[00:00:01]
[Call to Order]
RIGHT.I'D LIKE TO CALL THIS REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR SEPTEMBER 13TH, 2022 TO ORDER.
UM, WE'LL NOW TAKE A MOMENT FOR SILENT PRAYER OR MEDITATION FOLLOWED BY THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, WHICH WILL BE LED BY COMMISSIONER.
THAT'S WHAT ALLEG TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TWO REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR, UH, PAUL ROLL CALL PLEASE.
OKAY, SO, UH, COMMISSIONER HANG HERE.
UH, COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS, PRESENT COMMISSIONER BURERA VICE CHAIR, GUTIERREZ HERE.
[1. Regular meeting, August 9, 2022]
ON.WE ARE LOOKING AT THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING THAT WAS HELD ON AUGUST 9TH, 2022.
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY CHANGES TO THE MINUTES SEEING NONE? THE MINUTES ARE, ARE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED.
[ORAL COMMUNICATIONS]
TO ORAL COMMUNICATIONS.UH, WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM THAT IS NOT ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT? ELENA? DO WE HAVE ANY CARDS? I DON'T HAVE ANY SPEAKER CARDS.
[2. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 22-01 (83850)]
RIGHT.WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON TO THE PUBLIC HEARINGS.
UH, WE HAVE TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS SCHEDULED FOR TONIGHT, UM, WHO WILL BE PRESENTING THE STAFF REPORT FOR THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING.
UH, MIRIAM FROM OUR PLANNING STAFF WILL BE PROVIDING THE PRESENTATION.
THE ITEM BEFORE YOU IS SENSITIVE PARCEL MAP NUMBER 2201 ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT 22, 10 AND SUBCOMMITTEE DESIGNER VIEW 2265.
TWO FAR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT OR ON 28, 25 EAST CORTEZ STREET ITS OWN FOR RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY.
AND IT'S LOCATED IN AREA DISTRICT THREE.
THE EXISTING LOT SIZE IS, UH, AN ACRE IN SIZE AND THE SURROUNDING USES ARE SINGLE FAMILY, RESIDENTIAL AND RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURE.
THE ENTITLEMENTS BEING REQUESTED ARE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NUMBER 2201 FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF THE EXISTING PARCEL INTO TWO PARCELS.
TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT 2210 FOR THE PROPOSED HOUSE ON THE NEW PARCEL, WHICH WILL BE TWO STORIES IN HEIGHT AND SUBCOMMITTEE DESIGN REVIEW 2265 BECAUSE THE PROPOSED HOUSE IS VISIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
THE CURRENT PARCEL IS 43,526 SQUARE FEET.
TOTAL THE PROPOSED SPLIT WOULD PROVIDE PARCEL NUMBER ONE TO BE 24,941 SQUARE FEET.
AND PARCEL TWO WOULD BE 18,584 SQUARE FEET.
THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR A SUBDIVISION IN AREA DISTRICT THREE REQUIRE A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 14,400 SQUARE FEET FOR EACH LAW AS PROPOSED PARCEL.
ONE WOULD BE AT 24,941 SQUARE FEET.
AND PARCEL TWO WOULD BE AT 18,584.
BOTH WOULD BE ABOVE THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIRED.
THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ALSO REQUIRE A MINIMUM WIDTH OF 90 FEET AND A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 125 FEET AS PROPOSED FOR THE WIDTH.
ONE IS AT 1 0 2 AND PARCEL TWO IS BEING PROPOSED AT ONE 50 FEET WHERE THE DEPTH PARCEL ONES BEING PROPOSED AT 1 44 AND PARCEL TWO AT 180 3.
AGAIN, BOTH ARE BEING PROPOSED ABOVE THE MINIMUM REQUIRED.
MOVING ON TO THE PROPOSED HOME FOR PARCEL ONE ON THE SCREEN IS THE SITE PLAN.
THE ENTRANCE WOULD BE PROVIDED ON EAST CORTEZ STREET IN GRAY IS THE NEW CONCRETE DRIVEWAY THAT WOULD BE PROPOSED ALONG WITH ALL OTHER HARDSCAPE IN GREEN.
IS THERE PROPOSED LANDSCAPING AREAS AND IN BLUE IS THE NEW PROPOSED TWO STORY HOME WITH A THREE CAR GARAGE, A PATIO COVER AND AT THE REAR IS A PROPOSED
[00:05:01]
DETACHED WORKSHOP FOR THE FIRST FLOOR OF THE PROPOSED HOME.THE ENTRANCE WOULD BE FACING EAST CORTEZ.
THE FIRST FLOOR WOULD CONSIST OF THE THREE CAR GARAGE, A LIVING ROOM, KITCHEN AND DINING ROOM, RECREATIONAL ROOM, ONE BEDROOM, AND A BATHROOM ON THE PRIMARY FLOOR.
ALONG WITH THE LAUNDRY ROOM, THE SECOND FLOOR WOULD CONSIST OF FOUR ADDITIONAL BEDROOMS, WHICH WOULD BE FIVE TOTAL, THREE ADDITIONAL BATHROOMS, WHICH WOULD TOTAL AND FOUR BATHROOMS AND FOUR REFERENCE.
THIS WINDOW SHOWN HERE IN CIRCLED IN RED IS FACING THE WEST, UH, NEIGHBOR, WHICH WE WILL BE CONDITIONING TO BE OBSCURE, TO PROTECT THE PRIVACY OF THE WEST NEIGHBOR.
HERE WE HAVE THE FRONT FRONT FACING ELEVATION, WHICH WOULD BE SEEN FROM CORTEZ.
THE PROPOSED HOME IS BEING SHOWN WITH WAL VENEER ALONG THE BOTTOM TRIM.
AND AGAIN, JUST HIGHLIGHTING THAT WINDOW FOR THE BEDROOM THAT WOULD BE PROPOSED OR CONDITIONED TO BE OBSCURE FROSTED.
THE TWO WINDOWS TO THE LEFT ARE FOR BATHROOMS AND THESE, THESE TWO WOULD BE FOR THE BATHROOMS. AND THESE TWO TO THE RIGHT ARE FOR A HIGH CEILING AREA.
THIS IS THE EAST ELEVATION AND THE NORTH ELEVATION FACING THE REAR DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING COMMENT COMMENT PERIOD, WE DID RECEIVE TWO CONCERNS FROM THE REAR PROPERTY OWNERS, UH, REGARDING POTENTIAL NEIGHBOR, POTENTIAL PRIVACY CONCERNS.
UM, IN ORDER TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS, PLANNING STAFF IS PROPOSING TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
UH, THE FIRST THING THAT THE EXISTING LANDSCAPE ALONG THE WEST AND NORTH PROPERTY LINES SHOULD BE MAINTAINED AND SUPPLEMENTARY LANDSCAPING FOR BOTH THE WEST AND NORTH SHOULD BE PROVIDED TO PRESERVE THAT PRIVACY FOR BOTH THE WEST AND NORTH SIDE NEIGHBORS.
AND THE SECOND ADDITIONAL CONDITION WOULD BE THAT THE APPLICANT SHOULD OBTAIN AN ABUS REPORT, MAPPING OUT THE LOCATION OF ANY EXISTING TREES AND HAVE THAT AIST PROVIDE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS OR IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE HEALTH OF THE TREES DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW HOME AND WORKSHOP WITH THAT, UM, PLANNING STAFF DOES RECOMMEND ADOPTING BOTH RESOLUTION NUMBER 22 6 1 11 AND 6 1 12 WITH THE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, UH, TO APPROVE TENTATIVE PA TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2201 ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT 2210 AND SUBCOMMITTEE DESIGN REVIEW 2265.
THAT IS THE CONCLUSION OF THE PRESENTATION I'M HERE FOR QUESTIONS.
DOES ANYONE ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AT THIS TIME? YES.
MR. GUTIEREZ I MEAN, VICE CHAIR GUTTIER NO, THAT'S OKAY.
UH, WHAT KIND OF TREES IS STAFF RECOMMENDING FOR, FOR THE, THAT THEY PLANT THE TYPE OF TREE WASN'T DECIDED UPON? SO THE APPLICANT WOULD BE ABLE TO DECIDE WHAT TREES THEY WOULD PROPOSE UNLESS THERE'S ANY CONDITIONS.
ANYONE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? RIGHT.
WE'RE GONNA OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE WILL FIRST HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT.
IS THE APPLICANT HERE? SHE IS.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF SHE HAS ANY, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS YOU WANNA ADDRESS? NO COMMENTS FROM HER.
UM, NEXT WE WILL GO AHEAD AND HEAR TESTIMONY FROM THOSE IN FAVOR.
DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKER CARDS? THERE'S UM, ONE OPPOSED? I BELIEVE.
DO WE HAVE ANYONE IN FAVOR OR NO? ARE ANDY, ARE YOU IN FAVOR? JUST WE'LL PUT YOU IN FAVOR THEN.
UM, WELL, NO, I'M NOT NECESSARILY FAVORABLE.
SO, SO HEARING, HEARING NONE IN FAVOR I'LL I'LL THEN GO TO HEARING TESTIMONY FROM THOSE OPPOSED OR WHO ARE NEUTRAL, NEUTRAL.
UM, THERE ARE NO OTHER TWO STORY HOUSES IN THAT, RIGHT THERE IN THAT AREA, BUT I'M SURE ALL THE NEIGHBORS, AS I'VE HEARD YOU ALREADY SAY, OR SOMEONE SAY THERE WAS TWO NEIGHBORS ALREADY CONCERNED.
UM, SO HOW MANY OF THE NEIGHBORS WERE INFORMED OF THE TWO STORY DEVELOPMENT ON CORTEZ THERE AND O WERE THEY ONLY ON CORTEZ OR WERE THEY ON THE STREET JUST BEHIND THEM, WHICH I BELIEVE IS VANDER HOOF, UH, ALL PROPERTIES WITHIN THE 300 FOOT RADIUS OF THE HOME WERE NOTIFIED OF THE, THAT PERTAINS ONLY TO CORTEZ OR DOES THAT PERTAIN TO THE SO 300 FOOT RADIUS FROM THE PROPERTY.
SO IT DID GET THOSE ON CORTEZ AND THOSE ON ROSEMARY DRIVE, WHICH IS ON THE STREET.
[00:10:01]
THERE WERE ALREADY HOME MATURE TREES ON THAT PROPERTY, WHICH WERE LEVELED OAK TREES THAT WERE LEVELED TO, AND ALL THE WOOD SITS UP AGAINST THE PERIMETER OF THE EXISTING LOT.UM, SO, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY DEVELOPMENTS EVEN IN A PRIVATE HOME CAN DO AS THEY WANT AND NOBODY PROTECTED THOSE OAKS.
SO I'M SURE THE RESIDENTS WHO LIVE ON THAT STREET WOULD LIKE TO SEE TREES, MATURE TREES OR TREES BROUGHT IN TO PROTECT PRIVACY.
AND I'M GLAD TO HEAR THAT PRIVACY MAY BE A PRIORITY FOR THE EXISTING NEIGHBORS.
AND SO MANY OF THE DEVELOPMENTS IN OUR CITY HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED OF THE EXISTING RESIDENTS.
SO I'M GLAD THAT'S BEING CONSIDERED.
I'M NOT OPPOSED OR, UH, UH, FOR IT, BUT I'M JUST CONCERNED AS, AS JUST, I WALK THERE ALL THE TIME AND I KNOW NEIGHBORS THERE.
DOES ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION OR NEUTRAL? DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, REBUTTAL FROM THE APPLICANT? THERE'S ONE THING I DO.
CAN YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD PLEASE? MY NAME IS PETER.
UH, I'D LIKE CURIOUS TO SAY THAT THE SLOPE, UH, OF THE HOUSES ON THAT ROAD ARE ALL FACING SLOPING TOWARDS THE ROAD.
SO THE HOUSE ON THE BACK BEHIND IT, THEY HAVE A HIGHER ELEVATION.
I BELIEVE SO EVEN WITH THE TWO-STORY HOUSE IS NOW GONNA BE DRASTICALLY HIGHER.
IT'S JUST ABOUT KIND OF STILL LOWERED THAN THE NEIGHBORS, BECAUSE OUR HOUSE IS RELATIVELY IN THE FRONT.
IT'S ONLY LIKE 35 FEET FROM THE FRONT OF THE STREET.
SO THERE'S ABOUT ALMOST A HUNDRED FEET IN THE BACK.
SO THE HOUSE IN THE FRONT IS NOT GONNA SEE THE NEIGHBORS.
CAN WE, CAN WE ASK QUESTIONS? YEAH, GO, GO RIGHT AHEAD.
UM, YOU SAID HOW, HOW MANY FEET ARE BETWEEN THE NEW, UH, YOU SEE THE REAR PROPERTY LINE ON THE FRONT HOUSE? THE HOUSE IS POSITIONED 35 FEET.
YOU SEE HERE, IT'S, UH, FRONT, UH, IT'S ONLY, UH, FROM YOU SEE THE BACK, THE BACK HOUSE.
THAT'S THE FRONT HOUSE IN THE FRONT.
THAT'S A WORK WORK WORKSHOP, BUT THERE'S NO ONE GONNA BE LIVING IN THERE.
AND THE STRUCTURE IN THE MIDDLE IS YOUR CURRENT PROPERTY? NO, NO, NO, NOT THE PROPOSED HOUSE.
THAT'S THEY'RE ALL THE PROPOSED HOUSE, BUT THE, THE STRUCTURE IN THE BACK, IT'S A, IT'S A WORKSHOP.
THERE'S NOT, IT'S ALREADY EXISTING THERE.
NO, NO, IT'S, IT'S ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION.
SO THIS SHOULD BE ON THE, THE PARCEL THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE.
IT'S A WORKSHOP, NOT A CASITA.
YEAH, NO ONE'S GONNA BE LIVING IN THERE.
AND THE FRONT HOUSE IS POSITIONED AT A LOWER SLOPE THAN THE REAR.
SO IT'S TWO STORY IS GONNA BE STILL LOWER.
HOW MANY FEET FROM THE NEIGHBOR IS THAT STRUCTURE TO THE WEST OR TO THE, ON EITHER SIDE, OTHER SIDE, AROUND AT LEAST 50 FEET.
AND ON THE OTHER SIDE, IT'S WELL ABOVE A HUNDRED FEET BECAUSE THERE'S ANOTHER HOUSE SEPARATING IT.
THE SLOPE IS PRETTY LOW, SO SHOULDN'T BE A PROBLEM.
WELL, I WOULD IMAGINE ON THAT SIZE OF A LOT OF OVER 18,000, THAT THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF AREA BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES STILL.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? YES.
CAN YOU COME BACK FOR ONE SEC? SORRY.
WE'RE LOOKING AT THE LOT CURRENTLY.
UM, YOU MENTIONED THAT THE HOUSE TOWARD THE REAR MM-HMM
THIS ONE IT'S NOT GONNA BE HIGHER THAN THE, BUT IT IS HIGH CEILING.
THE WORKSHOP IS CEILING HEIGHT IS I BELIEVE 12 FEET.
SO IT'S JUST ABOUT LEVEL AFTER CONSTRUCTED, I BELIEVE.
SO THE WORKSHOPS AND THE NEIGHBORING TOWARD THE REAR MM-HMM
BUT THEN THE WORKSHOPS TOWARD THE MAIN HOUSE, HOW HIGH IS THE WORKSHOP TOWARD THE MAIN HOUSE? CAUSE WE CAN'T, WE DON'T HAVE ELEVATIONS FOR THOSE.
UM, NO, WE'LL HAVE TO CHECK THE PARCEL MAP, BUT FROM, IF YOU GO ONTO THE STREET WHEEL ON GOOGLE MAPS, YOU CAN DEFINITELY SEE THE SLOPE
[00:15:01]
THAT IS POSITIONED THERE.SO I'M ASSUMING THE SLOPE WILL BE LEVELED, RIGHT? YES.
BUT YOU'RE NOT GONNA LEVEL IT A LOT, A COUPLE OF FEET FOR DRAINAGE AND SO FORTH.
THE HEIGHT OF THE WORKSHOP IS PROPOSED AT 16 FEET.
THAT'S COMBINED WITH THE, UH, THE ROOF, THE CEILING HEIGHT IS 12 FEET.
AND ARE YOU WILLING TO PUT ITALIAN, CYPRESS TREES ALL AROUND THE PROPERTY LINE TO SHARE PRIVACY? YES.
WE CAN COMMUNICATE WITH THE HOMEOWNER TO DO THAT.
ALSO, UH, IN SOMEWHERE IN THE FRONT, UH, YOU'RE WILLING TO PLANT, UH, ONE OF THESE, UH, WHAT KIND OF, WHAT KIND OF TREES IS HE KNOCKING OUT? DO WE KNOW? OH, THEY ARE.
SO I WAS, I WOULD, UH, SAY THAT IF YOU'RE WILLING TO, UH, PLANT TREES IN THE FRONT, MM-HMM,
WE CAN LET THE OWNER KNOW AND, UH, WE CAN LET SOME TREES.
UM, AS, AS I UNDERSTAND THAT LOT AND I'VE PERSONALLY WALKED BY THAT LOT.
I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW MANY TIMES, MAYBE 20,000 TIMES IN MY LIFE.
BUT IN ANY CASE, UM, MY, MY QUESTION IS HOW ARE, HOW ARE YOU GRADING THAT LOT? BECAUSE THAT LOT IS HIGHER THAN THE LOTS ON ROSEMARY.
UM, WE'RE GONNA HAVE A FLAT AREA IN THE FRONT, BUT, UH, WE ARE GONNA CUT AND FILL DEFINITELY.
BUT, UH, WE STILL HAVEN'T GOT INTO THAT STAGE YET, BUT WE'LL FIGURE IT OUT.
WELL, YOU'RE NOT GONNA, YOU'RE NOT GONNA BUILD A WORKSHOP ON THE SLOPE, RIGHT? NO.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR ANY OTHER COMMENTS? UM, ONE QUESTION I HAD, UM, FOR THE WORKSHOP.
WHAT, UM, ARE YOU, WHAT WILL THE WORKSHOP BE USED FOR WHAT TYPE OF OPERATIONS? UH, JUST LIKE STORING FOR, UH, POWER EQUIPMENT AND, UH, SOME WAREHOUSE ITEMS. OH, NOT FOR LIVING.
YOU'D JUST BE STORING, BUT NOT STORAGE ACTUALLY USING THEM.
WITH THAT, I WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE WILL OPEN DISCUSSION BY THE COMMISSION.
UM, ANYONE HAVE ANY COMMENTS? UM, I HAVE A QUESTION, UM, MORE FOR STAFF REGARDING THE SIZE OF THE PARCEL.
I NOTICE ON THE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, IT INDICATES THAT PARCEL ONE IS ONLY GONNA BE A LITTLE OVER 15,000 SQUARE FEET AND PARCEL TWO IS GONNA BE 27,000 SQUARE FEET.
THAT WAS, UM, THE NUMBERS PROVIDED HERE ARE THE GROSS.
AND THEN THE 15,016,000 IS NET.
SO IT'S ACTUALLY BUILDABLE OR ABLE TO BE BUILT ON BASED OFF THE SLOPES.
WHAT I'M REFERRING TO FURTHER IS IN THE ACTUAL RESOLUTION, IT CALLS OUT MORE, UM, SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR PARCEL ONE THAN WHAT, EVEN THE PARCEL MAP AND THE ARCHITECTURAL MAP SHELLS.
CAUSE I THINK YOU'RE CALLING OUT 1800 SQUARE FEET FOR PARCEL ONE THAT'S PARCEL TWO 18,584 PARCEL PARCEL TWO IS THE EXISTING.
UH, IT, IT LOOKED LIKE THAT TO ME TOO, BECAUSE THE, THE MATH JUST DOESN'T ADD UP 1, 1 44 BY 180 3 IS A LOT BIGGER THAN 1 0 2 BY YEAH.
AND, UM, IT'S SAYING THAT PARCEL ONE, ACTUALLY THE DIMENSIONS THAT THEY'RE CALLING OUT IN THE REAR, BECAUSE IT'S KIND OF ANGLED.
IT'S GONNA BE 96 FEET TOWARDS THE REAR.
NOW TOWARDS THE FRONT, IT'S ONLY GONNA BE 1 0 2, BUT THE DEPTH OF IT IS ONE 50.
[00:20:01]
BE FOR THE PARCEL ONE WHERE THE NEW CONSTRUCTION IS GONNA HAPPEN.SO I WAS JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE ACTUAL SIZE IS GONNA BE A PARCEL ONE AND PARCEL TWO.
I'M SORRY, WHERE, WHICH RESOLUTION DID YOU SEE THAT IN? IT'S ACTUALLY RESOLUTION NUMBER 22 DASH 611.
WHAT PAGE? SO FOR PARCEL ONE IT'S NUMBER ONE, IT SAYS WILL BE 24.
WELL, AGAIN, BASED ON THE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, THE GROSS LOT AREA IS GOING TO BE ALMOST 16,000 SQUARE FEET.
SO IF PARCEL ONE IS SUPPOSED TO BE 18,000, I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT.
AND THEN, UM, PARCEL TWO ON THE, ON THE MAP, IT'S SAYING IT'S GONNA BE 27,000 SQUARE FEET.
SO ACTUALLY PARCEL TWO IS GONNA BE WIDER AND DEEPER.
AND THAT'S WHERE THE EXISTING HOUSE IS AND THE EXISTING POOL AND EVERYTHING ON THE FIRST PAGE OF THE RESOLUTION, DOES THE NUMBERS DO MATCH WHAT'S IN THE STAFF REPORT? YEAH, BUT I GUESS WHAT I'M ASKING IS THERE'S A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP THAT WAS PREPARED BY THE ENGINEER OF RECORD MM-HMM
PARCEL TWO IS GONNA BE 27,608 SQUARE FEET.
IF YOU COULD GIVE US A SECOND.
THE ONE THAT WE'VE THE ONE THAT THE COPY THAT WE HAVE AND WE USE FOR THE STAFF REPORT SHOWS THAT THE GROSS FOR PARCEL ONE IS 18,584 SQUARE FEET, WHICH MATCHES THE STAFF REPORT AND THE, AND THE RESOLUTION.
[00:25:01]
PARCEL TWO IS 24,941 SQUARE FEET.SO THE NEW PARCEL, WHICH IS PARCEL ONE IS GONNA BE LARGER THAN THE EXISTING PARCEL FOR WHERE THE EXISTING HOUSE IS.
ONE IS WHERE THE NEW HOUSE IS BEING CONSTRUCTED.
SO THAT ONE'S GOING TO BE 24,000 SQUARE FEET.
AND THEN THE PARCEL WHERE THE EXISTING HOUSE IS ONLY GONNA BE 18, ACTUALLY PAULINA.
UM, IF YOU LOOK AT THIS, UH, THE BACK OF THE FIRST PAGE MM-HMM,
MM-HMM
SO IF YOU LOOK AT PARCEL ONE MM-HMM
I SEE WHAT SEE THE SMALLER PARCEL SEEMS IS WHERE THE NEW CONSTRUCTION'S GONNA HAPPEN.
SO IS IT PARCEL TWO, THE NEW NEW, SO PARCEL ONE, IF THAT'S WHERE THE NEW HOUSE IS GOING TO GO, THEN THAT SHOULD BE 18,000 SHOULD BE BIGGER.
AND THEN THE EXISTING IS THE PARCEL TWO SHOULD BE 24.
SO IT WAS REVERSING THE STAFF REPORT.
BUT IF WE LOOK AT OUR MAP LOOKING, IT'S KIND OF WEIRD, BUT, UM, IF WE'RE LOOKING AT OUR MAP ON THE VERY FIRST PAGE, IT SAID LOT SIDE AREA IS EQUAL TO 16,000, 152 SQUARE FOOT.
SO IF YOU LOOK ON THE FIRST PAGE OF THE MAP WHERE THIS, UM, RIGHT HERE, MM-HMM,
SO THE NUMBERS ARE ALL OVER THE PLACE.
YOU CAN GIVE US ANOTHER SECOND.
PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED ALREADY.
WE HAVE TO, THE PUBLIC HEARING'S CURRENTLY CLOSED.
IF EVERYONE IS IN AGREEMENT, WE CAN REOPEN TO DISCUSS, I'M SORRY, JOE CLARIFICATION ON THIS, OR WE'RE WORKING ON IT.
BUT IF YOU'D LIKE TO HAVE THE APPLICANT CLARIFY, UM, CAN, CAN THE APP, UM, WOULD, WOULD THE CHAIR BE WILLING TO HAVE THE APPLICANT SPEAK BECAUSE THEY PROVIDED US? UM, WE HAVE TWO SEPARATE SETS OF, UM, PLANS PREPARED BY THE, AN ENGINEER AND THEY, THEY HAVE TWO DIFFERENT NUMBERS.
I WILL REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF HEARING.
UH, THE REASON FOR THE DISCREPANCY ON THE LOT SIZE, DID IT GO THROUGH A PLAN, CHECK, PLAN CHECK IS DONE WHEN IT'S SUBMITTED TO BUILDING AND IT HAS NOT BEEN SUBMITTED TO BUILDING YET.
YOU WANNA TAKE A LOOK? SO WHY DO, WHY DO WE HAVE TWO SETS OF PLANS? UH, I BELIEVE, UH, WE DO HAVE CORRECTIONS.
UH, WE HAD ONE SET, UH, TWO SUBMITTALS AND I BELIEVE ONE IS FROM THE FIRST MIDDLE AND THE OTHER ONES FROM THE SECOND.
SO THIS IS THE ONE FROM BEFORE WE HAD CORRECTIONS.
AND THIS IS THE FINAL VERSION.
SO THE FINAL ONE IS THAT THE ONE WITH THE DATE OF AUGUST, THE ONE WITH THE LANDSCAPE IN THE FRONT, YOU SEE THE, THE SMALL SECTION OF LANDSCAPE IN THE FRONT IT'S DATED ON THE SIDE OF THE PLAN WHERE THEY STAMPED IN THE LAST FLAP THAT YOU HAVE FOLDED.
YEAH, I BELIEVE YOU'RE CORRECT.
SO IT'S THAT ONE? THE AUGUST 23RD RECEIVED.
YEAH, BECAUSE BEFORE, UM, MIRIAM HAD A COMMENT REGARDING THE FRONT, WE HAD TOO MUCH CONCRETE AREA, SO WE HAD TO ADD LANDSCAPE.
SO THE, THE PLANS WERE CHANGED.
SO THIS IS THE FINAL ONE AND THE NUMBERS SHOULD BE ACCURATE HERE.
SO THE PLAN THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW HAS DATED JANUARY 22ND.
NO, THE, THE ONE THAT THE PARCEL MAP IS THE ONE, ONE THAT DATED AUGUST 23RD.
THAT WAS THEIR MOST RECENT ONE.
ONE WHICH ONE DO I HAVE? THE, THE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP.
THIS IS THE ONE THAT, SO NOT THE ARCHITECTURAL PARCEL MAP.
[00:30:03]
THANK YOU.I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF PLANS.
UM, COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS, THE PARCEL ONE WOULD BE, UM, A SMALLER PARCEL AND THEN THE EXISTING OR THE EXISTING HOME, THAT PARCEL WOULD BE THE LARGER PARCEL.
ONE IS A PROPOSED 18 PARCEL SQUARE FEET.
TWO IS EXISTING HOUSE, BUT THE 24TH FROM THE SQUARE FEET, YOU GUYS GOT THAT.
ANY OTHER INITIAL QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NO.
ANY, UH, OPPOSITION THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? ALL RIGHT.
I'M GONNA CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AGAIN, AND WE'RE GONNA REOPEN DISCUSSION, UH, WITH THE COMMISSION, ANY DISCUSSION, SEEING NONE.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE 10 AND PARCEL MAP NUMBER 22, 1 8 3 8 5 ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT NUMBER 22 0 SUBCOMMITTEE DESIGN REVIEW NUMBER 2265, UH, WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT THEY PLANT, UH, CYPRESS TREES ALL AROUND THE PROPERTY LINE TO ENSURE PRIVACY OF THEIR NEIGHBORS AND THAT THEY LOOK INTO PLANTING.
UH, SOME OF THE TREES THAT THEY, UH, CUT DOWN, UH, BACK TOWARDS THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION FROM ANY COMMISSIONER? CAN WE CLARIFY IN TERMS OF ALL THE TREES AND REQUIREMENTS THAT HE'S LOOKING FOR? UM, WHEN YOU, I THINK YOU SAID CYPRESS TREES ALONG THE PERIMETERS, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE BACK PERIMETER, THE SIDE PERIMETERS, UH, THE PRI THE PROP, UH, YEAH.
REAR, WHICH, WHICH PROPERTY OWNER HAD A CONCERN REGARDING PRIVACY.
IT WAS BY THE, THE SIDE, I BELIEVE IN THE BACK.
SO I'M OPEN TO MAKING THE REAR AND THE LEFT SIDE, OR IDEALLY THE WHOLE U BOTH SIDES AND THE BACK, I HONESTLY, UH, THE SIDE THAT HAS A HUNDRED FEET, I MEAN, A HUNDRED FEET IS VERY LONG DISTANCE.
I, YEAH, I DON'T THINK YOU NEED ANYTHING ON THAT SIDE.
AND THE OTHER SIDE IS THE EXISTING PARCEL.
SO IT WOULD ONLY BE THE PARCEL THAT PROBABLY THAT SAYS THAT THEY'RE CLOSEST OR THE 50 FOOT, EVEN 50 FOOT IS STILL A GOOD, GOOD WAYS AWAY.
I DON'T THINK IT'S, IT'D BE SO CONCERNED WITH THE PRIVACY, BUT YOU WANNA TAKE IT A STEP FURTHER THEN, SO BE IT.
BUT I THINK THAT THOSE ARE HUGE LOTS.
THEY'RE NOT 7,500 SQUARE FOOT HOTS, LOTS.
SO TO CLARIFY MY, UH, THE TREE INSTRUCTIONS, THE, I MEANT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY FOR CYPRESS TREES AND TO PLANT ADDITIONAL REGULAR TREES TOWARDS THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY LINE.
AND I WILL LEAVE THAT AT A DISCRETION OF THE CITY TO DETERMINE NOT, I THINK THE NEIGHBORS TO THE WEST AND THE NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH RIGHT.
ARE CONCERNED REGARDING PROPERTY, UH, RIGHT.
SO THE PEOPLE ON THE LEFT, RIGHT.
UH, CORRECT ON THE LEFT AND YEAH, I SEE THE TOP, WHICH IS THE NORTH.
WE'LL DO THE, THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY AND THE LEFT SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
AND THEN IN THE FRONT, AT THE CITY'S DISCRETION, WE'LL ADVISE THE PROPERTY OWNER REGARDING, UH, PLANTING REGULAR SIZE TREES TOWARDS THE FRONT OF THE, OF THE PROPERTY LINE.
SO NOW WE'LL DO ROLL CALL, RIGHT? YEAH.
SO I JUST, ANY OTHER, HOLD ON.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR, OR COMMENTS ANYONE? UM, I GUESS MY ONLY OTHER CONCERN WAS BESIDES THE FLIPPING OF THE NUMBERS ON THE REPORT THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT ALSO ON THE MAP THAT BESIDES THIS MAP.
SO WE'RE LOOKING AT TWO DIFFERENT MAP.
THIS PARTICULAR MAP ALSO HAVE LOT SIZE THAT ARE INCORRECT.
[00:35:01]
152 SQUARE FOOT FOR THE NEW, THE NEW LOT.SO MAYBE GET IT CLARIFIED BEFORE WE CUZ WE ARE APPROVING THIS PLAN.
IF YOU'RE GONNA SPEAK, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO EITHER REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING OR WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO, UH, ALL DECIDE THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING HAS ALREADY BEEN CLOSED.
SO, UM, IF, IF, UH, EVERYONE WANTS TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING SO WE CAN HEAR AGAIN FROM THE APPLICANT, I'M FINE WITH THAT.
ANYONE WANNA REOPEN IT? I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I THINK WE JUST NEED TO CLARIFY MAKING SURE THAT THE MAPS ARE ACCURATE TO THE REPORT THAT WE HAVE OR GOING TO APPROVE.
SO THE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP WOULD BE THE ONE THAT DOES GET RECORDED.
SO, UM, TO, TO CLARIFY THE, THE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL IS, IS FOR THE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, THE, THE, THE MAP WILL, WILL BE SUBMITTED FOR PLAN CHECK TO OUR CITY'S ENGINEERS ENGINEERING OFFICE, WHICH WILL WILL, WHICH WILL REVIEW THE MAP.
UM, PRIOR, PRIOR TO GETTING FI PRIOR TO THE FINAL MAP, GETTING RECORDED IN BOTH, UM, BOTH NUMBERS DO COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S MINIMUM STANDARDS.
I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION FOR STAFF.
HOW MANY TIMES HAVE WE, UM, I, I DON'T, I WANNA SAY DIVIDE IN TWO, BUT, UM, HOW MANY TIMES HAVE WE SUBDIVIDED, UM, RA, UM, PROPERTIES IN THE CITY IN RECENT HISTORY? THE MOST RECENT ONE, VERY SIMILAR TO THIS ONE IN SIZE, UM, WAS DONE IN 2021.
AND, AND, AND WHERE WAS THAT AT? THAT WAS ON SPRING MEOW DRIVE.
AND I THINK WE SUBDIVIDE THAT ONE AMONGST MORE PARCELS, CORRECT? NO, JUST TWO.
IT WAS TWO, IT'S ALMOST A REPLICA OF THIS ONE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? IF NOT, WE DO HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND SEEING NO FURTHER COMMENTS.
I'M JUST GONNA CLARIFY, UM, UH, BY COMMISSIONER GUTIERREZ AND SECOND, AND BY COMMISSIONER BEARA COMMISSIONER CHAIR, CHAIR, CHAIR GUTTIER IS COMMISSIONER BESERA, UM, FOR, TO DO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION AND AT A CONDITION, UM, TO REQUIRE CYPRESS TREES BE PLANTED ALONG THE WEST AND REAR, UH, PROPERTY LINES.
UM, AND THEN TO, UH, AT THE CITY'S DISCRETION HAVE PLANT TREES ALONG THE FRONTAGE.
AND, AND JUST TO CONFIRM THE SECOND DID AGREE WITH THAT AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS. I COMMISSIONER SARAH.
UH, COMMISSIONER OR CHAIR LEWIS.
NO, UH, MOTION PASSES, MOTION PASSES.
AND THEN, UM, UM, PLANNING MANAGER,
[3. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 22-03]
JOANNE BURNS WILL PRESENT THE REPORT.HONORABLE CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THE ITEM YOU BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS A CODE AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE FOR THE MIXED USE OVERLAY ZONE.
UM, A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND.
WELL, FIRST OFF TO START WITH, UM, THIS, THIS, THE CURRENT, UM, THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN WAS ADOPTED IN DECEMBER, 2016.
THE GEN THE GENERAL PLAN ALLOWS FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN COMMERCIAL ZONES, BUT THE CITY CURRENTLY DOES NOT HAVE STANDARDS IN ZON IN THE ZONING CODE TO ALLOW SUCH DEVELOPMENT.
THE CODE AMENDMENT WOULD MAKE THE CODE CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN IN, IN ITS ALLOWANCE FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND COMMERCIAL ZONES.
[00:40:02]
IN THE, UH, INITIALLY THIS CODE AMENDMENT WAS INTENDED TO BE A PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE.HOWEVER, LATER ON IN THE PROCESS, UM, IN, IN THE PREPARATION OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, UM, STAFF DECIDED THAT, UM, THAT IT IT'S BEST IF THE CITY ADOPTS, UH, MIX MIX USE THE OVERLAY ZONE AHEAD OF TIME, IN ORDER TO SHOW THE STATE THAT THE CITY IS PROVIDING IT'S IS, IS WELL INTENDED IN PROVIDING THE HOUSING NEEDED TO SATISFY THE CITY'S ARENA NUMBERS.
CURRENTLY THE REGIONAL HOUSING ASSESSMENT NEEDS ASSESSMENT NUMBER ASSIGNED TO WEST COVINA IS 5,334 TOTAL HOUSING UNITS.
THAT THAT INCLUDES IN THAT INCLUDES, UM, ALL INCOME CATEGORIES.
THIS THE CITY, THE CITY CONDUCTED FIVE OUT OUTREACH MEETINGS RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE THAT WAS HELD BETWEEN JANUARY AND FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, THE CITY ALSO HELD A DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS, WHICH ARE, UM, CONSULTATION MEETINGS BETWEEN THAT INCLUDE TWO PLANNING COMMISSIONERS AND TWO MEMBERS OF THE, THE CITY COUNCIL, UH, IN JUNE, IN MAY IN MAY 2ND, 2022, WE PRESENTED THE DRAFT TO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE, UPDATE SUBCOMMITTEE AND INCORPORATED THEIR INPUT WITH THE ORDINANCE AS WRITTEN AND AS PRESENTED AS BEING PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
I'LL GO AHEAD AND GO OVER THE CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE.
UM, AND ALSO PRIOR TO GOING OVER THIS CHANGE, I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT THERE IS, THERE IS ANOTHER, THERE IS ONE OTHER PROPOSED CHANGE IN THE NON RESIDENTIAL CODE SECTION, WHICH MERELY, UM, CROSS REFERENCES THIS SECTION FOR MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
SO THE CHANGES FOR DIVISION FIVE, WHICH IS THE, THE OVERLAY ZONE.
UM, THIS, THE FIRST SECTION DESCRIBES THE USES THAT ARE ALLOWED, WHICH IS MIXED USE, UM, STANDALONE RESIDENTIAL, AND ALSO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT WOULD STILL BE ALLOWED, UM, SUBJECT TO THE STANDARDS OF THE, THE NON RESIDENTIAL CODE SECTION IN THE CURRENT CODE, THE PROCESS, THE PRO, UM, AS FAR AS THE PROCESS IS CONCERNED, IT WOULD BE THROUGH A, THROUGH A PRECISE PLAN.
THE PRECISE PLAN PROCESS WOULD NOW BE SEPARATE INTO TWO DIFFERENT TYPES.
ONE WOULD BE THE, THE PRECISE, THE MAJOR PRECISE PLAN DEVELOPMENT THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS FAMILIAR WITH AND HAS REVIEWED, UM, DURING THE PU DURING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS.
AND THE OTHER ONE IS THE, THE NEW ONE WOULD BE THE MINOR PRECISE PLAN APPLICATION, WHICH IS, UH, WHICH HAS A COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AS APPROVAL AUTHORITY.
THE COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR WOULD REVIEW OR DESIGNATE STAFF MEMBER TO REVIEW THE PLANS IN ACCORDANCE TO THIS, UM, PARTICULAR CODE SECTION.
AND ALSO THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS.
THE PROJECTS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO THE, TO THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS IN STREAMLINING ARE THE SB 35 PROJECTS AND ALSO PROJECTS INVOLVING AT LEAST 25% LOW INCOME HOUSING.
AND, UH, AND THESE PARTICULAR REQUIREMENTS ARE, ARE BASED ON STATE LAW.
AS FAR AS DENSITY IS CONCERNED, THE DENSITY IT, THE REQUIRED DENSITY OR MINIMUM DENSITY IS, OR MAXIMUM DENSITY IS RE CROSS REFERENCES.
WHAT'S ALLOWED IN THE GENERAL PLAN.
UM, IN THE FUTURE, THE CITY HAS THE CITY HAS PLANS TO INCREASE THE DENSITY OF THE EASTLAND CENTER IN ORDER TO COMPLY AND MEET THE ARENA NUMBERS.
SO AT, AND THAT WOULD BE DONE AT A, THAT MAYBE DONE AT A LATER TIME.
AND SO WITH THIS, WE'RE, WE'RE CROSS REFERENCING THE GENERAL PLAN RATHER THAN SPECIFYING A DENSITY SO THAT, SO THAT IT WOULD ALWAYS REMAIN CONSISTENT
[00:45:01]
WITH WHAT THE GENERAL PLAN ALLOWS.THE MINIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO WOULD BE 15%.
UM, FOR COMMERCIAL, THERE WAS A CONCERN WITH THE DESIGN, THE SUBCOMMITTEE THAT ALLOWING FOR PURELY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMERCIAL AREAS WOULD MEAN THAT THE CITY WOULD LOSE ITS COMMERCIAL BASE.
SO IN ORDER TO PREVENT THE CITY FROM LOSING ITS COMMERCIAL BASE, WE ARE INCORPORATING STANDARD, A STANDARD TO REQUIRE A MINIMUM OF 15% FLOOR AREA RATIO FOR COMMERCIAL.
AND LATER ON, I'LL GO AHEAD AND GO OVER.
SETBACKS FRONT REAR AND SIDE SETBACK STREET SIDE SETBACK WOULD BE 15 FEET.
THE INTERIOR SIDE WOULD BE 10 FEET.
AND, UH, ANY, UM, AS FAR AS DEVELOPMENT OF BUDDING RESIDENTIAL FOR SINGLE STORY DEVELOPMENT, THE REQUIRED SETBACK WOULD BE 15 FEET.
IF IT'S A BUDDING RESIDENTIAL FOR TWO, TWO STORY DEVELOPMENT IS 25 FEET.
AND FOR FOUR AND FOUR, THREE STORY DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE 40 FEET.
AS FAR AS THE BUILDING HEIGHT IS CONCERNED, THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT, IT WOULD BE 45 FEET TALL WITHIN 100 FEET FROM RESIDENTIAL, AND THERE WOULD BE NO LIMIT FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT BEYOND THE 100 FEET FROM RE FROM THE RESIDENTIAL ZONES.
AS FAR AS RECREATIONAL SPACES CONCERNED, THE MAXIM OR THE MINIMUM MINIMUM PRIVATE AND COMMON OPEN SPACE AREA WOULD BE 200 SQUARE FEET LANDSCAPING, ALL OPEN AREAS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE LANDSCAPING, EXCLUDING, UM, THE OBVIOUS AREAS WHICH ARE AREAS FOR, IN AN VEHICLE INGRESS EGRESS WALKWAYS IN PARK, THE PARKING LOT.
AND AS FAR AS THE PARKING LOT IS CONCERNED, THE PARK, THE PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS IN THIS, THE EXISTING CODE, WHICH FOR, FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS 10 TREES, I'M SORRY, ONE TREE FOR EVERY 10 SPACES AND TWO TREES OR, OR ONE TREE FOR EVERY, FOR EVERY, UM, 20 SPACES FOR DOUBLE, DOUBLE PARKING AREAS.
UM, AS FAR AS MINIMUM FLOOR AREA, THE MINIMUM FLOOR AREA IS CONCERNED.
THIS IS AN EXAMPLE, UM, THIS IS FOR THE PACIFIC, THE ISLAND PACIFIC SHOPPING CENTER, OR, UM, WHAT'S, WHICH IS WHAT'S COMMON, WHAT IT'S COMMONLY REFERRED TO, BUT I BELIEVE THE NAME THAT THE ACTUAL NAME IS THE WOODSIDE VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER.
SO THE, THE LAW THAT THE SHOPPING CENTER ENCOMPASSES IS 14.1 ACRES.
AND THE CURRENT FLOOR AIR RATIO FOR, FOR THIS PARTICULAR SHOPPING CENTER IS 26%.
AND WHAT 15% WOULD THE MINIMUM 15% WOULD LOOK LIKE IS IF ALL THE OTHER BUILDINGS ARE ELIMINATED.
AND ONLY THE AREAS THAT ARE HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE ARE, ARE KEPT.
SO THAT WOULD BE WHAT MINIMUM 15% COMMERCIAL WOULD, WOULD LOOK LIKE IN, IN THIS PARTICULAR SHOPPING CENTER.
THE CITY HAS BEEN WORKING WITH, WITH K T G YN RING CON IN DEVELOPING THE, IN DEVELOPING THE, THE MIXED USE OVERLAY ZONE STANDARDS, AND ALSO THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS.
I HAVE JOHN MORELIN HERE WORKING FOR, WITH THE RANK CON, UM, CONTRACTED BY KT G Y UH, TO PRESENT AND GO OVER THE DESIGN, THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS.
DID, DID YOU SAY, AND, OR MAYBE HE'S GONNA GET TO THIS, BUT WHY YOU GUYS CAME UP WITH THE, THE 15% NUMBER DO YOU WANT, DO YOU WANNA GO FOR IT? UM, JOHN WILL GO FOR IT.
MY NAME IS JOHN MORELAND WITH, UH, RING CON.
UM, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION CHAIR LEWIS.
UM, WHAT WE, WHAT WE DID IS WE LOOKED AT, UM, EVERY, UH, MAJOR SHOPPING CENTER, UM, THAT, UH, LOOKED LIKE I HAD A, UM, SMALL PERCENTAGE OF BUILDINGS, UM, ESSENTIALLY THE, UM, UH, RESTAURANT RESTAURANT RO ROW,
[00:50:01]
JUST NORTH OF THE 10 FREEWAY, UH, EASTLAND CENTER, UM, A COUPLE OF SHOPPING CENTERS ALONG AZUA AND WE FOUND, UM, THAT ROUGHLY, UM, ALL OF THE SHOPPING CENTERS HAVE, UH, A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN, UH, 15% OF 15% MINIMUM, THE INTENT, AND THE REASON WHY WE WANTED TO DO THAT IS ONE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE MIXED USE OVERLAY IS MIXED USE AND NOT JUST 100% AND, AND NOT JUST GONNA BE, UM, 1%, UH, RESIDENTIAL AND IN REALLY TRYING TO COME UP WITH A NUMBER THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD WORK AND HAVING OUR EXPERIENCE, UM, WITH DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS IS GENERALLY, UM, COMMERCIAL DEVELOPERS DON'T KNOW HOW TO, UH, OP UH, GENERALLY DEVELOP RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.SO THEY WOULD ESSENTIALLY SUBDIVIDE A PORTION OF THAT OUT.
AND SO LOOKING AT THAT, WE CAME UP WITH A NUMBER OF, UM, 15%, THAT WOULD BE A, UM, VIABLE MEDIUM TO, UH, TO MEET THE RAINING REQUIREMENTS IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT, AS WELL AS, UM, MAINTAIN COMMERCIAL VIABILITY.
THE HEIGHTS CURRENTLY HAS, UM, 19% FLOOR AREA RATIO.
SO WITH THAT, UM, WITH THE SAME CONCEPT, THE, THE, UM, WHAT 15% WOULD LOOK LIKE IN THIS SENSE IS IF, IS IF ALL THE AREAS THAT ARE HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE ARE RETAINED IN THIS PARTICULAR BUILDING IS ELIMINATED, AND WHAT'S THE NEED TO MAKE THESE CHANGES COMPARED TO IF THE, IF ONE OF THESE PROPERTY OWNERS WANTED TO DO THAT ALREADY, THEY COULD JUST ASK FOR, UH, WHAT WAS IT CALLED A, UM, A BA BRAIN THEN
AND SO WHAT'S THE NEED TO DO THAT.
NOW, THIS NOW IT'S IN, OH, THE CURRENT, WELL, THE CURRENT GENERAL PLAN ALLOWS FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN, UM, IN COMMERCIAL ZONES.
THE CITY, THE CITY ZONING CODE DOES NOT, IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN.
IT, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HAVE STANDARDS TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN COMMERCIAL ZONES.
AND COMING UP WITH THE 15% THAT YOU LOOK AT SALES TAX THAT ARE GENERATED FROM THESE PROPERTIES, SHOULD THEY DETERMINE THAT NUMBER? OR WAS IT A JUST, UH, LOOK AT OTHER CITIES PERCENTAGES? THIS IS ACTUALLY A, UM, A UNIQUE REQUIREMENT, UM, THAT WOULD BE INCLUDED IN HERE.
UM, BUT WHAT WE LOOKED AT IT, WE LOOKED AT IT FROM A PHYSICAL, UH, PHYSICAL DESIGN, UM, PERSPECTIVE, UM, GENERALLY COMMERCIAL, UM, COMMERCIAL, UM, UM, WHAT IS THAT COMMERCIAL, UH, SQUARE FOOTAGE WOULD GENERALLY BE ON THE GROUND FLOOR.
UM, SO, UH, THERE COULD BE MULTIPLE WAYS OF, UM, INTEGRATING THAT IT COULD BE POTENTIALLY REMOVING, UM, ADDITIONAL BUILDINGS, BUT THEN INCORPORATING, UM, ESSENTIALLY VERTICAL MIXED USE WHERE NEW RETAIL WILL BE LOCATED ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND THEN RESIDENTIAL ABOVE, AND THEN AS WELL, UM, OR, UM, ESSENTIALLY IZING OUT AS A JOANNE SHOWED.
THE OTHER THING I'D LIKE TO ADD, UM, IS THAT THIS IS AS A RESULT OF STATE MANDATES THAT ARE NOW REQUIRING CITIES TO BE ABLE TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL AREAS.
UM, SO THESE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS ARE GOING TO ALLOW THE CITY TO HAVE STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THOSE COMMERCIAL AREAS.
UM, IT'S ALSO THE 15% IS ALSO GOING TO ALLOW US TO RETAIN, UH, SOME COMMERCIAL WITHIN THOSE PROPERTIES AS WELL.
SO THEY, AS JOHN MENTIONED, THEY DON'T BECOME A HUNDRED PERCENT RESIDENTIAL, SO IT'S TEMPTING TO KEEP SOME LOCAL CONTROL.
ALSO, I JUST, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT ALL PURE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IS STILL GOING TO BE ALLOWED IN COMMERCIAL ZONES.
UM, THE, THE MIX, THE MIXES OVERLAY IS IT, UM, BRINGS ANOTHER, JUST BRINGS ANOTHER DESIGN OPTION THAT'S AVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPERS.
UM, SO IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO HAVE, UM, A PROPERTY AND DEVELOP IT WITH ALL COMMERCIAL, WITH PURELY COMMERCIAL USE, THAT'S STILL GOING TO BE ALLOWED.
THERE WAS LIKE, UH, RIGHT NOW WE HAVE 15%, WHAT HAPPENS IF IT WAS 20%? IS THAT SOMETHING WE COULD DO? THE, THE HIGHER, THE HIGHER, THE MINIMUM REQUIRE REQUIREMENT IS THE LI THE LESS LIKELY THAT THE STATE WILL NOT APPROVE OR CERTIFY THE CITY'S HOUSING ELEMENT.
AND IF I MAY, UM, CLARIFY ONTO THAT AS WELL, AND ON, ON OUR RESEARCH, THE LOWEST, UM, EXISTING F AR, UM, IS, UH, ESSENTIALLY 0.17 FOR THE SHOPPING CENTERS THAT WE ANALYZE.
SO IF WE INCREASE THE MINIMUM EXISTING SHOPPING CENTERS, WOULDN'T,
[00:55:01]
WOULDN'T MEET THAT REQUIREMENT ALSO REGARDING THESE CHANGES THAT WE'RE GONNA MAKE AND THE REAM NUMBER, UM, WHAT NUMBER DO WE CURRENTLY HAVE WITHIN THE CITY? THE HOUSING ELEMENT NUMBER, THE 5,334.DO WE HAVE THAT NUMBER ALREADY IN THE CITY OF WEST COVINA? WE THOUGHT WE DID.
UM, BUT WHEN WE SUBMITTED, WHEN WE SUBMITTED THE, THE, UM, HOW THE HOUSING, THE INITIAL, THE FIRST DRAFT OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT, UM, TO THE STATE, BUT THE STATE CAME BACK WITH A BUNCH OF COMMENTS, UM, BASICALLY ASKING US TO PROVE THAT THAT WHAT WE, WHAT WE HAVE IN THE SITE INVENTORY IS FEASIBLE.
SO IN ORDER TO MAKE IT FEASIBLE, WE WOULD HAVE TO ADOPT THIS MIXED USE OVERLAY ZONE.
DID WE, DID WE DISCUSS THIS IN THE COMMITTEE? YES, YES, WE DID.
OH, WAS THE REMIND ME OF THE COMMITTEE'S DECISION? I THINK, UM, THE COMMITTEE ASKED IF DURING THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL PRESENTATION, IF I CAN, IF I WOULD PREPARE, UM, A VISUAL SO THAT USING THE PACIFIC ISLAND SHOPPING CENTER, UM, SO THAT YOU CAN VISUALLY SEE WHAT THE 15% FLOOR AREA RATIO WOULD LOOK LIKE.
WAS THAT TO COME TO THE FOOD COMMISSION ALREADY? OR WAS THERE STILL GONNA BE REVIEW BY THE COMMITTEE? UM, WELL, THIS, THIS IS THIS WELL, THE, THE MIXES OVERLAY ZONE IS BEING PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING, COMMISS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION AT A LATER TIME.
SO IF THE, IF THE, IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THIS, OR, UM, AS IS, OR WITH ADDITIONAL, UM, REVISIONS, THEN WE WOULD PRESENT THAT TO THE CITY COUNCIL NEXT MONTH.
SO R REAL QUICK, BEFORE WE GET INTO ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, UM, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS ARE COMPLETED REPORT AS OF YET.
UM, I'LL BE, UH, TALKING ABOUT THE, UM, UH, THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS.
UM, THE OBJECTIVE, UM, DESIGN STANDARDS WOULD, UM, ESSENTIALLY, UH, UH, PROVIDE, UH, DESIGN AND ARTICULATION, UM, REQUIREMENTS FOR, UM, UH, MULTIFAMILY FOR MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS.
UM, THIS, UH, THE WAY THAT WE'RE SETTING UP THIS DOCUMENT THOUGH, IS IT WOULDN'T JUST BE APPLICABLE TO THE, UM, UH, TO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOP MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE MIXED USE OVERLAY ZONE.
IT WOULD ALSO BE APPLICABLE TO, UH, MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE MULTI-FAMILY ZONE.
UM, HOWEVER, UH, THIS OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARD DOCUMENT WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THE, UM, THE DOWNTOWN, THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC B AREAS.
THERE'S ALREADY, UM, DESIGN CRITERIA WITHIN THAT, WITHIN THAT DOCUMENT, THE OBJECTIVE, UM, DESIGN STANDARDS IS, UH, PREDOMINANTLY, UH, BROKE IT'S IN, IN DIVIDED INTO TWO CHAPTERS.
THE FIRST CHAPTER JUST TALKS ABOUT THE ANTICIPATED, UM, UH, BUILDING TYPES WITH THE, UM, WITH, WITH THE, UH, DENSITIES THAT ARE ANTICIPATED AS PART OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT.
AND THE SECOND PART IS, UH, CONTAINS THE, UH, UH, THE CRITERIA AND THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR ARCHITECTURAL DEVELOPMENT.
AND THEY'RE BROKEN UP INTO SEVEN CATEGORIES, UM, NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY.
SO THAT DISCUSSES ABOUT THE CONTEXTUAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH ITS NEIGHBORS AND, AND HOW THE ARCHITECTURE INTERACTS WITH THE STREETS, UM, MASSING IN ARTICULATION, UM, WHICH, UH, ENSURES THAT'S ESSENTIALLY THAT FUTURE MULTIFAMILY IS JUST ESSENTIALLY NOT A BOX THAT THERE'S ARTICULATION, UM, OR DETAILS ADDED ONTO THE, UM, ONTO THE MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING, UM, ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS.
THIS WILL GET INTO DETAILS AS SUCH AS, UM, AS WINDOWS, UM, AND, UH, OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE BUILDING, UM, BUILDING ORIENTATION, ACCESS AND SITE CIRCULATION, UM, BOTH PEDESTRIAN VEHICLE VEHICULAR, UM, UTILITIES AND SERVICE AREAS.
SO WE WANT TO BE SURE NOT TO FORGET KIND THE BACK OF HOUSE ITEMS THAT WERE NECESSARY TO KIND OF RUN THE, UM, RESIDENTIAL, UH, DEVELOPMENT AND ALSO, UM, LANDSCAPING, WALLS AND LIGHTING, UM, AND JUST KIND OF HIGHLIGHT JUST A COUPLE OF, UM, OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS.
UM, ONE IS, UH, THE APPROACH THAT WE TOOK ON, ON THIS TOO, IS, UH, THEY'RE DEPENDING ON THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE, THAT'S, THAT'S CHOSEN BY A FUTURE, UM, DEVELOPER OR ARCHITECT.
UM, THERE COULD BE A VARIETY OF WAYS TO ESSENTIALLY MEET, UM, MEET
[01:00:01]
THE GUIDELINES.SO THE WAY THAT WE SET UP A LOT OF THESE OBJECTIVE DESIGN CENTERS, ESSENTIALLY A, A MENU APPROACH, UM, TO, UH, WHEN, WHAT THAT DOES ALLOWS, UM, IT ALLOWS, UH, FLEXIBILITY WHILE STILL, UM, ENSURING, UM, MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS ARE, UH, ARE IMPLEMENTED.
UM, SO MASSING BREAKS, UH, TO OF EIGHT TECHNIQUES, UM, OF ELEVATIONS FACING A STREET.
SO INCORPORATING OF, UH, PORCHES, UM, MASSING BREAK, VARYING SETBACKS ARE SOME OF THOSE OPTIONS AND LARGER BUILDINGS WOULD REQUIRE ESSENTIALLY THREE OF THE, UM, THE EIGHT TECHNIQUES, UM, ROOF VARIATION.
UM, SO IF IT WAS A FLAT ROOF DESIGN, THERE'S, UM, A VARIATION FOR A VARIED FLAT ROOF, AS WELL AS, UM, CROSS GABLES, UM, FOR, FOR THAT.
AND THEN ALSO FOR, UM, ARTICULATION, UH, THERE IS A REQUIREMENT THAT ESSENTIALLY, UH, NO BLANK WALLS, UM, IN EXCESS OF 15 FEET BY 20 FEET, UM, OR ARE PERMITTED, UH, WHEN VISIBLE TO A, UH, NOT JUST A STREET, BUT ALSO A, UM, A PEDESTRIAN SPACE.
SO SUCH AS SOMETHING SUCH AS LIKE A OPEN SPACE OR A PASS, UM, ENTRIES ARE ENTRIES, UH, THEY ALLOW FLEXIBILITY FOR DEPENDING ON THE DESIGN, WHETHER IT'S AN OVERHANG, A PORCH OR TRELLIS, OR IF IT'S A RECESS.
UH, THE, UM, OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF THREE FEET.
UM, PORCHES ARE A MINIMUM OF FIVE FEET BALCONIES.
WE'LL HAVE A MINIMUM DIMENSION OF FOUR FEET.
UM, PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS THROUGHOUT, UH, THROUGHOUT THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, WE'LL HAVE A MINIMUM OF FOUR FEET AND, UM, STREET FACING ELEVATIONS, UM, IN ORDER TO ENSURE, UM, UH, VARIABILITY IN TERMS OF THE, UH, MATERIALS ON THERE WOULD REQUIRE A MINIMUM OF, UH, TWO MATERIALS, UM, IN ADDITION TO WINDOWS AND, UH, ANY TYPE OF BALCONY RAILINGS, BUT WE DON'T WANT TO OVERCOMPLICATE THE STREET SCENE.
SO ALSO, UM, ESSENTIALLY PROHIBITING ANYTHING MORE THAN FOUR MATERIALS ON THE SAME, UH, ELEVATION.
AND THEN JUST LASTLY, JUST GOING THROUGH, UM, WE INCLUDED A COLOR, UM, COLOR REQUIREMENTS DON'T WANT, WE, UH, DON'T WANT ANYTHING, UM, BRIGHT PRIMARY COLORS IS THE MAIN BODY, UM, COLOR, UH, DEFINITELY WANT, UM, EARTH TONES, WHITES, OR GRAYS, UH, AND THEN ALSO, UM, INCLUDED A, UH, ESSENTIALLY AN ORIENTATION REQUIREMENT, UM, FOR IF THERE ARE ANY, UM, MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS ALONG THE 10 FREEWAY THAT THE COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL USES ARE ORIENTED TOWARDS THE, UH, 10 FREEWAY IN THAT THE RESIDENTIAL WOULD BE LOCATED, UM, FURTHER AWAY FROM THE 10 FREEWAY.
I'LL HAND IT BACK TO JOANNE TO CONTINUE ON WITH THE, UM, OBJECTIVE, OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS.
I JUST WANTED, BEFORE I CONCLUDE MY PRESENTATION, I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT ADOPTING THE, THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS IS, IS VER IS, IS VERY IMPORTANT BECAUSE, UM, WE DO HAVE, UM, STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS, PARTICULARLY PARTICULARLY S SB 35, WHICH REQUIRES THAT THE CITY, UM, STREAMLINE MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS THAT PROVIDE, UM, FOR, FOR THIS CITY, UM, AT LEAST 50% IN THE LOW, LOW, AND VERY LOW INCOME CATEGORY.
SO WITHOUT THIS OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS, IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO SUBMIT AN SB 35 PROJECT, THE CITY WOULD HAVE TO APPROVE THE PROJECT AS LONG AS IT COMPLIES WITH THE CURRENT, UM, MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING STANDARDS, REGARDLESS OF DESIGN.
SO IT CAN LOOK LIKE ANY, ANYTHING, IF IT, IF IT, UM, IF IT COMPLIES WITH THE MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS, THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO APPROVE IT.
AND IT DOES, IT WOULD NOT HAVE TO GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR REVIEW.
SO ADOPTING, THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT.
WE ARE IN THE STATE'S LIST, UM, FOR NOT BEING ABLE TO PROVIDE, UM, OR MEET ARENA NUMBERS FOR THE LOW, LOW INCOME AND VERY LOW INCOME CATEGORY FOR THE LAST CYCLE.
AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, THERE IS ALSO A SEPARATE STATE LAW THAT REQUIRES, UM, STREAMLINING AS WELL.
IF YOU HAVE, IF, IF SOMEBODY'S PROPOSING AT LEAST 25% IN THE LOW AND VERY LOW INCOME CATEGORY AS WELL, UM, WITH THIS STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPT RESOLUTIONS RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE CODE AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE, AND ALSO THE MULTIFAMILY OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS.
IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS ANY QUESTIONS I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER, DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS JUNCTURE? I, I, I DO HAVE
[01:05:01]
A QUESTION.LET'S GO BACK TO THE FACT REGARDING THE REM NUMBER THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THE 5,334 UNITS, I THOUGHT A COUPLE YEARS BACK REGARDING REDESIGN OF THE DOWNTOWN AREA.
WE HAVE ALL THAT NUMBER ALREADY.
SO NOW THAT WITH THIS MIXED USE, HOW, I GUESS HOW MANY MORE UNITS HOUSING UNITS ARE WE ADDING ON? IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A WHOLE LIST OF AREA.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE LIST SOMEWHERE IN THIS PILE, MM-HMM,
SO THE, DO WE EVEN KNOW, OR THIS, WELL, THE CITY'S
CURRENTLY, UM, UH, WE, WE THOUGHT WE HAD ENOUGH HOUSING, UM, IN INNER SITE INVENTORY TO ACCOMMODATE THAT, BUT THE STATE CAME BACK SAYING THAT WE DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH AND THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO, WE WOULD HAVE TO SHOW THAT WE ARE MAKING PROGRESS TO, TO BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE THOSE HOUSING, THE HOUSING UNITS THAT WE ARE CLAIMING THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE.
SO, SO BASICALLY IN, IN THE LAST SIDE, IN, IN THE LAST SIDE INVENTORY THAT WE PROVIDE, THAT, THAT WE PROVIDED, UM, WE'VE IDENTIFIED THESE SAME SITES IN THE, AND BASICALLY THE STATE, THE STATE REJECTED THEM, THAT THEY ACTUALLY STATED HOW MANY MORE THAT WE NEEDED.
NO, THEY JUST, THEY JUST, THEY JUST BA BASICALLY SAID THAT, UM, US BASED ON WHAT, THE INFORMATION THAT WE PROVIDED, WE DON'T, WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH UNITS TO SATISFY THE ARENA NUMBERS.
AND IT DIDN'T SAY THEY DENY THEY NEEDED US TO, THEY NEEDED US TO PROVIDE, UM, MORE DOCUMENTATION AND JUSTIFICATION TO, IN ORDER TO, UM, INCLUDE, UM, THE, THE SITES IN THE SITE INVENTORY.
WE WEREN'T ABLE TO MEET THE, THE REQUIRED 5,300 AND PLUS UNITS.
I GUESS I'M ASKING YOU, THESE QUESTIONS WAS A COUPLE YEARS BACK.
WE WERE, I WAS ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS SITTING HERE AND WE TALKED ABOUT THE 5,334, AND THAT WE SATISFIED IT AT THE TIME WE REGARDING THE DOWNTOWN AREA.
AND I GUESS RIGHT NOW WE'RE OPENING UP MIXED USES THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE ENTIRE CITY.
SO I GUESS BY OPENING UP THAT NUMBER, HOW MANY ARE WE ADDING IN TERMS OF UNITS? SO WE'RE POTENTIALLY POTENTIALLY HELPING ELEMENT, WHICH IS A NEW CYCLE.
SO THIS NEW CYCLE IS FROM, I BELIEVE 20 2021 TO 2029.
AND WITHIN THAT TIME FRAME, WE HAVE TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 500 3346 UNITS WITHIN OUR CITY.
UM, SO WHEN WE SUBMITTED, WE THOUGHT THAT WE HAD THAT NUMBER COVERED WITHIN OUR EXISTING, UH, PLANS.
UM, THE STATE SAID, NO, YOU DON'T, YOU HAVE TO GO BACK.
AND AS, UM, JOAN MENTIONED, PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION THAT WE DO PROVIDE THE, THAT NUMBER.
UM, SO RIGHT NOW WITH THE DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE, UM, AND THE REQUIREMENT BY THE STATE THAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO ALLOW A RESIDENTIAL IN COMMERCIAL AREAS, WE, UM, ARE TRYING TO MEET THAT, UH, MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE ABLE TO MEET THAT ARENA NUMBER, UM, AND ALSO ALLOW FOR US TO HAVE DESIGN STANDARDS IN COMMERCIAL AREAS FOR RESIDENTIAL THAT WE CURRENTLY DON'T HAVE.
SO DO WE SEE THESE, THESE, THESE OWNERS OF THESE, THESE CENTERS? ARE THEY GONNA WANNA DO THESE DEVELOPMENTS OR ARE WE GOING TO GIVE THEM INCENTIVES OR ARE WE GONNA REQUIRE THEM TO, HOW DOES THAT WORK? YES, THE, THE, THE HOUSING ELEMENT TEST IT, WE HAVE TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT.
WE DON'T NECESSARILY, THE CITY'S NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR BUILDING IT OR, UM, MANDATING, I DON'T THINK WE CAN MANDATE THAT THEY BUILD IT, BUT ALLOWING FOR THAT DEVELOPMENT TO OCCUR.
UM, THAT'S PART OF THE, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE, UM, STATE IS LOOKING AT THIS YEAR, IT'S BEING A LITTLE BIT SCRUTINIZING A LITTLE BIT MORE, THE PROPERTIES THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED.
UM, LET'S SAY FOR EXAMPLE, IF WE ADDED FLOOR DECOR PROPERTY, RIGHT, THEY JUST OPENED UP THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THEY'D CLOSE AND WE'D BE ABLE TO BUILD, UH, 400 RESIDENTIAL
[01:10:01]
UNITS IS UNLIKELY.AND SO THEY ARE SCRUTINIZING THE SITES THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED, AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE, WE'VE RECEIVED THE COMMENTS AND WE'RE TRYING TO, UH, REVISE IT SO THAT WE CAN MEET THAT NUMBER AND GET OUR HOUSING ELEMENT APPROVED.
I THINK WE SHOULD LOOK MORE INTO THE PER, UH, HOW WE COME UP WITH 15%, IF IT'S A LOWER PERCENTAGE OR A HIGHER PERCENTAGE, I THINK WE NEED TO DO RESEARCH ON OUR OWN, UH, HOW MUCH OF REVENUE IS BEING GENERATED FROM THESE BUSINESSES AND SEEING HOW THESE PERCENTAGES BENEFIT THE CITY OF WEST COMPARED TO AUTOMATICALLY LOOKING AT OTHER CITY'S STANDARDS AND SEEING HOW A PLAN THAT REPRESENTS THE COMMUNITY, AND ALSO STATE LAW CAN BE PUT INTO EFFECT.
THERE, THERE IS A BALANCE BETWEEN OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, HAVING MY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT HAT.
I WANT ALL THE SALES CHECKS THAT WE CAN HAVE IN OUR COMMUNITY.
UM, BUT WE DO HAVE TO BALANCE THAT WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF GETTING APPROVAL FROM THE STATE ON OUR HOUSING ELEMENT.
UM, SO IF IT'S 15, WHAT HAPPENS IF IT'S 16%? I THINK WHAT IS THE HIGHEST THAT YOU, THE PROBLEM IS WE, WE, HAVEN'T DONE RESEARCH IN OUR OWN CITY TO DETERMINE SO THAT I GUESS THE HIGH AND HAVE, DO THEY HAVE AN APPROVED HOUSING ELEMENT JURISDICTION, SORRY.
UM, IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS, UM, IN MY EXPERIENCE, I'M, I'M ACTUALLY NOT AWARE OF A MINIMUM, UM, AR COMMERCIAL UMR, THERE'S BEEN DIFFERENT.
UM, THERE'S BEEN DIFFERENT WAYS THAT DIFFERENT CITIES HAVE, UM, BEEN ABLE TO ADDRESS THE, UM, THE ARENA NUMBERS.
UM, BUT WEST COVINA WOULD BE KIND OF UNIQUE IN THAT MINIMUM, UM, MINIMUM REQUIREMENT, AS WELL AS ESSENTIALLY A MAXIMUM AR WHAT IS, HOW MANY, HOW MANY ARE WE SHORT? I DON'T THINK WE HAVE REQUIREMENT.
I MEAN, EVEN WHAT THE, THIS DEVELOPMENT ARE, WE EVEN GONNA BE ABLE TO MEET WHAT THEY'RE ASKING THE THAT'S OUR HOPE THAT WE'RE
YOU GO OVER A PROPOSAL'S IDEA BEFORE THIS COMMISSION MAKES A DECISION, OR THE CITY COUNCIL MAKES A DECISION.
ISN'T IMPOSSIBLE FOR CITY STAFF TO ACTUALLY MEET WITH THAT DEPARTMENT AND BRAINSTORM OF IDEAS THAT THE CITY STAFF CAN BRING BACK TO THE COMMISSION.
BRIAN, YOU MIGHT REMEMBER THAT THEY INITIALLY SUBMITTED OUR LATEST HOUSING ELEMENT TO THE STATE LAST DECEMBER.
MM-HMM
THE CITY COULD PROVIDE THE HOUSING.
SO WHAT JOANNE IS EXPLAINING THE SHEETS THAT THEY INCLUDED WITH THE PARCEL NUMBERS AND THE LOCATIONS AND ADDRESSES AND THE MAP THAT THEY HAVE NOW, THEY'RE PHYSICALLY SHOWING WHERE THEY, WHERE THE CITY WOULD BE ABLE TO ALLOW FOR MIX USE.
SOME OF THE, MANY OF THE PARCELS ARE ALREADY, AS SHE SAID, EITHER ZONED SERVICE, COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL.
THERE ARE A FEW THAT ARE, UM, OTHER TYPES OF COMMERCIALS SUCH AS OFFICE.
SO WHAT THEY WERE SAYING IS THERE IS A LIMIT WHEN IT IS A MIXED USE AS TO HOW MUCH COMMERCIAL CAN REMAIN IN ORDER TO ALLOW THE NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS.
SO WHEN I'M LOOKING AT A 360 OF INFORMATION, SO IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO KEEP SUBMITTING SOMETHING TO A STATE DEPARTMENT, IF IT'S GONNA BE REJECTED, BECAUSE WHO'S GETTING PAID AT END OF THE NIGHT, THE CONSULTANTS CAN CONTINUE TO GET PAID.
UH, SO IF THERE'S GONNA BE MISTAKES, I THINK THE CITY SHOULD WORK WITH THE STATE TO, TO SEE IF IT'S NEW PROPOSAL IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR THEM.
AND IF NOT, THEN IT CAN MAKE THOSE CHANGES INSTEAD OF PERTAIN TO.
SO I'M LOOKING AT THE 360, UH, FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE TAXPAYER.
I MEAN, I, I'M SEEING THAT IF WE CAN'T EVEN MEET IT, THEN WHAT ARE WE GOING? THEY'RE GONNA DO I MINUTE DOMAIN WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA PAY A CONSULTING.
WE'RE JUST GONNA KNOCK EVERYTHING DOWN.
YESTERDAY I HAD AN OPPORTUNITY FOR LOS ANGELES.
THEY HAD A PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S, UM, EVENT YESTERDAY, AND THERE WERE A NUMBER OF CITIES THAT WERE THERE, AND THEY ACTUALLY HAD REPRESENTATIVES FROM HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.
AND THEY WERE EXPLAINING TO THE CITIES THAT THE STATE DOES HAVE, UM, LEGAL AUTHORITY TO PUT PRESSURE.
THEY REALIZE THAT A LOT OF THE CITIES HAVE NOT MET THEIR PRIOR CYCLE, THE SIXTH CYCLE.
AND SO THE, WHAT THE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPRESENTATIVES ARE TRYING TO SAY IS THEY DID NOT ASSIGN THE INDIVIDUAL CITIES, THE NUMBERS THAT THEY HAD TO MEET THAT, UM, ACTUALLY, UM, THE STATE ITSELF, UM, HAS ANOTHER AGENCY THAT DID, AND FOR CALIFORNIA,
[01:15:01]
THE ENTIRE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IT WAS OVER A MILLION.AND SO THAT WAS THE FIRST THING THAT THEY HAD TO EXPLAIN TO THE CITIES THAT WERE THERE, THAT THEY WEREN'T THE ONES THAT DID THE RAIN, IT WAS DONE THROUGH OUR REGIONAL, UM, PLANNING, ORGANIZ NEED TO COME BACK AND WALK WEST COVENA BECAUSE EXACTLY WE'RE BUILT OUT.
WE'RE NOT CHINO, CHINO'S STILL ELY FOND THERE OF THERE, THERE WERE OTHER CITIES IN LOS ANGELES THAT WERE THERE THAT WERE SAYING THE SAME THING YOU HAD TO, YOU HAD GARDENA, A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT CITIES, STARTING PLANNING, MISSIONERS WERE THERE SUPERMARKETS, AND THEY WERE ASKING QUESTIONS.
SO WHAT, UM, THE PERSON FROM THE STATE WAS SAYING IS IF YOU COULD AT LEAST IDENTIFY WHERE YOU HAVE AREAS THAT WOULD LEND ITSELF TO ALLOW FOR HOUSING.
THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE ASKING TO DO AT THAT TIME.
AND THAT IF YOU DON'T, YES, THEY DO HAVE PENALTIES AND THEY HAVE ATTACHED IT NOW TO OUR TRANSPORTATION MONEY.
AND SO THEY WERE TRYING TO GET THE CITIES TO UNDERSTAND THEY, IF YOU CAN AT LEAST DO THAT FOR THIS LATEST CYCLE, THEN THAT IS WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR YOU TO DO.
AND THEY ALSO IS THE BARE MINIMUM THAT WE CAN AT LEAST RIGHT, THAT WE'RE TRYING TO COMPLY.
SO, AND IF SHE'S BRINGING UP A GOOD POINT, SO THE STATE MET WITH CITY OFFICIALS IN THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, BUT THEY, SO I THINK WHY HAVE WE, WE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY HERE IN WEST CONVENIENT.
NO, NO, NO, THIS, THIS WAS A THING PUT ON BY A PLANNING A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION.
AND THEY WERE ABLE TO GET REPRESENTATIVES FROM HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO COME IN.
AND THEY WENT OVER SOME OF THE BASIC, UM, HOUSING REGULATIONS AND THEY WERE THERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
SO MAYBE WE COULD REACH OUT TO THAT NONPROFIT, OR WE COULD REACH OUT TO OBVIOUSLY OUR STATE SENATOR OR OUR ASSEMBLY WOMAN.
AND I'M SURE THEY'LL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO COORDINATE, UH, A MEETING FOR CITY STAFF AND, AND MAYBE THE COMMISSION TO COME HERE AND PRESENT TO THE CITY, UH, ON, ON SOME OF THOSE IMPORTANT ISSUES.
SO WE COULD PLAN ACCORDINGLY AND THE BEST INTERESTS FOR THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA, BUT ALSO THE PEOPLE OF WEST.
UM, CAN I ADD SOMETHING REGARDING THESE, UM, ROOM NUMBERS IT'S BEEN ONGOING IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR YEARS? EVERY TIME YOU GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS, THEY'VE ALWAYS TRIED TO ADDRESS HOUSING NUMBER AND AT LEAST THE STATE IS TRYING TO ENCOURAGE HOW MANY WE CAN POTENTIALLY ADD TO THE CITY OF WEST COVINA.
NOW THERE ARE, THERE ARE QUITE A FEW PARTIES INVOLVED IN TERMS OF BUILDING ONE IS THE CITY HAVE TO ALLOW IT WITHOUT THE CITY ALLOWING, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW.
THERE ARE NO DEVELOPER CAN BUILD.
AND THEN THE OTHER PORTION IS THAT WE HAVE TO WORK WITH OWNERS WHO ACTUALLY OWN THESE LOTS OR LANDS THAT WE POTENTIALLY CAN BE BUILT ON.
THE OTHER PERSON THAT HAS TO BE INVOLVED WAS I BELIEVE IS A CONTRACTOR WHO I DON'T KNOW, REALLY WANNA BUILD.
THE FIRST STAGE IS BASICALLY IS TO BE ABLE TO ALLOW IT.
IF WE DON'T ALLOW IT, THIS 500, 5,334 NUMBER WILL NEVER REAL BE REALIZED.
AND EVEN IF THE STATE AND THE CITY AND US DECIDE THAT WE ARE GONNA HAVE THE 5,334, KEEP FORGETTING THE NUMBER.
BUT ANYWAY, EVEN IF WE HAVE THAT NUMBER ID, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT'S GONNA BE BILL EVER, UNLESS THE OTHER TWO, THREE PARTIES THAT GOT INVOLVED.
AND I GUESS THIS MAP MM-HMM
NOW THAT WE'RE IDING ALL THESE UNITS, MY CONCERN WAS REGARDING LIKE THE COMMON SPACE, THE PRIVATE SPACE AND ALL THE SETBACK, BECAUSE THESE ARE AREAS THAT ARE, ARE IN CO UH, RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, RESIDENTIAL.
I FORGOT THE TERM OF IT, BUT IT'S VERY CLOSE TO THIS RESIDENTIAL HOUSING.
ONE OF THE THING THAT I WAS CONCERNED LOOKING AT IT IS REGARDING THE HEIGHTS.
NOW, THE HEIGHTS, IF IT'S WITHIN A HUNDRED FEET, IT'S 40, WITHIN A HUNDRED FEET FROM RESIDENTIAL, WHICH IS OUR ONE.
IT CAN GO UP TO 45, 45 FEET TALL WEST CARINO RIGHT NOW OUR SECOND STORY IS ONLY 25 FEET TALL.
HOWEVER, IF IT'S 101 HUN, 101 FEET, THEN THIS CAN, THERE'S NO HEIGHTS.
SO DOES IT MEAN IT GOES 50 FEET, A HUNDRED FEET? WHAT IS IT? SO IF COMMERCIALS ON THE BOTTOM, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE HEIGHT IS.
WE CAN GO HARD, EVEN IF IT'S LIKE FIVE STORIES, HIGH OF RESIDENTS.
SO WE SHOULD BE LOOKING INTO, UM, LOOKING INTO THESE TYPE OF, UM, LIKE THE SETBACKS, THE FRONT,
[01:20:01]
THE REAR, THE SIZE, I WAS A COMMERCIAL OWNER.I WOULD START THINKING, WHAT ARE THEY GONNA FORCE ME LATER ON TO DO THIS? NO ONE IS FORCING ANYONE.
IT'S JUST DON'T KNOW THAT YET, BUT I, I GET IT.
WE KIND OF HAVE TO DO THIS TO PROVE THAT WE ARE, WE'RE NOT HINDERING WHAT THEY ASKED US TO DO.
AND SO THIS IS EXPECTED TO MAKE US MEET THE STATE REQUIREMENT.
YES, HOPEFULLY NOW WONDERING IT'D BE BETTER TO MEET WITH THE STATE FIRST, BEFORE WE SETTLE THE ISSUE WITH MEETING THE STATE IS WE, UM, WE CAN SPEAK TO THEM AND THEY CAN PROVIDE US VERBAL FEEDBACK, BUT THEY'RE NOT GONNA PROVIDE US WRITTEN FEEDBACK, LIKE SIMILAR TO WHAT HAPPENED WITH, WITH OUR ADU ORDINANCE, WE MET WITH THEM.
THEY PROVIDE US AS PROVOKED FEEDBACK AND THEN LATER ON, AND THEN WE, WE CHANGED IT BASED ON WHAT THEY SAID.
AND THEY CAME BACK WITH, WITH A LETTER SAYING THAT WE, WE DIDN'T COMPLY WITH STATE LAW LATER ON.
SO IF EV EVEN IF WE MEET WITH THEM, IT WOULD BE UNPRODUCTIVE BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT GONNA PROVIDE US ANY WRITTEN COMMENTS.
THE STATE BASICALLY IS TELLING US TO ID WHERE THEY CAN PUT 5,334.
SO WE JUST HAVE THE ID WHERE, AND NOW THAT WE ARE IDING, WHERE IT IS, I THINK STAFF HAVE COME UP WITH THE ID OF THE BLUE NUMBER ON THIS MAP OR THE BLUE SITE.
THEN NOW WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE SETBACK AREA.
SO JUST TO CLARIFY, AS FAR AS THE SITE INVENTORY IS CONCERNED, UM, WE'VE IDENTIFIED ALL, UM, COMMERCIAL ZONES IN THE CITY.
WE DID NOT INCLUDE ANY MANUFACTURING ZONES.
UM, THE CITY'S MANUFACTURING ZONE IN THE CITY IS VERY LIMITED, SO WE'RE NOT GONNA TOUCH THAT.
UM, AND WE ELIMINATED ALL, ALL OF THE, UM, PROPERTIES THAT ARE CURRENTLY THAT ARE CURRENTLY, UM, THAT CURRENTLY HAS CAR DEALERSHIPS.
MM-HMM,
UM, WE ELIMINATED PROPERTIES THAT HAVE GAS STATIONS OR SOME TYPE OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE WHERE RESIDENTIAL CANNOT BE D DEVELOPED ON WE'VE ELIMINATED CERTAIN, UM, PROPERTIES WITH, WITH BUSINESSES THAT SUCH AS LIKE MCDONALD'S, UM, OR VERY USE IN, UM, USE INTENSIVE BUSINESSES THAT ARE, THAT ARE, UM, VERY BUSY, SUCH AS MCDONALD'S IN, IN CHICK-FIL-A, FOR EXAMPLE, BECAUSE WE DON'T BELIEVE THOSE PARTICULAR USES WILL EVER BE REDEVELOPED AS, AS RESIDENTIAL OR ANOTHER TYPE OF COMMERCIAL USE.
SO THAT THAT'S WHAT THE SITE INVENTORY CONTAINS.
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UM, WE STILL NEED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
A REMINDER, YOUR PUBLIC HEARING, I'M SORRY.
AND ALSO WE WE'VE ELIMINATED ALL THE PROPERTIES IN THE DOWNTOWN PLAN ZONE AREA.
IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WE CAN DO TO ENSURE THAT, BECAUSE THIS, THIS IDENTIFICATION AND THE STANDARDS THAT ARE, THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED AND SET FORTH, UM, EFFECTIVELY WOULD ALLOW FOR THE, THE ELIMINATION OF LARGER FOOTPRINT STORES, FOR EXAMPLE, LIKE GROCERY STORES.
UM, AND OBVIOUSLY THIS IS, I, I, I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS IS EVER GONNA HAPPEN, BUT LET'S JUST PRETEND FOR SAKE OF ARGUMENT THAT SOMEHOW WE MEET THESE ARENA NUMBERS.
I DON'T KNOW HOW IT'S GONNA HAPPEN, BUT LET'S SAY FOR SAKE OF ARGUMENT THAT WE DO, AND HONESTLY, AS MUCH AS YOU CROSS YOUR FINGERS THAT WE DO, I, I, I HAVE TO SAY I, IF, IF WE DO, I DON'T KNOW WHERE ANYONE IN OUR CITY IS GONNA GO GROCERY SHOPPING.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE ANYONE IN OUR CITY IS GONNA GO AND, YOU KNOW, GO TO GO TO A WALMART, GO TO A TARGET OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT BECAUSE EFFECTIVELY THESE TYPES OF MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS EFFECTIVELY PRECLUDE THAT KIND OF LARGE FOOTPRINT STORE.
AND, AND THEY DO BECAUSE IT, I, I UNDERSTAND OUR, OUR PRIOR OUR, OUR, OUR PRIOR APPROVAL FOR CERTAIN THINGS IN THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT, FOR EXAMPLE, WE HAVE A, A 12 FOOT CEILING REQUIREMENT ON THE FIRST FLOOR.
WELL, REALISTICALLY, UM, YOU KNOW, I, I, I DON'T KNOW, I'M NOT A BIG FAN OF THE, UH, THE, THE FIRST FLOOR OF THE, THE WALMART IN OUR CITY THAT HAS A, A GROCERY STORE CEILING.
THAT'S, UH, YOU KNOW, WHAT, 10 FEET TALL, YOU KNOW, REALISTICALLY, ARE, ARE WE, ARE WE GONNA HAVE THAT KIND OF, THOSE KIND OF TRUNCATED STORES THAT, YOU KNOW, LOOK LIKE WE'RE IN, IN NEW YORK CITY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? I MEAN, YOU KNOW, IS THERE SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DO, UM, TO, TO ENSURE THAT WE DON'T
[01:25:01]
BECOME A FOOD DESERT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? UH, THAT, I MEAN, I, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, THAT WE CAN PROVIDE FOR, BUT REALISTICALLY, I THINK IF THIS IS WHAT WE'RE FACING AND, YOU KNOW, THE STATE IS HELL BENT ON SEEING THE WHOLESALE DEVELOPMENT OF EVERY SQUARE INCH OF THE ENTIRE CITY.AND, AND REALISTICALLY, BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THE CITY OF WEST COVINA HAS VERY LIMITED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES.
UM, WE ARE IN EFFECT BUILDING OURSELVES OUT OF EXISTENCE AS ONE, FRANKLY, IF, IF, IF WE WANT TO CREATE OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEOPLE TO LIVE HERE, UH, WHERE ARE THEY GONNA WORK IN THEIR HOMES? I MEAN, ARE WE ALL GONNA TELECOMMUTE? I MEAN, I, I DON'T KNOW.
I MEAN, I GUESS THAT'S, I GUESS THAT'S THE WAY FOR THE FUTURE, BUT, YOU KNOW, IS THAT REALLY GONNA BE HOW, HOW EVERYTHING WORKS MOVING FORWARD, PARTICULARLY, UM, PARTICULARLY FOR A, A GOOD SWATH OF SOCIETY THAT UNFORTUNATELY DOES NOT HAVE A HIGH LEVEL OF EDUCATION, SO THEY CAN FIT INTO THOSE KINDS OF CAREERS.
AND HONESTLY, ALL THOSE HOMES BEING BUILT, THEY'RE ALL GONNA HAVE KIDS.
I, I LIVE A BLOCK FROM WESTS, COVENA.
I CAN'T GET OUT OF MY STREET MATTER.
HOW MANY MORE KIDS CAN YOU FIT? WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH SCHOOLS FOR ALL THEM KIDS.
I'M JUST SERIOUSLY, WE'RE DEMOGRAPHICS.
YOU KNOW, WHAT, HOW DOES THAT AFFECT US? RIGHT, RIGHT NOW THE SCHOOLS ARE ACTUALLY HAVING DECLINING ENROLLMENT, BUT IN, IN ANY CASE, UM, WELL, IN, IN ANY CASE, UM, IS THERE SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DO TO PROTECT THAT? AND THEN SECOND, UM, AND I, I MAY JUST, UH, SAVE THIS FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION AFTER WE HEAR PUBLIC COMMENT, BUT, UM, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WE CAN DO WITH REGARD TO ENSURING THAT WE HAVE ENOUGH GUEST PARKING SPACES FOR THESE TYPES OF DEVELOPMENTS? UM, YOU KNOW, FRANKLY, THE, THE, THE STUFF THAT'S GONE IN, UM, IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA HAS I, YOU KNOW, I I'VE MADE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE HAD ADDITIONAL PARKING, THOSE WERE TAKEN AWAY THE POWERS THAT BE, ARE GONNA DO WHAT THEY'RE GONNA DO.
UM, BUT, YOU KNOW, ULTIMATELY I THINK IT'S A CONCERN.
I THINK THERE ARE A NUMBER OF RESIDENTS THAT ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT WE CAN DO ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE IF, UH, UM, UN UN, UNLESS THERE'S SOME SORT OF, UH, LIMITATION AT THE STATE LEVEL.
AND, AND REALISTICALLY, YOU KNOW, I, I, I DON'T THINK THAT A LOT OF THESE PROBLEMS CAN BE SOLVED WITH CONSULTANTS.
I THINK THAT, UH, THE ONLY WAY THAT THIS CAN BE SOLVED IS PROBABLY WITH THE MOST POWER POWERFUL LOBBYISTS WE CAN POSSIBLY FIND, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S AN ASIDE.
I, I, I JUST WANT TO SEE IF YOU GUYS HAVE ANY ANSWERS ON THAT AND TO, TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU DO, I'M, I'M HAPPY TO, UM, HAPPY TO TAKE THOSE AFTER, UH, PUBLIC HEARING.
UM, I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT THE, THE GUEST PARKING REQUIREMENT IN THE PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR, FOR THE MIXED USE OVER LEAGUE ZONE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE, THE CURRENT CITY'S MULTIFAMILY, RESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS, UM, WHICH IS, WHICH IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT FROM THE DOWNTOWN PLANNING CODE, WHICH REQUIRES NO GUEST PARKING, UM, AND ALSO A LOT, AND ALSO DIFFERENT FROM THIS RECENT SPECIFIC PLANS THAT WERE APPROVED.
SOME, THE RECENT SPECIFIC PLANS THAT WERE APPROVED, UM, I BELIEVE, UM, TRIED THEIR BEST TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S EXISTING MULTI-FAMILY, UM, UM, DESIGN STANDARDS WHEN IT, UM, WELL MULTI-FAMILY ZONING CODE STANDARDS WHEN IT COMES TO GUEST PARKING.
UM, BUT I, BUT I BELIEVE THEY WERE JUST A LITTLE BIT SHORT, BUT THIS, THE, THE MULTI, THE MIXED USE OVERLAY ZONE IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE HAVE IN, IN THE CITY'S MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CODE STANDARDS.
AND, BUT JUST BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PARKING SPACES, AND RIGHT NOW WE HAVE ONE PARKING SPACE FOR EVERY FOUR DWELLING UNITS.
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE, THE GUEST PARKING SPACES AS PLANNING COMMISSION.
WE CAN ACTUALLY HAVE IT AS ONE PARKING SPACE FOR EVERY, LET'S SAY THREE UNITS INSTEAD OF FOUR, IS THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY HAVE A DISCOUNT, OH, WOULD THIS BE ADDRESSED IN THIS PLAN? THAT'S GOING TO THE STATE, OR RIGHT NOW IT'S WRITTEN AS WE'RE FOLLOWING THE CURRENT, OUR CURRENT POLICY ON PARKING.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE TO DO IS BASICALLY TALK ABOUT THESE PLANNING.
YEAH, I KNOW, BUT WE'RE GONNA APPROVE SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY ESTABLISHED NOTHING.
SO I, I WAS, I WAS ACTUALLY GOING TO, TO ACQUIRE THE, I, I, I DID READ THE, UH, THE, UH, PROPOSED, UM, THE, THE PROPOSED CODE CHANGE AND IT APPEARS, BUT I'M NOT ENTIRELY CERTAIN THAT IT'S CLEAR ON THIS AS TO, AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE GUEST PARKING FOR RESIDENTIAL IS SEPARATE.
[01:30:01]
SAY THE PARKING THAT IS NECESSARY FOR THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IS IT'S SEPARATE.AND THEN IS THERE THE COM I'M SORRY, THE COMMERCIAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS ARE IN THE SEPARATE SECTION IN, IN THE CODE.
SO THE, THAT WOULD STILL REMAIN AS IT.
I, I SAW THE CROSS REFERENCE TO THAT.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT, THAT, THAT IS STILL A SEPARATE MM-HMM,
AND THEN, UM, I, I ALSO WANTED TO, UM, INQUIRE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN PUT IN ANY SPECIFIC RESTRICTION THAT SAYS THAT GUESTS CANNOT USE THE COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL HOUSING GUESTS CANNOT USE THE COMMERCIAL PARKING AREAS, UM, UNLESS THEY'RE PATRON OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
I, I THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE MY CONCERN.
UM, YOU KNOW, UN UNFORTUNATELY WE'RE NOT A VERY WALKABLE CITY AND NONE OF THE PLACES THAT ARE IDENTIFIED ARE, UM, FRANKLY, PARTICULARLY WALKABLE.
SO IT, IT, IT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO ME THAT, THAT WE HAVE THAT KIND OF RESTRICTION IF, UH, WELL, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT.
THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE PARKING TRUCTURE ADDED FOR THE RESIDENTS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
WELL, BY INCREASING THE GUEST PARKING SPACES, THAT WOULD SORT OF TAKE CARE OF THAT ISSUE.
SO LET'S SAY IF THE RESIDENT LIVE IN THAT COMPLEX AND WE HAVE MORE PARKING, MORE GUEST PARKING SPACES RIGHT NOW THAT WE ARE ASKING THE DEVELOPER TO BUILD FOR THE GUESTS AT THE TIME, BUT THEN THAT WOULD PRETTY MUCH TAKE CARE OF SOME OF THE ISSUES OR CONCERNS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.
WELL, AT CHRISTMAS TIME, THEN YOU'D HAVE TO ASK THE COMMERCIAL PATRONS NOT TO USE THE RESIDENTIAL PARKING.
SO IS THAT SOMETHING THAT, UH, STAFF COULD LOOK INTO THAT CAN BE ADDED OR ALL RIGHT.
UM, IF, IF, IF WE CAN OPEN THE, THE PUBLIC HEARING, UH, ANY, ANY OTHER LAST MINUTE QUESTIONS ANYONE HAS BEFORE WE DO THAT? ALL RIGHT.
UH, WITH THAT, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AND, UM, I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO HEAR TESTIMONY FROM THE APPLICANT AS THE APPLICANTS TO CITY IN THIS CONTEXT.
UM, IS THERE ANYTHING POLLINA ANYONE, ANYONE YOU WANT TO DESIGNATE TO SAY SOMETHING THAT HASN'T ALREADY BEEN SAID ON THIS ISSUE?
AND THIS IS A BIG STEP TOWARDS THAT.
WE ARE PRETTY MUCH DEVELOPED OUT.
UM, ALL CITIES ARE GOING THROUGH THIS STATE REQUIREMENT AND TRYING TO ADDRESS IT, AND WE'RE TRYING TO DO THE BEST WE CAN AND, AND KEEP LOCAL CONTROL WHERE WE CAN.
UM, AND ESPECIALLY AS YOU MENTIONED, UH, WHAT WE'RE DOING TO TRY TO KEEP OR RETAIN COMMERCIAL, UM, THAT 15% IS WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO DO THAT.
UM, IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE A LOT, BUT IF WE CAN SHOW, YOU KNOW, IT, THE AERIALS THAT JOANNE HAD POSTED OR SHARED, UM, IT'S STILL SIGNIFICANT PROPERTY, YOU KNOW, IF SIGNIFICANT SQUARE OR AREA ON THE LOTS.
AND, UM, I KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, NEAR MY CITIES AND MY, WHERE MY PARENTS LIVE, THEY HAVE A TARGET, UM, IN, IN A DOWNTOWN AREA.
AND IT'S THE PARKING STRUCTURE TARGET SECOND FLOOR.
UM, IT BLENDS IN, WELL, UH, IT'S VERY NICE.
THEY HAVE A MOVIE THEATER RIGHT NEXT TO IT, A WHOLE BUNCH OF NEW OFFICE AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
SO THERE'S UNIQUE WAYS TO INCORPORATE AND MIX MIX THE, THE USES, UM, OTHER THAN JUST, YOU KNOW, PUTTING RESIDENTIAL NEXT TO WHAT'S ALREADY EXISTING.
SO IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE ME TO ADD, UNFORTUNATELY, WE'RE A VERY DISJOINTED CITY.
WE'RE NOT LIKE PASADENA OR BRAA OR LIKE THAT.
ANYWAY, I'M GONNA OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, UH, ANYONE ELSE, UH, WANT TO, UH, GIVE TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT, OKAY, THERE'S A LOT NEUTRAL OR OPPOSED THEN
EVERY ONE OF YOU BROUGHT SOMETHING TO THE TABLE THAT HELPED US TRY TO UNDERSTAND, AND, AND BACK TO THE ARENA, THE ATTEMPT TO MAKE A NUMBER IN A GOOD FAITH DOESN'T MEAN WE HAVE TO MAKE THE NUMBER, AS WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED.
MANY TIMES ON THE ARENA, CITIES ARE NOT PENALIZED FOR NOT MAKING THE NUMBER.
THEY HAVE TO MAKE THE GOOD FATE EFFORT TO DESIGNATE AREAS AS YOU GUYS ARE FORCED TO DO TONIGHT.
UM, THE 15% CONCERNS ME, UM, ON THE COMMERCIAL OVERLAY, SPECIFICALLY THE EASTLAND MALL, WE HAVE BARCA ON THE ONE SIDE AND WE HAVE CITRUS EING INTO THE FREEWAYS THAT CONCERNS ME ABOUT A OVERLAY SITUATION BECAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ALREADY THAT DUMP INTO THE ACCESS TO THE FREEWAYS THAT, THAT IN ITSELF CONCERNS ME.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT APPLIES, IF THAT ONE NUMBER APPLIES TO EVERY COMMERCIAL,
[01:35:01]
IT, IT DOES.SO YOU, OH, ANSWERED THAT THAT'S CONCERNING.
UM, ALSO THERE'S NO LIMIT ON THE COMMERCIAL HEIGHT OF THE, AT THESE PLACES.
THERE'S NO DESIGNATED WE, THEY CAN GO AS HIGH AS THEY'D LIKE ON THOSE.
IS THAT CORRECT? IS THAT WHAT WE HEARD? I'M SORRY, CHAIR, IF I CAN CLARIFY.
UM, THE, THESE, THESE STANDARDS WERE WRITTEN, UM, ARE WRITTEN TO BE CLOSE TO, OR, UM, MOSTLY CONSISTENT WITH THE CURRENT CODE STANDARDS IN CERTAIN ZONING, SUCH AS THE RC ZONE.
UM, THE SERVICE COMMERCIAL ZONES, THERE IS NO HEIGHT LIMIT FOR COMMERCIAL, FOR COMMERCIAL.
OH, RIGHT NOW, UNDER RIGHT NOW.
SO WOULD WE BE LOOKING AT THEM IF SOMEBODY PROPOSED A DEVELOPMENT, SAY EASTLAND, SAY THE HEIGHTS.
I MEAN, THAT, THAT'S JUST RIDICULOUS.
THE HEIGHTS SPECIFICALLY SPEAKS BECAUSE IT BACKS TO RESIDENTIAL AT CERTAIN AREAS, BUT IN THE CASE OF EASTLAND, I MEAN, IT IT'S RIGHT THERE.
THAT GOES AGAINST THE 10 FREEWAY.
I MEAN, THAT'S JUST OBSTRUCTING.
WHO WHO'S THE GRANTED AUTHORITY? WOULD IT BE THE CITY STAFF OR THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR CITY COUNCIL? I REAL QUICK, I, I THINK I CAN ANSWER THIS.
I THINK THE THERE'S ONLY ONE PART OF THE CITY WHERE YOU CAN GO ABOVE 45 FEET.
IS THAT, IS THAT CORRECT? NO, I, I, SORRY, NOT 45 FEET.
I THINK IT WAS A, IT WAS, UH, 100 FEET RIGHT THERE.
UM, AND THAT IN, IN CERTAIN PARTS OF THE CITY, THERE'S NO HEIGHT, THERE'S NO HEIGHT LIMIT.
THE EASTLAND CENTER IS BASICALLY THE, THE, THE ONE PORTION THAT I READ THAT THE EASTLAND CENTER.
THERE'S NO HEIGHT LIMIT FOR THE EASTLAND CENTER THAT'S OR, OR THE OTHER PROPERTIES NEAR THE EASTLAND CENTER.
THERE'S REALLY, THERE ARE ALSO NO HEIGHT LIMIT.
AND ARE WE ABLE TO MAKE HEIGHT LIMITS PART OF THIS PROPOSAL, WHICH WILL REQUIRE MORE STUDYING TO DO, I GUESS THE HIGHER YOU GO, THE FURTHER YOU CAN MEET UP THE ROOM NUMBER
WE'RE GONNA PUT YOU WANNA DO EXCUSE STORY.
IF YOU WANNA DO COMMERCIAL ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND, UH, RESIDENTIAL ON THE TOP, THEN YOU WOULD BE LIMITING THE, SO SOMEONE WANTS TO PUT A, A SKYSCRAPER HUNDRED STORY BUILDING THERE AND THEY COULD, WE DO HAVE THE RANK.
IS IT THE BRCA TOWER? UM, LONG BARRAN OR RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE EASTLAND CENTER, WE COULD BUILD A HIGHER ONE THERE IF THEY WANTED TO.
THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PLANNING PROCESS FOR BOTH TO CLARIFY, SORRY TO CLARIFY.
UM, IF IT'S GONNA BE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT, WITHOUT THE HEIGHT LIMIT, IT STILL WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PRECISE PLAN PROCESS AND, AND SUBJECT TO A PUBLIC HEARING AND PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW.
NOW, WHAT HAPPENS IF IT'S A JOINT, IF IT'S, IF IT'S RESIDE, IF IT'S A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, UM, THERE IS A HEIGHT LIMIT.
HOW ABOUT IF IT'S A MIXED USE, BUT THAT WAS TO BE DONE AT ANY OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURES.
THEY'D HAVE TO GO UNDER MAJOR RESTRUCTURE FOR, TO BE ABLE TO, IF IT'S, IF THERE'S A MIX USE, THERE IS ALSO HEIGHT.
DOES IT COME BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL? UM, IF IT'S, IF IT'S VERTICAL MIX USE THEN NO, IF IT'S NO, NO.
THEN FOR THE COMMERCIAL PORTION WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
AS I WAS READING THROUGH THIS PACKAGE, ATTEMPTING TO READ AND GET THROUGH IT, THE WORDING, THE ADJECTIVES OF CLUSTER AND STACKED FLATS, THAT IS REALLY SOMETHING HARD FOR US RESIDENTS TO ABSORB THESE DAYS.
AND I'M SURE IT'S HARD FOR EVERYBODY TO ABSORB THAT THAT'S THE DIRECTION THE STATE IS FORCING MOST CITIES TO GO, BUT I KNOW NOT EVERY CITY'S GOING EASY TOWARDS THIS.
SO THOSE ARE THINGS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE PUSHING AND ASKING YOU GUYS AND EVERYTHING TO DO LESS OF, OR TO CONSIDER IN AND IN AREAS TO BE MORE SENSITIVE TO RESIDENTS AND DEVELOPMENT.
AND I'M SURE YOU ARE, BUT JUST, I'M JUST REPRESENTING THE 110,000.
UM, SO ANYWAYS, OTHER THAN THAT, YOU GUYS DID A GREAT JOB.
I, I REALLY APPRECIATE THE, THE QUESTION BACK AND FORTH.
SO I DO APPRECIATE THAT, AND THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN FIND AND CHAIR, IF I MAY, UM, ALSO JUST TO CLARIFY, UM, THAT THE 15% IS THE MINIMUM.
IF, IF A DEVELOPER WANTED TO HAVE MIX USE AND HAVE MORE THAN 15%, UM, COMMERCIAL, THEN THEY'RE ABLE TO DO THAT AS WELL.
NOW, WHEN YOU SAY IT'S NOT REQUIRED FOR A MIXED USE VERTICAL, ARE WE ABLE TO PUT THE CONDITION THAT IT COMES BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSIONER CITY COUNCIL? UM, I'M SORRY.
BECAUSE IF, IF IT WAS A SB 35 PROJECT OR AN, UM, OR, UH,
[01:40:01]
OR THE, THE, THE OTHER SECTION WHERE IT PROVIDES AT LEAST 25% LOW INCOME, THEN THERE'S NO, YOU, THE PLANNING COM THE STATE STATE LAW PREVENTS IT FROM GOING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.SO HAVING APPROVED THIS, YOU KNOW, THE, THE VERY LIMITED COMMERCIAL THAT WE HAVE ALREADY, THEY'RE NOT GONNA BE FORCED TO DO THIS, BUT ARE WE GOING TO INFORM THEM THAT THIS IS AVAILABLE? THEY CAN DO THIS.
HOW ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO KNOW THIS EXISTS? THEY PROBABLY HAVE TO LISTEN TO TONIGHT'S, UH, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, I THINK SO WE COULD PASS THIS AND, YOU KNOW, WE WON'T HAVE THEM.
THEY MIGHT, NONE OF THEM MIGHT DO AS PART OF THE PROCESS.
WE'VE, WE'VE, UM, REACHED OUT TO DEVELOPERS FOR, FOR COMMENTS.
AND WHAT SO, SORRY, I REAL, REAL QUICK, I DO WANT TO GET CLARIFICATION ON THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT, BECAUSE WHAT I READ VERSUS WHAT YOU JUST SAID SEEMS TO CONFLICT WITH THE PROPOSED SECTION 26 DASH 7 42 0.140, WHICH INDICATES THAT ALL BUILDINGS CONTAINING ANY RESIDENTIAL USE SHALL BE LIMITED TO 45 FEET.
UM, EXCEPT WITHIN THE AREA BOUNDED BY CITRUS AND WEST WORKMAN TO THE NORTH, UH BARONCA TO THE EAST AND I 10 TO THE SOUTH, WHICH IS THE EASTLAND CENTER.
AND, AND THAT SHALL HAVE A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF SEVEN STORIES OR 85 FEET.
SO I, I DID, I, I, I DON'T KNOW I DID, DID I MISSPEAK OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT BECAUSE I, I THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT I, THAT'S WHAT I SAID THIS AS I MEN, THAT, AS IT WAS MENTIONED EARLIER, THE, THE CITY, UM, ONE OF THE, ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT WE WILL BE INCLUDING IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, UM, REVISION IS TO, UM, INCREASE IN INCREASE THE, UM, THE DENSITY IN THE EASTLAND CENTER.
CURRENTLY THE GENERAL PLAN ONLY ALLOWS UP TO 20 UNITS PER ACRE, UM, AND, AND INCREASING THE DENSITY, UM, TO, UM, TO ALLOW UP TO 54 UNITS PER ACRE WOULD BE AROUND FI, UM, FIVE STORIES AND UP.
SO IN ORDER FOR THE STATE TO ACCEPT, UM, ARENA NUMBERS THAT ARE IN THE LOW INCOME AND VERY LOW INCOME CATEGORIES, IT HAS TO BE, IT HAS TO BE, UM, YOU WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR UP, UM, FIVE STOR, UH, BUILDING THAT'S FIVE STORIES OR MORE MM-HMM
UM, ALSO IF I, IF I MAKE CHAIR LIST, GOT IT.
I JUST WANT TO, I JUST WANT TO KIND OF CLARIFY KIND OF THE INTENT OF THE HEIGHT WITH KIND OF THE ARENA NUMBERS AND UM, HOW WE WANTED TO INTEGRATE INTO THE COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTERS.
WHAT WE WANTED TO DO IS ESSENTIALLY CLUSTER, UM, THE RESIDENTIAL MOSTLY INTO LIKE PARKING AREAS TO ESSENTIALLY CONCENTRATE RESIDENTIAL INTO THE PARKING AREA SO THAT THE RESIDENTIAL SHOPPING CENTERS MAY, UM, BUILD A PARKING STRUCTURE RATHER THAN SURFACE PARKING LOT.
UM, SO FOR AN EXAMPLE FOR, UM, EASTLAND CENTER, WHERE WE HAD TO ALLOW, ESSENTIALLY FOR ONLY, UM, IT COULD ALLOW FIVE OR UP TO BETWEEN FIVE AND SEVEN STORIES, ONE, IT ALLOW THAT SEVEN STORIES SO THAT THE RESIDENTIAL COULD BE CONCENTRATED ESSENTIALLY ON A SMALLER PORTION, MAINTAINING AND KEEPING MORE OF THE COMMERCIAL AREA OPEN FOR, UH, ESSENTIALLY THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL AREA, UM, FOR EASTLAND FOR THE COMMERCIAL USES.
SO INSTEAD OF A LOWER HEIGHT WOULD HAVE TO SPREAD OUT THE RESIDENTIAL AND WE'D HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE ESSENTIALLY THAT COMPLIANCE WITH, UM, WITH THE STATE.
I HAVE A QUICK FOLLOW UP, BUT I WANT TO JUST MAKE SURE IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO, UH, PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT? ALL RIGHT.
WITH THAT, I'M GONNA CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN I WAS GONNA ASK MY QUESTION, THEN WE'LL OPEN IT UP TO ANYONE ELSE.
UM, WITH, WITH REGARD TO THE, UM, POTENTIAL PARKING STRUCTURE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
LET LET'S SAY HYPOTHETICALLY, THE EASTLAND CENTER IS DEVELOPED INTO SOME RESIDENTIAL
[01:45:01]
MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT.UM, WHAT, WHAT PROVISION, IF ANY, CAN WE MAKE TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS ENOUGH PARKING ON THE COMMERCIAL SIDE? UM, SO IS NOT TO OFFEND THE STATE'S DESIRE TO HAVE, UH, NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSING.
I, I, I THINK THE, I THINK THE OVERALL CONCERN IS, IS LET'S SAY, WE SAY, OH, WE NEED A PARKING STRUCTURE THAT HAS, I DON'T KNOW, SPACE FOR 3000 VEHICLES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
AND THAT ENDS UP OFFENDING THE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE PROPOSED DEVELOPER WHO ENDS UP WALKING AWAY AND THEN WE LOSE THE, THE, THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY THERE.
UM, IS, IS, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT, THAT WE CAN DO THAT WE CAN REQUIRE, UM, AS, AS PART OF, AS PART OF THE, UH, THE, THE, THE CODE CHANGE HERE? OR IS IT, UH, OR IS THAT SOMETHING WHERE OUR HANDS ARE BASICALLY TIED AND NOT WITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT WE ARE NOT A, WE'RE NOT A WALKABLE CITY BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION? UM, WE'RE JUST GONNA HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE LACK OF PARKING AS, AS AN ISSUE.
THE COMMERCIAL PARKING STANDARDS, UM, ARE, ARE NOT CHANGING THE REMAINING THE SAME.
UM, THEY'RE THE RESIDENTIAL PARKING STANDARDS AND THE COMMERCIAL PARKING STANDARDS ARE, ARE SEPARATE.
AND SO WE, BASED ON OUR CURRENT CODE, UM, IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO PROPOSE COMMERCIAL, IN ADDITION TO RESIDENTIAL, THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE COMMERCIAL PARKING STANDARDS AND THE RESIDENTIAL PARKING STANDARDS.
SO THAT, THAT WOULDN'T HAVE ANY POTENTIAL IMPACT ON THE, THE STATE COMING BACK AND SAYING THAT NO, THIS DOESN'T WORK YOU'RE, YOU'RE PARKING.
NO, YOUR PARKING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL OR JUST TOO HIGH, UM, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
I ACTUALLY LIKE TO, UM, I GUESS TALK REGARDING THE, UM, RECREATIONAL SPACE.
I'M NOT SURE WHAT PAGE THIS IS ON RECREATIONAL PA UH, SPACING.
IS THAT PER UNIT FOR 200 SQUARE? UH, YES.
AND THEN PRIVATE OPEN SPACE IS 20 SQUARE FEET.
I MEAN, IT'S THE SAME 200 SQUARE FEET PER UNIT.
BECAUSE BASED ON HERE, I, I'M NOT SEEING THAT.
LANDSCAPING REGARDING LANDSCAPING.
IS THERE ANY WAY WE CAN INCREASE? UM, I LIKE TO SEE MORE TREES BECAUSE IT BASICALLY SAYING 10 ROW OF PARKING FOR ONE TREE, MAYBE EVERY NOW 10 ROW PARKING.
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT 10 FOR 10 PARKING SPACE, 10 PARKING SPACES.
SO IS THERE ANY WAY THAT WE CAN ADD MORE TREES? LIKE MAYBE EVERY OTHER SPACE HAVE A TREE, YOU, YOU, YOU'RE BUILDING SUCH A DENSE PLACE.
I LIKE TO SEE MORE GREENERY IF POSSIBLE.
AND THEN ANOTHER THINGS THAT WE DIDN'T MENTION IN THIS, UM, AREA IS GRAY WATER, MAYBE COLLECT THE GRAY WATERS TO DO THE LANDSCAPING THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE IN A DROUGHT STATE AND I'M NOT SURE WHEN'S THE RAIN'S GONNA COME BACK, BUT IF WE CAN, AND IF WE'RE DEVELOPING 54 UNIT PER ACRE, PERHAPS WE CAN, UH, MAKE USE OF THE GRAYWATER SOMEHOW I THINK SOME CITY IN LA COUNTY OR IN LA CITY, I FORGOT WHICH CITY OR, OR, OR COUNTY, UM, THEY'RE REQUIRING FOR PLUMBING AS A GRAYWATER AND SEWER.
SO MAYBE, PERHAPS I LIKE TO SEE THAT HAPPENING IN, IN, IN THIS PARTICULAR, UM, MIXED USE IS, IS THAT, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT IS, I, I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT MAYBE WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE, THE WATER DISTRICT OR THE WATER BOARD.
I, THE, THE, MY UNDERSTANDING WITH REGARD TO, UM, OUR RECLAIMED WATER SYSTEM THAT, THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE IS THAT, THAT WAS, UH, THAT WAS PUT IN PLACE BY, UM, I, I CAN'T REMEMBER WHICH, WHICH WATER DISTRICT WAS IT THAT, THAT PUT THAT IN, BUT IT WAS BACK IN THE, YEAH.
WAS IT SUBURBAN THAT, THAT SOUNDS RIGHT.
AND, AND IT GOES UP AND DOWN, UH, UM, AZUSA AND THEN I THINK DOWN CAMERA AND THEN BASICALLY ENDS AT THE COUNTRY CLUB, I THINK, AND THEN GOES, I THINK IT GOES UP TO, UH, THE SPORTS BOX.
I THINK IT GOES UP TO THE SPORTS BLOCKS.
AS, AS FAR AS, UM, IRRIGATION IS CONCERNED WITH, IN REGARDS TO LANDSCAPING, UM, THE CITY HA HAS ADOPTED, UM, A MODEL, THE MODEL, WATER EFFICIENCY LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE, UM, IT CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW IN,
[01:50:01]
IN, UH, OTHER CITIES IN, IN THE AREA, WHICH, UM, MAINLY FOCUSES ON, ON, UM, DROUGHT, TOLERANT, LANDSCAPING MM-HMMI, I THINK WHAT SHE'S, UM, I THINK SHE KNOW WHAT SHE'S TRYING TO EXPLAIN.
THE STATE ALREADY HAD CALIFORNIA CITIES ADOPT, UM, DROUGHT TOLERANT TYPE OF LANDSCAPING STANDARDS AND STUFF.
AND SO WHAT SHE'S SAYING IS THEY HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE PROVIDING AREA FOR HOUSING.
AND THEN BY DOING THE, FOR SALES, THOSE ARE AREAS WHERE THEY CAN HAVE SHRUBS AND THINGS.
BUT WE HAVE TO REMEMBER HERE IN WEST COVINA, WE'RE BASICALLY A DESERT.
SO A LOT OF THE TREES AND STUFF, THE PALM TREES AND STUFF THEY'RE NOT NATIVE TO HERE.
AND SO I THINK WITH THE NEWER TYPES OF DEVELOPMENTS, THAT'S WHY YOU'RE SEEING THEM DONE WITH CACTUS AND OTHER TYPES OF MATERIALS THAT PLANTS THAT GROW WELL UNDER OUR CLIENTS.
WELL, I UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE IN THE DESERT.
WE ARE THE ENTIRE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA IS PRACTICALLY IN THE DESERT AREA.
THAT'S WHERE I'M PROPOSING TO SEE IF WE CAN SEE SOME TYPE OF, UM, GRAY WATER RECYCLE WATER AND THE MIXED USE AREA THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY USE THAT TO LANDSCAPE THAT I DON'T KNOW, I KNOW IN CAN IMPLEMENT THEM, RIGHT.
WHO HAVE APARTMENTS NOW THAT ARE PUTTING IN ADU THAT THEY'RE ADDING TO EXISTING OLDER APARTMENT BUILDINGS.
PEOPLE ARE NOW ACTUALLY PROVIDING RAIN BARRELS TO CATCH RAIN WATER IN LOS ANGELES.
WELL, THAT'S REQUIRED IN ALL DEVELOPMENT RIGHT NOW.
IT, IT, IT WELL, ALL DEVELOPMENT IN LA COUNTY THAT RAIN WATERS, YOU HAVE TO CATCH IT.
AND NOT ONLY RAIN WATER, ALL THE IN PREVIOUS CONCRETE BASICALLY HAS TO BE SPECIAL AND THEN CATCH ALL THE RAIN WATER IN THAT PARTICULAR LAND DEVELOPMENT.
SO ALL THE DRIVEWAYS, A LOT OF UNDER DRIVEWAYS, LIKE A SWIMMING POOL, THEY CATCH ALL THAT RAIN.
WELL, THERE'S A COUPLE OF ITEMS THAT YOU CAN, UM, DESIGN, WHETHER IT'S THE RAIN.
ANYWAY, THAT'S A DROUGHT THING THAT THEY DO WITH THE LANDSCAPING REGARDING REQUIRING GRAY WATER.
UM, IT, THERE, THERE, THERE IS A HIGH POSSIBILITY THAT WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO, TO DO THAT MAINLY BECAUSE DEPENDING ON, DEPENDING ON THE, THE, THE LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT, IT MAY BE COST PROHIBITIVE.
SO IF, IF IT'S COST PROHIBITIVE, WE CAN'T, WE CAN'T REQUIRE IT.
AND THERE'LL BE, I THINK A LOT OF MORE GRANT OPPORTUNITIES BECAUSE OF THE, UH, INFLATION REDUCTION ACT, THE PRESIDENT BIDEN JUST SIGNED TOO.
SO I THINK HOPEFULLY THAT BRINGS MORE RESOURCES TO OUR LOCAL CITY SO WE CAN INVEST IN THOSE KIND OF PROJECTS TOO.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AT THIS POINT? ANY COUNT, UH, ANY, UH, COMMISSION DISCUSSION, SEEING NONE, ANYONE HAVE A MOTION? DO WE HAVE A CHOICE?
UM, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY, UH, OBVIOUSLY I DON'T THINK ANYONE UP HERE, UM, SORT OF READING THE SENSE OF THE ROOM ANYWAY, UM, IS PARTICULARLY ENAMORED WITH THIS, BUT, UH, I, I, I DO HAVE SOME QUICK QUESTIONS THAT, THAT I I'D LIKE TO SEE ANSWERED IF WE, IF WE CAN, UM, WITH REGARD TO THE, THE AR RATIO.
UM, IS THERE ANY WAY WE CAN INCREASE THAT? I, I THINK, I THINK MY, MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS THAT, UM, UNFORTUNATELY WITH REGARD TO ANY, UH, COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, ONCE IT'S GONE, IT'S GONE.
UM, SO I, AND I DON'T REALLY SEE ANY HIGH LIKELIHOOD THAT IT WOULD BE COMING BACK, PARTICULARLY IN AN INFILL CITY LIKE OURS.
SO, UH, IS THERE A WAY WE CAN INCREASE IT TO SAVE, YOU KNOW, 20% OR I DON'T KNOW, SPLIT THE DIFFERENCE 17 AND A HALF.
[01:55:01]
TRYING TO, TO, TO GAUGE WHETHER OR NOT THAT WOULD BE, UH, SOMETHING THAT THE, THAT, THAT YOUR IMPRESSION IS THE STATE WOULD COME BACK AND SAY, THIS, THIS DOESN'T WORK.UM, I THINK AS JOHN MENTIONED EARLIER, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A LITTLE BIT NEW TERRITORY WITH THE STATE, SO WE'RE NOT SURE WE CAN'T REALLY, WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO GAUGE ON THEM, BUT, UM, JOHN, IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT YOU'D LIKE TO ADD, UM, WHAT I WOULD, WHAT I WOULD NOT WANT TO, WHAT I WOULD WANT TO AVOID THOUGH.
UM, AND I WOULD HAVE TO RESEARCH, UH, JUST ONE OR TWO MORE CENTERS JUST TO, JUST TO CONFIRM, UM, I WOULDN'T WANT TO INCREASE IT BEYOND WHAT EXISTING SHOPPING CENTERS ALREADY ARE, THE WAY THAT THIS IS FRAMED, UM, IS IT'S JUST A MINIMUM GROSS, GROSS AREA.
AND MAYBE WE CAN LOOK AT REVISING, UM, ESSENTIALLY REVISING THE LANGUAGE, UM, IN THERE, BUT, UM, A SMALL INCREASE MAYBE TO LIKE 16 OR PERHAPS 17%.
HOW ABOUT THIS INSTEAD OF A, UM, INSTEAD OF A PERCENTAGE, HAVE IT BE THAT ANY EXISTING DEVELOPMENT CANNOT GO ANY LOWER THAN WHAT IT ALREADY IS? SO, FOR EXAMPLE, LET'S SAY THAT YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT THAT'S OUT THERE THAT HAS 1%, IT CAN'T GO LOWER THAN 1%, LET'S SAY, UH, BECAUSE, BECAUSE I, I, I THINK, I THINK THE IDEA HERE WOULD BE, UM, YOU KNOW, WE, WE DON'T WANT TO BE PERCEIVED AS, AS ATTEMPTING TO, TO UNDERMINE SB 35.
I THINK THE PURPOSE OF IT IS, IS WE WANT TO MAINTAIN, AT LEAST IF WE CAN, THE, THE BASELINE LEVEL OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE.
SO I WOULD, I WOULD PROPOSE THAT, THAT INSTEAD OF HAVING MAYBE A, A, A 15% NUMBER, WE, WE SAY IT, IT CAN'T GO ANY LOWER THAN WHAT IT CURRENTLY IS.
IF IT CAN'T GO ANY LOWER THAN WHAT IT REALLY IS TODAY, THEN HOW CAN THEY PUT THE MIXED USE IN THERE? YEAH.
WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS THAT THEY COME, THEY GO THROUGH THAT RESEARCH AND THEY WORK WITH THE, ALSO THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PROVIDE SOME CASE LAW, CUZ THERE IS ALREADY SOME CASE LAW ESTABLISHED REGARDING SB 35 WITH REGARDS TO HOW HIGH SOMETHING COULD GO OR HOW BIG IT COULD GO.
I KNOW THERE'S ALREADY SOME ESTABLISHED CASE LAW OUT THERE AND I THINK THAT'S, UH, BENEFICIAL THAT THE CONSULTANT GETS THAT INFORMATION TOO.
UM, AND WHAT I LIKE TO SEE IS THAT THE CONSULTANT GOES BACK AND DOES SOME RESEARCH REGARDING THAT SPECIFIC NUMBER.
AND THEN HE COULD GIVE US HIS HONEST OPINION AT, AT, AT ANOTHER MEETING.
SO I, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS COME BACK TO ANOTHER MEETING.
I, I, I THINK, I THINK IF IT, IF IT'S MIXED USE, I THINK BY, BY DEFINITION, YOU'RE YOU ARE VIRTUALLY CERTAIN TO HAVE A DEVELOPMENT THAT IS MULTIPLE STORIES.
SO THE THER IS GOING TO BE BASED ON, FRANKLY IN ALL LIKELIHOOD THE, THE, THE BOTTOM STORY, BECAUSE WE DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY HIGH RISE DEVELOPMENTS THAT WE'RE, THAT WE'RE LOOKING TO, TO, TO, UH, TO DEVELOP HERE, UM, AND TO MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS.
SO I DON'T REALLY SEE WHAT THE ISSUE WOULD BE WITH HAVING A BASELINE THAT SAYS, OKAY, WE'RE, WE'RE MAKING SURE THAT YOUR, YOUR BOTTOM FLOOR STAYS AT LEAST AS BIG AS IT WAS PREVIOUSLY.
I, I DON'T REALLY SEE WHAT THE ISSUE WOULD BE ON THAT.
I THINK, I THINK FUNDAMENTALLY THAT, THAT KEEPS US IN LINE WITH, WITH MAKING SURE THAT OUR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT STAYS IN PLACE TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE.
AND YOU STILL HAVE THE, THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONVERT THAT INTO MIXED USE.
I, I, AND, AND, AND MAYBE, MAYBE THERE'S A, A MISUNDERSTANDING IN TERMS OF, IN TERMS OF HOW I'M PRESENTING THIS, BUT THAT'S THE, THE, THE ULTIMATE IDEA, THE, UM, ITCH, UM, CHAIR, IF I MAY.
UM, FOR, I, I WOULD, I WOULD NOT SEE A, UM, I WOULDN'T NOT SEE THAT AS AN ISSUE FOR, FOR THE LARGER PARCELS, UM, IN LARGER SHOPPING CENTERS.
HOWEVER, UM, A LOT OF THE PARCELS IN THE SITE INVENTORY ARE SMALLER PARCELS THAT WHERE, WHERE MAINTAINING THE EXISTING MAY NOT EVEN BE, UM, WILL, WILL, MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE IN ORDER TO DEVELOP RESIDENTIAL.
I, I'M NOT, MAYBE I'M, I'M, I'M NOT COMMUNICATING THIS CLEARLY, BUT LET'S SAY, LET'S SAY FOR EXAMPLE, YOU HAVE A, A SINGLE STORY
[02:00:01]
BUILDING ON A, I DON'T KNOW, A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT THAT IS IDENTIFIED FOR A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT.AS A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING ON IT, EX EXISTING, I THINK THE IDEA WOULD BE THAT THAT 5,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING, LET'S SAY IT'S A SINGLE STORY REBUILDING THAT CAN BE TORN DOWN, BUT IT WOULD HAVE TO BE REBUILT SO THAT THERE IS AT LEAST 5,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.
AND, AND, YOU KNOW, BEYOND THAT, IF YOU WANT TO DO, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, SIGNIFICANTLY MORE MIXED USE, FINE.
I, I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO COMMUNICATE.
I DON'T KNOW IF, IF THAT'S MAYBE WHAT WAS LOST IN TRANSLATION, BUT I THINK IN TERMS OF DEVELOPMENT, THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER THINGS THAT KICKS IN, FOR EXAMPLE, FOR YOUR EXAMPLE, THAT WOULD BE 5,000 DIVIDED BY 10 TH UH, 10,000.
THAT'S 50% F AR EARLIER SHE'D MENTIONED THE COMMERCIAL R IS 26% MM-HMM
SO IF IT'S 26, 6%, AND NOW WE'RE REQUIRING 50%, THAT'S HALF OF THE LOT OF THE FOOTPRINT IS COMMERCIAL.
YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO DEVELOP, FOR EXAMPLE, PARKING SPACES FOR THE RESIDENTIAL, UM, ALL THAT STUFF HAD TO KICK IN, AND THEN IT'S NOT POSSIBLE AT ALL TO DEVELOP MIXED USE, BUT THAT'S WHERE HE WAS SAYING THAT MAYBE THEN THEY COULD LOOK AT DOING A PARKING STRUCTURE AND THEN HAVING THE OTHER ACTIVITIES UP ABOVE.
BUT THEN ALSO THERE'S OTHER THINGS THAT KICKS IN THE SIZE SETBACK, THE REAR SETBACK, ALL THAT.
AND THEN ON TOP OF THAT ONE STORY, YOU HAD 15 FEET REAR, A BUDDING, A REAR SETBACK.
WHEN YOU HAVE TWO STORY, THE SETBACK IS 25 FEET, AND THEN YOU HAD THREE STORY IS 40 FEET FROM THE BACK.
SO WITH ALL THE SETBACK AND ALL THAT KICKS IN, YOU'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO, IF YOU REWORD TO KEEP THER OR THE COMMERCIAL PERCENTAGE, THE RATIOS, THEY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO BUILD FOR THE SMALLER UNIT, AS THEY WERE SAYING, WHERE THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ADD THAT MIXED USE IN THERE, CUZ THEY CAN'T GO UP BECAUSE AS THEY GO UP, THEY HAD TO MOVE FURTHER.
AND I, I MOSTLY AGAIN, UM, IT IS TALKING ABOUT CONCENTRATING THE DEVELOPMENT IN THAT ENVELOPE TOWARDS THE CENTER OF THE PROPERTY.
AND THERE ARE LIKE LIVE WORK SITUATIONS WHERE LIKE, EVEN WITH SOME OF THOSE FLATS WHERE YOU HAVE YOUR SMALL SHOP ON THE FLOOR AND YOU MAY LIVE UP ABOVE AT THAT LIVING QUARTERS COULD GO UP.
SO THERE MAY BE A WAY IN ORDER TO LOOK AT IT, DOING IT, DOING IT IN THAT WAY, THAT FASHION.
UM, ARE WE ABLE TO SHOW, ARE WE ABLE TO MANDATE THAT THEY DO LIKE MIX USE SO RETAIL OR BUSINESSES IN THE BOTTOM AND RESIDENTIAL ON TOP THAT, UM, THAT WOULD BE THAT MANDATING THAT WOULD BE, WOULD BE FEASIBLE AND ON LARGER PROPERTIES WOULD ONLY BE FEASIBLE ON LARGER PROPERTIES SUCH AS THE EASTLAND CENTER.
UM, BUT IT MAY NOT BE FEASIBLE IN SMALLER, IN SMALLER PROPERTIES.
AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, UM, DURING OUR, UH, UM, SUBCOMMITTEE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING, UM, THERE WAS A DESIRE THAT, THAT WE, UM, UM, DEVELOP THE OBJECTIVES, DESIGN STANDARDS TO KIND OF, UM, MAKE, MAKE IT, MAKE THAT A LITTLE BIT LISTED, DESIRABLE, AND HAVE, AND HAVE, UM, AND HAVE, UM, TOWN HOME STYLE CON UM, CONDOMINIUMS, MORE DESIRABLE.
SO THAT WOULD BE A HORIZONTAL TYPE MIX USE RATHER THAN A VERTICAL TYPE MIX USE.
AND SO I THINK THAT THESE ARE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS THAT STILL NEED TO BE ADDRESSED AS PART OF THIS REPORT BECAUSE WE'RE APPROVING SOMETHING THAT'S GONNA HAVE LASTING A VERY LONG EFFECT.
THE, I JUST WANTED ALSO TO POINT OUT THAT THIS IS THIS, THIS, UM, THIS IS TEMP, THIS IS TEMPORARY.
AND IT, IT SERVE, IT WOULD SERVE AS A PLACEHOLDER TO SHOW THE STATE THAT WE'RE MAKING EFFORT.
UM, HOWEVER, UM, BECAUSE WE, THE CITY'S STILL WORKING ON THE DEVELOPMENT CODE UP THE DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE, WHICH, WHICH MAY REVISE, UM, AND REORGANIZE THE MIX USE
[02:05:01]
OVERLAY ZONE.AND THAT IS NOT, THAT IS NOT, UM, SCHEDULED TO BE COMPLETED UNTIL, UNTIL NEXT YEAR.
SO AS WE, UM, THE CITY IS ALREADY BEHIND ON ADOPTING THE HOUSING ELEMENT, UM, WHICH WAS DUE, WHICH WAS IN, AND ESSENTIALLY DUE LAST, THE LAST OCTOBER.
SO IN, FROM, FROM BY STATE LAW, THE, THE ITEMS THAT ARE, THAT ARE, UM, INCLUDED IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT SCHEDULE WOULD HAVE TO BE DONE WITHIN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME.
AND WE'RE ALREADY BEHIND ON THAT.
SO TO DE TO DELAY THIS, UM, BIT LONGER, UM, WILL MAKE US EVEN MORE BEHIND AND WE WILL, WE'LL MAKE THE CITY SUSCEPTIBLE TO LEGAL, LEGAL, UM, LAWSUITS.
AND WE'VE ALREADY RECEIVED A LETTER FROM, FROM A NON, UM, UH, HOME, UM, CALIFORNIANS FOR HOME OWNERSHIP.
YES, CALIFORNIANS FOR HOME OWNERSHIP, UM, ORGANIZATION THREATENING, UM, A LAWSUIT AND OTHER, I BELIEVE THEY HAVE ALREADY SU UM, FILED LAWSUITS, UM, FOR, UH, AGAINST OTHER CITIES THAT HAVE ALREADY, THAT HAVE RECEIVED THE SAME LETTER THAT WE DID.
AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, SB 35 IS A LAW, OBVIOUSLY THAT'S BEEN SIGNED INTO LAW AND IT WAS PASSED BY THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATOR AND SIGNED BY GOVERNOR NEWSOME.
AND, UH, WE, I RESPECT THE LAW.
AND SO WHEN IT COMES TO SB 35 AND, UH, BUT I BELIEVE THAT THIS REPORT IS MISSING SOME OF THE MOST IMPORTANT DETAILS, EVEN IF IT'S A TEMPORARY REPORT.
AND I THINK, UM, SO SOME OF MY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HERE HAVE, UM, VOICED SOME GOOD IDEAS THAT COULD BE ADDED TO THIS REPORT.
AND I THINK THAT BECAUSE WE HAVE A CONSULTANT THAT, UH, AND THAT HE COULD COME POSSIBLY COME BACK WITH SOME, UM, WAYS TO MAYBE INCREASE THAT OR LOWER, OR HE COULD GIVE US AN OPINION IF THAT'S GONNA HURT OR HARM THE CITY BASED UPON STATISTICAL FACTS.
AND, AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO BRING THIS BACK TO OUR NEXT, UH, COMING UP PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AND TO HAVE OUR CONSULTANT ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS IN MORE DETAIL.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND SEEING NONE? IS THERE ANY, UH, FURTHER DISCUSSION I'LL I'LL I'LL GO AHEAD.
AND, UH, I'LL GO AHEAD AND COMMENT HERE, UM, WHILE I'M NOT SO SANGIN ON, UH, MY RESPECT FOR SB 35 AS VICE CHAIR GUTIERREZ.
UM, I, I, I WILL SAY, UM, I, I, I DO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS.
I DO WANT TO ASK ONE QUICK QUESTION, JOANNE, UM, IN THE EVENT THAT THIS DOES PASS AND ACTS AS A PLACEHOLDER, SO TO SPEAK, WOULD THIS BE PRESENTED TO THE COUNCIL AS AN URGENCY ORDINANCE? NO.
SO NO, IT WOULD PRESENTED TO THE COUNCIL AS A, AS A REGULAR ORDINANCE, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE, UM, A SECOND READING FOR, UM, AN INTRODUCTION.
AND, AND THEN A SECOND READING AFTER THAT, IF IT'S ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
SO THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY WOULD, SO WHILE YOU'RE COUNCIL, RIGHT.
SO WELL LOOK RE REALISTICALLY, UM, I, I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE PARTICULARLY RESPONSIBLE TO LEAVE THE CITY OPEN TO FURTHER UNNECESSARY LITIGATION.
SO WHAT, WHAT I WOULD SAY IS, UM, I, I WOULD, I WOULD PROPOSE ONE THAT, UH, THAT, THAT WE, WE ADOPT THE, UH, UH, PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT NUMBER 22 DASH ZERO THREE ZONE CHANGE, UH, NUMBER 22 DASH, UH, OH TWO.
UM, AND, UH, WITH THAT, I WOULD, I WOULD, UH, CERTAINLY, UM, CERTAINLY RECOMMEND THAT THIS POTENTIALLY BE, UM, FAST TRACKED AS AN UUR AN URGENCY ORDINANCE.
AND THEN I, I WOULD ALSO, UM, I'D ALSO FRANKLY INSIST THAT THAT STAFF BRING THIS BACK, UH, FOR A, A FULL STUDY SESSION SO THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY ALL GO THROUGH, DETERMINE THE FEASIBILITY OF SOME OF THE IDEAS THAT SET FORTH HERE.
UM, AND THEN, UH, YOU KNOW, MOVE FORWARD ACCORDINGLY, UH, BASED ON WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S LEGALLY FEASIBLE OR, UH, YOU KNOW, FACTUALLY FEASIBLE.
I, I, YOU KNOW, ULTIMATELY I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT'S GONNA LOOK LIKE, BUT THAT WOULD BE MY MOTION.
WHY ISN'T THE LETTER PART OF OUR PACKET.
IF WE GOT THAT LETTER FROM THE, HE SENT IT TO US MONTHS AGO, THAT
[02:10:01]
WAS IN ONE OF OUR PACKETS BACK IN MARCH.SO DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I THINK THERE'S A MOTION MADE.
I'LL SECOND THAT A MOTION, RIGHT? UH, MOTION BY CHAIR LEWIS.
SECOND BY, UH, COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS. UH, DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, FURTHER COMMENT, ANY QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT.
SEEING NONE, UH, ROLL CALL, UH, COMMISSIONER HANG, COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS. AYE.
AYE, VICE CHAIR, GUTIERREZ ABSTAINED, UH, AND CHAIR LEWIS.
UM, THIS ACTION IS FINAL UNLESS APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITHIN 10 DAYS, MOVING ON TO NON-HEARING ITEMS. WE HAVE NONE.
UM, DOES ANYONE ON THE COMMISSION HAVE ANYTHING TO REPORT OR TO COMMENT ON SEEING NONE? UM, LET'S MOVE ON TO THE COMMUNITY
[4. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT:]
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTORS REPORT PAULINA.DO YOU HAVE ANY ITEMS TO REPORT TO THE COMMISSION? UH, GOOD EVENING AGAIN, SINCE WE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT IT ENOUGH, I JUST WANNA LET YOU KNOW, THE HOUSING ELEMENT WILL BE, UH, PRESENTED TO, UM, OR WE'LL BE BRINGING IT BACK TO YOU GUYS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON OCTOBER 11TH, UH, FOR PUBLIC HEARING.
UM, SO JUST WANTED TO LET YOU GIVE YOU THAT HEADS UP.
UH, AND I THINK THAT'S IT FOR ME TONIGHT.
[5. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:]
YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION ABOUT, UM, SORRY.I DID WANNA MENTION, UH, THERE'S A COUPLE OR THIS, UH, THURSDAY, WE DO HAVE STATE OF THE CITY.
UM, EVERYONE IS WELCOME TO ATTEND AND INVITED.
UH, YOU CAN GET TICKETS, UH, ON OUR CITY WEBSITE, UM, AT WEST COA.ORG, WEST COA.ORG.
UM, AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY COUNCIL ACTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN TAKING PLACE.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR POLL? ALL RIGHT.
UM, AND SEEING AS IF WE HAVE NO FURTHER BUSINESS FOR TONIGHT, THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED.