and we haven't gotten to that point yet because we've just been focused on, let's skip this

[41:05] map, and then go from there. Initially we had thought, you know, well maybe we'll just do single family,

[41:11] okay, well that's not an option. So the question about single family with an ADU,

[41:16] we've thought about, well maybe we could make it look like a single family with an inlaw like a,

[41:21] like a second unit that would be smaller. So it won't look like we're not trying to build a big,

[41:25] apartment complex on this little street. And so we don't really know in the end what we're going

[41:33] to do and how we'll develop it. So we'd like to say well let's save the trees for now

[41:38] because why cut them down and then later say oh we could have saved that tree. So let's keep

[41:42] the trees for now and then later when it comes time to develop and we see oh you know drive way

[41:49] has to go there the tree has to go. Then we would pay the mitigation fees and there would be

[41:53] some trees planted, whether it's someplace else in the city or there or whatever.

[41:57] And if the trees could be saved, then they would be saved.

[42:00] We also agree that, you know, a sidewalk to know where it's kind of goofy.

[42:04] I mean, I think the thinking on that is that if we had to put a sidewalk now,

[42:09] then later on, somebody else wants to do something to their property,

[42:12] they would have to put a sidewalk, and then so there would be, like, sidewalk, no sidewalk,

[42:16] sidewalk, no sidewalk, and eventually 50 years or 100 years from now there would be all sidewalks.

[42:21] 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

[42:29] no sidewalks at all and suddenly you've got these new structures with sidewalks or no structures with sidewalks.

[42:36] So, we're just fine with saving the trees and not having sidewalks and then take it as it comes.

[42:42] If the trees have to go later, we'll pay mitigation and plant some trees.

[42:46] If they don't, we like to keep them.

[42:48] understand. Okay, anything else for the applicant. Okay, thank you very much for coming up, sure.

[42:53] All right. Okay, now is the time for public comment. So we are going to open public comment.

[43:01] 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.

[43:10] So that we have record for the public record of your spelling of your name.

[43:13] 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.

[43:22] 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.

[43:31] 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.

[43:39] So, you're welcome to come take the floor, but yes, if you give us your full name for the record.

[43:46] I can. My name is Joe Kingsley. I live at 815 Comstock Drive. And I'd like to say, we have none of the

[43:57] people on the street that I have spoken to nor have any problem with the building of the duplexes.

[44:06] we think that's fine and I agree. I think it will increase the value. Our problem is with the width

[44:13] of our street. And yes, we do have to park on the street. We have a garage. But even if it hadn't

[44:22] been converted years ago before we bought the house, you can't fit a modern vehicle in it. It was built

[44:30] in 1959.

[44:33] And I know Bob's house was built in 1947.

[44:42] And Bob wasn't that street originally a driveway

[44:49] to the, to the end of the street

[44:53] where there was a mining company,

[44:57] a ton of mining company from what?

[45:00] What I've heard about the history of the street, it was a driveway, and so Comstock Drive came about.

[45:08] 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.

[45:21] 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.

[45:34] Our concern then is the width of the street and the amount of traffic.

[45:39] Generally only one car can go through if there are two cars parked on one on each side of the street.

[45:47] 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.

[46:00] 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.

[46:13] So that's all I have to see.

[46:17] Thank you, Mrs. Kingley.

[46:18] Is there anybody else who would like to address the commission

[46:20] on this issue?

[46:25] Hearing and saying, men, we will close public comment.

[46:30] Commissioners, that leads it to us to deliberate.

[46:35] Anybody want to kick us off?

[46:37] Commissioner Hurst.

[46:40] I think for me, I don't see a strong argument for the sidewalks.

[46:45] given that it sounds like it wouldn't help with the parking situation.

[46:49] There would be more concern with the tree situation.

[46:54] So I would say I'm just in favor of there being no sidewalks.

[47:03] Commissioner Lenny.

[47:05] I agree with that.

[47:07] I also would like there to be to your point.

[47:11] It seems a little wish you washer.

[47:12] We really focused on saving the heritage trees and saying do everything you can to do that.

[47:19] I would like to see it be a little stronger in that direction.

[47:24] The sidewalk thing.

[47:25] I didn't think of the purpose.

[47:27] It just seems very awkward to insert that into this neighborhood.

[47:32] To maybe what we could do is throw out the sidewalk.

[47:36] But the beauty of it is they haven't figured out their design yet.

[47:40] So design can take into account saving the trees.

[47:44] I think that issue is whether we want a mandate that the trees be saved.

[47:49] But I think I like where you're headed.

[47:52] I'm just going to clarify, when you say trees,

[47:54] you mean those specific ones that have been,

[47:56] that's in the direction.

[47:58] I think that's in the direction.

[47:59] So it's like three, I think.

[48:01] Well, two areas trees is what I hear in the trees.

[48:04] And for some reason, the other one was fairly nice tree, I guess.

[48:08] There it was.

[48:09] It was a good shape.

[48:10] Yes, it wasn't a large enough.

[48:13] The trunk width wasn't large enough to be considered a heritage tree

[48:16] and the species wasn't either there.

[48:18] But it was rather large of it.

[48:19] You call it out because it's pretty big and it's healthy, right?

[48:22] Yes, that's the numbers looked at.

[48:24] The trees in there.

[48:24] Those are the three that she identified.

[48:27] Because I mean, I also think preserving trees tends to be good for a property value,

[48:31] you know, in addition to there's owning and general plan or general plan designation.

[48:38] It's going to be interesting Ross.

[48:40] I have no problem removing sidewalk requirement because I've run into that a lot sometimes

[48:45] in communities where it's just a dead end of a public walkway or a bike trail and then where do

[48:51] you go from here? And this would be, it doesn't connect to anything. So I have, I see no reason

[48:56] to have it. I also wanted to just quickly say to staff, please urgently fix the problem at

[49:01] Comstock because I took my daughter down that street to see this during rush hour. So I could

[49:06] myself experience the traffic and I blocked traffic with my, uh, Subaru and someone tried to

[49:13] and probably my neighbors, I'm so sorry, that was me that didn't let you get into your

[49:16] streets because there were trucks on both sides. Now I thought you couldn't park at a stop

[49:21] sign. You can't, and I actually have an email up I'm already sending to my streets guys,

[49:26] okay, because I think that would definitely clear up at least. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah,

[49:30] I mean, I think it's just helpful for the businesses to kind of be situationally aware of

[49:35] what they're causing to, because it's not a flattering look for them either, right? So, okay, thank

[49:39] 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.

[49:48] Yeah, I was one of the people that had to go down the street to turn around and it's rough.

[49:52] Yeah, it's really rough.

[49:54] Okay.

[49:56] Okay. Anybody else?

[49:57] I'm going to win.

[50:01] So, I already voiced my anti-sidewalk position. I'm a little concerned about mandating the trees right now.

[50:10] 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.

[50:22] I don't see how that's going to make those parcels.

[50:25] It could make it invisible in certain circumstances.

[50:28] 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.

[50:39] So Josh, do you feel that our current language at least emphasizes that the trees should attempt to be protected?

[50:47] Does that cover that? And then when design review comes in, I mean the applicants hearing this concern.

[50:52] And so, I mean, when design review comes in, do we have adequate grounds to,

[51:00] 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.

[51:07] So the way the condition currently reads, mentions those three trees and states that if they are retained and protected through construction activity.

[51:18] the sidewalk should not be shall not be required. However, if they are removed or damaged,

[51:27] then to the point where the city of Arbor's determines that they would need to be removed.

[51:31] The sidewalk shall be constructed as shown and the three mitigation shall be paid basically.

[51:39] So, I think if I chair Reynolds, I think so our tree preservation ordinance already requires

[51:46] protection of the heritage trees, which isn't all of the trees that were under

[51:50] consideration. But if the commission looks at condition of approval 22, I do

[51:55] think it might be sufficient to cover the issues that are under consideration right

[52:00] now. So at least one option is to potentially delete condition of approval 23 and

[52:06] maintain condition 22, and that could get us potentially, I think, to what's under

[52:13] or serritate out onto that?

[52:16] We made 23 in replace it with something stating

[52:21] that no sidewalk shall be included on the 10-bit parcel map.

[52:25] If that's, if we're saying, no to the sidewalk regardless

[52:30] of what happens with the trees, then we could potentially

[52:33] replace condition 23 with that.

[52:37] Yeah, we got to deal with the sidewalk issue too.

[52:40] So, but I'm not sure, do we want to call out?

[52:43] 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?

[52:59] 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.

[53:07] So that's the normal process that's covered by a condition 22, and the normal pre-preservation

[53:13] ordinance would cover the arboris getting to say, don't get rid of those trees.

[53:18] I think I could call it attention to condition 15 too, because we actually site deferred

[53:23] improvements, and we specifically call out including sidewalks too.

[53:27] So we do say prior to recording the parcel map, the underapplicant shall enter into deferred

[53:31] improvement agreement with the city, identifying public improvements to be constructed, including

[53:35] sidewalks and undergrounding of dry utilities.

[53:38] The owner applicant shall be provide security applicable

[53:40] to the city guarantee and construction of the improvements.

[53:45] So one thing I want us to kind of captures,

[53:46] we did briefly talk about the undergrounding of dry utilities.

[53:50] We felt that that wasn't necessary.

[53:52] So we may want to capture that too.

[53:55] And then in this one, we would need to delete the including sidewalk.

[53:59] I mean, I would just say, perhaps the suggestion

[54:01] would be to revise that condition to say,

[54:03] identifying public improvements to be constructed period and eliminating the

[54:08] including sidewalks and undergrounding or dry utilities.

[54:12] Does that sound like a reasonable approach and then we can kind of address

[54:15] condition 23 then to pull out the sidewalk and that route?

[54:20] Question mark?

[54:22] Yeah, that makes sense to me.

[54:23] Okay, that makes sense to me too.

[54:29] I pulled the tree removal mitigation plan up again to also note that you'll see 436 and 440

[54:36] are not shown on here as being removed.

[54:40] It's the city arborist in reviewing these plans

[54:44] had concerns that because of their proximity to the sidewalk

[54:48] that they would necessitate removal

[54:51] because of that sidewalk.

[54:52] So as shown on this plan here, they're not

[54:54] those two are not shown as being removed on their plans.

[54:58] It's just based on our analysis.

[55:00] We would have had to have been with the sidewalk in place.

[55:04] Okay.

[55:05] Before thought.

[55:07] What sounds like everybody's feeling like that type of motion. So we're talking about the motion with the amendment to condition 15.

[55:18] So let's just put a motion on the table. How about that and make sure we do it, right?

[55:22] Does somebody want to do that for us and then we can go from there?

[55:26] All right, I always have fun trying to do that.

[55:29] There's a couple of conditions that we've wanted to make sure before, if that's fine.

[55:36] So, a condition 15 striking the including sidewalks on the ground of dry utilities, correct?

[55:44] Condition 19, striking the mention of sidewalks from condition 19, and then replacing condition 23 with no sidewalk shall be included on the tender.

[55:58] personal map. It was everything that we discussed here. I think we want to remove 23 altogether.

[56:03] And there's like no point to it without the sidewalks, right? Remove and replace. There's currently

[56:07] a sidewalk showing on the tentative parcel and absolutely want to ensure that, you know,

[56:11] if we're saying the tentative parcel maps approve, we want to ensure that that sidewalk is not included.

[56:18] That's part of the parcel map. So 23 will become a whole different condition about sidewalks.

[56:25] Yeah, a condition that would say no sidewalks shall be included on the tentative parcel map, something to that to please.

[56:32] Excuse me, on the on the parcel map.

[56:35] Okay.

[56:37] I may suggest.

[56:40] 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.

[56:49] 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.

[57:09] I think we're just going to strike all of that all together.

[57:11] And actually three will just become something along the lines of remove the requirement for a sidewalk from the tentative parcel map.

[57:18] We just want it gone.

[57:19] We're not going to call the trees anymore, yeah.

[57:22] Okay.

[57:22] Go for it, commissioner.

[57:23] Okay.

[57:24] On condition 19, do we want to remove the underground infrastructure requirement also?

[57:28] Since we don't want them to do that anymore?

[57:30] Yes.

[57:32] Oh, I'm 15.

[57:34] That's on 19 also.

[57:35] 15 and 19 both have those things.

[57:37] Yeah, so I'll remove it from both.

[57:40] Well, undergrad infrastructure would be, uh, sewer.

[57:44] sewer, oh, okay, so we don't want to get rid of that one.

[57:47] Okay, dry.

[57:48] So we do have existing underground utilities.

[57:50] We're not going to run a sewer service on top.

[57:52] It wouldn't be standards if that helps any.

[57:56] But I think the context of that was intended to be for dry utilities.

[57:59] Okay.

[58:00] Yeah,

[58:05] so I mean, I guess I could leave underground infrastructure

[58:08] because it says just in accordance with what the city of Falson wants so it doesn't hurt

[58:12] anything to have that one in there. Right. So you just do it out of 15.

[58:16] All right. Here we go. Thank you. We have to confirm staff's determination

[58:23] that comes out by a tentative parcel map. Project is exempt from Sikla and approve a tentative

[58:29] parcel map for the project PC-19-001-22 based on the findings included in the report findings

[58:36] through N and subject the attached conditions of approval, conditions 1 through 28 with the following

[58:42] changes in condition 15 and removing everything after 2B constructed, so removing the section

[58:50] including sidewalks and undergrounding of dry utilities to condition 19, striking the word sidewalks

[59:00] and striking all of the existing condition 23 and replacing it with a condition to

[59:06] remove the requirement for the sidewalk from the tentative parcel map.

[59:10] Beautifully done. We have a motion on the floor. Is there a second?

[59:13] Seconded by Commissioner Ross. Is there any discussion on the motion on the floor?

[59:18] Hearing and seeing none, Stephanie, please call the roll.

[59:22] Commissioner Barcelona. Hi.

[59:25] Commissioner Hurst. Yes. Commissioner Herrera. Yes.

[59:29] Commissioner West. Yes. Commissioner Ross. Yes. Commissioner Laney. Yes.

[59:34] 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.

[1:00:00] So I appreciate you giving us a pressure on that, because I think it needed to be done. And congratulations,

[1:00:06] property owners, to go ahead. We look forward to seeing you. If we need to see you on design,

[1:00:11] we might not need to, depending on what you decide to do, it would be a staff level.

[1:00:16] Okay. All right. Thank you very much. And we are on to our next item.

[1:00:23] Yes, it was nice that.

[1:00:28] All right. Well, we look forward to what you're going to do. All right. Thank you.

[1:00:32] All right, our next item is,

[1:00:37] where that was them.

[1:00:38] Thank you guys.

[1:00:39] That one was pretty tough, and it was well done.

[1:00:41] Well executed.

[1:00:43] Where's my agenda?

[1:00:44] Here it is.

[1:00:45] Our next item is item number two.

[1:00:49] S-P-E-C-24-O-O-O-1-7.

[1:00:56] Objective design or development and design standards

[1:00:59] and determination at the project is exempt from Sequel. I'm in up for this, we have Desmond

[1:01:04] Parentan, and a little birdie told me that today's Desmond's birthday,

[1:01:12] so rather than

[1:01:13] saying, we're going to say happy birthday, Desmond.

[1:01:19] We should be part of the public as trying

[1:01:22] to sing from up here. Anyway, well, because it would be recorded. Yeah. Thank you very much.

[1:01:30] So, Chair Reynolds, members of the Commission,

[1:01:32] Desmond Perryton, Planning Manager in the Community Development Department.

[1:01:36] I'm here tonight to talk to you again about objective design and development,

[1:01:40] or objective development and design standards.

[1:01:45] Tonight we'll be asking.

[1:01:46] Mike and Interrupted your real quick.

[1:01:48] Josh, I didn't say thank you to you, and thank you.

[1:01:50] That was a toughie.

[1:01:51] So appreciate your hard work on that, okay.

[1:01:53] And we're back at you too.

[1:01:54] That was like, you know, making sausage right there, but we did good.

[1:01:57] All right. Thank you. Go ahead, doesn't.

[1:02:02] And just, you know, I have been in contact with code enforcement and they talked to the

[1:02:07] auto shop business about the parking because they appeared to be the main violator of

[1:02:13] that provision. That was, in fact, the honors truck and trailer there. So, they, they have

[1:02:18] been, been talked to. And as you heard Rebecca, it was going to be additional follow up on that.

[1:02:24] So, I'm before you tonight to talk again about objective development and design standards.

[1:02:30] We had a workshop last time to kind of familiarize yourself with what these are.

[1:02:36] As you are aware, the state has is now requiring objective development and standards for all development.

[1:02:47] that's residential and more than two units.

[1:02:51] There's been a number of laws that require the use

[1:02:56] of objective design standards.

[1:02:59] So this will be putting those in place for those areas

[1:03:03] where we did increase the densities and the height.

[1:03:07] So the goal of this is to ensure that the more intensive

[1:03:13] development that occurs in the areas that were where we established this new general plan overlay

[1:03:21] that allowed for our greater densities, greater heights, higher FARs, or floor area issues

[1:03:28] that we would have objective design standards in place to ensure that they developed in a way

[1:03:35] that was consistent with Folsom and enhance those areas rather than to track from them. So we are

[1:03:42] No longer able to use our multi-family design guidelines will be talking about the repeal of

[1:03:50] those in just a bit, but really these are to go along with the general plan amendments we

[1:03:58] did at last August.

[1:04:01] So the general plan is a number of guiding principles that really kind of speak to this

[1:04:08] issue and really were the reasons behind why we looked at and ultimately adopted this overlay

[1:04:16] that allowed for mixed use in the residential development along the East bit where a core or

[1:04:23] around our iron point light rail station and then the the Glenn or Robert G. Holderness Light

[1:04:34] So the idea is, as I mentioned earlier, is to ensure quality site as well as architectural design.

[1:04:42] And these are some of the images out from our objective development and design standards.

[1:04:49] Again, bringing the buildings in these areas where we want to encourage pedestrian traffic,

[1:04:55] bringing them closer to the street, having the parking generally in the sides.

[1:04:59] Thanks for watching.

[1:05:00] And then having that differentiation in terms of the top middle and then base with kind of corner features.

[1:05:12] 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.

[1:05:23] we brought in Optikos design, they're an architectural firm, and then they worked with us

[1:05:31] to show the public how sites along these corridors could develop consistent with

[1:05:41] consistent with our general plan and in a way that enhanced these corridors. So they did several

[1:05:47] different examples, one at the park and ride lot, which is the city owns, at the Glen Station,

[1:05:54] another one at the Snowline Thrift store site. Again, these were with the idea that in Sunday

[1:06:03] in the future, these could redevelop, and they showed that how they could develop in a manner that

[1:06:10] would really kind of complement the area. We also did an extensive survey, and got about 400

[1:06:16] responses, getting feedback from residents and business owners about, you know, what height,

[1:06:22] what design features, what massing issues that they were interested in or concerned about

[1:06:27] or felt were appropriate in the various different areas from, you know, these bit more corridor

[1:06:33] to the light rail stations to the town center in the full-sum plan area. So, so then we continued

[1:06:40] You know, once we got that feedback and got the support from the city council, we then of course

[1:06:49] did establish those overlay areas in August of 2024 through the General Plan and specific

[1:06:56] plan amendments.

[1:06:57] And then we got to work with Opticos on preparing a draft of the document, which we released

[1:07:07] in 2024 and then we reached out to local architects and developers as well as the general public

[1:07:16] to get their input on these in terms of how workable they were.

[1:07:21] In addition to that we talk with other jurisdictions that have been using similar objective

[1:07:27] development of design standards and then got their input on how well that they had been

[1:07:32] working through the process, what were the aspects they really like or the aspects that were

[1:07:37] not working and needed refinement, and so we got some really good feedback, and then we worked

[1:07:45] again to revise the document to make it simpler and more straightforward and easier to use.

[1:07:51] So we went from about 120 pages down to about 80 pages. Now keep in mind, 80 pages still

[1:07:57] sounds like a lot. It's a lot of graphics and a lot of the imagery in there. And the whole

[1:08:02] idea is, while these are objective design standards, we wanted to use the diagrams and the imagery

[1:08:10] to show to developers and the property owners and to architects, these are the kinds of things

[1:08:17] that we're looking at, so that they're absolutely clear on what the expectations are from the city.

[1:08:25] 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.

[1:08:39] These are the areas that I've talked about.

[1:08:41] This is from East Bidwell, we're settled middle school is right here all the way down to Highway 50.

[1:08:49] Then we have the area around the Iron Point Rail Station and the area around the Glen Station up in this area here.

[1:09:00] So the Glen Station is right about there.

[1:09:03] 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.

[1:09:15] 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.

[1:09:30] And this is the town center, which we'll have, as you can see here, a mix of, you know,

[1:09:37] they'll have mixed use as well as higher density residential along with some town homes,

[1:09:43] and then this per se, like part.

[1:09:46] So we felt these were good areas for these types of standards to apply to ensure that we

[1:09:52] get quality design in all of those areas.

[1:09:57] This is the sampling of

[1:10:00] 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.

[1:10:29] through and what sections would apply to their project,

[1:10:33] then we have the actual development standards and themselves that relate both the site development

[1:10:38] and then building development standards, and then we really, it really dives into

[1:10:43] massing in articulation, the building form, how it's broken up, how it should be broken up when

[1:10:49] it's closer to existing residential, you know, step back so you don't have a mass of building

[1:10:56] of budding a two-story home. And then also provisions about adjacency to open space.

[1:11:03] And then we have the standards for larger sites, three acres or larger. These are envisioned

[1:11:10] for those sites where there might be a big box retail store that goes under and then eventually

[1:11:16] they want to do something different with the site. So this shows them how they can break up that site

[1:11:22] to make it more, more kind of a human scale.

[1:11:27] What I mean by that is not one massive building,

[1:11:30] but breaking it up into smaller buildings

[1:11:32] that have maybe the ground for a retail or have active uses,

[1:11:36] even though it might be live work studios on the ground for.

[1:11:41] So the street lengths, it's not one huge street,

[1:11:46] but you have interior streets, maybe some open space area.

[1:11:49] elements like that that kind of really create the kind of lockable and

[1:11:53] little-able community that folks that we would be looking for as those areas

[1:11:59] redeveloped. Then in addition to that we've got a few more kind of administrative

[1:12:04] chapters, one deals with exceptions to standards. When you start dealing with

[1:12:11] infill sites, that's where it gets tricky because there's often a reason some of

[1:12:18] because they may be littered with easements,

[1:12:20] there may be topography challenges, things like that.

[1:12:23] So we've got exceptions to that that provides some allowances

[1:12:27] when they're dealing with those kinds of things on site,

[1:12:30] because we've had situations where easements interfere

[1:12:33] with our ability to bring the building closer to the street.

[1:12:37] That was one of the issues that we dealt

[1:12:39] with with the Herings and Grove project.

[1:12:41] As there were several easements that they had to work around,

[1:12:44] that kind of hamper their ability to bring that kind

[1:12:47] of close search of the street.

[1:12:49] If you remember that, not a affordable project

[1:12:50] that we did.

[1:12:52] So we've got those kinds of exceptions in there.

[1:12:56] And then of course we have the definitions

[1:12:58] because there's a lot of architectural terms

[1:13:00] in this document.

[1:13:01] We want to make sure that those are clearly defined.

[1:13:04] And then if we have our measurement methods

[1:13:06] for how those should be used,

[1:13:10] measuring the site and the building elements.

[1:13:14] 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.

[1:13:31] We are not pulling these into the zoning code because the zoning code is part of the municipal code.

[1:13:38] it takes an ordinance to amend that. We realize that this is going to be new for developers

[1:13:43] and for staff and for architects and all of that. We wanted the ability that things are not working

[1:13:50] to be able to make adjustments without having to go through the ordinance process, which is,

[1:13:56] you know, bringing it to commission, then two hearings with the City Council, then 30 days before

[1:14:01] I can go into effect. We wanted to be able to do this through a resolution. So that's why we refer to

[1:14:07] in the zoning code, but the dock would actually

[1:14:10] lives outside the zoning code, and it will be adopted

[1:14:12] through a resolution.

[1:14:14] However, that being said, as I mentioned,

[1:14:16] we are going to amend Chapter 1706, which is our

[1:14:19] design review section, to create a new subsection,

[1:14:23] talking about the ministerial approval

[1:14:25] by the community development director

[1:14:28] for these types of projects.

[1:14:31] So the feedback that we got from the city council,

[1:14:34] 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,

[1:14:44] 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.

[1:14:55] And so some of the council members said to us, we don't, if we can't actually take it.

[1:15:00] 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.

[1:15:19] 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.

[1:15:28] There is there's no noticing on it.

[1:15:32] Staff handles the staff level.

[1:15:34] We will of course provide information on the website about the projects so that people are aware of what's going on,

[1:15:40] but it won't go through the hearing process.

[1:15:43] Again, more and more of the state law changes are making these kinds of things

[1:15:50] Ministerial, so they have to comply with objective design standards, and you've got to approve them

[1:15:55] Ministerially

[1:15:56] So I mean we just had a fairly major one that was approved and signed by the governor just a few days ago

[1:16:02] Which is SB 79 which was a pretty significant change around our light rail stations

[1:16:08] We're gonna be looking at whether the work that we did last year might qualify

[1:16:13] as an alternative plan to achieving SB 79, which is allowed under the legislation or under the new law, so we're investigating that.

[1:16:25] We would also be rescending our multifamily design guidelines.

[1:16:30] The reason that we're looking to rescind them is because, number one, they're outdated.

[1:16:36] Number two, they actually conflict with some of the language in our zoning code.

[1:16:41] We will hopefully be doing objective design standards for the rest of the city because we acknowledge

[1:16:48] that this is not the only area where multi-family can occur or residential next-use can occur.

[1:16:56] But we wanted to get this in place sooner rather than later because this is the only area in

[1:17:02] the city where we can have densities above 30 doingers per acre and we can have those taller

[1:17:08] heights for residential of three, four, and five stories.

[1:17:13] So that's why we wanted to put those in place now, and then we'll start looking at the historic

[1:17:18] district and other areas of the city to look at doing something along the same lines.

[1:17:24] It may not be quite as detailed as these, but we do feel given the way the legislature is

[1:17:30] going that it would be prudent to put those in place.

[1:17:36] So, just to kind of walk you through, we talked about this last time, but to walk you through,

[1:17:42] tonight we're seeking your recommendation to the city council.

[1:17:47] This would be heard on the 28th, if the first reading, then the second reading and adoption

[1:17:53] would be on the 12th, and then we'll have it go into effect, I mean, it's required to go

[1:17:57] into effect at least 30 days after the second reading, we're going to have this go into effect

[1:18:03] on January 1st, and the meantime between the 12th and the 1st, we would be doing outreach to

[1:18:11] architects, we'll be having our own checklist that we would use and we'd share with the applicant

[1:18:20] so they can fill out that checklist so they can see what elements are required, and then we're

[1:18:24] going to see how well they work and what's the feedback that we've gotten from them and then make

[1:18:30] adjustments as needed.

[1:18:34] So tonight, we're asking you to do two things.

[1:18:38] One is to adopt the resolution that indicates that the project is exempt from sequo, adopting

[1:18:46] proposed objective design and development standards for these overlay areas that are in the

[1:18:52] general plan, and then repeal the city of Folsom multi-family design guidelines.

[1:18:57] 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.

[1:19:18] So with that, that concludes my presentation and I am happy to answer any questions you may have.

[1:19:23] Okay. Thank you, Desmond. Are there questions for Desmond?

[1:19:27] I think I just had one as a result of your presentation.

[1:19:32] The resolution that it would take to amend the appendix once adopted, is that a city council

[1:19:38] resolution?

[1:19:39] Yeah.

[1:19:39] It would be a city council.

[1:19:40] So if staff sees there's something that's really not workable in the document we recommend

[1:19:46] to prove before, then you guys formulate a resolution.

[1:19:49] You don't come to us.

[1:19:51] Well, no, we actually would because this is under your purview, because it's part of it's referenced in the zoning curve.

[1:19:58] We would come back to you a demo.

[1:20:00] I'll justify the issue, ask for a recommendation of support for that resolution and then bring that to council.

[1:20:07] That's an easier step than going to you at the council twice, waiting 30 days and then, yeah.

[1:20:12] Right, right, right, right. So it just streamlines the process.

[1:20:16] Yeah, okay, very good.

[1:20:18] So no other questions for Desmond? I think this is a result of the thoroughness of last time's meeting.

[1:20:24] So yeah, good job. It's a late been a long labor of love.

[1:20:28] Thank you very much.

[1:20:30] Okay, is there anybody from the public?

[1:20:32] We will open public comment now on this item.

[1:20:35] Is there anybody from the public who wishes to comment on this item?

[1:20:41] I don't see droves of people coming to the microphones.

[1:20:44] So I will close public comment.

[1:20:47] And that leaves it to us, commissioners.

[1:20:49] Anybody want to kick us off?

[1:20:56] Why don't?

[1:20:57] One of us make a motion.

[1:20:59] And you want to bring the motion back up, Jasmine, it looks different from the one on our

[1:21:04] paper, but I'm assuming it's the same.

[1:21:05] It should be the same.

[1:21:06] Okay, so then I will go ahead and move to recommend that the City Council, a dock resolution

[1:21:11] number 11464, a resolution determining that the proposed project is exempt from sequa, adopting

[1:21:19] proposed objective development and design standards for certain overlay areas, and repealing

[1:21:24] the city of Folsom multi-family design guidelines. And number two, adopt ordinance number

[1:21:30] one three five seven and ordinance of the city of Folsom amending chapter 17.06 design review

[1:21:37] of the Folsom municipal code to reference the objective development and design standards

[1:21:41] and to establish a ministerial review process. The recommended approval is subject to the proposed

[1:21:47] findings, findings A through C. I still move. Is there a second?

[1:21:53] Seconded by Commissioner Barcelona. Is there any discussion on the motion on the floor?

[1:21:58] Hearing and seeing none?

[1:21:59] Stephanie, please call the rule. Commissioner Barcelona?

[1:22:02] Hi.

[1:22:04] Commissioner Hurst?

[1:22:04] Yes.

[1:22:05] Commissioner Hurra?

[1:22:06] Yes.

[1:22:07] Commissioner West?

[1:22:08] Yes.

[1:22:10] Commissioner Ross?

[1:22:10] Yes. Commissioner Leanie?

[1:22:12] Yes.

[1:22:12] Commissioner Reynolds?

[1:22:13] Yes.

[1:22:14] Okay, that labor of love resulted in us approving it and handing it to you in a package for your birthday, doesn't it?

[1:22:21] Congratulations. Sorry, we had to take you away from your family tonight.

[1:22:25] All right, last up is the principal planner's report, Jessica.

[1:22:30] Oh, my gosh. Okay.

[1:22:32] I'm so principal planner report.

[1:22:35] 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.

[1:23:00] 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.

[1:23:17] So we have all sorts of stuff, but yeah all sorts of stuff going to the city council in two weeks.

[1:23:23] The next planning commission meeting is scheduled for November 19th.

[1:23:29] We have two potential items.

[1:23:32] One is a consideration of the inclusionary housing ordinance.

[1:23:37] Yep, getting a nod.

[1:23:39] And then the other is the Hubod use permit for their facility that they're looking at it on a way.

[1:23:48] 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.

[1:24:00] And then last month, design reviews have gone there a little bit of an uptick.

[1:24:05] We approved at a staff level, two custom homes, two residential additions, two residential accessory structures and one EDU.

[1:24:14] And that is a staff report. Thanks.

[1:24:18] Okay, thank you very much, Jessica.

[1:24:20] I'm sure there's is there anybody who'd like to bring up anything else under the good of the order.

[1:24:24] Okay, with that, with seeing none, I am going to adjourn the meeting at 7.55. Thank you, everyone.

Planning Commission Meeting - 10/15/2025

Agenda

Transcript