[0:02] Chair Garcia? >> Here.

[0:04] » Vice Chair Mendoza? Commissioner Gallardo?

[0:08] » Here. >> Commissioner Urquidez?

[0:10] » Here. >> Commissioner Zavala?

[0:11] » Here. >> Thank you. Uh is there a motion to

[0:14] excuse uh Vice Chair Mendoza?

[0:19] » I make a motion to excuse Vice Chair Mendoza.

[0:22] » We have a motion. Is there a second? >> I'll second that.

[0:26] » Motion and a second. Um all in favor? Say I.

[0:31] » I. >> I. Any opposed?

[0:34] Motion carries. Uh we can now stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

[0:41] Commissioner Zavala? >> [clears throat]

[0:48] » Ready, salute. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the

[0:51] United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation

[0:57] under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for

[1:04] » Thank you for that.

[1:08] » [clears throat] >> Uh we are at public comments from the

[1:11] audience regarding items not on the agenda. Are there any public comments

[1:16] from the audience? Any emails? Hands raised?

[1:22] » No, I'm seeing none. >> Okay, we'll close public comments and

[1:26] move on to the consent agenda. There's one item, which is the adoption

[1:30] of the May 5th, 2026 Planning Commission minutes.

[1:37] Entertain a motion when you're ready.

[1:41] » I make a motion to approve the uh meeting minutes for the Planning

[1:45] Commission meeting on May 5th, 2026. >> We have a motion. Is there a second?

[1:50] » I'll second. >> Motion and a second. All in favor? I.

[1:54] Any opposed? Motion carries. We can move on to public

[1:59] hearings. We have two public hearings this evening.

[2:01] Our first public hearing is the consideration

[2:05] of a resolution for a design review approval for a new two-story 7,147

[2:11] square foot commercial building with 21 parking spaces on a 22,400

[2:17] square foot parcel at 447 El Camino Real, Assessor's Parcel

[2:23] Number 024-022-004.

[2:30] Uh, may we have a staff report?

[2:34] » Thank you, Chair, members of the Planning Commission. Brent Slamer here,

[2:37] contract planner for the city. And first item we're looking

[2:41] at is 447 El Camino Real design review approval.

[2:46] Um across the street from the Inn

[2:50] um adjacent to um another existing building

[2:58] that holds a number of automotive uses and other off other general

[3:03] offices uses on uh El Camino Real. Uh the particulars, it's a two-story

[3:09] structure 7,147 square feet. It's a vacant 22,400 square

[3:14] foot square foot lot. Um seven tenant spaces are planned, two on the bottom

[3:19] floor, five on the top. Um the bottom spaces are 1,512. The second floor

[3:25] offices 533 square feet. Uh no users identified at present. Um

[3:32] talk a little bit more about setbacks. Uh the in the in this zone there are

[3:36] zero-foot setbacks all around. Um 21 spaces for parking on the side of

[3:42] the property. Signage would be deferred for you know for the future. A unified

[3:47] uniform sign program would be required once businesses are established.

[3:52] Um since our last meeting, the

[3:56] HCD approved the building moratorium back in June.

[3:59] Um so, any approvals that come from planning at this point are automatically

[4:03] told, meaning that they don't the the clock

[4:07] for approvals doesn't start until they're able to actually receive a

[4:09] permit. So, um during this time, people may move

[4:14] forward for planning approvals, get planning approvals, and then

[4:17] um the time clock does not start until the building moratorium is lifted and

[4:21] they're able to get a permit. Um so.

[4:26] » [clears throat] >> So, we wouldn't Well, we don't have a

[4:29] date of when that clock will start, but it'll be

[4:32] it's typically design review approvals are 3 years, it'd be 3 years after the

[4:36] date that the moratorium is lifted. Um

[4:41] this is what the building elevations look like. Uh said I'll defer to the

[4:46] architect for more explanation and the questions that you may have. Um we do

[4:50] have representatives here today for the project. Um

[4:54] if you look at the site plan here, it is a long and narrow parcel.

[4:58] Um so, the building while we encourage buildings to be

[5:02] oriented along El Camino Real, uh it just the the way that this lot is

[5:07] situated makes it difficult to do that. Um

[5:12] for a long time, we went back and forth about

[5:15] the property. The property goes back to 9th Street,

[5:18] um but it's very narrow back there, and there was long consideration about

[5:22] whether or not there would be a connection to 9th Street. Um so, you see

[5:25] here there's a turnaround uh in the back of the property. There's

[5:29] 24 parking spaces in the building up on the side of the property.

[5:33] Um landscaping

[5:38] and

[5:41] um and you see here. So, building's oriented on the

[5:45] which would be the north of the of the property

[5:49] um here. Parking on the side. Um there's a

[5:55] go to

[6:02] There's a stairwell up on the top. There's two There's two units on the

[6:06] bottom, five units on the top. And as I mentioned

[6:09] um our architect and applicant are here to

[6:12] answer questions about the building. Um

[6:16] from our perspective we looked at parking, we looked at landscaping, we

[6:19] looked at all the um other requirements.

[6:25] Um no significant obvious questions have been reviewed by all departments

[6:29] for access, for other things. Uh you have a whole list of conditions of

[6:33] approval that are set up. I'm here to answer any questions that you might have

[6:37] uh about the project. Um also, as I mentioned um you have

[6:42] our architect and applicant here to discuss the project and answer any

[6:46] questions that you may have for them.

[6:50] Staff recommending approval of the project.

[6:52] » Thank you for that staff report. Are there any questions for staff before we

[6:55] open the public hearing? >> Uh yeah, I have a question.

[6:59] » Sure. >> I think you already answered it, but

[7:02] just for my clarification, even if this was approved

[7:06] it really wouldn't go into I mean

[7:10] they wouldn't get in a permit, correct? >> That is correct.

[7:12] » Until the moratoria moratorium is over. >> That's right.

[7:16] » And that's not We're not going to see that in the foreseeable future, are we?

[7:21] » Um it's hard to say exactly when that's

[7:23] going to be, but yes, it's going to be a few years.

[7:25] » I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you. But I was under the impression that

[7:29] no one would issue permits or get permits until the issue with the

[7:33] wastewater was uh resolved. Am I correct in that?

[7:37] » Building permits, yes. You can get a planning permit, but you can't build

[7:40] anything until that >> Exactly. Exactly. So,

[7:44] that project over there, I mean, that's going to take a long time to get.

[7:48] I mean, that's not going to be done 6 months, 7 months, whatever.

[7:52] » No. >> I mean, that expansion over there, they

[7:54] were talking one time, if I remember correctly, that would going to take up

[7:57] to a couple of years to get it resolved. >> That is correct.

[8:00] » So, again, being redundant here, even if we approve it,

[8:05] they're not going to get a building permit.

[8:07] » That is correct. >> Okay.

[8:10] » This is the old Byers. Uh

[8:13] based down here. It used to be buildings.

[8:16] » This is a new building? >> This is Go back to the map.

[8:20] This is the uh elementary school. This is the inn over here.

[8:26] Um this is the Me Memorial um

[8:30] medical clinic right here. This is where there's the

[8:34] auto parts and the auto stores here. Um this is where the donut shop.

[8:40] Uh anyway, it's this lot right here, this vacant lot. I don't know if my

[8:43] cursor is moving with you, but this lot right here. It backs up to 9th

[8:47] Street at the end of 9th Street. Yeah, vacant lot.

[8:52] » So, so Bob, it goes It would be next to that long tin building that's there

[8:56] where they have a tire shop and all that stuff. It would be on the south side of

[8:59] that. >> Exactly.

[9:03] » Any more questions for staff?

[9:07] Hearing none, we'll open up the public hearing.

[9:11] The applicant here.

[9:16] » Good evening, council, or uh if the chair that uh I'm Matt Reinhardt,

[9:21] I'm the architect for this project. And uh I'd like to thank staff for bringing

[9:26] this to the planning commission. And uh

[9:29] if you have any questions of me, uh I'll be more than happy to answer them.

[9:34] Uh I think uh

[9:37] some of the I read all the conditions of approval.

[9:40] They're all acceptable. I'll actually go over one with

[9:45] staff. I believe it's just a typo and it was

[9:50] if I would just the condition of approval on page 25,

[9:57] item 41. It talks about the

[10:00] » [clears throat] >> the sidewalk park strip and it's like

[10:05] there's a a full width sidewalk in that area, so

[10:09] there's no landscaping in that sidewalk area. It's just a full width sidewalk.

[10:15] You could probably just change that.

[10:19] And if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer.

[10:25] » Thank you for [snorts] that. Does anybody have any questions for the

[10:28] architect?

[10:35] I have one. Okay, so you indicate that there are seven tenant

[10:40] spaces for this project. I just want to clarify that they're all going to be

[10:44] commercial tenants. [clears throat] >> Yes, they're all commercial tenants.

[10:47] » Because I >> Offices, office suites upstairs.

[10:49] » I was looking at the toilet rooms on the second floor and there's showers in

[10:54] there. >> There is.

[10:56] » You're having showers in your office? >> There's a lot of people that want to

[11:00] shower in their private office, so the

[11:05] that's what we're doing. >> So this won't be converted to

[11:09] residential. >> there's not a cooking area in there.

[11:12] » Okay.

[11:16] Is it every space with a shower or is it just

[11:20] » has a shower.

[11:32] » Is staff okay with that change on condition of approval 41

[11:37] regarding the landscaping? >> Yes.

[11:45] » All right, any other questions anybody have for him?

[11:52] Okay, well, um

[11:55] there is a motion on page

[11:59] I just want to say, you know, I went through it all and it looks like

[12:01] everything is pretty much in conformance with

[12:05] the zoning codes and um

[12:09] everything.

[12:12] All the conditions of approval are well written.

[12:16] Okay, so the motion is on page 13 of your packet, page six of the staff

[12:20] report. Anyone so inclined? [clears throat]

[12:29] » I move that the Planning Commission of the City of Greenfield adopt resolution

[12:32] number 2026-04 granting design review approval of a new

[12:36] 7,147 square foot commercial building at 447 El Camino Real subject subject to

[12:43] conditions of approval included in the resolution.

[12:48] » Uh, do we need to mention the the language change on 41?

[12:53] In the motion? >> Yeah, I think it'd be good to just say

[12:55] as amended per record.

[12:58] » Okay, as amended per the record. I mean >> Cuz that'll cover that'll cover the

[13:02] action being taken in the motion and that your reference is specifically that

[13:05] you guys addressed that specific condition of approval being changed.

[13:08] » Thank you. We have a motion, is there a second?

[13:12] » I'll second that. >> A motion and a second, all in favor

[13:16] please say I. >> I.

[13:18] » Any opposed? Thank you very much.

[13:24] Our next public hearing is consideration of a resolution for design review

[13:29] approval for a new 3,151 square foot duplex with a 903 square

[13:36] foot ADU on property located at 619 Maple Avenue. Assessor's parcel number

[13:42] 024092000.

[13:46] And APN 221001168. That's staff report.

[13:52] » All right. Uh 619 Maple Avenue.

[13:55] Um It's a vacant lot. It's owned medium

[14:00] density residential. There's an alley alongside it uh between 6th and 7th

[14:05] Street. Um Two uh you gave the number so two-story

[14:10] duplex, single-story ADU. It's a 6,800 square foot vacant lot.

[14:15] Um

[14:18] Setbacks was are 20 ft in the front, uh 5 ft setbacks

[14:23] on the side. And then there's a two-story or for the two-story structure

[14:27] 39 sq 39 ft to the rear property. Um show the site plan here in a second.

[14:34] Each unit has two parking spaces uh for the duplex they're proposing one

[14:39] covered and one uncovered. ADU proposing two uncovered off of the alley.

[14:45] Uh there's 2,500 sq ft proposed landscaping and once again this project

[14:48] is subject to the building moratorium. No building permit will be issued until

[14:53] the sewer plant issues are resolved. Expiration dates would be told just the

[14:57] same. >> [clears throat]

[14:58] » Uh this is the site plan. So on the left side of your screen is Maple

[15:04] Avenue. The alley is immediately on the north or is immediately adjacent to this

[15:09] property. Um

[15:12] Interesting to note so typically under state law we don't regulate ADUs. They

[15:18] go through ministerially. Um but here for reference purposes I think as we

[15:22] look at this parcel, this vacant parcel, um particular particularly as it applies

[15:28] to the parking. So, because the ADU is located with uh nick next to El Camino

[15:33] Real and the bus stop that's along El Camino Real, technically you're not

[15:37] required to provide any parking. Um

[15:40] they're putting two outdoor spaces there or outdoor, I mean, uncovered spaces

[15:44] over there. Um the front

[15:48] I'll show the You'll notice here you have a single car

[15:51] garage to each of these townhomes or to each of these duplex units with a single

[15:56] car here. Uh for three units, you need two parking spaces per unit, so they

[16:02] have six. Um

[16:06] Of course, now with all the rules and what you can do with converting garages

[16:09] and everything, it sometimes it feels like we're

[16:13] we really don't have control how many parking spaces there are on a property.

[16:16] Um we did want to touch base on that. Um

[16:22] in terms of the architecture you see here,

[16:25] um

[16:29] it says it you have it you have the duplex, the two-stories, um the floor

[16:33] plans you have here, if you've taken a look at those, they're

[16:36] uh three-bedroom units. This is the ADU unit, or no, this is the

[16:43] Yeah, this is the ADU unit in the rear. I'm happy to go over any questions

[16:47] specific to to those. Um

[16:59] So, um zone medium-density residential, three units allowed.

[17:04] Um any questions over architecture,

[17:07] anything, happy to help answer them. I don't know if they're if the architect

[17:13] or Yeah, I think I think architect's available on Zoom, it looks like. Um

[17:18] we'll see if he wants to comment or anything.

[17:26] But other than that, um I'm happy here to answer any questions

[17:31] um about this lot.

[17:32] » is the ADU on there? >> 903 square feet.

[17:44] » Any questions for staff before we open the public hearing?

[17:48] » Yeah, I I'm trying to find how far back is the ADU from

[17:52] the main building? >> 10 feet apart.

[17:54] » I'm sorry? >> to the bottom of the site plan,

[17:57] » Okay. >> the structures are 10 feet apart, which

[17:59] is a requirement.

[18:02] » Is that minimum? >> Yes.

[18:05] » Wow.

[18:07] I mean there's

[18:11] What is that? 11th Street.

[18:15] Right off of a little ways off of Oak.

[18:19] They're putting in an ADU back there.

[18:24] And some things just don't add up to me. I mean, but that's a completely

[18:27] different scenario because their front window of that ADU

[18:33] is just a few feet back from a garage that's back there.

[18:36] So, the only thing they're looking at is the back of a garage.

[18:41] So, that's what I kind of want to make out here

[18:45] that they're just not going to be looking at the back of that building.

[18:49] » Yeah, so the the ADU requirements um are a lot

[18:54] are a lot less stringent than the city's zoning requirements, so that's what

[18:58] allows you to put 5-ft uh rear setback, for example, in this case. Uh we have to

[19:04] In fact, we have to require anything that's within a 4-ft setback.

[19:07] Um we do have a 10-ft distance between structure requirement. Um but the the

[19:12] direction from the state has been find a way to get it done.

[19:15] Find a way to get it on the property and not a lot of discretion to that.

[19:19] These are the standards if you meet the standards, you need to allow this.

[19:23] Whether it looks pretty is I really have no

[19:26] I hate to say that it's not of concern to the state of California.

[19:29] » Okay. >> Or what your view what your view looks

[19:31] like. >> Yeah.

[19:34] I figure maybe they could paint a big mural in the side of the garage and look

[19:37] at that.

[19:40] » Maybe suggest that to the architect.

[19:45] » Any other questions for staff? I have a quick one on your

[19:50] staff report on page 433 of the packet under lighting.

[19:54] I can't tell if that's a concern or something we should look at

[19:58] um design review requirements should

[20:02] consider outdoor lighting to determine if the proposed project should be

[20:06] approved. The proposed is standard Hampton Bay LED outdoor residential. Is

[20:11] that acceptable? >> Yeah, there's no no significant issues.

[20:15] It's more just this is what they're providing and this is how it meets with

[20:18] their requirements, but no.

[20:24] » Okay, there's no other questions for staff. We'll go ahead and open the

[20:27] public hearing. >> I got to I got to ask you

[20:28] » Oh, I'm sorry. >> Okay, thank

[20:32] you. We were saying that uh it was an ADU going up

[20:37] building right now but uh >> Yes.

[20:41] » Over on 11th between 11th and Palm. Are they uh

[20:46] are they under uh a mandatory on that or they can build it

[20:50] on their own property?

[20:54] » Um They were Let me with the question as

[20:57] far as are they allowed to build are they allowed to get a permit for that?

[21:00] » Yeah. >> It would depend on the time they pulled

[21:02] the permits. So, you notice there's a number of properties under construction

[21:05] right now. Um, so if they pulled their permits

[21:09] prior to that June 19th date, they can continue and finish their construction.

[21:14] And I'd have to you'd have to give me the address, but I we can verify that

[21:17] for sure that more than likely they were issued a permit before that date.

[21:21] » Yeah, cuz previously we had been told that no

[21:25] permits would be issued after like mid-September of last year.

[21:31] But then that was proven that that wasn't true

[21:34] because there was still issuing after that.

[21:37] » Correct. So, when the City Council approved the moratorium that went into

[21:40] effect back in September, it was always contingent upon

[21:44] » State approving it. >> State approval. State approval didn't

[21:46] happen until June of this year. But now it's happened. Everyone that

[21:52] comes to us is aware of those timelines. They're aware of the requirements

[21:56] that they can be issued a planning permit, but they will not be issued

[21:59] building permits at this point until until the until the moratorium has

[22:04] ended. >> So,

[22:06] from what I understand, permits were still being issued up till June of this

[22:10] year. Is that correct? >> Yes, and we are still issuing permits

[22:13] now for things that do not require or do not affect the sewer. So, water heaters,

[22:18] roofing, re-roofs, you know, things like that. We'll still issue those permits,

[22:22] but if it impacts the sewer system, since June 19th, we haven't issued new

[22:26] permits. But we are continuing to complete all the permits that were that

[22:30] were pulled before that time. So, there are still a number of projects under

[22:34] construction right now.

[22:39] » Okay. >> If you get us an address, we'll be happy

[22:41] to check on it for you. >> I'm just worried about parking.

[22:45] You know, with parking status going around here in Greenfield, you can't

[22:49] find a parking place. Now you got

[22:53] four you're going [clears throat] to have four six parking spots.

[22:58] And then you're going to have outside parking, too?

[23:02] » You mean street parking? >> Yeah.

[23:04] You would probably you'll be able to put with the curb cut there, you're

[23:08] going to be able to put maybe two uh cars and then they might be being

[23:12] used now as we speak. Um

[23:15] once again, I come back to parking parking has been taken

[23:20] very much out of our hands these days with the ADU rules.

[23:23] Um we can argue about it all we want. I'm just not sure how we address them.

[23:27] Um with the with the codes that we have because especially with the garage

[23:31] conversion allowances and and things like that. Um

[23:36] I wish I had a better solution for you. Uh right now it's my I just all I can

[23:41] say is is contact the governor.

[23:51] » So that concludes questions for staff. >> I just had one note for the record in

[23:56] regards to the resolution. I would just recommend on any motion taken that I

[24:01] think there was just a clerical error in the resolution itself. In the staff

[24:04] report it references section 15303 of the secret guidelines for a small

[24:11] structure new construction secret exemption

[24:15] and in the resolution it references 15332 which is infill. I just recommend

[24:19] because that's just a clerical thing. I'd recommend that any motion to approve

[24:23] the resolution reference section 15303

[24:29] of the secret guidelines. Um approve the resolution with

[24:34] reference in the resolution to 15303 of the secret guidelines just to be

[24:37] consistent with the staff report. The staff report um

[24:41] makes the secret exemption the new construction pursuant to 15303.

[24:46] » Thank you.

[24:50] So would it be 15303 in place of 15332? >> Correct.

[24:58] » All right, thank you for that clarification. Um, we'll go ahead and

[25:01] open the public hearing. Are there any public comments? I see uh

[25:08] a few people online participating. Now is the time to comment if you'd like.

[25:15] Are any of these the applicant or architect?

[25:22] Okay, we have a hand raised under LV.

[25:36] » Hello. Good evening.

[25:38] » Good evening. >> This is Luis Vargas with Nstudio

[25:41] Architecture uh with our architecture uh firm

[25:44] uh for our client in uh just wanted to say hello and thank you very much for

[25:49] bringing this to the planning commission.

[25:51] Um, it's been in the work for many years and unfortunately we are caught in the

[25:57] moratorium uh for the building permit um as I understand it uh but our client

[26:02] wanted to move forward with with the planning uh approval and um and if it is

[26:08] possible eventually uh the building uh review

[26:12] uh knowing that there is not going to be a permit issued until the moratorium is

[26:16] lifted but uh we appreciate your review and consideration of this project.

[26:22] » Thank you very much. Um

[26:31] Does anyone have any questions for the architect?

[26:39] Okay, hearing none. Any other public comments?

[26:49] Going once, going twice. Okay, with that we'll close the public

[26:55] hearing and open planning commission discussion

[26:58] and decision.

[27:03] Commissioner Zlotta? >> Um, no, I don't have anything. I'm just

[27:08] trying to picture this on the map. Kind of

[27:15] I mean Is it in the corner? Oh, yeah, it is.

[27:21] I didn't have a chance to um draw anything there, but I looked it up

[27:25] and I I don't think I got a good image of it online.

[27:29] Um

[27:36] Isn't there a park nearby? I can't I just

[27:39] » There's a If you go down the end of the street

[27:43] before you get to the freeway, there's like a pocket park with a basketball

[27:46] court. >> Okay. Okay, now I I know where it's at.

[27:48] Okay. >> It's up here.

[27:51] I don't know if that's going to help anything.

[27:58] » Um, Commissioner Kitas? >> Um

[28:02] No, I don't have any questions. >> Commissioner Beyada?

[28:05] » Yeah, I have a question here. I always do.

[28:09] Well, let's go on the premise that it's approved, okay?

[28:13] And like we've already stated

[28:16] a permit cannot be issued. But how long can it actually sit like a

[28:21] limbo before they have to go through a whole process again? Is there a time

[28:25] frame for that? >> Three years plus the time that it takes

[28:28] for the plant to get finished. So, if they don't pull a permit, so

[28:32] let's just say just theoretically the plants completed and the moratorium's

[28:37] lifted on July 1st, 2028, which is you know, almost 2 years from now

[28:42] they would be good till 2031 when go pull a permit between that period

[28:46] between 2028 and July 1st, 2031 to pull a building permit. If they didn't do it

[28:51] by then, then they they'd have to come back.

[28:55] » Okay.

[28:57] » Thanks, Chair. >> No.

[29:00] » I'm good as well. So, if there is a motion

[29:08] on page five of the staff report, 35 of the

[29:12] packet, and uh please don't forget to include the uh

[29:16] correcting verbage for the uh resolution.

[29:35] » I move that the Planning Commission of the City of Greenfield adopt resolution

[29:39] number 2026-05 granting design review approval of a new

[29:45] 3,151 square foot duplex with a with a 903 square foot ADU on property

[29:52] located at 618 Maple Avenue subject to conditions

[29:56] of approval included in the resolution referencing

[30:01] uh resolution section 15303. Is that what it is?

[30:05] » Correct. >> Yeah.

[30:09] That's sufficient. >> Yeah.

[30:11] » Okay. We have a motion. Is there a second?

[30:14] » Second. >> Have a motion and a second. All in

[30:17] favor, please say I. Any opposed?

[30:21] » Opposed.

[30:25] » Four eyes and none opposed. >> Yep.

[30:28] » Thank you so much.

[30:32] And that concludes our public hearings. We can move on to other business. We

[30:36] have one item, a uh request for the deletion of

[30:40] condition of approval number 27 regarding the creation of a homeowners

[30:45] association for the St. Charles townhome project located at 733 to 743 Elk Avenue

[30:53] APN 024392001 through 006.

[31:00] » Thank you, Chair members of the commission. So, this project here

[31:03] um is under construction um did receive their permits prior to the moratorium

[31:08] and is getting closer to uh completion and um putting out for sale. Um

[31:14] this pro- this parcel has been planned since

[31:17] the original St. Charles Place project that was developed by Creek Bridge back

[31:21] in the mid-2000s. Um when they built the apartments, the

[31:27] the commercial space, the subdivision, the houses around them, the Village

[31:30] Green Park, all that area. Uh this was part of that plan. There was a plan to

[31:35] have a number of uh six townhomes with live-work units at the time. Um later in

[31:41] the the history of those those the live-work unit requirements were

[31:45] deleted. Um and so we have the six units that have been proposed. Um

[31:52] the planning commission and as I said there I probably should

[31:57] have taken a picture today on where they are and their update, but if you go over

[31:59] there they're they're being built. Um they're going to look really nice um

[32:05] matching the rest of the subdivision, but in this case you have attached

[32:09] townhomes. Um

[32:12] the planning commission at its last approval when it approved this

[32:16] uh had one condition that required the creation of a homeowners association. Um

[32:22] we've been I've talked to other staff members and trying to get an

[32:26] understanding of the purpose of the homeowners association. Um Greenfield

[32:31] typically doesn't use doesn't usually require those and for the most part we

[32:35] don't have private developments. Um we do all our maintenance of of public

[32:41] areas on new developments through lighting and landscaping maintenance

[32:44] districts. Um so, new the subdivisions are well aware of those because they're

[32:48] included on your property tax bill and they fund lighting, landscaping, um

[32:53] street maintenance. Um so, there's a there's a condition

[32:58] number 27 that requires the creation of a homeowners association for these six

[33:03] units. Uh

[33:05] homeowners associations typically are much larger, have much many more units,

[33:10] and generally cover the the maintenance of private areas. So, private streets,

[33:16] uh gates, for example, um gate maintenance, swimming pools, or other

[33:20] common area amenities that uh that are provided. When we looked at this, when

[33:26] you look at the the areas in question, um

[33:30] the frontage landscaping is usually covered by a landscaping district, which

[33:35] this project is subject to in condition 26.

[33:38] Um so, they are in the landscaping district. Uh fences are typically

[33:43] uh governed by the property owner

[33:46] themselves or the common area fences. Uh there are no gates

[33:50] in the sense of any gates over there. There are no

[33:53] private streets. Um

[33:56] and one of the other issue was allowance for access to adjacent properties for

[34:00] maintenance of the exterior of the building. So, as

[34:03] for example, when you have you have the just like in the commercial buildings

[34:07] where you have zero one-foot setbacks, the ability to get to

[34:11] you have to use someone else's property to help uh fix something that you might

[34:15] have. Um

[34:17] when they looked at the the fees just to establish an HOA, it was over $200 per

[34:22] unit per month, um which is a pretty substantial hit to

[34:26] your property tax bill. Uh so, the applicant has requested us to

[34:30] look at this, um

[34:32] see if there was any specific reasons um that this was put in. As I mentioned,

[34:37] the surrounding development um never had a homeowners association. None of our

[34:41] most recent developments have had a homeowners association. None of them

[34:45] have private streets. Um and there are no private streets in

[34:48] this setup either. Elm is public and the road that goes around it is public.

[34:53] Um so um

[34:57] to the under our zoning code, the the if the planning commission creates

[35:01] conditions, the planning commission is the one that has to amend or and or

[35:05] delete conditions. It's not something that we do administratively unless we

[35:08] approve a project administratively. If the city council approves the project,

[35:11] then the city council has to adjust the condition. So that's why it's here in

[35:14] front of you today. Um

[35:18] so that's what we're looking at is this particular condition. The applicant has

[35:21] requested that we delete it. Uh we've reviewed this with the city engineer. Um

[35:26] creation of the LMD, talked to the city manager. Um we're supportive of doing

[35:30] that. Um but if there are questions or concerns uh about why this was created,

[35:35] we're more than happy to address them or any other questions that you might have.

[35:42] » I conclude your staff. >> I conclude the staff report.

[35:45] » Okay, thank you. Um we'll go ahead and open public

[35:48] comment. Are there any public comments?

[35:55] We have a hand raised on Amanda Lane. One moment.

[36:01] Uh if you can unmute. >> Hi.

[36:04] » [clears throat] >> Good afternoon. Um so I I represent the

[36:08] developer on this project. Um and I just wanted to Well, first of all, thank you

[36:12] for considering this item to be removed. Um just wanted to give you a little bit

[36:18] more uh the background on this. Um we had gone we spent a lot of time on this

[36:25] item. And we were trying to find ways of how to meet this condition. And

[36:32] we went to different management companies to try to get fees. And I can

[36:36] tell you the top two numbers that is driving these fees

[36:40] so high is just the management, not even the work. The management and the

[36:46] insurance on it. And as it was stated, nothing is owned by the association. So

[36:53] it's technically would be considered a non-CID,

[36:57] which is non-common development, a common interest

[37:01] development. And therefore, it's the reason for we felt really strongly as to

[37:07] if it can be removed, it sure would make it easier. But

[37:11] kind of like the gentleman had stated is that typically when you're dealing with

[37:16] HOAs, you're dealing with, you know, 50 units, you know, where you can share

[37:20] that cost more evenly, you know, whether it's for landscaping,

[37:25] whether it's for gate maintenance, pools, clubhouses, things like that. Not

[37:30] exactly sure why when this condition was set.

[37:34] Unfortunately, it didn't come to me. I'm the broker for the company.

[37:39] So when I was reviewing all the documents as we were getting closer,

[37:43] this was something that popped up and um you know, I I didn't realize that this

[37:49] condition was on there. So it's when I kind of gotten involved.

[37:53] Otherwise, I would have gotten involved much sooner. So

[37:56] I really hope that this is something you would consider.

[38:00] And again, there's zero ownership by the association. Everything is private.

[38:08] » Okay, thank you for your comment. Are there any other public comments?

[38:18] Okay, hearing none, Now, close public comment and move to planning commission

[38:23] discussion and decision. Start on your end, Mr. Commissioner

[38:28] Peters. >> Um

[38:32] I have one question and I don't know how how to how to uh

[38:37] say it. Is it uh so if we go ahead and say it

[38:42] drop the HOA, what makes them think that

[38:49] families can move in with with the area apartment and stuff like that?

[38:55] » Um so, this is a for-sale development, so they would purchase the unit. Um and

[38:59] then, you know, and of course, it they won't they won't do that until the

[39:03] buildings have been cleared for occupancy and the

[39:06] the proper projects have been final, which hasn't happened yet. Um but as

[39:11] soon as the project's finaled, they are in as I mentioned before, they are in

[39:15] the landscaping and lighting maintenance district, which is the typical standard

[39:18] we use for new developments. The the property owner contributes on their

[39:22] property tax bill the bill for the the landscape strip in front of the

[39:25] property, the lights, and the roads next to it. Um

[39:30] so, it doesn't it if we if we delete the

[39:34] condition, it just means that they don't have to put together the homeowners

[39:37] association prior to getting a final. Right now, they can't get a final

[39:42] without this condition in place as you as and as the um

[39:46] the broker mentioned, they've been reaching out to companies looking at

[39:49] that. And and I would say from my perspective, and I wasn't here when this

[39:53] was approved, as she said, generally HOAs, you know, operate in much larger

[39:57] numbers to help offset the maintenance cost of the HOA. Um

[40:03] having six it puts a lot of as she said, administrative burden. Um there's a lot

[40:07] of cost for management of that. Um but I hope to answer your question that it

[40:13] just means that that's not a consideration prior to them receiving

[40:16] their final inspection. >> All right, thank you.

[40:26] » Well, from my perspective, I think people are struggling just to

[40:30] make mortgage payments, make their rent. This would just be an added burden.

[40:35] And I know from what you've said

[40:39] that the decision hasn't actually been made.

[40:42] And they will actually will be

[40:46] the the people who purchase the properties

[40:50] are actually be told towards the end whether they have an HOA or not.

[40:54] So, I mean going forward, I think they need to realize as soon as possible that

[40:59] yes, you have one or yes, you don't have one.

[41:02] So, I think it would behoove us to make a decision as

[41:07] quick as possible.

[41:10] » Yes. Commissioner DeLoach.

[41:12] » Um I just have a comment. I mean, I agree.

[41:16] I I think I'm comfortable um with removing the HOA.

[41:22] Um but I do think that it would be nice to have so residents can have some

[41:28] standards and rules and just I'm looking at it like appearance, you

[41:33] know, um for the building, um but

[41:39] you know, that's just my opinion.

[41:43] That's all I have. >> Thank you.

[41:45] » Um I'll wait to check. >> [snorts]

[41:47] » Um my microphone on? Yeah, can you hear me

[41:50] okay? Yeah. Um I'm actually a big fan of HOA. Uh

[41:55] especially with this particular development here. Um I'm trying to scan

[41:59] through my brain of anything in town that has

[42:03] any homes that are attached. And I don't believe there's any in town that have

[42:07] that. So, you have two, four, six units that are attached.

[42:12] without an HOA, now I can go and buy a property and paint my house pink, and my

[42:17] neighbor's got to put up with it. Um you know,

[42:21] does that look good? Does that not look good aesthetically? You know, it's uh

[42:26] it's probably a probable it's probably a problem. Um I think HOA, again, the

[42:32] standards um

[42:34] um I know there's HOA down in King City,

[42:38] and if you go through those neighborhoods, they are in tip-top shape

[42:41] because they're required. As far as the management goes, um not that I'm an

[42:46] expert, but I think if you can get six people, one of those people can manage

[42:51] it as a homeowner. Um manage the HOA, not that big of a

[42:56] deal, especially if you don't have any uh maintenance or anything that that is

[43:01] really uh to a point where you need, you know, a a management company to

[43:06] manage the property. So, uh my opinion is or you know,

[43:10] HOA is good. I think it's it's it's the right move, you know, but uh

[43:16] you know, that would be my two cents on this.

[43:20] » Thank you for that. Um

[43:23] for me, I think that this uh development is a little too small for

[43:28] an HOA. There's six units. They are all of these homeowners would

[43:33] potentially be the HOA. What what's to stop them from

[43:38] saying it we don't our fee is $10 a month. I mean, do they get to set their

[43:44] own fees, or what is that where does that $200 come from?

[43:49] » Um that may be a question to to for for the the broker, but generally speaking,

[43:54] you know, every HOA that exists, you know, they have fees, and they the board

[43:58] or whatever can, you know, adjust things accordingly based on how much you need.

[44:02] But, you do need set up, you need you you do have management, you do have uh

[44:07] you know, the requirement for reserves, you have

[44:10] it's really hard to do with only six units because of the legal requirements

[44:14] under the state of California to have a truly functioning homeowners

[44:18] association. Not to mention you need people to volunteer to to be a part of

[44:22] that homeowners association and what I've noticed um

[44:26] you know, some some HOAs are successful, some HOAs in my previous city

[44:31] have fallen apart completely because they lack the infrastructure or the

[44:36] people inside the development willing to take on those jobs which aren't paid

[44:42] to and you know, you hear stories of people who you know, do have really good

[44:46] HOAs and strong HOAs that uh that keep everyone accountable and then

[44:50] you have some instances where you've had some HOAs that have all the money

[44:55] disappear um for lack of a better term. Um

[44:59] we had a case of that in Soledad. So it's only as good as the people who I

[45:03] think to your point vice chair, it's only as good as the people who run it.

[45:06] Um and so

[45:08] you know, it's a it's a question of I think just for us as policy if we had a

[45:13] development with private roads, for example, Barolo Circle. Um Barolo Circle

[45:17] has is a is subject to that and they have a private park in there and and

[45:22] that street on Barolo Circle is private and those are

[45:27] those are not necessarily attached units, they're very close together

[45:29] though in terms of your example that you

[45:32] mentioned. But

[45:35] you know, I don't know if that's something that

[45:38] the applicant wanted to address or clarify further if you wanted more

[45:41] clarification, but if we had if for example, if anyone in

[45:45] Greenfield ended up proposing a gated development, absolute and we would

[45:50] if you did a gated development, you would have to have private roads. We

[45:53] wouldn't make those roads public and by extension you would have a homeowners

[45:55] association because in order to maintain those.

[45:58] Um and then it becomes it becomes a development's responsibility to make

[46:02] sure those things are maintained. Um

[46:06] it hasn't been typically the practice to require HOAs in in Greenfield, but um

[46:11] certainly, you know, if someone wanted to develop a project like that and if it

[46:15] had private amenities, then we'd have to consider that. So

[46:19] I don't know if you wanted to add >> Yeah, I just like to reiterate that

[46:22] again, you there's no fences, there's no Well, there's fences, but there's no

[46:27] gate allowing access.

[46:31] Um and HOA was for maintenance of the

[46:34] exterior of the buildings. And again, um condition 26 including it in the LLMD, I

[46:41] mean, that that's not free. >> No.

[46:44] » Uh the homeowners will have to pay that tax as well. So I think this is kind of

[46:49] uh double taxing in my opinion. But I do see um Ms. Lane

[46:54] has her hand up if she'd like to If you guys are okay with her addressing

[46:58] us again.

[47:01] Go ahead, Ms. Lane. >> Okay, thank you. I just wanted to kind

[47:04] of clarify as some of the comments that I was hearing. Um just to kind of give

[47:09] you a little bit more again. Um the I know you had mentioned as to like why

[47:14] couldn't the homeowners maybe maybe at $10 a month that they could do it. Um

[47:18] part of it would require that they have to have a bank account. You have to

[47:21] establish a bank account. They have to do record keeping. And so this is where

[47:25] a management company has to come in. Um and I don't see the homeowners

[47:31] themselves taking on the burden to make sure that they keep adequate records, do

[47:36] the filings that they have to do, um keep track of bank account, good records

[47:41] of that. Um so a lot of that fee I if I recall correctly off the top of my head,

[47:46] the just the management alone was I believe between $300 um to $500 a month.

[47:55] And then um the insurance was the next largest numbers. And the insurance is,

[48:00] in a sense, to, um, you need insurance for the board members, which are the

[48:04] homeowners. The other thing that I foresee is that,

[48:08] you know, you could find yourself that, um, let's say that the homeowners buy

[48:13] into it and they know that there's an HOA.

[48:16] At the end of the day, when the developer, uh, at the beginning, they

[48:20] will they will serve as the HOA at the beginning, but as each row as each

[48:25] townhome closes escrow, they are the ones they are the board members. They

[48:30] become that. They are the association that it and that that you have a manager

[48:34] that is managing it on their on their behalf. Um, so that's where it becomes

[48:40] expensive. And then, uh, also to address the other comment about like the

[48:44] situation that you mentioned about like somebody can paint their house in pink

[48:48] and then you have to live with it. We do not intend to get rid of the CCNRs. Our

[48:53] the CCNRs we plan to keep them. So, if this gets passed tonight to eliminate

[48:58] the item, our intention is to still keep the CCNRs in place cuz we do agree that

[49:04] keeping the integrity of the homes in the local Nobody ever wants to live to

[49:08] next door to that one house that's not being upkeep or whatnot. So, uh, our

[49:13] intention would be to keep that and record the CCNRs.

[49:19] » Okay, thank you so much for that clarification. We really appreciate it.

[49:22] » And if I may add to that point, Chair, about CCNRs. So, CCNRs are required of

[49:27] each new subdivision in the city. Um, the only thing with CCNRs is that city

[49:33] city staff does not regulate CCNRs. CCNRs are privately, um,

[49:39] they're on your they're recorded on your property and they can they have to be,

[49:44] um, you have to go privately to to enforce

[49:47] those CCNRs. The city doesn't enforce CCNRs unless those unless it's specific

[49:50] to a code in the municipal code that it violates. So, um, but yes, every new

[49:56] subdivision has CC&Rs which generally prohibit things like you talked about.

[50:02] » And I do think we have attached homes. I think there's a two-bedroom development.

[50:06] I can't think of the street. >> Then you're green?

[50:09] » Uh, yeah. Not not the apartments, but the

[50:13] surrounding development. They seem like they are.

[50:18] » They're close. >> Yeah.

[50:20] » No, I was the ones I was thinking was Tyler

[50:23] Avenue, but they're also I mean there's I don't know what it is, but the setback

[50:26] is 5 ft or something like that between. Yeah, that's probably that.

[50:30] But these are attached attached. They're all six are

[50:33] R1. >> It's like row houses. When did this get

[50:36] approved? >> I can't remember.

[50:41] » And why was [clears throat] that one of >> I can I can tell you. Let me bring it up

[50:45] here pretty quickly. >> I'm just trying to

[50:49] why was it on on one of the conditions?

[50:53] » 2022 >> 2022

[50:54] » July 5th, 2022 I was not working on this project.

[51:02] Rob Blaine prepared the staff report.

[51:07] That's what I have and I mean I think you have a copy of the staff report in

[51:11] the in the materials if you want to look further into that. We looked around as

[51:15] far as what exactly was the purpose of this specific requirement. We wondered

[51:19] if it had to do with the fact that originally these were intended to be

[51:22] live-work units which creates more issues as far as the

[51:27] you know, what kind of business uses may be going on over there.

[51:31] That requirement was deleted.

[51:38] While I while I I I agree that there there certainly there

[51:42] developments that that need those, you know, and

[51:46] that participate in them and they have their certain benefits.

[51:49] The administrative cost itself it is burdensome for a six unit development

[51:53] plus the the filling of roles um to to make sure that it it keeps going and and

[51:58] and the more than more so the record keeping

[52:01] that is required under the state to keep it active.

[52:05] » And the insurance and the this and the that and

[52:09] seeing some Tik Toks on HOAs too that are kind of yeah.

[52:16] So. >> I only have I have one question about

[52:19] that area where they're building. I've been over there. I see how it is.

[52:25] Uh it's so congested now let alone when people move in it's going to get worse

[52:30] because you got apartments all the way around

[52:34] and you got them around you got them on uh where uh

[52:39] what's uh Dollar Tree is all the way around.

[52:42] There's apartments and there's some businesses. So it's

[52:47] hard to find parking for you know if they want more parking and stuff so

[52:52] I don't know it's to me it's really congestion in that area.

[52:57] » It's certainly something that those that end up purchasing the purchasing the

[53:00] units will have to consider before their purchase and knowing that they are

[53:04] constrained in terms of parking versus the ability to walk to certain things as

[53:08] well. The more dense environment the more you can walk but the harder it is

[53:12] to park. >> I understand that but uh

[53:15] what you're saying is that if they

[53:18] abide by the rules when they first buy the

[53:23] place and they move in and stuff like that

[53:26] what makes them think about two months later that hey my

[53:30] my payments are really high and I'm going to get some more people in and

[53:33] spend $3,000 on that and there's going to be more parking. I know these houses

[53:39] are going for $3,000 a month in rent.

[53:44] » Mhm. So,

[53:47] I I I don't know. I I would I would prefer that HOA, but

[53:53] that's just me.

[53:56] » Okay. Um,

[53:58] is that it, guys? Um, I just want to say I think the the renderings are

[54:02] beautiful. I'm happy to see them being built. I'm I I'm thrilled that they're

[54:08] uh residential for purchase versus um

[54:13] you know, renting, so

[54:16] I'm I'm glad to see it moving forward. So, with that, if there's nothing else,

[54:20] there's a motion on page 60 of your packet.

[54:37] Is anybody inclined to make the motion?

[54:47] Okay, I'll I'll do it. I move that the Planning Commission of the City of

[54:51] Greenfield delete condition of approval number 27

[54:55] regarding a homeowners association for the Stonebridge Townhomes residential

[54:59] development at the southeast corner of Elm Avenue and St. Charles Place.

[55:04] Is there a second? >> Well, let's before we vote on this, I

[55:10] just want to clarify something for myself. Okay?

[55:14] Does that mean if we vote yes that they're going to do away with HOA? Is

[55:17] that correct? Okay. Just wanted you to know. Thank

[55:20] you. >> So, is there a second?

[55:23] » Yes. >> We have a

[55:25] motion and a second. All in favor, please say I.

[55:29] I. Opposed?

[55:34] So, can we have a roll call.

[55:41] Commissioner Gallardo?

[55:45] You have to say your vote again. We're doing a roll call.

[55:49] » Schormann? >> Yeah.

[55:52] » I vote for it.

[55:55] » Commissioner Ortiz? >> No.

[55:58] » Commissioner Zavala? >> I abstain.

[56:03] » Vice Chair Mendoza? >> No.

[56:06] » Chair Garcia? >> I.

[56:08] » Thank you. So >> So with that you would have no action

[56:12] taken on the item, so there would it would either be approved or denied. I

[56:16] think typically staff would recommend that an action be taken whether that be

[56:19] to approve or deny. Um

[56:23] otherwise it would just go back and nothing would happen.

[56:28] » So >> So you can make a second motion to see

[56:30] if someone wants to say or you can even do it this way you can say motion to

[56:33] deny uh removing the

[56:37] condition of approval just so there's a final action on the item.

[56:46] » So um is there a motion

[56:50] to

[56:53] not delete the condition of approval 27.

[57:01] » Is that is that a no vote? Yes, so I guess it would be so I can

[57:06] second that. You would second that and then you would vote.

[57:09] » I'm not making that motion. >> Right. If there was if there was a

[57:12] motion made well here's let me just break it down like this. Is are is

[57:15] anyone going to change their vote or are you not going to abstain I guess?

[57:19] Or would you still abstain? >> Um

[57:26] » Is either way it's just better if there is an action taken rather than nothing

[57:29] happens because then I think it would probably have to end up coming at some

[57:32] point because there was no action. If there's action taken to approve then the

[57:37] applicants has nothing else to to deal with. If the action is denied, then they

[57:41] can go forward and say, "Oh, do I want to appeal that decision of the planning

[57:44] commission and to I guess the city council." That way they

[57:48] have an option to go either way. I think it might have to come back if there's no

[57:52] action taken. But I'd have to double-check on that. Um

[57:57] That's why we typically recommend that an action be taken.

[58:00] Uh on >> Whether they say yes or no.

[58:04] » Sorry? >> Whether it's a yes or no, you would need

[58:06] an action. >> Right.

[58:13] » I'm not changing my vote.

[58:17] » Neither am I. I'm standing by my vote. >> Yeah.

[58:22] » Gosh. >> Can I ask a question?

[58:26] » Yeah, I mean yeah. There's nothing There's no motions

[58:29] pending or anything right now. No action has been taken. The item The item is

[58:31] still open. So >> On on H and I I don't know who would

[58:35] answer this, but when you establish an HOA, that's when

[58:39] you establish the HOA rules or is there a template guideline of the state says

[58:46] you can do this, that, or this is what they they have to be?

[58:49] » From the city from the city's perspective in this condition that's

[58:52] being written, they the applicant would have to provide the documents for the

[58:57] creation of the of the HOA. There's certainly up-front fees in doing that.

[59:01] Um as far as the rules, there's there's

[59:04] typically you know, there's state requirements to have an HOA, and then

[59:08] there's you know, the typical There's what I call it, like boiler plate, you

[59:12] know, this is what you can do, and then depending on

[59:15] certain things you would add, you you would add certain requirements into it.

[59:19] As was mentioned, what typically happens is the developer

[59:23] runs the HOA at the beginning, and then it's intended to be taken over by

[59:27] residents themselves. Um and

[59:32] you know, for many reasons, you know, these cities require that these HOAs be

[59:35] put in the place. In some cases, developers want to put these into place.

[59:39] Um so from our perspective, all we're

[59:42] looking at, we don't we don't regulate the HOA rules, we don't regulate the

[59:46] requirements, we just make sure that they did the process and it's before

[59:49] they in this case, before they receive a final.

[59:52] Um as far as what happens down the road with the HOA,

[59:56] um there really is no follow-up from the city standpoint in terms of making sure

[59:59] that they stay active and that they're paying their dues. We don't get involved

[1:00:03] in that. It's a private matter.

[1:00:08] » Can I ask the question of the broker before I

[1:00:11] or >> Um Ms. Lane, are are you

[1:00:13] we have another question for you. Are you okay with

[1:00:16] » Yes. >> Okay.

[1:00:17] » Is there anything uh everything you mentioned was

[1:00:23] I guess for lack of a better word, right? A con.

[1:00:28] Is there any positives that you would think or you would say as a broker, as a

[1:00:33] as a listing agent uh that HOA would help?

[1:00:37] » Um for this particular matter, no. And let me just clarify because I this is

[1:00:42] not a traditional HOA. A traditional HOA would mean that it is a common interest

[1:00:50] development. That means that that the association owns property, owns

[1:00:56] sidewalks, owns streets, landscaping, gates, all of that. In this particular

[1:01:02] one, it is not. It's considered a non-CID.

[1:01:06] And the hardest thing here is it doesn't change anything in terms of like the

[1:01:11] CCNRs. The only reason why under this under the conditions of approval, it

[1:01:17] states that the only things that were to be as part of the association was to

[1:01:23] maintain their front yards, which is a tiny little patch, no grass. It's It's

[1:01:29] bark and some shrubs. Um the back gate that is the gate that

[1:01:34] goes from the alley to their backyard. And

[1:01:39] uh the side gate, kind of like the neighbor fence gate on the side of lot

[1:01:44] one and the side of lot six. That's it. So, this association in a sense would

[1:01:51] end up being a um made solely to take care of three

[1:01:56] items, which is the reason why from for us it's

[1:02:00] like it's it's a waste. And I say it's a waste because we know well that if the

[1:02:06] homeowners were taking care of their own gate, their own uh front yard, and their

[1:02:12] own fencing, it's not it would not cost them $200 a month.

[1:02:18] But we're going to force these people to pay a fee that we know darn well that

[1:02:23] the cost to maintain that little front yard and those gates, which those gates

[1:02:28] are not going to need to be replaced for many, many years, including the side

[1:02:32] fence, it's a burden. So, I kind of feel I feel bad, to be honest, because it's

[1:02:37] not anything else and unlike a true HOA, which you do have common area,

[1:02:44] um that's what the association is for and that's what takes care of that and

[1:02:49] making them look pretty. And I agree with you guys in the sense that if this

[1:02:54] truly was a true HOA and and the HOA owned common area, I would be 100% all

[1:03:02] for the HOA. But this is not. This is strictly only to take care of three

[1:03:07] things and we're going to end up burdening these people. We're trying to

[1:03:11] make these these townhomes affordable. And adding another

[1:03:15] um $200 a month doesn't help and at the end of the day it could end up falling

[1:03:21] apart and my fear is like I have a feeling they're going to go to the city

[1:03:26] and they're going to complain about it when somebody else is in taking care of.

[1:03:30] I kind of feel this is more of a an issue that potentially could end up

[1:03:36] coming back to use rather than letting them take care of it themselves because

[1:03:41] 200 is not going towards uh yes it's going to take care of the the

[1:03:47] landscaping in the front but again keep in mind there's no grass. Grass is

[1:03:52] probably the heavy in terms of maintenance maintenance it's probably

[1:03:57] the one item that I would say yeah it takes weekly mowing but when you're

[1:04:01] dealing with a small little landscape area that consists of nothing but bark

[1:04:06] and some shrubs that are planted I mean you're talking you're watering it

[1:04:11] and it's tied into their own water meters.

[1:04:13] So that's why for me it's like I feel it would be more of a burden it is not your

[1:04:18] true association a homeowners association it is a non CID.

[1:04:24] I don't know if that kind of helps answer some of the concerns.

[1:04:30] » Thank you for that. >> Can we go back to the picture of the um

[1:04:35] the house just a second. I don't I don't have it in my pocket.

[1:04:43] This one? Yeah can we have that one?

[1:04:48] » Let me see if I can put that up for you.

[1:04:54] Should have it.

[1:05:15] » Looking for the L the elevation page? >> Yeah.

[1:05:19] » Okay. >> Color one.

[1:05:21] » Sure.

[1:05:56] » So, the first motion did that die or can we Okay.

[1:06:01] » At this point the commission should make a new motion

[1:06:05] either approving either removing the condition of

[1:06:09] approval or maintaining the condition of approval.

[1:06:14] » Okay, I don't want to This is going to be like a ballot board. No means yes and

[1:06:18] yes means no. >> So, it would be motion to keep the

[1:06:22] condition of approval as is if you want the HOA to remain or you would say

[1:06:27] motion to remove condition of approval number 27 to remove the

[1:06:31] HOA condition from the project.

[1:06:36] » Okay, I make a motion to remove approval number 27 from the conditions

[1:06:42] of approval. Um

[1:06:47] » I'll second that. >> Okay, we have another motion and another

[1:06:51] second. May we have a roll call vote again, please?

[1:06:59] » Yes. >> Commissioner Lupita?

[1:07:04] » No. >> Commissioner

[1:07:07] Commissioner >> Yes.

[1:07:10] » Uh Vice Chairman Dawson? >> No.

[1:07:13] » And Chair Garcia? >> Yes.

[1:07:16] » Thank you. >> There you go. So motion has passed 3-2

[1:07:20] uh removing the condition of approval number 27 requiring future use.

[1:07:27] » Ooh, that was interesting. Okay, um we can go now to comments from Planning

[1:07:33] Commission and staff. Staff, would you like to start?

[1:07:37] » Um >> comments for us.

[1:07:38] » Sure. As you know from since the time we met last, I mean the biggest thing is of

[1:07:43] course HCD approval of the moratorium. Uh we still have a number of projects

[1:07:48] that are in process. Um the the uh former Cheeser spot on um Walnut

[1:07:56] Avenue is progressing along. Um the storage facility

[1:08:00] the Extra Space Storage on El Camino is moving very quickly. The Poppy project

[1:08:05] is also moving very quickly up on up in that area uh for the the the fuel

[1:08:10] and the convenience store. Um

[1:08:14] and then there are a number of other ADUs that are under construction and the

[1:08:17] project we just discussed under construction, but um

[1:08:21] for the most part, I mean that those the that that's the the the list. Um

[1:08:26] of course there's work that will continue on the

[1:08:30] plan. I think uh City Manager gave a update briefly last time, but uh

[1:08:35] plans are still in design and then we'll they're hoping to go to bid and then,

[1:08:40] you know, hopefully start construction and it will be you know, I think it's

[1:08:44] over a two two-year period until that plan is completed. We do have a few

[1:08:48] requirements with HCD that we have to comply with. There's an annual report

[1:08:53] that has to go in. There's some amendments to the housing element itself

[1:08:56] that we have to make. Uh you will likely be seeing those next month at the

[1:09:00] Planning Commission meeting. Uh they're all related to having to change some of

[1:09:04] our narratives about the uh our ability to provide services and also a priority

[1:09:11] list if by some chance we get sewer and we can only accommodate a part of the we

[1:09:18] have to create a list to basically of everybody that's waiting for a sewer

[1:09:21] connection and then has to be prioritized affordable housing first,

[1:09:25] other housing second, and then commercial last. Um and then um if

[1:09:30] capacity for whatever reason wasn't enough to accommodate all the requests,

[1:09:35] we we would be prioritizing them. It's our understanding that the plan that the

[1:09:40] day that the plant would go online, our capacity would increase to 2 million

[1:09:44] gallons, which is well beyond what our requests for services are.

[1:09:49] Um so that's been the primary activity

[1:09:53] um here um with department is just dealing with the fact that um there's

[1:09:58] there's and with that a significant reduction in permit revenue,

[1:10:02] um which was addressed during the budget process. So um

[1:10:07] you know, there are there were a number of vacancies, as you know, um over the

[1:10:10] last few months in the planning department. And at this point, because

[1:10:13] of the state of the moratorium, there there really are no plans to fill those

[1:10:17] uh in in the near near future, um knowing that permit activity and

[1:10:22] permit revenue is going to be down significantly.

[1:10:25] Um but happy to answer any other questions

[1:10:28] about any other sites that you would like to, but

[1:10:31] um if they haven't gotten a permit yet, they're not getting a permit now.

[1:10:35] » I have a question about a site. >> Mhm.

[1:10:37] » We approved about three three over 3 years ago on this

[1:10:43] on this uh building down down by the

[1:10:48] upper center or what's that? That little market huh?

[1:10:53] Is there was going to be a bar or nightclub in there?

[1:10:56] It's still it's still nothing in there.

[1:11:00] They took all the signs off and everything.

[1:11:03] » The tap house. >> We're told that the hold up on that was

[1:11:06] PG&E. >> Yeah, but they took the the

[1:11:09] they took the I know what you're saying. They took the the

[1:11:13] license away. Yeah. But I can't believe the PG&E take that

[1:11:18] many years to >> [laughter]

[1:11:21] » Well, no cuz a lot of them are doing a pretty fast now.

[1:11:26] » I mean, look how long it took them to do that one over there where Dumbledews and

[1:11:30] that Chester Chicken. Look how long it took them to do that. They bought their

[1:11:34] own generators. >> Yeah, but then they finally did it and

[1:11:37] then wasn't it maybe not 3 years, but >> Okay.

[1:11:42] » I don't know. I was just curious about that building.

[1:11:46] It's all >> All right.

[1:11:50] » So, I know an encroachment permit was pulled

[1:11:53] so they can try to complete. My understanding from the owner is that

[1:11:57] PG&E is working on it. Uh so, now it's just a matter of getting

[1:12:01] the work done. And so, once they connect, then we'll be

[1:12:04] able to final the shell building because it's not right ready to be used, but the

[1:12:10] tenant improvement permit was pulled for that uh brewery or

[1:12:16] um so, once they have um the connection, then the tenant

[1:12:21] improvements can begin for for that business.

[1:12:25] » Do

[1:12:28] Do you know do they have to reapply to get the license alcoholic license?

[1:12:33] » Um the condition of approval uh Brent for the alcoholic license once they have

[1:12:37] it, it's it's there for the life until removed,

[1:12:42] right? >> Alcoholic licenses generally sit with

[1:12:44] the site, but you're not allowed to just hold a license on a vacant property, but

[1:12:48] um we can certainly look into that.

[1:12:52] What is the status? >> that was posted.

[1:12:55] Mhm. >> Okay.

[1:12:56] » As far as the use permit from the city concerned, yes, it stays it runs with

[1:13:00] the land, but the ABC requirements as far as, you know, holding on to it or

[1:13:04] whatever, we can we will look into that for you.

[1:13:08] » Okay, so Bob, I have a few I'd like to ask.

[1:13:13] Okay, uh the first one is uh do you have any updates at all on the

[1:13:17] store at ECR and Oak where they might came in with the lawyer and he was

[1:13:22] reasonable. People were reasonable kind of had a problem with the

[1:13:25] » The buyer building? >> Yeah, the buyer building.

[1:13:28] Any updates on that? >> Mhm, they did submit a permit and it's

[1:13:31] still under review. We have not issued a permit for it yet.

[1:13:34] » I mean, it looks like they haven't progressed very much on that.

[1:13:38] It's a It looks vacant. Okay.

[1:13:43] How about the the museum? Any updates on the museum?

[1:13:52] » I know it's a public works project and I believe that they were waiting on funds

[1:13:58] to try to complete cuz the permit that was issued and completed was to set it

[1:14:03] on foundation, which was done, but any other services we'd probably have to

[1:14:06] reach out to public works. >> Okay.

[1:14:09] How about the park at 12th and Apple? They received a grant for that. Are they

[1:14:14] progressing on that at all? >> The community The community center

[1:14:17] project, yes. So, the community center project

[1:14:20] um they're going through final design. The

[1:14:24] we had a meeting today with the grant with the state grant people. Um they're

[1:14:28] environmental. So, when the grant was submitted, um

[1:14:33] we used all the the environmental review from the previous projects

[1:14:38] uh to clear it with the state. Since this involves federal funds, it requires

[1:14:42] NEPA, which is different than CEQA. There's some different forms that have

[1:14:45] to be filled out. There's tribal consultation that has to be completed.

[1:14:49] Um so, we had a meeting today on that. It is moving forward, but as it's funded

[1:14:53] through through federal funds, it takes time to get this money.

[1:14:58] Um but, it is progressing. The plans have been progressing.

[1:15:02] Um and of course, it needs One of the

[1:15:04] issues here is also the moratorium. Um So, in the ordinance that the city

[1:15:11] council set, um grant-funded projects may move forward,

[1:15:15] but there's going to have to be provision for temporary facilities if if

[1:15:19] the building is completed before the moratorium is completed.

[1:15:23] » Okay. Okay, so I have one last one here.

[1:15:28] Uh a few weeks back, >> [clears throat]

[1:15:30] » I drove up to Modesto to see uh Paul Negan's son play,

[1:15:34] Michael. He's uh play He was playing professional

[1:15:37] baseball with the Modesto rosters. Unfortunately, like I said, we drove up

[1:15:43] We had a special trip for that. They were doing their warm-ups, and he

[1:15:46] pulled a muscle and he didn't play. >> [laughter]

[1:15:49] » He didn't play. So, then I got a hold of him just the

[1:15:52] other day, and I told him that uh Well, last week, I told him that I was going

[1:15:57] to drive up there again this past weekend to see him play, and then he

[1:16:00] said, "Unfortunately, he got cut from the

[1:16:02] team." So, But, I told him, "Keep your dream alive.

[1:16:07] Say your dad wants you to do that."

[1:16:11] That's it. >> Thank you. Um

[1:16:17] So, you mentioned California Gourmet Pizza. Do you have an ETA on when we

[1:16:21] will be having a pitcher of beer and a pepperoni?

[1:16:25] » I don't. I'll go get that in the updates there.

[1:16:28] » Um they are progressing. Um Um

[1:16:32] their permit is issued. We're just waiting to get the final inspections,

[1:16:36] but it's still going to be a little while. I I can't exactly say exactly how

[1:16:39] long, but they are progressing. >> Okay.

[1:16:43] » PG&E has anything to do with it, maybe a couple more years.

[1:16:47] » Okay, so if there's no other uh commission comments, uh we don't usually

[1:16:52] do this, but I'd like to um close this meeting in honor of Salvador

[1:16:58] Zavala, a long-time Greenfield business owner and father of

[1:17:03] his son. Meeting adjourned.

August 4, 2026 - Planning Commission Meeting

Transcript