[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:52] Senator Carla Torres-Aluna, commissioner Damian Perez, commissioner Julio Rodriguez, commissioner
[1:02] Peter Hernandez for the record is absent, and for the record chair, Stephen Belong, it's
[1:08] also absent. Thank you. And commissioners, is there someone who'd like to lead us
[1:34] in the
[1:43] public comment for an item that's not on the agenda within the subject matter jurisdiction
[1:50] of the commission.
[1:51] Spear cards are available in the lobby and are to be completed given to staff before
[1:56] speaking.
[1:59] When the commission secretary calls your name, please come to the podium, state your name,
[2:03] city for the records, speak to the commission.
[2:05] If you're joining us by Zoom, click on the bottom of your screen to raise your hand.
[2:09] If you're joining us by Zoom using a cell phone press star 9 each speaker will be limited to three minutes with a maximum of 30 minutes per subject
[2:19] Please note that the state law prohibits a commission from discussing or taking action on any item on the agenda.
[2:31] Yes, speakers.
[2:35] Do we have so we can move on to consent items?
[2:39] Do we have questions from the commission on items on the consent agenda or are there any items that the commission would like to pull?
[2:46] Do
[2:53] we have staff? Do we have any public comments on items from the consent agenda?
[3:01] Yes, speakers. Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda?
[3:09] Motion to approve. All second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? No
[3:18] abstentions? Motion carries. And moving on to public hearings, may we have the
[3:24] staff report for item 6.1.
[3:28] Good evening. The project before you is an amendment to
[3:33] tentative map 2021-5 for the creamer province
[3:39] subdivision.
[3:46] So this is the location of the project.
[3:48] It's along Chapel Road and Pacific Way and just south
[3:54] west of Highway 25.
[3:59] So the project location, the project is an approximately 18.24 acre
[4:05] vacant lot currently. It's in the low density residential performance overlay zoning district.
[4:13] This zoning district allows for single-family detached units, but it also allows for modified
[4:20] by development standards with approval
[4:23] of the conditional use permit for a planning and development.
[4:26] This project does have, when it was originally approved,
[4:31] as attended about 2021-5,
[4:33] does have an approved conditional use permit
[4:35] for that planning and development.
[4:38] So this project is part of the Chapel Road Master Plan,
[4:43] which includes other housing developments
[4:48] and a commercial component, which offers different public benefits like commercial component,
[4:57] proposed dog parks, other parks, bike paths, knocking paths, things like that.
[5:03] So the project description, so the project is proposing to amend Canada Map 2021-5,
[5:11] which was formally approved as a single family residential subdivision, known as Cramer Commons.
[5:17] What the amendment will do is it will reduce the total unit count, unit lot count from 90 to 86 lots.
[5:25] It'll designate 70 lots for single-family detached and 16 lots for duet single-family homes.
[5:34] This parcel B will be designated as a location for a required sanitary sewer solicitation.
[5:41] The streets will be a real line to allow for the relocation of the 16 duet style lots.
[5:49] The 16 duet style lots are being moved and the next slide will show the map but the duet
[5:57] style lots are being moved from the northern part of the parcel to the southern part of the property
[6:04] and that so they can better achieve sound litigation requirements because as is approved,
[6:11] the homes are closer to Highway 25. And then also as part of the amendment,
[6:18] the park will increase from about an acre and a half to three acres. Access will continue as is
[6:26] currently approved under TM 2021-5 where primary access will be along Chapel Road and then
[6:33] you have secondary access along Pacific Way.
[6:37] So this is the proposed map, says a laser, isn't it?
[6:44] And it doesn't really show on that.
[6:47] Anyway, so the lots running along the southern part of the property, there's 16 lots there.
[6:53] There's, I think there's 20 lots there, but 16 of those lots are for the duets.
[7:00] They've been relocated from the very northern part running along Highway 25.
[7:07] Those lots are now single family detached.
[7:10] Also, the park runs from the southeast portion of the parcel and it runs along Highway 25
[7:21] to the northwest part of the parcel.
[7:26] If you can make out on the map, it says parcel A, that's the part.
[7:34] So as I mentioned, the 10th of the map 2021-5 was also approved with conditional permit
[7:43] 2022-2 for the planning of development, and with that it was created project specific development
[7:50] standards and those development standards are not changing, just the map is being amended.
[7:58] So briefly, this table shows the development standards for the R1 zoning district, the
[8:07] low density residential, that's on the left, and then there's the approved project specific
[8:12] development standards on the right.
[8:14] So for example, the minimum lot size will go from 5,500 square feet, now it's 4,400 square
[8:21] feet, and the average lot size is about 4,500 square feet.
[8:26] And then you can see that the development standards have changed slightly from R1 to the
[8:31] project specific development standards.
[8:35] And so this one is specific to the single family detached lots, and this table is specific
[8:43] to the development standards of the duet style lots. Minimum lot size, 5500, and then under
[8:50] for the duet project specific development standards, the minimum lot size is 3,000, or 60, with
[8:59] an average lot size, 3,000, or 3,000, or 93.
[9:04] So a little bit more about the amendment.
[9:07] The project was previously approved under resolution 2022-22, that was for the 10th of the map.
[9:18] And the project has been granted an automatic extension under AB 2729.
[9:25] And with the new extension date, the current extension date would have been November 17, 2025.
[9:32] it's since been extended to, excuse me, November 17th, 2024, it's now been extended to May 17th, 2026.
[9:45] Also being amended, along with the map, are the conditions to make them project specific, to be reflective of the amendments.
[9:52] So a couple of the conditions that are changing, this is the condition, former condition 11 reflects the timing of construction for the duets in the single family.
[10:07] So the building permits for the 16 duet units must be issued prior to the issuance of the building permit for the 35th single family detachment.
[10:18] And occupancy must be granted for all 16 units ahead of occupancy for the 70th single
[10:27] family detached unit.
[10:29] So that condition is just being revised to reflect the reduced lock count.
[10:37] Also condition 81, that's been revised to reflect the current fair share cost for
[10:49] infrastructure improvements.
[10:52] So the project is complied with the general plan. It's in the
[10:57] low density residential general plan designation which it's intended to promote and protect
[11:04] single-family neighborhoods while providing sites for single-family detached units. Also zero
[11:10] lot-line single-family units and plan unit developments. As I mentioned this project does have
[11:17] conditionally used permit for a plan unit development that was approved with the
[11:23] tentative map 2025-1. The project also meets the is within the required
[11:32] density of one to eight dwelling units per acre. It's approximately 4.72
[11:38] dwelling units per acre. It also complies with the health and safety goals set
[11:46] forth in the health and safety element, namely for noise reduction because of the location,
[11:55] because the parcel of butts, highway 25, there's noise requirements for this.
[12:03] So the applicant had, when they originally applied, they submitted a noise study and that
[12:16] measures and then also attenuation measures that the applicant would put forth for the project.
[12:26] And then those noise requirements also complied with the health and safety element goals.
[12:37] One of those requirements is that a berm along, as opposed to a sound wall, a berm along
[12:44] highway 25 would be a minimum of 10 feet tall, and then also that when the applicant
[12:50] applies for the site and architectural for the duets that they have to provide documentation
[12:58] showing that further noise attenuation would be implemented during the design and development
[13:05] of the state individual units.
[13:09] The project is complied with the zoning code.
[13:14] Again, I mentioned it's in the low-density residential
[13:16] performance overlay zoning district, which
[13:19] paussers development, that means a range of densities
[13:24] that complies with the general plan that
[13:27] has flexible standards and implement policies
[13:31] and programs of the general plan.
[13:36] Again, this project complies with the zoning code because it's got specific, it has an
[13:47] approved, conditionally used permit for the plan unit development that designates specific
[13:52] project development standards.
[13:53] projects.
[13:55] The project is in compliance with CEQA. So for the Chapel Road master plan,
[14:05] there was the City of Hollister certified the Environmental Impact Report for that project.
[14:12] That project studied a certain number of homes, 10 in the map 2021-5 was included in that
[14:22] and still continues to meet what was studied even with the amendments and no further study is required.
[14:33] So just to summarize, the project amends 10 to the map 2021-5, which had been previously approved and adopted.
[14:43] and many of these amendments relocating the duet lots to the south is to meet noise
[14:51] requirements, mitigations, and then attenuation. The project as proposed is consistent with
[14:59] for low density.
[15:16] So, you have a couple of options. You can, one, adopt a resolution, approving tentative map 2021-5 amendment. Subject to the Finance and Conditions Conditions Conditioning in the
[15:29] draft resolution. You can adopt a resolution approving a tentative
[15:34] tentative map 2021-5 amendment with findings or conditions of approval as
[15:40] modified by the commission. You can deny the project or you can continue to
[15:46] hear and direct staff to provide additional information or clarification if
[15:50] that's needed. Staff does recommend option one.
[15:56] Thank you. Do we have questions
[15:58] from the commission?
[16:04] Just for clarification. So the changes would be the duets, correct?
[16:10] It sounds like reducing the single family home's for duets, basically.
[16:19] So the duets were already approved as part of 10 to the map, 20, 20, 25. You're just reducing
[16:25] the total walk count. And that was mainly so they could relocate the duet lots from the
[16:30] north part of the parcel to the south.
[16:31] Got it.
[16:32] Okay.
[16:32] Yeah.
[16:33] So the duet lock count isn't changing.
[16:35] Okay.
[16:36] Yeah.
[16:37] The single family detached lock count is changing.
[16:40] Gotcha.
[16:41] Is this approval for the entire project which is for the amendment?
[16:45] Like, what is the scope of their approval?
[16:46] It's for the amendment because the tenant and the map had already been approved and adopted.
[16:50] Okay.
[16:51] So you're basically approving the changes.
[16:54] What's that?
[16:58] Yeah, the reduction in units and then the change to the design, which is relocating the
[17:04] duets. And is the CUP similar to the density bonus?
[17:11] No, so the conditional use permit for plan development is the way that the city previously
[17:18] did plan developments, which we've since modified, I believe that was in 2022, we changed the code.
[17:25] But at the time that this was approved, that was the way that projects would get their own development standards.
[17:32] So essentially this project kind of has its own zoning because of that CUP.
[17:37] So they have reduced side yard setbacks, the reduced lock lot size,
[17:44] which comes with that performance overlay zoning to allow smaller lot size and then they
[17:48] also needed it for setbacks for the duets because they share a wall so that was a zero
[17:53] law line. So it has slightly different standards from your standard R1 zoning because of that
[17:58] PUD and that's still valid because the map is still valid and like Brandon mentioned in his
[18:02] report they qualified for an automatic 18 month extension. So the current map is still valid
[18:08] until next May and then this would be amending it so instead of the current map they would
[18:12] be moving forward through the process to develop this map.
[18:19] Other questions?
[18:20] Sanchez, even from the unit reduction or what's not on the do it? So it wasn't the single family.
[18:24] Single family, let's go.
[18:28] I have a question. I'm just curious why this is to reduce the noise.
[18:34] This is to mitigate the noise. Was that the purpose? Generally to, yeah, to better mitigate
[18:39] the potential noise impacts. So my follow-up question is I'm just curious. We know the 25 has been there.
[18:47] Why wasn't that a consideration from the beginning, do you know?
[18:51] I'm sorry, 25.
[18:53] I can speak to the original approval a little bit.
[18:58] I think that at the time that this project was originally being reviewed, the city was
[19:04] not processing the site architectural design of the duets at the same time as the map.
[19:10] This is a modern semiddle.
[19:11] We would make sure those design were incorporated into the project so we could review it as a
[19:16] whole. But part of the Chapel Road master plan overall, which
[19:20] this is just one of 13 lots that's within it, was the goals of
[19:25] the council were to avoid sound rolls on 25. And so there was
[19:29] always a berm requirement instead to mitigate noise. But there
[19:34] was also a desire to have homes fronting onto that linear
[19:38] parkway to avoid them, you know, backing into it so that they
[19:41] had more direct access and the view of it. So this part, this
[19:45] This parcel in particular needed additional noise analysis and it seems through the applicants
[19:52] working on getting towards their civil and their specific and prevent plan semiddles to
[19:59] the city to develop the map that in order to design those duet lots to meet the noise study
[20:04] that they did and the requirements for the duets because they have a slightly different
[20:08] noise requirement than the detached single family.
[20:10] It made more sense for them to propose this amendment so that they can move the duets
[20:14] better meet that noise analysis. Thank you for explaining. Other questions before we go to
[20:20] the public hearing? Yeah we're just kind of a question follow a question with the noise.
[20:27] So I do know on Highway 25 and this may be completely be going out of the purview of
[20:31] the scope of this but I still it's important I think to get this on record. So I know Highway 25,
[20:37] The sound walls that are on Highway 25, that's a Calt Transmitigation, right?
[20:43] Those big sound walls that are built?
[20:47] It's not necessarily a Calt Transmitigation.
[20:50] It would have been to mitigate noise in those subdivisions.
[20:53] So we have the Cerratos of Division to the south.
[20:55] And when the Chapel Road Master Plan was going through the annexation process and the EIR,
[21:01] part of the Council's direction was that they did not want to continue the sound wall corridor
[21:06] that we have as we move north and so this project and other projects in the
[21:11] Chapel Road Master Plan area are obligated to mitigate noise from the highway
[21:15] still because that's required to develop but in a way that doesn't include
[21:19] sound walls because that was the city's desire. Okay yeah I'm a did some all among the
[21:24] opposite like yeah but now that makes sense yeah so it was you know all these past
[21:28] developments that are currently built created the sound wall corridor and the
[21:32] city wanted to move away from that as we continued to develop on and around
[21:35] on Highway 25, so this project is not putting in a sound wall.
[21:39] Oh, it also links for the clarification.
[21:41] Then just that one more question with the,
[21:44] which city council was that?
[21:46] Is that a recent or this would have been in 2018, 2019.
[21:51] So the annexation was in 2019,
[21:55] the Chapel Road Master Plan EIR began in 2015.
[21:59] So it's been quite a few years that not this map in itself,
[22:03] but the Chapel Road Project overall has been considered.
[22:07] Thank you.
[22:10] The project was considered an infill project when it was first proposed.
[22:15] It was a hot topic because ultimately it's still towards the extent of the outskirts of the town.
[22:24] So it's upon interpretation, I guess, which whoever has the legal backing has been the issue.
[22:34] Thank you. Let's go ahead and open the public hearing at 622. And do we have a presentation
[22:42] from the applicant on the site?
[22:45] We do. Yeah, we have the applicant on it.
[22:47] Oh, yes, we have Peter Smith online.
[23:04] Can you?
[23:06] Mr. Peter Smith?
[23:09] It's really quiet.
[23:10] Can we give maybe our system hang on?
[23:12] YouTube can interpret that? Give us a minute, Mr. Smith.
[23:21] I could hear it on this one.
[23:27] You could hear it, too? Yeah, all right.
[23:34] If you could just see if your sound comes out, I think we're just having an issue on our
[23:41] speakers on our end, but we can hear you. We might not have the best recording, but if you could just,
[23:48] What if I put the microphone there?
[23:51] We can hear you.
[23:53] It's just very quiet.
[23:56] I think we can move forward.
[23:57] I think it's just very quiet.
[23:58] But I think it'll be okay.
[24:00] Go ahead. You'll have five minutes.
[24:01] I'll talk loud.
[24:24] Does anyone have any questions for the applicant?
[24:32] No, it looks like we do not have any questions.
[24:35] I think the only thing I noticed,
[24:37] which was a positive is the
[24:40] in one of the slides
[24:41] It's about the park.
[24:44] Yeah, the parks increasing from parks increasing about an acre and a half to three acres, I believe.
[24:49] I believe that's what's on the map.
[24:51] And was there any other changes besides just the park increasing orders to the applicant.
[25:27] Thank you.
[25:29] So no other questions from the commission.
[25:32] Thank you.
[25:34] We'll go ahead.
[25:35] Do we have any public comments on this item?
[25:40] We have no additional comments.
[25:41] Okay, and then we will go ahead and close the public hearing at 625.
[25:47] Is there any further discussion from the commission on this item?
[25:58] Thank you.
[25:59] I'll make it.
[26:00] What do you all think?
[26:01] I'll make a motion to adopt the agenda item 6.1 for the amendment on the tentative map.
[26:08] 2021, five, grammar, common subdivision to reduce slot count from 91 to 86 slots and relocate the duet units.
[26:19] second. Okay. Do we want to go ahead and vote or is there any discussion?
[26:26] We're good. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed?
[26:32] Abstentions? Motion carries. Item 7. So Madam Chair, really quick before we move on to the item.
[26:39] I just you weren't at the past meeting and so just a quick update, you know,
[26:45] So, ultimately saw the agenda and I didn't get a chance and I apologize for being late.
[26:52] I had a very busy day, but the minutes were incorrect because they didn't have any input
[26:59] which brings it to my next point that the inputs and the other commissioners that are present
[27:05] were here where I made recommendations, basically recommendations to send to the city council
[27:12] on the men mean the planning process or at least considering a little bit more transparency.
[27:17] And I would argue efficiency had sounded like the commission agreed.
[27:22] And there's no minutes reflecting any of that information.
[27:27] And then also there's, and I know the city council attorney would said that they would consider,
[27:34] she would consider basically whatever the agenda items that I had made recommendations
[27:38] If there was any legal issues, got no information on whether that was an issue or not, which I would argue it wasn't, but regardless, the final point is there was no added, you know, we all agreed.
[27:53] And so there was no added agenda item that talked about these because it was really supposed to be a discussion on the policy, the policy considerations or recommendations to the city council.
[28:04] So, I'm really disappointed, you know, I don't understand.
[28:08] There's no really excuse in my mind why this didn't come forward.
[28:13] So, and I did talk to City Councilman Rosendez about it, and he's going to definitely address
[28:18] it.
[28:19] So, I mean, I mean, I'd be even interested in maybe suspending the rules, and I'm NDB Agenda
[28:26] to include that item, because I think it's really important.
[28:29] I mean, if we really want to see economic development, which is technically the goal of the general
[28:33] plan and ultimately the city council in adopting it, then we need to address these issues.
[28:37] I keep getting calls about issues with the planning process yet.
[28:40] We got a presentation which I appreciate, but now we're looking into remedies and somehow
[28:45] we're at spin sideline which I don't appreciate.
[28:49] So procedurally, are we, is your request to amend the, to go back and look at the minutes?
[28:57] understanding was that what we're asking for was out of our scope out of our
[29:01] by-laws so maybe that's why they've been to make it in that was my assumption and I
[29:05] appreciate that but ultimately there was no there was no follow-up right that
[29:10] was that that was the commitment it's a recorded meeting you can pull it up
[29:13] yourself hey we're gonna let you know if there's any issues I mean at the end of
[29:17] the day we're asking for recommendations right we're not actually making
[29:22] policy ourselves. They could say, go fly a kite, right? But it doesn't, at the end of
[29:27] the day, it's like it's something that it was a consideration, because we had a thorough
[29:30] discussion about it. There's a whole reason for a whole agenda, a generalized conversation
[29:35] about all these different issues. We even had applicants here, even giving their input
[29:41] about the potential amendments. And so it's just false flat. I mean, as far as I'm concerned,
[29:47] If that's the way the Planning Commission wants to run things and staff, then personally, I think I could use my time better if our input doesn't matter, right?
[29:56] At that point, it should be just the fact that the city point-
[30:00] The planning department making decisions without the authority of the planning commissioners that are volunteers in this position. And I do remember that we had asked some similar questions two months ago. As we were asking about policy and so it sounds like it followed up. Is there a way, I guess, then procedurally, how do we go back? And so you can reconsider approval of the minutes is that what you're asking. So to reconsider an item that's been approved.
[30:29] somebody who voted in favor needs to make a motion to reconsider take a vote to reconsider if there's a majority vote
[30:36] Then you can go back and reconsider that item. Okay. Is there so that would be
[30:42] Is there a sort of all make a motion if we could reconsider it has to be somebody who voted in favor
[30:47] So any of the other three can make the motion to reconsider the
[30:53] Reconciter the minutes you're saying for seven to open it up and add these items back
[31:00] Yeah, you'll just go back to the consent item 5.1 and just redo what you already did, essentially.
[31:09] So the chair will first show vote to reconsider if there's a majority that votes yes.
[31:14] The chair will say will now open item 5.1 and just basically redo the item that you've already done.
[31:22] For the agenda.
[31:24] So reconsider amending the agenda 5.1, right?
[31:28] was it five point yeah I'll you're ultimately going to make two votes the
[31:32] first one will be like do we all want to reconsider it yes or no and then if
[31:35] you vote yes then you'll go back reconsider it and take a vote. Oh gosh it I like
[31:40] to make a motion to open up agenda item 5.1 approving the October 23rd 20 25
[31:49] minutes. Second. All in favor? All right. Okay, so now we go ahead and we have
[31:58] the discussion about the agenda. Yeah, and redo the whole thing just like you
[32:03] would have. So and I'll try to be I don't want to hold people up right we all
[32:06] have busy lives but these were the considerations and roughly right that was a
[32:12] whole goal is I give rough recommendations you know the professionals in the
[32:16] room can help clean it up and present them as potential recommendations to the city council.
[32:22] So in the beginning of the conversation, I remember mentioning that for the sake of clarity
[32:27] for an applicant right that was partly the issue was applicants come, they apply and there
[32:32] was even discussions about a $1,500 required review fee.
[32:37] And so and technically it was almost like a non it was there was no there was no like record keeping and there definitely was any any real formality to the meeting.
[32:52] So I had asked for like an addendum number one is an addendum that actually explains the rights to the applicant and lets them know what they can expect as far as the process goes.
[33:01] number two was we don't I personally I made them sentiment that I don't agree
[33:08] with a fee if there's not any seriousness to it and even regardless of it I
[33:12] still think it's an important stage right because an applicant comes are
[33:15] expecting ultimately like they really want to invest in this community they
[33:19] want to pay the fees because they want to get direction on the planning process
[33:23] making sure they're following the law and but there was no record keep it even
[33:27] the city manager had mentioned that they didn't keep records I completely
[33:31] disagree with that. We should know what's going on from the first time in the communications,
[33:35] especially when they don't money and they're already, anytime someone don't to check, they're
[33:38] not just putting $5,500 down there, they're probably like buying the property, they're already
[33:43] securing things, so there should be a time clock from that time, and that's why there needs
[33:49] to be record keeping of that preliminary review, and basically, I don't think there should
[33:54] be a cost.
[33:55] Can I make a suggestion because really what we're talking about is inaccurate minutes.
[33:58] And so I tell me I'm making my recommendation, so if I could finish.
[34:04] Well, so, but if the minutes need to be amended, maybe the best approach would be for staff to go back and listen to the meeting again and amend the minutes.
[34:14] Well, so if it's okay with you, I actually, if it's okay with the Planning Commission, I'd like to vocalize them to repeat it so there's no ambiguity, right?
[34:23] These are the items that you would like reflect in the minutes.
[34:27] So, and then three to five days, I asked and again this is not hard and fast, but some kind of a response time that's one of the things that applicants would basically get upset about.
[34:38] It's like they take two weeks sometimes or a month to respond. So some kind of required response time and then by default, especially if there's no real response, there needs to be a trigger for an early appeal process.
[34:50] a lot of the times we don't even know how to understand what's the breakdown, especially
[34:57] when a lot of time lapses and ultimately I firmly believe that you bring up your trigger
[35:02] and early appeal process, that you know right away from the front end, what's going on
[35:06] because we'll get that information, right, because we're deciding at the long distance, right,
[35:11] by the time a lot of the issues have developed.
[35:14] And I would argue there should be at least a two week trigger, right, so it's been two weeks
[35:19] no response fine, then the applicant has the right to bring it forward to the planning commission.
[35:25] And then one of the last things was just like an organizational flow chart, right?
[35:30] Something that kind of maybe that could include it that basically explains what is the process
[35:35] who's involved, you know, who's the authority in the room when it comes to the architectural
[35:39] review or the design and the standards and ultimately the legal requirements and evaluations
[35:45] of municipal code, or potential if you don't follow these rules, like all this stuff needs
[35:49] to be on the front and so the applicant really knows how to scope out their project and
[35:54] cost and everything, right?
[35:56] I keep getting calls that, like I've done a ton of money into this, Peter, and I still don't
[36:01] know what's going on, like that to me is crazy.
[36:04] I, for the sake of economic development, I think these things would actually improve commercial
[36:08] projects for sure.
[36:10] So I think we all heard the items that I think you want to be reflected in the minutes.
[36:18] So then with that, then do we have a motion, we make a motion to approve the minutes as amended?
[36:27] If you agree with my statement.
[36:30] If we can get a motion.
[36:33] I'll make a motion to adopt the minutes as restated by Commissioner Hernandez.
[36:41] I have a question, though.
[36:43] So, what should we expect in the minutes then?
[36:45] Because they're probably generally a discussion held close.
[36:49] So, when we have discussions, ultimately, like, where are we expecting those details to be literally in this document?
[36:55] Because they haven't been.
[36:56] I'm just wondering if it's supposed to be.
[36:58] So, generally, we take action minutes, we don't take verbatim minutes, but it sounds like, I've written down that Commissioner Hernandez would like it to be reflected in the minutes, the discussion of an I've written down five recommendations and so what staff will do is add them.
[37:21] So,
[37:24] concern regarding a $1,500 review fee, a request to write down people's rights on—I'm
[37:34] not sure if that's on an application, but we can re-review the discussion that a recommendation
[37:42] for a 3-to-5-day response time, an early appeal process, and that there should be an organizational
[37:51] So essentially we'll amend the minutes to reflect that those recommendations were made as part or were part of the discussion.
[38:01] And I can type up an email and forward it to, you know, to staff and, you know, I know that there's brown act requirements.
[38:10] So ultimately that they can at least clean it up and send it to you.
[38:15] But I mean, it's already publicly stated, right?
[38:18] One of the things that was mentioned was the required documentation of the process, which is extremely important.
[38:25] I also just wanted to also add to that, I don't know if you guys would be interested,
[38:33] and I can retract this motion, but it's going to be a whole another month before this gets done.
[38:40] It sounds like correct.
[38:42] Okay, that's the thing. Is that correct?
[38:44] I suppose it would depend.
[38:47] So your motion right now is to amend the minutes and approve them.
[38:52] So we would just amend them.
[38:54] And if I've not stated these now six items correctly, we will.
[39:00] I would ask for correction, however, if your motion is to have staff amend them and bring
[39:06] them back to you.
[39:08] So your question?
[39:09] That would take.
[39:09] So it's actually seven items and it would reflect, it should reflect in today's agenda meeting because by amending it, we are actually adding these minutes into the October 23rd.
[39:23] So you should have that in record on file through the city website.
[39:28] Is this not, is this impact because the minutes, the minutes from what you're saying, we're
[39:34] not reflected correctly, does this,
[39:39] will you, no action was taken, you're saying?
[39:42] No, also the other thing to clarify, you know, with all due respect to Director Kelly,
[39:49] the reality is, and the experience that I've had in elected office, you don't, you don't
[39:56] just take action minutes.
[39:57] So you take minutes of the discussion, so you know the direction, because technically
[40:02] any kind of recommendation is still action because it's recommended, right?
[40:07] So if there's a vote that supports something that's a recommendation, you can consider
[40:11] that an action because it ultimately has to, by default, it's a voted item and it's, it
[40:16] goes forward to whatever the recommendation is, whether it's a, to agenda is another item,
[40:22] have a discussion or actually have bring up forward a vote, it still is something you record.
[40:28] I'm used to having minutes that at least have summaries on every single item.
[40:33] Commissioner said this, this was what he wanted, the commission disagreed, he was voted down,
[40:40] she was voted down, or they were all the UNMCA food, so you know what that item, otherwise
[40:47] Otherwise minutes give zero direction as far as what was the context of any meeting and then the whatever the direction was from that meeting.
[40:56] So I appreciate that question.
[41:00] Can I or are you okay because I think for me then now I want to clarify so first you know let's amend the minutes right we'll do that as procedurally.
[41:10] But or maybe even before I would like to know were those items part of like you're saying an action item that you requested.
[41:20] Like as a commissioner.
[41:22] Okay, and then that would be, then I think yes, then it would be something that we would want to know.
[41:29] Like, where do we go from there?
[41:32] Is that going to, and obviously we're going to have to wait another month.
[41:36] And that's exactly the frustration I think of the community is, you know, a month, it's
[41:45] a long time for some people.
[41:46] And then if we're making, you know, and I don't think it's anybody's about blaming
[41:50] anybody, but either way, if a mistake or something didn't get recorded properly, it pushes the,
[41:57] you know, what can tangibly be fixed or be done to a whole another month.
[42:04] And there were a lot of frustrated citizens in the community who really felt like the process
[42:12] needs to be cleaned up and just to kind of, you know, not to belabor the point, but,
[42:18] you know, the economy is really rough right now and nobody's going to want to be opening
[42:23] a business with if the planning process is confusing or there's some ambiguity.
[42:29] And like I said, this is not an attack on anyone, but
[42:33] I'm almost in favor of, and then if you guys are, you know,
[42:37] favor of coming back even sooner than pushing it back a month
[42:40] because I think the community deserves.
[42:44] I just want to remind you that this item is about the
[42:46] minutes from the last meeting.
[42:48] And so if we don't want to get off agenda and start discussing
[42:51] another topic that's not on the agenda, there is an
[42:54] opportunity at the end of the meeting on the agenda for
[42:56] commissioners to buy consensus, request items for a future agenda, and that would be a
[43:02] more appropriate time to talk about what you want to talk about in the future. This item
[43:06] is really just about the minutes from the last.
[43:08] I just want to clarify an expectation for future meetings. There was a style of maintenance
[43:13] being taken, which was, you know, action-based pretty much, and now I believe what we're asking
[43:19] for is to have more summaries in the minutes that we're approving. That is a change in practice,
[43:25] So we can, we should talk about that at the end as an idol to bring back to a featured meeting.
[43:31] That's what's going to be.
[43:32] Well, no, right?
[43:33] To clarify, when I ask to suspend the rules, if you read the bylaws, the consistency
[43:38] in the bylaws say technically the majority has the authority to adjust or amend their own
[43:45] meeting because it's the meeting of the commission, it's not the meeting of the city, it's not
[43:54] You can give the direction, you can suspend the rules, you can say, we're going to add this item in because it should have been added in because that was the request from the prior meeting, from what the city attorney is recommending, it's basically pushing it out another month, right?
[44:07] This was requested and we've already been leading in this direction, technically speaking, a mistake from the city staff whether intentional or not by default delays the will of the commission.
[44:17] You can suspend Rosenberg's rules of order, which is what you did when you reconsidered
[44:22] this item, but you cannot suspend the Brown Act.
[44:24] And the Brown Act says that you may only speak about things that are on the agenda.
[44:28] Well, so technically the violation would have been from the fact that there was already a publicly
[44:36] duly-noticed meeting that made those recommendations and they weren't put into the agenda, they weren't
[44:41] even considered, and they weren't even added into the minutes.
[44:44] So there's already a violation.
[44:46] That is not a brown act violation.
[44:49] Regardless, because I get it, brown act is about electives.
[44:52] It still is a violation.
[44:53] When the brown act is about appointed officials as well,
[44:56] so you are subject to the brown act.
[44:58] I think your expectations were...
[45:00] Amendment is what happened. It was in a violation of law, our rule, but just I would say it's at least an ethical violation because it was it was an ask and it was very so here's the thing city attorney, right? I'll do respect. You specifically stated and I would recommend everybody to pull up the meeting. You said, I don't know if you can do that commissioner. The reality is your quad, you know, I heard, you know, Miss Kelly mentioned were quasi judicial, right? So trying to restate our authority understood.
[45:29] I'm not asking for a policy vote on the municipal code what I'm asking for is a recommendation
[45:36] to send to the council.
[45:37] You said, I'm not sure if you can do that, I'll look into it and we will get back
[45:40] you.
[45:41] Nothing of that sort happened.
[45:44] So can I expect I did say that and I didn't intend to prepare that myself so I maybe there
[45:51] was the expectation was that it would be back at this meeting and maybe that's not what
[45:56] stuff.
[45:56] That's why that's why I stated that's what the commission had said.
[45:59] But again, this item is just considering the minutes and so there's an opportunity at the end of the meeting to buy consensus.
[46:08] Right.
[46:09] Recommend items for a future agenda, which is what that's what I was alluding to earlier.
[46:13] Because I think the items you mentioned, I think we're all would love answers to.
[46:19] So in this spirit of moving forward and acknowledging that I think, you know,
[46:25] We've gotten validation that yes, those things were stated.
[46:29] Yes, those are items that we want to look at.
[46:31] For now, procedurally, we will approve with the amendments.
[46:35] If we have a second, I'm not telling you all what to do,
[46:37] but if we have a first and second.
[46:39] And then at the end, let's all remember to bring this up
[46:42] as an action item.
[46:45] I don't know if I can.
[46:47] Yes, yes.
[46:47] And like, OK, just to ensure you, you know,
[46:51] the commissioner understands my intentions,
[46:53] I really do want to increase and encourage the integrity of the commission.
[46:57] When things like this happen that break down the will and ultimately the momentum that
[47:01] the commission is trying to create and solving these issues, then by default you're disintegrating
[47:06] the integrity.
[47:07] You have no reason to come if what you're saying has no value, right?
[47:10] In your disregard it.
[47:12] I'm not saying that's what happened, but that's definitely at least the visual, right?
[47:15] The optics is, is there was no regard, it's not even in the minutes, it's not even on
[47:19] agenda like by default and so you know we've had almost a month I've had zero
[47:24] communication city staff never reached out so I would imagine that would be a
[47:29] serious thing but if it's not serious then why am I here so we will address it
[47:34] then so first we have we have a motion on the table and that was I think it was
[47:39] uh what I said the motion was to approve the minutes with the amendments and then
[47:45] And I did read out five, and then there was one added.
[47:50] So if what I've read out is what the commission wants to put in the minutes, that's a motion
[47:56] on the floor.
[47:57] And then what will happen is staff will just revise them, they'll be approved, as amended.
[48:02] Okay.
[48:03] So to clarify again, that was seven, I said seven.
[48:08] I could read them again, and I could read them briefly.
[48:10] and addendum, know your rights. Number one, number two, zero fee preliminary
[48:14] re-process at the front end. Number three, three to five day required response
[48:20] times. Number four, early appeal process. Number five, triggered after that
[48:26] there's a trigger after two weeks of no response that early appeal. Number six,
[48:30] an organizational flow chart, right, with authority who responds to what
[48:34] position or what portion of the process. And number seven is required
[48:38] documentation throughout. Okay so we have a motion. Do we have a second? Second and all in
[48:48] favor? Aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Abstention. Okay motion carries on that and then we will finish our
[48:58] agenda and then we'll come back in our commission reports. Okay thank you everyone.
[49:05] 7.1 review of proposed phase 3 zoning ordinance amendment language of city of
[49:11] Hollister zoning ordinance and can we have the staff report please this item is
[49:18] a continuation of the overhaul of the zoning ordinance phase two was recently
[49:24] adopted by the city council and those amendments have taken effect and that was
[49:28] related to cleaning up the use tables some legislative requirements as well as
[49:33] create making sure there were definitions for each use listed in the zoning ordinance.
[49:38] Right now, the staff in the Planning Commission is currently reviewing Phase 3, which is the
[49:43] revision of permitting requirements.
[49:46] And this is the second study session that will be held regarding this phase.
[49:53] Tonight you are just looking at two chapters, site and architectural review and conditional
[49:57] use permits.
[50:02] Site and Architectural Review is for improvements that are typically done to the exterior of a property and there are some other exceptions that go along with that.
[50:13] Currently, the requirements for site and architectural reviews are found in several sections of the zoning ordinance.
[50:19] So, anyone reviewing the zoning ordinance would have to know where to look to find out if they required either an administrative permit review or a site and architectural review.
[50:27] right now the way the code works is that it splits exterior improvements into three different
[50:33] permit types. So there is administrative permit review over the counter and those are for very
[50:41] minor items and there is no noticing of those improvements. Then there's administrative permit
[50:46] review which the city currently uses as both a permit for a minor conditional use permit as well as a
[50:54] minor improvement to the exterior of the building, so it gets a little confusing for all involved.
[51:00] And again, even with administrative permit reviews, it's both in that section of the code as well as the requirements for permits are scattered throughout.
[51:08] So it is hard to determine even for staff where the appropriate section is and what does require a permit.
[51:17] In order to clean it up and make it easier on everyone, staff is proposing to eliminate
[51:22] the administrative permit review type.
[51:25] And then all exterior improvements would be within the SNA section and then all uses
[51:30] that are considered a conditional use permit would be in the condition use permit section.
[51:35] So there clearly can be clearly found.
[51:38] With the changes to the site and a protector review chapter, the current administrative permit
[51:45] review over the counter would change to administrative site and architectural review.
[51:49] And the way the new site and architectural review chapter has been designed is it lists
[51:54] everything that requires a permit under that permit type.
[51:57] So for administrative site and architectural reviews, these are considered very minor projects,
[52:02] but which the city needs to verify and review to make sure that they do meet the cone so
[52:09] that someone doesn't do a costly improvement and they have ejected in with the city and
[52:13] then they have to fix it.
[52:14] So these are typically reviewed in under five days most are done over the counter if not the same day but we do do these very quickly.
[52:25] Some of the examples for things that would qualify for an over the counter are the removal or addition of up to two doors and windows murals painted on a building.
[52:34] That's a mural that's art project, not a sign, that would be a different project.
[52:41] And then minor accessory structures.
[52:44] So those would all be wrapped into that very quick review where we're just checking some
[52:47] minimal things, and then we would approve it quickly.
[52:50] And there's no noticing, so it does take effect pretty quickly.
[52:55] Minor site and architectural review is what is currently listed in the zoning ordinance
[53:00] as administrative permit review.
[53:03] So these types of projects are considered to be a little bit more intensive and what
[53:09] they're proposing and what the process for that is, of course, they're going to apply.
[53:15] We do have a checklist online that lists everything that you need to submit for any project
[53:19] and we do route it to our development review committee.
[53:23] So everyone within the DRC will look at the project and either will comment on it or provide
[53:27] conditions.
[53:29] So some of the examples that you can see up there, we have a conversion to another use,
[53:35] conversion to another use, building might review it and say I reviewed the plans, I had these concerns,
[53:41] or I reviewed the plans and I have these conditions of approval. Same with fire, fire might say.
[53:46] I reviewed the plans, you have to add fire sprinklers, or whatever the case may be during their view.
[53:51] These do require noticing, so once they are complete, we do notice it,
[53:55] So everyone within 300 feet of the project gets notified of the upcoming project and they're invited to
[54:01] discuss it with staff if they chose to and then it is approved at staff level.
[54:06] And any any of these decisions can be appealed to the planning commission.
[54:10] One thing that staff is recommending is that housing developments with up to 10 units
[54:16] now be staff level review. That falls in line with the state seeking to
[54:21] to streamline residential developments within the city and 10 units is a lower number.
[54:28] We do see conversions and other minor projects where they do have more than what is allowed right now and it requires planning commission review, even if there was three units and that's a longer process and we'd like to streamline that process further.
[54:44] And then we would have major site and architectural review, which is the same as our site and architectural review now.
[54:48] you know, these are projects that have the potential to create citywide impacts or impacts on the neighborhood
[54:55] and it's appropriate to review them during a public hearing and notice public hearing so everyone has the opportunity to speak.
[55:02] Again, it's processed the same way that we would process the minor, certain architecture review where we do route it to the city's DRC and there are comments provided.
[55:14] And then once complete, we schedule it for planning commission.
[55:17] Examples of these types of projects are major facade remodels, so that would be Heritage Plaza, which is undergoing a massive overhaul that changes the entire look of that shopping center, that one before the planning commission, a new drive-through, drive-throughs can tend to have significant impacts depending on the layout and traffic, and then of course new structures.
[55:39] So any new commercial building, industrial building, housing development with 11 or more units would come before the planning commission.
[55:46] And
[55:50] then along with these changes, conditional use permits, we do have an existing chapter for conditional use permits, but as I mentioned, we would like to shift it so that there are now minor and major conditional use permits, minor conditional use permits would be the same as what we require for administrative permit reviews right now.
[56:09] And if you recall, in the use tables, we list what requires an APR and those are uses and
[56:16] then what requires a CUP and then those are uses from the planning commission.
[56:20] So what we are proposing is that then the use tables get modified again and the APR comes
[56:25] off and it becomes a minor conditional use permit, which is really the appropriate use type.
[56:30] Because what you are looking at with both a minor and then a regular conditional use permit
[56:34] is the use and determining what are the impacts on the surrounding area.
[56:40] Miner are, what the title implies, they are uses that maybe staff needs to look at it
[56:49] to make sure there's enough parking or to make sure that the minor nature of that business
[56:55] doesn't affect the surrounding area.
[56:57] Again, they will be noticed, again, similar to minor site and architecture reviews.
[57:04] And then, major are the uses which staff is concerned could have a major impact on the city.
[57:10] So a bar or nightclub would be one, there's alcohol sales, there's security concerns, there's lighting concerns.
[57:17] So that would go for the planning commission during a publicly noticed hearing.
[57:20] And again, it gives people the opportunity to speak before the planning commission, who would then issue the decision.
[57:25] for the minor, the notice goes out and then the director would make a decision on that.
[57:34] So based on tonight, if you have feedback from your questions, the draft chapters will
[57:39] get amended as recommended.
[57:41] We continue to move along and phase three is underway and so we have a few more study sessions.
[57:48] And then once we are all complete, they'll be wrapped together in one public hearing to then
[57:53] move on towards the City Council and then after that phase four, which is the biggest portion
[57:57] of our overall will begin. Thank you. Do we have questions from the commission?
[58:02] So yeah, well, will that look like the biggest overhaul?
[58:05] The biggest overhaul is the rest of the zoning ordinance. So landscaping, parking,
[58:11] so the phases are just the different portions of the code.
[58:14] Yes, so what we did because to overhaul an entire zoning ordinance at one time is a lot of work
[58:20] and we have the general plan going on at the same time as well as housing element. We've broken
[58:24] it up into bite-sized pieces so that we can clean up the code as we move along so that we're not waiting
[58:30] two, three, four years down the road. We know the code is problematic. There are inconsistencies
[58:36] within it which we've discussed. It is not user-friendly whatsoever. It is very hard to read. There are
[58:44] things we need to do to make it more usable for both staff and the public because not everyone does
[58:50] want to call staff and ask a question. Sometimes they do just want to look it up online.
[58:55] And so we want to make sure that they can understand what the laws of the city are.
[59:00] So that's our overall goal. And as we do pieces, it's to make sure to get the zoning ordinance
[59:05] in line with being more customer service-friendly and tightening up some of these permit requirements
[59:13] so it's not so confusing and really moving in a direction to help everyone out.
[59:18] With this phase and the permany requirements that will definitely help out staff as well as the public and then with the next sections it is the biggest section because we're talking again landscaping parking that will take quite a while but these are the ones that we have worked on so far are the most important that we've identified and I think just to add Commissioner Hernandez a couple months ago. I think I'm not sure if you were here yet but you might have been but I think that's when they started talking about these
[59:47] pieces and really validates what you were talking about earlier about the confusion and where
[59:52] do we go and who knows what and you know things are not don't make sense and then you know
[59:58] Why is it taking so long?
[1:00:00] All those things, I think really is, I think part of the work that you all are trying to clean up, right, that we, we all know this is happening. And so here, this is, I think, the effort. And I do appreciate that it's in chunks, because it's a lot of information to digest. If I gave you an entire zoning ordinance at once, you would say, what are you doing? Yeah. And just to add, and the phases are what staff is kind of identified as being able to repeal.
[1:00:29] a certain section and adopted the chunk at the same time, so phase one is ongoing as needed,
[1:00:37] but it was some state laws that we needed to update and implement into our code, which we've
[1:00:41] adopted a few chapters to use as V9 over the years. Phase two, I think we pulled out the use tables,
[1:00:49] was what we decided phase two was. I think it was originally three phases, it's become four.
[1:00:54] Once we get into four, it'll become more, but phase three is our procedures chapters, which
[1:00:59] We have to come to you with a few chapters at a time so we can really talk about them individually, but what'll happen is once we've come to you for all these study sessions for phase three, we will come back to you with a repeal in a place procedures ordinance that has all these chapters you've been reviewing over the months.
[1:01:16] How did you come to these three categories or are these three
[1:01:20] perfect for tonight?
[1:01:23] Yeah, so if you recall the last meeting we went over I think specific plans, review
[1:01:31] procedures, there's a couple others.
[1:01:33] So what we did was we took the existing 17.24 and the permit requirements that are jammed
[1:01:39] into there and we've essentially pulled it out, so now each one has its own chapter with
[1:01:44] the title can be easily seen in the table of contents on the zoning ordinance and we're
[1:01:48] just going piece by piece. The two that you're seeing tonight, we just pulled together,
[1:01:53] we have others drafted. The two that we pulled tonight are essentially the ones that we will
[1:02:00] use the most. And so it requires, we wanted an in-depth review of these two that are really
[1:02:05] the permitting chapters. What requires a permit for this city so that you can see that. And
[1:02:11] because it is such a change going from,
[1:02:13] even though it's just really a title,
[1:02:15] but we're going from administrative permit reviews,
[1:02:17] which are now function as a conditional use permit,
[1:02:20] or an exterior improvement,
[1:02:22] and we're changing it to just site
[1:02:23] and architectural review and conditional use permit right now.
[1:02:26] But also the change of,
[1:02:28] so it's not just the names, the titles, right?
[1:02:30] But also the, like the specifics of the housing development.
[1:02:35] So there are a few changes in there
[1:02:37] where we're trying to streamline review
[1:02:38] to make it faster for people, right?
[1:02:40] So there is the change to 10, and under would be staff level review for residential dwellings.
[1:02:47] We're also recommending that additions that are not visible from the public right of way to commercial buildings be allowed to be staff level because they're not going to be seen.
[1:02:57] You'll never see it. There really is no impact other than site circulation and then the biggest change though is instead of putting the requirements for permits.
[1:03:09] In every chapter in that zoning ordinance, they're now in one list within within the site and architecture review chapter, which honestly will make it easier for everyone.
[1:03:20] Yeah, so from the design review perspective, what we're proposing in this craft shopper is really that change to have the three different levels of site and architecture review.
[1:03:30] And yeah, that the 10 units are less and small commercial projects is is a big change, but that is staff's recommendation.
[1:03:36] and that's what we're here to get your feedback on.
[1:03:40] But we're recommending to both be in line with streamlining
[1:03:43] and state laws as they continue to change.
[1:03:45] These things are coming down the pipeline.
[1:03:47] We might get forced to these things, so get ahead of it
[1:03:49] and get it the way that we want it.
[1:03:51] But also we just think of staff.
[1:03:53] We see a lot of these minor projects get hung up in this long process
[1:03:56] when if we implement through phase four
[1:04:00] through the design review process of the code
[1:04:02] and implementing codes that are satisfying to the council
[1:04:06] and commission for landscaping and parking and those types of things, staff can just
[1:04:10] meet the code, yet meet the code on these smaller projects, and the ultimate goal would
[1:04:14] be to facilitate these things in the future.
[1:04:17] What is the biggest change that you see on these zoning amendments?
[1:04:27] Right now, based on where we're at, let's say right now, is mostly a function of formatting
[1:04:34] at this point and cleaning up the language.
[1:04:37] within site with this too that you're looking at tonight, the biggest change
[1:04:42] really is changing what we're calling a permit to another name, which you know
[1:04:47] just sounds scary but it is just moving it to the appropriate permit type. And
[1:04:52] then within these uses as we've listed there are two different items that we're
[1:04:58] recommending get downgraded in their review level. So like the ten and under
[1:05:04] for residential dwellings and the smaller additions to commercial buildings and those will speed up the process for them.
[1:05:11] Minor facade or models would still remain at staff. We don't tend to have too many of them.
[1:05:16] There's a few here and there. Mostly what we see is a major like Heritage Plaza. They change the entire design of that.
[1:05:23] And then changing a door out in a window out. It's basically over the counter and then allowing for that over the counter permit type
[1:05:32] but also allow for minor modifications
[1:05:34] that don't impact anyone to an approved plan set.
[1:05:38] So, I don't know, at the back of the building,
[1:05:40] they have to change out a roll-up door to a regular door.
[1:05:42] They can just do the over-the-counter
[1:05:43] and be done quickly,
[1:05:45] rather than requiring a full-scale review.
[1:05:48] Yeah, right now for commercial changes
[1:05:52] for moving doors and windows.
[1:05:55] Up to two is allowed at staff level
[1:05:58] through that administrative permit review process,
[1:06:00] which is this kind of mid-level process whereas anything else is full site
[1:06:07] architectural reveal. What we're proposing is kind of a shift of both of those
[1:06:11] down where really minor changes like relocating up to two doors or windows is
[1:06:16] going to be downgraded to that administrative site architectural
[1:06:19] reveal and then some of those major what's major now but it might be relocating
[1:06:26] five windows, you know, just like minor changes to maybe they're stuck going
[1:06:31] a commercial building. Those types of things, we're proposing get downgraded
[1:06:36] to that mid-level review. There's nothing that we're proposing where the
[1:06:41] review increases, let's say. We're trying to make it easier for everyone to get
[1:06:48] through the process yet through it quickly and then those things that are really
[1:06:52] important to the community. So a new residential subdivision which you'd have to
[1:06:55] see anyways because of the map, or a 350 unit apartment complex still goes to the planning
[1:07:02] commission, which is the appropriate body. But for these minor things, it makes sense
[1:07:06] to do that.
[1:07:07] So, and that's part of the law changes. It's more of ministerial.
[1:07:12] No. So, the way that the state of California is moving towards residential developments
[1:07:16] is that residential projects are becoming more, there is not a lot of say that you have.
[1:07:23] And so what we're seeing is the state is requiring streamline review of certain residential projects and for 10 units and less those are really very minor within the city.
[1:07:35] I mean, we're used to looking at subdivisions that are significantly higher. So with 10 or less, we are recommending that that be more at the staff level.
[1:07:46] Now if there is a map associated with that so everyone was nine units and there is a tentative map
[1:07:51] That has to go to planning commission that would not be within our purview and that comes from the state
[1:07:56] but in general
[1:07:59] I'm not sure if you understood what I was saying in general like I ministerial meaning
[1:08:04] We can't technically vote on it because state law dictates and therefore it trumps any voice that we have yeah
[1:08:10] So in essence, we have less and less local control
[1:08:15] and all I'm trying to point to the reality, right?
[1:08:17] And for the sake of small town,
[1:08:21] San Benito County, the city of Hollister, very rural,
[1:08:25] we already lose a lot of voice, right?
[1:08:29] Representative Lee, and if you think about the reality
[1:08:30] of what that means with the loss of input
[1:08:34] when it comes to the housing element in the general plan,
[1:08:37] then you're by default, have no choice if urbanization
[1:08:41] and becomes a defacto, you're forced into it.
[1:08:45] And that, in and of itself, I would argue is a problem
[1:08:47] that most community members don't understand
[1:08:49] or don't know about.
[1:08:52] And I would like to see, you know,
[1:08:56] with housing developments up to 10 units,
[1:08:59] so it sounds like it's like,
[1:09:02] how long, what's the turnaround time for something like that,
[1:09:06] because that sounds like.
[1:09:06] So any residential development, any residential development, so it's tentative map and the apartment complex, it doesn't matter any residential development.
[1:09:16] The state requires city staff to review the application and to provide comments within 30 days.
[1:09:25] If we do not, the application is deemed complete and it moves forward.
[1:09:29] I would like to also kind of set those same state standards, to also something feasible, of course, for commercial.
[1:09:38] So we actually do, as just a matter of role, we follow the 30 days.
[1:09:43] Awesome.
[1:09:43] Yeah, we follow 30 days on everything.
[1:09:45] It's easier for not only the planning staff, it's easier for our development review committee to know that they're getting a two week review that meets into planning.
[1:09:53] So just for every application that planning is processing, we're following a 30-day review period on a completeness schedule commercial or residential, it's easier than tracking two different.
[1:10:03] Yes, it's just easier to follow the 30 days and as a rule of practice, we follow that. I know not all cities do.
[1:10:10] For example, I have an application and right now it came in, it got assigned to me within a couple days and it got routed for two week review because that allows.
[1:10:19] in case anyone's a little tardy on their comments,
[1:10:22] and then I have to put them all together
[1:10:24] in one clear and concise letter, and then it gets to them.
[1:10:27] And we almost always exceed that 30 days,
[1:10:31] because the one thing you don't want to do as a planner
[1:10:33] is to miss that 30-day window,
[1:10:35] because then especially for residential projects,
[1:10:37] it's now complete, there is nothing you can say.
[1:10:39] Right.
[1:10:40] I mean, at the end of the day, even if you did say something
[1:10:43] for housing development, you do say something,
[1:10:47] what's the next remedy at that point anyway?
[1:10:49] So for like a housing development, let's say they submitted a map and there's no utility plans in there and so we're not sure how are the lines working, how do the streets work, how does this work together if I don't ask for it within that first 30 days and it has to be everything I can't ask for three items and then pick a new three items on the second review and so as planners it's just easier to follow those rules for every project because it allows for consistency and you're not constantly
[1:11:19] thinking, well, what is this project? What is the deadline? What do I have to tell
[1:11:22] them? And also for customer service, they're going to want to know I need a floor
[1:11:27] plan. I need a, you know, whatever it is, an elevation of the rear. So we give it
[1:11:31] to them all at once. I will say that sometimes, pretend they forget to give us a
[1:11:38] floor plan and you say, I need the floor plan and the floor plan has to have, you
[1:11:41] know, the square footage and you still, you know, dimension this room and we
[1:11:45] will get a recent middle and it'll be a floor plan and they haven't given us the
[1:11:48] dimensions, and they haven't given us the square footage, so it's another incomplete
[1:11:52] because they don't follow the list.
[1:11:53] But that is why we give them a list, so they can literally check it off and then turn
[1:11:56] it in.
[1:11:57] What's the worst case scenario if an applicant turns something in and they can have a utility
[1:12:03] plan?
[1:12:04] What happens in that?
[1:12:06] It depends on the type of project, so this is the situation for any project.
[1:12:11] Some things that they forget to submit can be conditioned and some they just can't because
[1:12:16] is we need to look at it for whatever reason.
[1:12:20] So for example, if I have a new commercial building
[1:12:22] coming in and they don't show the location
[1:12:25] of the trash enclosure, then it's going to be incomplete
[1:12:29] that you need to show it.
[1:12:30] And the reason that we can't condition that one
[1:12:31] is for several reasons.
[1:12:32] One, we need to make sure that it meets the size requirements
[1:12:35] for ecology for pickup.
[1:12:37] Two, we wanna make sure that wherever that trash enclosure
[1:12:40] is going, that it can actually be serviced.
[1:12:44] and three does that impact circulation at all because what we have seen is when it goes forward,
[1:12:51] the site then has to get changed and the way the code works is they have to come back to
[1:12:56] planning commission if they're messing with the site and changing that circulation. So that to
[1:13:01] them is a disadvantage to move forward. If there is something that we have asked for and we feel like
[1:13:06] it could be pushed to a later date, we make it a condition of approval. So I think in some cases
[1:13:14] is the landscape plan was incorrect and didn't have the proper tree sizes, so there's
[1:13:18] a condition of approval that says you're going to change it.
[1:13:20] Just to interrupt, what I'm trying to get at is, because of you guys are under this immense
[1:13:24] pressure, if you get, you know, I get it, you guys are busy, there's a lot of stuff.
[1:13:30] And there's no, it doesn't meet the, what do they call those trees?
[1:13:36] What do they call that?
[1:13:37] There's a tree ordinance or there's a, whatever ordinance you get what I'm getting at, there's
[1:13:42] is not enough? What do they call that, trees?
[1:13:45] Enough, street trees?
[1:13:46] I think I understand a question.
[1:13:48] So if we miss the 38-Eye and it's deemed complete
[1:13:51] or whatever it might have been, then what happened
[1:13:54] is we'd move it through the process.
[1:13:56] So if it was something that was coming to the commission,
[1:13:58] then we'd move through the process of bringing it forward
[1:14:00] to the commission.
[1:14:01] And then we would talk about whether it means the code or not.
[1:14:06] But if it was a commercial, you'd have a lot more discretion
[1:14:09] on whether you could deny a commercial project
[1:14:11] to have them revise it to meet the code, but if it was something that was deemed complete
[1:14:15] and is a housing project, if the standard that it's not meeting isn't objective and even
[1:14:19] then you're going to have a lot less say.
[1:14:22] So staff is really diligent about hitting that 30-day deadline, but also making sure we're
[1:14:28] thorough in those first 30 days to make sure we're not having incomplete applications so that
[1:14:34] we can make sure we thoroughly are able to review the concept against code.
[1:14:38] Okay, but it would come forward and then there would be a potential discussion about whether it's code or not it sounds like and it's my assumption that
[1:14:47] De facto you're gonna end up having a priority of residential because of the strict requirements
[1:14:53] Over commercial and then the only other reason why I still don't understand on the commercial side because if you meet your
[1:15:00] We're applying the same standards. Why is there so much issues on the commercial side? And I really don't hear issues on the housing side. So I think in this city especially most of what the planning commission looking at is just a subdivision map and engineers can crank those out and those standards are in the subdivision map back in the subdivision ordinance. And then they have to meet development standards and those are pretty straightforward, right? There's not much they have to do there. And then that's it. They don't have to show us the design, they don't show us the landscaping plan.
[1:15:29] and nothing.
[1:15:30] So that is essentially for those types of projects
[1:15:33] easier to get through to plan a commission.
[1:15:37] And most of the engineers that are doing that,
[1:15:40] they're doing tons and tons and tons,
[1:15:41] they know how that works.
[1:15:43] Most map-back requirements are statewide.
[1:15:48] With other sorts of projects that we see,
[1:15:50] what we are running into, I think,
[1:15:52] part of the confusion may be that
[1:15:55] When people are trying to modify an exterior building, there are different things that come into play, and also if you're modifying this site and it is an older site, there are definitely other extended circumstances that come into play.
[1:16:11] So if I'm trying to stick a trash enclosure in the middle of an alley, that's not your alley we're going to make a comment.
[1:16:17] If I need to put in a trash enclosure and I'm trying to stick it in a fire lane, you are going to get a comment and I think that's the other part is our code is very hard to read and that's what we're trying to fix to make it easier for everyone.
[1:16:32] Most commercial projects that I have had with the exception of Heritage Plaza that did take a while do do move through very quickly.
[1:16:40] Heritage Plaza took quite a while because there was two problems.
[1:16:44] one that applicant wasn't responsive and it took the designer a while to modify the plans
[1:16:49] and two they could not figure out where to place their trash enclosure and that helped them up as well.
[1:16:55] Yeah we have a lot of sites in the city especially our commercial sites, existing commercial sites
[1:17:01] that are constrained by the fact that they were built so long ago that they don't meet the code now
[1:17:09] So when you want to do an upgrade, it's difficult because you have to bring the site into compliance and so it's a challenge with parking and landscaping and trash enclosures is a difficult one to so we have a lot of issues with existing sites and trying to make them work into the changes and that happens a lot with our commercial and then we don't see too many multifamily residential, but they tend to take a while as well and the process to get through comments.
[1:17:38] Well, and I would agree with that and I mean even to be consistent with that what you know the director Kellyanne mentioned basically.
[1:17:48] I mean I've heard of plenty of issues that there's if there's any discretion to address the issue it's on the side of the planning not on the business right so they're they're they're lack of understanding or maybe.
[1:18:05] the fact that meeting it to code and trying to bring it up, right?
[1:18:09] Like, I've noticed, and I've had so many people tell me, like,
[1:18:14] how you ask the question is the most important.
[1:18:16] Because if you ask the wrong way,
[1:18:18] they're going to trigger all these requirements,
[1:18:20] and all of a sudden you're in a ton of money, right?
[1:18:23] And it's, and because there's discretion,
[1:18:27] technically, there's less, it becomes easy to downgrade
[1:18:33] priority-wise that project, whereas if it's cut and paste or whatever on the
[1:18:39] residential side, it's a lot easier for that to become de facto, like it's
[1:18:43] gonna end up getting to basically push through, right? Maybe because it's easy to
[1:18:47] comply, whatever that means, it just sounds like there really is no strong
[1:18:51] support on the commercial end, right? Because the front end of it, and I mean I'm
[1:18:56] just stating specifically, and I'm getting, I'm seeing the head disagreeing with me,
[1:19:02] I'm just, I'm seeing there's so many different circumstances that I've gotten calls on scenarios
[1:19:06] where literally it's like I'm trying to reach out and I'm getting no response or I, you
[1:19:12] know, I'm, I'm, they're saying that I abandoned the project and I'm, here's my email, how
[1:19:16] did I abandon?
[1:19:17] I'm responding and I'm, you know, so there's all these just nuanced issues, it's just hard
[1:19:22] to not imagine, right?
[1:19:24] Unless all these people are liars, they're calling me.
[1:19:26] But I think it's a specific example, it's hard to say,
[1:19:29] because in the planning process,
[1:19:31] it's not just planning, right?
[1:19:32] Engineering's involved, players involved,
[1:19:35] the college is involved, building a new airport.
[1:19:40] I think the best example is the one
[1:19:42] that we ended up basically troubleshooting
[1:19:44] ultimately on the dius right here,
[1:19:46] where that feedlot came forward
[1:19:49] and we had to ask a ton of questions that we dug in.
[1:19:52] And all we asked was, oh, so you actually,
[1:19:55] as long as you don't change the ground and the material then as long as you leave it
[1:20:01] undisturbed and if there's any grating that that's the same material then there's no violation
[1:20:07] and the engineer said no there's no violation okay so if we amended it to include do not change
[1:20:13] the material then then it'll pass yes it'll pass we voted and we agreed and project moved forward
[1:20:20] So, we had the troubleshoot in the fall of that issue.
[1:20:23] I do want to get us planning issues.
[1:20:26] So, the hard thing I think that is hard to understand with
[1:20:28] planning review is that we do involve all the departments
[1:20:32] because what we don't want to have happen is you come with
[1:20:35] your beautiful commercial building to planning commission
[1:20:37] and you approve it and then it goes to engineering
[1:20:39] for grading and improvement plans and they say
[1:20:41] absolutely not redesign.
[1:20:43] Nobody wants to go through that.
[1:20:44] That is a very expensive mistake.
[1:20:47] So we involve departments because different departments are looking at different things.
[1:20:54] Fire is looking from a life safety standpoint, engineering is looking at their requirements of such as that project.
[1:21:01] And then planning is looking at what does the zoning ordinance say.
[1:21:04] So if the zoning ordinance says, I don't know, it has to be 10 feet from the property line.
[1:21:09] It has to be 10 feet from the property line.
[1:21:11] If the zoning ordinance says you will have a tree every 30 feet on center, you have to have a tree every 30 feet on center.
[1:21:16] And so that is what planning sticks to.
[1:21:18] We are sticking to the code.
[1:21:21] And with commercial, there's a little bit of leeway
[1:21:23] with design, but we usually take it to you
[1:21:26] for your opinion.
[1:21:28] But other departments have their own things
[1:21:30] that they're looking at.
[1:21:31] Yeah, I agree.
[1:21:33] That seems very challenging.
[1:21:35] Who is leaving the project ultimately?
[1:21:37] Is there so many departments on our own?
[1:21:38] Ultimately, the planner leads the project,
[1:21:39] because they're bringing it either at the planning stage.
[1:21:42] The planner leads the project and the planning stage.
[1:21:45] Yeah, so if a department tells me that that is their requirement, then that's the requirement
[1:21:51] I will alert the applicant that that is the requirement and they are free to call engineering
[1:21:55] They get if they get a letter and pretend they're complete. We have no issues
[1:21:59] Obviously, they're gonna get a notice for me seeing their complete, but if they get a letter from staff
[1:22:05] That letter says these are the the comments that we've received and I'm listing them out for you
[1:22:11] And these are the departments that made that comment and then you can contact them and that department may then later call me and say I
[1:22:17] Remove said comment and I'll you know make a note of it and said comment is removed and that's how that process works and sometimes they say take it to the
[1:22:26] Commission and recommend denial because of the parking and then we bring it to you so yeah, I mean it's it's on a whole separate conversation.
[1:22:35] There literally was, I'm pretty positive, Director Kelly had mentioned, literally that technically speaking it's almost like secret Santa because the left doesn't, you know, the one hand doesn't talk to the other hand.
[1:22:48] Like, because you had what code enforcement having an issue.
[1:22:51] Yes.
[1:22:52] And they're like, I'm doing what the plan is telling me.
[1:22:55] I'm actually following the rules, but I'm getting fined and now I have $3,000 in fines.
[1:22:59] And they're like, well, that's not our department, so it's your problem kind of thing.
[1:23:01] And it's like at a certain point like it just comes to a head right the project by itself blows up because there is no
[1:23:08] continuity that I know there's no communication
[1:23:10] And ultimately yeah, it's a lot of frustration. I just want to add on that. I'm not an elected official
[1:23:16] But I think so I can't give direction to you guys, but I think what I
[1:23:23] Don't want to speak for the council, but I can always speak for myself
[1:23:27] I think what we're trying to get at because I get it housing is more modular correct
[1:23:31] It's new developments are easier because they're modular.
[1:23:35] In other words, it's just kind of one go.
[1:23:37] These guys are really good.
[1:23:38] It can't be homes.
[1:23:39] They build thousands of these things.
[1:23:41] They're modular.
[1:23:42] So for you guys.
[1:23:43] Is that the ones I made big errors over it?
[1:23:46] Cross-room, can I ask a little bit?
[1:23:49] Which one was that one?
[1:23:51] Type-room homes.
[1:23:52] But you understand, they're more modular.
[1:23:54] It's kind of one-in-go.
[1:23:56] They're professionals about it.
[1:23:57] When you have a small business, it's
[1:24:00] It's going to be more, okay, like as Peter's point, it almost seems like, like an old
[1:24:07] supervisor once said, sometimes it's easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission.
[1:24:12] And I'm not, that's not advice, you know, but because once you do something, you open this
[1:24:18] Pandora's box because you're not up to code for here, you're not up to code to here, you
[1:24:22] have to do these modifications, you need a ramp, whatever it may be, but it sounds like
[1:24:27] Newer developments are going to be inherently easier for the planning department engineering.
[1:24:36] It depends. I mean obviously residential subdivision, again, we're working with a formula.
[1:24:45] A ground up commercial project, right, on vacant land, can still have many issues from
[1:24:54] the first get go because sometimes the circulation does not work.
[1:24:59] And just because they've had an expert design it doesn't mean it's going to work in the
[1:25:03] context of the city and so they'll get comments on that.
[1:25:07] It is harder when you're in older business and you want to do anything to your property
[1:25:12] because if I am a tenant, and I upgrade the inside of my building, which for the most part that doesn't involve planning, but you have to come to current building code and there's nothing we can do. That's a state regulation.
[1:25:25] And I think just to carry on, I can't speak for the planning, I'm not planning the commission or the city council, but I think what we're trying to say is there was an applicant that came in and we troubleshoot it.
[1:25:41] it. All they had to do was one minor adjustment and everything went away. And I think that's
[1:25:47] the frustration is, is, is I personally would have liked to see more discretion from the
[1:25:52] planners like, Hey, why don't you tell the applicant not to do this? Or maybe you didn't
[1:25:56] know, but I think it's a discretion of like, somebody could get hooked up on one minor thing.
[1:26:04] And that's the frustration, I think that, but I personally think is, is, is they almost
[1:26:09] walk themselves into this, and I think that's the first, and I get that's not your job,
[1:26:14] it's like your job is just to see what they submitted, but it's like, I mean, I will try not
[1:26:20] to speak to this project specifically, but there was a lot of conversations between the planning
[1:26:27] department and the engineering department throughout this process of how to make that comment, go away,
[1:26:33] and engineering was standing firm on it so we could not change the comments to the applicant and then it changed the commission.
[1:26:44] So I do understand your frustration. I think part of where we're trying to go with what's within our zoning code and within the planning department's ability to reflect changes is to work on these procedures.
[1:26:57] and then ultimately, as we get into Phase 4 and really are talking about design and talking about zoning regulations to make amendments, the whole code, like Erica said, needs to be repealed and replaced with a modern code because we do have outdated standards.
[1:27:15] As we get into those standards, that's going to be really nuanced conversations that we're having with the commission.
[1:27:22] You know, we're going to be talking to you about trees.
[1:27:25] And that's going to be Eric's favorite study session because she's really in the landscaping.
[1:27:30] But what our ultimate goal, and this is a long project, it is a face project.
[1:27:35] We're going to be having study sessions talking about one chapter at a time, two chapters at a time for a while with you guys.
[1:27:41] But the ultimate goal is we need as a city to have these updated standards so that staff can apply them.
[1:27:50] Now, is it going to solve all our problems? No, because we have Title 16 and we have Title 15 and we have building codes
[1:27:57] and these types of things that also are impacting projects as they come through.
[1:28:02] But where we have power as planning department, the planning division, the planning commission is to fix our zoning issues
[1:28:09] and talk about what requires planning permits,
[1:28:13] what conditions we can put on projects to make them,
[1:28:17] you know, if we have a standard set of conditions
[1:28:19] from planning perspective,
[1:28:21] then we don't have to talk about whether or not
[1:28:23] they'll meet those things, right?
[1:28:24] So that's where we're trying to go with these zoning upgrades,
[1:28:28] with these study sessions, fixing our planning procedures,
[1:28:31] working on our planning permits, downgrading them,
[1:28:34] and then ultimately, as we get into phase four,
[1:28:37] which hopefully will kick off more so after the general plans adopted because then we can work
[1:28:45] on zoning that needs new general plan policy, right? Because if right now the general plan says
[1:28:50] one thing in regard to landscaping and then in the future the general plan says something else,
[1:28:54] then we've got to change the code anyway. So design requirements, zoning requirements, that's that
[1:29:00] phase four that's going to follow once we have general plan policy to implement with new code.
[1:29:04] But I think that we do hear you, we do hear applicants internally, we are working on better communication with our fellow departments and our fellow agencies, but where planning has per view is kind of at the planning stage, our job is to kind of say, what are your requirements, what are your requirements, what are your requirements and try to package those things together, it's harder for us, though we do try to facilitate, you know, conflict.
[1:29:33] It's harder for us to say you can't have that requirement in sharing department.
[1:29:37] You can't have that requirement for our department because that's why they have their
[1:29:42] purview and their requirements as well, right?
[1:29:44] We kind of have to mesh those into our permits.
[1:29:47] And if a project is denied in 10th century commission, they don't have to pay anything, right?
[1:29:51] It's like the 3,000 fee for an appeal, was it 3,000 or 5,000?
[1:29:55] The project is brought like a signar in touch with you.
[1:30:00] If we get to a point where between staff and the applicant, we can't make a recommendation for approval. It will still come to the commission. It would be the only thing that would be an appeal where there's an additional fee for processing an appeal is if, let's say it was a staff level decision. In this example, minor SNA, right, in our new co-policy, minor SNA is approved or is denied, then someone could appeal that to the commission that's processing the appeal application.
[1:30:29] but for a major site and architecture review,
[1:30:32] that would still be before the commission,
[1:30:33] so whatever the recommendation might be,
[1:30:35] that's not a fee.
[1:30:37] The decision is still at the commission,
[1:30:39] whether it's a recommendation for approval
[1:30:41] or denial or just consideration.
[1:30:43] And by staff, you mean staff with a planning department?
[1:30:46] It would be the community development director
[1:30:48] or for probably the lesser of major and minor
[1:30:55] or minor and administrative.
[1:30:57] It would be staff level, yes.
[1:30:59] designated, but ultimately it was come under the community development directors as the
[1:31:04] staff.
[1:31:07] I see all the attachments of the email communication, the multiple requests to meet with certain
[1:31:14] individuals, certain departments, and then to the refusal, right, just holding strong.
[1:31:20] And I feel like that's something that it's not really a process, it's more of a personal
[1:31:25] choice, right?
[1:31:27] And like this last project again, it was through talking to the individual holding up the project and picking up on the cues of how things were being presented that we were able to dig in and figure out, okay, that's the issue there.
[1:31:40] And I recall the engineer from the applicant asking very related questions and asking for immediate clarity.
[1:31:47] And but you kind of enforce it in between something outside of your department, right?
[1:31:52] But I understand it's a challenge, but I think it's, I don't know if this will address that, but that's more, that's another item, I think.
[1:32:00] Okay, maybe we put that on the auction.
[1:32:02] Maybe, again, if I'm just saying like this could only do so much, but there's still individual decisions that are made that fold up, things for businesses and for new businesses or projects, but that's the separate conversation I think.
[1:32:16] We do continue to try to work on that process to make it easier for everyone.
[1:32:21] In the last two years maybe, we've created a comprehensive list of all the
[1:32:27] submittal requirements that's supposed on our website and people can easily go down the list
[1:32:31] and check it off, what applies to them, and that has actually sped up the review of most projects.
[1:32:37] We continue to post additional information or focused applications so that people can get through the process
[1:32:43] us more quickly, so now we have a conditional use permit application that really guides people
[1:32:47] into answering questions on that application form, whereas what we found before was people
[1:32:52] give us a submittal and we're missing half the information we actually need to process
[1:32:55] it, so we're guiding them through the process to make it easier.
[1:33:00] It is kind of a fact of the way this goes that people will submit and they will omit a lot
[1:33:07] of the necessary information, and we will have to ask them to resummit.
[1:33:11] recent medals do typically tend to go faster unless it was they did not listen to anything we had
[1:33:15] and they basically are reapplying on the second round. So we do tend to do the second round faster.
[1:33:22] Most of my projects have gone quite quickly to you. The polytechnic academy was held up because we're
[1:33:27] waiting on a focus traffic analysis that takes time to prepare and review and then I think I've had
[1:33:33] the conditional use point for the San Benino billiards and that went through two reviews because
[1:33:41] The first review is missing vital information and so we need that information to properly conditions but so for today
[1:33:47] Right, we're looking at today
[1:33:50] Do you have any comments on this?
[1:33:56] Comment do is there any public comments on this item?
[1:34:02] We do not have any public comments. Okay. Thank you
[1:34:05] And is there any further discussion or emotion on this item? I
[1:34:13] don't have any more discussion
[1:34:14] but I'll make a motion if we're already to what would that motion be?
[1:34:19] I was just going to say I don't and I don't know what that is about.
[1:34:23] I was out of make.
[1:34:24] Absolutely.
[1:34:25] Thank you.
[1:34:26] It's not till what final phase or whatever.
[1:34:30] So yeah, so we're slowly and this is going in pieces and your next one will probably be
[1:34:34] along like the previous one was and then once we're all done it gets wrapped together into
[1:34:39] one for a review and recommendation.
[1:34:42] Thank you.
[1:34:42] So then let's move on, I think this is where we can talk about our action 8.1 planning commission reports.
[1:34:50] Is there any reports and is this our opportunity then to also request?
[1:34:58] Yeah, so if you look at your agenda, it says that this is the time for commission to refer public or commission questions to staff.
[1:35:07] Request staff to report to the commission on a matter at a future meeting or direct staff to place a matter on a future agenda
[1:35:14] And then so anything nothing would be discussed tonight, but rather brought back at a future meeting
[1:35:19] So who would like to start?
[1:35:22] So I yeah, I obviously would appreciate to bring these the recommendations back or the seven items
[1:35:28] For discussion ultimately for vetting and ultimately
[1:35:32] to tighten up the recommendations to be forwarded to the council for their consideration and then you know at that point it's at their discretion adoption.
[1:35:44] So that's my recommendation but we're on the infirm what is it on the commission reports reports so one just final point on I think kind of putting a cap on the whole discussion or at least on my end is speaking to councilman
[1:36:00] as and kind of obviously paying attention to meetings and sensing the consideration of the council
[1:36:06] or at least what I would imagine sounds like the will of the body in general is there's the big
[1:36:13] sense of urgency for economic development. We need to grow our economy. We need to focus on commercial
[1:36:19] small business, creating opportunity or at least facilitating opportunity and they're at the high
[1:36:26] And we're dealing with obviously a huge deficit at the federal level, and now it seems
[1:36:31] to be the LAO had just mentioned that there was an $80 billion deficit expected this next
[1:36:38] year.
[1:36:38] So the bottom line is it looks like the trend is going upwards in the deficit, which the
[1:36:44] oversimplified interpretation means, at the local level, there's going to be resources cut
[1:36:49] or there'll be less revenue for our local economy to address the city services and the things
[1:36:55] necessary. So that being said, that's why they're wanting to see where we are with commercial
[1:37:02] development and how do we get to where we need to be to grow. That's what, you know, the
[1:37:05] bike relays another example. Where do we need to be? So that's why I think these things have to
[1:37:11] have a sense of urgency. I wouldn't maybe like to at least consider having a maybe another reporter
[1:37:18] presentation on the current layout of the land of what is our zoning as it applies to commercial,
[1:37:23] what are the amount of projects that we have that are in the queue, which ones have not been able to go through, maybe potential issues, and maybe even what is the potential of these economic projects if they actually get fulfilled right if they actually get passed and ultimately come into our community.
[1:37:41] Something that kind of gives us at least a better understanding and I think that could also filter back to the council.
[1:37:46] Like summary of current applicants.
[1:37:49] Current applicants, yeah.
[1:37:51] I mean, I didn't know if an error was coming in to our backyard
[1:37:53] until it was pretty much coming out.
[1:37:55] Right.
[1:37:56] I agree.
[1:37:58] Just on one clarification.
[1:37:59] So what was the action item?
[1:38:01] I'm sorry, just someone can refresh.
[1:38:05] You gave recommendation last two recommendations.
[1:38:09] So the first one was the seven items for the review process.
[1:38:13] And you wanted to see that implemented
[1:38:16] Or you said no, so that would be a recommendation for us to have a conversation about it at the next meeting, and that way we can basically make sure that they're, you know, through the attorney and ultimately staff to clean up the language to make sure that it goes forward as certain recommendations from the council.
[1:38:33] So that should have been reflected today.
[1:38:35] That would have been today if it would have come forward today, yeah.
[1:38:38] Is that your interpretation?
[1:38:39] I don't know, I just want to make sure we're all on the same page.
[1:38:42] So should it, Mr. Hernandez felt like it should have been reflected today?
[1:38:46] I don't know, did you guys get that interpretation?
[1:38:48] I just want to make sure-
[1:38:49] Well, I understand the reflection today.
[1:38:54] I think where staff was at at the last meeting and we will reflect it in the minutes that that was the reflection.
[1:39:01] But where staff was at at the meeting and where I think we'll have to continue to be at is that
[1:39:06] But as far as discussions of the body of the planning commission, we can only have a discussion
[1:39:13] about things that are within the purview of the planning commission.
[1:39:16] But what we can do is provide an additional memo to the memo that was provided if there's
[1:39:22] more that we can just informationally provide you about these things so at least that can give
[1:39:28] a response.
[1:39:29] Because I'm just going to use the there was something you want actionable something tangible. I mean I so I sound like I'm going to say it again.
[1:39:37] It's just putting these recommendations into a basically something that gets forwarded to the council.
[1:39:46] And gives them the discretion to consider those as potential amendments to their policies right because we're not policy makers they are.
[1:39:54] And that way they can start to implement it into the planning process if that is the will of the City Council's body.
[1:40:00] Yeah, well, I agree with that. I don't know if that's the will of this body this board, but I do agree with your recommendations or our recommendations.
[1:40:10] I mean, and technically it's kind of going into next month to really at that point is to tighten that list up forward it to the council.
[1:40:18] and then at that point on their end they're like okay we know exactly what the
[1:40:22] with the commission wants let's talk about it and we could say yeah we don't
[1:40:26] agree or maybe we should talk about it and on there and they would have to
[1:40:31] go into a whole cleanup process to make it legal and ultimately something that
[1:40:37] they can officially adopt into their process if that's their will right not it's
[1:40:41] not yeah at that point it's we're just handing it off to them for them okay and so
[1:40:45] Right now each of us will add if you have like a report or an additional
[1:40:51] No, I don't have anything else to add.
[1:40:53] And I had made two recommendations. The second one was for another agenda item that actually talked about the actual projects.
[1:41:00] What do we have with the queue? What are the potentials and ultimately if there's any delays or issues, right?
[1:41:07] What are the things that are happening with those projects?
[1:41:09] And just to set expectations on that one, we'll have to keep it very high level, likely not naming the project
[1:41:13] because we can't bring a project that isn't publicly noticed for any sort of discussion.
[1:41:21] So it might be like there's a restaurant, a gas station, so something general and high level if that's brought back.
[1:41:28] One, but even if we had that and then maybe just the number of those projects and, you know, even if we need the industry, I think we could easily
[1:41:40] and I think just two expectations again, I can definitely work on a memo, so at least from an informational perspective, I can address all of these items to the commission with information, but from what the planning commission can discuss, and as it relates specifically to projects that aren't before you, you know, I could work on a high-level list, but we might not be able to discuss it here, but I think it's going to be a good idea.
[1:42:07] or even if it is tangentially planning related,
[1:42:11] like things like fees,
[1:42:13] that even to make a recommendation to the council,
[1:42:16] that is not the body of the planning commissions
[1:42:19] per view to make a recommendation on a fee like that.
[1:42:22] But I can provide information to the planning commission
[1:42:26] informationally about all these items
[1:42:29] and I will bring back what can be brought back
[1:42:32] for discussion.
[1:42:34] another related item I think was the way the minutes are recorded I guess or
[1:42:39] reported that is a change from what you're used to and we want to discuss that
[1:42:45] next meeting just to say just changing the way that's even an option it should be
[1:42:50] I mean that's pretty standard practice in most boards regardless of so putting it on
[1:42:55] the agenda as a discussion item for us okay for next month so we know like what's
[1:43:01] What's the possibility?
[1:43:02] What's the expectation?
[1:43:03] Exactly.
[1:43:04] That's good.
[1:43:05] Anything else?
[1:43:07] For you?
[1:43:08] I mean, yeah, so I'm trying to dissect a little bit what Director Kelly had mentioned
[1:43:14] because I mean, anything that we say is not policy decisions.
[1:43:23] I'm not technically there's no violation until I ask for a vote for something that's not
[1:43:28] even within our own jurisdiction, making recommendations, it's literally just, this is what we're thinking,
[1:43:35] you tell us if we're wrong or if you completely disagree. So, here's the reality, right? Again,
[1:43:42] getting back to what I had mentioned earlier, if this doesn't happen, if there is no real discussion
[1:43:47] about the actual granular elements, councils' elected bodies, especially our very high level
[1:43:55] And the policy, right, they have to get into the weeds a little bit to understand what
[1:44:01] are the intrinsic otherwise you're making a decision that might have a negative impact,
[1:44:05] not even realizing it because you really don't understand the implications of that decision.
[1:44:10] So it's really important that we're able to give recommendations so that they can say, okay,
[1:44:15] we have the info, we have staff, you tell us, and then they can clean up whatever their thinking
[1:44:21] is and then apply that in the policy process and ultimately with the direction or at least
[1:44:26] the guidance of the city attorney, then you make it an actual legal element in your
[1:44:32] own policy process. If we don't even give them anything, they're not good. All I know
[1:44:37] is anytime I talk to Councilman Rosendez and at times when I've talked separately to Mayor
[1:44:42] Stevens, as an example, they only know what we know, which is very little, which means
[1:44:49] they're not able to solve the very problems that we're talking about because they don't know,
[1:44:53] we don't know, then who knows, and besides that.
[1:44:56] And so, if, unless you have, I wanted to add to the request.
[1:45:00] Yes, that you have to do have another on that data report. The general data is there also an opportunity to know how many were denied, how many projects in whatever categories were denied this year. So for example, if there were two restaurants that were denied. Yeah, we can definitely provide anything that's had a decision is a lot easier to give information on than an in process application.
[1:45:29] I suppose what if I could ask just so I make sure that I provide the information that you like what the purpose of that is just to kind of give us and it's because we have just, you know, from what we hear, right?
[1:45:45] So we have a narrative of different people what they tell us.
[1:45:48] But this, yeah, I was going to make it easier, I think, to have what was denied, but maybe
[1:45:57] you guys could even make a list of why it was denied, and it doesn't have to be a nuanced
[1:46:03] list, like each one needs to be complete nuanced, but you could have four categories, one
[1:46:11] maybe use engineering and stuff like that too, something just to give us some kind of indication
[1:46:18] and then if you you know four four five one equals fire two equals circulation whatever you guys
[1:46:27] get general point right and then you'd have the projects so then we can then identify what's holding
[1:46:33] most of these projects up oh it's circulation is holding most of these projects up and then you'd
[1:46:38] have a list of the projects in the next cell,
[1:46:40] however, that would look.
[1:46:42] So I don't know if that makes it easier or over.
[1:46:45] No, I think where I was just going with the question
[1:46:47] and I understand it was, you know,
[1:46:50] this is at all planning applications, correct?
[1:46:55] Yes, okay, so I can definitely do that.
[1:46:57] Also, I, I, from an expectations perspective,
[1:47:01] that I can't give you building and engineering application
[1:47:05] because of that's not the applications we process.
[1:47:07] But I can tell you that there's probably incredible feel that's going to be a handful.
[1:47:13] And I think, and then for me, a follow-up with this discussion we had is also are we going
[1:47:21] to be reviewing in any of these chapters, not just an appeal process, but a complaint process
[1:47:26] of, for example, if there's a specific department that's not getting back to somebody, right?
[1:47:32] Or if there's a specific entity or person.
[1:47:35] and I think with any business, government does what have you, there's always a complaint
[1:47:40] process, right?
[1:47:42] And so I think when people only change when they're held accountable, right?
[1:47:46] If you just, you know, turn around and, oh, no big deal, but if we hold people accountable,
[1:47:51] then people are more apt to follow and respond appropriately, right?
[1:47:56] So I think is there a complaint process or is that part of the things that we would?
[1:48:00] And if it's not in our purviews and I guess it's just informational and then and then we could figure out, you know, with our city council, maybe they need a complete process.
[1:48:13] Does that make sense?
[1:48:16] It does. I'm trying to, well, it's definitely not something in the zoning code. So, and I think from a, what is the process by which to complain about your planning application?
[1:48:27] and that is the appeal process, right?
[1:48:29] So I think complaints,
[1:48:32] it's definitely not something appropriate
[1:48:34] for a zoning ordinance.
[1:48:35] It would be just the, you know,
[1:48:37] I don't know what I'm getting at with the.
[1:48:39] Yeah, I mean, I think you're talking about complaining
[1:48:42] about a particular employee.
[1:48:44] And I think the process with the city
[1:48:46] is the same as it is with any business.
[1:48:47] You're gonna talk to their boss.
[1:48:49] You're gonna talk to the city manager.
[1:48:50] I mean, it's not documented as such in the code,
[1:48:53] not that I've seen.
[1:48:54] Not in the zoning code for sure,
[1:48:55] but I haven't seen it anywhere else
[1:48:56] in the municipal code, but I don't think that it's typically in municipal codes because
[1:49:01] the municipal code is the law, right?
[1:49:03] So a complaint process might be a form on the city's website, or it's just talking
[1:49:08] to the person's boss, like is it like if you go and get that to Rice at a school or?
[1:49:12] You were on the school board, Carla, right, so technically speaking, and I understand the
[1:49:17] reality of privacy elements with speaking about staff, potential liability, but technically
[1:49:24] speaking, that's why whether it's a commissioner, you know, or elected body, they can't have
[1:49:30] a discretionary element to their process to create a close, close session type conversation
[1:49:35] to basically not about it, but technically as the appointed body or even the elected bodies,
[1:49:41] they have a right to that information, you know, they should have the right to discuss it
[1:49:46] to understand it.
[1:49:47] Again, it's all up for the sake of implementing the will of the voters, which are the ones
[1:49:52] the taxpayers that are paying for, yeah, for all the services and putting city
[1:49:56] stuff. Yeah, but okay, thank you for answering it in your right Commissioner
[1:50:01] Hernandez. I was just kind of thinking because we're all kind of circling
[1:50:05] around something, but you know maybe maybe it goes to another entity. So, and I'll
[1:50:14] speak to who I need to speak to at City Council about that. Okay, do we have any
[1:50:19] other but we're good. I was going to make a motion to adjourn. Oh, we have one more.
[1:50:25] Oh, 8.2 planning division reports staff do you have any reports? Yes, I'll just reiterate
[1:50:32] that I will work on at least a memo and bringing back what is within the planning commission's
[1:50:39] discussion per view certainly. And then we are having an objective design standards workshop
[1:50:48] on December 2nd. It's Tuesday. It's a four and Amber Kirkman for
[1:50:53] long on the end time. It either goes till 7.30 or 8.8. So 4 to 8. Tuesday
[1:51:01] December 2nd. It's a pains restaurant in the back room. It's going to be
[1:51:06] essentially a like kind of walk-in come save however long you want. Top to
[1:51:12] staff, talk to our consultants who were working on the project. We are talking
[1:51:16] about objective design standards for new mixed use and residential projects in the downtown
[1:51:21] to implement objective design standards so that we have some local say over how development
[1:51:27] happens in our downtown and then it is going to be there's going to be a presentation at the
[1:51:34] beginning just about the process and then we're going to do another presentation. I believe it's seven
[1:51:38] three same presentation you don't have to go to the presentation and then the whole time you can
[1:51:47] images and things like that. Give feedback and then head out. So December 2nd at 4 p.m. please help us spread the word.
[1:51:54] So the attorney we don't often necessarily be worried too much about Brown Act for that one, because it was a posted meeting kind of.
[1:52:00] It was crashing my mind, but then when Eva described it as a walk in one at a time, talk to staff, it made me feel more comfortable with it, not meeting to be agendas.
[1:52:13] If you're all there at the same time, because it's not really a present, not a meeting where there will be one big discussion, does that make sense?
[1:52:20] Yeah, I guess I'm presenting it for the public and the Commissioner helps read the word, object design hints or standards will return to you as a body when it's drafted as well, but yeah,
[1:52:31] help us read the word to the public and to your constituents and most types of things to help people come.
[1:52:36] Thank you.
[1:52:37] And technically, there is no violation, even if the whole body is there, as long as they're
[1:52:43] not discussing actual business.
[1:52:46] So but the optics is obviously not appealing, which means most bodies will separate at least
[1:52:53] to where it's at most two people next to each other.
[1:52:56] So it's because there's no serial median that way.
[1:53:01] We're not all going to get together and discuss.
[1:53:03] I just want to say that it's nuanced, so that's not necessarily true, but because they
[1:53:11] are talking about something within your jurisdiction, which is design standards.
[1:53:16] And so if you're all—
[1:53:17] No, I know, but—
[1:53:18] It doesn't require you to all—it doesn't require you to necessarily discuss it.
[1:53:22] So if you think about a situation where we're here in this meeting and maybe staff is giving
[1:53:25] a presentation to you about a particular topic and you don't engage in discussion, it still
[1:53:31] need us to be agenda. So it's similar, where you're all hearing the same information that you'll
[1:53:36] eventually come back to your board for decision. But I think the way that you've described it,
[1:53:41] this particular meeting, I think that if you each chose to attend, you wouldn't necessarily do so at
[1:53:47] the same time. You wouldn't necessarily all hear the same discussion. It's community. Yeah, it's a
[1:53:53] community workshop that we were trying to get community feedback in this point in the process. We have
[1:53:59] survey online as well and then so that we can finish drafting and bring it
[1:54:03] before you. And to be clear though technically it's information that's the
[1:54:07] whole public right the whole idea of a ceremony is is it's private and it's
[1:54:11] basically intentionally trying to avoid you know basically trying to collude to
[1:54:17] certain extent behind closed doors. I just know that when the county had their
[1:54:21] meeting about Highway 25 the new VMT requirement the law had passed it now
[1:54:27] change the whole thing with the cost mechanism of the vehicle mass travel, all the supervisors
[1:54:33] were there and they were specifically about a policy but they weren't together, right?
[1:54:37] So, I guess there's disagreeing interpretations of you, but we can attend.
[1:54:44] Yeah.
[1:54:47] It depends on who's holding the meeting, in this case it is the city holding the meeting in
[1:54:55] you're planning commissioners of the city just say hello that's okay are we
[1:55:01] out we don't not have to make a motion to adjourn everyone have a little note
[1:55:06] here that says so we're good so meeting adjourned at 754 thank you thank you
[1:55:12] Thank you, everybody.