[0:42] testing. Testing

[0:47] testing.

[0:50] » Still good. Still good. >> Thank you.

[0:57] » Oh, I don't know that I've ever met you. My name's Marcy.

[1:00] » I've emailed Yeah. But I've never >> wander

[1:05] staff.

[1:44] Uh, good evening and welcome to the city of Pastor Robel's planning commission

[1:48] meeting Tuesday, August 25th. I'd like to call the meeting to order. We're

[1:52] going to start with the pledge of allegiance.

[1:57] I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the

[2:02] republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and

[2:09] justice for all.

[2:16] » All right. Um, roll call, please.

[2:23] Commissioner Loren >> here.

[2:25] » Commissioner Kogler >> here.

[2:27] » Commissioner Neil >> here.

[2:29] » Commissioner Karubius >> here.

[2:31] » Commissioner Christensen >> here.

[2:33] » Commissioner Rhoden >> here.

[2:35] » Chairperson Marlo >> uh here. Okay. Staff introductions

[2:39] please. >> Marcy Reynoso and Jessica Ferguson

[2:43] permit technician. >> Darren Nash, city planner.

[2:49] » Regina Wheeler, solid waste recycling manager.

[2:53] Katie Banister, associate planner.

[2:58] » Ashley Hernandez, homeless services manager. Anelica Forton, community

[3:02] services director.

[3:08] » Anyone on the line? >> Sarah Lan online with best Kger, City

[3:13] Attorney's Office. >> Great. Thank you. Um, general public

[3:20] comments regarding matters not on the agenda. Are there any members of the

[3:24] public that like to speak anything about anything not on the agenda?

[3:29] Seeing no [snorts] one in the audience, are there any callers?

[3:33] » There are no callers. >> Okay, great.

[3:37] Any uh agenda items proposed to be tabled or rescheduled?

[3:42] » No, there is none. >> There are none. Okay, we are going to

[3:44] move on to public hearing item G1 time extension moose apartments P19-000093.

[3:53] Got a staff presentation.

[3:57] » Thank you, Chairperson Marlo. As you said, this is a time extension for a

[4:01] project that got entitled quite a few years ago. Um, so this is a vesting

[4:05] tenative parcel map PR190070. there was an amendment to the

[4:10] development plan and then the teex is for this time extension.

[4:15] So um the project um is uh the city staff has uh given the project uh the

[4:22] moniker the moose apartments. This is the site where the um moose lodge used

[4:26] to be located. So we used it to identify and it seems to have caught on a little

[4:30] bit. So the moose apartments it's a mixeduse project. It's located at 2548

[4:35] Spring Street. Um, and like I said, it does include a vesting tenative parcel

[4:39] map and an amended development plan. So, um, here we can see the location,

[4:44] 2548 Spring Street. This is just south of of 26th Street and across the street

[4:50] from the Lewis Flamson Junior High School.

[4:56] Um, I jump into the description. So, the project was approved with two phases.

[5:00] Phase one was building A. This is the building that has been under

[5:03] construction for quite a few years. Um, this building includes uh 4,000 square

[5:08] ft of ground floor commercial space. There are eight three-bedroom

[5:11] residential units on the second and third floors. And then phase uh one also

[5:15] included uh partial parking lot improvements. Um those are not complete

[5:19] although they have begun. Phase two is building B. Um it is a one it's a

[5:25] building. It's a three-story building. It includes 18 one-bedroom units. The

[5:29] project as approved back in I believe it was 2020 included an affordable housing

[5:33] density bonus. Uh there are two affordable units currently required. A

[5:37] uh househ a unit for a low-income household and a very low-income

[5:41] household. So here's a look at the site plan.

[5:45] Spring Street is on the left side. 26th Street is on the top of the of your

[5:49] screen. So uh phase one, building A is the building under construction. That's

[5:53] in the yellow square. And then building B is at the rear. Um this building uh we

[5:58] have reviewed building permits for but we have not issued a building permit for

[6:02] that. Um, and then the project does include a a parcel map that would split

[6:06] the lot. So, building A would be on one lot and building B would be on a second

[6:11] lot. So, some background. I've already um

[6:15] gone over some of this, but uh so some of this will be rehashing, but um the

[6:18] project was approved by the city council back in 2020. It did at that time

[6:22] include two buildings. It included 4,000 square ft of commercial space, but only

[6:27] 17 residential units. We issued a building permit for building A in 2020.

[6:32] The applicant came back to um the city in 2021 for an amendment to the

[6:36] development plan for building B, that second building that's never been

[6:39] constructed. Um in 20 with the 2020 housing element, the planning commission

[6:44] recommended and city council adopted what's known as fractional density where

[6:48] if you build really small units, 600 square f feet or smaller, they count as

[6:52] less than a a density unit. And so they were able to use the uh fractional

[6:57] density to change the rear building from um having only eight uh it had eight

[7:03] three-bedroom units and it was I apologize nine three-bedroom units and

[7:07] it was converted into a floor plan and site plan that includes 18 one-bedroom

[7:11] units. So building B would have 18 one-bedroom units. Um the uh so that is

[7:17] what has been approved to to date. Um the planning commission has reviewed and

[7:21] approved two time extensions. There was one in 2022 and one in 2023. The state

[7:27] of California adopted an automatic time extension for um residential projects in

[7:32] 2024. Um this project was eligible that was AB 2729. So the project was

[7:38] automatically extended for 18 months which took the project to August 4th of

[7:43] this year. The project has had some fits and starts with construction. Um I think

[7:49] most of the planning commission sitting here has reviewed this project. um at

[7:52] least once if not twice um for the the time extensions. Um most recently the

[7:58] last city inspection that documented any progress was just about a year ago on

[8:02] August 28th, 2025. Um there the city has been um working with the um property

[8:10] owner to get construction going or to surrender the property over to somebody

[8:14] else who can finish that project. Um so uh the so that that is you know the

[8:20] status of building A. The city building inspectors and the fire marshall do go

[8:25] by the property regularly to make sure that it is secured and that we aren't

[8:29] seeing um uh homeless activity within the buildings. Um so status of of

[8:33] building A. So, fast forward to 2026. Um, uh, just I think a month or two ago,

[8:39] the city council did approve the community services department to apply

[8:43] for a grant with uh from the housing uh housing and community development

[8:48] department. It's an encampment resolution fund. The grant includes

[8:52] multiple uh pieces, but one of which is purchasing this property to then um work

[8:58] with Haslow. I believe the property gets sold to Haslow or given to Haslow for a

[9:02] very low amount of money and HasllO would create long-term housing for

[9:06] acutely lowincome households. Haslow operates part of the Echo shelter and so

[9:11] they are looking to find long-term housing for folks who are being really

[9:15] successful successful down at the shelter on Black Oak Drive. So the idea

[9:19] is as people are successful there becomes a pipeline to move into

[9:24] permanent and more um uh uh you know unsubsidized housing you know little by

[9:28] little. So this would be another step in that ladder and that's what the the

[9:31] grant is intended to do. So we've sought this grant. We don't know whether or not

[9:35] we will get funding but the applicant would like to keep their time their uh

[9:38] entitlements active regardless whether or not this is a a completely private

[9:43] development or the city becomes involved. um uh the entitlements um you

[9:48] know we we would like to keep those active.

[9:51] So um construction progress uh I went out and took these pictures today. The

[9:55] building now has 90% of its sighting maybe 80% of its sighting up on the left

[10:00] is from Spring Street and then on the uh right down at the bottom that's I'm

[10:04] standing on 26th Street looking to the southwest. Um so some sighting is still

[10:09] missing. Um and my understanding is the interior is not finished at all. There's

[10:14] studs um but the the construction is not complete inside.

[10:19] Um just uh for the planning commission's memory, the last time I brought this

[10:24] project to you in April of 2024, you can see the progress on the right. There was

[10:29] um construction paper that was flapping in the wind. Um you know, the project on

[10:33] the left, that's today. Obviously, we're not all the way there, but it's

[10:36] substantially, you know, it does look a lot better. Um

[10:41] so um the time extension is exempt the project and the time extension are

[10:45] exempt from SQA. Um it was uh approved for a class 32 exemption. That's an

[10:50] infill ex exception. Um to qualify you have to the project has to be consistent

[10:54] with the general plan and uptown town center specific plan has to be less than

[10:58] five acres. No value as habitat. Um and it can't have any really significant uh

[11:03] impacts, environmental impacts. And so this project did qualify for that class

[11:07] 32 exemption. As always, the planning commission does have options. The first

[11:11] would be to approve the request for a one-year time extension that would

[11:15] extend the amount of time the applicant has to uh finish the uh phase two and to

[11:20] record their uh vesting tenative parcel map. Um you could approve a time

[11:25] extension for more or less time. We wouldn't recommend approving any more

[11:28] than two years, but you could if you if you desire ex do a two-year time

[11:32] extension or less time if that is the preference. Um, or you could amend or

[11:36] modify the uh the noted options. Staff is recommending that you approve

[11:42] the request for a one-year time extension to the vesting tenative parcel

[11:46] map and the amended development plan. Um, if you were to approve another year,

[11:50] that would give them until August 4th uh to either complete the project or to

[11:54] come back again for uh further time extensions. And that concludes my

[11:58] report. >> Great. Thank you, Katie. [clears throat]

[12:01] Bringing it to the commission for any uh questions or comments.

[12:08] Commissioner >> Katie, just some clarification. An

[12:13] applicant can apply for how many extensions? So, um, the the subdivision

[12:17] map act allows for a total of eight years for the life of the map, but any

[12:21] automatic time extensions like the one that happened in 2024 are in addition.

[12:25] So, this project at this point in time could have a a total of 9 and a half

[12:29] years. >> Okay, that's what I wanted to clarify.

[12:31] So, that 18-month required >> extension did not count against their

[12:35] total allowed time. >> That is my understanding.

[12:37] » So, my next question is what feedback have you gotten that

[12:42] they'll be able to complete the project in the next 12 months? My concern is

[12:45] that that's not going to happen. >> So, [clears throat]

[12:47] the city staff also has the same concerns. We have been working with the

[12:51] city attorney to work pretty aggressively with the property owner to

[12:55] get this project completed. They did start again back in 2025. You saw the

[12:59] progress from 2024. Most of that happened in 2025. Things, you know, were

[13:04] progressing slowly but surely and then they did um they appeared to falter.

[13:08] Like I said, the last inspection we did was just about a year ago. Um so if the

[13:12] grant uh is unsuccessful we will move back to being more aggressive with the

[13:16] property owner. >> So that was my last question is

[13:19] regarding the grant. Grant processes usually take quite some time.

[13:23] » So how long how long ago did they apply? >> My understanding is we will find out

[13:27] next month whether or not we receive the grant and then we would begin

[13:31] negotiations with the property owner. >> Oh okay. And it's for the entire

[13:35] project. Correct. Both phase one and two.

[13:37] » Correct. >> Okay. Perfect.

[13:38] » Today it is one property. They do have a a tenative map, but today the whole

[13:42] property is is one >> one project. Okay. Thank you.

[13:50] » Um thank you Katie. Um I'm following up on the grant application. Um if we give

[13:57] this extension um

[14:01] are we expecting if we are successful in getting the grant that that would be

[14:07] what would be we would be working on as a city um more so than them completing

[14:12] the project? >> Yes. If the city receives the grant, we

[14:15] would purchase the property and then I I um the homeless services manager and

[14:19] community services director are here, so if I start making mistakes, they'll come

[14:23] up and correct me. But I believe the grant we would purchase the property and

[14:26] then HLA would acquire the property from the city and HLA would complete the

[14:30] project. HLO I apologize is the housing authority of San Los Bispo.

[14:35] » Okay. Ashley is that pretty well or and Helica

[14:42] » La Helica's coming up. I think it's important to note that what's on the

[14:46] agenda tonight is a time extension for a parcel map and a site plan review or

[14:53] development plan. What was on it? So, tonight what we're looking at the

[14:58] permits for the front building have been issued and the timing of that not being

[15:04] completed is something that's being worked on separate from a time

[15:08] extension. The time extension tonight is to allow the entitlement for the rear

[15:13] building and the subdivision. So just so you understand what's before the

[15:18] commission tonight really has nothing to do with whether the city is applying for

[15:23] a grant or who the owner becomes in the future, whether it's one parcel or two.

[15:29] Tonight is the time extension for the parcel map and would uh facilitate

[15:36] developing the second building. That's part of that entitlement.

[15:39] » Thank you for that clarification. I I know that this all kind of folds in

[15:43] together though, so I want to make sure we're clear on where we're going with

[15:46] this. >> So,

[15:50] » Miss Banister is correct. However, HLO would acquire the property, not the

[15:54] city. >> Gotcha.

[15:58] » Thank you.

[16:04] » Did you have any questions? >> Yeah. Commissioner Christensen.

[16:09] Um I I appreciate the um explanation of the

[16:13] extension. I think um basically what Darren was saying is basically all we

[16:19] can consider is that time of extension although all of us I think are concerned

[16:23] with the fact that the property has been such a blight to the city for some time.

[16:28] Um, do we know did they ever get the electrical uh switch that they talked

[16:32] about back in I don't know was that 2022 or has it even progressed that far?

[16:41] I don't recall. I I remember, you know, continued promises. I don't know. Marcy,

[16:47] is there anyone on the line? Is there an applicant on the line?

[16:51] Sounding like not. Um uh I I don't recall. you know, they they made some

[16:56] progress on the exterior. I think the last um inspection that was called was

[17:01] for um uh lav, you know, under the stuckco. There's some stucco on the 26th

[17:05] Street side. Um I don't recall. >> Okay. Um I just was looking for

[17:11] clarification on that. Okay. Thank you, Katie. Mhm.

[17:17] » Katie, the um extension is just to keep the project alive for the present time,

[17:23] so to speak, to allow them to hold the current entitlement to some point in the

[17:26] future and when they seek another one perhaps. What happens if it gets denied?

[17:31] They obviously will have to reapply. Have any of the requirements of the

[17:35] rules change that would shape the project in a different way? Do you have

[17:39] any idea? Or would it just be if I don't get it tonight, maybe I can get it next

[17:42] year? >> Yeah. So phase one, building A is

[17:45] vested. So we wouldn't be um you know those

[17:49] » phase two. Exactly. Um so yes, it would be back to the drawing board. I do have

[17:53] a slide of the findings you would have to make in order to deny a time

[17:57] extension and they are relatively limited. Um the the circumstances under

[18:00] which you you know would not extend the project. Um but yes, it would definitely

[18:04] make it more complicated for for whether it's the current owner, a future private

[18:09] owner, or the city. If we if we did not extend the time the um the entitlements,

[18:13] they would have to apply again. >> Okay. Yeah. Good.

[18:16] » And and the specific plan has not changed in in the meantime.

[18:19] » So the intent here is simply to hold the entitlement in their hands, so to speak.

[18:24] Realistically, there's no way they're going to do construction in a year. They

[18:27] haven't done construction in 5 years on the first building. So it just preserves

[18:30] their right to continue into the future. Correct.

[18:34] » Thank you, >> Commissioner Neil.

[18:38] » Yeah, I guess my only concern is this entitlement adds value to the property

[18:45] um and could be used in a negotiation um for the sale. I don't know have have

[18:52] has the property owner been in contact about this grant and the sale of the

[18:58] property? Yes, the property owner is aware and has signed. I want to say it's

[19:02] a memorandum of understanding he is interested or they are interested.

[19:06] » I just I'd just be concerned that they could use it for a bit of leverage.

[19:09] » Yeah, I my understanding is our community services department and the

[19:13] housing authority of San Pispo would prefer that you keep the entitlements

[19:16] alive.

[19:20] » Any other commissioners? Only question I had is um I'd just be curious about

[19:26] not that we're going to go one way or another, what the findings are required

[19:30] by us to deny the project. I know they get eight years. I don't Okay.

[19:37] » Yeah. So, I've just put up the slide. You would have to find that denying um

[19:41] uh failure to deny would place the residents of the subdivision or the

[19:45] immediate immediate community in a condition uh dangerous to their health

[19:49] or safety or both. Um, and I would argue that not allowing the project to proceed

[19:54] is what would leave the neighborhood in danger. Um, and denial is required in

[19:58] order to comply with state or federal law. The state, you know, has made

[20:02] housing a priority. And I don't think that they would agree if you found that

[20:06] the, you know, denying housing um if you wanted to not extend the map, I think

[20:11] they would uh they would not say it's against the their their rules.

[20:15] » Yeah, it's very specific. Okay, great. Uh if none of my other commissioners

[20:19] have any questions or comment, I will open up to public comment. Uh please

[20:23] come up and state your name.

[20:28] » Hey Darren. >> Hi. Uh Linda George, 3126 Spring Street.

[20:32] Uh just for the record, I wrote in opposition to the grant. Um it's a

[20:36] 47page grant. It's round five and the grant money is founded off housing first

[20:42] law, a 2016 law that the state uh put upon the I'd [clears throat] say put

[20:48] upon us where the this housing if Hasllow takes it over. First it was

[20:54] presented as an eight sober unit apartment. Okay. And then tonight I find

[21:01] out there's 18 additional units. I have walked up all and down Spring Street,

[21:06] spoke with the business owners, some of the projects you've approved that's

[21:09] supposed to go on next Friday. Everybody and the parents are in an uproar.

[21:14] Unfortunately, school was out when this initially came into my purview. What

[21:20] we're actually doing of a seven uh $14 million, I think approximate 70% of that

[21:25] grant would go to Haslow. We're going to give Haslow 3.5 million for that

[21:30] project. then they will develop it into sober homeless apartments. However, this

[21:37] grant money doesn't allow that. So, I appreciate the spirit in which trying to

[21:43] get affordable housing, but I have worked with the homeless my entire life.

[21:47] I have found and seen many people who have come off the streets into highrises

[21:51] and they make it. Uh T. Wolf in San Francisco was a fentanyl dealer four

[21:56] years ago. Now, he's at the capital. So, I am not against meeting our reign and

[22:02] numbers with these types of housing. But what I'm concerned about is let's say

[22:08] Michelle Pedigo leaves and somebody comes in and says, "Oh, you can't do

[22:12] that. You can't just make sober people live there. We're going to have 26 rooms

[22:17] of potential homeless addicts because the 216 law indicates that you cannot

[22:23] discriminate. You cannot kick out for drug usage. You can't do any of that. So

[22:28] there's going to be a real book big community push back on that. So my

[22:32] question is is if and Ekko received some more complaints on that um grant from a

[22:40] community advocate about not feeding the homeless. I was there. I watched it. So

[22:45] I don't know if that grant is going to happen. So then my question would be if

[22:50] that grant doesn't come through, can Hazel still purchase that property? Um,

[22:55] will the city still make a deal? Because that's going to be a deal for Haslow.

[22:59] They try to buy some property on the skate park and I found out through

[23:02] negotiations that didn't happen. I feel like one Haslow project in this small

[23:08] city is enough. But if they come in, they cannot use this particular grant

[23:13] money, but they can get other monies to fulfill their 26 rooms for sober home

[23:21] key. Now, I've been to home key. they are actively doing drugs there.

[23:26] So, I don't see it, but I just wanted to make sure you guys have that

[23:30] information. I I'm okay with the year extension. I'd like to see it be a

[23:36] lowincome clinic is what I wanted. Thank you.

[23:41] » Great. Thank you. Are there any other members of the public that would like to

[23:45] speak? Seeing none in the audience, Marcy, are

[23:49] there any callers? >> There are no callers.

[23:53] Yeah, we we're going to we're going to do some more questions.

[23:56] » No callers. >> There are no callers.

[23:58] » Okay, we're going to bring it back to the planning commission for any

[24:00] follow-up questions or comments. Uh did you have something you'd like to speak

[24:05] to regarding >> I just wanted to provide a

[24:07] clarification. Uh the grant is not before you today, but uh the the grant

[24:12] uh does not include any construction of the entitled units. It only includes

[24:17] construction or completion of the project phase uh one. Um, it could

[24:23] potentially include making those uh from uh threebedrooms to twobedroom units to

[24:28] um provide additional units. It would be housing that prioritizes families that

[24:33] are in the permanent supportive housing campus at HLO, not in the shelter. Uh

[24:39] but it would be family units. >> Great. Thank you. Um ju just for

[24:44] clarification, Darren, um [clears throat]

[24:48] would if if for some reason HLO got the grant, would any of this come before the

[24:53] commission for the approval of that sale or would that all go to directly to city

[24:57] council? Like my question is based on uh public comment and their the request

[25:02] really the the planning commission has no authority of over those type of

[25:06] things unless there for some reason we were involved in that um transference of

[25:11] some sort. >> Right. I think the you know the the

[25:15] number of units I'll defer to Katie on if that's been analyzed in terms of a

[25:20] you know a zoning or a a unit number. Um have we looked into that? Is that

[25:25] something that would come back to the planning? had conversations. Um the uh

[25:29] the only change that that the community services department and HLO at this

[25:33] point intends to make are internal to the building. They would increase the

[25:36] number of units. So the exterior of the building is which is what the planning

[25:40] commission is typically uh interested in would not be changing. Um that being

[25:45] said, when the rear building went from having nine units to 18 units, it did

[25:50] have to come back to the planning commission. They at that time made

[25:53] changes to the exterior of the building. So, we've been having conversations

[25:56] about whether or not just changing the unit count would come back to planning

[26:00] commission. So, it's possible, but uh we haven't made a determination of whether

[26:04] or not that meets the thresholds for needing planning commission approval.

[26:07] » But, but for clarity, it would only be the change of the construction. Anything

[26:12] to do with the grant or the ownership or the city's deal with Haslow, that has

[26:18] nothing to do with the planning commission and we have no authority over

[26:21] that. >> Absolutely correct.

[26:23] » Okay, great. I just wanted to clarify that.

[26:26] Commissioner Kler, >> Katie, when with the shuffling of units,

[26:30] has anybody an analyzed the parking? Does the parking still meet the uh unit

[26:35] count as it might end up being if threes go to two and nine went to 18 and

[26:40] whatever other numbers have shifted over time?

[26:42] » We have not. Um, I will say with the rear building when it went, so the way

[26:46] the parking requirements work in the Uptown Town Center specific plan is that

[26:49] if you have a studio or a one-bedroom unit, you need one parking space. If

[26:53] it's two or more bedrooms, you need two parking spaces. So, when they went from

[26:58] three-bedroom units to one-bedroom units, and they doubled it, it was the

[27:01] same parking requirement. In this case, if we're going from three to twobedroom

[27:05] units, the parking requirement would not come down. But, I will say that we are

[27:08] looking at deedrestricted units. the entirety of the project would be deeed

[27:12] restricted for acutely low households. And you know, I think it would be in the

[27:16] city's interest to uh reduce or you know, they might use concessions or

[27:20] other u mechanisms through the affordable housing density bonus program

[27:23] to reduce the amount of parking required. That is possible.

[27:27] » Thank you, >> Commissioner Neil.

[27:29] » So Katie, this would still fit under a 32 exemption, a categorical exemption,

[27:34] right, for in the additional units. I mean the only

[27:38] potential um impact and we haven't analyzed it would would be traffic

[27:42] trips. I mean the the impacts of the site are the same. It's development of

[27:45] the whole site um and so like you know impacts to biology or um air quality are

[27:50] going to be um comp comparable >> and I suspect the additional traffic is

[27:55] minuscule. I >> I agree. I don't think that it will rise

[27:58] to the to the level of a of a of an impact.

[28:01] » Great. Thank you, >> Commissioner Christensen.

[28:05] » Uh thank you Katie. I think um I just have some comments on it in general.

[28:10] You know what's before us obvious is the time extension and

[28:15] I I not not I don't necessarily agree that it's better for us to extend given

[28:19] the extension because the way they've drugged this out and it's just continued

[28:22] to be a blight. I don't know that we have a lot of leeway in that though. So,

[28:25] um, you know, for me, I'm just following what, you know, we have very little

[28:31] leeway in what the state allows. And to me, that's that's a problem that I think

[28:35] we all recognize. I don't think we're going to change that tonight. Um, as

[28:40] for, you know, the city buying it with the grant money, boy, I have a lot of

[28:44] comments on that. But again, that's not for tonight. We're just in front for

[28:48] this for the extension. Um they have the right to the extension for what how many

[28:53] more years would they what do we have like they'd have another 18 months after

[28:57] this? >> Um they do so they the project was

[28:59] approved in 2020. I believe it would get them to somewhere in the middle of 2029

[29:04] possibly 2030. I didn't do the full math.

[29:06] » Okay. And I do believe that giving them this extension doesn't mean we're going

[29:11] to see it change from that picture from 2025 because we haven't seen it change

[29:15] till today from 2025. So, the owner has no interest in in pushing this project

[29:21] forward. I think he's just waiting for a nice paycheck for a grant from the city.

[29:25] But, um, you know, in my opinion, I don't think we have much choice but to

[29:29] just move forward and and approve this extension.

[29:32] » I will say that city staff and since you last heard this has moved a lot more

[29:36] aggressively with legal action to to address the the lack of progress. So

[29:40] whether or not uh the grant goes through or we just you're extending this for

[29:44] some future owner um staff is working much more aggressively

[29:48] » and I appreciate that. I think that's really important because a year goes by

[29:51] another year goes by it is becoming an issue there on that and and I just think

[29:56] it's going to get worse and worse. So I'm glad to hear that Katie that I

[29:59] appreciate that too. So thank you. >> Uh again just a clarification the city

[30:05] would not be buying that. Um, so I I I'll I'll have Angelica um come up again

[30:10] if I misspe, but my understanding is the city would purchase the property and

[30:14] then HLO would acquire it from the city. The city would not be expending any

[30:18] local dollars. We would be using the grant dollars to purchase the property

[30:21] and then HLO would purchase the property from the city for for less than what we

[30:25] purchased it for with the grant dollars.

[30:34] The way the grant was written, HLA would actually be acquiring the property, not

[30:37] the city. >> Okay. Yeah. Great.

[30:42] » Any other commissioners got any comments, questions, concerns? If not, I

[30:46] would entertain a motion. >> Commissioner Christensen,

[30:51] » I move we approve the resolution for the extension.

[30:55] » I'll second it. First by Christensen, a second by Kobar Rubius.

[31:00] And I get a roll call.

[31:04] » Commissioner Christensen. >> I.

[31:06] » Commissioner Kar Rubius. >> Hi.

[31:08] » Commissioner Rhoden. >> I.

[31:10] » Commissioner Neil. >> I.

[31:12] » Commissioner Kogler. >> I.

[31:14] » Commissioner Loren. >> I.

[31:16] » And chairperson Marlo. >> I.

[31:18] » Passes 70. >> Great. Thank you, Katie.

[31:24] Okay. Moving on to item G2, general plan amendment to the city's fear of

[31:29] influence and fire hazard severity zone map.

[31:34] Staff presentation. Oh, two for two. >> Thank you, Chairperson Marlo. Um, so

[31:40] this project has a title that makes it sound like there's a lot happening. What

[31:44] you should understand is there is nothing happening.

[31:50] If you read through the recitals in the staff report, all of the actions, all of

[31:55] the major actions that caused the need to update these maps has occurred. The

[31:59] city council or LAFCO have approved all of the changes. They were just not the

[32:04] maps that depicted those changes were not updated in the general plan. So,

[32:09] don't be afraid of the large title. So I I can give you a little more background.

[32:14] As we prepared for the third item on your agenda this evening, which is an an

[32:18] a proposal to annex land around the the airport, excuse me, the landfill,

[32:24] I I as I was reviewing the maps and reviewing the documents, I realized this

[32:29] fire hazard severity zone map is incorrect. Our sphere of influence has

[32:32] changed. All of these maps are incorrect and we're just about to make amendments

[32:36] for the to make to annex the landfill. and it didn't make any sense to adopt

[32:41] maps for the landfill that showed incorrect information. And so, like I

[32:46] said, this is a house cleaning item. And, you know, don't let the title uh

[32:50] scare you. And also, you don't have the right to change any of these. You know,

[32:55] you don't have the right to change. No, I mean the the the the the fire severity

[33:00] map, the sphere of influence, these are all council um you know what what it

[33:04] what appears in our general plan maps you do get to advise but changing those

[33:08] overarching policy documents is not in the preview like the the grant from the

[33:12] last item that that part is not um up to the planning commission. So as I said no

[33:18] substantive changes are being proposed but there are three actions that were

[33:21] taken in the last two years that are not uh reflected in our current general plan

[33:25] exhibits. So first in June of last year, council adopted a fire hazard severity

[33:30] zones map that was based on a map that was adopted by the state. This uh

[33:35] community of pastor Robels wrote letters there. You know, originally the the

[33:39] state fire marshall had shown some very high fire severity zones. All of that

[33:43] work was done and all we are doing is taking the map the the the map that

[33:48] council adopted and putting it into our general plan. Similarly, in January, the

[33:53] local agency formation commission did a review of the city sphere of influence.

[33:58] We'll get into what a sphere of influence is, what a sphere of influence

[34:02] is. They made an amendment there that that sphere of influence, those land

[34:06] masses are shown on multiple maps in our general plan. Finally, uh in April of

[34:11] this year, council adopted a new local hazard mitigation plan that was part of

[34:15] a larger regional uh hazard mitigation plan. Um, and again, exhibits in the uh

[34:21] in the general plan and some text in the general plan make references to an older

[34:26] local hazard mitigation plan that was adopted in 2013.

[34:30] Okay. So, um, as I said, I mean, I've already kind of given you this. So, uh,

[34:35] this is the fire hazard severity zone map that was adopted by council. It was

[34:38] first adopted by the state fire marshall. Council adopted it back in

[34:41] June. Similarly, um, this is one you probably don't have as much background

[34:46] on. So in January, LAFCO, the local agency formation commission reviewed the

[34:52] city's sphere of influence. So a sphere of influence is a pling a planning

[34:55] boundary that is outside a city or special district's legal limits that

[35:00] designates its probable future physical boundaries and service area. So this is

[35:05] the city declaring in this case to the county because that's who you know the

[35:09] all these areas are currently in the jurisdiction of the county. These are

[35:13] areas that we have a special interest in and we want to know what is being

[35:17] developed there and we think someday we might annex those and make them part of

[35:20] our city. So there were uh I think 13 areas analyzed. I've only listed I think

[35:26] 10 of them in the table because some of them uh were proposed by LAFCO um or by

[35:32] the city and were rejected. So I've only listed those that either were in or have

[35:36] been added. So um I have an animation. So there were um seven areas that were

[35:43] removed. There were a number of annex or excuse me sphere of influence areas on

[35:47] the west side along the residential areas of the west side of the city.

[35:51] Those were all removed. The city has no intent of serving or annexing those uh

[35:56] areas. Similarly on the east side um the uh Vina Robels uh did a subdivision uh

[36:02] the area two where the X is. That land is largely been developed and the city

[36:07] no longer intends to annex or have any control over that land. And then at the

[36:12] south end of River Road uh Oak Lane was was in our sphere of influence. So those

[36:16] areas were all removed. The action is done. You are not considering whether or

[36:20] not to remove those from the sphere of influence this evening. We're just

[36:24] deciding whether or not to change the maps. Finally, one area was added um uh

[36:29] Wisteria Lane west of Golden Hill. So, this is Golden Hill just north of of

[36:34] Lowe's, the Lowe's center. Um there is an area that actually got added to the

[36:38] city's sphere of influence. The reason largely is because we will need that for

[36:42] circulation. You've probably seen plans for the um the parallel route uh that

[36:47] will go north of 46. So, we really this was one missing piece for where we

[36:51] expect that parallel route uh to be placed. So, um that uh area nine was

[36:56] added and then uh no change to three areas. We do still see uh the Mill Road

[37:01] and the South Ramada and the landfill. And of course, we're going to see um

[37:06] immediately after this that the landfill is up for consideration very soon for

[37:10] annexation. Um so again, um this action has already taken place. We just are

[37:15] looking to amend maps in the general plan. Um finally, in uh April, the uh

[37:21] city adopted the hazard mitigation plan. This did not actually uh require any

[37:25] changes to maps in the general plan, but it did require text changes. So, we'll

[37:29] see what those look like. So, there are text changes to both the land use

[37:33] element and to the safety element. In the land use element, the change the

[37:37] text changes really only have to do with the sphere of influence. And it uh

[37:41] reduces the number of areas that are uh in the sphere of influence and actually

[37:45] increase the uh size of those areas. So you'll see we went from having nine

[37:49] areas in our sphere of influence down to four. In the safety element, uh the the

[37:55] text changes uh largely are references to the local hazard mitigation plan.

[38:00] There are many places where it references the 2013 plan. I changed

[38:03] those to 2025. Um references to the section and table numbers. You know,

[38:08] that data might have been in table one and now it's in table six. So those are

[38:11] the changes you're seeing in um in the safety element. We did also um combine

[38:16] all of the flood plane awareness maps into one map. They were previously in

[38:21] four separate maps and my understanding is that was because back 10 20 years ago

[38:26] the um the preciseness of the maps the the like the um uh just how how crisply

[38:33] they could be reproduced like the the dots per inch the um um it was just it

[38:38] was too rough. And so to in order to show the area, we had broken it into

[38:42] four areas. The maps and the printers are now so much clearer that it is now

[38:46] possible to put all of that map into one map. So you will see that as a change as

[38:50] well. And then um information from the uh hazard mitigation plan did change uh

[38:56] the number of properties and people that are in moderate and high fire hazard

[39:00] severity zones. So those are the text changes that are proposed. Jumping into

[39:05] the maps, there are four maps where only the sphere of influence was removed.

[39:08] that includes uh land use map three, land use map six, uh open space map one,

[39:14] and uh safety map seven. So, I didn't include all of these because nothing on

[39:19] those maps changed except I just removed the sphere of influence entirely. These

[39:24] maps, the sphere of influence is not really pertinent to whether to to the

[39:28] point of the map. So, this these the map you see on the right there is the um

[39:32] existing specific plan areas. There's really no reason for the sphere of

[39:35] influence to be shown here. And as in the future in 10 years, we might change

[39:39] our sphere of influence again so that we don't find oursel with this backlog of

[39:43] of maps that need to be amended. I've just removed them from the maps that

[39:47] don't um that it's not pertinent information. So the sphere of influence

[39:50] will no longer be shown on these four maps.

[39:54] Um uh land use map, excuse me, uh figure LU1 land for that's in the land use

[39:59] element. It's the figure one in the land use element. Um this is the the uh

[40:03] sphere of influence boundaries. So you can see um we saw previously all the the

[40:07] areas that were considered. This is now the clean this is the four areas that

[40:11] are are currently in our sphere of influence. So you're just updating this

[40:15] map to show what LFCO already approved. And you can see I don't know if this guy

[40:19] works. Oops. That that little the new little area at Wisteria is right there.

[40:23] That little that little square. Okay.

[40:28] Um the FEMA map. Um, I removed the sphere of influence and you know over

[40:32] time FEMA does make changes and our GI GIS maps have kept pace. They are minor

[40:37] refinements but I think there are a few small changes. Again, these were changes

[40:41] adopted by FEMA and not by the city but they're now reflected correctly in our

[40:46] safety element of the general plan or they would be

[40:50] uh figure uh S6 is the one I mentioned. This used to be four maps and we have

[40:54] combined them into one map as well as remove the sphere of influence from that

[40:58] map. Um this is the map that is the map that uh none of us like to see. It's the

[41:04] fire hazard severity zone map. Again, this is the map that council already

[41:08] adopted. We're just putting the correct map into the safety element.

[41:13] So that is the entirety of the proposed uh changes. Uh the project I I didn't

[41:18] change the title of this um slide, so I apologize. This is not a class 32

[41:22] exemption, but it is exempt from squa. Um, it is not considered a project

[41:27] because it doesn't have the potential for causing sign significant effect on

[41:30] the environment. All of the projects that came before to result in this

[41:34] project went through a seeker process. They were either considered exempt or

[41:38] there were there was environmental work done. So those projects had the

[41:42] potential for impacts. Changing maps does not.

[41:46] Um, so as always the planning commission has options. The first would be to adopt

[41:50] the draft resolution that is before you. It would approve a general plan

[41:54] amendment to correct the outdated maps and the text and the land use, open

[41:59] space, and safety elements. You could you could make modifications to those uh

[42:03] recommended changes. Uh and those would be forwarded to the city council. If

[42:07] you'd like more information or for staff to make additional analysis, we could we

[42:11] you could make that option or you could deny the project and leave the maps out

[42:15] of step with what has already been approved.

[42:19] Staff is recommending option one, which would be to adopt the draft resolution

[42:23] to recommend the city council approve [clears throat and snorts] the general

[42:25] plan amendment to correct the outdated maps and the related text in our uh

[42:30] general plan. And that concludes my report.

[42:33] » Thank you, Katie. Okay. Going to open it up to the commissioners for any

[42:36] comments, questions, or concerns. Commissioner Rhoden.

[42:41] » Thank you, Katie. Um, I just have a question. Can we go to the sphere of

[42:45] influence removed map?

[42:53] Um I'm I'm trying to I'm trying to put

[42:57] because that's East Chandler. It Where does Airport Road the old Airport Road

[43:03] go on that map? >> I'm I'm going to walk over because I the

[43:06] the pointer is way too um too large. >> Gotcha.

[43:11] » So um ranch is here. So this is this is specific here. This is the south is here

[43:20] and north ranch is here. So this is union road you can see coming through up

[43:25] to Thank you. Um so uh the uh existing airport road uh

[43:33] comes down here and then we do need a connector through North Chandler Ranch

[43:37] and then uh airport road north of the 46 is here. So this area is is outside of

[43:43] city limits. The north Chandler Ranch is already inside city limits.

[43:48] » Okay. So it it that's where Airport Road is or you would think it would align as

[43:53] on that uh west boundary. >> Correct. The uh the final alignment of

[43:59] of Airport Road is not decided, but it is thought that it'll it'll run

[44:02] somewhere near this eastern boundary of the city.

[44:05] » Gotcha. Thank you. Any other commissioners comments, questions?

[44:12] Commissioner Christensen. >> Uh Katie, just for clarification on the

[44:16] um LU3 or exhibit C, for example,

[44:22] it mentions the North Chandler Ranch area specific plan. Is that in process?

[44:27] Is that actually existing? >> It is not existing and the city does not

[44:32] have an application. There are 879 residential units have been allocated to

[44:37] that specific plan. But in order to develop that area, they will have to

[44:41] come to the planning commission and ultimately to the city council to have a

[44:44] specific plan approved similar to how Olsson South Chandler and Beachwood were

[44:48] approved. >> So I'm I'm just for clarification. I'm

[44:51] confused. It they're calling a specific plan, but it it does we don't have an

[44:55] application for it. housing units have been allotted, but

[44:59] » the land use element has policies that require for the areas that are shown.

[45:03] Um, it used to also apply to Beachwood and to uh Olsen and to South Chandler

[45:08] Ranch that in order for those properties to develop, they had to have a specific

[45:12] plan approved. The city would not consider development in those sites

[45:16] without a specific plan. So, we we know that that area needs a specific plan.

[45:21] the name South North Chandler Ranch is a placeholder until an actual specific

[45:25] plan is adopted. >> And that's I just was saying for

[45:28] clarification I think you know I guess maybe that's being thinking ahead but

[45:35] it's not currently specific plan so having labeled as such seems a little

[45:38] confusing. Um but okay >> the the proposed changes that's

[45:43] existing. All that changed on that map in particular is we've just removed the

[45:46] sphere of influence from the map. So that's how it shows today and other than

[45:50] the sphere of influence is also shown on land use map 3. Yeah, LU3.

[45:56] » I I understand it is confusion. It would take the council would need to make a

[46:00] much larger uh policy decision to remove that from

[46:03] » I get it. I I do it'd be like but to me it's making it's a it's incorrect. So

[46:08] but I get it. I understand. I'm just trying to make it simple. Thank you for

[46:11] explaining that. If there's no other commissioners, I'll

[46:16] open it up to public comment. Is there anyone in the public that wishes to

[46:21] speak? Seeing none, any callers?

[46:28] » There are no callers. >> Okay, bringing it back to the commission

[46:31] for any more comments or I would entertain a motion. Commissioner

[46:35] Coobbler, >> I would move that we adopt resolution

[46:38] 26, PC26- number to be inserted to recommend the city council approve

[46:42] general plan amendment 26-03 to correct outdated maps and related

[46:47] text in land use open space and safety elements.

[46:51] » Commissioner Neil, >> I will second.

[46:53] » First by Kogler, second by Neil. Any other comments?

[46:58] Okay, roll call, please.

[47:03] Commissioner Kogler. >> Hi.

[47:05] » Commissioner Neil. >> I.

[47:09] » Commissioner Loren. >> I.

[47:11] » Commissioner Kov Rubius. >> Hi.

[47:13] » Commissioner Rhoden. >> I.

[47:15] » Commissioner [snorts] Christensen. >> I.

[47:17] » Chairperson Marlo. >> I.

[47:20] » Item passes 70. >> All right. Moving on to item G3.

[47:27] Passurro's landfill annexation. So, thank you chair chairperson Marlo.

[47:33] Um, you are lucky I am not going to present this last item, but I did want

[47:36] to introduce introduce Brandy Cummings. She is a consultant for the city and

[47:40] she's been working with the city's solid waste manager who is also here this

[47:43] evening, uh, Regina Wheeler. Um, but Brandy Cummings is going to give this

[47:47] this next um, applica or presentation. >> Great. Thanks, Katie. Welcome.

[47:53] » Feel like Katie's on a roll. I should probably just let her keep going.

[47:57] All right, let me make sure I understand this.

[48:00] Okay, got it. Okay, this project, as Katie alluded to, is annexation of the

[48:06] landfill. And so, let me get going here. So, the city owns um quite a bit of land

[48:13] just south of the landfill out off of Highway 46. Um it's about 133 acres, and

[48:18] the city bought this land back in 2005 to sort of act as a buffer for the

[48:22] current um landfill operation, which is realize there's no legend shown in the

[48:27] gray. Um you've got like a

[48:31] there we go the gray square at the [clears throat] top there. So, um meant

[48:36] to act, you know, in the future if the city needed anything um for the landfill

[48:41] expansion improvements that that land wouldn't already be developed or

[48:44] encumbered otherwise. So, um at this point, the city's looking to actually

[48:48] annex that. So, it's currently unincorporated, which means any projects

[48:53] that the city would want to undertake on that land, you would have to go through

[48:57] the county to obtain land use permits, building permits, pay them fees, um, be

[49:02] beholden to their entitlement conditions. Um, so this project's really

[49:06] to give the city control of the land that they own surrounding the landfill.

[49:11] Um, if you've never been to the landfill and done a dump run, um, you probably

[49:14] wouldn't recognize it driving down the highway. It's pretty well hidden. Um

[49:17] it's about 4 miles east of the town proper. Um but the actual landfill

[49:22] parcel, that gray parcel is incorporated. So that is technically a

[49:27] little orphan of city land um hanging out over there.

[49:33] Okay. So as I mentioned, this project is just to get that land under city

[49:37] control, so incorporated into city limits. Um that would involve changes to

[49:42] both the general plan and the zoning ordinance to give it city general plan

[49:46] and zoning designations. Uh the land is currently uh designated agriculture by

[49:52] the county. Um this this project would keep most of the land agriculture, but

[49:57] it does set aside about 30 acres um that would continue that public facilities

[50:02] designation that the landfill currently has. And that would allow for future

[50:06] improvements. Um when I get to my SQA side, I'll I'll talk about a project

[50:11] that was proposed. Um but [clears throat] that would that would um

[50:14] already preset up the city after annexation for development under the

[50:20] public facilities zoning regulations.

[50:26] So we did prepare a mitigated negative declaration pursuant to SQA for this

[50:31] project. And in that uh declaration, you'll notice that we not only

[50:36] considered the annexation, but at the time we were also considering an

[50:39] organics processing facility um anorobic digtor similar, you know, to the one

[50:45] that slows. Um that is no longer part of the project. So today we are just

[50:50] looking at the annexation. um that does not change the outcome of the M &D. Um

[50:56] should the city down the road after this is annexed want to pursue that project

[51:01] again. Um the city would then make a determination if that M &D is adequate

[51:06] um to cover whatever project is proposed at that time. So it's always better to

[51:10] have more in your environmental analysis instead of um you having to come back

[51:14] and redo it later. Um so that did circulate earlier this spring and March.

[51:19] Um the M andD determined that there were no significant impacts. We do have some

[51:24] mitigation measures in there for air quality and biological resources. Kind

[51:28] of your typical development parameters. Those only apply if development is

[51:33] happening. So there are no measures that are needed just for changing the lines

[51:38] on the map, which is essentially what the annexation is doing. You're changing

[51:41] the lines from county jurisdiction to city jurisdiction. Um, but should future

[51:46] development come down in the future, the city could rely on those mitigation

[51:50] measures and that M &D to proceed with a future project.

[51:56] Um, I won't read all these to you. I know it's a lot of words and they're in

[52:00] your staff report, but there are several findings that the city will be making um

[52:03] as part of your resolution to proceed. Um essentially what you will be doing as

[52:08] planning commission is making a recommendation to city council to

[52:11] proceed with annexation um of this project. Should that um proceed to city

[52:16] council and city council also um agrees to move forward with the annexation. The

[52:21] next step is to submit an application to LAFCO agency commission and then that

[52:27] starts the process to formally um begin uh incorporating the city. So, it

[52:32] involves an application, there's a fee, uh, LACAO will rely on that M andD that

[52:37] I mentioned that we've already prepared for this project. Um, there's some map

[52:41] changes at the end that's done at the state level. Um, and then after that,

[52:44] the city will have uh control over what goes on um on that land in the future

[52:50] without having to go through the county for entitlements.

[52:55] Um, you do have several options. We are recommending that your uh commission do

[53:01] recommend to council to approve the annexation and proceed with that LAFCO

[53:04] application. Um you may um approve make a recommendation for approval with some

[53:11] modifications. You could recommend that city council deny moving forward with

[53:16] the annexation. And what that would mean is if a city ever wanted to do anything

[53:20] with that property, you would need to go through the county. um their standards

[53:25] for agriculture uh would apply to the project for any permits. Um and then

[53:31] your last option is uh staff could continue analyzing the project. If you

[53:36] had some specifics, we could look into um certain details and come back with a

[53:40] a recommendation.

[53:45] Um, I think I kind of covered this, but we are recommending your planning

[53:48] commission take these act actions basically approving the resolutions that

[53:52] includes adopting the mitigated negative declaration um proce uh initiating

[53:58] proceedings to annex the property and then the related general plan amendments

[54:02] and prezoning. So prezoning is a little different than a reszoning. Um basically

[54:07] uh the city is saying this is what we want the property to be zoned at. If the

[54:10] annexation is successful and then once that annexation process is complete with

[54:15] LAFCO that prezoning becomes zoning. So just a little nuance there.

[54:21] I believe that's my last slide. If you have any questions I'm here for it.

[54:25] » Yep. Uh open it up to the commission for any questions, comments, concerns.

[54:30] Seeing none over here. None to my left. I just have a couple like housekeeping

[54:36] ones just because I haven't been part of an annexation one.

[54:40] Could it be possible, not that they would, that the county pushes back and

[54:44] you know like no you can't have our land like has that happened or does that

[54:48] happen? Just curious out of curiosity or is it LAFCO's ultimate authority? So

[54:54] part of the annexation and the LACCO process is a a property tax sharing

[54:59] agreement between the city and the county. And usually when there are

[55:02] issues between two agencies involving an annexation, that's where it gets held

[55:07] up. There's not an agreement on how the property tax sharing is going to shift

[55:11] from county to city. In my [clears throat] experience, that's

[55:14] usually only an issue on properties that are not to disparage landfill property,

[55:20] but more lucrative. So those with like retail or commercial zoning that are

[55:23] going to generate sales tax that the county would potentially be losing out

[55:26] on um by giving that control to the city.

[55:30] » And then as far as like cuz to me the city limits would be one square and then

[55:34] obviously we have something part of the city limits that's not attached to the

[55:38] city like how how does that work in compared to something that's right next

[55:42] door or like how could we go annex some property that's right next to St. Louis

[55:46] Bispo for some reason? I'm I'm just this is again just curiosity. No, good

[55:50] questions. Um, LAFCO does prefer contiguous uh boundaries of districts or

[55:55] cities. Uh, the fact that the the landfill proper is already part of the

[55:59] city is um positive because now you're not creating an island. There's already

[56:04] an island that you're just adding to. Um,

[56:08] in the future, like if you wanted to, as Katie was talking about sphere of

[56:11] influence amendments, if city is super built out and you're like, "Oh my gosh,

[56:14] we need more room." logical next um sphere of influence area would probably

[56:19] be connecting your uh two little islands, big island, little island.

[56:25] » But would there be anything to stop us from getting unless it was LFCco like,

[56:28] "Hey, we want some property way off the reservation for some reason."

[56:33] » No. Um, and I think even I think LA County or maybe LA city um owns some

[56:39] property that they have annexed out in Kern County, which is super weird, but

[56:42] it's for their waste water management. It's possible. I would think in this

[56:47] county that would be less favorable. >> I would agree. [laughter] Nope. Just

[56:51] those were my only questions. Uh, thanks for the presentation. If there's no

[56:55] other questions for the commissioners, I'll open up to public comment if

[56:59] there's any people in the public. Nope. Seeing none callers.

[57:05] » There are no callers. >> Okay, we're going to bring it back to

[57:08] the commission. Um, just because there are four items, are these all separate

[57:12] motions? Okay, so would someone like to start getting to work on some motions?

[57:20] » Commissioner Neil, >> I I'm trying. Um, I'd like to move

[57:24] approval of resolution A recommending the city council adopt the mitigated

[57:28] negative declaration and mitigation monitoring and rep reporting program

[57:34] pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act.

[57:37] » First by Neil. >> I'll second.

[57:40] » I'll second. >> Second by Loren.

[57:43] Any other comments? If not, roll call, please.

[57:47] » Commissioners Neil, >> I.

[57:49] » Commissioner Loren, >> I. Commissioner Rhoden.

[57:52] » Hi. >> Commissioner Christensen.

[57:54] » Hi. >> Commissioner Kovar Rubius.

[57:56] » Hi. >> Commissioner Neil, I'm sorry.

[57:58] Commissioner Kovler. >> I.

[58:01] » And chairperson Marlo. >> I.

[58:04] » Passes 70. >> Commissioner Neil.

[58:07] » I'd like to make a motion to approve resolution B recommending initiation

[58:12] of proceedings to annex property. >> I'll second.

[58:16] » First by Neil, second by Loren. Roll call, please. Commissioner Neil.

[58:21] » Hi. >> Commissioner Lorenz.

[58:23] » I. >> Commissioner Rhoden.

[58:25] » Hi. >> Commissioner Christensen.

[58:27] » Hi. >> Commissioner K Rubius.

[58:28] » Hi. >> Commissioner Kogler.

[58:30] » I. >> And chairperson Marlo.

[58:33] » I. >> Commissioner Neil.

[58:35] » I'd like to move approval of resolution C recommending approval of general plan

[58:41] amendment 26-01. >> I'll second.

[58:45] » First by Neil, second by Loren. Roll call, please. Commissioner Neil.

[58:51] » Hi. >> Commissioner Loren.

[58:53] » Hi. >> Commissioner Rhoden.

[58:55] » Hi. >> Commissioner Christensen.

[58:56] » Hi. >> Commissioner Karubius.

[58:58] » Hi. >> Commissioner Kovler.

[59:00] » Hi. >> And chairperson Marlo.

[59:02] » I. >> Commissioner Neil.

[59:04] » Oh. [laughter]

[59:09] I'd like to move approval of resolution D recommending approval of prezoning

[59:14] zoning code text amendment 26-01. >> I'll second.

[59:20] » First by Neil, second by Loren. Roll call, please.

[59:23] » Commissioner Neil, >> I.

[59:24] » Commissioner Loren, >> I.

[59:26] » Commissioner Rhoden, >> I.

[59:28] » Commissioner Christensen, >> I.

[59:29] » Commissioner Co Rubius. >> Hi.

[59:31] » Commissioner Kogler, >> I.

[59:33] » Chairperson Marlo, >> I.

[59:35] » Passes 70. Great. Thank you so much. Thank you. Appreciate it. Uh discussion

[59:41] items. I'm seeing none. >> Move on to I consent calendar. Anyone

[59:47] have any questions or comments regarding the consent calendars? If not, I'd

[59:51] entertain a motion of approval. Commissioner Neil,

[59:55] » I'll move approval of the consent calendar.

[59:58] » First by Neil. >> I'll second.

[1:00:00] » Second by Loren. Roll call, please.

[1:00:05] » Commissioner Neil. >> I. Commissioner Loren,

[1:00:07] » I. >> Commissioner Rhoden,

[1:00:09] » I >> Commissioner Christensen,

[1:00:12] » I. >> Commissioner Kubius,

[1:00:13] » hi. >> Commissioner Kler,

[1:00:15] » I. >> And Chairperson Marlo,

[1:00:17] » I. Okay. Item J1, Housing Constraints and Opportunities Committee zoning code

[1:00:24] update report. Any update there, Darren?

[1:00:29] » No report tonight. >> No report. And DRC rotation schedule.

[1:00:34] Any challenges, comments? Marcy, did we get everything filled so far off your

[1:00:41] your email there?

[1:00:48] » Ashley, can you confirm the dates that you are covering?

[1:00:54] » I'm definitely covering on the 28th. Um, I believe I should be able to cover on

[1:00:59] the 21st. Um,

[1:01:02] » I don't see a problem with either of those.

[1:01:04] » Okay. Thank you. >> And then Roden, were you covering

[1:01:08] the 14th or the 21st? I don't remember.

[1:01:15] I saw emails flying around. Yeah, I think I said I was I was going

[1:01:21] to cover the 14th. >> We need two people on 21st

[1:01:26] » and say what?

[1:01:28] » We need two. We need two people on the 21st. Yeah. Um and I can also cover the

[1:01:34] 21st. >> Okay, great. So, it looks like we got

[1:01:39] all the absences in September handled. Commissioner Neil, did you have

[1:01:43] » Yeah, just again, if there's a hiccup, I can do it remotely.

[1:01:47] » Okay. >> Be in teams.

[1:01:48] » Thank you. Thank you for letting us know. Um,

[1:01:52] so actually speaking to that, I was informed and during DRC, I don't know if

[1:01:57] this was going to come up in staff comments, but our 6 months trial period

[1:02:00] of the 4:00 p.m. DRC meetings has come to an end and it's going to be just by

[1:02:06] default going back to 3:30 is what I was told during the DRC on Monday.

[1:02:12] » That was per the the action that the commission took to place at 4:00. So,

[1:02:17] that's now Kaput and we are officially going back to 3:30 starting Monday the

[1:02:21] 31st. >> Correct.

[1:02:22] » Okay, great. Um, that sounds good. I may end up throwing my hat in the ring to do

[1:02:28] those remote, but we can I'll work that out with the city. Um,

[1:02:32] » yeah, I think and uh, you know, Warren is the planning commissioner secretary,

[1:02:36] so I think he needs to if if that's something that you're looking into, I

[1:02:40] know the city the city clerk as well. So, there's some challenges with doing

[1:02:44] that. Um and um I think they should take that into consideration

[1:02:51] » so that they can properly provide you back with what would need to happen or

[1:02:54] if it's even feasible. >> Absolutely. So I'll discuss that with

[1:02:57] them. Commissioner Christensen. >> Um I know it's going back to 3:30, but

[1:03:01] was there just this is out of curiosity because I I don't know if there was a

[1:03:05] report on it. Was it a negative outcome at 4:00 or was that something that most

[1:03:09] I know I didn't have a problem with it, but I was just curious if that was an

[1:03:12] issue for staff or >> I think that 3:30 worked better for

[1:03:16] staff and applicants involved with presenting or applicants and their

[1:03:21] representatives. Okay. The 3:30 uh we got in a bind sometimes at 4:00 when we

[1:03:25] had items >> very much understanding that some

[1:03:29] agendas are very light. Um, but just in general, the 3:30 start time uh is I

[1:03:35] think worked better for staff and uh applicants. I think it if it's something

[1:03:40] that we want to discuss again, it's something we can discuss. We just had a

[1:03:44] a sunset on that >> first go around.

[1:03:47] » Yeah. And and Commissioner Rhoden,

[1:03:51] » I was I was just going to say I think we discussed part of the the problem for

[1:03:55] the other commissioners that weren't there. Um the city clerk was concerned

[1:04:00] that if we continued to change the times, you know, because we said if

[1:04:04] there's a lot, we can change it to 3:30. That there need to be a consistency in

[1:04:08] time, whatever that is. So that was why we want a consistency.

[1:04:15] » Yeah, I'm not going to make a fuss at this time because I know most of it was

[1:04:19] moved uh to support me. But but the one comment that I would say is as we get

[1:04:24] new commissioners and people are you know working it it's definitely a lot

[1:04:29] more convenient because I got to you know leave fairly early but it's a

[1:04:33] commitment I have and I understand and I will work hopefully we can work with the

[1:04:36] city to continue to to make it work. So um moving on if there's nothing else on

[1:04:42] DRC rotation schedule moving on to K planning commissioners comments. Any

[1:04:47] comments for planning commissioners? Seeing none staff comments?

[1:04:52] » No, we talked about the DRC. Um but uh other than that uh no further comments

[1:04:58] tonight. >> Okay. Can I get a motion for

[1:05:01] adjournment? >> I move to

[1:05:03] » Okay. Second >> by Kogler and second by Christensen

[1:05:08] » vice versa >> or vice versa. Uh [laughter]

[1:05:10] roll call. Hi.

[1:05:13] » Hi. >> Hi.

[1:05:16] » Hi.

Planning Commission

Transcript