[0:00] I'd like to convene and call the Planning Commission meeting of September 29th, 2021.

[0:14] Permission or

[0:16] Please, can you please lead us in the pledge of allegiance?

[0:18] Yes, thank you.

[0:19] Is there a look at please, right?

[0:20] I think the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands

[0:33] one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

[0:42] Thank you.

[0:43] Reporting secretary, can we have roll call please?

[0:46] Yes, please.

[0:55] I'll move on to the

[0:56] approval of the minutes.

[0:59] Do we have any changes or

[1:02] comments on those?

[1:03] Do we have a motion?

[1:06] I'll move that we approve the

[1:09] minutes of September 15th as they are

[1:14] written.

[1:15] Do we have a second?

[1:15] Second.

[1:17] Can we please take a vote for the Secretary?

[1:20] Peace.

[1:21] I'm so used to that.

[1:23] Yes.

[1:23] Seeing.

[1:24] Yes.

[1:25] There are now.

[1:25] Yes.

[1:26] Bernstein.

[1:27] Yes.

[1:27] Masterson.

[1:28] Yes.

[1:28] Motion carries unanimously.

[1:30] Thank you.

[1:31] Moving down to the next item.

[1:38] Public comments.

[1:39] This is the period for anyone in the public wishing to speak on an item that's not on the

[1:46] agenda under the public hearings tonight. There will be a five minute time limit on that.

[1:54] Anyone from the public wish to address the planning commission on any other item that's not on the agenda.

[2:01] Okay, with that, we'll move on.

[2:06] Wave reading and full of all the resolutions on the agenda.

[2:09] So moved.

[2:10] Do I have a second?

[2:11] Second.

[2:12] Again.

[2:12] Reporting secretary, would we take a vote?

[2:15] Please.

[2:16] Yes.

[2:16] Seeing?

[2:17] Yes.

[2:17] Darnell?

[2:18] Yes.

[2:18] Bernstein?

[2:19] Yes.

[2:19] Masterson.

[2:20] Yes.

[2:21] Motion carries unanimously.

[2:23] Thank you.

[2:24] Moving on to public hearings.

[2:26] Item number two.

[2:27] Public hearing regarding conditional use permit 2020-08 Sanders.

[2:33] Mr. Brantley.

[2:35] Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[2:37] The applicant has provided a request for a continuance of this.

[2:42] this matter late this afternoon.

[2:44] Let's to address some issues that came up

[2:47] with the application that we were unaware

[2:49] of at the time of the staff report.

[2:52] Staff would recommend that you open the public hearing

[2:58] since this was a notice to public hearing,

[3:01] take any public testimony tonight that anyone may have

[3:06] and then continue this matter to the requested date

[3:10] of December 8th, 2021, regular planning commission meeting.

[3:16] We will resolve the issues that came up with the applicant and the interim.

[3:19] If there are any changes to the application that warrant additional changes to the project

[3:26] description, we will re-notice the item.

[3:30] If there are not, then there is no legal requirement to re-notice it, but just to let the public

[3:36] if there are changes, we will re-notice the item accordingly.

[3:42] So with that, I'll turn it back over to you, Mr. Chair.

[3:45] Okay. With that then, we'll open it up to the public hearing.

[3:49] If anybody would like to come up and speak on this item on the agenda,

[3:53] please come up and state your name.

[3:59] Okay. With that, I'll close the public hearing and bring it back.

[4:04] Do we have a motion to continue this item?

[4:09] Mr. Chair, I'll move that we continue item 2028 to a date certain of December 8th, 2021.

[4:18] Do we have a second?

[4:19] Second.

[4:20] Recording Secretary.

[4:21] Can we please take a roll?

[4:22] See?

[4:23] Yes.

[4:24] Thing?

[4:25] Yes.

[4:26] Master Finn?

[4:27] Yes.

[4:27] Are now?

[4:28] Yes.

[4:29] Bernstein.

[4:30] Yes.

[4:30] Motion carried unanimously.

[4:33] Thank you.

[4:34] Moving on to item number three.

[4:37] The public hearing regarding conditional use permit 2021-33, sorry if I have missed, pronounced that but Papa.

[4:47] Sorry, thank you, Mr. Brown.

[4:50] Yes, Mr. Chair, Mr. Mesa Moore will be giving the staff report on this item.

[4:57] Thank you, Director Brantley, members of the commission.

[5:00] This item is a conditionally affirmative request to construct the two-story addition to an existing

[5:05] two-story attached single-family home located at the property address as 3640 Bluegum Drive in

[5:15] your Belinda staff has reviewed the proposed addition for compliance with the development standards

[5:19] close privacy and aesthetic impacts. The proposed addition does meet the required setbacks

[5:25] and development standards for the zone and staff believe that the proposed addition does

[5:31] not result in any additional privacy or view impacts of the surrounding properties.

[5:36] So some of the unique design proposed, it's just a bedroom addition with a few windows

[5:41] on each side.

[5:43] The proposed addition would be cantilevered over the deck along the side of the property and

[5:51] and also serve as kind of like a patio cover area

[5:54] of the entrance.

[5:55] Staff would also like to note,

[5:56] there's an error in the staff report

[5:58] related to the size of the existing home.

[6:01] The existing home is approximately 1,742 square feet

[6:05] rather than 2,154 square feet

[6:08] and the proposed addition is approximately 299 square feet.

[6:12] Staff will make that correction in the final resolution.

[6:17] Staff recommends that the Planning Commission

[6:19] adopt the attached resolution,

[6:21] and proving condition needs permit 2021-33 FOPA

[6:25] with the attached conditions

[6:27] and I can take any questions.

[6:29] Do any of the commissioners have any questions for staff?

[6:33] Okay, is the applicant here?

[6:37] Would you like to come up and speak on the project?

[6:41] Same thing, thank you.

[6:42] Please state your name for the record.

[6:56] We have three questions.

[6:58] There are five of us and we have our twin daughters

[7:02] who currently don't have a design space to study so I would like to make the

[7:07] bigger room for them because I'm tired of having them in my bedroom and

[7:12] stepping on a toys and breaking my toes all over the place so I just want to move

[7:17] them in their own space so thank you so much for your support we really

[7:21] appreciate it and I don't know why I'm nervous because I'm a teacher one one

[7:28] one question. Have you read all the conditions of approval that the staff

[7:33] provided in our agreement with all those? There will be my husband's territory. Yes. Thank you.

[7:39] Anybody have any questions for the? No, please sit down. Thanks so much.

[7:44] With that, would anyone from the public wish to speak on this item?

[7:52] Recording Secretary, do we receive any correspondence on this? No, we do not. Okay. I'll bring it back

[7:58] To the commission, do we have a motion on the phone?

[8:02] Mr. Chair, I just have one quick question.

[8:04] Because this is more for staff, because this is an attached property, is there any, and

[8:09] this is purely for my own curiosity, are there any special standards for adding on to an attached

[8:15] property as opposed to just a single family at, I'm just curious, actually there are.

[8:20] Okay.

[8:20] Okay, we do have a city council policy that requires basically the neighbor next door

[8:30] to concur with an addition when the addition touches the common wall, but since this particular

[8:40] addition is on the other side of the home, it wouldn't be triggered by this particular

[8:47] addition.

[8:47] Got it. Okay. Thank you. That was my only question. Thank you. Do we have a motion on this item?

[8:55] Mr. Chairman. Yes, Commissioner Pease. I move that the Planning Commission adopt the Attach Resolution approving conditional use permit 2021-33.

[9:04] Popa. Do we have a second? Second.

[9:08] Recording Secretary, can we please take a vote?

[9:20] the city council within 15 days.

[9:26] Congratulations.

[9:30] There are screens just went down.

[9:36] Okay, moving on to item number, public hearing item number 4, public hearing regarding conditional

[9:44] use permit 2021, Gash 40, Mr. Brown.

[9:48] This Mr. Raymer will be given the staff report on this item.

[9:52] Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[9:53] Members, planning commission have nothing new to add a staff report.

[9:56] the application before is a condition used to permit for 3008.

[10:00] Second-story addition, plus deck, on existing two-story residents on J&J Lane. This is just an aerial photograph of the property.

[10:12] The proposed addition is along the rail elevation, the center of the property. Given its location, staff does not anticipate any privacy impacts, and therefore is supportive of the request and ask the commission to adopt the attached resolution of approval.

[10:29] Does anybody have any questions for staff?

[10:33] is the applicant here. Would you like to come up and speak on have anything to say to the commission on the item?

[10:53] We are adding three bedrooms and we have four kids and we want to have a...

[10:59] Can you please state your name for the record?

[11:01] Sorry.

[11:02] My name is Norma Quintanita.

[11:05] And we are adding three bedrooms.

[11:08] We have four kids.

[11:10] And we're trying to update and remodel the house

[11:12] to have it to our needs.

[11:16] Biggest kitchen, bigger, bigger, more organized spaces.

[11:22] And I appreciate your time and whatever the teaching you guys.

[11:28] One question. Have you reviewed all the conditions of approval?

[11:31] I read them and the person that is helping us with all the projects. They are to take

[11:37] red as well. So you're in agreement with them?

[11:41] Yes.

[11:42] Okay. Thank you.

[11:43] Does anybody have any questions for the applicant?

[11:46] You can see this. Thank you.

[11:47] Thank you.

[11:50] With that, anybody from the audience was to come up and speak on this agenda item.

[11:57] The courting secretary, do we receive any correspondence on this item?

[12:01] No, we did not.

[12:02] Thank you.

[12:03] With that, we'll close the public record.

[12:05] Bring it back.

[12:08] Anybody have any questions for staff or a motion?

[12:11] Mr. Chair, I would move that the Planning Commission adopt the Attach Resolution approving CUP2021-40-40.

[12:19] I'm sorry, I should have been listening.

[12:20] Quintella.

[12:21] Quintella.

[12:22] Quintella.

[12:23] Quintella.

[12:23] Yeah, with conditions. Do we have a second? I'll second recording secretary

[12:31] Yes, things are now. Yes, Bernstein. Yes, Masterson. Yes, motion carries the unanimous

[12:39] And this is the decision of the planning commission is final unless appealed to the city council within 15 days as well

[12:46] Congratulations

[12:48] Okay moving on to public hearing number five

[12:52] public hearing regarding time extension for conditional use permit 2019-10, conditional

[12:58] use permit 2019-40, design review 2018-02 and variant 2019-02, Mr. Brown.

[13:09] Now thank you, Mr. Chair. This item was initially reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission

[13:16] back in August of 2019. This is for the property in the town center area right at the town center

[13:25] drive entrance off of Lakeview. The applicant received approval for commercial building and

[13:36] shortly following your approval. We all experienced COVID-19. Slowed things down for most projects.

[13:45] Yes, we actually came back to you with a request for a one-year time extension in October

[13:52] of 2020 and you approved that one-year time extension.

[13:58] The applicant is now requesting an additional time extension and my understanding from Nate

[14:05] who is the project manager who spoke with Miss CSone, who I see in the audience tonight.

[14:11] She's getting real close to obtaining financing and moving forward with the project, but would

[14:18] like to request an additional one-year time extension.

[14:21] Staff would note that we did receive some correspondence from neighboring property, Lake

[14:27] View, professional plaza, I believe it's called.

[14:31] It's across Lake View Avenue from the property.

[14:34] They were expressing some concerns about potential in the future after the project is

[14:40] developed for potential patrons to use their property for overflow parking purposes and

[14:50] even perhaps late in the evening crossing Lakeview perhaps after having an alcoholic beverage.

[15:00] Are the restaurants at the commercial property, perhaps raising some safety concerns? Staff doesn't really believe that those are concerns at this time, certainly. The project did buy into the city's parking in Lou program, and there are an abundance of parking stalls available in the city's public parking structure, which is

[15:29] proximal to the property, so we don't really think that there is an imminent demand for

[15:37] parking off-site, but should that occur, we do have other avenues for addressing those

[15:46] issues as well as the potential public safety issues related to patrons and potential intoxicated

[15:55] patrons crossing the street. So staff does not share the concerns, but we did

[16:02] forward this letter to you for your review and make note of it for the record.

[16:08] And with that, I would just point to staff's recommendation that you adopt a

[16:13] resolution affording another one-year time extension to the CSOans for this

[16:19] project. And I'm happy to answer any questions.

[16:22] There's everybody have questions for staff?

[16:25] I don't know if it's a question.

[16:26] Just a point of clarification.

[16:27] Mr. City Attorney, can you talk about what I think they're just like, as I read this letter,

[16:33] I got the vibe that there's maybe some confusion about what the parking and loofy program does, right?

[16:38] It's not necessarily just like we do have, in relation to the parking structure and how does that work.

[16:44] It's not as if they're paying a fee to not have the parking.

[16:47] it's just like otherwise located so I was wondering if you could give us an overview of that for the record.

[16:53] Correct so as you know when we developed the town center there was the concern about parking issues.

[17:03] So the city wanted to make sure there was sufficient parking to

[17:08] help assist and have parking to have the thriving retail and restaurant area in the middle of the

[17:13] that we've been trying to get for the past 50 years.

[17:16] Therefore, we put the parking structure

[17:19] in the middle of the town center,

[17:21] and we pursuant to terms in the specific plan

[17:24] constructed a parking in lieu fee program.

[17:28] So whereas people usually have to have parking

[17:30] on site of their property for certain projects,

[17:34] they can pay, I think it's 5,000 plus CPI from around,

[17:39] which is a reduced rate, but a rate

[17:41] which facilitates people buying into the program to satisfy their parking needs.

[17:46] That's generally available to anybody in the town center and on Main Street.

[17:50] And it could be even broader, I think, I can't remember.

[17:52] But that's how we dealt with parking in the town center.

[17:56] And frankly, it's worked pretty well.

[17:58] And there are still sufficient spaces in the parking structure for people to park when they need to.

[18:02] We'll find out when the new James Bond movie comes up.

[18:05] That'll be a test for me.

[18:09] So that parking is what this project is part of, and so they have to meet parking requirements, this is how they're meeting them, this is what's required in the law, and it shouldn't, I don't, I saw that letter as well, doesn't really make that much sense to me from either illegal or a practical standpoint.

[18:27] I mean, it's just, it's a very different concern for the city of Yorvalinda because that's a great quaker city, you know, for our first 50 years, we didn't have any bars in the town.

[18:36] And now we have all these intoxicated people walking around according to Mr. Bratland.

[18:41] So, I do not think it is a valid concern.

[18:43] Okay, thank you.

[18:44] I don't know if I answered your question, though.

[18:45] I did.

[18:46] Okay.

[18:47] Thank you.

[18:47] One one question I have for staff is on the time extensions is there a since we already granted one and

[18:55] Potentially another one tonight. How did how many more potential if things come up time extensions? Is there a cap or there is not

[19:03] Mr. Chair it really is up to the commission. It's within your discretion to grant additional time extensions

[19:11] So

[19:12] Okay, thank you. I have one question in a comment

[19:18] Just want to make sure, no matter what you feel about this letter that we received, we're not discussing the merits of the project.

[19:24] That's been decided, right? We're discussing an extension.

[19:28] Good point.

[19:29] Yeah. Okay. I just want to make sure I was tracking.

[19:33] Yeah, I'll hold for there.

[19:35] Okay.

[19:36] Would that open the...

[19:38] Oh, Mr. Peace, please.

[19:41] No, go ahead. Now I'll reserve.

[19:43] Okay with that then I'll open the public hearing is the applicant here could you please come up

[20:00] Hi, can you please state your name for the record? Yes, sir. My name is Josephina, they call me Jesse. Jesse Sioson, 4901 Lake, the Abinyu. And I'm here to ask for additional one year to complete this project. It's because of the COVID and also a few little things that may help me and it's been resolved. Thank you. Anybody have any questions for the applicant?

[20:29] one. Yes, please. I'm a citizen. I know your attorney had reached out to staff to get

[20:35] a copy of the notice with draw of list pendants. I sent that. Did you? Did you get that?

[20:40] Yes, sir. That's the thing that pulled up, too. Okay. And my attorney wrote in March and I

[20:47] didn't have any answer for quite a while. Finally in August, I got the release of the list

[20:53] So you got that.

[20:54] Yeah, thank you, sir.

[20:55] No, absolutely.

[20:56] The County of Recorder's Office is.

[20:58] Yeah.

[20:59] Thank you.

[21:00] I just have a question.

[21:03] Based on where are we at today, when do you think you would, your estimated kind of schedule

[21:09] timeline to actually start construction on this project?

[21:12] If you ask me, I really want to construct it.

[21:15] It's just because, you know, I have to, I have an approval from, you know, I have two options

[21:22] to get a loan or sell to properties.

[21:27] And so my option now is to get a loan,

[21:30] but that came and I have to withdraw it.

[21:33] So I have to reapply.

[21:34] But I think it depends on my group to buy my team

[21:40] to submit those working drawings.

[21:42] So I'm going to a process right now.

[21:45] We attempted to submit and put them to review.

[21:48] So we can have to go to the large department

[21:51] and then file and hopefully I hope to break ground by after the rain which is right what six months maybe around April.

[22:05] Okay. Thank you very much.

[22:10] You can sit down now.

[22:12] Thank you. Thank you.

[22:13] Anybody else from the public wish to speak on this item?

[22:18] Okay, thank you.

[22:20] Reporting secretary, do we receive any correspondence on this?

[22:24] Just the one mentioned by David Bradley, from Mr. Robert Bunion.

[22:31] Okay, with that I'll close the public hearing, bring it back.

[22:35] Do we have a motion or comments?

[22:38] Yes.

[22:39] A question and then a comment.

[22:43] My question just went out of my head.

[22:46] Oh, what is it that satisfies the beginning of what triggers the satisfaction of the extension?

[22:56] They need to put what has to come in.

[23:00] They don't break ground.

[23:01] It's what?

[23:03] I think, Commissioner Bernstein, what you're referring to is what the investing requirement is

[23:10] in California for a land use approval.

[23:12] It's actually the issuance of the building permit and then diligent pursuit of construction.

[23:18] So it's the issuance for triggers at the beginning of the building permit.

[23:22] Thank you for untrambling my question.

[23:25] I thought a lot about this.

[23:27] I mean we're seeing construction, we're seeing clouds going up, hopefully bricks is moving

[23:32] forward and of course we all want to see the town center built out, excited about that

[23:37] and hopefully the corner on lot is I guess I'm not inclined to wait another year. Is there a

[23:47] potential to grant a partial extension say six months, say four months, is that an option?

[23:56] It is. I have the discretion of the commission. Okay. I guess I would throw out there that I would

[24:03] support a six-month extension, but not a year extension.

[24:07] Thank you.

[24:08] Do we have any other permission or please?

[24:11] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[24:15] I remember the hearing when we first considered this project in 2019.

[24:21] And I was really excited for the project.

[24:24] I think the design is unique and I think it's going to be a focal point there on Lakeview

[24:29] that will really bring people into the center.

[24:34] I am looking forward to the completion.

[24:36] I am disappointed it has not started yet, but it sounds like things are in place.

[24:44] And I am supportive of the extension.

[24:47] I don't feel like it's appropriate arbitrarily limited to six months.

[24:55] I think we can do a year, we did a year last time.

[24:58] And I don't think that...

[25:00] Six months or six months from that six months is really going to make a hill of difference. And I think we should give the applicant, afford the applicant the opportunity to go forward and complete this project. I really think it's going to be complimentary. And I think it's going to be a great synergy within the center with this addition. So I would not be amenable to only a six month extension. I will support the full year. Is that a motion? That is a motion.

[25:29] Thank you, thank you for continuing to be here.

[25:29] I'll be back.

[25:29] Second.

[25:32] We have a second.

[25:33] Thank you.

[25:34] Ok.

[25:34] Recording Secretary, take role.

[25:37] Please.

[25:37] Yes.

[25:38] Do you think?

[25:39] Yes.

[25:40] Master Send.

[25:41] Yes.

[25:42] Do you know?

[25:43] Yes.

[25:43] Vurnstein.

[25:44] No.

[25:45] motion carries 4 to 1 with Bernstein dissenting and the planning commission's

[25:51] decision is final unless appeal to the city council within 15 days.

[25:55] Thank you. Thank you. Moving on new business design review 2021-10

[26:01] Guinea's restaurant. Mr. Mason Warren will be giving the staff report on this

[26:06] item. Mr. Chair. Sorry just one second. Do we want to give our audience members

[26:11] So to let them know that it's you don't have to stay once your item is

[26:14] They want to hear us. I know. I know. We live on. I'm sure some of you haven't had dinner.

[26:21] We won't think you're rude if you want to leave.

[26:26] Okay.

[26:28] See? See? This is the place to be tonight.

[26:31] Oh, yeah. I felt bad. I was just taking it now.

[26:42] I'm sorry we're going to the final for us go for it before the planning commission tonight is a designer you request to modify the

[26:53] exterior of the existing Denny's restaurant and Savai Ranch existing prestanding building that was approved by design

[27:01] view and additional use permit back in 1990 by the planning commission. You can see here in

[27:08] this image the existing design that was approved at that time. The applicant and the operator of

[27:14] Denny's is proposing to expand the restaurant with an outdoor dining area on the south elevation

[27:19] it would be kind of the left side of this image here and also identified here on this site plan.

[27:26] And be a 714 square foot outdoor dining patio covered with a sheet metal patio cover.

[27:34] And we're going to accommodate some additional dining space.

[27:40] Staff did reach out to the applicant.

[27:43] We don't have a formal business operations letter, but we did speak with the restaurant operator.

[27:48] They do not intend to modify the operations of Denny's, so

[27:53] However, this is just an additional outdoor dining space, and they don't intend to make any changes to their alcohol use either.

[28:01] They don't intend to serve alcohol out on the patio.

[28:05] Staff leaves the proposed design is attractive and consistent with the existing architecture.

[28:09] The building would feature a sheet metal patio cover in a split face block enclosure with a glass enclosure at top of the split face block.

[28:22] against athletes. It's consistent with the design of the existing building. There's one slight

[28:26] modification to the design that was brought up proposed by the restaurant operator after the

[28:31] report went out to the planning commission. They're proposing to modify the color of the patio cover

[28:38] roof itself from Denny's red to Denny's yellow to match the color of the Denny's logo on the tower there.

[28:45] So with that staff recommends that the planning commission approve the design of your application

[28:51] by minute motion with the attached conditions and I compared to answering any questions.

[28:56] Anybody have questions for staff?

[28:58] Yes.

[28:59] Just curiosity question.

[29:01] The boundaries of the property on your first slide are those really the boundaries of the

[29:05] property?

[29:06] Yep.

[29:07] They include the roadway and everything.

[29:09] Yes indeed.

[29:10] Yep.

[29:10] It's a private.

[29:10] Interesting.

[29:11] Yeah.

[29:11] That's a private road.

[29:12] But clearly, yeah, I'm curious to say, actually most people own to the middle of the street

[29:23] in front of your house and the city just has an easement for a right of way.

[29:27] People are technically the property owners, usually, of the road in front of their street.

[29:34] Is the applicant here?

[29:36] Does that look like the applicant's here?

[29:38] No.

[29:38] Has the applicant's reviewed the conditions of approval and is in agreement with those?

[29:44] The applicant has not responded to staff formally on the conditions approval.

[29:47] Okay, thank you.

[29:49] With that, I'll open up to the public direct, public hearing, anybody wishing to speak on this item?

[29:56] Is he sure?

[29:58] Any ever recording?

[30:00] Are any correspondence received? No, no, we don't. Okay, with that, I'll close the public hearing and bring it back. I'll leave a motion. Mr. Chair, I'll move that the Planning Commission approved design review 2021-10 denies by minute motion with the attached conditions. Do we have a second? Second, recording secretary?

[30:22] I vote. Yes. Yes.

[30:28] Yes. Yes.

[30:33] And the Planning Commission.

[30:34] this decision is final unless appeal to the City Council within 15 days.

[30:38] Moving on, new business item number seven, initiation of zoning code amendment to the city of

[30:44] Dervo and the zoning code, Mr. Brownlee.

[30:47] Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[30:49] This is in reference to SB 9, which was signed by the Governor last week.

[30:54] SB 9 is one of several housing related bills that have been trending in Sacramento.

[31:04] over the last year or so, what SB 9 does in just its most essential parts is allows

[31:15] a single family lot to be subdivided into two lots with no discretion by local governments.

[31:27] We have to allow them by right.

[31:32] Secondly, the law allows for up to a duplex to be built on each of the lots.

[31:42] So essentially you're taking a single family lot, which may have one home on it,

[31:48] and you're dividing it into two lots, each of which will allow up to two units.

[31:52] So, total of four units from one unit.

[31:56] This is a game changer, as I'm sure you can tell, there's a lot of chatter about it.

[32:02] There are a lot of people who support it, and a lot of people who are extremely opposed

[32:08] to it.

[32:11] The local governments are afforded some ability to regulate these on objective basis.

[32:23] But the essential allowance is not something that we have any regulatory authority over.

[32:31] So to the extent we can create some objective standards that would allow these new types of

[32:40] developments to occur in the city in the most sensitive way, in a way that can preserve

[32:45] to the extent feasible, the look and feel of neighborhoods in the city, single-family neighborhoods.

[32:52] We would like to start studying that and bring back a code amendment to the Planning Commission later.

[33:01] The law goes into effect, I believe, January 2nd of this next year.

[33:07] So we're going to work on this over the next several months.

[33:11] and the first step, as you know, in doing an amendment to the code is to initiate a code amendment.

[33:17] Make sure that the Planning Commission and our Council are inclined to consider amendments

[33:24] to the code. Staff would presume that the Planning Commission would support us looking into potential

[33:33] changes to the code, so we brought this request to initiate a code amendment to you this evening

[33:39] related to SB 9, the provisions of SB 9, and we would ask that you adopt the

[33:49] resolution initiating the code amendment. Happy to answer any questions?

[33:55] Anybody have any questions for staff? I just have one that I came to me while I was

[34:01] looking at this earlier today. There's a lot split because I know there's the

[34:04] requirement that the initial owner remain on to the Christmaw Femre on

[34:08] on the right, remain on-site as a resident in one of the units for three years, because

[34:13] there isn't necessarily a change in ownership, does a subdividing of the law trigger a property

[34:21] tax reassessment based on the new, because I mean if we're going to do this, we might as well

[34:25] at least get the extra revenue off of the additional units, correct, getting the answers

[34:30] no.

[34:30] the answer is probably yes and that's one of the more cynical pro-changes come on now I'm

[34:41] doing serious. No, no, no. Great choice of words. People are arguing that. Cities you should be in

[34:48] favor of losing your ability to control residential areas because you're going to get more money.

[34:58] So we

[35:00] All right. So, yeah, for a trade-off, whatever. Yeah. Hey.

[35:07] You know, and there's, you know, just so, I mean, and then you guys all notice, I actually did a memo on some of this that I'm David you forwarded to them on SB 9. I believe that Nate did yes. Can you get some of this? No? Okay, I'll, I'll give it to our lean. Okay. That I'm sitting in the little park last night where I'm city attorney and Governor Gavin signed 15 more bills. That impact housing.

[35:29] Some of which I haven't even read yet, I did forward something to you today on that.

[35:34] Yeah, so it's common, hard and fast, right, give it to hard and fast.

[35:41] And again, this is just initiating the zone change you're going to come back to us with

[35:45] recommendations in the future.

[35:47] Right, because SB9 specifically says we have the ability to have a local ordinance.

[35:51] And so obviously we have to follow the state law.

[35:54] They have the police power to govern such things within the state of California.

[35:59] But we, you know, make find areas like David mentioned that we can, you know, retain some control or smooth out the rough edges.

[36:07] So that's the point.

[36:08] That's my own question.

[36:10] Mr. Chairman.

[36:11] Yes, if I may.

[36:12] Mr. City Attorney, the process on a zoning amendment, just to make sure I remember it correctly,

[36:19] we initiated, planning commission initiated, initiates, it goes to staff, comes back to planning commission,

[36:24] then it goes to the city council for incorporation.

[36:27] Is that correct? Correct. So the City Council is the ultimate arbiter.

[36:31] Sadly, the planning commission cannot pass laws. Right? You can only recommend laws.

[36:35] I know. I know. I know.

[36:37] So, yeah, so you recommend it. City Council approves it. Got it.

[36:41] If City Council makes any substantial modifications that actually has to come back to you

[36:45] to sign off on that, then it goes back to them and then gets approved. Thank you.

[36:48] Right. So, and it's an ordinance that usually goes in effect 30 days after the second reading

[36:53] of an ordinance, all ordinances have to go twice

[36:56] to the City Council.

[36:57] Thank you.

[36:58] You know, there's one interesting part in SB 10

[37:04] that theoretically overturns local land use controls.

[37:10] Adopted via initiative, which would obviously be measure B.

[37:15] In certain circumstances, and there's been a lawsuit

[37:18] filed against that.

[37:20] It's actually an interesting legal question

[37:21] because the initiative power is in the state constitution and the legislatures now just

[37:28] making laws saying our laws overcome the initiative power?

[37:32] Well, that can't be right.

[37:33] You know, everything I remember from Scholastic Rock is right, the constitution's up here,

[37:37] the legislature's down here and you've got to follow that so there's going to be a lot

[37:41] of litigation about that.

[37:42] And it's actually brought by the AIDS Foundation in LA because they get a lot of state

[37:48] loss pass, you know, for various grants and funding through the initiative. So they

[37:52] don't want anything messing with the initiative process. Yeah, that's their goal. No. It's

[37:57] interesting.

[37:58] Uh, 9010 or, yeah, Anthony. 90s, 90s, 10s, we know. Okay. That's right. 90s, because she wrote

[38:09] a letter after the fact saying that SB9 doesn't impact CCNRs. Because you remember ADU, the

[38:16] the ADU state law, overcame local CCNRs and HOAs.

[38:20] She wrote letter after facts saying my law doesn't do that.

[38:23] Yeah, but isn't that a little, I mean,

[38:27] does that really going to hold any weight

[38:28] in the court of law, Todd?

[38:31] I hope so.

[38:32] I hope so, because a lot of our cities

[38:34] covered by HOAs.

[38:35] No, I know that, but when I dealt with legislation,

[38:40] it was like, yeah, the legislator can say whatever they want,

[38:42] but you have to go based on the wording

[38:45] of the legislation as well as the legislative history.

[38:49] Correct. So this would be the legislative history.

[38:51] You put it into the legislative record.

[38:52] You can do that post-ass.

[38:56] The general rule is to a court.

[38:58] If the law is clear, you apply the law.

[39:01] If it's not clear, you look at other sources of information.

[39:07] So this would fall into that subcategory of B.

[39:10] Okay. So just a question here.

[39:13] I know your blinda has a lot of, you know, mostly the lots are over an acre.

[39:17] How does it affect the existing sentinel family residences?

[39:21] I mean, if they want to add, it would be split of the lot first, if you want to add a

[39:25] second resident, so how does that affect, it's SB9?

[39:29] Yeah, well, it allows a lot of certain, you can't, 64, yeah, 64 is the ratio and there's

[39:36] a certain limit you can't, you have to allow them, I think it's 800 square feet, but remember

[39:40] right of a unit.

[39:41] So yeah, if you're going to split your lot right through the middle of your house

[39:46] Right, that may take some good architecture, you know to tweak that or it's a tear down, right?

[39:52] I mean the fear is big corporations are going to come into town by big lots in cities like the Oberlin de Villa Park boom put up forehomes

[40:00] This is the nature of a neighborhood immediately, right? So, yeah, so that's the fear. Depending on, I mean, everybody has different perspectives. I mean, the argument is it increases accessibility to housing. Yeah, I mean, I thought that was the whole purpose fine rena sort of maybe. Probably not, but that's the theory. Yeah.

[40:26] Remembered on being recorded.

[40:43] We're adopting this so that we can have input and shape locally, that's why we're adopting

[40:49] this.

[40:50] Under our code, there's two ways to start a zoning code amendment, a property owner can

[40:54] start it or the city can start it.

[40:56] So that's what we're doing and then it's going to come back to you because you use the planning commission or the ones

[41:00] We have to recommend what we're doing to the city council before they act. Thanks. So we want it. We're doing it now because we want it to be all

[41:07] Flushed out by the date that this goes into effect on January 2nd as close as we can. Okay, okay with that

[41:15] I will open it up to the public hearing. Does anyone out there wish to speak on this item?

[41:20] You like it now. We've saved your name for the record. That's why she's saved.

[41:26] We're worried about schools, parking.

[41:31] I mean, on Lugan Drive, we really have neighbors

[41:35] who have a small house and they have four cars.

[41:39] And our neighbor has a humongous truck parked there.

[41:43] Another SUV, two on his driveway.

[41:46] And he could potentially split his lab

[41:50] because he has a big lot in building other houses.

[41:52] But my worries are where are we going to park?

[41:55] Also, we have the schools.

[41:57] And we don't have a fair amount.

[41:59] It's been built since 1972, Fairbond Elementary School.

[42:03] And I would like to see that one rebuild

[42:05] and have better conditions for our children

[42:08] and those bungalows, I'm sorry.

[42:11] But I've seen other schools built in Anaheim

[42:13] and they're so amazing and state of the art

[42:15] and a lot of light for our kids to help with their development.

[42:21] And so this, if we're going to do this, are they, we're going to have some guidelines in place to

[42:28] take parking into consideration and schools and

[42:33] that's really concerned. So the state hamstrings us

[42:37] rightfully or wrongfully, they're the state, they're smarter than us as to what we can require

[42:43] and what we can't require. So in this case, for parking, we're only allowed to

[42:49] require one additional parking space per unit built I think right so they say

[42:55] because that's a rational concern right you you got to make sure there's

[42:59] enough parking you need to make sure there's enough sewer service right water

[43:03] service the fundamentals right and a lot of cities are planned a certain way with

[43:07] a certain amount of sewer pressure water and all that good stuff well water

[43:10] pressure and this changes that and the state an

[43:15] And well, I've heard of this internet thing, so they limit, like David was saying, our

[43:24] discretion, because they want to control cities as to what we can do to ameliorate those

[43:29] exact type of concerns. That's why, you know, there's concern on behalf of cities and

[43:35] people that represent cities is, I mean, it's a battle of philosophies as to who should

[43:41] control those things. I would just add Ms. Poppa that your city council has gone on record

[43:46] opposing SB 9 and SB 10 before they like a year ago and often they would express their

[43:56] concerns about it. Unfortunately it's the prerogative of the state as Mr. Litvin explained

[44:03] And I will use Councilmember Jean Hernandez words here elections have consequences.

[44:12] And you know anyone who's dissatisfied with what's happening should really kind of remember

[44:17] that adage and vote your conscience next time.

[44:21] And this will be overturned, should they have another governor?

[44:25] It isn't something that could be easily overturned but as Mr. Lipton noted there was a lawsuit

[44:31] filed against SB 10, which is separate from SB 9 for certain reasons.

[44:39] We'll see what the courts think about that, totally different issues, I think, of concern

[44:45] in that particular lawsuit.

[44:47] But could a party bring a cause of action on SB 9?

[44:51] I believe so, Mr. Lipin.

[44:53] It hasn't happened yet, but we'll see what happens at this point is the law.

[44:59] you

[45:00] Signed by the governor. David, though, can you correct me if I'm wrong, but developers, so if we've what Todd was saying were to come into fruition and developer came in and started by developers, you have to pay in new fees for schools. Correct. So when you build as a condition of building, there is there is money conceivably that goes to schools. Correct. As a part of the construction. And I don't know if there's a carve out for those fees. There are certain carve outs in SB 9.

[45:28] I mean, for instance, you do not have to,

[45:31] the seeds cannot require dedication and improvement

[45:35] like we normally do with subdivisions

[45:38] for SB9-related lock spots.

[45:40] Okay.

[45:41] I don't believe there's a carve-out for school fees.

[45:44] But you would potentially read school fees off of these as well.

[45:48] Okay.

[45:48] That's one of the things that should be looking at

[45:50] as you go through this and indeed dies.

[45:52] Yes, this was just passed just signed last week

[45:56] like Gavin Newsom, and we're still kind of digesting it.

[46:02] Thank you.

[46:03] So what I was talking about before though, the initiative power, there are, I love everybody,

[46:08] I made political, but there are efforts, I know, to put a state ballot initiative on the ballot

[46:15] to overturn a lot of this.

[46:19] So that would be like all those props that we have to vote on all the time, right?

[46:23] proposition yep so there are there are mechanisms in California because there's direct government

[46:30] Thank you very much. I just provide information

[46:39] Did we receive any course wanted on this matter? Okay, would that up close the public hearing on that bring it back to the commission?

[46:46] Do we have a motion to

[46:50] Mr. Chairman, I move that the Planning Commission's

[46:54] opt-to-touch resolution initiating a zoning ordinance amendment pertaining to compliance

[46:58] with SB 9.

[46:59] Second.

[47:00] Second.

[47:02] Boarding Secretary, can we take a vote?

[47:04] Yes.

[47:05] Seeing.

[47:06] Yes.

[47:07] Are now.

[47:08] Yes.

[47:09] Bernstein?

[47:10] Yes.

[47:10] Masterson.

[47:11] Yes.

[47:11] Motion carries unanimously.

[47:12] Thank you moving on old business. I do not have anything Mr. Bradley.

[47:19] Yep. Correctors report.

[47:22] Yes. Actually this is kind of a business.

[47:26] You're approval of the Zang matter at your meeting a couple times ago.

[47:34] It was off of Via del Caballo was appealed.

[47:38] May recall.

[47:42] No, it was a front yard wall fence, six feet high in one of the neighbors had it the

[47:49] nine foot fence? No, this is a six foot wall fence at the Adel Caballo and Palm.

[48:00] It was appealed by Mr. Rosenthal, a neighbor went to the City Council just last week.

[48:08] The City Council did uphold the planning commission's decision and oddly the appellant spoke

[48:16] after staff's presentation and sort of asked whether or not exhibit A which is the conditions

[48:23] of approval were part of what the Council would act on if they were to approve or uphold

[48:31] the planning commission's decision.

[48:32] And we said, yes.

[48:34] And he said, oh, well, I'm OK then.

[48:36] So it was kind of weird.

[48:39] So I think it caught Mr. Lippin off guard as well as the mayor.

[48:44] And they're sort of like, well, it sounds like you're

[48:46] almost withdrawing your appeal.

[48:48] And he kind of said, yeah, essentially.

[48:51] And so anyways, it was a prove upheld, but just kind

[48:57] of an interesting one.

[48:58] I did forward the press release on the additional housing bills that were signed by Governor Newsom and the other request, we have not a lot of items if any for teed up for the October 13th meeting and we are suggesting that you cancel that October 13th meeting and adjourn the meeting this evening.

[49:29] to the 27th of October and that is all I have.

[49:38] Okay. Moving on, Commissioner Comments.

[49:42] Question. Brick's on main looks like it stopped. Is it internal and we just can't see?

[49:51] No, they have not gotten their building plans approved yet. There was, I had a meeting

[49:59] with them.

[50:00] Yesterday, they are looking at ways to deal with the penetration to the wall on the south side of the building. And the initial way that they were going to do it, which is very complicated, proved to be not something that they could even get a contractor to undertake because of the liability. So there's a different way that they can do it. And so we had a meeting with them to talk through that with the building official.

[50:28] So they're going to redo their plans and resubmit and it shouldn't be too much longer.

[50:34] They're going full speed ahead.

[50:35] Great.

[50:37] That's going to be a great focal point.

[50:38] Yeah.

[50:39] Yeah.

[50:39] On Main Street.

[50:40] Yeah.

[50:41] Yeah.

[50:42] Pretty excited about that.

[50:43] Yeah.

[50:44] Yeah.

[50:46] Mr. Chairman.

[50:48] I just want to note for the record that all three of my children went through adventure playground.

[50:53] And on Tuesday, October 5th, they're having a dedication.

[50:56] and I encourage all the planning commissioners to come.

[50:59] It's a great facility.

[51:02] My boys just loved it and I'm happy to see it open up again.

[51:08] I actually did it.

[51:09] I did it, five o'clock.

[51:10] Yeah, it was a kid, a sprinter playground, it was fun.

[51:12] Let's go.

[51:13] Five o'clock on Tuesday, the night of the council meeting.

[51:16] Yeah, it's it.

[51:17] Yeah.

[51:17] Right, the author did it during COVID.

[51:19] Yeah, it was.

[51:20] Yeah, it's like happening.

[51:22] Yeah.

[51:23] That was just awesome.

[51:24] I'm building the forts and all the slides and may interject something no chairman

[51:29] I do not recommend though if you are

[51:33] 275 pound attorney on a good day

[51:36] Walking on the top of that fort because maybe at one point in time you fell through and had to get yourself by your arms

[51:43] to a birth sudden death

[51:45] What about the mudslide? Did you do that?

[51:49] The mudslide is a whole different issue. That was orange county health. We resolved that

[52:00] But I'm sure it won't happen anymore.

[52:04] I thought all those structures were approved by the building department here in the city.

[52:11] Now who's being what was that before?

[52:14] I was being facetious. There's a different.

[52:22] I have two comments, one, is it possible to get, like, I'm sure at your loss is offering

[52:29] you have legal summaries on all these housing initiatives that have been passed, is it possible

[52:34] to get summaries of all those?

[52:37] Yeah, that's what David and I were just talking about.

[52:39] I did one for 9, 10, a couple of others.

[52:45] We actually are waiting for something

[52:47] from the League of Cities as well on this.

[52:50] And I talked about that with Nate this afternoon.

[52:53] Generally, the League will do a legislative update

[52:56] and send out a brief summary of each of these.

[52:59] We're going to be on the lookout for that

[53:00] and intend to pat that on to you guys as well.

[53:03] The governor hasn't told the tent to sign a veto everything.

[53:06] So you really won't know the lay of the land from this legislative cycle until after the tent.

[53:12] Okay. That's a good point.

[53:15] But we do do them as well, and I can forward them to you.

[53:17] I mean, David gets so many different, I mean, you get a lot of summaries, so.

[53:20] And then one of the comments is that I brought up tonight is parking issues.

[53:26] I have actually had a couple of friends that actually have had parking issues

[53:29] and their communities with people parking on the streets and never moving the cars.

[53:35] So that is something I would say we should take a look at and really focus on the future.

[53:40] So I know those parking issues are certain to happen in some of the subdivisions here in the city.

[53:45] So that's it for me on that.

[53:48] One more thing, actually.

[53:50] Just so the commission knows, I know some of you were on the commission when we went on the first go around.

[53:55] The Esperanza Hills Project, which is next to the Seattle Vista Project north of Stonehaven.

[54:01] So the city council, well not the city, city staff about a year ago denied their request

[54:06] to put a road through that slope on Stonehaven because city's contention was it was beyond

[54:11] the city's property owner's easement rights because they wanted to grade the entire roadway.

[54:17] That is in litigation now.

[54:19] The trial date is December 13th.

[54:21] So we will get a court order on that issue at that point in time as to how wide their road

[54:28] can be.

[54:29] I tell you that.

[54:29] I mean, that's all public record, but just if you're approached by people since it is in litigation, you know,

[54:36] A little bit discretion. Maybe no discussion would be helpful because you don't know who's really behind the scenes asking questions

[54:42] So for what it's worth

[54:45] Okay, moving on correspondence received

[54:49] We have one item

[54:51] Mr. Chair for the record I didn't I believe note at the very beginning in the meeting regarding the Sanders matter

[54:59] whether

[55:00] I noted that we did receive correspondence from two individuals. We did forward those to you. I will

[55:10] make mention of that, again, when we bring it back to you for the public hearing in December.

[55:17] did we ever under the one person wanted to be um didn't want you wanted it to be um confidential

[55:25] okay okay okay okay um with that then we will that will adjourn the next we'll

[55:33] adjourn to the next planning commission meeting which is October 27th 2021 thank you

Planning Commission - Sep 29th, 2021

Transcript