Let's sue pledging allegiance. I'm not sure what this is. To the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation will arrive. Okay. Can we have the roll call? Chair Gary Cushing, Vice Chair Cameron Carrizales. Commissioner Commissioner Aaron Todd, Commissioner Ashley Connelly, Commissioner Derek Farabish. Okay, so I'll order here. Okay, oral communications. No one has turned into card to do any speaker card for that. So we'll go on to the consent calendar, the minutes for the February 19th Planning Commission meeting. Chair, I have one comment on the minutes very briefly. I'd like to add, this is on the second to last page and for Jacob right above that line. It says item is concluded due to lack of commission actions. I'd like to add in modification number four is not approved due to lack of commission action just to make the record clear. We didn't do the last one, right? For the biggest meeting? And so this is the... We didn't do the minutes last month, right? For the previous meeting? This is for the February Planning Commission meeting. These minutes. Yeah, but at the last meeting we didn't do the minutes from the last meeting because there's only two of us here that had been at that meeting. So I think I'm not sure I follow your question. I know it the minutes for that last meeting, the rock. Did it, there for that last meeting. The Rock. The October planning commission me. So those are not on this agenda. Those will be brought back at a future meeting. Okay. So yeah. I just hear so I think we're missing it. Yeah. Different sets. So here there were four commissioners present at this February meeting. So those four commissioners can vote on these minutes. Right. Okay. So I'll motion to approve meetings with correction noted by Michael. Do we have a second? Yes, I'll second. Okay, all in favor? Say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay, motion carries. Okay, public hearing will open the public hearing at 632. Good evening chair members of the commission. Good evening, Chair, members of the commission. The applicant is, well, first of all, this is a public hearing. That means we've noticed the newspaper. We notice every property on earth in 300 feet. And it's a properly noticed meeting. The applicant is making three requests. He's asking to merge four parcels into one parcel to about a 2.53 acre parcel. It's asking for a development permit for a self, for an RV storage, RV and boat storage for about 140 spaces, which also then the third requirement is a conditional use permit to operate that. The property is located in what we call the North Filmor specific plan. The North Filmor specific plan is a residential plan. So residential plan that allows 350 residential units. However, through the residential plan within that area is an area called industrial exclusive where we will allow industry to continue to operate although surrounded by residential as long as the industry is designed to be sensitive to the residential area. We're talking about noise, traffic, storage, that type of stuff. And within the North Filmor specific plan of industrial exclusive, it says, refer to your zoning ordinance under manufacturing. So what you're going to do tonight and what we've done is Review this as a manufacturing industrial site It'll have a retaining wall not a retaining wall, but a wall a decorative wall not at six feet, but eight feet in height And And that's generally what the project looks like. And again, there are three actions to take tonight. One, approving resolution 2510, 55, approving the conditional use permit 2402. That's the use of the site of how it operates as storage and then two adopt resolution 251056, approving the development permit. That's all the physical attributes to the site, how it looks landscaping setbacks and all those things and then see adopt the lot merger. We did review this environmentally and determined that the site is exempt under the category of infill. However, it is part of the North Filmore specific plan and in the North Filmore specific plan are adopted mitigation measures. Environmental mitigation measures, this project will be required to comply with those. So things like light and glare, noise, trash, there's a litany. We added those as the condition of approval. The applicants requested, before I get to that, I will say that the day the applicant submitted the application is the day the City of Fillmore established a moratorium on this very exact type of use. So I had to tell the applicant, thank you for the application, but it's gonna sit on the side until the City of Fillmore figures out what to do. It took us a long time and he was patient to sit through that and there was another application also waiting. And the one we were all already processed. And the reason we went into the moratorium, because one month prior, we had an application request for a 25 acre site to be all RV storage. And just last week I had another request for a 20 acre site to be RV storage. After the moratorium, the City Council adopted an ordinance to limit the amount of RV facilities that we can have. So this particular project, the City Council made some concession that this project can move forward and the other project that had already submitted an application which you haven't seen yet, that too can move forward. So the applicant has been sitting on the side for a little bit over a year waiting for the city to finish the review of that limitation ordinance. I've included the conditions of approval. Their lengthy, it's about 46 pages. There's standard conditions that we took from the previous RV project. The previous RV project you reviewed it last month. That's located on commercial highway zone. That project had to have retail. This particular project is in the manufacturing zone. It does not need to provide retail. It's all manufacturing storage is a permitted use in the North Film or Specific Plan or manufacturing. I would like to quickly hand out to you the 46-page conditions of approval because the applicant requested some conditions after I published it to you and I'll quickly go right through it. And then that will conclude my presentation after I go through it and the applicant's planner is here. I'd like to make a presentation. So if you can scroll to page seven under the category of sewer, it should be in red. That's our standard sewer connection. There's nothing added there. It was originally deleted. We shouldn't have deleted it. The project will have one toilet. There's a modular unit of 320 square feet that's there on site. If you can scroll over to page 9E38, the applicant requested that the city engineer have the final review of hydrology or drainage. The concern there is that the county has just at the tail end of approving a document county wide for all projects pertaining to drainage and water treatment. This project is just a little bit ahead of that and it's undetermined exactly how that's going to get handled. The city engineer knows, and the applicant's engineer knows the very detail of that. And we'll leave it to them to describe during construction and plan check how that's handled. And then if you look at page 12, E58, I have some triple X's there. I need to identify the poll numbers. This project is not required to underground any utilities, fronting their project because there aren't any. However, there's a street light there with an overhead. That particular utility needs to to be underground I need to put the poll number on that But they do not need to underground otherwise And then on page 13 P6 describes that the the wall that I just showed On along the easterly area where it's going to be to the public. There's going to be a vine on that. But someday, at that location, that property is going to be developed. Once it's developed, it no longer needs to have a vine on it. The purpose of the vine is to deter graffiti. So, if you look around Fillmore, you'll notice that all of our walls have vines on it. It's our method to deter graffiti. And the most important one, yeah. So you lined up both sides of the fence. Yeah, so it only needs to be on the Eastern property line. The exterior. The exterior Eastern property line. Yeah. And then the last one is on page 16. It's probably the most important one. S1. The property is required to dedicate 10 feet to the city of Fillmore. That's because fifth street will one day be widened. We need to accommodate it to accommodate the North Filmor specific plan at 350 houses that will ultimately one day be there. By the way, we have 135 units approved there. It's under construction right now. So we have that to be widened. The applicants are aware of these conditions and the revisions and agrees with them. With that, I'll take any questions you may have. You are the final review authority. This does not go to the Planning Commission. I mean, it does not go to the City Council. And I'll take any questions you may have. And the applicant is here to make their presentation. Are there any questions of me? I just have a quick question on the ordinance that the City Council did for limiting the number of RV storage. Is that limiting the number of businesses or the number of acres that we want in the city? It limits location. Okay, so it limits the location of where they could be located. Yep. And we could have 10 potentially pop up in those locations. No. That's not realistic. We're going to be really realistically. We're going to have these three. Okay. And then the existing ones that we have dotted throughout town. No new ones after that. That's realistic. So in the business park, we have about 60 acres there available. It allowed for RVs. And that's where the push was. When the applicants were coming forward requesting it, they were asking for all 30 acres or 25 acres. Dwarfing what you have seen. Right. So, and then we will not have any more in the North Fillmore area. This will be it. And then we have the one that's being proposed along the highway right now. You haven't seen that application. It'll be a while before you see that one. Okay. My question is for the conditions that are outlined here, there's condition E47 that talks about impervious surfaces. And I'm wondering, you know, the civil drawings right now don't show any impervious surfaces, although this is a condition. So are they going to be including that when they submit to the building and I mean public works and building or is this what it is? No, it's not what it is. So we'll get construction plans. However, the asphalt, it'll be solid asphalt, it won't be the pervious asphalt, or at pervious concrete. Everything will shed off into their storm drain treatment areas. Right, but this says to reduce the footprint of impervious by using permeable tapers or permeable asphalt. So they're not planning to do that. No, no. There are other methods that's identified that the counties identified in their planning document. So in the finality of that hasn't been decided yet. Okay. They submitted a hydrology report. I should have included it here and it'll show containment of water. They're containing it on the site. Not all of it. I don't have all the details, but a great majority of it. Some of it there will be overflow. Okay. A question for you on the very first page. It talks about the operating hours being between 6 a.m. and 9 p.m. Is city ordinance 7 a.m. I think it is 7 a.m. That's a good catch. I thought I had that corrected. I think it is 7 a.m. If it is I'll make that correction. Okay, and question two is back to your comment on page seven for E24 with the sewer Is been turned counting gonna have a say if this is approved tonight as far as how that part is gonna work? No, it's a city of Fillmore's system. Our Public Works Department. Okay. And they will have a say or. Oh yeah, so we'll after if you approve the project tonight, this is just a conceptual review. We'll get construction documents and those construction documents will be reviewed by our engineer, Public Works, Building and Safety and Planning and and fire. All right, thank you. On the last one, the S1, they're going to dedicate another 10 feet. Does that impact their design already now? No, plans already included and show it. So along Fifth Street, they dedicating 10 feet. There's also a large easement just behind that for a large, I think it's a gas line that's there. Okay. Yeah. So what you'll see on the outside along Fifth Street, a generous front yard setback. Okay. Any other questions? I have one more. What is the allowable wall height? Allowable what? Wall height. Eight feet. That's the maximum. They can ask for hire, but they have to go through a process to do that. Okay. That was going to be part of that. My last question is you mentioned six feet, but they're doing eight feet. Is there a reason for the additional two feet? Yes. When we review the RV ordinance, the City Council said it needs increase from six to eight. So RV standards was now eight feet block walls and they also said that the sites have to be asphalt. There was confusion before, like would gravel work or dirt on some of them, they're dirt right now. So the city council concluded or clarified, you have to have asphalt and you have to have an eight foot block wall so you don't see the RV Is the RV? How tall is the RV? Or we don't it's about nine nine feet when you know with the tires, right? So you'll see just a little bit of it. Okay, and then you have to have asphalt. Yes, you can't have an alternative paper. No Yeah, the idea was dust and mud mud and it was quite a discussion. Right. But not just dirt. I'm saying, you know, papers. You could do papers. You could do papers. Yeah, it just needs to be solid. You can walk on it during the rain. OK. Any other questions? OK. And the applicant is here. And I don't know if they want to speak. We have two speaker cards. You are. Okay. Do you want to go first? Sure. Okay. My name is Nicole Garner. Just one question. She doesn't have time. Are you with the applicant? Yeah. Okay. So she's with the applicant. That's correct. I'll be short anyway. No, that's okay. You can take us. We have one, Mike. Okay. My name is Nicole Garner. I'm with Jensen Design and Survey and we're representing the applicant who is here also to speak after me. I don't have much to add. I don't have a presentation for you because I think that staff did a good job. I did want to kind of highlight the road that we've kind of taken to get here as Kevin mentioned. We were contracted by the applicant in January of 2023. And we worked with city staff to prepare the application for the RG storage. We got everything together. You know, preliminary grading plan, we had the CUP site plan. We had our surveyors prepare the lot merger exhibits all ready to submit in June. And then the moratorium hit and we had no prior notice of the moratorium going into it. So that was kind of a surprise. So we were put on hold as Kevin mentioned. And as it was brought before City Council, Marianne and his family, the applicant, they went to City Council, kind of explained our situation. And we're very thankful for staff letting us submit in between the time when the moratorium ended and the new ordinance came into effect. So we're very thankful and happy to be here and we really hope that this is a project that you guys can put your stamp of approval on. Some of the things that we've worked through, which also were just mentioned, originally when we submitted, we had proposed to gravel parking lot and then we were told no it needs to be asphalt, so it's just a asphalt. We had originally proposed I believe a six foot PVC fence and then we're told no you didn't need foot masonry wall, did the eight foot masonry wall, added all of the landscaping and the graffiti abatement along the east side of the wall on the outside and letting the vacant property because we all understand how tempting a blank wall can be for graffiti. So we've just I just hope that that kind of communicates that we were really trying to make this a good project that you guys will approve and that, you know, film more will be happy with. But I'm here for technical questions. I'm a planner at Jensen, but I have spoken with our engineers today, the one that worked on this project and coordinated with the city engineer on all of the drainage questions. So I can attempt to answer those for you, although with the caveat that I am not actually an engineer. So please be patient with me. But I'll go ahead and let Aaron introduce him, spell self and speak, real quick, and then I'll be available for any technical questions. Okay. How's everybody doing? I thank you for the time. I just want to introduce myself. I'm Aaron, and this is my wife Elizabeth. We're from Warpark, and we had this idea back in 2022 to open up this RV lot and it's been a long road and a long journey with a lot of tweaks and stuff to our site plan, everything like that. And I think they were at a good spot right now with the city, just conversion of them thousands of times, you know. I just want to emphasize to you that, you know, we are a small family business, it just made my life. And you know, it's something that we hold dear and want to, you know, one day give to our kids kind of thing. And, you know, we'd like to be a part of your community. So yeah I think that we're at a good spot right now to hopefully move forward so if you guys can you know find in your hearts to do that we get this ball rolling. So yeah. Sorry I'm going to that George, you right now, I coach my son's baseball team. We're in the third inning. So I hate rush over here, but I appreciate you guys this time hearing us out and stuff. I have a quick question for that. Yeah. Have you guys developed or constructed anything like this in the past? No. Is our first first go at it? so have you ever operated or ran in RVs? No we'll see we've owned RVs pretty much our whole lives so we've seen firsthand just torn ourselves our trailers and stuff at different spots and how they work operate and stuff like that. That's what, how we came up with the idea, just we saw the demand there. You know, this is back in 2022, so. Yeah, but haven't owned one prior to this. So that's our first time. I have to thank Kevin for all your help and support. It was very direct, very relatable and you'd call them any time. I also want to thank Jensen Design, Nicole, you know, just communicating with the city and stuff. You guys really walked me through this and helped me out a lot, so I appreciate it. Okay, what do you stay up here? Do you have questions? Yeah, I'm not sure if this would be for the Advocatorial Affairs City staff, but one, you're going to have the office building, you know, the small little structure there. Is it anticipated having a living guard there 24-7, or is it just during the hours of 7-9 No,m.? No, I'll be there. Probably 40 is a week, but other than that, it's not going to be guarded. I mean, there's going to be a security gate and- Automate. Yeah, automated security gate. Okay. Yeah, but I don't know. So the plan is to have sewer connections with that office building. Any plans or is it correct to say whether or not having a dump station at the location? They requested a dump station in city staff said, please don't offer that and remove it. We want to be controlled for what goes into our sewer system. because the RVs tend to dump things that are extremely harmful to our sewer plant. They did so Nicole itemize some of the things that they removed. That's one of the items that they removed. Okay. Yeah, that would have been one of my questions if it was possible to either put a condition that they can't add it in the plan to not have it. To not have it. Okay. My last question, again, probably for city staff, because this is rental is occupancy tax charged for these types of, no. No. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you guys. I got one question for you. No, stay up there. Oh yeah, Fisher. Just out of curiosity coming from more part of the small town, why film more? Well, to be honest with you, I first had a deal going in Santa Paula, but there was an environmental thing out there where it was delayed, so they couldn't sell it it to me and I just kept looking around. But in this area, in More Park, Fillmore in Santa Paulo is where I was looking just because I'm locally, you know. So yeah, it's just this area that every criteria was met with price and size and stuff. You know, again'm it's just my wife and I so I don't have millions of dollars, you know Like the guy that got the 12 acre a lot of here but yeah, it just it worked out Yeah, I've spent a lot of time full more You know playing baseball and so like so like that. And I've been local, so I kind of knew the area kind of thing. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah, I guess my question is also directed towards the staff. Are they allowed to have a completely solid gate? They can have a solid gate, but they didn't request one. It's an ornamental iron gate. Right, but okay, so there's nothing saying that they have to have openings or something like that. Okay. Yeah, that's the only question I had. Okay, I have a couple questions. Yeah. Former RV owner for years and years. I saw in your maximum size space is 40 feet. Yeah, so you're excluding the little pretty large ones. Because you have to eat 43, 44 feet. Yeah, I would allow the 42 feet, maybe just hang out over just a little bit but not. Okay I'm just this I mean it may not be in our ballpark to to ask these questions but yeah. Yeah and how much I didn't see anything where it said a percentage of landscaping because I know it came up in other RV parks that they had to have 12% and maybe Nicole has that information. Yes, so the interior strip, we have a four foot wide strip of landscaping on the interior. But since it's raw land, I have to improve it and then all the landscaping in front too. 12% landscaping for the previous project is because it's along the Ventura Street. It's part of the Ventura Street design guidelines. The requirement for this one is for manufacturing industrial and they don't have the 12% requirement. But it is surrounded on the perimeter for landscaping in the front as generous landscaping. The idea was to put all the landscaping in the front. Okay, the next question is, the modular building that's there? Yeah. That you're gonna put in? Is it gonna have some kind of look to it other than just a, because it looks like a construction trailer by the picture we've got? Yeah, it could be any architectural treatments to the outside of it? That was just an example of, yeah, it's going to look nicer. Yeah, Nicole, jump in, because... Kevin added a condition that we will have to do architectural enhancements on the modular and then to circle back to your question about the length of the parking stalls, the 40 feet, we did allow for an overhang into the landscape planter. So the curb is going to kind of service like a wheel stop. So the end could go back over there. Yeah, so there is room for a couple of extra feet. Okay. The other question I have on the actual architectural drawings we got, there's two trees going into the entrance and the canopy for it goes out over the street. So if RVs are coming in, it might be a good idea to move them back so the canopy doesn't overhang the entrance. Just from driving the 40 foot motorhome curves. Yeah, that makes sense. You don't want to have a screen. And who, those trees on the front, those four on the front, are those going to be maintained by the city or by you guys? I believe they're the, our responsibility. Is that correct? Yeah. Okay. Because if you're having complaints from your people coming in, you're going to go out and tremble. Okay. And on your spaces, and this may not make a difference, but are these going to be back? Like, you're coming in the first driveway. Those are obviously going to back in. Correct. Yes, that's the intention. But if you go around, if you're coming down on the going out, those spaces, if you have a trailer, I don't know how you get it in. So the drive aisles are wide enough that technically they could be two-way. But the angle's going the opposite way. Right. If you're coming this way, you'd have to be able to back around. I mean, that's a heck of a way to back in. You could approach it from either direction. We're showing arrows. Showing the one way, that's why I thought maybe that's just a one way. Yeah, that's the intention is for them to go one way, but there is room for them to use it both ways. The intention of the arrows and those turn radius symbols are to show that a large RV could make those turns and could navigate the site. Good. And it says it's going to be ice planted around the site. And it says it's gonna be ice planted around the outside? Lushy. Creeping figs. Creeping fig. No, not in the wall, but the ground. And the plant. I think it's an ice planted. I think it's an ice planted. Yeah. I'm getting lost in our symbology, I apologize. That's right. Yes, you're correct. Is there something else that would be better there? Ice plant. Because ice plant when it grows, it gets woody after a while. And it's only one, two feet wide there, that planner? It's four feet. Four feet wide. The intention was to have something that was low that would allow for an arpeggio to hang over it. Okay. Okay. So I don't think that we're particularly married to that plant as long as it's of the similar size. And yes, 14 it says overnight parking should be expressly limited to buildings. That doesn't mean someone's often trying it. Correct. We're trying to prevent people from occupying. I maybe that sneezes if you were a little bit because it says overnight partnership especially limited buildings in the areas of the site that are designated for Arby storage. Yeah, that's straight out of the previous project. If you remember last month, that project buildings where you could part Inside of buildings where concierge service so I we should strike out limited buildings and just stick with RV storage Or there's no hope there's no overnight Camping? No, I mean because I don't want this to turn into where you got people right like Walmart or exactly says oh it doesn't see I can't stay here so I'm staying here the night. Not that we have a homeless problem is going to go over and then your spaces are 11 feet wide and what homes 8 to 8 and half feet wide let's be tight. Yeah a foot a foot in a quarter of a foot and a half because you can't even open a door there Why I took measurements to my previous lot that I stored my RV Okay, and then I also went to two other ones and Measures there so the same size 11 feet one was 12 the one in Seamy The big one in Seamy those were 12 but the one on Seamy, the big one in Seamy. Those were 12, but the one on the spring road and more part that I used to mark my trailer was 11. So I took the dimensions down as kind of just to engage, you know. Okay, I would just encourage you to take a second. Look at that because if you're in a motorhome, you've got to go in and out of the trailer. You might go just pull in and you you've got to go in and out of it. A trailer, you might feel just pull in, and you don't have to go in and out. But a level foot is really tight. If you want to just, I mean, that's just a suggestion. Okay, because I wouldn't, I would hate for you to build it, and then people complain that it's too tight, and then you go back and you have to be striking everything. So, okay, I don't have more questions. One question for staff. Where, just for my FYI, where is this project located in comparison to the North Filmor specific plans development now? In correlation to the Williams-Homes Creekside Development. So the Creekside Development is the most northerly portion. So between Creekside Development, there's Amoron Polls, and the next block south is this particular project. Actually, we have the city well number four and then this project. Thank you. Any other questions? Yeah you reminded me so there's one tree that is shown as being removed and part of the mitigation measures force that talks about a four inch if there of trunk is 4 inch or wider that you have to replace more than just the one tree. Do we know how wide the trunk of that tree that's being removed is? We have not looked into it. We figured that that was going to be something that we would do post approval. And then if trees are needed to be added, we can add the trees into the landscape. Okay. And then I guess for you, the tree sizes, the gallon boxes that they've selected is that what is prescribed to them? Yes. Okay. Okay. Okay. Derrick anything else? Come here. Here. Looking at the exterior landscape, ice plant, I mean, okay, but there's no plan for rock or mulch or anything in the plan or bed itself. Is it just solely the ice plant planted in the ground? I believe so. I honestly, I'm not sure. The concern that I would have if there is mold, for example, based off of the picture, I know that's not probably not exactly it or the masonry wall is is that it is a wind prone area and fire fast, and I would not want someone to throw something out there and then an ember catches and then takes off. So that was my concern with that. Thank you. Can we make suggestions to the more? Yeah, go ahead. So I mean, the reasons why I was sort of asking these questions earlier about the height of the wall and the transparency of the gate is that I mean I think the whole point of them allowing for the eight-foot wall is to kind of conceal the RVs from view and I think the gate that's been proposed right now, it's like very transparent. And I would think maybe doing something that's more screening would be better. And I would also recommend doing some form of paper, like a permeable paper, even if it's in the drive aisle, just because it's going to get really hot with all that black asphalt. That's the concern that I have plus, you know, it's maybe a good opportunity to be able to reuse that water for your irrigation, for your landscaping that you're required. Yeah, those are the two comments I have. Can I respond to the gate comment? I've found in other projects that number one we like screening, we like to not see the ugly uses, but also sometimes the Sheriff's Department doesn't like that we completely screen, because then if we screen the gate then you can't see anything inside. So we don't know if something various is happening. So I think that we're open to screening, but I don't know if that's going to be an issue with for security or not. OK. That's when you first said that, that's what I thought too was, I'm sure the sheriff's program would like to go, just go by there. Just be able to make sure there's not gang activity or something. It's hot. I mean, eight foot walls pretty good size, but they get over the thing. So they may want it open. Okay. And then I think that we did consider pervies payvers, but they might be cost prohibitive, especially if we were to do the entire site. Maybe we could look into doing just the driveway. I think that might affect our drainage situation a little bit, so that would be something that our engineer would have to look into and work with this engineer on. And then the last thing, it was pointed out that it does call for mulch. What I would recommend is strike in the mulch because if ice plants are the continued plant it'll spread out and cover it and that way you save a little bit of money on that. Okay. Sorry, I did not mean to interrupt you. No, go ahead. If you have something. Am I allowed to make a comment on a condition that I missed earlier? Sure. On E50, on page 11, we had discussed removing the requirement for a rubberized asphalt with the city engineer and he gave his approval, but I still see that it's in there. Can we fix that? We should be able to remove that. That's for brand new streets. For subdivisions like Creekside, it's not for the widening of the street. We can strike that. Okay, thank you. Which condition number is that on the version that you circulated, Kevin? That's on page 11, condition E50. On the old one, it's E51. Oh, it's E50 on the... It's E50, you know, they don't get one, I just handed it out. The begin requiring rubberized asphalt. Okay, it begins with soil reports. Yes. Okay, yeah. So what are we striking from that? You're striking out the... You're striking out the one and a half inch thick rubberized asphalt wearing surface. She'll be added on the top structural surface. Is there any concern with the driveway across the street? Are they aligned? Are the driveways aligned? Or have you guys looked at that? We did look at, we viewed that very, RVs are not gonna be coming out of there very often. So we didn't see a conflict. Okay, but they are aligned. No, they're a little bit offline. Okay. Was the buyer chief and Sheriff the chief consulted in regards to this to get their feedback? Yes. Yeah, they're okay with the project. Okay. Okay. Derek, anything more? Ashley? Uh-huh. Eric? Yeah. Karen? Okay. So, thank you very much. Okay, so we'll close the public hearing. Is there any public comment? No. Okay. Okay, so we'll close the public hearing. And then I get a discussion of board members. Maybe this would be a good time for me to walk through. There are some condition modifications that we're discussing, so that might be a good time for me to walk through these. And then if the planning commission or Kevin, if you have comments on that, we can talk about that during the discussion. So on condition E number 50, the sentence that reads a 1.5 inch thick rubberized asphalt wearing surface, I'll be added to the top of the structural section. That one sentence in condition E 50 will be stricken on condition number S14. What page? Yeah, so the E50 condition was on page number 11. The S14 condition is going to be on page number 17. There was a comment about clarifying that overnight parking condition. And what I might propose for that is for it to read overnight parking of RVs. Shall be expressly limited to areas of the site that are designated for RV storage. Does that clarify the issue in terms of overnight parking? Yes, she was also no camping overnight. Okay, I know. I think that needs to be put in there. No camping, okay. I'm sure they don't want it anyway, but... No, but that's a good addition. Okay, so that will say overnight parking of RVs is limited in the first sends to areas designated for RV storage and no overnight camping shall be allowed added to condition S14. One of the commissioners brought up the issue of the RV dumping not being allowed on the site. Kevin, is that condition already in there? It's not a condition, but it's not on the plans either. So if you wanna add it it as a condition you can, but it's also not on the plans. It's not an exhibit. I think it would probably be good. So at some point in the future, given the concerns about the city's sensitivity of the roll-acres. That would be, well, if the Planning Commissioner say to do that, you have to reach an add-on. Yes. So I would propose that we add that is on this would be on page 17 maybe as a new S18 No with the proper word no RV dumping on site shall be allowed No RV dump station no RV dump station. No RV dump station. Is there a dumping station in town? Yes, the city has one at the plant. And by the way, you're on camera. Smile when you dump. Right. OK, so those were the three condition model. I know there are some other discussion. There are. So if I took note of them, so if we can separate the trees at the entrance, so that you don't hit the tree limbs. No mulch around the perimeter landscaping and permeable pavers at the driveway. should on that that's a little bit too restrictive because we don't have engineers here. We should pursue permeable papers somewhere on site. I don't know whether it's in the driveway or some other site, but no one here is an an engineer I don't know if it works in driveways or somewhere else. You okay? Are you okay with that? I mean yeah or maybe right in front of the gate that you're saying through it could be anywhere. I just think that's some portion of the site needs to be permeable. So is it to our engineers approval? Okay. Yeah. Okay. Anything else on it? I think I got everything. Okay. The only thing I would like to add is that there are somewhere that it calls out their has to be architectural treatments to the building. Because I know it's just a picture of something right now, but I don't want that to be what ends up there. So we'll, on that we'll write, the modular will adhere to architectural treatment for the planning director. No, don't say that. Per the North Filmor specific plan. I don't have all that authority, right? I'm following the specific plan. It's itemized in the specific plan. Because I know when we approved that housing project, we went a lot over what it's gonna look like. Yeah, so I don't wanna put something in the city that people drive by and go, how'd they label that in here? Okay, so that's very astuteute of you because it says that in the specific plan that new architectural new industrial buildings are to match the residential architecture. So Kevin, that one would say modular shed shall it here to our architectural treatments per the North Film or specific plan. Yes. Is that what you're suggesting? Yes. So Michael, so first we'll do discussion. OK, and then are all these separate ones we have to do the conditions that we just went through? Well, I mean, each one we've had, there's like three or four different things in here that have, we have to vote separately on this? No, just, no, you can make a motion that includes all of them all at once. Okay, good. Because the city attorney can describe the language. Yeah, when it comes time to the motion, I can help with that. I have a list here of seven condition modifications that we just discussed. And so the motion would be subject to the conditions being revised in the list of seven modifications that we just discussed. So if we do those, if we approve it, it doesn't have to come back to us again. No. No. It says unless there's a mod 1, 2, 3 and 4. Yes. Okay. Do we have any discussion here? Can we? No. Okay, I'm good with everything that we place in there. I think it's going to make it a nicer facility to do and I know we need our storage still. So I'll entertain a motion. Michael, do you want to give what the motion is supposed to be? If the motion were to approve the project, the motion would be to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 1055, Approving Conditional Use Permit and Sequoia Agricultural Exemption, adopt Planning Commission Resolution 251056, Approving Development Permit 2401, and adopt planning commission resolution 2557, directing staff to process a lot merger, 2401. Also adding the list of seven condition of approval modifications that were outlined previously. It's on the screen in front of you. The motion. Suggest it. Okay, do we have a motion? I have a motion. What might we just say? Perfect. Do we have a second? No second. Okay. Without any further discussion, discussion. All in favor? Say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Assisted. Five, aye. Thank you. Okay. Next slide. The situation is only before this. I'm going to take the two. And then the two. And then the two. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to put it on the table. Okay. I'm going to use this here. I'm going to put maybe a recess, but it looks like we got it here. Thank you. Okay, this item is the Housing Element Actions. It's the only ordinance amendment 24-02 and zone change 21-04. And good evening, Chair and Planning Commission. I'm Brian McCarthy, and I'll be presenting this item. This has been through the housing element was started. I believe in 2022, this planning commission got a look at it a few times and went on through several rounds of review with the planning commission with City Council through the California Department of Community Development and all throughout the process. I think we're on the fourth or fifth version of it. It's been revised. It's been incorporating public comments all throughout. It's been up on the website. The housing element has for the past two and a half plus years and the public comments have been incorporated into it. And we're down to the wire. The City Council just adopted the last version of it in September 2024. And after the California Department of Housing conditionally approved it to complete these rezone actions. So they're anticipating these rezone actions any day. And as soon as we do, the housing element will be officially certified and we'll be done with that process and we'll start the next round. The two actions tonight are the re-zones, so these are baked into the housing element and this is to increase housing opportunities in the city. So what we do is we zone the properties to ensure that there is enough capacity based on the regulatory environment and the zoning. To provide for housing, should the market demand that housing? If the market bears more housing, then it will come. But we don't build it. The developers come to us and we just say we have these properties available to you. So we over and exceed the densities required to meet the state's housing requirements, which is based on levels of income. From extremely low, very low, medium, and then moderate and above, which is market rate. So we have more than enough zoning to allow for that and this is one more step in that direction to provide more zoning capacity. That's really all this is. It's not a development per se right now. So action three one is to create this new zone, which is not previously in our code. Residential medium high two, which is to allow for a 15.1 dwelling units per acre up to 20 dwelling units per acre. This is an overall site of both actions. The other one is an overlay. This is where they are overall on the site and we'll zoom in a little bit, but the pink is the overlay and the blue, which is Longhavi 126. Those are to receive the RM2 zoning. That's the RM2 zoning along the highway. It's a little bit blurry there, but that's Highway 126. Representing the bottom boundary roughly by setting those blocks is central Avenue, and then you've got Mountain View on the far right, and then also bordering it is A Street on the left. So these are all the properties that are just down here and down over there. This particular rezone for the residential medium high was identified as needed by City Council at the outset or even before the housing element update began. There had been numerous residents in the area who wanted their homes to be upgraded, but they've been zoned commercial highway for decades and decades. I think going back to the 1940s or 50s, it's been zoned commercial highway. And so there's a lot of old row housing that's been there since the turn of the century, shortly after the turn of the century, when the city was founded as an agricultural city and rail road. So there was a different style of housing at that time, but along the highway it's been zone commercial highway, anticipating that the city would receive, basically cash registers along the highway, but that hasn't happened over the decades. So the properties have become kind of defunct down there. So folks have been looking for waste to upgrade, and this is one thing that will allow them to do that because they would now be consistent with the zoning. You'll see the second of the bottom, bullet there is not only does it allow for multi-family, but it allows for the single family home to be upgraded as well. And then ordinary uses that occur in residential zones, our churches, daycares, and schools. So the housing element adoption of this code also comes with it development standards. So we have to know what's that buildable envelope that could be developed here. And we just we basically tiered off of what our existing zones are. So that's roughly similar. It's not going to look terribly new. It's got the maximum dwelling units a very small lot area because these are very small lots. And we had to have a small lot area to allow those really small lots to become conforming with the code. Lot widths is also very small here because that's how they occur today in many cases. So we wanted to make sure those lots were going to be consistent with the code as it exists today. So we're making them legal. We established some front setbacks which allow for a generous building envelope. They can come out to 10 feet. And then we wanted the street facing garage to still be still be step back a little bit from the living area so that we don't get a lot of garage frontage on the streets. And then rear setbacks and side setbacks are generally consistent with high density at five five feet. And then on the street side it's 10 feet. And the 60% lot coverage is consistent with our other high density zones and we have opportunities for usable open space, which is common area and private outdoor open space. And a lot of these numbers have been tested with previous developments in the city, such as the mountain view apartments that many mansions completed just a couple of years ago. We have a new project that's in the pipeline soon to be constructed called Fillmore Terrace at the corner of Palm and Highway 126. So you'll be seeing that very shortly. And so we know that these types of standards do allow for inadequate building envelope. They could go up to 40 feet tall or three stories. Okay, so that's the RMH2 zone. And then the second one, as we mentioned, is Action32, which is the housing overlay. The overlay acts as basically an overlay of the underlying zoning. So one could develop the property consistent with the underlying zoning. It doesn't, that doesn't go away. But this would now additional development opportunity to develop per the overlay, which could go high density residential. They can stay with what they have. One of them I believe is manufacturing industrial and the other ones are sort of a lower density residential. So they can do either or when you have an overlay. That's one of the properties. It's up off of B Street between second and third. The other one is on CESB. A little bit in fill lot, a couple of in fill lots. And then finally, we have these three lots, which are down at the south side of town near the old wastewater treatment plant and just off C street. So those are the general three clusters of the housing overlay. And the housing overlay standards, as I mentioned, the typical consistent with what we did with the RMH2. and we have standards there that would allow for development to meet the densities that are necessary, which is up to 24 dwelling units per acre. And we did have a developer review some of these and they penciled out 24 dwelling units per acre on one of the properties. Lot width is 50 feet. That also allows for some parking in the front, front setbacks at 10 feet. Street facing garages, again we kind of want those to be pushed back. We're setbacks at 10 feet. And then on the side setbacks where there's, where it's a budding and a property that's not a street. So it's a budding a neighbor where they could also be building housing through fire department review the upper stories where we're required to be stepped back. So you go up ground floor, your five feet in and the upper stories they want to be stepped back so that a ladder could get up sequentially up to each rooftop. And this has common usable open space again It's a little more lenient on the ground for private open space and the upper story unit open space These are all draft design standards, so they're all subject to change. I Should mention at the outset that you're not approving these at this point in time tonight. We're just here to accept your comments. Any initial input and feedback that you might have will take that back and incorporate it and then next time around you'll be making an actual recommendation to City Council. Okay, so that covers the two zoning aspects of it. And then finally, through that, the state also said, in order to fulfill all of this zoning, we also want to take a look at your objective design standards. And the objective design standards basically take the, they take the subjectivity out of the process. So, so long as the housing development under state law meets objective design standards, then they're theoretically approved. So there's less review by your body or by city staff. So there's a need to definitely have objective design standards because if you don't, the subjective review to allow for architectural elements would not be enforceable. So that's why we put together the objective design standards, which will also be packaged up and go to HCD for their review. So the objective design standards will apply to multi-family developments, so that would be for any multi-family development in town, but it would not apply to the central business district. And they'll basically regulate the lot layouts and the architectural style and kind of try to appeal to the aesthetic nature of the city and try to keep the film or character that we have here They don't specify a particular architectural style We leave it open generally throughout that you one could choose to do say craftsmen or Spanish colonial or a Tuscan or a modern. We leave that open to the developer, but we just wanna make sure that it looks authentic. So if you're gonna do the architectural style, we want it to look like for real and not just stick on. So to speak. So that's kind of the main thing we want. We allow that latitude to pick your architectural style, but just do it right. Tonight's recommendations are to open the public hearing, review staff's comments, review with staff and comment on the re-zones and to also review the objective design standards. I didn't put all the objective design standards in the body, in the main body, but I do have all of them listed. And if you'd like to pull up any of these, it's quite extensive, but we can go through if there's any specific comments or questions. All of those are here. And I also have a few pictures of some projects that have either been developed or are in the pipeline or other developments around the county that have been involved with in the past that might capture some of the elements. So with that I'll leave you with staff's recommendation and I'll be happy to answer any questions. Any questions? Right? I have a couple of questions. Sure. So one of the areas in the one off of B Street and third street, It looks, that's the orchard, correct? Yes. That's the one right there. So it's current, is this part of the 3-2 where it's the overlay on top of the? Correct. This is the overlay. This one would be an overlay, not rezoning it to the multi-final. Correct. So that conforms to the state law allowing residential really anywhere. Yeah, at this part, so they could build residential per their existing zoning, which is residential, which would be single family residential, or they could go high density multi-family. Gotcha. So it would be both three-dash one recommendation and the three-dash two or no this the underlying zoning here I believe is RL or RM. So residential medium okay so there's a specific density let me go back to that table here and clarify that. So you see RPDM there. Mm-hmm. That's the zoning that's not changing. That's the zoning that currently overlays, underlies that property. Okay. So a developer could come and they could build everything per that RPDM, which is 11 units per acre, and they would have individual lots of 6,000 square feet or they could choose to go with the overlay Which is HO that's the change So it's either of those two so all the pink areas that you would show that with three different parcels here Yeah, three different areas. Those are the overlays and then the blue were the 3-1 rezoning on that commercial highway. That's right. This is the RMH2, which is a new zone. So it's not an overlay, it's just these on and that's the blue here. And that's this column in red. OK. And then those blue sections, when if they're not changing or changing to their current structures on it, but they want to add to either the existing structure or adding 80 used to the property. They would fall under the new zoning 3-1, but they wouldn't have to necessarily upgrade their current structure to conform to the zoning. They would conform to the zoning. So they wouldn't violate the zoning. The zoning standards here is, we believe, making them all legal as they are now. So if they remodeled, as they stand today, they should be consistent with this zoning. It's a non-conforming question. So his real question is, at what point, if somebody wanted to remodel or do a room addition, do they have to conform to the new RMH2? So the zoning ordinance says, if you make 50% of the value of improvements to the structure, everything has to conform. So if your structure worth $100 and you make $50 worth of improvement, then everything must conform. At market value, not any assessed value or original purchase price value. It's the value of the structure. Has nothing to do with assessed value, is the valuation of the structure as determined by the building code. So you can make 50% of that value or stay below it. If you stay below it, you don't need to conform, but once you cross that, everything has to be brought up to the RMH2. Okay. I just, with these people who you've said potentially you've gotten calls of wanting to do upgrades, right. I would want to make sure that they're aware of at least that to know how much do I have to, can I go to in order to upgrade my property, still not have to then spend absorbing amount of more money to conform to the new zoning so as long as we're okay with that and that's part of the normal ordinances and we tried to capture all of that so theoretically there wouldn't be non-conforming once this is adopted because we tried to allow for what exists today in terms of development standard such as lot width of 25 feet or a lot area of 3,000 square feet. So none of those lots are smaller than that. And so theoretically they should conform. They should be legally conforming. I mean, we haven't gone and taken a tape measure to every side setback. That might be one of the issues there, but they would still be up to the 50% as Kevin said improvement before we might want them to push back from the setback. at any time they come to try to get a building permit if they don't conform to these by a foot or whatever, they can ask for an exemption. They can ask for an exemption. But in some cases where you have these old, really small, tight lots, we've granted a variance. Yeah, an variance is a discretionary approval. And they don't get handed out very easily. It's hard to make the findings for a variance. Okay, yeah. Just my last question with the new development on Palm right outside right next to my archers, Mexican restaurants. That is already part of this zoning or new zoning. I couldn't really. No. It moved ahead. It's already an approved project. It's adhering to the existing zoning. So on that particular property, I know we're not reviewing that property, but a portion of its central business district and another portion of its commercial highway, it can forms to both. Yeah, we specifically excluded that one from this because where we saw an existing commercial viable operation we didn't want to then go zone them residential and now they're non-conforming. Okay. Thank you. That's my questions. Okay. Cameron? Okay, Cameron. Aaron? The only question that I have is on the screen, or on the overlay with the new boxes is each blue box. It's on the partial. Yes. And the majority of that, or almost all of it, is not vacant land, right? Correct. Okay. I think there's a handful of vacant but mostly occupied. Anything? Yeah. So you said that the City Council identified that these areas need to be re-zoned to residential, but did they specifically want high density residential? Yes. Okay. And then, I mean, we kind of talked about this, but is there any kind of due diligence imagery that's, you know, simulating what the, to substantiate the language prescribed in the code, you know, sort of like a massing study that shows, you know, what 40 feet would look like in this area? Because to my knowledge, there's nothing 40 feet tall in the city right now. As many asians 40 feet? There is, We do. So there's a three story limitation on what we're looking at tonight is allowing three stories and that's not allowed anywhere in the city except for downtown and residential high. So KB homes, that's three story and we have three stories downtown. And many mansions, that's three stories. So this whole area that was in blue and highlighted, that too will be three stories. Right. To answer your question, no, we did not do a massing study to sort of block out a maximum building envelope on a lot. Because the directive from the city and also from the state is to up zone these properties. We do have the setbacks and we have the upper stories being setback 10 feet that hopefully helps to preserve somewhat of a view corridor through there or helps to let some sunlight into a neighboring property. But overall, no, we did not do a massing study simply because the results of which may not inform us terribly much in terms of whether this should be rezone or not because of the directives. Were there other areas considered for this rezone and why were they not selected? The, these particular properties were in need of repair. They've been falling in disrepair because they've been zone commercial highway since about the 1950s and the construction construction has been evaluated and it's a single wall. So it's basically plywood. There's no two by fours. So there's no fire breaks inside the walls. So there's some fire hazards. I think a couple of them have burned down over the years and I think some of them don't have flooring and they're reporting that they couldn't get a bank loan. And also, given the proximity to the highway, you're not directing traffic up through town to get to the, you know, kind of the more low-density, bigger lots, you're keeping the traffic accessible to the highway. Okay, yeah, because that kind of goes with my second question is that there's been any kind of traffic study done because those streets right now are super narrow and already have parking problems and, you know, they're broken. I mean, I don't know if there's any provision that the street needs to be widened or needs to be repaired. Yeah. On these particular lots, we would look at our typical design standards for these types of streets. And we do have the Fillmore Terrace going in and it does include street improvements and dedications and 45-degree parking on the street there and so we do we do look at the circulation on a project by project basis to make sure that the striping in the street is consistent with current design standards and that the asphalt and pavement is repaved to current standards and Visibility at the corners are there for safety and stop signs and striping for stop signs and those sorts of things are put in place On a project by project basis. Uh-huh and at some point, you know, we'll update our general plan and we'll do a whole overall Analysis on total volumes everywhere, but in these instances we're finding that just project by project, we're able to accommodate them. Okay. And my last question has to do with you said, right now we're over and exceeding the housing numbers required. Yes. I'm wondering if we up-zone just to the residential low, does that suffice for the need for the state? To keep those properties single family homes. Yes. We'd have to look at the numbers, but I believe they were pushing for the higher zone standard. The state? Yeah. But we didn't do the math that I'm aware of, and at least in the beginning as to what kind of number that would generate. I'm guessing we would look at, we would just count the lots and say, I think it wouldn't result in a net increase, I believe, because they're existing homes. And because they're existing homes are counted as our existing stock, I believe, for housing. And so keeping them single family housing wouldn't add to our meeting, what's called the arena numbers, the regional housing needs assessment. So through this housing element update, through this cycle, every cycle you have to adopt new programs, new zoning, new something that you're doing to continue to usher in, more housing. And although we've had a lot of zoning to allow all the housing, you know, possible, the market hasn't come. Here, I mean, it's coming a lot more now. It could be locational. It could be any number of reasons on any particular property, but this just sort of widens and expands the range of opportunity, so to speak. Yeah. I mean, the reason why I'm asking is because I would think that like a 40-foot tall building, there's still like a 12-foot tall house. They're kind of inconsistent with each other in terms of the shading that would occur, the traffic that would occur, the noise, the invasion of privacy. Also I want to bring up that, you know, the reason why I was asking if anywhere else was considered was because there's several sites here that have been identified by in the state's inventory of historic assets and that was done. There was a cultural heritage survey done in the 80s, which I think is the most recent one. I'm not sure, maybe you have further information on that. But yeah, I was just wondering because it seems like it would be preferable not to kind of cause hazard to a historical place. Yeah, definitely the film more is historic and it's one of the richest parts of the city why we all live live here is because of his historic character. I mean, it's beautiful. It's an unknown gem. And most of our planning documents over the decades have put a lot of thought and crafted design standards to continue to further fillmore his character into the future. These particular properties were evaluated, as you said, in the 80s. And I was able to find those evaluations. They were an inventory that was done by the County Cultural Heritage Board who we contract out with. That's not something to small cities typically keep in house. They did a very robust, very good thorough inventory in the 80s. But it's amazing. And it's really, really good. And they sent those documents up to the state. And they sent a letter along with their study to the city council at the time. And I think over considering all things, like I mentioned, the Seagull Wall construction and things like that, the City Council at the time didn't adopt them as being historic. So even though the Courtsville Heritage Board or these inventory surveys, they'll come up with their findings, but they don't say specifically that it must be designated historic. They present the information and the city at the time did not adopt them as being a historic district. And we did. The culmination of all of those studies and I apologize, this is all coming together like in the last few hours. Where this went. All of those those inventories culminated in this binder here. In here you're welcome to come look at it. It does have the officially designated historic buildings in the city. I saw ones that, well maybe it's not the same document I looked at. But I did see ones that were nationally recognized. And then I saw ones that were landmarks. And then there was the inventory of residential. I think there was 239 homes that were listed. Yes. As, what does it say? Yes, state historic inventory. So they're not landmarks, but they are part of that inventory to my understanding. OK. I still think it falls back on the local jurisdiction to adopt a message. I can do a little more legal research on that to see if that terminology somehow prevents them from being rebuilt. But- From being like demolished, is what you're saying? or rebuilt such that they would eliminate the architecture that you're staying in historic. Right. Yeah, architecture and also like cultural significance like. Right. You know, some of them are built even before the city was established. That's correct. Yeah. So, um, okay. Yeah, I mean, I would yeah, I just wanted to know if was some other, because it seems like there might be other land areas that are not developed at all. Yeah. That could have been a better location for this zone. Or maybe the zoning is not so different, you know, maybe it just goes up to media, or maybe it's just residential low, because right now it's commercial highway. And like you're there's these challenges about loans and being out of zoning but yeah it just it sounds like it needs to be for other studies. Okay so look at other sites, other opportunities and what it would mean to allow for or zone this to be not so identity. Or third lease determine whether these registries that you're talking about prevent this from happening, prevent a reason from happening. Yeah, I mean it seemed like from what I read it said that the use, the reason that they made this document was so that the planning departments could formulate guidelines to protect these parts of the, you know, this inventory that they've identified. And they actually made a recommendation saying you should make sure that the zoning is for lower density in these areas to preserve the nature of them. So I just, I would recommend to do that. Okay. If I can give a little background to those. So that historical inventory from the 1980s resulted in a historical overlay in our general plan. And that is located between Mountain View and Central Avenue and between Main Street and Fourth Street that quadrant so anybody that does a room addition or anything in there We have further details and requirements that you need to match the character that we describe right Did not include this particular area there are some homes in the area that are, we're inventory, but they don't have to be preserved or whatever. And you can literally plow them under. But you're sounding exactly like the Planning Commission. When we reviewed the People's Self-Help project a few years ago, it was a three-story building, one full city city block, and the planning commissioners were concerned about massing and scaling and architectural character. Exactly what you just described right here, you sound just like the planning commission from the past. That project was ultimately denied and completely revamped based on the planning commission direction. You're repeating the same thing that was said in the past. I just think that Brian, we need to come back and make sure that those issues of massing and scaling and architectural character are added to ensure it meets what you're intending. There's a picture right there that's now approved. Yeah, as Kevin said, I don't have the before picture, but it was a, it looked like a three story compound kind of thing. And that was a few years back. And we reviewed it for our downtown business district guidelines and the commercial highway guidelines. And we recommended denial because we found it didn't meet those guidelines. And then ultimately came back with this design that allows a little more daylight between the buildings and a tower element and so taking this into consideration when we did our objective design standards today it looked at this project to see what's what's buildable what kinds of things are not financially infeasible. And this was the ultimate, the end result. Obviously, a three story is gonna be a little taller than this, but I believe the state pushed back, significantly on us trying to maintain the two story. We fought the good fight, I believe, and they said, it's gotta be be three story or your housing element will not get approved. And I totally appreciate that. I don't mean to throw a ration things by saying this but I just feel like if there are other areas that don't have historically significant structures on them that could accommodate that. These sites have already been identified specifically in the housing element and the city's already committed to these rezoning actions. Yes. It was based on city council direction. They directed staff to include these very specific properties in the housing element. We put it in the housing element and the state's following up. Make sure you do this through your programs and adopt the program that Brian's going through tonight. Thank you. But it could still be the residential low, right? It doesn't have to be. I'm not sure what the housing element requires specifically. It required residential medium high. I think. Yeah, so it sounds like it's. You did. The housing element requires up to 20 units per acre. But we did include the single family home in there as well. So you could do a single family home, or you could do up to 20 units per acre. Mm-hmm. Yeah, I mean, I guess this isn't the commentary portion itself. Okay, any other questions? Camera? Here. Okay, I don't have any questions. Okay, so we'll open up the public hearing. Right, thank you. Susan Johnson. Okay, you'll have five minutes. Yeah. Oh, hi. My name is Susan Johnson. Okay, you'll have five minutes. Yeah. Oh, hi. My name is Susan Johnson. I live with you. Oh. Three, five, four, second, straight, and no more. I am the city representative on the area housing authority. If it spends more time down there than it does on my hand. I just will just leave it there. I apologize for appearing in front of you in this feeble condition, but it's been a tough week. Thank you for letting me comment. I am also on the board of the one step all of us and I am a founding member of House Farmers, and Dr. Cunning. I encourage you to adopt this. I know that all cities go through this. We want the city to look like it always looked, and we want it to feel like it always felt. And I can appreciate that. I did not grow up in FOMOR. But at some point, you can't have multiple families living in unheated garages, sheds that are not intended for human habitation, tents in the backyard, houses with inadequate plumbing, houses where the people cannot upgrade them appropriately and so they continue to live there anyway. So I would encourage you to adopt this. I do know of all about community character. I've been doing this for 40 years. I know how this feels but this will make your city a healthier city. It may not okay exactly like you wanted it to look or like it looked when you were a child here if you were a child here. But if you looked in some of the backyards that I see for the one stepcats, you'd understand why I'm up here and why I'm encouraging you to adopt this. Thank you very much. And I will not fall over while I get my cane and promise. Okay, thank you very much. I agree to just messed up the tower. Okay. Lynn Edmonds. Good evening. And I want to start by saying thank you. The questions are always well put. Good discussions. I'm very impressed. It's first time I've ever come to the Planning Commission. So I'm very impressed with the depth that you deal with. Five years, no five, six, seven, eight years ago I was elected on the City Council. The second week, I speak Spanish as well as English. And the second week, I received three phone calls from the people in the area that you're talking about, all of whom, one who wanted to improve her mother's house, she bought the house for her mother, and she was unable to improve it because of this. Two of them, one had no flooring and wanted to put flooring in for her little toddler that was crawling and was not able to do that. The other one had a shed in the back where they had a goat and a woman and her two kids were living in that shed. And she wanted to improve it so that they would have a better place to live. She didn't want the goat, but the rest of the things she wanted to have improved. And I kept getting these calls. calls. And so I came to Kevin right away and said, Kevin, we've got to do something about it. And he and Brian worked hard on this. And you've seen the history of it. And they kept saying, next year we're going to be doing this. So wait till next year, we'll get it well next year happened, and then we had next year. And then we had year because they're kept being more things that we had to deal with and you finally are to the point that you can do this. So there are two things one of them is improving the homes that are there present who've not been allowed to improve and the other is when I was running for city council and when I was on city council I was going through every home in North Film War, all through the city. I have an ADU, it's not really an ADU. I don't rent it out. It's just a room where my kids can come because I have six kids and a small house, and they get to come and stay overnight. But many, many of the houses that are in film war that have sheds and garages. I can't tell you how many of our kids live in those places because there is no other place. And they're paying bucks for those. I mean big bucks. And we are, these are the people who mold people's lawns, who wash dishes, who take care of children, and they're the ones that are suffering, and it's not fair, it's wrong. And so we need multiple family housing, we need these homes to be able to be repaired. These are cute little places if they could just be fixed. And it concerns me, the 50% actually worries me a bit, because those homes are not valued very highly. So how would you possibly fix the floor of your house and not go over the 50% rate then you had to redo the whole house? So I think that's the only concern I have. I'm thrilled about many mansions. I'm thrilled about the multiple family housing that's coming in, the low-income housing that are working their tails off to meet all of these requirements that we put before them. But mostly I'm thrilled about the improvement in people's lives in our town. And that's why we're here for the people that are in this town. So thank you. And if you have any questions, both Susan and I have health issues. And I said to Kevin, can we move it up to the one before so we don't have to sit here? And he says, it'll be fast. Yeah, right. You know how meanings go? Yes, I knew that. I knew that I should have argued and come directly to you, Mr. Kushing. But I didn't, because I respect Kevin. Not his values in time, however. So I want to thank each of you. And if you have any questions or want more information, Kevin has my phone number. OK. All right. Thank you very much. Yeah. Thank you. Oh, I have 49 seconds. I'm going to. Yes, I do. I know. OK. And if you have mine, we look at that. Because you have to work to sketch it. I'm going to. I'm going to. Okay I've gone more. Gabrielle? Hi. Thank you for letting me make a comment. My name is Gabrielle Vignonne. I'm the executive director of House Farm Workers. I'm also the co-chair of the Fillmore and Pyrrheal Affordable Housing Task Force. So House Rommarkers has been following the housing elements since 2021. We have participated by writing comments and also submitting verbal comments. The housing element you do see our comments attached. With Brian McCarthy's request today, it quotes a letter from HCD, which is the housing community development. And it states, substantial compliance until the city has completed necessary rezoning to address the shortfall of sites to accommodate the regional housing needs allocation, RHNA. These necessary reasons are listed as the actions in the document, which you guys have been discussing. House farmers and the Phil Mara Pyrrhu Task Force really and fully support the City of Philmore adhering to HCD's request so that you guys can have an HCD approved housing element that's in compliance. We urge you to expedite this process and I'm gonna turn this because commission are kindly, I heard your comments and so I adjusted mine and so I heard the comments we understand the comments and the concerns and to echo kind of what Susan and Lynn said if there are other sites or other opportunities we understand that we understand what you're trying to do but we still urge you to do that as soon as possible. And the reason is because when the city is not in compliance with state requirements, city, developers, there's a lot of funds that you're not then eligible for, that are federal, state, regional. And so we keep hearing Philmore Terrace. And so Philmore Terrace could benefit from those funds and can't access them if your housing element is not in compliance. So whatever decision you do make, we hope that it's made quickly. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, with that we'll close the public hearing? Anybody have questions of Brian? The 50% improvements that still confuses me, especially with these properties here that we're rezoning. Just like Lynn said that's a low number for these, could be a low value for these properties and could potentially cause them to then have to spend even more of the minimum money to bring it up to comply. Yes. The intention with the zone standards is to make them nonconforming so that the 50% wouldn't even apply. But for some rare circumstances, maybe that we're not aware of. But to address that, we could look look at each individual property Maybe get an idea as to whether they'd be violating setbacks and see if there's something Some language to craft that specifically targets those residents only But in terms of upgrading per the building code You would still want upgrade to the building code building code. You'd still want to meet fire code standards, plumbing code standards, electrical standards, all of those things that pertain to safety. There's no way around that kind of stuff. But the 50% rule would apply to the planning standards, which we're trying to eliminate that condition. That's the intent. Okay. And again, we can sharpen our pencil and look and see, is anybody out there, are there any of these single family homes? Will they still not be compliant? Like we've done everything we think to make them compliant, but if there's something that's not compliant, we'll find it. Right. And then make it so. Right. Because if we're wanting them to improve their properties. Correct. One to bring them up to standard to safety. Yes. You know, I would be concerned of, okay, they have a budget of $100,000 and all of a sudden, you know, they exceed that 50%. And now it's $400,000 for them to bring everything into conformity. They're then just not gonna do it. And then again, we run into the issue of it. It's an unsafe place to live. They have no flooring. They can't do anything. So that's just one of my concerns with that. That is the very Brian's describing. That's the very purpose of what's been presented tonight. We're increasing density, so they'll now conform. We're changing setbacks, so they'll now conform. We're changing garage requirements and changing height requirements. We're changing things so they can now conform. Yeah, what you describe, your concern, your describe is the same concern. It's expressed by mis sediments and that I've hopefully come across here is that's the concern that we're trying to fix with this. So if we haven't done that, then we'll take that message and we'll go and look and see if something out there doesn't conform to this because we want it to conform. Yeah. Okay. That was my only comment. Yeah. You actually? I actually have some exhibits. I don't know if this is the time to present them. Sure. Is there, yes, it just photos that you want to show in terms of the development. It's actually that historical, the cultural heritage survey. It's excerpts from that, including the, oh, thank you. Should I tell you before I open it? I just don't want to go too far, a field from the housing and design standard discussion if it relates to that and like your comments on that then that's Yeah, it basically I could state like what my intended motion is Before I show the information Well, you don't need to make a motion at this and and actually in fact just to clarify the Item that's before the planning commission. This is for Planning Commissioner comments to provide to staff. And what staff would be looking to do is at the next meeting bring back a resolution, bring back a completed ordinance, and at that point be specifically asking the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to City Council. So we don't need a specific motion tonight. It's providing a vote. It's providing comments to staff. Yes, it's pertaining to that. Okay, so you can make it. Okay. Okay. So this is the cultural heritage survey that we've been talking about from 1983 and as Kevin mentioned, or I'm sorry, as Brian mentioned, Ventura County, or Film War Contract, Ventura County, and they created this board. And basically they came to Film War in the 80s, and they worked with the museum and local residents to develop this survey. And I'm just showing here some highlighted information that I thought was important. It's just talking about how the Fillmore Historical Society participated. A lot of this information was not written down. A lot of Fillmore's history was not written down so it came from oral. And you know speaking with people who have lived here and their families have lived here basically from the origination of the of the city. So you know it's just talking about the process, the volunteers, the photograph, they had a specific criteria from the state of how they would inventory these structures. And it's just, you know, here we're talking about, you know, they show the map of the neighborhood, they infotograph and they describe why these structures are contributing. And the reason I'm showing this is because you'll see later on several of the properties that were shown in blue are listed in this inventory. And they actually, I included their profiles for those structures as well. So this is the map area that they surveyed, which they say in here was not, they wanted to do more, but they didn't have enough resources. So there actually could be more that we don't know about, or that haven't been inventoryed. And they anticipated that this would be used for planning and research for cultural heritage board, local governments and students and general public to have access to this. So, you know, this starts talking about like the history of Fillmore and why these structures are, or what would be considered, you know, historical. So this is talking about how in 1910, these parcels specifically in the subdivision a clock or alcoque, those were, which is this area that we're talking about, was actually built in 1910, prior to film war being incorporated in 1914. So you'll see many of these are, bungalow style homes that were, primarily for Japanese and Mexican filmmakers. But there are also some that were owned by individuals of note, like the first doctor in Fillmore and architecture and designed by notable architects that are noted in here. So yeah, this is just explaining the same thing that the majority of their structures and film are, were remaining during the time of this survey and that there weren't mass like demolitions or anything like that, so they were able to document a lot of them. So this is just talking about the reason why they undertook this. And it's a comprehensive inventory of historical structures. And like I mentioned, there really wasn't that much written history in the surveys or any kind of documentation that the city had. So this was a way for people to engage with the local residents, so their families had been here for the entire time, to get these sort of anecdotal pieces of information to fill out. And I ideally preserve the history and keep it as part of the character of the city. So yeah, it would serve as a planning tool for local governments when making decisions as to zoning and rehabilitation of older areas. Comprehensive block by block survey was done. And so I had mentioned earlier that 239 residences were part of this inventory that they assembled. And I believe there was I think, let see 824 structures total surveyed so out of the 824 239 Residences were inventory and included in this list so and Some of these Residences they're not necessarily significant on their own, but they're significant as a neighborhood. So, some of these, you know, descriptions that you'll see, it's saying at the district, so it's like the entire street. They all contribute to making a historic place. So, and yeah, so here it's saying the bungalows, the neighborhoods drive from historical importance from the original owners, many of filmores influential early leaders and businessmen lived in these neighborhoods, whereas some neighborhoods were important as examples of workers housing, which is kind of what I said before. So, and then the main areas that we're going to see that there's a, like, a bigger number of homes that are being suggested in this would be Orange Grove Avenue, Olive Street and Clay, I believe, I've highlighted which ones. So, and then these were the recommendations that this board made. And I just kind of want to outline this a little bit or accentuate this. So the value of any study can be partially measured by the action it generates. The valuable data collected and compiled through this survey is only useful if it is properly institutionalized and documented for accuracy. And here they say the City Manager's Office in Fillmore has been involved with the survey since its inception. A member of Planning Commission, Janette Anderson, served on the review committee. The City Hall Planning staff will have a copy of the survey and list the significant buildings on the survey. Every attempt should be made to work this material into the planning process. The planning staff may also consider maintaining a copy of rehab rights published by Oakland Planning Department for use as rehabilitation guide for homeowners. I don't know what that is. I haven't necessarily looked at that, but just to say that there should be some type of rehabilitation guide for people who are looking to change those structures. Here also is another recommendation. Some of the neighborhoods in the survey area are considered potential historic districts in our zone for higher density use. Be aware that downsizing in these areas may be an important tool in preservation. Also be aware that the use of community development, block grants, the rehabilitation loan programs, restructures within the survey area, and existing landmarks that have been identified as having significance. So I thought this was interesting. Maybe these people can gain some type of funding if we do recognize that they are, I mean, they are recognized as historical. So I guess let me just keep going here. I'm going to kind of skip through to, so this is their list. The addresses that I've highlighted in the magenta are overlapping with the rezone for the high density. So these are currently single family historic homes that are being rezone to be, or are being proposed to be rezone to high density. So that's 40 stories tall or 40 feet tall. A lot of these are around tall feet tall. And then this was like their actual notes. So you know for example this one 222 A Street they're saying was built in 1890 for John Henkley, Phil Mark's first physician. This small residence was attached to the house for 16 prior. And so this is an example of a home that was built even before the city became Philmore. I'm not gonna go through everyone, but I've just basically highlighted, these are this one for example, is Mexican-American housing during this period on clay history. And this is farm workers' housing, for example. So it represents a specific architectural style. So that's, I'm not going to go through every one, but you can see they've kind of inventoryed, taken pictures, they've identified what elements, architectural elements, make them to align with the California of Angolo, for example. I think the first one was like Victorian, something else that was a different architectural style. Which I mean, I thought this was actually extremely cool because now we have sort of, if we to make guidelines that we wanted it to look of a certain era, we have sort of descriptions of what that would look like. Also I think that the fact that it was an oral history was very interesting. So that's that. And then I think you guys have this, if anyone else wants to look at it. And then I just did a little study here. So I was asking earlier about the due diligence for massing studies or solar shading or traffic, anything like that. Because I think that if there aren't that many 40-foot tall buildings in this town or in the city we may not really understand what that would be. And I think when I go to the next page you'll see what I'm talking about. But you know so this is right now here. These are 12-foot tall homes here too and right now there's this big lot. It's about 150 feet back from 126. And here is from across the street. It's just a picture from where the chopping center is essentially across the 126. And this street is orange growth. So that's that 12-foot tall little bun below I was talking about. This is that lot that's 150 feet deep and then those other homes down on orange grow. Now this is what I would look like I mean this is just such a crude example but just you know putting a box there that's 40 feet tall. You can see that the mountains are being obscured potentially. You know this obviously isn't taking into account all the setbacks and other you know requirements in the code but this is just something quickly I made. And I mean I don't know I to me this is this is too tall. It especially if it's right next to a single family residence especially if it's in the place of a historical home. Okay, this is 40 and this is 40. Yeah, so this is step back 150 feet from the street. So it's just showing you like what 40 feet looks like. Yeah, so if you see like right here. So that's 40 feet back there. And then this is the street itself. So you can see that the road is really cracked pavement. I don't know if anyone's ever driven down these little streets, but it's really tight. You kind of have to pull over a little bit. There's two way traffic happening. And there's a lot of parking on the lawn. There's parking people parking kind of on the curb, it's a lot of parking issues. So all that to say, I think that there may be a better location, another site that potentially is completely undeveloped, or maybe developed but not with historical homes that could accommodate this zoning and I would advocate that this area be rezoned for residential but residential low. Okay. That's it. Okay. Here. Comment? I get one of eight property on the matter of size is declared historical isn't there a process towards given an historical number and it's actually a registered historical site. Landmark. Landmark. So there's a county landmark, a state landmark and a federal landmark. So in blue or any of these other colors or layovers have any of those been identified as a landmark? No, they're just old. But I don't mean to be dismissive about it because Ashley is exactly right and that's exactly what the Planning Commissioner said on the Fillmore Terrace project. We did the Massing Study that she just showed and the Planning Commission came out against that project and it's been completely redesigned, it's now approved. You would appreciate the design. It includes all the qualities that Ashley just described. Is that the one on Palm in 126? Yeah. Okay, and that's one that has no parking? That's correct. There's 11. There's a short parking, but yeah Which is mandated by the state if you're without love they don't have to provide parking correct If for affordability is complicated because a density bonus and concessions and all that stuff but for for here I mean I'm what I'm trying to explain is that I'm sensitive to Ashley's comments, to Commissioner, Ashley's comments, and the commissioners were too historically by the comments that they made. And if we had a project proposed in these areas that's blue, I guarantee you you'll be sensitive and you'll make the exact same comments that you just made tonight. That was kind of, kind of goes with my question of, we can change this to allow for the high density, but that doesn't necessarily mean when a plan comes that we have to approve it because it doesn't adhere to necessarily structural architectural designs. Under the current state laws if they follow the current SB 330 and others that have been there's new state laws coming getting rolled out every single year. This is really, when they do low income housing, it becomes by right, essentially. And they will, they will waive any standards that are not objective. And so that's the importance of the objective standards that's in here. Is to try to get that baked in so it's on paper before they come. The objective standards that actually just described now that's in the survey. Those can become standards. Right. If there's an appetite to take some of those architectural characteristics that are adored by those historic residences and put them in to the design standards, such as, you know, overhanging eaves and define what that is, or whatever those specific elements are, I'll be it on a larger identity project. It's not going to be the same thing, but you could maybe capture some of those authentic elements, perhaps. That's one option. I mean, in terms of the standards, I thought they were really good. I really, I thought they were, I mean, if it was not this site, and it was a different site, I think they would make great buildings. But also to go with that, like I'm saying, I think that there needs to be some massing that substantiates that language. Otherwise it's really hard to tell, like, oh, this 25-foot setback, whatever, it's like, okay, well, unless I draw it myself, I have no idea what that's gonna look like. We could block some things out, like you said, just in terms of a massing, like a rude massing. Mm-hmm. Like worst-case scenario. Yeah, worst-case scenario. I don't know if we would have the time or the effort to actually do architectural renderings, like conceptual renderings, but we can try to get something in there Though at least show the massing maybe with a step back third story something like that That could be doable Do you know in the downtown specific plan? We have quite a few pages written about massing and scaling. That's why the buildings downtown look the way they do. I mean, we can steal a little bit from that and get some ideas. Yeah. When we were to develop these design standards, yeah, it took a lot of working and reworking, as you know, and then coming back to it. And then ultimately, it's like like when go look around, like what do we see around town that represents film art? And we tried to capture that. You know, we tried to not do three story in the state said no way, basically. Because we're holding the housing element over us at this point. But we did do the step back and try to get as best design as we can get in terms of looking at what that massing is going to look like. It would be informational. But I don't know that it would give enough information to rule on this particular issue. Maybe. But we can certainly try to do that. I think it would be good to see some of those because we're having the housing problem as it is, and we're seeing more boron fires and structural fires. We don't know why, but I think to Ash, at least one as well, we've got to be sensitive to the fact that history's here at the same time. So I think it would be good to be able to visualize what's there versus making the decision based off of a live demo. Brian, what's actually specified in the housing element? Is it the 15-20 density range? Yes. Yeah, it specifies the range. And in order to get that range of density, it was argued, I think, through all the public review process that two stories wouldn't get you that density. Okay. So that could be the explanation on the hunt that if it's tied to that density, that that height would be necessary to get within that density. It's realistically, let's look at this realistically. The property is 25 feet wide by 125 feet in depth. To put a three story building on that is completely impractical and meet the building code, the cost is astronomical. So we're not gonna get an application that's gonna do that. What will happen is an affordable developer will come forward. We'll purchase that one, assemble the next property and the next property and the next property and create a project. Maybe. Or it allows the person who owns that piece of property who has a single wall construction with no flooring, demolish it and build something that that particular family can do. That's the reality. And then it'll build through time. It's not going to get built in a year, five years, ten years, but it'll build through the 30, 50, 60 years. Well, the other thing, too, didn't you say that it has a step back five feet every story? The fire department's asking that. So- Well, if you're only 25 feet wide, it gets- I thought that's only in the overlay area that you have that requirement No, that's in this area. That's in this area. That's in this area If the fire department is concerned whenever we go above two-story They want a building setback so they can lean a ladder against it. Yeah, that ended up in the written design guidelines below. But we might want to look at that table again and make sure that it's clear in the table as well that you step back with the third story. Because it is intended for both. And if the lots are only 25 feet wide, is that what we, that's. Currently, we'll turn it. Okay, small slots we could find find our 25 feet So that became the standard because we to his point we want them to be legal right But if you're set back in something it's the building can only be 15 feet wide Yes, you're gonna be seeking a variance. Okay, right? Invariants are supposed to be very difficult to achieve except in this area, this area warrants variances. So you're going to be seeing projects on a case-by-case basis, trying to fit a house on that. Right, but then the planning commission at that time. Right. It doesn't happen to grant the variance if it, if, right? Well, if you meet or warrant the variance you can There's no discretion any right like tied into this the whole point is to be objective Stammering so that there's less No discretionary so we there was be no The state trying to remove all discretion. Yeah, cuz I asked Brian, why don't we have architectural review board or something like that to be able to control, you know, want some humongous, darkening mass right next to your house, you know? It's becoming so with the state, they're calling it the housing crisis and so they're rolling out these laws and And so cities up in down California are having to accept buildings that may not meet their character, may not meet what that city's supposed to look like in their long-term documents. And their architectural review boards aren't having the same kind of authority that they used to. They may be the same. Or study staff, right? We don't have that authority any longer, but you can create objective standards. Correct. So it's not all doom and gloom. We can create objective standards in state, seas, and agrees. And the ideas that have to be consistent with every project that comes through. Yeah. Yeah. Typically what they're going to look for is that our objective design standards don't prohibit the density that's allowed. Right. So so long as we're not prohibiting density. It can generally fly or if it's not too financially cumbersome We should be able to apply those but again, it's going to be it's going to be more like less a checklist Did they do that did they do that did they do that? and doesn't measure? And then what we think about it, if we like it or don't like it, is going to be less important. But in terms of this, to kind of help mitigate for the height a little bit, it helps to spread out. So we, you know, by reducing setbacks, it maybe spreads out some of the floor a little bit. It maybe hopefully take the top down. And 60% lot coverage is pretty generous. But maybe some of the massing can kind of look at setbacks in lot coverage versus height. And if you spread out, does it take the height down and still meet maybe we could do something like that but really if you're talking about this isn't gonna preserve those houses I mean this is where they're gonna be able to take those houses out exactly and put and put and put yeah and put it you know yeah and some of those things if you're a single wall in the heaven of point Tell how much you're not gonna what? I'm like your house. I mean mine's in the same era. I mean yeah, just a single wall and it has floor But I mean that's that's like the nature of this type of construction I mean, I feel like there's so many areas like echo park, boilheights, Eagle Rock I mean, they're all LA County, but these areas had these sort of dilapidated looking conditions and now they sell for $34 million. But they're sought after now. They're sought after the character. Yeah, they're sought after because they're unique. They people like them. I mean, we could explore what our rehab is. There is provisions in state guidelines for rehab and does that count towards? I mean, we could explore what our rehab is. You know, there is provisions in state guidelines for rehab and does that count toward achieving a rena number. You know, I'm just totally throwing that out. Yeah. Okay. Well, any other discussion by anybody? Any other comments? No? Okay. So we're not taking a vote or anything so we're just concluded. So the objective time is to give staff direction. We're going to have to re-notice the public hearing for next month anyway. Typically we would leave the public hearing open and continue it to a date certain. since we we're going to be re-noticing it in any way, it's not necessary to do that formal continuation. The expectation is that this would be brought back at the next planning commission meeting, though. It's gonna be noticed in a public, or be a publicly noticed hearing, but with that direction, to what staff would do would be make some updates. Or if there's any comments on the objective design standards yourselves. Yeah. You know, that would be the time to do that. Or maybe there'd be some opportunity to send it to us after the fact, after tonight, maybe I don't know, that's legal. Yeah, but that would be but that would be better to do that as part of the public hearing or to be brought back. But at the next public hearing though, we're going to be looking for the planning commission to make a recommendation to City Council to move this forward so we can get the HCD checklist completed and get the housing elements certified. Did we close we didn't close up the previous one. Did I? Oh, okay. I did have one comment. I'm sorry, another comment. Sure, more than welcome. There are more than one last comment. Yeah, okay. Wish you're actually comments are more than welcome. So this, you know, in the objective design standards, there was just one area that I didn't really understand what you meant by. Under section, let's see, letter D, number four. Or I guess all these ones, I say common buildings. I'm not really sure what that means. Is that to find somewhere? Which page is that? It's page 20. 20, Thank you Common buildings not located adjacent to a street Okay, yeah, so a building that Supports multiple housing units in the same building Might have a lobby okay. And so there'd be one sort of main featured entry for multiple residents to come in. And buildings not located adjacent to the street. So common building is like a bridge of some kind. Well, no, you may have a multi-story building. Like, let me, for example, let me try to find an example here. This is the one we've been talking about, Philmore Terrace. There's, and it's not really good visibility here, but there'd be like a main door here where you could go in and then catch the stairs or the elevator or go down the hall or go into the courtyard and access other units. So there'd be one grand sort of entrance. Gotcha. In number four, I wonder if the issues that it's just missing entries or entrances there? Common buildings not located adjacent to the street. I think that should maybe see. Common building entrances. Common building and common building entries. Yeah, maybe it just used to be flipped, sometimes. Yeah, I mean, it yeah, so it's same thing. A common building that is fronting an internal courtyard could have a common entrance. You go into like the main entrance and then you get access to multiple units. However, I think what we would fill more perfurs to see, that the kind of nature of things that is popular, is where the units have their own entry. Each unit has accessibility to the interior courtyard. I'm looking for a picture of something like that here. There will be one sec. So here's the courtyard. That's how many mansions. And you can see the courtyard there and you have multiple doors accessed. But to the extent that you might have an interior common area, gathering area, recreation building, something like that. You might have it one grand entry that's facing the courtyard. And we wanted that to have a certain design, look to it, so that you don't just get any old glass door that's a main entry. We wanted to look like a substantial, you've arrived kind of entry. That's the intent there, but we're more than happy to take any language that clears up as it for you being that you're an architect Yeah, I wouldn't know what that means so that's why I asked and that's one more thing One of the things that I was thinking about when I was looking at this is some cities they require the voluntary green building measures. They require them as mandatory. And I would think this, especially if it's in this site. I mean, not that I advocate for this location because I don't. But if you have to have it. Yeah, if it's there, I would say that we especially need to have those measures as mandatory. Okay. We can look at some of those green building measures. Right now we typically let the developers go and comply with the green code at building plan and they have different options for meeting Title 24 and they kind of pick and choose to get their numbers. numbers. So we don't specify anything up front just to leave it open but we can look at what might apply from a planning standpoint. You know, if it's better in terms of the aesthetic or hydrology, that kind of thing. Yeah, because I mean, like, you know, the paving, it's not only about that it's permeable. It's that it looks nice that they're I agree you know different scales of paving different colors it might give you way finding you know Okay, this is I'm gonna walk on this to the entrance. This is my safe passage to the parking lot Yes, you know so This is a courtyard. I I find is fairly attractive. It has those pavers They they're permeable and it youable. And it provides a central area with multiple doors accessing it at the same time. And you can have steps that can go up. So you can bake in little arches and stepways. It gets you up to the third floor, second floor. We're hoping people get creative with that. Yeah. So we may, you know, it's dropping our pencil a little more and try to get a little more out of these courier arts perhaps with the pavers. One thing that when you're mentioning pavers that you might suggest is in the rear, that's many mansions rear. And then there's another example. So this is rear loaded, multifamily. These are condos, but they have the garage that's kind of set back. So you can put your trash cans out, and you have permeable pavers that kind of establish a boundary and a little bit of a walkway and your trash cans can go there. Something like that would be attractive, too. So alleyways could be an opportunity for permeable pavers, as well as walkways and courtyards. Mm-hmm. Now we're done. No. Okay. Okay, so I conclude that and we'll go to reports and communications in any planning commissioners. Aaron, the other side. Cameron? No. Derek. Ashley? I have one comment. one comment. Have anybody seen the new signs on the old packing plant? They are gorgeous. He's got two of them up there. They're like wood. They are take a time and go by there. I'm sorry. I think I have seen them. Yeah, they are. They are really, really nice. It's like wood burned in. Yeah, it's really. Yeah. They are really really nice. They're like nested in the wood. Huh? It's like wood burned in. Yeah, it's really, it's really classy looking. This is the packing plant on CESP and the one that Chris Walden's re doing. Three, four, one, one, one, one, one. What is the, what are they using it for? What's the building? It take a long story and make it short. There's existing tenants in there that once we approve the entitlements, they will then be permitted. So they're in there now, not permitted. Are you familiar with the Go ship building issue from Oakland? Oh, were the balcony fell down? Not balconies, but the whole building burned down. Okay, about the people. The raid or whatever. At one time, that was a situation. The current property owner bought it and cleaned it up and got it all up to the building permits. The city's been going through enforcement. It's been taking eight years. So the next step is entitlements and there are many many incredible ideas and we're waiting for the applicant to submit an application. Yeah, but if you have a chance to go back, I mean it really classes up that building what he's done to it. Nice. Okay. Well, we'll discuss that later. Yeah, we can. Kevin, do you have any? I don't have anything unless you have any questions for me. You know the question I get? It's honest. At least five times. When you get a sonic burger? Sonic and I said, it's not the same, it's a contractor. So if people watch this, it's not the city, it's a contractor. Yeah, we are pushing as hard as we can on the contractor and on the property owner to take babies to take the steps they need to do we are calling them the meetings and doing everything possible we're going outside of our boundary to push it as far as we can and they're making progress you don't see it it's all. That's happening. The same, I've said this before, the upside to this is they're doing the hard work first and then the building's gonna be easy. We often have projects that don't do the hard work first because they just wanna get going on the building and oh look at this thing and then they announce an occupancy date. They announced their grand opening all over my space or Facebook and then they'll be told oh they don't have a fire hydrant or they haven't built their sidewalk or they haven't got their cow trans permit to bring water in and like what that's going to take two years no so we're not going to have that hopefully so long as Edison comes through. We won't have that issue. We're trying to manage it ahead of time. We don't have the grand opening announcement. And then, oh, whoopsie, it's going to be another year because we don't have a fire hydrant. We're trying to avoid that. So the hard work is happening now. Okay, so we'll adjourn the meeting in the planning commission, adjourn to the planning commission, regular meeting scheduled for April 16th, 2025 at 630, and the city council chambers to 50 Central Avenue, don't work. Five away, the word film works misspelled on the winter evenings on the building. Is it really? Just look at it closely. To misspelled. Oh, wow. I'm missing an L. One L? I know that you know.