[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.