testing. Testing
testing.
» Still good. Still good. >> Thank you.
» Oh, I don't know that I've ever met you. My name's Marcy.
» I've emailed Yeah. But I've never >> wander
staff.
Uh, good evening and welcome to the city of Pastor Robel's planning commission
meeting Tuesday, August 25th. I'd like to call the meeting to order. We're
going to start with the pledge of allegiance.
I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all.
» All right. Um, roll call, please.
Commissioner Loren >> here.
» Commissioner Kogler >> here.
» Commissioner Neil >> here.
» Commissioner Karubius >> here.
» Commissioner Christensen >> here.
» Commissioner Rhoden >> here.
» Chairperson Marlo >> uh here. Okay. Staff introductions
please. >> Marcy Reynoso and Jessica Ferguson
permit technician. >> Darren Nash, city planner.
» Regina Wheeler, solid waste recycling manager.
Katie Banister, associate planner.
» Ashley Hernandez, homeless services manager. Anelica Forton, community
services director.
» Anyone on the line? >> Sarah Lan online with best Kger, City
Attorney's Office. >> Great. Thank you. Um, general public
comments regarding matters not on the agenda. Are there any members of the
public that like to speak anything about anything not on the agenda?
Seeing no [snorts] one in the audience, are there any callers?
» There are no callers. >> Okay, great.
Any uh agenda items proposed to be tabled or rescheduled?
» No, there is none. >> There are none. Okay, we are going to
move on to public hearing item G1 time extension moose apartments P19-000093.
Got a staff presentation.
» Thank you, Chairperson Marlo. As you said, this is a time extension for a
project that got entitled quite a few years ago. Um, so this is a vesting
tenative parcel map PR190070. there was an amendment to the
development plan and then the teex is for this time extension.
So um the project um is uh the city staff has uh given the project uh the
moniker the moose apartments. This is the site where the um moose lodge used
to be located. So we used it to identify and it seems to have caught on a little
bit. So the moose apartments it's a mixeduse project. It's located at 2548
Spring Street. Um, and like I said, it does include a vesting tenative parcel
map and an amended development plan. So, um, here we can see the location,
2548 Spring Street. This is just south of of 26th Street and across the street
from the Lewis Flamson Junior High School.
Um, I jump into the description. So, the project was approved with two phases.
Phase one was building A. This is the building that has been under
construction for quite a few years. Um, this building includes uh 4,000 square
ft of ground floor commercial space. There are eight three-bedroom
residential units on the second and third floors. And then phase uh one also
included uh partial parking lot improvements. Um those are not complete
although they have begun. Phase two is building B. Um it is a one it's a
building. It's a three-story building. It includes 18 one-bedroom units. The
project as approved back in I believe it was 2020 included an affordable housing
density bonus. Uh there are two affordable units currently required. A
uh househ a unit for a low-income household and a very low-income
household. So here's a look at the site plan.
Spring Street is on the left side. 26th Street is on the top of the of your
screen. So uh phase one, building A is the building under construction. That's
in the yellow square. And then building B is at the rear. Um this building uh we
have reviewed building permits for but we have not issued a building permit for
that. Um, and then the project does include a a parcel map that would split
the lot. So, building A would be on one lot and building B would be on a second
lot. So, some background. I've already um
gone over some of this, but uh so some of this will be rehashing, but um the
project was approved by the city council back in 2020. It did at that time
include two buildings. It included 4,000 square ft of commercial space, but only
17 residential units. We issued a building permit for building A in 2020.
The applicant came back to um the city in 2021 for an amendment to the
development plan for building B, that second building that's never been
constructed. Um in 20 with the 2020 housing element, the planning commission
recommended and city council adopted what's known as fractional density where
if you build really small units, 600 square f feet or smaller, they count as
less than a a density unit. And so they were able to use the uh fractional
density to change the rear building from um having only eight uh it had eight
three-bedroom units and it was I apologize nine three-bedroom units and
it was converted into a floor plan and site plan that includes 18 one-bedroom
units. So building B would have 18 one-bedroom units. Um the uh so that is
what has been approved to to date. Um the planning commission has reviewed and
approved two time extensions. There was one in 2022 and one in 2023. The state
of California adopted an automatic time extension for um residential projects in
2024. Um this project was eligible that was AB 2729. So the project was
automatically extended for 18 months which took the project to August 4th of
this year. The project has had some fits and starts with construction. Um I think
most of the planning commission sitting here has reviewed this project. um at
least once if not twice um for the the time extensions. Um most recently the
last city inspection that documented any progress was just about a year ago on
August 28th, 2025. Um there the city has been um working with the um property
owner to get construction going or to surrender the property over to somebody
else who can finish that project. Um so uh the so that that is you know the
status of building A. The city building inspectors and the fire marshall do go
by the property regularly to make sure that it is secured and that we aren't
seeing um uh homeless activity within the buildings. Um so status of of
building A. So, fast forward to 2026. Um, uh, just I think a month or two ago,
the city council did approve the community services department to apply
for a grant with uh from the housing uh housing and community development
department. It's an encampment resolution fund. The grant includes
multiple uh pieces, but one of which is purchasing this property to then um work
with Haslow. I believe the property gets sold to Haslow or given to Haslow for a
very low amount of money and HasllO would create long-term housing for
acutely lowincome households. Haslow operates part of the Echo shelter and so
they are looking to find long-term housing for folks who are being really
successful successful down at the shelter on Black Oak Drive. So the idea
is as people are successful there becomes a pipeline to move into
permanent and more um uh uh you know unsubsidized housing you know little by
little. So this would be another step in that ladder and that's what the the
grant is intended to do. So we've sought this grant. We don't know whether or not
we will get funding but the applicant would like to keep their time their uh
entitlements active regardless whether or not this is a a completely private
development or the city becomes involved. um uh the entitlements um you
know we we would like to keep those active.
So um construction progress uh I went out and took these pictures today. The
building now has 90% of its sighting maybe 80% of its sighting up on the left
is from Spring Street and then on the uh right down at the bottom that's I'm
standing on 26th Street looking to the southwest. Um so some sighting is still
missing. Um and my understanding is the interior is not finished at all. There's
studs um but the the construction is not complete inside.
Um just uh for the planning commission's memory, the last time I brought this
project to you in April of 2024, you can see the progress on the right. There was
um construction paper that was flapping in the wind. Um you know, the project on
the left, that's today. Obviously, we're not all the way there, but it's
substantially, you know, it does look a lot better. Um
so um the time extension is exempt the project and the time extension are
exempt from SQA. Um it was uh approved for a class 32 exemption. That's an
infill ex exception. Um to qualify you have to the project has to be consistent
with the general plan and uptown town center specific plan has to be less than
five acres. No value as habitat. Um and it can't have any really significant uh
impacts, environmental impacts. And so this project did qualify for that class
32 exemption. As always, the planning commission does have options. The first
would be to approve the request for a one-year time extension that would
extend the amount of time the applicant has to uh finish the uh phase two and to
record their uh vesting tenative parcel map. Um you could approve a time
extension for more or less time. We wouldn't recommend approving any more
than two years, but you could if you if you desire ex do a two-year time
extension or less time if that is the preference. Um, or you could amend or
modify the uh the noted options. Staff is recommending that you approve
the request for a one-year time extension to the vesting tenative parcel
map and the amended development plan. Um, if you were to approve another year,
that would give them until August 4th uh to either complete the project or to
come back again for uh further time extensions. And that concludes my
report. >> Great. Thank you, Katie. [clears throat]
Bringing it to the commission for any uh questions or comments.
Commissioner >> Katie, just some clarification. An
applicant can apply for how many extensions? So, um, the the subdivision
map act allows for a total of eight years for the life of the map, but any
automatic time extensions like the one that happened in 2024 are in addition.
So, this project at this point in time could have a a total of 9 and a half
years. >> Okay, that's what I wanted to clarify.
So, that 18-month required >> extension did not count against their
total allowed time. >> That is my understanding.
» So, my next question is what feedback have you gotten that
they'll be able to complete the project in the next 12 months? My concern is
that that's not going to happen. >> So, [clears throat]
the city staff also has the same concerns. We have been working with the
city attorney to work pretty aggressively with the property owner to
get this project completed. They did start again back in 2025. You saw the
progress from 2024. Most of that happened in 2025. Things, you know, were
progressing slowly but surely and then they did um they appeared to falter.
Like I said, the last inspection we did was just about a year ago. Um so if the
grant uh is unsuccessful we will move back to being more aggressive with the
property owner. >> So that was my last question is
regarding the grant. Grant processes usually take quite some time.
» So how long how long ago did they apply? >> My understanding is we will find out
next month whether or not we receive the grant and then we would begin
negotiations with the property owner. >> Oh okay. And it's for the entire
project. Correct. Both phase one and two.
» Correct. >> Okay. Perfect.
» Today it is one property. They do have a a tenative map, but today the whole
property is is one >> one project. Okay. Thank you.
» Um thank you Katie. Um I'm following up on the grant application. Um if we give
this extension um
are we expecting if we are successful in getting the grant that that would be
what would be we would be working on as a city um more so than them completing
the project? >> Yes. If the city receives the grant, we
would purchase the property and then I I um the homeless services manager and
community services director are here, so if I start making mistakes, they'll come
up and correct me. But I believe the grant we would purchase the property and
then HLA would acquire the property from the city and HLA would complete the
project. HLO I apologize is the housing authority of San Los Bispo.
» Okay. Ashley is that pretty well or and Helica
» La Helica's coming up. I think it's important to note that what's on the
agenda tonight is a time extension for a parcel map and a site plan review or
development plan. What was on it? So, tonight what we're looking at the
permits for the front building have been issued and the timing of that not being
completed is something that's being worked on separate from a time
extension. The time extension tonight is to allow the entitlement for the rear
building and the subdivision. So just so you understand what's before the
commission tonight really has nothing to do with whether the city is applying for
a grant or who the owner becomes in the future, whether it's one parcel or two.
Tonight is the time extension for the parcel map and would uh facilitate
developing the second building. That's part of that entitlement.
» Thank you for that clarification. I I know that this all kind of folds in
together though, so I want to make sure we're clear on where we're going with
this. >> So,
» Miss Banister is correct. However, HLO would acquire the property, not the
city. >> Gotcha.
» Thank you.
» Did you have any questions? >> Yeah. Commissioner Christensen.
Um I I appreciate the um explanation of the
extension. I think um basically what Darren was saying is basically all we
can consider is that time of extension although all of us I think are concerned
with the fact that the property has been such a blight to the city for some time.
Um, do we know did they ever get the electrical uh switch that they talked
about back in I don't know was that 2022 or has it even progressed that far?
I don't recall. I I remember, you know, continued promises. I don't know. Marcy,
is there anyone on the line? Is there an applicant on the line?
Sounding like not. Um uh I I don't recall. you know, they they made some
progress on the exterior. I think the last um inspection that was called was
for um uh lav, you know, under the stuckco. There's some stucco on the 26th
Street side. Um I don't recall. >> Okay. Um I just was looking for
clarification on that. Okay. Thank you, Katie. Mhm.
» Katie, the um extension is just to keep the project alive for the present time,
so to speak, to allow them to hold the current entitlement to some point in the
future and when they seek another one perhaps. What happens if it gets denied?
They obviously will have to reapply. Have any of the requirements of the
rules change that would shape the project in a different way? Do you have
any idea? Or would it just be if I don't get it tonight, maybe I can get it next
year? >> Yeah. So phase one, building A is
vested. So we wouldn't be um you know those
» phase two. Exactly. Um so yes, it would be back to the drawing board. I do have
a slide of the findings you would have to make in order to deny a time
extension and they are relatively limited. Um the the circumstances under
which you you know would not extend the project. Um but yes, it would definitely
make it more complicated for for whether it's the current owner, a future private
owner, or the city. If we if we did not extend the time the um the entitlements,
they would have to apply again. >> Okay. Yeah. Good.
» And and the specific plan has not changed in in the meantime.
» So the intent here is simply to hold the entitlement in their hands, so to speak.
Realistically, there's no way they're going to do construction in a year. They
haven't done construction in 5 years on the first building. So it just preserves
their right to continue into the future. Correct.
» Thank you, >> Commissioner Neil.
» Yeah, I guess my only concern is this entitlement adds value to the property
um and could be used in a negotiation um for the sale. I don't know have have
has the property owner been in contact about this grant and the sale of the
property? Yes, the property owner is aware and has signed. I want to say it's
a memorandum of understanding he is interested or they are interested.
» I just I'd just be concerned that they could use it for a bit of leverage.
» Yeah, I my understanding is our community services department and the
housing authority of San Pispo would prefer that you keep the entitlements
alive.
» Any other commissioners? Only question I had is um I'd just be curious about
not that we're going to go one way or another, what the findings are required
by us to deny the project. I know they get eight years. I don't Okay.
» Yeah. So, I've just put up the slide. You would have to find that denying um
uh failure to deny would place the residents of the subdivision or the
immediate immediate community in a condition uh dangerous to their health
or safety or both. Um, and I would argue that not allowing the project to proceed
is what would leave the neighborhood in danger. Um, and denial is required in
order to comply with state or federal law. The state, you know, has made
housing a priority. And I don't think that they would agree if you found that
the, you know, denying housing um if you wanted to not extend the map, I think
they would uh they would not say it's against the their their rules.
» Yeah, it's very specific. Okay, great. Uh if none of my other commissioners
have any questions or comment, I will open up to public comment. Uh please
come up and state your name.
» Hey Darren. >> Hi. Uh Linda George, 3126 Spring Street.
Uh just for the record, I wrote in opposition to the grant. Um it's a
47page grant. It's round five and the grant money is founded off housing first
law, a 2016 law that the state uh put upon the I'd [clears throat] say put
upon us where the this housing if Hasllow takes it over. First it was
presented as an eight sober unit apartment. Okay. And then tonight I find
out there's 18 additional units. I have walked up all and down Spring Street,
spoke with the business owners, some of the projects you've approved that's
supposed to go on next Friday. Everybody and the parents are in an uproar.
Unfortunately, school was out when this initially came into my purview. What
we're actually doing of a seven uh $14 million, I think approximate 70% of that
grant would go to Haslow. We're going to give Haslow 3.5 million for that
project. then they will develop it into sober homeless apartments. However, this
grant money doesn't allow that. So, I appreciate the spirit in which trying to
get affordable housing, but I have worked with the homeless my entire life.
I have found and seen many people who have come off the streets into highrises
and they make it. Uh T. Wolf in San Francisco was a fentanyl dealer four
years ago. Now, he's at the capital. So, I am not against meeting our reign and
numbers with these types of housing. But what I'm concerned about is let's say
Michelle Pedigo leaves and somebody comes in and says, "Oh, you can't do
that. You can't just make sober people live there. We're going to have 26 rooms
of potential homeless addicts because the 216 law indicates that you cannot
discriminate. You cannot kick out for drug usage. You can't do any of that. So
there's going to be a real book big community push back on that. So my
question is is if and Ekko received some more complaints on that um grant from a
community advocate about not feeding the homeless. I was there. I watched it. So
I don't know if that grant is going to happen. So then my question would be if
that grant doesn't come through, can Hazel still purchase that property? Um,
will the city still make a deal? Because that's going to be a deal for Haslow.
They try to buy some property on the skate park and I found out through
negotiations that didn't happen. I feel like one Haslow project in this small
city is enough. But if they come in, they cannot use this particular grant
money, but they can get other monies to fulfill their 26 rooms for sober home
key. Now, I've been to home key. they are actively doing drugs there.
So, I don't see it, but I just wanted to make sure you guys have that
information. I I'm okay with the year extension. I'd like to see it be a
lowincome clinic is what I wanted. Thank you.
» Great. Thank you. Are there any other members of the public that would like to
speak? Seeing none in the audience, Marcy, are
there any callers? >> There are no callers.
Yeah, we we're going to we're going to do some more questions.
» No callers. >> There are no callers.
» Okay, we're going to bring it back to the planning commission for any
follow-up questions or comments. Uh did you have something you'd like to speak
to regarding >> I just wanted to provide a
clarification. Uh the grant is not before you today, but uh the the grant
uh does not include any construction of the entitled units. It only includes
construction or completion of the project phase uh one. Um, it could
potentially include making those uh from uh threebedrooms to twobedroom units to
um provide additional units. It would be housing that prioritizes families that
are in the permanent supportive housing campus at HLO, not in the shelter. Uh
but it would be family units. >> Great. Thank you. Um ju just for
clarification, Darren, um [clears throat]
would if if for some reason HLO got the grant, would any of this come before the
commission for the approval of that sale or would that all go to directly to city
council? Like my question is based on uh public comment and their the request
really the the planning commission has no authority of over those type of
things unless there for some reason we were involved in that um transference of
some sort. >> Right. I think the you know the the
number of units I'll defer to Katie on if that's been analyzed in terms of a
you know a zoning or a a unit number. Um have we looked into that? Is that
something that would come back to the planning? had conversations. Um the uh
the only change that that the community services department and HLO at this
point intends to make are internal to the building. They would increase the
number of units. So the exterior of the building is which is what the planning
commission is typically uh interested in would not be changing. Um that being
said, when the rear building went from having nine units to 18 units, it did
have to come back to the planning commission. They at that time made
changes to the exterior of the building. So, we've been having conversations
about whether or not just changing the unit count would come back to planning
commission. So, it's possible, but uh we haven't made a determination of whether
or not that meets the thresholds for needing planning commission approval.
» But, but for clarity, it would only be the change of the construction. Anything
to do with the grant or the ownership or the city's deal with Haslow, that has
nothing to do with the planning commission and we have no authority over
that. >> Absolutely correct.
» Okay, great. I just wanted to clarify that.
Commissioner Kler, >> Katie, when with the shuffling of units,
has anybody an analyzed the parking? Does the parking still meet the uh unit
count as it might end up being if threes go to two and nine went to 18 and
whatever other numbers have shifted over time?
» We have not. Um, I will say with the rear building when it went, so the way
the parking requirements work in the Uptown Town Center specific plan is that
if you have a studio or a one-bedroom unit, you need one parking space. If
it's two or more bedrooms, you need two parking spaces. So, when they went from
three-bedroom units to one-bedroom units, and they doubled it, it was the
same parking requirement. In this case, if we're going from three to twobedroom
units, the parking requirement would not come down. But, I will say that we are
looking at deedrestricted units. the entirety of the project would be deeed
restricted for acutely low households. And you know, I think it would be in the
city's interest to uh reduce or you know, they might use concessions or
other u mechanisms through the affordable housing density bonus program
to reduce the amount of parking required. That is possible.
» Thank you, >> Commissioner Neil.
» So Katie, this would still fit under a 32 exemption, a categorical exemption,
right, for in the additional units. I mean the only
potential um impact and we haven't analyzed it would would be traffic
trips. I mean the the impacts of the site are the same. It's development of
the whole site um and so like you know impacts to biology or um air quality are
going to be um comp comparable >> and I suspect the additional traffic is
minuscule. I >> I agree. I don't think that it will rise
to the to the level of a of a of an impact.
» Great. Thank you, >> Commissioner Christensen.
» Uh thank you Katie. I think um I just have some comments on it in general.
You know what's before us obvious is the time extension and
I I not not I don't necessarily agree that it's better for us to extend given
the extension because the way they've drugged this out and it's just continued
to be a blight. I don't know that we have a lot of leeway in that though. So,
um, you know, for me, I'm just following what, you know, we have very little
leeway in what the state allows. And to me, that's that's a problem that I think
we all recognize. I don't think we're going to change that tonight. Um, as
for, you know, the city buying it with the grant money, boy, I have a lot of
comments on that. But again, that's not for tonight. We're just in front for
this for the extension. Um they have the right to the extension for what how many
more years would they what do we have like they'd have another 18 months after
this? >> Um they do so they the project was
approved in 2020. I believe it would get them to somewhere in the middle of 2029
possibly 2030. I didn't do the full math.
» Okay. And I do believe that giving them this extension doesn't mean we're going
to see it change from that picture from 2025 because we haven't seen it change
till today from 2025. So, the owner has no interest in in pushing this project
forward. I think he's just waiting for a nice paycheck for a grant from the city.
But, um, you know, in my opinion, I don't think we have much choice but to
just move forward and and approve this extension.
» I will say that city staff and since you last heard this has moved a lot more
aggressively with legal action to to address the the lack of progress. So
whether or not uh the grant goes through or we just you're extending this for
some future owner um staff is working much more aggressively
» and I appreciate that. I think that's really important because a year goes by
another year goes by it is becoming an issue there on that and and I just think
it's going to get worse and worse. So I'm glad to hear that Katie that I
appreciate that too. So thank you. >> Uh again just a clarification the city
would not be buying that. Um, so I I I'll I'll have Angelica um come up again
if I misspe, but my understanding is the city would purchase the property and
then HLO would acquire it from the city. The city would not be expending any
local dollars. We would be using the grant dollars to purchase the property
and then HLO would purchase the property from the city for for less than what we
purchased it for with the grant dollars.
The way the grant was written, HLA would actually be acquiring the property, not
the city. >> Okay. Yeah. Great.
» Any other commissioners got any comments, questions, concerns? If not, I
would entertain a motion. >> Commissioner Christensen,
» I move we approve the resolution for the extension.
» I'll second it. First by Christensen, a second by Kobar Rubius.
And I get a roll call.
» Commissioner Christensen. >> I.
» Commissioner Kar Rubius. >> Hi.
» Commissioner Rhoden. >> I.
» Commissioner Neil. >> I.
» Commissioner Kogler. >> I.
» Commissioner Loren. >> I.
» And chairperson Marlo. >> I.
» Passes 70. >> Great. Thank you, Katie.
Okay. Moving on to item G2, general plan amendment to the city's fear of
influence and fire hazard severity zone map.
Staff presentation. Oh, two for two. >> Thank you, Chairperson Marlo. Um, so
this project has a title that makes it sound like there's a lot happening. What
you should understand is there is nothing happening.
If you read through the recitals in the staff report, all of the actions, all of
the major actions that caused the need to update these maps has occurred. The
city council or LAFCO have approved all of the changes. They were just not the
maps that depicted those changes were not updated in the general plan. So,
don't be afraid of the large title. So I I can give you a little more background.
As we prepared for the third item on your agenda this evening, which is an an
a proposal to annex land around the the airport, excuse me, the landfill,
I I as I was reviewing the maps and reviewing the documents, I realized this
fire hazard severity zone map is incorrect. Our sphere of influence has
changed. All of these maps are incorrect and we're just about to make amendments
for the to make to annex the landfill. and it didn't make any sense to adopt
maps for the landfill that showed incorrect information. And so, like I
said, this is a house cleaning item. And, you know, don't let the title uh
scare you. And also, you don't have the right to change any of these. You know,
you don't have the right to change. No, I mean the the the the the fire severity
map, the sphere of influence, these are all council um you know what what it
what appears in our general plan maps you do get to advise but changing those
overarching policy documents is not in the preview like the the grant from the
last item that that part is not um up to the planning commission. So as I said no
substantive changes are being proposed but there are three actions that were
taken in the last two years that are not uh reflected in our current general plan
exhibits. So first in June of last year, council adopted a fire hazard severity
zones map that was based on a map that was adopted by the state. This uh
community of pastor Robels wrote letters there. You know, originally the the
state fire marshall had shown some very high fire severity zones. All of that
work was done and all we are doing is taking the map the the the map that
council adopted and putting it into our general plan. Similarly, in January, the
local agency formation commission did a review of the city sphere of influence.
We'll get into what a sphere of influence is, what a sphere of influence
is. They made an amendment there that that sphere of influence, those land
masses are shown on multiple maps in our general plan. Finally, uh in April of
this year, council adopted a new local hazard mitigation plan that was part of
a larger regional uh hazard mitigation plan. Um, and again, exhibits in the uh
in the general plan and some text in the general plan make references to an older
local hazard mitigation plan that was adopted in 2013.
Okay. So, um, as I said, I mean, I've already kind of given you this. So, uh,
this is the fire hazard severity zone map that was adopted by council. It was
first adopted by the state fire marshall. Council adopted it back in
June. Similarly, um, this is one you probably don't have as much background
on. So in January, LAFCO, the local agency formation commission reviewed the
city's sphere of influence. So a sphere of influence is a pling a planning
boundary that is outside a city or special district's legal limits that
designates its probable future physical boundaries and service area. So this is
the city declaring in this case to the county because that's who you know the
all these areas are currently in the jurisdiction of the county. These are
areas that we have a special interest in and we want to know what is being
developed there and we think someday we might annex those and make them part of
our city. So there were uh I think 13 areas analyzed. I've only listed I think
10 of them in the table because some of them uh were proposed by LAFCO um or by
the city and were rejected. So I've only listed those that either were in or have
been added. So um I have an animation. So there were um seven areas that were
removed. There were a number of annex or excuse me sphere of influence areas on
the west side along the residential areas of the west side of the city.
Those were all removed. The city has no intent of serving or annexing those uh
areas. Similarly on the east side um the uh Vina Robels uh did a subdivision uh
the area two where the X is. That land is largely been developed and the city
no longer intends to annex or have any control over that land. And then at the
south end of River Road uh Oak Lane was was in our sphere of influence. So those
areas were all removed. The action is done. You are not considering whether or
not to remove those from the sphere of influence this evening. We're just
deciding whether or not to change the maps. Finally, one area was added um uh
Wisteria Lane west of Golden Hill. So, this is Golden Hill just north of of
Lowe's, the Lowe's center. Um there is an area that actually got added to the
city's sphere of influence. The reason largely is because we will need that for
circulation. You've probably seen plans for the um the parallel route uh that
will go north of 46. So, we really this was one missing piece for where we
expect that parallel route uh to be placed. So, um that uh area nine was
added and then uh no change to three areas. We do still see uh the Mill Road
and the South Ramada and the landfill. And of course, we're going to see um
immediately after this that the landfill is up for consideration very soon for
annexation. Um so again, um this action has already taken place. We just are
looking to amend maps in the general plan. Um finally, in uh April, the uh
city adopted the hazard mitigation plan. This did not actually uh require any
changes to maps in the general plan, but it did require text changes. So, we'll
see what those look like. So, there are text changes to both the land use
element and to the safety element. In the land use element, the change the
text changes really only have to do with the sphere of influence. And it uh
reduces the number of areas that are uh in the sphere of influence and actually
increase the uh size of those areas. So you'll see we went from having nine
areas in our sphere of influence down to four. In the safety element, uh the the
text changes uh largely are references to the local hazard mitigation plan.
There are many places where it references the 2013 plan. I changed
those to 2025. Um references to the section and table numbers. You know,
that data might have been in table one and now it's in table six. So those are
the changes you're seeing in um in the safety element. We did also um combine
all of the flood plane awareness maps into one map. They were previously in
four separate maps and my understanding is that was because back 10 20 years ago
the um the preciseness of the maps the the like the um uh just how how crisply
they could be reproduced like the the dots per inch the um um it was just it
was too rough. And so to in order to show the area, we had broken it into
four areas. The maps and the printers are now so much clearer that it is now
possible to put all of that map into one map. So you will see that as a change as
well. And then um information from the uh hazard mitigation plan did change uh
the number of properties and people that are in moderate and high fire hazard
severity zones. So those are the text changes that are proposed. Jumping into
the maps, there are four maps where only the sphere of influence was removed.
that includes uh land use map three, land use map six, uh open space map one,
and uh safety map seven. So, I didn't include all of these because nothing on
those maps changed except I just removed the sphere of influence entirely. These
maps, the sphere of influence is not really pertinent to whether to to the
point of the map. So, this these the map you see on the right there is the um
existing specific plan areas. There's really no reason for the sphere of
influence to be shown here. And as in the future in 10 years, we might change
our sphere of influence again so that we don't find oursel with this backlog of
of maps that need to be amended. I've just removed them from the maps that
don't um that it's not pertinent information. So the sphere of influence
will no longer be shown on these four maps.
Um uh land use map, excuse me, uh figure LU1 land for that's in the land use
element. It's the figure one in the land use element. Um this is the the uh
sphere of influence boundaries. So you can see um we saw previously all the the
areas that were considered. This is now the clean this is the four areas that
are are currently in our sphere of influence. So you're just updating this
map to show what LFCO already approved. And you can see I don't know if this guy
works. Oops. That that little the new little area at Wisteria is right there.
That little that little square. Okay.
Um the FEMA map. Um, I removed the sphere of influence and you know over
time FEMA does make changes and our GI GIS maps have kept pace. They are minor
refinements but I think there are a few small changes. Again, these were changes
adopted by FEMA and not by the city but they're now reflected correctly in our
safety element of the general plan or they would be
uh figure uh S6 is the one I mentioned. This used to be four maps and we have
combined them into one map as well as remove the sphere of influence from that
map. Um this is the map that is the map that uh none of us like to see. It's the
fire hazard severity zone map. Again, this is the map that council already
adopted. We're just putting the correct map into the safety element.
So that is the entirety of the proposed uh changes. Uh the project I I didn't
change the title of this um slide, so I apologize. This is not a class 32
exemption, but it is exempt from squa. Um, it is not considered a project
because it doesn't have the potential for causing sign significant effect on
the environment. All of the projects that came before to result in this
project went through a seeker process. They were either considered exempt or
there were there was environmental work done. So those projects had the
potential for impacts. Changing maps does not.
Um, so as always the planning commission has options. The first would be to adopt
the draft resolution that is before you. It would approve a general plan
amendment to correct the outdated maps and the text and the land use, open
space, and safety elements. You could you could make modifications to those uh
recommended changes. Uh and those would be forwarded to the city council. If
you'd like more information or for staff to make additional analysis, we could we
you could make that option or you could deny the project and leave the maps out
of step with what has already been approved.
Staff is recommending option one, which would be to adopt the draft resolution
to recommend the city council approve [clears throat and snorts] the general
plan amendment to correct the outdated maps and the related text in our uh
general plan. And that concludes my report.
» Thank you, Katie. Okay. Going to open it up to the commissioners for any
comments, questions, or concerns. Commissioner Rhoden.
» Thank you, Katie. Um, I just have a question. Can we go to the sphere of
influence removed map?
Um I'm I'm trying to I'm trying to put
because that's East Chandler. It Where does Airport Road the old Airport Road
go on that map? >> I'm I'm going to walk over because I the
the pointer is way too um too large. >> Gotcha.
» So um ranch is here. So this is this is specific here. This is the south is here
and north ranch is here. So this is union road you can see coming through up
to Thank you. Um so uh the uh existing airport road uh
comes down here and then we do need a connector through North Chandler Ranch
and then uh airport road north of the 46 is here. So this area is is outside of
city limits. The north Chandler Ranch is already inside city limits.
» Okay. So it it that's where Airport Road is or you would think it would align as
on that uh west boundary. >> Correct. The uh the final alignment of
of Airport Road is not decided, but it is thought that it'll it'll run
somewhere near this eastern boundary of the city.
» Gotcha. Thank you. Any other commissioners comments, questions?
Commissioner Christensen. >> Uh Katie, just for clarification on the
um LU3 or exhibit C, for example,
it mentions the North Chandler Ranch area specific plan. Is that in process?
Is that actually existing? >> It is not existing and the city does not
have an application. There are 879 residential units have been allocated to
that specific plan. But in order to develop that area, they will have to
come to the planning commission and ultimately to the city council to have a
specific plan approved similar to how Olsson South Chandler and Beachwood were
approved. >> So I'm I'm just for clarification. I'm
confused. It they're calling a specific plan, but it it does we don't have an
application for it. housing units have been allotted, but
» the land use element has policies that require for the areas that are shown.
Um, it used to also apply to Beachwood and to uh Olsen and to South Chandler
Ranch that in order for those properties to develop, they had to have a specific
plan approved. The city would not consider development in those sites
without a specific plan. So, we we know that that area needs a specific plan.
the name South North Chandler Ranch is a placeholder until an actual specific
plan is adopted. >> And that's I just was saying for
clarification I think you know I guess maybe that's being thinking ahead but
it's not currently specific plan so having labeled as such seems a little
confusing. Um but okay >> the the proposed changes that's
existing. All that changed on that map in particular is we've just removed the
sphere of influence from the map. So that's how it shows today and other than
the sphere of influence is also shown on land use map 3. Yeah, LU3.
» I I understand it is confusion. It would take the council would need to make a
much larger uh policy decision to remove that from
» I get it. I I do it'd be like but to me it's making it's a it's incorrect. So
but I get it. I understand. I'm just trying to make it simple. Thank you for
explaining that. If there's no other commissioners, I'll
open it up to public comment. Is there anyone in the public that wishes to
speak? Seeing none, any callers?
» There are no callers. >> Okay, bringing it back to the commission
for any more comments or I would entertain a motion. Commissioner
Coobbler, >> I would move that we adopt resolution
26, PC26- number to be inserted to recommend the city council approve
general plan amendment 26-03 to correct outdated maps and related
text in land use open space and safety elements.
» Commissioner Neil, >> I will second.
» First by Kogler, second by Neil. Any other comments?
Okay, roll call, please.
Commissioner Kogler. >> Hi.
» Commissioner Neil. >> I.
» Commissioner Loren. >> I.
» Commissioner Kov Rubius. >> Hi.
» Commissioner Rhoden. >> I.
» Commissioner [snorts] Christensen. >> I.
» Chairperson Marlo. >> I.
» Item passes 70. >> All right. Moving on to item G3.
Passurro's landfill annexation. So, thank you chair chairperson Marlo.
Um, you are lucky I am not going to present this last item, but I did want
to introduce introduce Brandy Cummings. She is a consultant for the city and
she's been working with the city's solid waste manager who is also here this
evening, uh, Regina Wheeler. Um, but Brandy Cummings is going to give this
this next um, applica or presentation. >> Great. Thanks, Katie. Welcome.
» Feel like Katie's on a roll. I should probably just let her keep going.
All right, let me make sure I understand this.
Okay, got it. Okay, this project, as Katie alluded to, is annexation of the
landfill. And so, let me get going here. So, the city owns um quite a bit of land
just south of the landfill out off of Highway 46. Um it's about 133 acres, and
the city bought this land back in 2005 to sort of act as a buffer for the
current um landfill operation, which is realize there's no legend shown in the
gray. Um you've got like a
there we go the gray square at the [clears throat] top there. So, um meant
to act, you know, in the future if the city needed anything um for the landfill
expansion improvements that that land wouldn't already be developed or
encumbered otherwise. So, um at this point, the city's looking to actually
annex that. So, it's currently unincorporated, which means any projects
that the city would want to undertake on that land, you would have to go through
the county to obtain land use permits, building permits, pay them fees, um, be
beholden to their entitlement conditions. Um, so this project's really
to give the city control of the land that they own surrounding the landfill.
Um, if you've never been to the landfill and done a dump run, um, you probably
wouldn't recognize it driving down the highway. It's pretty well hidden. Um
it's about 4 miles east of the town proper. Um but the actual landfill
parcel, that gray parcel is incorporated. So that is technically a
little orphan of city land um hanging out over there.
Okay. So as I mentioned, this project is just to get that land under city
control, so incorporated into city limits. Um that would involve changes to
both the general plan and the zoning ordinance to give it city general plan
and zoning designations. Uh the land is currently uh designated agriculture by
the county. Um this this project would keep most of the land agriculture, but
it does set aside about 30 acres um that would continue that public facilities
designation that the landfill currently has. And that would allow for future
improvements. Um when I get to my SQA side, I'll I'll talk about a project
that was proposed. Um but [clears throat] that would that would um
already preset up the city after annexation for development under the
public facilities zoning regulations.
So we did prepare a mitigated negative declaration pursuant to SQA for this
project. And in that uh declaration, you'll notice that we not only
considered the annexation, but at the time we were also considering an
organics processing facility um anorobic digtor similar, you know, to the one
that slows. Um that is no longer part of the project. So today we are just
looking at the annexation. um that does not change the outcome of the M &D. Um
should the city down the road after this is annexed want to pursue that project
again. Um the city would then make a determination if that M &D is adequate
um to cover whatever project is proposed at that time. So it's always better to
have more in your environmental analysis instead of um you having to come back
and redo it later. Um so that did circulate earlier this spring and March.
Um the M andD determined that there were no significant impacts. We do have some
mitigation measures in there for air quality and biological resources. Kind
of your typical development parameters. Those only apply if development is
happening. So there are no measures that are needed just for changing the lines
on the map, which is essentially what the annexation is doing. You're changing
the lines from county jurisdiction to city jurisdiction. Um, but should future
development come down in the future, the city could rely on those mitigation
measures and that M &D to proceed with a future project.
Um, I won't read all these to you. I know it's a lot of words and they're in
your staff report, but there are several findings that the city will be making um
as part of your resolution to proceed. Um essentially what you will be doing as
planning commission is making a recommendation to city council to
proceed with annexation um of this project. Should that um proceed to city
council and city council also um agrees to move forward with the annexation. The
next step is to submit an application to LAFCO agency commission and then that
starts the process to formally um begin uh incorporating the city. So, it
involves an application, there's a fee, uh, LACAO will rely on that M andD that
I mentioned that we've already prepared for this project. Um, there's some map
changes at the end that's done at the state level. Um, and then after that,
the city will have uh control over what goes on um on that land in the future
without having to go through the county for entitlements.
Um, you do have several options. We are recommending that your uh commission do
recommend to council to approve the annexation and proceed with that LAFCO
application. Um you may um approve make a recommendation for approval with some
modifications. You could recommend that city council deny moving forward with
the annexation. And what that would mean is if a city ever wanted to do anything
with that property, you would need to go through the county. um their standards
for agriculture uh would apply to the project for any permits. Um and then
your last option is uh staff could continue analyzing the project. If you
had some specifics, we could look into um certain details and come back with a
a recommendation.
Um, I think I kind of covered this, but we are recommending your planning
commission take these act actions basically approving the resolutions that
includes adopting the mitigated negative declaration um proce uh initiating
proceedings to annex the property and then the related general plan amendments
and prezoning. So prezoning is a little different than a reszoning. Um basically
uh the city is saying this is what we want the property to be zoned at. If the
annexation is successful and then once that annexation process is complete with
LAFCO that prezoning becomes zoning. So just a little nuance there.
I believe that's my last slide. If you have any questions I'm here for it.
» Yep. Uh open it up to the commission for any questions, comments, concerns.
Seeing none over here. None to my left. I just have a couple like housekeeping
ones just because I haven't been part of an annexation one.
Could it be possible, not that they would, that the county pushes back and
you know like no you can't have our land like has that happened or does that
happen? Just curious out of curiosity or is it LAFCO's ultimate authority? So
part of the annexation and the LACCO process is a a property tax sharing
agreement between the city and the county. And usually when there are
issues between two agencies involving an annexation, that's where it gets held
up. There's not an agreement on how the property tax sharing is going to shift
from county to city. In my [clears throat] experience, that's
usually only an issue on properties that are not to disparage landfill property,
but more lucrative. So those with like retail or commercial zoning that are
going to generate sales tax that the county would potentially be losing out
on um by giving that control to the city.
» And then as far as like cuz to me the city limits would be one square and then
obviously we have something part of the city limits that's not attached to the
city like how how does that work in compared to something that's right next
door or like how could we go annex some property that's right next to St. Louis
Bispo for some reason? I'm I'm just this is again just curiosity. No, good
questions. Um, LAFCO does prefer contiguous uh boundaries of districts or
cities. Uh, the fact that the the landfill proper is already part of the
city is um positive because now you're not creating an island. There's already
an island that you're just adding to. Um,
in the future, like if you wanted to, as Katie was talking about sphere of
influence amendments, if city is super built out and you're like, "Oh my gosh,
we need more room." logical next um sphere of influence area would probably
be connecting your uh two little islands, big island, little island.
» But would there be anything to stop us from getting unless it was LFCco like,
"Hey, we want some property way off the reservation for some reason."
» No. Um, and I think even I think LA County or maybe LA city um owns some
property that they have annexed out in Kern County, which is super weird, but
it's for their waste water management. It's possible. I would think in this
county that would be less favorable. >> I would agree. [laughter] Nope. Just
those were my only questions. Uh, thanks for the presentation. If there's no
other questions for the commissioners, I'll open up to public comment if
there's any people in the public. Nope. Seeing none callers.
» There are no callers. >> Okay, we're going to bring it back to
the commission. Um, just because there are four items, are these all separate
motions? Okay, so would someone like to start getting to work on some motions?
» Commissioner Neil, >> I I'm trying. Um, I'd like to move
approval of resolution A recommending the city council adopt the mitigated
negative declaration and mitigation monitoring and rep reporting program
pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act.
» First by Neil. >> I'll second.
» I'll second. >> Second by Loren.
Any other comments? If not, roll call, please.
» Commissioners Neil, >> I.
» Commissioner Loren, >> I. Commissioner Rhoden.
» Hi. >> Commissioner Christensen.
» Hi. >> Commissioner Kovar Rubius.
» Hi. >> Commissioner Neil, I'm sorry.
Commissioner Kovler. >> I.
» And chairperson Marlo. >> I.
» Passes 70. >> Commissioner Neil.
» I'd like to make a motion to approve resolution B recommending initiation
of proceedings to annex property. >> I'll second.
» First by Neil, second by Loren. Roll call, please. Commissioner Neil.
» Hi. >> Commissioner Lorenz.
» I. >> Commissioner Rhoden.
» Hi. >> Commissioner Christensen.
» Hi. >> Commissioner K Rubius.
» Hi. >> Commissioner Kogler.
» I. >> And chairperson Marlo.
» I. >> Commissioner Neil.
» I'd like to move approval of resolution C recommending approval of general plan
amendment 26-01. >> I'll second.
» First by Neil, second by Loren. Roll call, please. Commissioner Neil.
» Hi. >> Commissioner Loren.
» Hi. >> Commissioner Rhoden.
» Hi. >> Commissioner Christensen.
» Hi. >> Commissioner Karubius.
» Hi. >> Commissioner Kovler.
» Hi. >> And chairperson Marlo.
» I. >> Commissioner Neil.
» Oh. [laughter]
I'd like to move approval of resolution D recommending approval of prezoning
zoning code text amendment 26-01. >> I'll second.
» First by Neil, second by Loren. Roll call, please.
» Commissioner Neil, >> I.
» Commissioner Loren, >> I.
» Commissioner Rhoden, >> I.
» Commissioner Christensen, >> I.
» Commissioner Co Rubius. >> Hi.
» Commissioner Kogler, >> I.
» Chairperson Marlo, >> I.
» Passes 70. Great. Thank you so much. Thank you. Appreciate it. Uh discussion
items. I'm seeing none. >> Move on to I consent calendar. Anyone
have any questions or comments regarding the consent calendars? If not, I'd
entertain a motion of approval. Commissioner Neil,
» I'll move approval of the consent calendar.
» First by Neil. >> I'll second.
» Second by Loren. Roll call, please.
» Commissioner Neil. >> I. Commissioner Loren,
» I. >> Commissioner Rhoden,
» I >> Commissioner Christensen,
» I. >> Commissioner Kubius,
» hi. >> Commissioner Kler,
» I. >> And Chairperson Marlo,
» I. Okay. Item J1, Housing Constraints and Opportunities Committee zoning code
update report. Any update there, Darren?
» No report tonight. >> No report. And DRC rotation schedule.
Any challenges, comments? Marcy, did we get everything filled so far off your
your email there?
» Ashley, can you confirm the dates that you are covering?
» I'm definitely covering on the 28th. Um, I believe I should be able to cover on
the 21st. Um,
» I don't see a problem with either of those.
» Okay. Thank you. >> And then Roden, were you covering
the 14th or the 21st? I don't remember.
I saw emails flying around. Yeah, I think I said I was I was going
to cover the 14th. >> We need two people on 21st
» and say what?
» We need two. We need two people on the 21st. Yeah. Um and I can also cover the
21st. >> Okay, great. So, it looks like we got
all the absences in September handled. Commissioner Neil, did you have
» Yeah, just again, if there's a hiccup, I can do it remotely.
» Okay. >> Be in teams.
» Thank you. Thank you for letting us know. Um,
so actually speaking to that, I was informed and during DRC, I don't know if
this was going to come up in staff comments, but our 6 months trial period
of the 4:00 p.m. DRC meetings has come to an end and it's going to be just by
default going back to 3:30 is what I was told during the DRC on Monday.
» That was per the the action that the commission took to place at 4:00. So,
that's now Kaput and we are officially going back to 3:30 starting Monday the
31st. >> Correct.
» Okay, great. Um, that sounds good. I may end up throwing my hat in the ring to do
those remote, but we can I'll work that out with the city. Um,
» yeah, I think and uh, you know, Warren is the planning commissioner secretary,
so I think he needs to if if that's something that you're looking into, I
know the city the city clerk as well. So, there's some challenges with doing
that. Um and um I think they should take that into consideration
» so that they can properly provide you back with what would need to happen or
if it's even feasible. >> Absolutely. So I'll discuss that with
them. Commissioner Christensen. >> Um I know it's going back to 3:30, but
was there just this is out of curiosity because I I don't know if there was a
report on it. Was it a negative outcome at 4:00 or was that something that most
I know I didn't have a problem with it, but I was just curious if that was an
issue for staff or >> I think that 3:30 worked better for
staff and applicants involved with presenting or applicants and their
representatives. Okay. The 3:30 uh we got in a bind sometimes at 4:00 when we
had items >> very much understanding that some
agendas are very light. Um, but just in general, the 3:30 start time uh is I
think worked better for staff and uh applicants. I think it if it's something
that we want to discuss again, it's something we can discuss. We just had a
a sunset on that >> first go around.
» Yeah. And and Commissioner Rhoden,
» I was I was just going to say I think we discussed part of the the problem for
the other commissioners that weren't there. Um the city clerk was concerned
that if we continued to change the times, you know, because we said if
there's a lot, we can change it to 3:30. That there need to be a consistency in
time, whatever that is. So that was why we want a consistency.
» Yeah, I'm not going to make a fuss at this time because I know most of it was
moved uh to support me. But but the one comment that I would say is as we get
new commissioners and people are you know working it it's definitely a lot
more convenient because I got to you know leave fairly early but it's a
commitment I have and I understand and I will work hopefully we can work with the
city to continue to to make it work. So um moving on if there's nothing else on
DRC rotation schedule moving on to K planning commissioners comments. Any
comments for planning commissioners? Seeing none staff comments?
» No, we talked about the DRC. Um but uh other than that uh no further comments
tonight. >> Okay. Can I get a motion for
adjournment? >> I move to
» Okay. Second >> by Kogler and second by Christensen
» vice versa >> or vice versa. Uh [laughter]
roll call. Hi.
» Hi. >> Hi.
» Hi.