Sep 22, 2026 Planning Commission

GOOD

[CALL TO ORDER]

EVENING EVERYONE.

I'D LIKE TO CALL, UH, THIS REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR SEPTEMBER 22ND, 2006 TO ORDER.

UH, WE'LL NOW TAKE A MOMENT FOR SILENT, SILENT PRAYER OR MEDITATION, FOLLOWED BY THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, WHICH WILL BE LED BY COMMISSIONER HANG.

UM, PLEASE JOIN ME FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

I'VE HEARD YOU ALLEGIANCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

ALRIGHT, ARTURO, ROLL CALL PLEASE.

COMMISSIONER ANG HERE.

COMMISSIONER BERA.

HERE.

COMMISSIONER BENNETT, PRESENT CHAIR LEWIS HERE.

WE HAVE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES TONIGHT.

MOVING ON.

UH,

[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

WE HAVE THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 25TH, 2026.

DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY AMENDMENTS TO THE MINUTES? SEEING NONE.

THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED AS PRESENTED.

ALRIGHT, MOVING ON TO ORAL COMMUNICATIONS.

UH, THIS IS A TIME IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM, WHICH IS NOT ON THE AGENDA.

UH, AT THIS POINT, I DON'T HAVE ANY SPEAKING CARDS.

IS ANYONE LOOKING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM THAT IS NOT ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT? ALL RIGHT.

SEEING NONE, WE'LL MOVE FORWARD.

UH, WE HAVE NO ITEMS ON CONSENT CALENDAR, BUT WE

[2. CONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 25-06 TO ESTABLISH A CHILD DAYCARE CENTER. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 25-06 CEQA EXEMPTION TYPE SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3, CONSTRUCTION OR CONVERSION OF SMALL STRUCTURES)]

HAVE TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS.

UH, FIRST WE'RE GOING TO HEAR, UH, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NUMBER 25 DASH OH SIX CQA EXEMPTION TYPE SECTION 15 3 0 3, CLASS C CONSTRUCTION OR CONVERSION OF SMALL STRUCTURES AND, UH, WITH THE APPLICANT, UH, KIMBERLY NGUYEN.

UH, REGARDING THE, UH, REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT SEVEN 15 SOUTH GLENDORA AVENUE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING AN APPROVAL OF A CUP TO ALLOW THE OPERATION OF A CHILD DAYCARE CENTER IN A 1,659 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING LOCATED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL MIXED USE ZONE.

ARTURO, WHO WILL, UH, PRESENT THE STAFF REPORT CONTRACT PLANNER PAUL LAMB WILL PRESENT THE STAFF REPORT TONIGHT.

NOW, UM, ON THE SITE PLAN THERE, UH, THERE'S A RED ARROW THAT WAS, THAT WASN'T INSERTED BY STAFF, AND THAT WAS PLACED THERE TO HIGHLIGHT THE ENTRY AND EXIT POINT BETWEEN THE EXISTING PARKING LOT AND SOUTH GLENDORA AVENUE.

ANYTHING TO COME FORWARD? UM, GOOD EVENING, HONORABLE CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS.

UH, THIS EVENING I HAVE FOR YOU CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NUMBER 25 DASH SIX.

UH, THE PROJECT IS LOCATED AT SEVEN 15 SOUTH GLENDORA AVENUE.

UH, I'D LIKE TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BACKGROUND ABOUT THE SUBJECT, PROPERTY AND IMMEDIATE SURROUNDINGS.

UH, THE CUP UH, IS BEING REQUESTED TO ESTABLISH A CHILDCARE FACILITY OR PRESCHOOL ON A VACANT COMMERCIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 1 5 SOUTH GLENDORA AVENUE.

THE SITE WAS PREVIOUSLY USED AS A LAW OFFICE.

THE SUBJECT PARCEL HAS A LOT SIZE OF 11 11,400 SQUARE FEET.

AND THE EXISTING BUILDING IS ONE STORY IN HEIGHT AND HAS A, UH, A BUILDING AREA OF 1,659 SQUARE FEET.

THE ZONING OF THE PROPERTY, UH, AND THE SITE IS A NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE COMMERCIAL.

UH, THE SITE IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF SOUTH GLENDORA AVENUE BETWEEN WEST SERVICE AVENUE TO THE NORTH AND WEST CAMERON AVENUE TO THE SOUTH.

UH, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE SCREEN HERE, THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED, UH, CENTER OF THAT, UH, AERIAL VIEW.

UH, THE NEIGHBORING LAND USES ARE INSTITUTIONAL AND COMMERCIAL IN NATURE.

UH, SPECIFICALLY, UH, THERE'S A TWO UNIT OFFICE AND RETAIL BUILDING AND A PRESCHOOL LOCATED TO THE NORTH OF THE SITE.

A MEDICAL OFFICE IS LOCATED TO THE WEST AND A V'S.

MARKET IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH.

THE PROPERTIES ACROSS THE STREET ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF SOUTH GLENDORA AVENUE ARE IMPROVED WITH SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES.

UH, THIS IS AN IMAGE OF THE EXISTING ONE STORY OFFICE BUILDING, AND YOU CAN SEE, UH, THE, UM, THE EXISTING BUILDING SITS FAIRLY CLOSE TO THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY WITH, UH, A PARKING AREA DIRECTLY IN FRONT.

UM, THIS IS THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY MEASURES 60 FEET WIDE AND 190 FEET DEEP.

UH, THE EXISTING BUILDING SITS NEAR THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY, UH, AND THE PARKING LOT IS LOCATED AT THE FRONT BETWEEN THE STREET AND THE EXISTING BUILDING.

UH, THERE ARE A TOTAL OF FIVE ONSITE PARKING SPACES.

THESE FIVE SPACES COMPLY WITH THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF OFF STREET PARKING SPACES REQUIRED FOR THE PRESCHOOL USE PURSUANT TO THE WEST COVINA DEVELOPMENT CODE.

[00:05:01]

UM, THE REAR YARD IS APPROXIMATELY 100 FEET, 108 FEET DEEP, AND WILL BE USED AS THE PRESCHOOL'S OUTDOOR PLAY AREA.

UM, THE EXISTING BUILDING, THIS IS THE EXISTING BUILDING FLOOR PLAN OF THE, UM, OF THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.

UH, THE EXISTING FLOOR PLAN LAYOUT FEATURES A LARGE RECEPTION AREA, TWO OFFICES, UH, ONE BEING AT THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING AND ONE AT THE REAR.

UH, TWO RESTROOMS AND A SMALL STORAGE ROOM ADJACENT TO THE FRONT OFFICE.

UH, THIS IS THE PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.

UH, VERY LITTLE 10 IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE NECESSARY, UH, TO AFFECT THIS PRESCHOOL USE.

UH, THE EXISTING RECEPTION AREA, UH, AND THE EXISTING REAR OFFICE, THEY WILL BE CONVERTED INTO PRESCHOOL AREAS.

UM, THE EXISTING OFFICE LOCATED AT THE FRONT AND THE ADJACENT STORAGE ROOM WILL BE CONVERTED INTO AN INDOOR PLAYROOM.

ONE OF THE TWO EXISTING RESTROOMS WILL BE DESIGNATED FOR CHILDREN'S USE AND THE OTHER RESTROOM WILL BE DESIGNATED FOR STAFF USE.

UH, THIS IS, UM, THIS IS THE PROPOSED OUTDOOR PLAY AREA, UH, PLAN THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.

UH, THE REAR YARD HAS AN AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 6,429 SQUARE FEET, AND IT'S ENCLOSED IN ALL SIZE BY EXISTING SIX FOOT HIGH WALLS AND GATES.

UM, WITHIN THIS REAR YARD AREA, SYNTHETIC TURF WILL BE LAID DOWN AND TYPICAL PLAY EQUIPMENT, UM, IS SHOWN ON THE LEFT HAND COLUMN OF THE SCREEN.

THE PLAY EQUIPMENT SHOWN INCLUDES BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO TRICYCLES, PLAYHOUSES, SLIDES, TABLES, AND BENCHES.

UM, UH, THIS IS THE, UH, PROPOSED BUSINESS OPERATION PLAN, UH, AS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.

UH, THE PROPOSED BUSINESS IS LICENSED BY THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES COMMUNITY CARE LICENSING DIVISION AND WILL PROVIDE EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION FOR CHILDREN BETWEEN THE AGES OF THREE TO SIX YEARS.

UH, THE CENTER, UH, WILL BE LIMITED TO, UH, TO CARE FOR MAXIMUM OF 30 CHILDREN ONSITE AT ANY ONE TIME.

AND THIS IS BASED UPON THE NUMBER OF OFF STREET PARKING SPACES PROVIDED.

THE CENTER WILL BE OPEN, UM, MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAYS FROM 6:30 AM TO 6:00 PM ALTHOUGH EXTENDED CARE, UM, CAN BE OFFERED BASED UPON PARENT NEED AND STAFFING AVAILABILITY.

UH, THE CENTER WILL HAVE TWO ONSITE STAFF PERSONS WHOM THE APPLICANT STATES WILL MEET ALL STATE OF CALIFORNIA LICENSING REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING COMPLETION OF ALL STATE MANDATED MANDATED REPORTER TRAINING.

UH, STAFF WILL ALSO MAINTAIN CPR FIRST H CERTIFICATION, UH, CONTINUE ON THE, UM, THE BUSINESS OPERATION PLAN.

THE TYPICAL DAILY SCHEDULE IS ON THE SCREEN.

UM, AND, UM, IT IS, IS AND IT IS AS FOLLOWS, UH, UPON ARRIVAL, THERE'LL BE HEALTH SCREENING AND CHECK-IN, UH, THEN FREE PLAY AND LEARNING CENTERS CIRCLE TIME AND STRUCTURED GROUP INSTRUCTION, OUTDOOR PLAY AND GROSS MOTOR MOTOR ACTIVITIES.

UH, THEN THERE'S BREAKFAST, LUNCH, AND SNACK PERIODS, UH, FOLLOWED BY REST NAP TIME.

AND THEN, UH, THERE'LL BE AFTERNOON ENRICHMENT ACTIVITIES SUCH AS ART, LITERACY, MUSIC AND STEM SUBJECTS.

UH, AND THE DAY CONCLUDES WITH PARENT PICKUP AND END OF DAY FACILITY SAFETY CHECK.

UH, THIS AND ADDITIONAL OPERATIONAL INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND IN THE ATTACHED BUSINESS OPERATION PLAN, INCLUDED IN THE STAFF REPORT AS ATTACHMENT NUMBER TWO.

UH, THE, UH, THIS APPLICATION IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO SECTION, UH, 1 5 3 0 3 CLASS THREE, WHICH PERTAINS TO THE CONSTRUCTION CONVERSION OF SMALL STRUCTURES.

THIS APPLICATION IS, IS EXEMPT IN THAT THE PROJECT ACTIVITY CONVERTS THE USE OF AN EXISTING SMALL STRUCTURE IN A WAY THAT DOES NOT INVOLVE THE USE OF SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES SUBSTANCES, AND DOES NOT EXCEED 2,500 SQUARE FEET IN FLOOR AREA.

YOU, UH, PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDS, UH, THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPT RESOLUTION NUMBER 26 DASH 61 84 APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NUMBER 25 DASH SIX, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OR APPROVAL CONTAINED THEREIN.

UM, THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.

UH, THANK YOU AND I AM AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

THE APPLICANT IS ALSO HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AS WELL.

EXCELLENT.

DOES ANY MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF BEFORE I OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING? COMMISSIONER BENNETT, DO WE KNOW HOW MANY, UH, STAFF IS REQUIRED PER STUDENT? I KNOW THERE'S A STATE REQUIREMENT, SO I'M JUST KINDA CURIOUS WHAT THAT IS.

UM, CORRECT.

I I DO NOT KNOW THAT NUMBER OFFHAND, BUT AGAIN, THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND THEY, THEY CAN, UH, ADDRESS THAT QUESTION.

ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM ANY MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION? SEEING NONE, I'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND, UH, WE WILL FIRST HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT.

[00:10:02]

UM, CAN THE APPLICANT PLEASE COME FORWARD? HI, GOOD EVENING.

PLEASE COME UP.

YEAH, THE MICROPHONE IS YOURS, , IF YOU CAN PULL IT, PULL IT DOWN SO, UH, MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE AT HOME CAN HEAR.

GOOD EVENING.

DO, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING THAT, THAT YOU'D LIKE TO, UH, THAT YOU'D LIKE TO PRESENT AT THIS POINT IN TIME TO US? OR ARE YOU JUST, UH, GONNA TAKE ANY OPEN QUESTIONS THAT WE MIGHT HAVE? I JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION FOR .

UM, SURE.

FOR THE CHILDREN IS ONE TEACHER FOR 12 CHILDREN, ONE TO 12.

ONE TO 12? THAT'S FOR TITLE 22.

EXCELLENT.

UM, UNLESS YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE, UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? BEING THAT THERE'S 30 CHILDREN, WOULD THERE BE ADEQUATE PARKING OR, YOU KNOW, AS, UH, HAVING HAD TWO CHILDREN TO PICK UP? SOMETIMES IT CAN BE A NIGHTMARE.

SO DO, IS THERE ADEQUATE PARKING TO FOR PARENTS TO GO IN AND OUT OR DO THEY ALL LEAVE AT THE SAME TIME? ARE THERE DIFFERENT, UM, HOURS FOR THE CHILDREN OR IS IT MORNING, AFTERNOON? YEAH, WE HAVE ANOTHER SIDE.

IT'S CALLED A ONE SIX WEST SERVICE.

IT'S UNDER PUNTE AVENUE.

BRISCO, IT'S A NEIGHBOR.

SO WE CAN SHARE THE PARKING LOT, YOU KNOW, IN CASE, UH, IN AFTERNOON SPECIAL IN AFTERNOON, IN THE MORNING.

WE AT RUN WITH IT HAPPEN.

WE CAN RENT THE PICKUP AND UH, AND DROP OFF.

SO I DON'T THINK IT HAD THE ISSUE FOR THE TRAFFIC ISSUE.

WE HAVE ANOTHER SIDE AT THE, THE ONE ON, UH, WEST SERVICE, A1C WEST SERVICE THAT ALSO UNDER PUNTE AVENUE PRESCHOOL AS WELL.

SO YOU DON'T ANTICIPATE ANY PARKING SITUATIONS? UH, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE.

ANY STAFF WOULD BE PARKING THERE OR THEY'D BE PARKING OFFSITE.

THE STAFF THEY CAN PARK IN.

WE HAVE A PARKING SLOT ALSO.

WE CAN SHARE THE PARKING AT THE, AT ANOTHER PRESCHOOL ALSO.

ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALRIGHT, SEEING NONE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ALRIGHT, IS THERE ANYONE, UH, ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, UH, IN FAVOR OF THE APP OF THE, UH, APPLICANT? ANYONE OPPOSED? NEUTRAL.

SEEING NONE, I'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE WILL GO AHEAD AND OPEN COMMISSION DISCUSSION.

ANY DISCUSSION? MY ONLY THING I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS JUST THE, THE PARKING LIKE LIV BROUGHT UP.

UM, I KNOW THEY'RE NEXT TO THE CVS AND THE VON SO I HAVE A FEELING THAT THAT PARKING LOT'S GONNA BE USED, BE USED FOR OVERFLOW.

PROBABLY WHAT YOU WERE THINKING AS WELL.

THAT'S MY ONLY CONCERN IS JUST THE SIZE OF IT, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S ENOUGH TO, TO BE A MAJOR ISSUE.

THAT'S MY ONLY CONCERN.

I'M, I'M JUST TORN ON THAT.

DO WE HAVE A MAP OF THE SCHOOL THAT'S NEXT DOOR SO WE COULD SEE WHERE THEIR OVERFLOW PARKING WOULD BE? IS THERE ANY WAY WE CAN ZOOM IN ON THAT? UM, LET'S SEE.

WE CAN TRY AND WE GO.

SO, UM, IF YOU LOOK AT THE PROJECT SITE, UM, JUST NORTH OF IT, THERE'S A, THERE'S A PROPERTY WHICH, UH, FRONTS OUR SERVICE AVENUE.

UM, AND LET ME JUST STEP ASIDE TO THE SCREEN HERE, ACROSS THE STREET, IS THAT THE ONE OR IS THE ONE THAT'S ADJACENT? I THINK IT ABUTS ON, I'M SORRY, ON SERVICE RIGHT UP HERE.

IS THAT ACCESSED FROM SERVICE? UM, IT IS, YES.

IF, IF YOU WANT TO COME BACK UP, THAT'S FINE.

I'LL, LET ME JUST, UH, I'LL REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING TO TO HEAR YOUR, UH, RESPONSE ON THE PARKING INQUIRY.

SO THE PARKING FIRST, UM, WE HAVE THE POLICY, WE HAVE COUPLE, UH, PUNTE AVENUE PRESCHOOL.

SO WE HAVE, UM, THE LIMIT IS FOR

[00:15:01]

THE PARKING.

FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN THE PARENT PICK UP, THEY HAVE LIMITS FOR, YOU KNOW, THE FIVE OR THREE TO FIVE MINUTES SIGHT INSIDE OUT, CHECK THE SAFETY AND LIP.

SO THAT IS THE, UH, ORIENTATION.

ALSO, WE, WE HAVE THE, UH, PRESCHOOL.

WE ALSO HAVE THE PLAZA, THE PLAZA, THE BUILDING IN THE CORNER.

AND THAT BUILDING ALSO, WE CAN SHARE THE PARKING ALSO ON THAT, UH, PLAZA.

THE ONE, UH, 7 0 3 GLENDORA, 7 0 3 SOUTH GLENDORA.

THAT'S ONE BELONGED TO PUNTE AVENUE PRESCHOOL, ALSO THE, THE CORNER ONE.

UNDERSTOOD.

SO THE CORNER OF SERVICE AND SOUTH GLENDORA AVENUE ALSO BELONGS TO THE SCHOOL THAT'S ON SERVICE, CORRECT? YES.

UHHUH .

AND ARE THEY AFFILIATED WITH YOU IN ANY WAY? YEAH, THEY'RE WITH ME.

OH, SO IT'S THE SAME, THE SAME PEOPLE OR THE SAME ENTITY? THE SAME, YEAH, BUT THEY, THEY, YEAH, THEY HAVE ABUSE NET BUT UH, THEY, THEY ALL WEEK CLOSE EARLY AND THAT'S WHEN ALSO THE PARKING, YOU KNOW, IT HAD THE ISSUE OKAY.

IN CASE EMERGENCY.

BUT I DON'T, I DON'T SEE ANY, ANY PROBLEM, BUT I'M TALKING ABOUT IN CASE.

IF I MAY, SO THE, THE CORNER BUILDING THERE, IF I REMEMBER IS A TWO STORY OFFICE BUILDING, CORRECT? RIGHT ON THE CORNER OF SERVICING GLENDORA.

SO YES, THAT PROPERTY'S AFFILIATED WITH YOU OR THE SCHOOL'S AFFILIATED WITH YOU AFFILIATED UNDER MY NAME? THE PROPERTIES OR THE, THE PROPERTY.

BOTH PROPERTIES, YES.

UHHUH.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I, UH, I DO HAVE A QUESTION.

SO IN TERMS OF PICKING UP FOR THE PARENTS, UM, I MEAN THE, THE, THE CHILD'S AGE IS, VARIES THE YOUNGER ONE, NORMALLY IT TAKES A LITTLE BIT LONGER FOR A PICKUP, BUT THE OLDER ONE, DO THEY JUST WALK OUT THERE, GET IN THE CAR AND THEN OFF THEY GO? NO, UH, I, THE, THEY SIGN OUT.

WE HAVE, WE CALL IT ORIENTATION.

THE HOURS THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE GO ORIENTATION, WE HAVE TO TELL THE PARENT THEY, IT, THE SCHOOL POLICY, WHEN THEY PICK UP, THEY'RE SIDE OUT, THEY HAVE IN HAND, UH, AND WALK THE KID TO THE CAR.

IT NOT ALLOWED TO, YOU KNOW, LET THE KIDS RUN OUT.

THAT IS OUR OWN TENTION FOR THE FIRST DAY THAT THE PARENT HAVE TO SIGN.

SO, SO FAR THE PARENT ALWAYS, YOU KNOW, GO WITH EARTH BECAUSE THE SAFETY ALWAYS THE FIRST, UH, CONSIDER.

SO, YOU KNOW, IF THE PARENT, THEY HAVE, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THEY, THE CHILDREN THE LINE, SO THEY HAVE TO WORK WITH EARTH.

AND, UM, ALSO I'M, I'M PLANNING, IF I HAVE A LICENSING, I CAN ADD THE LICENSE TO PUT THE FAN OUTSIDE, TO PUT THE FAN OUTSIDE.

AND YOU KNOW, WITH THE GATE, THAT'S WHAT MY PLAN IS.

BUT RIGHT NOW, UM, I DON'T KNOW.

I CANNOT PUT ANYTHING UNTIL, UNTIL I HAVE A LICENSING AND AFTER LICENSING FOR THE APPROVAL.

THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO DO FOR THE FED.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

YOU ARE WELCOME.

I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION.

SO IT'S, IT'S BEEN A MINUTE SINCE MY KIDS WERE THAT AGE AT LEAST A FEW YEARS.

YEAH, .

AND SO WHAT EXACTLY IS A CURRICULUM STEM? WHAT IS THAT ABOUT? YES, UH, IT'S, IT STANDS FOR, UM, COGNITIVE, UM, A, A MODEL SKILL.

UM, IT, IT, IN CHILD DEVELOPMENT, IT'S CALLED COGNITIVE, UH, GROW MODEL.

UM, UH, SOCIAL SKILL IS, IS IS THERE FOR EVERYTHING.

THANK YOU .

YOU ARE WELCOME.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I DO, YOU MENTIONED A FENCE.

WHERE DO YOU WANNA BUILD THAT FENCE? EVENTUALLY, BUT YOU CAN'T DO YET.

I DON'T THINK I CAN DO ANYTHING.

I DON'T KNOW.

I, I I KNOW YOU HAVE TO, YOU WOULD'VE TO DO ANOTHER PERMIT.

I GET THAT.

BUT WHAT'S YOUR, WHAT'S YOUR GOAL ON THAT? JUST SO I UNDERSTAND, UNDERSTAND.

WELL, MY GOAL IS, UH, ON THE FRONT IS HAVE THE, HAVE THE FENCE AROUND.

WITH THE GAS.

SO LIKE DURING, UM, YOU KNOW, DURING OPERAT WE CAN CLOSE THE GATE AND UM, AND THEN PICK UP OR WRAP UP.

WE CAN OPEN IT WITH, YOU KNOW, WITH THE GAZE SO THAT PARENT UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S BUSY STREET.

SO THEY HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, CONSIDER WORK THE CASE IN HANDS, WORK OUT.

THAT'S WHAT MY GOAL.

BUT, BUT I REALLY DON'T KNOW HOW TO, TO, I WORK DIRECT WITH THE LICENSING SO I UNDERSTAND HOW TO, UM, YOU KNOW, HOW, HOW TO COMMUNICATE, HOW TO ASK FOR THE QUESTION.

BUT WITH THE CITY, I REALLY DON'T KNOW HOW TO IT MY FIRST TIME.

SO I REALLY DON'T KNOW HOW TO, YOU KNOW, HOW TO ADD FOR THAT.

DID YOU WANNA ASK THE GENTLEMAN TO COME UP TO HELP YOU? JUST, ARE YOU AWARE OF THIS, THE QUESTIONS, ARE YOU ABLE

[00:20:01]

TO HELP ANSWER? OKAY.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

UM, ANY OTHER, UH, ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL WANTING TO, UH, SPEAK, UH, IN SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION BASED UPON, UH, THE FURTHER INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT? ALRIGHT, SEEING NONE, I'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE, THE PUBLIC HEARING AGAIN AND WE'LL OPEN IT BACK UP FOR COMMISSION DISCUSSION.

MY BIGGEST CONCERN A LITTLE BIT ON THE PARKING, YOU WERE ASKING ABOUT THE PARKING.

UM, THEY DO HAVE, UM, THE REQUIRED MINIMUM PARKING PER CODE.

SO THEY HAVE FIVE.

UM, SO THEY'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE, UH, UH, ONE PER STAFF AND THEN ONE FOR EVERY, UH, 10 CHILDREN.

THEY'RE ANTICIPATING, I BELIEVE 30 CHILDREN.

SO THAT IT, THAT, THAT WOULD EQUATE TO FIVE PARKING STALLS, WHICH THEY HAVE ONE OF, ONE OF THOSE STALLS BEING AN A DA VAN ACCESSIBLE STALL.

IF, IF I MAY, SO YOU'RE SAYING ONE PARKING PER 10 CHILDREN AND THEN ONE PER STAFF MEMBER ON TOP OF THAT? CORRECT.

A MINIMUM OF ONE PER EMPLOYEE PLUS ONE ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACE FOR EVERY 10 CHILDREN.

AND THEY'RE ANTICIPATED HALF 30 CHILDREN.

SO ARE THEY RELEASED ALL AT THE SAME TIME OR ARE THEY'RE JUST AS THE PARENTS COME THROUGH, THEY PICK THEM UP? UM, I, I'M NOT SURE IF THIS IS, THAT MAY BE A QUESTION FOR THE, THE APPLICANT, THE OPERATION OF IT.

USUALLY CHILDCARE.

IF IT'S CHILDCARE, IF IT'S NOT LIKE, UM, LIKE A DESIGNATED SCHOOL PROGRAM.

YEAH, YOU CAN, YOU CAN DROP OFF ANYWHERE BETWEEN EIGHT AND NINE, EIGHT AND NINE 30.

UM, AND I SPEAK FROM EXPERIENCE.

SOMETIMES YOU DAYCARE CARE IS MORE LAX.

IT'S A LITTLE MORE LAX.

EXACTLY.

SO I, I JUST WANNA GO BACK TO THE MATH REAL QUICK.

SO IF IT'S ONE, ONE TEACHER OR ONE STAFFER FOR 12 KIDS TO GET TO 30, WE'RE AT THREE STAFFERS.

AND SO THEN IF IT'S ONE PARKING SPACE PER 10 CHILDREN, WE'RE LOOKING AT SIX PARKING SPACES.

I'M NOT TRYING TO SPLIT HAIRS, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE MATH TO MAKE SURE I I'M FOLLOWING THIS CORRECTLY.

RIGHT THROUGH OPERATION IS NO MORE THAN 30 STUDENTS.

SO, SO THAT WOULD BE THREE TEACHERS IS IF THEY GO OVER 24 OR OR 24 STUDENTS MAX WITH TWO TEACHERS.

AND THERE ARE SIX PARKING SPACES.

THERE ARE FIVE PARKING SPACES.

SO IF THEY GET TO 30, THAT'S MY CONCERN IS HOW YOU INVOKE THAT SIX SPOT.

I DON'T KNOW IF, FOR ME THAT'S THAT CRITICAL.

I'M MORE WORRIED ABOUT THE PICKUP AND DROP OFF.

'CAUSE I REMEMBER LIKE YOU, IT'S BEEN A MINUTE.

UM, I I I AGREE THAT THERE'S STEADY TRAFFIC AT AFTER FOUR OR FIVE O'CLOCK AND STEADY TRAFFIC IN THE MORNING.

SO, SO MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WHEN SHE CAME UP, SHE, IT SAID THAT SHE OWNS THE PROPERTY AS WELL NEXT DOOR.

THAT THAT WAS THE WAY I UNDERSTOOD.

SO SHE COULD ALWAYS HAVE HER STAFF PARK OVER THERE IF SHE NEEDS TO.

I BELIEVE SO, BUT I THINK OUR DIRECTOR IS TRYING TO TELL US THAT THERE ONLY REQUIRE ONE STAFF PARKING, WHETHER THEY HAVE TWO, THREE TEACHERS OR NOT.

IT'S ONLY REQUIRED ONE STAFF PARKING SPACE FOR THIS PARTICULAR CONDITION USE.

AND THEN EACH 10 OF THE KIDS, THEY REQUIRE ONE MORE PARKING, BUT THEY'RE ONLY ASKED FOR 30.

SO A TOTAL OF THREE PLUS ONE STAFF PARKING, THAT'S A TOTAL FOUR REQUIREMENT THAT THEY ARE REQUIRED FROM THE CITY.

AND THEY GAVE US FIVE.

WELL NO, THEY'RE ANTICIPATING TWO.

TWO INSTRUCTORS.

SO TWO STAFF THAT'S ANTICIPATE IT.

SO THE TWO PLUS, LIKE YOU MENTIONED, PLUS THREE.

SO THAT'S TOTAL FIVE THAT THEY MET THEIR REQUIREMENTS AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME.

IT IT'S ONLY THREE.

IF THEY HAVE 24 KIDS OR LESS, IT'S ONE 30 FOR 12 KIDS.

SO THAT WOULD BE THREE TEACHERS FOR 20 FOR 36 OR 30 WOULD BE THREE TEACHERS AND THEN ONE PER 10 STUDENTS WOULD BE SIX PARKING SPACES.

'CAUSE YOU'D BE AT 30.

WELL, MR. BENNETT IS, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, UH, THE APPLICANT SAID THAT IT'S A RATIO OF ONE TEACHER FOR EVERY 12 STUDENTS.

RIGHT? SO IT'S IN INCREMENTS OF 12.

CORRECT? CORRECT.

SHE, SHE WOULD BE LIMITED TO 24.

UM, I'M NOT SURE IF THAT'S A STATE MANDATE OR IF THAT'S JUST HER OPERATIONAL.

IF IT'S JUST AN OPERATIONAL GUIDELINE, SHE COULD POTENTIALLY HAVE A RATIO OF ONE TEACHER FOR EVERY 15 STUDENTS WHERE SHE WOULD BE OKAY.

PLAN IN ATTACHMENT TWO IS THAT THE CDSS LICENSING RATIO REQUIRES UH, ONE, UH, ONE EMPLOYEE PER 12 PRESCHOOLERS.

AND, AND IF SHE HAS ADDITIONAL PARKING ONE EVERY 10, I'M OKAY WITH THAT.

UM, I I ACTUALLY THINK THEY'RE GONNA END UP PARKING AT CVS AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S RIGHT TO IMPOSE THAT ON THEM, BUT, UM, I I I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THE MATH ON THIS BECAUSE I'M MATTING IT OUT AT SIX AND WE'RE COMING TO FIVE AND I'M JUST MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE CORRECT.

NOW, MY UNDERSTANDING BASED UPON THE BUSINESS ORGANIZATION OPERATIONS

[00:25:01]

SO, UM, SO BASED UPON THAT, YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE, IF, IF YOU HAVE OVER 24, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO HAVE THREE EMPLOYEES.

AND, UM, AND AT THAT POINT IN TIME, FIVE PARKING SPACES, RIGHT? OR EXCUSE ME, THREE PARKING SPACES.

SO A TOTAL OF SIX IN THAT CONTEXT.

I GUESS, I GUESS THE QUESTION THEN BECOMES IS, UM, IS THE COMMISSION OKAY WITH A PARKING DEFICIT IN THAT CONTEXT? UM, GIVEN THE POTENTIAL FOR AVAILABLE PARKING ON ADJACENT LOTS THAT THE APPLICANT OWNS OR OUGHT, WE LOOK AT ADDING IN A REQUIREMENT FOR, UH, FOR AUTHORIZATION TO PARK ON ONE OF THOSE ADJACENT LOTS AS PART OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO THE EXTENT THAT IT'S A 30 STUDENT MAXIMUM.

BUT THIS IS A DAYCARE, IT'S NOT LIKE A, I DON'T THINK OF IT AS LIKE A SCHOOL PER SE.

A DAYCARE IS MORE OF A, I'M NOT SURE IF YOU HAVE TO HAVE TEACHERS, BUT YOU HAVE TO ENTERTAIN THEM SOMEHOW ALONG THE WAY.

UM, AND ALSO WHEN SCHOOL CLASS, WHEN CLASS GETS OFF SCHOOL, EVERYONE LEAVES AT THE SAME TIME.

SO YOU'RE EXPECTING 30 PEOPLE TO LEAVE OR WHATEVER THE NUMBER THAT THEY'RE THERE.

HOWEVER, THIS IS A DAYCARE, SINCE IT'S A DAYCARE, PARENTS CAN COME BETWEEN THE HOURS, LET, LET'S SAY THE HOURS.

THEY CAN COME ANYTIME ACTUALLY THEY CAN PULL THEIR KIDS OUT ANYTIME.

IT'S NOT LIKE A SCHOOL THAT YOU HAVE TO BE THERE AND ALL LEAVE AT FIVE O'CLOCK, LET'S JUST SAY.

SO IF THEY CARE WHENEVER THE PARENTS GETS OFF WORK OR THEN THEY JUST PICK UP THEIR KIDS.

SO IT'S BETWEEN THE DURATION OF THAT TIME, WHATEVER, IT'S BETWEEN THREE OR WHENEVER THEY OPEN FROM SIX TILL SIX IN THE EVENING, THAT'S WHEN PARENTS CAN PICK THEM UP WHENEVER THEY'RE AVAILABLE AND WHENEVER THEY COME GETTING OFF WORK, MOST OF THE TIME PARENTS WOULD JUST LEAVE THEIR KIDS AFTER SCHOOL.

'CAUSE IF YOU GO TO A TRADITIONAL, REGULAR SCHOOL, YOU DO HAVE TO STAY TILL TWO OR THREE O'CLOCK.

AND THEN IF THEY'RE TAKING OVER FROM THREE TO SIX, THAT'S WHEN THE PARENTS CANNOT PICK THEM UP AT THREE O'CLOCK AT THE REGULAR SCHOOL.

SO A DAYCARE, IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT FROM REGULAR SCHOOL.

SO IF YOU'RE ANTICIPATING THAT 30 STUDENTS IS GONNA GET OUT OF THE DAYCARE AT SIX O'CLOCK, THAT'S NOT HAPPENING.

AND IT'S NOT POSSIBLE AT THAT BUSY STREET.

I, I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH YOU.

UH, AND HAVING EXPERIENCED IT, GRANTED, LIKE WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, IT'S BEEN A WHILE.

I AGREE NOT EVERYONE PICKS UP AT 2 30, 2 45, 3 O'CLOCK.

A HUNDRED PERCENT AGREE.

BUT I WILL TELL YOU AS A PERSON WHO WORKED AND HAD A CHILD IN DAYCARE, THEY WERE REALLY BUSY BETWEEN FOUR AND SIX.

WHEN EVERYONE'S GETTING OFF WORK AND GETTING THERE, THAT'S WHEN A BULK OF KIDS ARE TYPICALLY BEING PICKED UP.

'CAUSE THEY'RE DAYCARE WHILE PEOPLE ARE AT WORK.

THE WORK SCHEDULES THAT THE PARENTS HAVE VARY.

I GET IT.

THAT'S WHY THERE'S A 6:00 AM DROP OFF.

AND I, I AGREE WITH YOU.

IT'S VERY CONDITIONED.

I I GUESS I'M IN A POSITION WHERE I, I DON'T SO MUCH HAVE THE ISSUE WITH THE ONE LESS PARKING SPACE.

'CAUSE I DO THINK THERE'S ROOM.

I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO USE THAT ADDITIONAL SPACE.

UM, SO I'M NOT NECESSARILY SAYING IT SHOULD BE A NO, I, I JUST WANT TO KNOW THAT WE DEFINITELY KNOW THAT THERE'S ROOM FOR OVERFLOW OF THE FIVE.

'CAUSE I THINK IT'S GONNA HAPPEN.

I AGREE WITH YOU.

MAYBE NOT 30 KIDS AT ONCE, BUT YOU MIGHT HAVE SEVEN, EIGHT, YOU KNOW, BETWEEN A PERIOD OF TIME AND I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THERE'S ROOM AND LIKE I SAID, I THINK EVERYONE'S GONNA PARK AT CVS, I THINK THEY'RE GONNA PARK OVER THERE AND WALK OVER.

WELL, WE'VE ALREADY ESTABLISHED SHE HAS A PARKING LOT NEXT DOOR AND, AND THERE IT'S ACTUALLY HAS A OPEN DRIVEWAY TO THERE.

SO IF SHE WANTED, SHE COULD, YOU KNOW, HAVE HER STAFF PARK THERE AND IT WOULD MAKE MORE ROOM IF SHE WANTED TO.

SHE WAS ABLE TO EVEN HAVE MORE CHILDREN.

I DON'T KNOW IF SHE HAS THE CAPABILITY TO HAVE MORE THAN 30, BUT, UM, IN THE EVENT THAT, YOU KNOW, SHE DOES GO TO 30 AND WANTS TO DO ONE TEACHER PER 10, SHE COULD EASILY THROW, YOU KNOW, THE EXTRA TWO, ONE OR TWO PARKING FOR HER, YOU KNOW, TEACHERS TO THE OTHER PARKING LOT.

IF SHE DIDN'T HAVE THAT, I THINK, YOU KNOW, I MEAN YOU WANNA PUT THAT INTO AS A CONDITION.

I MEAN YOU CAN, WE CAN DO THAT, BUT I, I DON'T THINK IT'S WOULD BE A PROBLEM.

I GUESS ALSO WE HAD TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THAT THAT PARTICULAR FACILITY IS ONLY 1600 OR SO SQUARE FOOT.

SO IT'S REALLY NOT THAT BIG.

UNLIKE OTHER CHILDCARE FACILITY THAT'S A LOT LARGER.

[00:30:01]

AND EVEN WITH THAT, I'VE PICKED UP LITTLE KIDS VOLUNTEERED TO BE PICKED UP LITTLE KIDS BEFORE AND I'VE NOT NEVER BEEN INTO LIKE A JAM WITH ANYONE ELSE AT ALL.

I'M USUALLY THE LAST ONE TO PICK THEM UP.

BUT , BUT I'M JUST SAYING THAT THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION, IT'S ONLY 600 SQUARE FOOT.

I'M NOT SURE IF YOU CAN EVEN JAM 30 KIDS IN THAT HOUSE THAT'S BIGGER THAN SOME OF THE HOUSES IN WEST COVINA.

THEY'RE NOT THAT BECAUSE THEY'RE AFTER THEY'RE BIG, BUT I DON'T THINK MOST HOUSES DON'T HAVE 30 PEOPLE IN THE 69 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE.

SO I'M NOT SURE.

SO, AND TAKE INTO CONSIDERATIONS THAT THE FACILITY IS QUITE SMALL.

ALRIGHT, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? WE HAVE A MOTION.

MOTION TO APPROVE.

SECOND.

ALL RIGHT, I'LL SECOND.

COMMISSIONER BENNETT AYE.

WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER BECERRA.

SECOND BY ME.

UM, ARTURO, LET'S DO THE, UH, THE ROLL CALL.

ABSOLUTELY.

ACTUALLY I, I THINK WE NEED TO DO THE, UH, RESOLUTION NUMBER.

SO, UH, GIMME ONE SECOND HERE.

I THINK THE RESOLUTION NUMBER IS, FORGIVE ME, 26 DASH UH, 6 1 8 4.

UH, REGARDING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NUMBER 25 DASH OH SIX, UM, AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND ROLL CALL VOTE COMMISSIONER ANG AYE.

COMMISSIONER RA AYE.

CHAIR LEWIS AYE.

MOTION PASSES FOR ZERO.

THE DECISION WILL BE FINAL UNLESS A WRITTEN REQUEST FOR AN APPEAL IS PRESENTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITHIN 10 DAYS.

WE'LL MOVE ON

[3. CONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 25-06 TO ESTABLISH A CHILD DAYCARE CENTER. APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT NO. 25-65 PURSUANT TO SECTION 15270 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) GUIDELINES, CEQA DOES NOT APPLY TO PROJECTS THAT A PUBLIC AGENCY REJECTS OR DISAPPROVES.]

TO OUR NEXT PUBLIC HEARING AND THAT IS THE APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT NUMBER TWO FIVE DASH SIX FIVE PURSUANT TO SECTION 15 2 70 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES, UH, CA DOES NOT APPLY TO PROJECTS THAT A PUBLIC AGENCY REJECTS OR DISAPPROVES THE APPLICANT TONIGHT IS FOOTHILL TRANSIT, UH, PERTAINING TO THE LOCATION AT 100 SOUTH VINCENT AVENUE.

THE APPLICANT IS APPEALING THE PLANNING DIVISION'S DENIAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT NUMBER TWO FIVE DASH 65 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR FREESTANDING SOLAR CARPORT STRUCTURES, UH, OVER PORTIONS OF THE EXISTING SURFACE PARKING AREA AT 100 SOUTH VINCENT AVENUE ARTURO, WHO WILL PRESENT THE STAFF REPORT CONTRACT PLANNER SONYA GREGO WILL PRESENT THE STAFF REPORT TONIGHT.

GOOD EVENING, CHAIR CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

UM, THIS ITEM CONCERNS FOOTHILL TRANSIT APPEALS, THE PLANNING DIVISION, DENIAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE.

YEAH, YEAH.

UM, THIS ITEM CONCERNS FOOTHILL TRANSIT APPEALS APPEAL OF THE PLANNING DIVISION DENIAL ADMINISTRATION PERMIT NUMBER TWO FIVE DASH 6 5 4 4.

PROPOSED FREESTANDING SOLAR CARPORTS AT 100 SOUTH VINCENT AVENUE.

THE APPLICANT ASKED THE COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS, UM, TO OVERTURN STAFF'S DENIAL.

UM, STAFF RECOMMENDS THE OPPOSITE TO DENIED, UM, THE APPEAL AND TO UPHOLD THE NOTICE OF DENIAL.

THE, THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THESE FREESTANDING STRUCTURES ARE PERMITTED IN THE ZONE T FOUR GU UNDER THE ON DOWNTOWN PLAN CODE.

UH, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN PLAN AND CODE AREA.

UM, IT'S ZONE T UH, T FOUR GENERAL URBAN.

UM, THE SITE HAS A LOT AREA OF 2.91 ACRES.

THE SITE, UH, INCLUDES APPROXIMATELY OF, UM, 59 50 8,000 SQUARE FEET.

UH, SIX STORY, UM, MULTI-TENANT OFFICE BUILDING, UH, AND APPROXIMATELY 900 SQUARE FEET, UH, DETACHED, UM, DRIVE THROUGH, UH, ATM CANOPY AND THE SURFACE PARKING AREAS.

UM, TRANS, UH, FOOTHILL TRANSIT OPERATE OPERATION, UM, CHASE BANK AND OTHER TENANTS OP OPERATE, UM,

[00:35:01]

THE SIXTH OFFICE, UM, BUILDING.

UM, THERE'S NO CHANGE ON THE EXISTING USES OR TENANTS.

UM, THE SITE, UH, DIRECTLY BORDERS, UH, INTERSTATE, UM, 10 ON THE EAST WEST FREEWAY.

UM, THE SURROUNDING USES ARE COMMERCIAL, RETAIL, AND RESIDENTIAL.

UM, THE APPLICANT PROPOSED TO CONSTRUCT FOUR FREESTANDING SOLAR CARPORT STRUCTURES SUPPORTING, SUPPORTING SOLAR PANELS OVER A PORTION OF THE EXISTING SURFACE PARKING AREA, WHICH I OUTLINED AND READ FOR YOU.

UM, THREE OF THE PROPOSED SOLAR, UM, CARPORTS, UH, WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 5,500 SQUARE FEET EACH.

UM, ONE OF 'EM WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 6,416 SQUARE FEET.

THE TOTAL PROPOSED STRUCTURE, UH, WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 22,916 OF, UM, SOLAR CANOPY AREA.

THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURES WOULD RANGE FROM 14 FEET TO 21 FEET.

UM, THE PROPOSED SOLAR, UM, CARPORTS WILL BE FREESTANDING STRUCTURES DETACHED FROM THE EXISTING SIX STORY OFFICE BUILDING AND WILL BE LOCATED WITHIN THE EXISTING SURFACE PARKING AREA ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING.

UM, THE APPLICATION DOES NOT, UM, PROPOSE CHANGING THE EXISTING USES ON THE PROPERTY.

FOOT HAIR TRANSIT SUBMITTED THE APPLICATION ON DECEMBER 23RD, 2025 AFTER A FORMAL LAND USE REVIEW.

THE PLANNING DIVISION ISSUED A DENIAL LETTER ON FEBRUARY THE SECOND, AND AGAIN, APRIL THE NINTH OF 2026.

THE APPLICANT APPEAL FIVE DAYS LATER.

THE APPEAL CONCERNS ONLY THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE.

IT DOES NOT CHALLENGE THE ESTABLISHED OFFICE TRANSIT BANKING AND PARKING USES.

THE APPEAL RAISES SIX MAIN POINTS.

UM, THE DIRECTOR AUTHORITY TO CLASSIFY UNLISTED USES THE ABSENT OF, OF A USE THAT IS NOT SPECIFIC, IDENTIFY AS PROHIBIT IN THE TABLE.

4.3 0.1 OF THE DOWNTOWN PLANNING CODE.

THE SUSTAINABLE, UH, POLICIES, THE STATE SOLAR POLICIES, THE INITIAL STAFF DISCUSSION AND THE NEARBY, NEARBY EXISTING SOLAR CARPORTS STAFF VALIDATE EACH ARGUMENT UNDER THE CURRENT DOWNTOWN PLAN AND CODE.

UM, STAFF'S PRIMARY LAND USE DETERMINATION RESTS ON THE TF DASH GUUS REGULATIONS.

THE DOWNTOWN PLAN DOES NOT LIST SOLAR CARPORTS OR ANY COMPATIBLE COMPATIBLE FREESTANDING CANOPIES AS ALLOWABLE.

SECTION 3.1 A AUTHORIZED THE DIRECTOR TO DETERMINE THEIR APPROPRIATE, APPROPRIATE CALCIFICATION FOR UNLISTED USES.

BUT STAFF CONCLUDED IT DOES NOT PERMIT ADDING A NEW USE THAT IS NOT COMPATIBLE TO AN ALLOWED USE ALREADY.

THE EXISTING PARKING AREA ALSO DOES NOT INDEPENDENTLY AUTHORIZE THESE NEW STRUCTURES.

THE REMAINING ARGUMENTS DO NOT CHANGE THE APPROPRIATE CODE.

THE MUNICIPAL CODE EXPRESSLY ALLOWS SOLAR CARPORTS IN OTHER COMMERCIAL ZONES, BUT THIS SITE IS GOVERNED BY T FOUR DASH, THE NEARBY SOLAR CARPORTS WERE APPROVED IN 2010.

UNDER EARLY REGULATIONS, POLICY GOES DO NOT REPLACE THE USE TABLE.

THE INITIAL PLANNING COUNTER DISCUSSIONS ARE NOT A FORMAL APPROVAL.

UM, THE REPORT ALSO IDENTIFIED A PUBLIC SAFETY CONCERNS UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6 5 8 5 0 0.5.

UM, THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE RANGES FROM ROUGHLY 14 TO 21 FEET IN HIGH.

UM, AND IT SITS ADJACENT TO THE I 10 CORRIDOR, UM, FREEWAY FROM EAST TO WEST.

UM, STAFF BELIEVES, UM, UM, REFLECTING SUNLIGHT AND GLARE CAN DISTURB MODERATES PARTICULAR DEPENDING ON THE SUN POSITION AND THE PANEL ORIENTATION

[00:40:01]

AND THE FEASIBLE LANDSCAPE SCREENING MAY NOT BE RESOLVED AS A CONCERN.

STAFF, UM, BECAUSE STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIALS.

UM, SQL GUIDELINES, SECTION 1 5 2 7 0 APPLIES AND NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED FOR THIS SECTION.

STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPT RESOLUTION NUMBER 26 DASH 6 180 5, DENY THE APPEAL AND UPHOLD THE PLANNING DIVISION.

NOTICE OF DENIAL.

UM, THIS BASICALLY ENDS MY PRESENTATION AT THIS TIME.

DO THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS TO STAFF? ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AT THIS POINT? GUYS? COMMISSIONER HANK, UM, DOES THE APPLICANT HAS A PICTURES OF WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE AFTER IT'S BUILT? WE COULD, UM, THE APPLICANT'S HERE, HE COULD.

UM, OKAY.

I DON'T SHARE.

WE'LL, WE'LL, UNLESS THERE'S ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

WE'LL, I ANYMORE OKAY, WE'LL WE'LL GET TO THAT IN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

COMMISSIONER VARA, SO AT WHAT ANGLE, SO OBVIOUSLY THERE'S THE, THE FREEWAY IS HERE AND HERE IS VINCENT BE POSSIBLE FOR THEM TO HAVE THE, THE, THE PANEL SPACING INSTEAD OF WHICH, HOW ARE THEY DYING? SO THERE'S TWO ROWS OF, UM, UM, COMMISSIONER HANG, DO YOU WANT TO, DO YOU WANT TO JUST GO TO THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION OR? YEAH, YEAH, GO AHEAD.

SHE HAS THAT.

ANY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT FOR STAFF BEFORE I OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING? SEEING NONE, I'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND, UH, WE WILL, UH, BRING THE, UH, THE APPLICANT FORWARD, UM, OR I GUESS THE APPELLANT IN THIS CONTEXT.

UM, I SEE DORIN BARNES SLASH VINCENT SAADA, UM, WHO ARE, ARE YOU GUYS GONNA GO BACK AND FORTH OR JOINTLY? ? YEAH, WE, WE CAN TAG TEAM A LITTLE BIT.

SO, UH, GOOD EVENING, CHAIR LEWIS, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

I'M DORN BARNES.

I SERVE AS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF FOOTHILL TRANSIT.

UM, JUST BY WAY OF BACKGROUND, I WAS A 20 YEAR RESIDENT OF WEST COVINA, PREVIOUSLY SERVED ON WEST COVINA HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION AND AUDIT COMMITTEE.

UM, I STILL COME TO WORK EVERY DAY HERE IN WEST COVINA.

I CURRENTLY LIVE IN SAN DIMAS WHERE I SERVE AS A PLANNING COMMISSIONER.

SO I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT YOU ALL ARE DOING.

UM, AND ALSO SERVE AS THE FIRST VICE PRESIDENT OF THE LEAGUE OF CITIES PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

UM, I'LL BE MOVING UP TO PRESIDENTS STARTING FRIDAY AT THE LEAGUE CONFERENCE.

UH, AS A SIDE NOTE, I HOPE YOU'LL ALL COME TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACADEMY.

IT'S GONNA BE HELD IN MARCH.

IT'S A GREAT LEARNING OPPORTUNITY, SO GLAD TO PROVIDE MORE DETAILS ON THAT.

UM, BY WAY OF BACKGROUND, FOOTHILL TRANSIT IS A JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY.

WE ARE A PUBLIC AGENCY.

THERE ARE 22 CITIES THAT MAKE UP THE FOOTHILL TRANSIT JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY, INCLUDING WEST COVINA.

UH, WEST COVINA HAS BEEN, UH, ONE OF THE PRINCIPAL CITIES THAT'S BEEN PART OF THE JPA.

THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES IS ALSO PART OF THE JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY.

AND I BELIEVE ALMOST ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE CURRENT CITY COUNCIL AT ONE POINT OR ANOTHER HAVE SERVED ON OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS.

UH, SO AGAIN, APPRECIATE THAT, THAT INVOLVEMENT.

UM, OUR PROJECT IS, AGAIN, NOT TO CHANGE ANY OF THE USES THERE.

IT'S SIMPLY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE PARKING SPACE THAT IS AVAILABLE OVER OUR CURRENT PARKING LOT TO BE ABLE TO GENERATE SOLAR POWER.

THAT SOLAR POWER WOULD BE ABLE TO OFFSET THE ELECTRIC USE IN OUR BUILDING, OFFSET OUR COST OF OPERATING, UH, THE BUILDING, WHICH IN TURN ALLOWS US TO, UH, PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY.

SO THE ENVIRONMENTAL TIES, ECONOMIC TIES ARE ALL PART OF OUR EFFORT HERE.

UM, I'M JOINED TONIGHT BY MY COLLEAGUE VINCENT SASA VINCENT'S GONNA TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT SOME OF OF THE TECHNICAL DETAILS.

HE'S OUR PROJECT MANAGER, CHARLENE BAILEY, OUR DIRECTOR OF FACILITIES AND CONSTRUCTION IS ALSO HERE, ALONG WITH JOHN CURLEY, WHO IS OUR CHIEF OF SAFETY AND SECURITY.

JOHN, UH, MOST RECENTLY SERVED AS THE CHIEF OF POLICE FOR THE CITY OF COVINA.

COUPLE OF NOTES AS YOU, AS YOU THINK ABOUT THIS PROJECT AND IT, AND IT'S TIE INTO THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN.

UH, AND I REMEMBER PARTICIPATING IN THAT PLAN, BOTH AS A RESIDENT AND AS A MEMBER OF THE FOOTHILL TRANSIT TEAM.

THE PROPERTY THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS PROPERTY THAT IS PUBLICLY OWNED.

IT WAS FUNDED WITH FEDERAL

[00:45:01]

FUNDING.

AND THE GOOD THING IS WE WERE ABLE TO BRING FEDERAL MONEY BACK TO, TO FUND THAT PROJECT.

THE CHALLENGE IS THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF STRINGS THAT ARE ATTACHED TO IT IN TERMS OF ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT THAT MIGHT OCCUR ON THAT PARCEL.

UM, WE ARE VERY MUCH HANDCUFFED IN TERMS OF WHAT COULD HAPPEN ON THAT PROJECT SITE IN TERMS OF THE OVERALL DOWNTOWN, UH, SPECIFIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT.

SO, UM, THAT'S AN ELEMENT TO, UH, TO THINK ABOUT.

AND WITH THAT, I TURN OVER TO, TO VINCENT TO TELL YOU ABOUT SOME OF THE ADDITIONAL DETAILS.

SO, GOOD EVENING, UH, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

UM, I HAVE A POWERPOINT THAT I PRE, I REPAIRED.

CAN WE PULL IT UP PLEASE? ALL RIGHT.

SO HERE TO PRESENT ON, ON THE PROPOSED SOLAR CARPORTS OVER AN EXISTING PARKING LOT AT THE FOOTHILL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

THIS PROJECT ADDS SOLAR CARPORTS OVER AN EXISTING PARKING LOT.

NOTHING ELSE CHANGES.

THE LAND USE STAYS COMMERCIAL OFFICE.

THE BUILDING PARKING AND TRAFFIC CIRCULATION STAYS THE SAME.

THE ONLY CHANGE IS THE ADDITION OF COVERED PARKING AND AN ONSITE RENEWABLE, UH, ENERGY.

THIS IS NOT AN EXPANSION.

UH, THIS IS NOT A NEW USE.

IT'S SIMPLY A SUSTAINABILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.

NEXT, PLANNING DIVISIONS DENIAL LETTER AND STAFF REPORT ARE BASED ON TWO KEY REASONS FOR DENIAL.

THE FIRST ONE BEING THAT THE PROPOSED SOLAR CARPORT IS A CHANGE IN LAND USE AND IT'S NOT ALLOWED BY THE DOWNTOWN PLAN.

THE SECOND ONE IS THAT SOLAR PANELS CREATE A SAFETY ISSUE.

LET'S ADDRESS EACH OF THEM CLEARLY.

THE CITY'S DEVELOPMENT CODE ITSELF DEFINE SOLAR CARPORTS NOT AS LAND USE, BUT ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.

THE CITY'S DEVELOPMENT CODE DEVOTES AN ENTIRE SECTION, DIVISION TWO ACCESS CALLED THE, UH, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.

SECTION TWO, REGULATING STRUCTURES LIKE SOLAR CARPORTS AND IMPORTANTLY SOLAR CARPORTS ARE DISCUSSED IN DETAIL WITHIN THIS ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SECTION.

THE CITY WOULD NOT PLACE SOLAR CARPORTS IN THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SECTION IF IT WERE CONSIDERED A LAND USE.

THEREFORE, THE CITY'S OWN PLANNING DOCUMENTS DO NOT CONSIDER SOLAR CARPORTS OF PRINCIPLE USE.

BY CONTRAST, THE DOWNTOWN'S LAND USE TABLE, WHICH WAS THE BASIS FOR DENYING THIS PROJECT.

LISTS PRINCIPLE USES SUCH AS RETAIL RESTAURANT OFFICES, HOTELS, AND RESIDENT RESIDENTIAL SOLAR CARPORTS DO NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE ON THAT TABLE BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT A LAND USE.

SECONDLY, THE SAFETY CLAIMS THAT ARE ASSERTED AS A BASIS FOR DENIAL ARE UNSUPPORTED.

MODERN SOLAR PANELS USE ANTI-REFLECTIVE COATINGS AND ARE DESIGNED TO ABSORB SUNLIGHT AND NOT REFLECT IT.

THEY REFLECT LESS LIGHT THAN WINDOWS, WATER, OR ASPHALT.

THE PROJECT WOULD MEET ALL BUILDING AND FIRE CODE REQUIREMENTS.

ADDITIONALLY, UNDER THE CALIFORNIA SOLAR RIGHTS ACT, CITIES MAY ONLY DENY SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS IF THEY IDENTIFY A SPECIFIC HEALTH OR SAFETY IMPACT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

THE DOWNTOWN PLAN INCLUDES A CLEAR SUSTAINABILITY DIRECTIVE.

GOAL NUMBER 11.1 IS TO REDUCE NET ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.

THIS PROJECT DIRECTLY FULFILLS THIS GOAL.

ACCORDING TO OUR DESIGN TEAM'S FEASIBILITY STUDY FROM SEPTEMBER OF 2025, THE SOLAR CARPORT SYSTEM WOULD GENERATE OVER 700 MEGAWATT HOURS OF CLEAN ENERGY ANNUALLY ENOUGH TO POWER OVER 100 HOMES PER YEAR, SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.

THOSE ENERGY SAVINGS REDUCE FOOTHILL TRANSIT'S OPERATING COSTS.

LOWERING OPERATING COSTS ALLOW FOOTHILL TRANSIT TO REINVEST THOSE DOLLARS DIRECTLY TO BACK INTO TRANSIT SERVICE, INCLUDING SERVICE THAT BENEFITS RIDER HERE IN THE CITY OF WEST COVINA.

THIS IS A SUSTAINABILITY PROJECT THAT PRODUCES A DIRECT COMMUNITY BENEFIT.

NEXT, PLEASE TO UNDERSCORE THE CITY'S DEVELOPMENT CODE CLASSIFIES SOLAR CARPORTS AS ACCESSORY STRUCTURES THAT REQUIRE ONLY AN ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT.

THIS PROJECT IS THEREFORE SUBJECT TO ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW.

IN CLOSING, THIS PROJECT DOES NOT CHANGE LAND USE.

IT DOES NOT CHANGE OPERATIONS OR INTENSITY.

IT COMPLIES WITH THE SOLAR RIGHTS ACT.

IT USES ANTI-REFLECTIVE, LOW GLARE TECHNOLOGY, FULFILLS THE CITY'S SUSTAINABILITY GOALS, GENERATES OVER 700 MEGAWATT HOURS OF CLEAN ENERGY ANNUALLY, REDUCES FOOT YIELD TRANSIT OPERATING COSTS, ALLOWING IT TO REINVEST THOSE DOLLARS BACK INTO TRANSIT SERVICE AND IS EXPLICITLY ALLOWED UNDER THE CITY'S OWN DEVELOPMENT CODE.

WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE APPROVAL OF THIS ACCESSORY SOLAR IMPROVEMENT CONSISTENT WITH DIVISION TWO AND SECTION 26, 36 D ONE, WHICH STATES THAT PHOTO WILL TAKE EQUIPMENT ON CARPORTS ARE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND DO NOT REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY

[00:50:01]

REVIEW.

HIGHWAY DISPLAYS, IT'S UNFOUNDED TO ARGUE THAT OUR PASSIVE LIGHT ABSORBING PARKING CANOPY IS GONNA DISTRACT ANY DRIVERS RESPECTFULLY.

NOW I'D LIKE TO TURN IT OVER TO MY COLLEAGUE, UH, CHIEF OF SAFETY AND SECURITY, JOHN CURLEY.

THANK YOU, VINCENT.

GOOD EVENING, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

UM, MY NAME IS JOHN KERLEY.

I AM THE CHIEF OF SAFETY AND SECURITY FOR FOOTHILL TRANSIT.

AND AS DO MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, I'VE SERVED 30 YEARS IN LAW ENFORCEMENT THE LAST FIVE YEARS AS THE CHIEF OF POLICE.

I DO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF EXPERIENCE IN PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT MAINLY WITH MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES.

I NEVER THOUGHT IT'D BE SOLAR CARPORT ISSUES.

SO I JUST WANTED TO SPEAK BRIEFLY TONIGHT ON A COUPLE OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES.

THE PRIMARY ONE THAT WAS BROUGHT UP IN STAFF'S REPORT, UH, SPECIFICALLY WITH THE GLARE FROM, UM, THE, THESE SOLAR PANELS.

UM, BUT FIRST LEMME START OFF BY SAYING WHAT WAS NOT IN THE STAFF'S REPORT, AS IT AS I BELIEVE PERTAINS TO PUBLIC SAFETY.

UH, IN THE INITIAL APPLICATION, UH, WE HAD 40 EXISTING EUCALYPT EUCALYPTUS TREES ON OUR PROPERTY.

AND PART OF THE PLAN WAS TO REMOVE THOSE, TO BUILD THESE CARPORTS.

UM, IT WAS A TWOFOLD PLAN 'CAUSE WE WAS, WE WERE ALSO PLANNING TO REMOVE THOSE, UH, BECAUSE WITHIN THE LAST FIVE YEARS WE'VE HAD BRANCHES, UH, AND TREES FALLING ON THE PROPERTY, AND WE WERE ANTICIPATING, UH, A STRONG EL NINO SEASON.

SO WE THOUGHT THIS PROJECT WAS GONNA BENEFIT, UM, NOT ONLY WHAT VINCENT POINTED OUT, BUT ALSO FROM A RISK MANAGEMENT LENS.

BY REMOVING THESE TREES, ADDING CARPORTS, WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BENEFIT TO THE OVERALL RISK MANAGEMENT OF NOT HAVING THESE TREES THERE.

UH, WE ALSO, UH, WANTED TO CHALLENGE SPECIFICALLY STAFF'S ASSERTION THAT QUOTE, REFLECTED SUNLIGHT OR GLARE WOULD AFFECT MOTORISTS TRAVELING ALONG THE FREEWAY AND END QUOTE, SUCH LIGHT AND GLARE IMPACTS UPON THE VEHICULAR PUBLIC, PARTICULARLY UPON THE FREEWAY, COULD NOT BE REASONABLY OR FEASIBLY MITIGATED.

UH, INTERESTINGLY, UH, THIS PUBLIC'S SAFETY OPINION WAS NEVER INCLUDED IN THE INITIAL DENIAL OF THIS APPLICATION.

UH, I BELIEVE THAT IF THIS WAS A REAL PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE, IT WOULD'VE BEEN BROUGHT UP AT THAT TIME.

THE ONLY REASON WE RECEIVED FOR THE DENIAL WAS IT DID NOT, UH, IT WASN'T CONGRUENT WITH THE 2016 DOWNTOWN PLAN.

UM, SOLAR PANELS ARE DESIGNED TO ABSORB LIGHT AND NOT TO REFLECT IT.

THEY REFLECT ONLY ONE TO 2% OF LIGHT, UH, VASTLY LESS THAN THE WINDOWS ON BUSINESSES OR CARS PARKED IN PARKING LOTS.

UH, THE FAA PERMITS THESE TYPES OF CARPORTS VERY SIMILAR, UM, ADJACENT TO RUNWAYS.

UM, AND UNDER CALIFORNIA SOLAR RIGHTS ACT, A DENIAL REQUIRES CONCRETE DOCUMENTED SAFETY HAZARDS, NOT JUST SPECULATION.

UH, WE WILL GLADLY SUBMIT MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS, UM, A SHEET CERTIFYING ANTI-REFLECTIVE COATINGS AS A CONDITION OF OF APPROVAL.

UH, TO PUT THIS CONCERN TO REST, UH, VINCENT, UM, STATED THAT DENYING THIS PROJECT DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS LOCAL, REGIONAL, AND STATE CLIMATE MANDATES AS WELL.

UH, THESE SOLAR CANOPIES ACTUALLY REDUCE THE URBAN HEAT INDEX.

IF YOU GO TO OUR PARKING LOT, IT'S OBVIOUSLY VERY HOT, EVEN THOUGH WE DO HAVE A LOT OF TREES, WE BELIEVE THIS, THIS PROJECT WOULD BENEFIT OUR STAFF, UH, OUR TENANTS, THE BANK, THE SENATOR'S OFFICE, ANYBODY WHO COMES, UH, ONTO THAT PROPERTY.

I WILL ALSO LIKE TO MENTION THERE'S A, A PROJECT, ANOTHER CAPITAL PROJECT THAT'S TIED INTO THIS ONE.

AND IT'S ADVANCING OUR ENTIRE SECURITY SYSTEM TO PROTECT CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE SUCH AS TRANSIT, THE BANK, THE SENATOR'S OFFICE.

UM, THE 2016 PLAN ENCOURAGES MODERN, PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED AND SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT.

UH, THE CURRENT SITUATION WITH HOMELESSNESS IN AND AROUND OUR PROPERTY, UH, IS AN ISSUE.

AND IT'S NOT CONGRUENT WITH WHAT THAT SAYS IN THE 2016 PLAN.

IN FACT, I BELIEVE THERE'S MORE OF A RISK.

IF YOU LOOK AT A RISK MATRIX, THERE'S MORE OF A RISK OF A TREE FALLING ON A HOMELESS PERSON OR A HOMELESS PERSON BEING STRUCK BY A VEHICLE ON THE I 10 FREEWAY VINCENT AVENUE ON RAMP, UH, THAN THERE IS FROM GLARE FROM A SOLAR PANEL ON THE I 10 FREEWAY.

UM, MODERN SOLAR PANELS, AGAIN, THEY'RE DESIGNED WITH HIGHLY ADVANCED ANTI-REFLECTIVE COATINGS AND TEXTURED GLASS.

THE ENTIRE ENGINEERING GOAL IS TO CAPTURE PHOTONS, MEANING THEY DON'T WANNA REF WASTE ANY REFLECTED ENERGY.

UM, FOOTHILL TRANSIT, WE CAN EASILY AGREE TO A CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT THE CONTRACTOR, UH, SUBMIT MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS.

AGAIN, AS PART OF THIS PLAN, UH, WE'LL ALSO POINT OUT THAT THE CANNA BE TILT CAN BE GEOME GEOMETRICALLY ENGINEERED, FACING AWAY FROM FREEWAY SIGHT LINES THAT ALL CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED.

SO AGAIN, THE PUBLIC SAFETY RISK ARTICULATING THAT THIS GLARE IS GONNA AFFECT THE I 10 FREEWAY.

IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE JUST DON'T, DON'T AGREE WITH.

UH, LAST THING I'LL SAY IS THAT IF CALTRANS TRUST SOLAR POWERED HARDWARE RIGHT NEXT TO THE FREEWAY CURRENTLY, AND THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION HAS VERIFIED THE SAFETY OF COMPLEX DIGITAL

[00:55:01]

UM, SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WE LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

WE THANK STAFF FOR THE, THE WORK THAT THEY'VE BEEN DOING, AND, UH, WE THINK THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO, UH, TO REVERSE THIS OPINION.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONER BENNETT? WELL, I, I THINK, UH, COMMISSIONER HANK HAD A QUESTION ABOUT ANGLE, RIGHT? UM, THE AESTHETIC OF THE ENTIRE, UM, PANEL WITH ITS, UM, 1421 FEET.

I, I'M NOT SURE IF YOU HAVE A, DID IT INCLUDE, UH, PRESIDENT IMAGES PER SE? BUT THIS IS ONE THAT YOU SEE HERE ON THE POWERPOINT.

I CAN ALSO, IF YOU WANT TO PASS THIS ALONG, UM, THERE ARE SOME PRECEDENT IMAGES THAT WERE SUBMITTED WITH OUR APPEAL.

UM, IS THIS, UH, JUST A GENERIC SOLAR PANEL OR IS IT GOING TO BE FOR THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION? THOSE ARE WHAT WE, UH, SUBMITTED AS PRECEDENT IMAGES.

WE HAVE NOT FULLY DESIGNED THE SOLAR PANELS.

THEY WOULD BE A DELEGATED DESIGN FOR THE SUCCESSFUL CONTRACTOR THAT WOULD BID ON THE, UM, ON THE PROJECT.

BUT THE PRECEDENT IMAGES CAPTURE THE AESTHETIC AND THE INTENT OF WHAT THIS PROJECT WOULD LOOK LIKE.

IT WOULDN'T JUST BE, UH, UTILITY.

WOULD IT BE, UH, THIS PICTURE OR WOULD IT BE THE ONE WITH THE MINIMAL ANGLE? WHAT, WHICH ONE'S GOING ACTUALLY THE, THE PLANS SHOW A FIVE DEGREE TILT ON THE SOLAR PANELS, UM, ON THE PLAN.

SO THERE'S A PLAN SECTION THAT WAS SUBMITTED AS PART OF THE APPEAL THAT SHOWS A FIVE DEGREE TILT.

SO ONE OF THE, ON ONE END WE HAVE 14 FEET ABOVE, ABOVE, UH, THE, THE ABOVE THE GROUND.

SO IT'S 14 FEET AND 21 FEET.

THAT'S A FIVE DEGREE TILT.

AND IT'S FACING THE TILT, THE HIGHER END, IT'S FACING EAST, I WOULD ASSUME, AND THEN THE 14 FEET WOULD BE FACING WEST.

UH, ONE SECOND HERE.

I HAVE IT RIGHT HERE.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S 14 AND 21 5 DEGREES.

IT'S DEGREE.

IT'S A VERY SLIGHT, UH, YEAH, THESE ARE VERY LARGE.

THEY'RE 30, 30 FEET LARGE FEET.

IT GOES LIKE THIS, LIKE THIS, AND THEN THIS ONE GOES THIS WAY.

SO IT'S SLOPE THIS WAY AND IT'S SLOPE.

SO IT'S SLOPING, IT'S ONE IS SLOPING EAST AND ONE IS SLOPING WEST.

THE ORIENTATION IS EAST TO WEST.

CAN EAST ABSORB SOLAR PANEL ? I THINK THEY'RE DESIGNED NORMALLY FACING SOUTH AND WEST.

THERE WAS A SOLAR STUDY THAT WE, THAT WAS CONDUCTED BY THE ENGINEERING TEAM.

AND SO THE, THE ORIENTATION OF THESE SOLAR PANELS WAS TO OPTIMIZE THE, THE SOLAR EXPOSURE.

UM, AND I'D HAVE TO CONFIRM WHETHER THE, THE HIGHER END IS ON THE WEST SIDE OR ON THE EAST SIDE, BUT, UM, BECAUSE NORMALLY IT'S FACING, IT'S TRY TO FACE WEST AND SOUTH NORMALLY, USUALLY SOUTH, PUT THE BUILDINGS IN THE WAY.

IN THIS CASE IT'S NOT FACING SOUTH BECAUSE YES, THE BUILDING IS IN THE WAY, BUT YOU'RE SAYING ONE, ONE PAN.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE FOUR, YOU'RE SAYING ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE IS, IS IS SLOPING TOWARD, TOWARD THE EAST.

IF I COULD GET THE, THE, THE SHEET I COULD CONFIRM FOR YOU.

I DON'T HAVE THE SECTION HERE IN FRONT OF ME, BUT OH, THEY HAVEN'T SEEN IT YET.

SO, SORRY.

I I'VE I'VE SEEN IT.

YOU SEEN IT? YEAH.

I, HE, HE SAW IT TOO.

SO YEAH.

IF, IF I MAY, I I THINK IT'S BASED ON ALL THE DRAWINGS I'VE SEEN, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S SLOPING TO THE WEST, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY'RE, SO THE HIGH SIDE WOULD BE THE EAST AND THE LOW SIDE.

THAT'S BASED ON WHAT I AM INTERPRETING.

BUT THEIR TOTAL FOUR SLOT, THEY'RE SAYING THE RIGHT HAND SIDE IS SLOPING.

I DON'T, ARE THEY COMING TO A PEAK? I THOUGHT THEY WERE BOTH FACING THE SAME WAY.

THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY'RE ALL, THEY'RE ALL ORIENTED IN THE SAME DIRECTION.

SO I'M LOOKING HERE AT THE, AT THE CANOPY SECTION, THE WEST SIDE IS AT 21 FEET AND THE EAST SIDE IS AT THE 14 FEET.

SO THEY'RE ALL KIND OF SLIGHTLY TILTED FACING, UH, THE EAST.

SO FOUR OF THESE LOCATIONS ARE SLOPING THE EXACT SAME SLOPE.

THAT'S COME UP, WHETHER OR NOT YOU'RE THE, THE RIGHT PERSON TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION.

SO, SO IT'S NOT DRAWN LIKE THAT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS RIGHT THIS SECOND? I, I HAVE A, I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION.

I'M, I'M NOT SURE IF, IF, IN TERMS OF THE, THE, THE TRIO

[01:00:01]

SO ARE, ARE YOU STATING THAT THE SOLAR RIGHTS ACT IN EFFECT PREEMPTS ANY ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION ON THIS UNDER STATE LAW? IS THAT, WHAT, IS THAT WHAT THE ARGUMENT IS? THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE, THE CENTRAL ARGUMENT IS THAT'S SORT OF WELL, NO, NO, NO.

I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT, THAT THAT SEEMED TO BE WHAT WAS SORT OF IMPLIED.

AND I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND.

SO WE WERE WE'RE SAYING THAT THE SOLAR RIGHTS ACT PREEMPTS LOCAL AUTHORITY TO MAKE ANY DETERMINATIONS UNDER THIS.

CAN YOU CITE THE ACTUAL CODE PROVISION THAT'S APPLICABLE TO THAT? SO I UNDERSTAND.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT HE STATED.

WELL, OKAY.

LET'S HEAR WHAT THAT'S, THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.

THAT'S, I MEAN, IT BASICALLY WAS LIKE YOU, IT BASICALLY SOUNDED LIKE WE DON'T REALLY HAVE AUTHORITY TO DENY THIS, THAT THAT SEEMED TO BE THE, THAT SEEMED TO BE THE ARGUMENT.

AND I WANTED TO, I WANTED TO HEAR THAT OUT AND FLUSH THAT OUT.

YES, THAT'S RIGHT.

WE, WE REFERENCED THE, THE STATE LAW.

THAT ENCOURAGES FOR LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES TO PRIORITIZE, UM, RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS SUCH AS THIS ONE.

AND THERE ARE A SET OF CRITERIA THAT, THAT IT IS A STATE LAW.

SO IT DOES APPLY, UM, UM, I SAID OVERRIDES, I GUESS LOCAL JURISDICTIONS, RIGHT? YEAH.

SO IN THAT SENSE, SO PREEMPTION, UHHUH, YEAH.

UM, AND THERE'S A CERTAIN, THERE'S LIKE MAYBE TWO OR THREE REASONS WHY A, A LOCAL ORDINANCE OR A CITY COULD DENY THESE PROJECTS.

ONE OF THEM BEING THE, UM, IT BEING A HAZARD OR SAFETY ISSUE TO THE PUBLIC THAT IS WELL DOCUMENTED.

UM, AND I BELIEVE THAT WAS BROUGHT UP IN THE STAFF REPORT.

UM, THERE ISN'T A, IT WASN'T SUBSTANTIALLY, UM, DOCUMENTED.

IT WAS REALLY JUST THROWN IN THERE AS A, I GUESS, A RESPONSE TO THIS, THIS REFERENCE TO THIS STATE LAW.

GOT IT.

SO, SO YOU ARE STATING THAT UNLESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION CAN IDENTIFY A PUBLIC SAFETY RISK, THAT'S THE SOLE REASON WHY WE'D BE ABLE TO DENY THIS.

THAT IS THAT THE ARGUMENT, I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THAT ISN'T THE SOLE REASON WHY THE PLANNING COM THE PLANNING PROCESS.

I THINK THAT'S THE OVERARCHING REASON.

IF, IF, IF WE HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO, TO DENY THE APPEAL IN THE ABSENCE OF A PUBLIC SAFETY RISK, IS THEN, THEN I THINK THAT'S REALLY THE SOLE QUESTION.

I THINK WE, WE NEED TO BACK UP.

I THINK THE, THE APPEAL, THE DECISION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS BASED ON THAT.

THIS WAS NOT AN ALLOWABLE USE.

THIS IS WHERE THIS WHOLE ISSUE CAME FROM.

SOLAR CARPORTS ARE NOT AN ALLOWABLE USE.

THAT'S WHAT THEY HAVE STATED.

AND THAT IT'S NOT LISTED AS AN ALLOWABLE USE IN THE DOWNTOWN PLAN.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE ALLOWABLE USES IN THE DOWNTOWN PLAN, IT'S TRUE THAT SOLAR CARPORTS ARE NOT LISTED UNDER THERE.

BUT SOLAR CARPORTS ARE NOT A USE OFFICE IS A USE COMMERCIAL, RESIDENTIAL RETAIL.

THOSE ARE USES, RIGHT? SO THEY'VE ARGUED, IT'S NOT LISTED, THEREFORE IT IS NOT ALLOWED.

CARPORT, SOLAR CARPORTS ARE ACTUALLY ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.

IF YOU LOOK AT YOUR CODE, THE DEVELOPMENT CODE UNDER DIVISION TWO, IT TALKS ABOUT ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND THERE'S ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES OR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS ALL LISTED IN THERE.

AND THERE'S ACTUALLY AN ENTIRE SECTION THAT TALKS ABOUT SOLAR CARPORTS.

SO THEREFORE, UH, ATTESTING TO THE FACT THAT THAT SOLAR CARPORTS ARE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, THEY'RE NOT LAND USES.

SO THIS DETERMINATION THAT WAS MADE BY THE, UH, BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IS COMPLETELY ERRONEOUS.

WELL, I, I, AND THAT, THAT I THINK IS THE CENTRAL ISSUE HERE.

SO I UNDER I UNDERSTAND THE STATE LAW IS SORT OF I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

SO, SO IN THIS PARTICULAR CONTEXT, ARE, ARE, IS THE APPLICANT'S ASSERTION THAT THERE ARE NO DESIGN STANDARDS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT THAT CAN BE IMPOSED UPON THIS ACCESSORY USE? NO, THERE ABSOLUTELY ARE.

YOU GUYS HAVE, IN YOUR DEVELOPMENT CODE DESIGN STANDARDS, WE WOULD BE FOLLOWING THOSE DESIGN STANDARDS.

SO THE DE BUT THE DESIGN STANDARDS ARE, ARE, ARE NOT, UH, TAILORED FOR ANY DOWNTOWN PLAN USAGE.

IT IS, IT'S A FORM-BASED CODE THAT'S NOT GOING TO ZOOM IN ON SOMETHING LIKE AN ACCESSORY.

UH, THE, THE DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH IS WHAT REGULATES, UH, THESE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, THEY PROVIDE ALL THESE GUIDELINES, AND THAT'S WHAT WOULD BE USED TO, TO DESIGN THESE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.

THE DOWNTOWN CODE IS A FORM-BASED CODE THAT'S NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT ACCESSORY STRUCTURES BECAUSE

[01:05:01]

UH, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES OR PARKING ACCESSORIES ARE SOME OTHER EXAMPLES OF THEM THAT ARE NOT JUST CANOPIES, BUT LET'S SAY EV CHARGERS, LIGHT POLES, ANYTHING THAT IS AN ACCESSORY IN A PARKING TRUCK, IN A PARKING FACILITY IS AN ACCESSORY TO PARKING.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.

WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A USED, UH, LIGHT POLES EV CHARGERS.

THOSE ARE NOT USES THE SAME WAY IN WHICH CANOPY AND SOLAR CANOPIES ARE NOT USES.

SO, SO THE, THE GUIDELINES THAT, THAT YOU WOULD BE IMPLEMENTING ARE NOT SOMETHING THAT, THAT YOU CONTEND THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR THE CITY HAS ANY AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE AS PART OF THIS PROCESS? CORRECT.

I WANT TO, I WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND BECAUSE VERY SPECIFICALLY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ACCESSORY.

THERE, THERE IS NO ACCESSORY USE DISCUSSION FOR SOLAR CARPORTS AS IT PERTAINS TO THE DOWNTOWN PLAN.

AND I UNDERSTAND IT'S A FORM-BASED PLAN.

UH, AND, AND, AND MAYBE THAT'S A PROBLEM.

I, I, I ACKNOWLEDGE MAYBE THAT'S A PROBLEM.

THE QUESTION IS, SO, SO IN EFFECT, THE, THE, THE CODE THAT IS IN PLACE CURRENTLY WITH REGARD TO THE DOWNTOWN PLAN DOES NOT HAVE ANY CONTEMPLATION OF, UH, SOLAR CARPORTS IN THE DOWNTOWN PLAN AND HAS NO, UH, HAS NO SPECIFIC DESIGN STANDARDS BASED UPON THE DOWNTOWN PLAN, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.

THE DOWNTOWN PLAN FOCUSES ON LAND USES, NOT SOMETHING LIKE, UH, ACCESSORY STRUCTURE FOR THAT.

YOU HAVE YOUR DEVELOPMENT CODE.

BUT OBVIOUSLY THE, THE DOWNTOWN PLAN IS, IS IS SOMETHING THAT IS INTENDED TO CREATE SOME COHESION IN, IN SOME WAY IN THE, IN THE CONTEXT OF A CITY, RIGHT? CORRECT.

SO MY, MY QUESTION IS, IN THE ABSENCE OF THAT, IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE, IF WE, IF WE GO ALONG WITH THIS AND WE, AND WE GRANT THE APPEAL OR OVERRULE THE DETERMINATION OF THE PLANNING DIVISION AT THAT POINT IN TIME, UM, WE'RE BASICALLY STATING THAT THE STANDARD THAT WE HAVEN'T ALL DISCUSSED OR CREATED AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE IS NOW IMPLICITLY TAKEN FROM WHEREVER IT COULD OTHERWISE BE PLACED IN THE CITY AND IMPOSED PERMANENTLY UPON THE DOWNTOWN PLAN.

YOUR DEVELOPMENT CODE IS A CITYWIDE CODE.

IT, IT, I I DON'T KNOW THAT IT, EXCUSE ME.

THE DOWNTOWN PLAN SPECIFICALLY IS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

SO I, THERE'S NO CONTEMPLATION OF SOLAR CARPORTS IN THE DOWNTOWN PLAN.

I THINK YOUR QUESTION IS IMPLYING THAT THE DOWNTOWN PLAN IS REALLY THE END ALL AND BE ALL THAT REGULATES EVERYTHING IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA.

THERE'S OTHER DOCUMENTS IN, IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT THAT ALSO REGULATE STRUCTURES, AND THERE'S GUIDELINES, THERE'S PRECISE PLANS, THERE'S PLENTY OF OTHER THINGS.

SO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE IS WHAT PRECISELY TALKS ABOUT THIS TYPE OF, UH, STRUCTURE.

UH, IT'S NOT MENTIONED THE DOWNTOWN PLAN.

THAT'S CORRECT.

BUT IT WOULDN'T BE MENTIONED IN THE DOWNTOWN PLAN BECAUSE IT, THE DOWNTOWN PLAN MORE, UH, SPECIFICALLY FOCUSES ON LAND USES.

AND, UM, THIS IS NOT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.

THAT, THAT, UM, THE, THE DECISION BY, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, OR SORRY, THE, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, UH, I THINK MISTAKENLY MADE A DETERMINATION THAT WE'RE TRYING TO CHANGE THE USE, THAT IT'S NOT AN ALLOWABLE USE.

I THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT APPLES AND ORANGES HERE.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, NOT A USE.

SO, OKAY.

BUT IT'S, BUT IT WOULD BE AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE THAT THERE, THERE BASICALLY IS NO, THERE'S NO CONTEMPLATION OF THAT ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AS PART OF THE DOWNTOWN PLAN AS CURRENTLY CONSTRUCTED.

THERE ISN'T, BUT WE WOULD, I'M SURE THE CITY WOULD USE THE DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT TALKS ABOUT SLUR CARPORTS IN DETAIL TO MAKE ANY GUIDELINES AND, UH, CONDITIONS FOR DESIGNING THIS SOLAR CARPORT.

WITH THIS ISSUE, IN EFFECT, WE WOULD JUST BE SORT OF SHOOTING FROM THE HIP AND HOPING THAT IT WOULD ALL WORK OUT.

AND THEY MIGHT MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION.

BUT ISN'T THAT A LEGISLATIVE ACT FOR WHAT? FOR ADOPTING THAT PLAN, FOR ADOPTING ANY CODE? THE DEVELOPMENT CODE'S ALREADY ALREADY BEEN APPROVED.

IT'S NOT, UH, UH, FOR DEBATE OR LEGISLATION.

I, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT IN THE ABSENCE OF HAVING, UH, OF, OF HAVING A SPECIFIC PLAN TO DEAL

[01:10:01]

RIGHT? I MEAN, AGAIN, FUNDAMENTALLY, I, I, I THINK, I THINK I, I FOLLOW WHAT THE INTENT IS, RIGHT? I UNDERSTAND THE INTENT IS TO PLACE, UH, PLACE SOLAR CARPORTS IN, IN A SPOT THAT MAY MAKE SOME SENSE FOR, FOR THAT TO BE, I DON'T KNOW, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

MY, MY CONCERN IS, IS THAT WE'RE, WE'RE COMING TO THIS WITHOUT REALLY AN UNDERSTANDING AS TO WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS ARE OF THAT.

AND, AND, AND STAFF IS TELLING US THAT WE ARE BASICALLY CREATING A PRECEDENT BY, BY VIRTUE OF, OF ALLOWING SOMETHING LIKE THIS IF WE GRANT YOUR APPEAL.

AND WE HAVE BASICALLY NO CONTROL OVER IT FROM THAT POINT IN TIME.

AND I THINK THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE QUESTION HERE IS SHOULD THERE BE A LEGISLATIVE PROCESS HERE ON THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE, OR SHOULD THIS JUST BE SORT OF SHOOT FROM THE HIP AND THEN WE JUST, WE JUST OVERTURN, OVERTURN THE, UH, DENIAL AND GO FROM THERE.

AND EVERYBODY HAS, HAS THE SAME STANDARD MOVING FORWARD BECAUSE WE'VE CREATED THAT PRECEDENT.

NOW, THAT'S NOT HOW I INTERPRET IT AS WELL.

UM, WHETHER IT'S AN ACCESSORY USE OR WHETHER IT'S, UH, A, A USE BY, BY RIGHTS, BY THE DOWNTOWN REGULATIONS OR WHAT HAVE YOU.

UM, IT'S STILL A USE THAT WE HAVE TO COME TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THESE BODIES, WHETHER IT'S IN THE CODES OR NOT, WE WILL DETERMINE OR NEED TO DETERMINE TONIGHT WHETHER IT'S GONNA BE, UM, THE RIGHT USE OR NOT.

WHETHER IT'S ACCESSORIES OR WHETHER IT'S A LAND USE BY RIGHTS.

WE DO HAVE TO DETERMINE THE FOUR OF US, OR FIVE OF US NORMALLY, WHETHER IT'S GONNA FIT FOR THIS PARTICULAR AREA OR NOT, WHETHER IT'S CODED OR NOT CODED WELL, I THINK THAT'S, I, I THINK THAT'S THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM WITH, I I THINK THERE MAY BE A MISUNDERSTANDING HERE, BECAUSE IF, IF, IF WE DO THIS, THIS IS AN OVER THE COUNTER THING THAT'S ALLOWED BY WRIGHT AT THAT POINT IN TIME, THERE'S NO COMING BACK TO US AND HAVING A DISCUSSION AS TO DESIGN STANDARDS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

THIS IS JUST GOING DIRECTLY THROUGH STAFF AND THAT'S IT.

WE DON'T SEE IT.

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC DON'T SEE IT UNLESS THEY'RE UN, UN UNLESS THEY'RE ACTUALLY LOOKING AT THIS.

WELL, CHAIR LEWIS IS SAYING IS THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE A NEW CODE AND THERE HAS TO BE SPECIFICATIONS AND EVERYTHING HAS TO BE IN WRITING AND APPROVED.

AM I CORRECT? I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S ONE WAY OF, OF ADDRESSING THIS, BUT AGAIN, FUNDAMENTALLY, I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS, WHAT IS, WHAT IS THE DOWNSTREAM RISK FROM A DEVELOPMENT STANDPOINT? IF, IF WE GRANT THIS APPEAL? WELL, WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT HERE, AND WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE HERE FOR DISCUSSIONS.

WE'RE NOT HERE FOR GRANTING OR DENYING AT THIS VERY MOMENT.

WE'RE HERE TO HAVE A DISCUSSION TO SEE WHETHER IT FIT OR NOT.

NOW, YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT THIS IS AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.

I GET THAT IT'S AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, HOWEVER, THIS ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS NOT IN SOME, MOST OF THE CITY OR THE RESIDENTS THAT GET AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN OUR CITY IS 120 SQUARE FOOT.

THIS IS 20,000 SQUARE FOOT.

SO YES, IT IS AN ACCESSORY IN TERMS OF COMMERCIAL, BUT IT'S A HUGE ACCESSORY THAT YOU CAN SEE, WHETHER IT'S FROM THE FREEWAY, FROM EVERYWHERE.

UM, I GUESS THE DETERMINATION WAS, IS THAT ACCESSORY TO SOME, IT MIGHT BE AN EYESORE TO SOME, IT'S, IT'S WONDERFUL.

I I HAD NOTHING AGAINST SOLAR.

I LOVE SOLAR PANEL.

HOWEVER, IT'S AT THE RIGHT LOCATIONS TO PUT IT.

THAT IS WHAT WE'RE HERE TO DO, TO MAKE SOME DECISIONS AND TO DECIDE WHAT IT IS.

AND WE'RE ASKING TO SEE WHAT EXACTLY THIS PARTICULAR FOUR HUMONGOUS ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, EACH IS OVER 5,000 TO 6,000 SQUARE FOOT.

HUGE PANEL THAT WHERE AND WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE? WE HAVEN'T EVEN COME TO THAT CONCLUSION YET.

YOU ARE, YOU'RE BASICALLY ASKING US FIRST TO APPROVE SOMETHING AND THEN YOU FIGURE IT OUT LATER HOW TO, HOW TO, HOW IT SHOULD LOOK LIKE.

I MEAN, THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S TROUBLESOME.

UM, IF I COULD COMMENT ON, ON YOUR, ON YOUR COMMENT, YOU SAID THAT WE'RE HERE TO, I THINK WHAT WE'RE REALLY HERE FOR IS IF YOU LOOK AT THE STAFF REPORT, GOING BACK TO THIS ONE QUESTION OF WHETHER THIS IS AN ALLOWABLE USE OR NOT, AND WHAT I'M SAYING, AND WHAT WE'RE OUR, OUR POSITION IS THAT THIS ISN'T A USE, IT IS AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.

[01:15:01]

SO DENYING OUR PERMIT ON THAT BASIS, IT, IT'S, IT'S AN MADE AN ERROR.

SO THE, THE DENIAL IS BASED ON AN ERRONEOUS, UM, I GUESS ASSERTION THAT THE, THAT USE, THAT THE SOLAR CANOPIES ARE A USE.

I THINK THAT'S A CENTRAL QUESTION THAT, THAT I THINK IS WHAT WE'RE HERE TO DISCUSS.

YOU CANNOT DENY THAT THERE, THIS IS NOT A USE, IT'S AN, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A 20,000 SQUARE FOOT STRUCTURE OF SOME SORT.

AND YOU'RE TELLING ME TODAY, RIGHT NOW THAT IT'S NOT A USE.

HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE? THE LAND, THE LAND USE IS A COMMERCIAL OFFICE, UH, USE WITH A PARKING FACILITY.

THAT IS WHAT THE USE IS.

THE, THE SOLAR CANOPIES WOULD BE AN ACCESSORY TO THE PARKING.

IT'S NOT CONSIDERED A USE.

UM, SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT OUR, SO HOW DO YOU DEFINE THE STRUCTURE THEN? IF IT'S NOT A USE, IT'S AN ACCESSORY TO THE PARKING STRUCTURE.

AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.

IT'S STILL A USE.

THAT'S WHY YOU ARE HERE UPON US.

IT'S A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

YOU WANNA USE IT FOR SOMETHING? NO, THIS, THIS, SO, JUST, JUST TO BE CLEAR, AND I I, I WANT TO, I, I DON'T WANNA PUT WORDS INTO THE APPLICANT'S MOUTH HERE, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE ARE HERE SOLELY FOR DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT AN ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT, WHICH WAS DENIED BY STAFF, SHOULD BE OVERTURNED ON APPEAL.

THIS IS NOT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT THAT WAS DENIED BY STAFF COMMISSIONER BENNETT.

SORRY.

SO I, I, I THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT, BECAUSE I THINK THAT WAS PART OF THE CONFUSION.

UM, THE BIGGEST QUESTION, AND YOU'VE KIND OF SAID IT, AND SO OF THE OTHER SPEAKERS, IS ARE WE GONNA OVERTURN THE ADMINISTRATIVE DENIAL? AND I, I AM TORN WITH THAT BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING IN THE CODE THAT SAYS YOU CAN'T, THERE'S NOTHING IN THE CODE THAT SAYS YOU CAN'T.

SO WE'RE IN THE, IN THIS QUANDARY, WHICH, UH, CHAIR LEWIS HAS POINTED OUT IS DO WE ALLOW IT AND SET THE PRECEDENT? DO WE NOT ALLOW IT UNTIL SOME FORM OF LEGISLATIVE OF ACTION HAPPENS WITH THE CITY TO ALLOW IT? SO I THINK THAT THERE IS THIS BALANCE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT FOR ME, BECAUSE YOU'RE HERE.

I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS.

LET'S TALK ABOUT THE STRUCTURE FOR A SECOND.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I AGREE THAT THAT AREA OF THAT PROPERTY, UM, THIS IS WHAT BENEFITS YOU IN MY MIND, IS THERE'S NOT MUCH GOING ON IN THAT PART OF THE PARKING LOT AND THE FREEWAY.

I DON'T BELIEVE THE ANGLE IS GOING TO AFFECT THE FREEWAY.

I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S GLARE.

I'VE DRIVEN BY HIGH SCHOOLS, CITY BUILDINGS, YOU NAME IT.

AND I HAVE NEVER BEEN ONCE BLINDED BY A SOLAR PANEL.

SO I DON'T BELIEVE ANY OF THAT IS AN ISSUE.

I'M SPEAKING FOR MYSELF.

SO I THINK YOU'RE, I THINK YOU'RE GOOD THERE, RIGHT? UM, I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY AIRPLANES FAA, ANYTHING LIKE YOU MENTIONED SAYING, HEY, WE CAN'T FLY BECAUSE WE'RE BEING BLINDED.

RIGHT? THEY'RE GETTING LASERS POINTED AT 'EM, BUT SOLAR PANELS ARE NOT AN ISSUE.

AGAIN, I THINK YOU'RE GOOD THERE.

I'M JUST GIVING YOU MY OPINION.

UM, I HAVE A COUPLE OF THINGS THOUGH.

ONE, THAT PARKING LOT IS VERY DARK, AND I'M ASSUMING WITH ALL THIS NEWFOUND ELECTRICITY, IF IT MOVES FORWARD, WE CAN PUT A LOT OF LIGHT UNDER THOSE CANOPIES TO MAKE SURE THAT THE SAFETY OF PEOPLE IN THAT AREA AND TO REDUCE HOMELESSNESS, AS THE FORMER CHIEF POINTED OUT, THAT IS AN ISSUE THERE.

RIGHT? THAT IS A PROBLEM.

NO OFFENSE WITH THAT PARKING LOT.

THAT'S CORRECT.

SO THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'M GONNA SAY RIGHT NOW IS I WANT A LOT OF LIGHTING UNDER THAT.

I WANT MORE LIGHTING THAN YOU PROBABLY HAVE EVEN THOUGHT OF.

I WANT IT TO ALMOST BE DAYLIGHT AT NIGHT.

I MEAN, I WANNA MAKE SURE THERE'S NO CRIME POSSIBILITIES.

THAT'S JUST SOMETHING I'M GONNA POINT OUT.

UM, YOU DON'T NEED TO ANSWER.

I, I THINK YOU AGREE AND I SEE THE HEADS NODDING FROM YOUR COLLEAGUES.

THERE'S LOTS OF THAT.

PUBLIC OWNERSHIP OF THAT, ALL OF THAT BECOMES EXPONENTIALLY MORE COMPLEX.

THE ONE QUESTION I HAVE IS, YOU GUYS MENTIONED THAT IT'S A GOVERNMENTAL PROPERTY OR A GOVERNMENTAL, CAN YOU ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT MORE ON THAT, IF YOU COULD, AND EXPLAIN WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM THAT? YEAH, PROBABLY SHED SOME LIGHT ON THAT.

UM, THE PROPERTY, FOOTHILL TRANSIT, AGAIN, IS A JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY MADE UP OF THE 22 CITIES, PLUS THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES.

SO ESSENTIALLY THE 22 CITIES PLUS THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES OWN THAT PROPERTY.

UM, THE PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED WITH FEDERAL FUNDING, WHICH COMES WITH, AS, YOU KNOW, ALL SORTS OF FEDERAL GRANTS AND REQUIREMENTS.

UM, SO UNLIKE OTHER PARCEL, MANY OTHER PARCELS, THERE ARE FEW THAT ARE, THAT ARE PUBLICLY OWNED IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA.

UM, BUT THIS ONE IN PARTICULAR HAS ALL OF THE BURDENS THAT COME WITH BEING A PUBLIC FACILITY.

UM, SO FOR EXAMPLE, THE, THE DOWNTOWN PLAN, YOU KNOW, ONE COULD LOOK AT SORT OF THE, THE, THE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN, AND YOU COULD SAY, WELL, THAT VACANT PARCEL COULD POTENTIALLY BE USED FOR YOUR EXPANSION OF YOUR HOUSING ELEMENT OR FOR ADDITIONAL RETAIL OR THOSE TYPES OF THINGS.

BUT BECAUSE OF THE

[01:20:01]

UM, TO DO ALL OF THAT REQUIRES MASSIVE GRANT COMPLIANCE.

IT REQUIRES COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION.

UM, ALL OF THAT MAKES THIS PARCEL DIFFERENT THAN MOST OF THE OTHER PARCELS IN THE DOWNTOWN PLAN.

SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, DOES THAT LIMIT WHAT THE CITY'S DOWN PLAN DOWNTOWN PLAN CAN DO? ABSOLUTELY.

SO THE DEVELOPMENT WISE, YEAH, I MEAN, YOU COULD BUILDINGS, YOU CAN SAY YOU WANT, IT'S NOT GONNA BE RETAIL, IN OTHER WORDS.

YEAH, IT'S, IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT GONNA BE RETAIL.

IT'S NOT GONNA BE HOUSING, OR AT LEAST NOT EASILY.

UM, ONE OF THE CHALLENGES THAT WE HAVE, AGAIN, BEING A FEDERALLY FUNDED, UH, AND PUBLICLY OWNED FACILITY IS THAT ALL OF THE PUBLIC CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS KICK INTO THAT.

I CAN TELL YOU, ANYTHING THAT WE CONSTRUCT IS GONNA COST A LOT MORE THAN WHAT A PRIVATE DEVELOPER'S GOING TO INCUR IN COST.

SO BECAUSE OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS, IT REALLY LIMITS AND CONSTRAINTS WHAT CAN BE DONE THERE.

AND I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'VE LEARNED A LOT MORE ABOUT SINCE THE DOWNTOWN PLAN WAS EVEN DEVELOPED.

UH, ONE POINT WE ACTUALLY LOOKED AT SELLING THAT PRO, THAT BUILDING AND RELOCATING AND DOWNSIZING OUR OFFICES.

WHAT WE FOUND IS THAT ALL OF THESE FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS KICKING IN DIMINISHED THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY FOR US, THAT THE RETURN DIDN'T MAKE ANY PUBLIC INVESTMENT IN SENSE IN TERMS OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS GOING SOMEWHERE ELSE.

SO IT IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA.

SO, AND GOING ON A LITTLE BIT, LOOKING AT THE DESIGN RIGHT NOW, WHICH IS ALL NORTH OF THE BUILDING BETWEEN THE FREEWAY ON RAMP OR THE FREEWAY AND THE BUILDING, UM, I'M ASSUMING OTHER DESIGNS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN OTHER PARTS OF THAT TO BENEFIT WITH SOLAR FACING SOUTH OR MAYBE OTHER DESIGNS THAT WAY THAT, THAT USE DIFFERENT PARTS OF THAT PARKING LOT.

WOULD THAT BE FAIR? YES, ABSOLUTELY.

I MEAN, WE LOOKED AT OTHER PARTS OF THE PARKING LOT.

IF YOU WERE TO MOVE IT TO THE PARCEL THAT FACES TOWARDS THE EAST ONE, THE, THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THERE TO WORK WITH IS LIMITED.

THE, THE GEO GEOMETRY OF THAT IS KIND OF ODD.

THERE'S KIND OF A PIE SHAPE PIECE THERE THAT JUST DOESN'T PROVIDE ENOUGH, UH, ENOUGH SPACE TO MAKE IT REASONABLE OR FEASIBLE TO MAKE THE INVESTMENT IN, IN THE PROJECT.

SO IT, IT'S YOUR BELIEF THAT BECAUSE THIS IS A GOVERNMENTAL USE TYPE PROPERTY, ONE THAT'S CONTROLLED BY GOVERNMENTAL USE RESTRICTIONS, THAT THERE'S LIMITS TO WHAT WE COULD BUILD THERE WITH THE DOWNTOWN PLAN, AND THEREFORE THIS MAKES THE MOST SENSE BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING ELSE THAT'S GONNA BE BUILT THERE IN THEORY, IN YOUR OPINION, I'M ASSUMING, YOU KNOW, ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE.

I MEAN, I THINK THERE THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, COULD SOMETHING ELSE HAPPEN THERE? YES.

COULD IT HAPPEN EASILY? COULD IT HAPPEN WITH NORMAL MARKET FORCES? IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT.

UM, TO, TO DO ANYTHING THERE, TO DO SOMETHING ELSE WOULD BE VERY COMPLEX.

AND LET'S SAY THAT THE DREAM PROJECT LANDS AND YOU HAVE A MULTI-USE ADDS TO THE HOUSING COMPONENTS, ALL OF THOSE TYPES OF THINGS, THE SOLAR CANOPY COULD COME DOWN AND SOMETHING ELSE COULD GO IN THERE.

IF BY SOME STRANGE MIRACLE ALL THAT CAME TOGETHER, I THINK IT'S HIGHLY UNLIKELY.

UM, BUT AGAIN, THE, THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SOLAR CANOPY IS NOT THE SAME AS CONSTRUCTION OF SAY, A PARKING STRUCTURE THAT, UM, WOULD HAVE AN EXPONENTIALLY HIGHER COST AND WOULD BE MUCH MORE DIFFICULT TO DEAL WITH IN TERMS OF OTHER POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES.

SO ONE LAST QUESTION, JUST, AND MAYBE IT'S NOT ON THE SOLAR PANEL.

COULD THAT OTHER PART OF THE PARKING LOT BE USED FOR, UH, MAYBE A TRANSIT AREA OR A BUS STOP OR ANYTHING ALONG THOSE LINES? IS THAT FUTURE PLANS? I KNOW IT MAY NOT PERTAIN TO THIS.

NO, BUT I'M JUST CURIOUS.

, UM, NO, THAT PROBABLY WOULDN'T BE USED FOR TRANSIT STOPS.

TRANSIT, UM, ACCESS LARGELY BECAUSE THE STREET SYSTEM THROUGH THERE DOESN'T REALLY SUPPORT THE BUS MOVEMENT.

SO SAY WE WERE GONNA PUT A TRANSIT CENTER ON SOME PORTION OF THAT PARCEL, IF YOU THINK ABOUT THAT INTERSECTION, YOU THINK ABOUT BUS MOVEMENTS FROM THAT INTERSECTION TO AN OFF STREET TRANSIT CENTER, THE ROAD SYSTEM DOESN'T REALLY SUPPORT IT.

WELL, WE'VE LOOKED AT IT.

APPRECIATE YOUR OPINION.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR ANY, UH, FOR QUESTIONS, COMMENTS FOR THE APPLICANT AT THIS POINT IN TIME? ALRIGHT, THANK YOU FOR THE MOMENT.

UM, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? NEUTRAL.

SEEING NONE.

UM, I'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE, UH, THE PUBLIC HEARING AND, UH, OPEN, UH, COMMISSION DISCUSSION AT THIS POINT.

I GOT, I GOT A COUPLE QUESTIONS, IF YOU DON'T MIND.

SO NOTHING'S BEEN SENT OUT.

UM, THIS IS JUST AT THIS POINT AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPLICATION.

SO I, I UNDERSTAND IT'S PROBABLY NOT BEEN TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT OR BUILDING AND SAFETY OR ANY OF THE OTHER THINGS.

CAN YOU ELABORATE WHERE WE ARE? WHAT STILL COULD BE DONE IF WE DID OVERTURN THIS? WHAT, WHERE WE AT WITH THIS? JUST SO I KIND OF UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH? UH, CORRECT ADMIN, UM, UH, ADMIN PERMITS TYPICALLY ARE NOT, UH, ROOTED OUT TO THOSE DIFFERENT DIVISIONS, UM, UNLESS IT'S TIED TO AN ENTITLEMENT OR THERE'S A PUBLIC HEARING.

UM, AND YOUR QUESTION IS TO WHERE WE'RE, WHERE WE'RE, WHERE ARE WE AT NOW? YEAH, SO JUST UNDERSTAND, HAVE WE WENT TO ANY OF THE DEPARTMENTS?

[01:25:01]

WE HAVE NOT GOTTEN FEEDBACK FROM THOSE OF THE DIVISIONS YET.

SO ONE OF MY CONCERNS RELATES TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.

UM, I, I'M ALL FOR SOLAR, LIKE COMMISSIONER HANG SAID, I, I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT.

MY CONCERN IS WITH THE CLOSENESS OF THE EDGE OF THAT CANOPY, UM, TO THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING, IF THERE IS A FIRE AT A SIX STORY BUILDING IN WEST COVINA, THE SECOND TALLEST BUILDING IN OUR CITY, I'M, I'M GONNA NEED A LOT OF FIRE TRUCKS IN THAT PARKING LOT.

AND THEY'RE GONNA NEED TO BE ABLE TO MANEUVER MUCH LIKE A BUS WOULD.

UM, AND I WANT TO KNOW THAT FIRE CAN GET THOSE IN, GET HOSES LAID AND NOT BE RIGHT NEXT TO THE BUILDING, WHICH MAY NOT BE THE BEST SCENARIO FOR EVERY SITUATION.

SO FOR ME, I KIND OF WANT TO KNOW WHERE FIRE'S AT WITH THIS BEFORE I REALLY CONSIDER MUCH ELSE.

UM, SO I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT INFORMATION.

I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE THAT TONIGHT.

THAT, THAT'S A GREAT POINT.

AND, UM, I, I THINK THE APPLICANT MENTIONED THAT IF, IF THIS WAS APPROVED OR IF THEY WERE TO DEVELOP THIS, IT WOULD COMPLY WITH THE, UM, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WE HAVE IN PLACE FOR, FOR SOLAR CARPORTS.

ONE OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS IS THAT THEY NOT BE LOCATED WITHIN A HUNDRED FEET OF A FRONT FACING BUILDING.

SO THAT, THAT'S ONE OF THE, THAT WOULD DRASTICALLY CHANGE THE PROPOSAL THAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU.

SO MORE THAN LIKELY, THEN THOSE PANELS MAY MOVE OR SHRINK A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE OF THAT A HUNDRED FOOT RULE.

WE RIGHT.

WE DON'T KNOW WHAT, THERE'S, THERE'S OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT ARE RIGHT, THAT HAVE TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.

SO WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE JUST YET.

AND BUILDING SAFETY, DO WE KNOW POSSIBLY ANY OF THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THERE THAT WE THINK THEY MIGHT IMPOSE? DO WE HAVE ANYTHING KNOWLEDGEABLE THERE? NO, NO, BECAUSE IT WASN'T ROOTED OVER TO THEM.

WE DON'T HAVE THEIR, THEIR COMMENTS.

FOR WHEN CQA APPLIES TO A SOLAR PROJECT WHEN, UH, AND SOME OF IT, AND SOME OF THOSE EXCEPTIONS TO THE EXEMPTION HAVE TO DO WITH THE REMOVAL OF TREES.

AND, UM, BECAUSE I ASKED THEM THE SAME QUESTION ON THE GOVERNMENTAL USE, WHAT'S YOUR POSITION OR WHAT'S THE CITY'S POSITION ON THAT? DO WE BELIEVE THAT THERE'S USE THERE THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DO THAT'S COMPARABLE TO THE DOWNTOWN PLAN? OR IS WHAT THEY'RE SAYING KIND OF ACCURATE THAT THERE'S NOT A LOT TO DO THERE? SO I MEAN, FROM MY OPINION, WHY NOT APPROVE IT? THE PROPERTY CAN CHANGE HANDS AT ANY TIME.

SO IF IT WERE TO CHANGE HANDS INTO A PRIVATE DEVELOPER, THEN THOSE RE THOSE, THOSE, UM, LIMITS WOULD BE LIFTED.

SO RIGHT NOW IT'S CURRENTLY UNDER FOOTHILL TRANSIT AUTHORITY.

SO IF, IF NOT THAT THEY'RE GONNA GO OUT OF BUSINESS.

BUT AGAIN, IF THEY WERE TO CHANGE HANDS FOR WHATEVER REASON, THEN THOSE OPPORTUNITIES ARE, UM, ARE MAGNIFIED.

YEAH, I DON'T KNOW.

I REMEMBER RTB AT ONE POINT, SO THEY'RE NO LONGER AROUND.

ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION AT THIS POINT IN TIME? SO DO WE EVEN HAVE THE AUTHORITY? I MEAN, IF THE, UM, IF THE APPLICABLE LAND USE REGULATIONS, YOU KNOW, DO NOT AUTHORIZE IT IF THE AUTHORIZED, IF IT'S NOT AUTHORIZED BY EXISTING PARKING USE ON THE PROPERTY, IF IT'S NOT APPROVED BY REFERENCE TO SOLAR CARPORTS, I MEAN, SO WOULD WE'D BE GOING AGAINST ALL THE, UH, CURRENT REGULATIONS? ARTO, IF YOU DON'T MIND, I'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE SOME OF THIS.

UM, THERE'S, THERE'S THREE KEY POINTS THAT I WANT TO GO, UH, GO THROUGH.

FIRST OF ALL, UM, THE SOLAR RIGHTS ACT SECTION THAT WAS CITED IN THE APPEAL WAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65 8 50 0.5.

UH, AND INDEED UNDER THAT SECTION, CITIES ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPORT A DENIAL OF A SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM WITH A FINDING BASED ON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE SYSTEM WOULD HAVE A SPECIFIC ADVERSE IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY.

UM, YOU HAVE HEARD FROM THE APPLICANT THEIR OPINION THAT THE, UH, THE AP PERMIT WAS FOCUSED NOT ENOUGH ON THESE HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES, THAT THE, THE, THE ADMIN PERMIT WAS FOCUSED ON ISSUES OF USE, ALLOWABLE USE, ALLOWABLE STRUCTURE AS OPPOSED TO THIS HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUE.

AND, UM, I THINK THAT POINT WAS ALSO, UH, REEMPHASIZED BY COMMISSIONER BENNETT'S, UH, UH, QUESTIONS.

I THEN, SO PUT A PIN ON THAT IDEA WITH RESPECT TO THAT HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUE AS BEING AN OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION.

AND THEN AS A SEPARATE ISSUE, OPERATING INDEPENDENT OF THE SOLAR RIGHTS ACT, WE HAVE TO CONSIDER CQA HERE.

UM, NOW, CA, UM, HERE HAS BEEN WE THE FINDING OF EXEMPTION UNDER CQA BECAUSE A DENIAL IS BEING RECOMMENDED.

HOWEVER, IF THE AP PERMIT IS GRANTED, WE HAVE TO REVISIT CQA BECAUSE NOW WE ARE RE YOU WOULD BE APPROVING A PROJECT OPPOSED TO DENYING A PROJECT.

SO WE HAVE TO RECONSIDER CQA GENERALLY.

TYPICALLY THERE ARE EXEMPTIONS UNDER CQA FOR SOLAR INSTALLATIONS.

HOWEVER, THE EXEMPTION FOR SOLAR INSTALLATIONS IN UNDER CQA ITSELF HAS EXCEPTIONS.

A WHOLE LAUNDRY LIST OF EXCEPTIONS

[01:30:01]

WE KNOW HERE THAT THERE ARE A LARGE NUMBER OF TREES THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED.

HOWEVER, BECAUSE THE, UH, THE ADMIN PERMIT WAS DENIED THERE, THE, THE STAFF DID NOT DO A DETAILED SQL REVIEW OR SQL ANALYSIS OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT TYPE OF POSSIBLY WOULD THERE NEED TO BE MITIGATION MEASURES, WOULD THERE BE ANY KIND OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT? NONE OF THAT WAS DONE BECAUSE THE PERMIT WAS DENIED.

SO AT THIS POINT, WE COULDN'T GRANT THE PERMIT BECAUSE CQA IS BEING LEFT OPEN AND UNFULFILLED.

THAT BRINGS ME TO MY THIRD POINT.

UNDER YOUR DEVELOPMENT CODE ON AN APPEAL, YOU ACTUALLY DO HAVE MORE OPTIONS THAN JUST TO APPROVE OR DENY THE APPEAL.

UM, THE, UH, SECTION 26 DASH 1 94 OF DEVELOPMENT CODE DEALING WITH APPEALS ALSO GIVES YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO MODIFY THE MATTER THAT'S APPEALED.

AND, UH, THERE'S PROVISIONS FOR REFERRAL BACK.

SO, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU WOULD HAVE THE OPTION OF REFERRING BACK THE MATTER TO PLANNING STAFF OR REVIEW OF THE APPLICATION AGAIN WITH DIRECTION, UM, DIRECTION FOR, UH, YOU KNOW, MORE FOCUSED, UH, HEALTH AND SAFETY ASPECTS, INCLUDING THE, THE FIRE ASPECTS THAT WERE RAISED BY COMMISSIONER, UH, BENNETT.

UM, AND ALSO DEPENDING ON THE OUTCOME OF THAT, OF THAT FURTHER ANALYSIS, UM, WHETHER OR NOT WE HAVE TO COMPLY WITH CQA.

SO I DID WANT TO RAISE THAT CQA ISSUE AS A SEPARATE MATTER BECAUSE IT DOES THROW A BIT OF A, ANOTHER COMPLICATION.

SORRY ABOUT THAT, INTO THIS CONSIDERATION.

ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONER BENNETT.

SO, UH, MADAM CITY ATTORNEY, SO WHEN YOU SAID WE CAN REFER IT BACK TO THE PLANNING DIVISION FOR RE-REVIEW WITH DIRECTION, UM, WE COULD REQUEST THEM TO GO AHEAD AND PUT IT BACK TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND HAVE THEM REVIEW IT.

WE COULD HAVE THEM BASICALLY DO WHAT WE WANTED TO DO IN THAT REGARDS TO BRING BACK MORE INFORMATION TO US.

BUT IF WE OVERTURN THE, THE, OR IF WE, UH, APPROVE THE APPEAL AND, AND BASICALLY APPROVE THIS, UM, THEY THEN ARE APPROVED, COULD BE APPROVED BY WRIGHT, WHICH MEANS THEY DON'T COME BACK BEFORE US FOR DESIGN OR ANYTHING ALONG THAT LINES.

AM I CORRECT ON THAT? Y YOU'RE CORRECT ON THAT.

AND THAT'S WHERE WE GET INTO THAT SQA CONUNDRUM BECAUSE YOU'VE NOW APPROVED A PROJECT THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE A PROJECT SUBJECT TO SOME SORT OF FURTHER SQL REVIEW.

I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO REFER THIS TO PLANNING STAFF TO CONTINUE.

UH, BUT THEN IF YOU WERE TO CONTINUE BASICALLY REGARDING THE PLAN, AND ALSO BECAUSE THIS CAME THROUGH AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE, WHICH JUST WENT THROUGH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THEN JUST CAME STRAIGHT TO US, MAYBE PERHAPS WE CAN OPEN IT UP TO THE PUBLIC AS WELL.

WHAT OPINIONS DO THEY HAVE? AND WE'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC BECAUSE IT IS A LARGE STRUCTURE.

IF WE WERE TO CONTINUE TO STAFF, I DON'T THINK THERE ARE ANY HOMES WITHIN THE 500 RADIUS HUNDRED FEET.

THERE'S VERY FEW.

I LIVE NEARBY AND IT'S NOT MANY.

I MEAN, I'M FAR ENOUGH AWAY THAT I'M OUTSIDE THAT, THAT NOTICE WINDOW, BUT I CAN TELL YOU THERE'S NOT A TON.

I THINK BASICALLY YOU'RE LOOKING AT THAT APARTMENT COMPLEX, BUT MAYBE THE COLONY.

NEED TO KNOW WHAT IT, WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.

BUT YEAH, OUR ONLY DECISION IS TO REFER THIS BACK BEYOND THAT, UH, COMMISSIONER BENNETT.

SO I, I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH LIV ON PUSHING THIS BACK TO PLANNING DIVISION, BUT I, I WANT TO ADD, IF YOU'RE GONNA DO A MOTION, I I WOULD ASK, UH, A FRIENDLY COUPLE OF AMENDMENTS BEFORE I WOULD EVEN CONSIDER A SECOND.

AND THAT IS TO GET SOME OF THESE THINGS DONE.

I THINK WE HAVE TO ADD THAT TO THE MOTION.

WE CAN'T JUST PUSH IT BACK TO 'EM.

I THINK WE NEED TO ASK FOR FIRE TO LOOK AT THIS.

I THINK WE NEED TO ASK FOR THE CQA AND, AND GET ALL OF THOSE REVIEWS.

I, I AGREE TO CONTINUE THIS, SEND IT BACK TO 'EM, HAVE IT COME BACK BECAUSE I, I JUST DON'T THINK WE HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TONIGHT.

AND I THINK IT'S, I THINK IT'S UNFAIR TO THE APPLICANT TO DENY THE APPEAL, AND I THINK IT'S UNFAIR TO THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY TO APPROVE THE APPEAL WITH LIMITED KNOWLEDGE.

SO I, I SUPPORT WHAT YOU'RE DOING.

I JUST ASK FOR A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO DO ALL THOSE DIFFERENT THINGS WITH IT.

WELL, THAT GOES WITHOUT, AND ALSO, I LIKE ALL THE RE REQUIREMENTS AFTER PLANNING HAS REVIEWED, BUT I, I KNOW ABSOLUTELY NOT FAIR TO THE APPLICANT TO DENY.

ALSO, I'D LIKE TO SEE THE FOUR, THE FOUR LOCATIONS IN TERMS OF HOW THE PLAN SHOULD LOOK LIKE INSTEAD OF JUST SAY, HERE YOU GO.

WELL, KEEP IN MIND THAT THERE'S MONEY INVOLVED TO DESIGN THOSE THINGS.

THAT'S A LOT OF MONEY.

SO WE STILL

[01:35:01]

WHAT, WHAT ARE WE APPROVING AT THE END OF THE DAY BESIDES JUST A SITE PLAN.

WE, WE DO NEED TO SEE, I MEAN, EVEN THOUGH THEY SAID IT IS A USE, UH, ACCESSORY USE STRUCTURE, ACCESSORY USE STRUCTURE DOES HAVE A DESIGN AS WELL TO IT.

AND EVEN IF IT COMES TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE OR DESIGN REVIEW, WE NEED SOMETHING TO LOOK AT INSTEAD OF JUST A SITE PLAN.

CAN, CAN WE ASK FOR THAT? YES.

OR IS THAT A LITTLE ABOVE AND BEYOND? ARE WE GONNA PROVE SOMETHING IF WE DON'T, CAN'T SEE WHAT IT, LOOK, WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE.

ARE YOU ASKING FOR, FOR RENDERINGS OF YES.

WHAT THOSE CORE EXACTLY LOOK LIKE INSTEAD OF SOME, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT THEY GAVE US, WHICH IS SOMETHING LIKE THE, I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT THE DESIGN'S GONNA LOOK LIKE, BUT I, I DON'T KNOW THAT I NEED THE RENDERINGS MYSELF.

UM, LIKE I SAID, I'M FINE WITH WHAT COMMISSIONER BECERRA POINTED OUT, WHICH IS SEND IT BACK TO PLANNING DIVISION.

I'LL SECOND IT.

IF YOU ACCEPT THE FIRE AND QUA, UH, DESIGNS.

I WILL SECOND THAT IF YOU ACCEPT THOSE AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

WELL, I THINK THAT WE SHOULD ALSO INCLUDE THE RENDERINGS THAT COMMISSIONER HANKINS.

SO LET'S ADD THAT TO IT.

I HAVE THAT.

DO YOU WANNA SECOND THAT? I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW IF THE RENDERINGS ARE NEEDED FOR ME AT THIS POINT.

I'LL, I'LL LEAVE IT FOR THE OTHER TWO TO DECIDE, UM, WITH TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, UM, TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO, HOW TO BEST ARTICULATE THIS.

SO LOOK, ONE OF THE THINGS I'M, I'M MOST CONCERNED ABOUT HERE IS, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE KIND OF SORT OF FLYING BY THE SEAT OF OUR PANTS A LITTLE BIT ON THIS.

AND I, I CERTAINLY HAVE NO AVERSION TO THE INSTALLATION OF SOLAR PANELS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

I THINK THE ISSUE IS, IS, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER WE DO OUGHT NOT TO BE A, AN AD HOC, YOU KNOW, DECISION THAT WE PULL OUT OF THIN AIR.

BASICALLY, I I, I, I WISH WE HAD SOMETHING IN FRONT OF US.

OBVIOUSLY THIS IS THE, THIS IS A VERY LIMITED SCOPE HEARING, UM, IN THE SENSE THAT IT IS THE OVERTURNING OR POTENTIAL OVERTURNING, UH, ON APPEAL OF A DENIAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT.

WHAT I'D LIKE TO SEE IS HAVE SOME UNDERSTANDING AS TO WHAT STANDARDS, IF ANY, WOULD BE IN EXISTENCE FOR A PROJECT LIKE THIS.

BECAUSE AGAIN, I UNDERSTAND, UM, AND THIS IS SORT OF PART OF THE BACK AND FORTH THAT, THAT I, THAT I ENGAGED IN WITH THE APPLICANT IS, OKAY, WELL WHAT ARE THE DESIGN STANDARDS THAT ARE ACTUALLY, UH, SUBJECT TO THIS PROJECT? OR, YOU KNOW, I, I KNOW THERE'S SOME ARGUMENT OVER THE, THE TERM USE, BUT REGARDLESS, UM, I, I, I'D LIKE TO SEE WHAT THOSE STANDARDS ARE.

AND, AND JUST TO DOVETAIL OFF OF WHAT COMMISSIONER BENNETT HAD STATED, UM, YOU KNOW, GIVEN SOME OF THE, THE HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES HERE SPECIFICALLY WITH HOMELESSNESS, ET CETERA, I DEFINITELY AGREE WITH COMM COMMISSIONER BENNETT ON THE IDEA THAT WE HAVE, UH, WE HAVE LIGHTING STANDARDS UNDER THESE THINGS.

UM, AND THAT OUGHT TO BE SOMETHING THAT IS PART OF THE CODE IN SOME WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM.

NOW, WHETHER THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IS RIPE FOR CONSIDERATION ON AN ADMINISTRATIVE, UH, AN ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT APPEAL OR WHETHER IT'S SOMETHING THAT OUGHT TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF A DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT, I THINK THAT'S THE OPEN QUESTION.

AND, AND SO ULTIMATELY I'M, I'M OKAY WITH THE IDEA OF REFERRING IT BACK TO THE PLANNING DIVISION SO THAT, SO THAT ADMINISTRATIVELY WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT ALL OF THE ISSUES OF, OF CE QA, UH, APPLICABILITY OR IN APPLICABILITY, UM, AND VARIOUS HEALTH AND SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS AS WELL.

UH, BUT I'D LIKE TO HAVE SOME ASCERTAINABLE STANDARD BY WHICH, BY WHICH WE ARE, ARE BUILDING OFF OF, AS OPPOSED TO, OKAY, WE'RE DOING THIS ONE TIME AND BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE KIND OF, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WAY OF PUTTING IT BROADSIDED WITH A SPECIFIC, UH, A SPECIFIC PROJECT ON APPEAL WITH NO REAL OTHER DIRECTION OTHER THAN DO WE, DO WE OVERTURN OR, OR UPHOLD AN APPEAL? THAT'S, THAT'S NOT A VERY SATISFACTORY OUTCOME TO ME, UM, AS A RESIDENT OF THIS CITY.

AND I, I DON'T THINK THAT ANY RESIDENT OF THIS CITY WOULD WANT US TO ENGAGE IN, UH, ANY SORT OF DEVELOPMENT POLICYMAKING WHATSOEVER.

YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT'S THROUGH THIS BODY MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL OR THE CITY COUNCIL ITSELF WITHOUT HAVING AN ASCERTAINABLE STANDARD.

AND THAT'S MY CONCERN.

SO TO THE EXTENT THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN ROLL INTO, UH, ROLL INTO,

[01:40:01]

UH, COMMISSIONER BE'S, UH, I GUESS SORT OF OMNI MOTION, I, I WOULD, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT.

AND ALSO, UM, IN TERMS OF LOCATIONS OF SOLAR PANEL, I KNOW THIS PARTICULAR ONE IS ON THE GROUND, BUT DOWNTOWN AREA ALSO HAD A LOT OF COMMERCIAL BUILDING.

UM, MAYBE WE SHOULD LOOK INTO LIKE, OR EVEN PARKING STRUCTURE CLOSE BY HERE THAT PERHAPS WE CAN LOOK INTO AND SEE IF PERHAPS CAN PARK, UH, PLACE THESE TYPE OF SOLAR IN THE FUTURE.

UM, ON TOP OF THOSE, WHETHER IT'S COMMERCIAL BUILDING OR, I MEAN, AIR TRANSIT BUILDING IS, YOU KNOW, ON THE ROOFTOPS, WHETHER IT'S PARKING, STRUCTURAL OR THE BUILDING ITSELF.

SO MAYBE WE SHOULD ENTERTAIN THAT.

'CAUSE THERE'S QUITE A FEW BUILDING WHEN THEY PULL UP THE, UM, I GUESS THE MAP MAP, UM, MAP OF THE SURROUNDING LOCATION.

I, I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT MAY NOT BE YOUR LAND, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO LOOK INTO.

PROBABLY SOMETHING WE CAN AGENDIZE AT THE END.

WELL, ROOFTOP SOLAR PANELS WOULD BE ALLOWED FOR COMMERCIAL.

SO THAT HERE, THE ISSUE, BECAUSE IT'S A GROUND MOUNTED CARPORTS, SO THEY COULD INSTALL IT ON THE BUILDING ROOF ON THAT BUILDING, PROBABLY NOT A SQUARE FOOTAGE ON TOP, I'M ASSUMING TO GET THE, THE WATTAGE, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK THEY HAVE 22,000 SQUARE FEET OF YEAH.

ROOFTOP.

I, I HAVE ANOTHER QUICK QUESTION FOR STAFF, NOT THEIR ROOFTOP, BUT THEY CAN POTENTIALLY INSTALL IN SOMEONE ELSE'S ROOFTOP, BUT THEY JUST HAVE TO LEASE THE, AND RUN WIRES A LOT OF WIRE TO GET THE POWER FROM ONE BUILDING TO ANOTHER.

THAT'S A LOT OF COPPER.

THAT I, I I HAVE ONE QUICK QUESTION FOR STAFF.

UM, WITH REGARD TO THESE, UM, THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS ARE, UM, IS, IS THERE, UH, I GUESS THE, THE RIGHT TO INSTALL BATTERY STORAGE AS PART OF ALL OF THIS AS WELL? I KNOW THAT'S A VERY CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE, BUT I'M, I'M, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHETHER OR NOT THAT THAT'S, WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IS, UM, YOU KNOW, AS A MATTER OF RIGHT, ONCE THESE ARE INSTALLED, UM, SOMETHING THAT ANY, UM, ANY APPLICANT I GUESS WOULD, WOULD BE GRANTED AS A MATTER OF, RIGHT? OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT'S JUST, THAT'S A SECONDARY CONSIDERATION AND SUBJECT TO, UH, FURTHER AUTHORIZATION OR CONDITIONAL USE? 'CAUSE I, I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT AND I, I DON'T, I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING IN OUR DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT NECESSARILY SAYS ONE WAY THAT BE RELEVANT, THAT, WELL, THE CO THE COUNCIL JUST BANNED ANY, ANYTHING FOR BES OR DATA CENTERS.

SO I DON'T KNOW THAT WE WOULD EVEN GET THE OPPORTUNITY THEN IT WOULD GO BACK TO WHATEVER THE NEW CODE IS, IF IT'S AMENDED.

AND I, I JUST HAVE TO, THERE, THERE, REITERATE WHAT THAT CITY MANAGER SAID AT THIS POINT.

OKAY, WE'RE HERE TO EITHER DENY OR TO REFER IT BACK.

THAT'S WHAT OUR CHOICES ARE.

WHAT DO YOU WANNA DO? OR APPROVE OR, OR APPROVE.

BUT I KNOW THAT WE'RE, NONE OF US ARE READY TO DO THAT.

SO WHAT I THINK YOU WANNA DO, I THINK WHAT CHAIR LEWIS IS STATING THOUGH IS THIS ISN'T YOUR TYPICAL TESLA POWER WALL THAT WOULD GO INTO STORE BATTERIES.

HE'S LOOKING MORE, I'M NOT EVEN EVEN TALKING ABOUT THAT ANYMORE.

JUST LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE.

SO THE ATTORNEY ALREADY SAID, SOUNDS LIKE WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, CAN WE, DO WE HAVE, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

I, I JUST DON'T FEEL WE NEED THE DRAWINGS, BUT WE CAN DO WHATEVER YOU GUYS WANT DO.

SO THAT'S AN, OKAY, SO WE DO HAVE TWO MOTIONS.

SO WE HAVE A MOTION, UH, MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BECERRA, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BENNETT.

NO.

NOPE.

NOT WITH THE DRAWINGS.

I'LL, I'LL SECOND IT.

SO, UM, AND, AND JUST, JUST WANNA MAKE SURE, 'CAUSE I, I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THAT WITH ALL OF THE, UH, ALL OF THE CONTRIBUTIONS THAT EVERYONE HAS ATTEMPTED TO MAKE, I WANT TO KNOW, SO WHAT IS, WHAT IS FULLY INCLUDED IN YOUR MOTION? IF IT'S RECENT, UH, YOU MADE AN ADDITION AND THEN CHINO MADE AN ADDITION.

OKAY, PERFECT.

SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS, UH, THE MOTION WOULD BE TO, AND I'LL, I'M TRYING TO RESTATE IT IF I'M INCORRECT.

UH, FEEL FREE TO CORRECT ME.

SO I THINK THE MOTION IS TO SEND THIS BACK TO STAFF WITH DIRECTION TO, UH, TO LOOK INTO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY APPLICATIONS, UM, OR HEALTH AND SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS ON THIS, UH, THE, UH, POTENTIAL APPLICABILITY OF CQA TO THIS PROJECT.

UM, FIRE, UH, REVIEW.

I, I BELIEVE THAT WOULD COVER THE HEALTH AND SAFETY ASPECT AND, AND VERY SPECIFICALLY, I, I, I WILL SAY GO TO ALL DEPARTMENTS OF THE CITY, UH, PERTAINING TO ANY HEALTH AND SAFETY CONSIDERATION.

SO THAT

[01:45:01]

JUST IS OMNIBUS.

AND THEN, UM, UH, I GUESS I GUESS SUBMITTAL OF, OF, OF PLANS, I GUESS WR DRAWINGS, I GUESS OF THE, UM, OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AS WELL AS, UM, AS WELL AS A REQUEST FROM STAFF FOR CONCRETE DESIGN GUIDELINES, UH, MOVING FORWARD, WHETHER THAT'S THROUGH A DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT THAT IS HEARD CONCURRENTLY OR AT A LATER DATE, UH, BUT IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO THIS PROJECT IF IT WERE TO MOVE FORWARD.

DOES THAT HOPEFULLY IDENTIFY THE ENTIRE MOTION? I THINK EVERY AND SOME, I THINK SO.

, I APOLOGIZE.

I READ THE BOOK LATER, , I'M SO GLAD YOU GOT ALL THAT.

SO, UH, WE, SO MOTION SECOND TO YES, ALL OF THAT.

I WANT TO JUST MAKE SURE OKAY.

COMMISSIONER BENNETT? NO.

CAN WE REPEAT IT AGAIN? UH, ANY FURTHER, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE WE GO TO ROLL CALL? BECAUSE OF THE DRAWINGS? I'LL BE VOTING NOW.

OKAY, FAIR ENOUGH.

ALRIGHT, SO, UH, ARTURO ROLL CALL PLEASE.

UH, COMMISSIONER HANG.

AYE.

COMMISSIONER BERA.

AYE.

CHAIR LEWIS.

AYE.

MOTION PASSES THREE ONE AND, UH, DECISION WILL BE FINAL UNLESS, UH, WRITTEN, UH, REQUEST FOR FURTHER APPEAL IS PRESENTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITHIN 10 DAYS.

I WANNA RECOGNIZE THE STAFF BECAUSE THEY, THEY GO ABOVE AND BEYOND AND RIGHT.

YOU KNOW, THAT'S A LOT OF WORK FOR THEM TO TRY TO, UM, ACCOMMODATE THE APPLICANT.

AND SO WE APPRECIATE YOU ALL.

YOU DO.

REPORTS, COMMENTS, MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS, UH, UH, COMMISSIONER BECERRA, I THINK YOU BEAT US TO THAT ONE, BUT, UH, DO YOU HAVE ANY, DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY FURTHER, UH, COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER REPORTS, COMMENTS OR MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS? YOU'RE WELCOME.

WE HAVE NO, UH, NON-HEARING ITEMS, UH, COMMISSIONER

[COMMISSION REPORTS/COMMENTS AND MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS]

UM, NO, I DON'T, NOT RIGHT NOW.

I, I WENT TO THE PERFORMING ARTS GRAND OPENING.

GOOD JOB.

EXCELLENT.

YEAH, MOLLY STANLEY TEA WAS EXCELLENT TOO.

WELL, THE LINE WAS JUST A MILE LONG AROUND THE BUILDING.

IT WAS VERY, VERY NICE.

AND DO WE WANT TO, I KNOW COMMISSIONER HANG HAD THAT THING ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENTAL CODE OR WHATEVER.

DO YOU WANT TO ADD THAT OR IS THAT PART OF WHAT WE JUST DID? I'M SORRY.

THE, HOW YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT SOLAR IN OTHER AREAS OF THE DOWNTOWN CODE, YOU WERE ASKING QUESTIONS.

IS THAT SOMETHING YOU WANT TO ADD? UH, NO, BUT I'M JUST SAYING THAT WHEN YOU MENTIONED EARLIER, THIS IS OFF, UH, IT JUST COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION IS THAT YOU MENTIONED NOW REGARDING SOLAR, THERE'S A LOT OF WIRES THAT'S GOING THROUGH.

I THINK SOLAR PANELS ARE PRODUCED AND IT GOES STRAIGHT TO, LET'S SAY IF IT'S EDISON, IT JUST GOES STRAIGHT TO THEM.

IT'S ALMOST LIKE THEY HAVE A NET ZERO METER OR SOMETHING, SO IT DOESN'T GO DIRECTLY WIRE BACK TO THE BUILDING, IT JUST GO TO A METER AND THEN THEY JUST COLLECT HOW MUCH, UM, HOW MANY KILOWATT WIRE, IN THIS CASE THEY PROPOSE 716,000 KILOWATT WIRES HOURS, KILOWATT HOURS, I BELIEVE WATTS KILOWATT HOURS.

YEAH, I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT.

SO ANYWAY, I THINK IT'S JUST PRODUCED AND IT JUST GOES STRAIGHT BACK TO EDISON IS PRODUCING FOR EDISON AND THEY JUST, THEY GET THAT AMOUNT CREDITED TO THEM.

SO IT DOES NOT GO WIRE BACK TO THE BUILDING PER SE.

THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.

THE EXPERT JUST LEFT.

SO , SORRY.

UM, IT'LL PROBABLY BE, UH, THE BEGINNING OF NOVEMBER.

UM, MY, MY ONLY COMMENT, UM, WAS I, I, UH, PROVIDED STAFF PRIOR TO THE, UH, TO THE MEETING TONIGHT WITH, UH, UH, AN EXAMPLE, UM, PROPOSED, UM, MUNICIPAL CODE ORDINANCE, UM, ON THE, UH, THE ISSUE OF THE PARKLETS THAT WE, THAT WE BROUGHT UP, UH, FOR GLENDORA AVENUE AT THE LAST HEARING.

UM, WHAT I, WHAT I'D LIKE TO, UH, SEE IF WE CAN GET CONSENSUS ON, UM, IS, UH, POTENTIALLY BRINGING THAT BACK AT THE NEXT, UH, AT THE NEXT MEETING.

UM, THE, THE VERSION THAT I PROVIDED IS FROM A CITY THAT'S, UH, THAT'S GOT SOME SUBSTANTIAL EXPERIENCE WITH A, UH, RATHER ROBUST DOWNTOWN CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE.

UM, AND I'VE PROVIDED THAT TO STAFF.

UM, IF ANYONE WANTS TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT, UM, I WOULD CERTAINLY RECOMMEND DOING SO.

UM, IT'S PRETTY ROBUST AND WOULD, UH, HOPEFULLY BE SOMETHING THAT CAN BE UTILIZED TO, UH, UM, SORT OF, UH, VITALIZE MORE OF OUR, UH, OF OUR SORT OF FLEDGLING DOWNTOWN AREA MORE SO.

ABSOLUTELY.

SO BEYOND THAT, THAT WAS, UH, THE ONLY TO APPROVE THE ONLY COMMENT THAT I HAD, AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN BRING THAT BACK, UM, AT THE, AT THE NEXT MEETING.

I DON'T KNOW.

UM, I, I NEVER KNOW THESE DAYS WHEN WE'RE, WHEN WE'RE COMING BACK, WHAT, WHAT IS OUR NEXT MEETING LOOK LIKE, UH, AT THIS POINT IN TIME?

[01:50:01]

UM, AND IT LOOKS LIKE IT MIGHT BE ANOTHER APPEAL.

FAIR ENOUGH FOR THE APPLICANT.

, UM, ANOTHER HAPPY CUSTOMER.

DO WE HAVE, UM, DO WE HAVE ANY UPDATE, UM, REGARDING, UH, THERE WAS A, A REQUEST TO, UM, POTENTIALLY HAVE A SPECIAL MEETING AT THE, AT THE LAST, UH, PLANNING, COMMISSION MEETING, UH, REGARDING THE, THE GALSTER PARK ISSUES AND, AND WHATNOT AS A JOINT MEETING WITH THE, UH, COMMUNITY AND SENIOR SERVICES COMMISSION.

DO WE HAVE AN UPDATE ON THAT? UH, WE HAVE SHARED THAT WITH THE COMMUNITY SERVICES, UH, DIRECTOR.

UM, HOPEFULLY AT THE NEXT MEETING OR EVEN VIA EMAIL, WE CAN TRY TO SET SOMETHING UP.

OH, I HAVE SOMETHING TOO, BY THE WAY.

ARE YOU FINISHED? I'M SORRY.

SOUNDS GOOD.

GO, GO, GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER.

SO, UM, I JUST WANTED TO COMMEND YOU OR WHATEVER DEPARTMENT WAS THAT ACTUALLY WENT OUT AND STARTED PAINTING THE CURBS RED.

SO, UM, WHERE, UM, I CAN'T, CAN'T SAY WHERE I LIVE, BUT WHERE I LIVE IN THE AREA, UM, THERE IS, UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S BY THE HIGH SCHOOL.

SO WHEN THOSE STREETS FILL UP AND YOU TRY TO GET OUTSIDE THOSE SIDE STREETS, UM, YOU CANNOT SEE, AND IT, IT IS A DANGEROUS PLACE TO BE MAKING A LEFT TURN, ESPECIALLY TRYING TO GET RIGHT.

YOU KIND OF HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE CURB AND, YOU KNOW, PUT LIKE A PARKING TO THE HOUSE TO THE RIGHT OF YOU AND THEN SEE IF THERE'S, AND THEN PULL OUT, UM, PERSONAL EXPERIENCE.

MY DAUGHTER ALREADY CRASHED THERE, SO, UM, YEAH, SO I THINK IT WAS GREAT THAT THEY PAINTED THOSE CURBS RED.

I MEAN, IT USED TO BE EVERYBODY USED TO BE ABLE TO PARK THERE, AND NOW THAT THEY'RE RED THERE, THERE'LL BE SOME KIND OF, YOU KNOW, VIEW THAT PEOPLE CAN SEE WHEN THEY'RE TRYING TO PULL OUT OF THOSE SMALL STREETS.

SO GOOD JOB.

TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT.

UH, ANY FURTHER, UH, REPORTS OR COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT.

SEEING NONE, WE WILL GO

[COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT]

ARTURO, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO REPORT AT THIS TIME? UM, YES, I'VE GOT TWO EVENTS, BUT BEFORE I GO, UM, ON THESE, UM, UH, UH, COMMISSIONER, UH, VARA, UM, WHAT YOU'RE MENTIONING, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE LINE OF SIGHT AT INTERSECTIONS.

THERE IS A CALIFORNIA LAW THAT CAME OUT, I BELIEVE IT WAS IN 25, CALLED THE DAYLIGHT, UH, DAYLIGHT LAW, UH, WHERE THERE IS A PERCEIVED SIDEWALK, USUALLY AT INTERSECTIONS, THERE'S NO PARKING WITHIN 20 FEET OF THAT PERCEIVED SIDEWALK.

UM, SO IF PEOPLE ARE, IF IT'S NOT MARKED IN RED AND YOU BELIEVE THAT THEY'RE PARKED WITHIN 20 FEET OF THAT, YOU CAN CERTAINLY CALL PUBLIC SAFETY.

UM, THEY ARE ISSUING NOTICES RIGHT NOW, POTENTIALLY CITATIONS.

UM, BUT THAT'S COMING DOWN FROM, SO EVENTUALLY YOU WON'T HAVE TO SEE THE RED.

IT'S KIND OF LIKE, UM, UH, FIRE HYDRANTS.

THERE'S A LOT OF HYDRANT, FIRE HYDRANTS.

THEY'RE NOT PAINTED RED, BUT THE, UH, UNDERSTANDING IS THAT YOU CAN'T PARK WITHIN 15 FEET OF A FIRE HYDRANT.

SO AS TIME ROLLS BY, PEOPLE WILL THEN UNDERSTAND THAT YOU CAN'T PARK WITHIN 20 FEET OF, OF THAT INTERSECTION OR THE PERCEIVED INTERSECTION IF IT'S NOT OF ANY INTERSECTION, OF, OF, OF ANY CROSSWALK, OF ANY, UM, CROSSWALK.

SO, YEAH.

AND, AND USUALLY THEY'RE, THEY'RE AT INTERSECTIONS.

UM, SOMETIMES YOU, THEY'RE NOT, THEY'RE NOT, UH, DEMARCATED ON THE GROUND, SO, BUT THERE'S NOWALK IT, IT IS, IF IT'S A PERCEIVED CROSSWALK, THEN YOU AREN'T ALLOWED TO PARK WITHIN 20 FEET OF THAT PERCEIVED CROSSWALK.

THAT'S TWO PARKING SPACES, CORRECT.

TO AID IN VISION WHEN YOU'RE MAKING A TURN.

YEAH, EXACTLY.

IT, IT'S, IT BEATS, YOU KNOW, THE ALTERNATIVE, YOU KNOW, ALL THE ACCIDENTS A ABSOLUTELY YES.

AND, AND AS TIME GOES BY AND AS EDUCATION, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE BECOME EDUCATED, UM, THEY'LL START TO RESPECT THAT A LOT MORE.

BUT AGAIN, IF YOU SEE THAT HAPPENING IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO REACH OUT TO PUBLIC SAFETY AND, YOU KNOW, THEY'LL, THEY'LL GO OUT THERE.

ABSOLUTELY.

THOSE STREETS FILL UP, ESPECIALLY GRADUATIONS.

ANY EVENT AT THE SCHOOL, ANY EVENT, GOT A NEIGHBOR WITH A LOT OF PARTIES, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T GET THROUGH THERE.

THAT'S ON SATURDAY, OCTOBER 3RD.

I LOVE MY NEIGHBORS, BY THE WAY.

I LOVE YOU GUYS, .

AND WE HAVE TWO COMMUNITY EVENTS TO SHARE WITH YOU.

COMING UP IN OCTOBER, WE HAVE THE WEST COVINA MOON FESTIVAL.

THAT'S GONNA RUN FROM 1:00 PM TO 9:00 PM THAT'S GONNA BE HERE AT CITY HALL, 1 4 4 4 WEST GARVEY AVENUE SOUTH.

WE ALSO HAVE FESTIVAL FRIGHTS THAT'S ON SATURDAY, OCTOBER 24TH.

THAT'LL RUN FROM FOUR TO 9:00 PM THAT'S IN HISTORIC DOWNTOWN WEST COVINA, UM, OFF OF SOUTH GLENDORA AVENUE.

UH, BOTH EVENTS WILL BRING OUR COMMUNITY TOGETHER FOR CULTURE, ENTERTAINMENT, AND FAMILY FRIENDLY, FUN.

HOPE THAT WE CAN SEE YOU GUYS ALL THERE.

UH, THAT CONCLUDES, UH, THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT.

ALRIGHT, MOVING ON TO CITY COUNCIL.

ACTION.

ARE THERE ANY CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS TO REPORT? NONE.

NO.

HAVING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, UH, THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED AT 9:02 PM HAVE A GOOD NIGHT EVERYONE.