I will now call the meeting to order. We are going to start off the product pledge of allegiance, and I will be doing so. So if you would please stand and place the right hand over your heart. You have to meet. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic which stands for nation under God and indivisible with the other opinions of justice for all. Thank you, Vera May, I have a roll call please. Commissioners Mallow. Here. Hagoochie. Here. Chair Pro Temason. And Chair Delt that. Here. Commissioner Kozak has an excused absence. Thank you. Sounds good. At this time, any member, I am now going to bring it up for public input. And any member of the public may address the planning commission on matters, which are not listed on this evening's agenda, provided the matter is within the subject, matter jurisdiction of the public may address the planning commission on matters which are not listed on this evening's agenda provided the matters within the subject manager's jurisdiction of the planning commission. If you are here in person, please fill out a request to speak for them and hand it to Vera. And we will invite you up to the podium. If you're watching via zoom, please raise your hand in the webinar and you will be called on the speaker Vera at this moment. Are there any public comments for items not listed on tonight's agenda. Chair there none thank you thank you very much the next item on the speaker. Be ready at this moment. Are there any public comments? For items not listed on tonight's agenda. Chair there, and thank you. Thank you very much. The next item on the agenda is the consent calendar item. All matters listed on the consent calendar are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion without discussion, persons wishing to speak regarding the consent calendar. Matters should file a request to speak formed with a planning commission secretary. Tonight, the only thing on our consent calendar is the approval of meeting minutes from the March 25, 2025 meeting and recommendations that the planning commission approved the meeting minutes from March 25, 2025 as provided. Second, perfect. May we have a roll call for please? Commissioner Mello. Aye. Chair Pro Temason. Commissioner Higuichi. Aye. And Chair Delfit. Aye. Motion passes for 01. Thank you. Thank you very much. And at this point we will open up a public hearing item. The first item we have is a conditional use permit 2025-0002 and a minor adjustment 2025-0001. Recommendation is that the planning commission adopt resolution number 4525 or proving conditional use permit 2025-, 2 to establish an all inclusive animal boarding and kennel facility within an established existing 10,380 foot square foot commercial building and MA 2025 dash zero, zero, zero, one to allow the installation of a new eight foot high vinyl fence that exceeds the maximum fence height of six feet eight inches allowed by the TCC 9271 I Located at 1406 one Newport Avenue and tonight's present to presentation is from Raymond principal planner Raymond take it away Thank you chair doubt that members of the planning commission as you mentioned the request before you is the is to establish an animal boarding and kennel facility at 1406161 Newport Avenue. As as you stated, chair doubt that the request is two parts. One is a conditional use permit to authorize the operation of an animal boarding and kennel facility. and the second is a minor adjustment to exceed the maximum wall and fence height per test and city code. The applicant is requesting an eight foot high fence and we'll get into that little later in this presentation. The location is 140 one new port avenue. It's located in a multi tenant commercial center located on new port avenue. The as shown here on the slide the the project site is the rearmost building to 10,384 square foot building and it's closer to B Street than it is to new port avenue and and backs up to the i5 freeway. Other surrounding uses include multifamily residence. closer to B Street than it is to Newport Avenue and back up to the I-5 freeway. Other surrounding uses include multifamily residential to the south, commercial uses to the east, which is the remaining portion of the retail center, a mobile home park to the west, and again it's planned. It's the zoning is planned, community commercial. The project would locate in a 10,384 square foot building shown here in red on the image. Inside the building, the services would include dog daycare, grooming services, boarding and kennel services for long-term boarding of animals and those are really for like holidays such as Fourth of July and Memorial Day weekend. And there will also be some minor retail offerings in the building as well. shownown here on the image, you'll see the outdoor pet relief area highlighted in yellow. This area is located behind the building and the applicant is proposing the A-foot high fence to the east of the building as shown here. Shown on the image and this will get into a little bit later in the minor adjustment section of this report. The floor plan would be split up into various areas. As shown here, you'll see the kennels in the brownish color. There's also a second floor mezzanine, where'll be additional kennels and that is located in the floor plans in your packet. There's also the pet grooming area shown in purple and play areas shown in green. The business would allow for, or the services would overlap. So if I wanted to take my dog, just to doggy daycare during the day, I could drop them off and they could play in the play areas. If I needed to drop my dog off for Fourth of July holiday, I could, they would be able to be housed in the kennels, but also participate in play areas and or be groomed, or if I just wanted to have my dog groomed, I could just take them for grooming. So there are different offerings here, but again, they do overlap in depending on the needs of the client. And actually, just before I move on, on this slide you'll see in the back or where it says, NELS PetGrooming and Play Area, the zigzagging, that's the zigzagging pathway. That's the reader of the building. This is the rear between the rear of the building and the I-5 freeway. This area and the area to the east of this would be the pet relief area where animals would do their business. And this is an image immediately in back of the building. As you can see, it's landscape. There is a pathway. And there is an an area that will get into in the minor adjustment that it would extend beyond the building to allow for a more area for the pet relief area. Hours of operation would be Monday through Friday from 6.30 to 7 and Saturday and Sunday from 8 to 5. Although there would be overnight stay for dogs, the dogs would be monitored via camera during that time. So there would be no employees there during the late evening and early morning hours. The commercial center was parked at one space for every 250 square feet for so general retail. Animal service uses require 21 parking spaces so it's less intensive than then general retail. This building would require 42 parking spaces so as you can see there is adequate parking for the proposed business. There were specific conditions of approval that we worked with the applicant to ensure that there were no impacts to this rounding tenants and residential uses. The first would be the outdoor relief area and the applicant does have some stringent protocols that they would go through to ensure that there would be no odor and that the excrement would be removed and the area would be cleaned. We memorialize that as a condition of approval and also also to ensure that the storm drain system would not be affected, there are two ways that the applicant can ensure that the storm drain system would not be affected and that is one to keep the area landscaped. And if they were to propose something else, such as artificial turf, that would be reviewed by public works to ensure that again, that the storm drain would not be impacted. Regarding waste disposal, the applicant did reach out to CRNR and they would be removing waste a minimum of two times per week. We have a condition of approval that has a catch all condition of approval that if more waste services are needed, then we can require that if there are any impacts. Relative to noise, there is a condition of approval that would require that the doors, that the doors in the front of the the the the the the the the the the the the the the that they would the applicant would be required to comply with any county agency requirements before they open. Now this area is the area where the fence would be located and is the subject of a minor adjustment as stated before this area is located to the east of the of the building in this photo. You'll see to the left there's a brown utility door that is the side of the building where the the dog stop would be located. They're requesting to enclose this landscape area to increase the area for pet for the pet relief area. This is where the eight foot high fence would be located. as a condition of approval, there would be the A put high area that we're looking at. That would be a lot of the area that we're looking at. That would be a lot of the area that we're looking at. That would be a lot of the area that we're looking at. That would be a lot of the area that we're looking at. That would be a lot of the area that we're looking at. That would be a lot of the there is a softening of that area. And so this is where again where the 8-foot high fence is proposed. In order to approve a minor adjustment, there are certain findings that need to be made. The first is that, and we were able to make those findings and that those are located in the resolution. The first is that this is not a special privilege and there are unique site characteristics to this property that really aren't seen in other commercial centers. The first is that the building is set back, is immediately adjacent to the I-5 freeway, and at minimum it's about five feet to the retaining wall, and I think a maximum of 18 feet. Um, this area has been in in the recent past. Has been an attractive nuisance and there have been some or the police department has. Has noticed that there has been some loitering in the rear of the building and there has also been some, and by those experiencing homelessness. And there is a lack of, there aren't a lot of eyes on this area because of the tight space between the building and the I-5 freeway. Because of these site characteristics, it makes sense to enclose this area with the 8-foot high fence so that it is activated with the pet relief area. This would allow for, again, to reduce those impacts and it would not be an attractive nuisance. Plus, the building would be occupied as well, so there would be a lot more activity there. But because of these unique site characteristics, we were able to make the findings for the 20% increase in fence height. The project is exempt for Persequa. And with that, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt resolution 4525 approving CUP 2025-002 and minor adjustment 2025-001, authorizing an animal boarding and kennel facility and an 8-foot high fence pursuant to the conditions of approval. And that concludes my presentation. I'm here to answer any questions. And also the applicant is here for any questions that you may have of her. Thank you. Thank you very much, Raymond. Does the applicant have any additional presentations or comments? Sounds good. Let's see. Are there any public comments? Oh, sorry. I will now bring the question to commission for questions of staff. Any questions. Okay. Now, are there any public comments? Chair there are none. Thank you. That I will bring the item back to the commission for discussion. Anybody have any talking points or questions? I think staff's done a thorough job of establishing the rationale for the minor adjustment and it seems like Tussens becoming a haven for Dennis and dogs. So that's wonderful. I like them both. Through the chair. Yeah, I think it's a great opportunity to limit that attract and use that B Street is, doesn't seem to attract a lot of homelessness there. My only comment though for staff is, is it necessary to include all these TI plans in our packages, maybe in the future to keep things a little more streamlined, no structural and MEP plans? But that's it. And thanks for coming to us. I looked at this project and I thought it was great idea. I have two concerns, but it sounds like they're being addressed. One will be with the noise issue being so close to residents. I think you said it had to keep the door shut. I'm assuming there's some county requirements in regards to 100 dogs being there. I mean, was there any, what could you explain that what was gone? What was the thought process there? Sure, through the chair. We did check with County Animal Control and they had no issues with the amount of dogs. Looks like they're seeing a lot of these types of daycare and all inclusive centers opening up. And so they are, as long as they are complying with their regulations when they do submit, if they need to and our conditions of approval, they were okay with it. Okay. The other one other question to the chair, the, um, there was a requirement for, I think, sewer sub drains if they put in artificial turf, but there was nothing if they put in natural turf or natural landscaping. Is that correct? And what, why the difference? I'm curious. So as long as, as long as the areas maintained as landscaping and the, that they were that they used to hose down or any of the excrement, as long as it can be as it infiltrates into the landscape area and it does and it stays out of the storm drain, then there would know there would be no need for additional review. If the applicant intends to use artificial turf, at that point we would need to review that to ensure that it would, that any extra man and also any water would still be able to infiltrate into the ground behind the building or in the pet relief area and to ensure that it doesn't go into the storm drain. We left it a little flexible so that we would review that at plan check, but that would be reviewed by public works to ensure that water quality standards are maintained. So there is some flexibility there. All right. That was my primary concern was the water quality and overflow of the area drains. So my questions are regarding noise. So it is pretty close to the residential area. What would the process be for an after hours since there are no employees staying on site for one of the residents to complain about noise, would they call the police? Do they contact the business owner? I'm just curious what the process would be. That would be, it could be various ways. They could call us and through our code enforcement division we could start a case to ensure to see what the concerns are.. Typically that's how it how it usually works. They could also contact the you know the the owner as well directly and try to resolve it that way. If it comes through us then we would start a case and we would review that to make sure that to see what is going on. If there are issues there are conditions of approval that would allow us to modify operations to ensure that impact is reduced and that there are no there are no impacts to the residential uses surrounding the proposed business. So various ways to do that, but the conditions again allow us to to monitor that should that arise. through the chair. The applicant is here. If you would like to ask that questions, did the applicant and how they can address that question? Thank you. The applicant, please approach the podium and mention any plans they had or if you've had some of these other animal facilities in the past that you've dealt with any more complaints if any. Okay. Thank you nice to see everyone. As far as that question goes, first of all, this is a franchise business opportunity. So this franchise has run facilities across the country. This is the hundredth license that the dog stop has issued and I purchased a license to be a franchise E for them. So we have a lot of data around these types of things. We know the dogs are exhausted when we put them down, you know, put them in their kennels at night after they've gone to the bathroom for their last time around 9 or 10 pm. And at night time, there's zero problems with any kind of noise because they're burned out from, you know, playing all day and being very active. And they will be fully confined inside the walls of the facility. The luxury suites that we will be offering are soundproofed rooms that the dogs will be staying in. This was a former Jim's music was was in this building prior and they already had soundproof practice rooms for the kids and we will be repurposing those to use those for suites. So that will also prohibit a lot of noise as well. However, the dogs will never be outside unattended. They will be that will also prohibit a lot of noise as well. However, the dogs will never be outside unattended. They will be never we will always be with them either training them or you know having them go to the bathroom and they're coming back inside. So I really don't see an issue with the noise penetrating outside of the building. Sounds good. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Is there any other question? Any other questions for the applicant? Just your question spurred this. You mentioned that canaling was for Memorial Day 4th of July. This is not going to be limited to that. That canaling is 365 days a year, correct? Correct. The volume will be higher during the holiday, during the peak seasons. We know that we know that from other facilities that are in the area, as well as others that have been run across the country. So our busiest seasons will be those holidays when, you know, kind of tied to the school schedule when the kids are off of school and there's a lot more traveling Going on then you know people need a place to board. I am a resident of Orange County have been for 30 years in a dog owner And I happen to know that there is a very large demand for boarding facilities for high quality boarding facilities that people can trust There are dogs to be in a be in a really, you know, safe environment that they're, you know, that they're used to going to and that kind of thing. So that was, that's the driving force behind it. Um, so as a dog owner myself, I'm one that gives about 300 milligrams of trasa down to each dog on the 4th of July. I'm just curious when you have that high, because of the questions that are being asked, do you have someone stay overnight when you have? We will, yes, I think we'll provide that. Whenever the needs of the business require that we will provide that, if we have a sick dog that needs to be tended to or otherwise we find that it's better, the franchise or has explained that it is actually better to have the facility quiet and not be walking through the facility at night and stirring the dogs up. But if there's something like that going on or obviously I'm an orange county resident so when the Santa Ana winds blow or there's things like that where there could be any kind of you know potential danger. We would sure that the dogs, we treat the dogs like we would our own dogs. Thank you. Thank you very much. And with that, I have no other comments. Do we have any emotions? Almost different. Our second. Thank you. Here, may we have a roll call vote please? Chair, chair, if I could please. It is a public hearing so before. If we could just take one step back and confirm that there's no one here wishing to provide additional testimony. And that there's no one on zoom wishing to speak before we move forward with the motion about. We are aware of any other comments or questions. Chair there are none. Thank you. I have a motion in a second. And with any other comments or questions. there can we have a roll call vote please? Commissioner Mello. Hi, Commissioner Higuichi. Chair per te Mason. And chair Dalton. Motion passes for 01. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you. Congratulations. Next we have. Let's see. Next we have another public hearing item, downtown commercial core, specific plan amendment, applicable to the Wellington Plaza Plaza Recommendations that the Planning Commission adopt resolution 4524 recommending that the City Council adopt ordinance number 1565 approving specific plan amendment 2024-004 to amend the downtown commercial core specific plan applicable to the Wellington Plaza office of complex such that only Office uses will be allowed within the existing buildings located at 505 through 515 East First Street. And today's presentation is from Jose Jara Orhara, Assistant Planning. Can you guys hear me? Oh, perfect. Getting the chair and members of the planning commission. The evening to item. Oh, we can have the downtown commercial core specific plan. Has it applied to Wellington Plaza located at 505 to 515 East First Street. So this request was submitted by Ian Carter on behalf of the Wellington Plaza Association. The proposed amendment would limit permitted uses within the existing built-in leans at Wellington Plaza to office-related uses only. This is a minor text amendment and does not include any physical changes to the site. So again, this as mentioned the site itself is located within the development area three of the downtown commercial core specific plan right there outlined in red and then in that yellow if you guys could see is the site where Wellington Plaza currently sits at. It's about one point approximately 1.3 acres in size. The general plan designation is specific plan and surrounding uses the site is surrounded by a mix of uses, including office and multifamily residential to the north, multifamily residential to the west, commercial retail to the south, and medical office to the east. So if you guys are familiar with this area, we're a little bit north down the street here on Centennial Way from the project site right at the intersection of Centennial and First Street right across the street from Hall of Pignos. Again, as mentioned, Palmwood's Gardens abuts to the west of the project site and then to the east you have a medical office and then south mix of retail including restaurant services and other uses similar uses Hello background the downtown commercial core specific plan was adopted in July of 2018. Oh, let me back up. Sorry, I got that. Was adopted back in July of 2018. It introduced updated zoning regulations and allowed for a broader mix of commercial and mixed user mixed use residential uses. Well, Tim, well, and Tim Plaza itself was developed in the early 1980s as a professional office complex that predated the current specific plan. And again, it includes five two story buildings and operates under a condominion ownership structure with multiple owners across a total of approximately 40 tenant sweets. So back in 2020 during the height of the pandemic, I believe maybe some of the commissioners might have seen this item before you. Originally, it was a proposed, the owners at that time proposed a similar amendment to limit permitted uses at the Wellington Plaza to office only. The went to planning commission on September 15th of that year with unanimous approval from the commission on On August 25th of 2020, the city council a motion to continue the item to allow the city attorney to verify application status after one of the owners opposed to amendment. And ultimately on October 6th, the council voted three, two to deny the amendment to the downtown core, downtown commercial core specific plan. So the specific plan amendment before you today is a new application that brings forward a similar proposal for consideration, which is here on this slide. So again, we would add the amendment itself would add a section 3.2.3 to the downtown commercial course specific plan, which would read permitted uses at Wellington Plaza located at 505 through 515 East first reach. I'll be limited to general office, sorry, general and professional office, banks, financial institutions and credit unions, photography studios and tutoring facilities. This amendment is consistent with Senate Bill 330, which prohibits cities from reducing residential land use capacity compared to what was allowed as of January 1st of 2018. Wellington Plaza was not zoned for residential use under the prior first street specific plan or the current downtown or commercial commercial core core specific plan. As a result, this amendment does not reduce any residential potential. In compliance with Senate Bill 18, the city contacted 10 tribal representatives in August of 2024. No requests for consultations were received, because this is a text only amendment with no physical development proposed, no tribal cultural impacts are anticipated. And as far as to the California Environmental Quality Act, also known as CEQA, this amendment is exempt from CEQA under section 15060 subparagraph C, where as it will not result in a direct or foreseeable physical change to the environment, and it is not considered a project under CEQA definitions. Therefore, staff recommends that planning commission. The city council has a plan to allow the city council to seek with definitions. Therefore staff recommends that planning commission. Adopt resolution 4524. Recommending that the city council adopt ordinance 1565 approving. Specific plan amendment 2024-004. Amending the downtown commercial course specific plan to allow office uses within existing Wellington Plaza office building complex located at 505 to 515 East for Street. That concludes my presentation. Thank you and I'm happy to answer any questions and the applicant is also here this evening for any questions and may have a few words to share with you as well. Thank you. Thank you. Does the applicant have any comments or presentations they'd like to present? Please approach the podium. First, I'd like to thank staff for their hard work. I also thank the commission for hearing this request. This isn't just an arbitrary request to change zoning. There are so many complications involved here and hopefully I'll be able to answer them very quickly. On July 13, 1979, ECC and R's were recorded with the county of Orange. For 40 years, you have had an office complex here that has 40 individual legal ownership. And that's very complicated. That doesn't allow for a lot of leeway when you want to do something like make it into a commercial project. I'll put somebody in there that's commercial. If you look at the pictures that I gave you, you can see that it's an office complex. It's right up here on First Street in Centennial, been there for 40 years. And for most of those years, we haven't been in conflict with the city zoning. We've been in compliance with it, so we've never had an issue of someone wanting to come in who's commercial rather than office. And as you all well know, if you're commercial, you use a lot more parking space than if you're office. We're an old project. Our parking ratio is three per thousand. We couldn't get that today. That's grandfathered in because we can't change the physical plant. Today, if we were building a complex and office complex, it would be at least four per thousand. A commercial project might be five or six per thousand. So obviously we can't, we just can't accommodate commercial. For years, we had no issues until the first three plan came in and just changed our zoning. Now, there are some legal questions that say, why don't you just use your CC&R? You've got CC&Rs. Here they are. You can enforce them. Go ahead and enforce them. You have the legal right to enforce them. And if the person or the tenant coming in does not fit within the boundaries of the CC&Rs, they can't come into the project. Well, that's a legal analysis that in practicality does not work. We had an issue a couple years ago where a beauty salon wanted to come in and the city didn't tell us they were trying to come in and they're not obligated to tell us. All you have to concern yourself with is a zoning. If they meet the zoning requirements, then they're in per the city's order. If we come to the city and say, they don't meet our CC and our requirements, the city says we're very sorry, but it's not our position to enforce CCNRs. It's yours. So one of the arguments against approving this has been this is a personal matter between the association and its owners, property owners, and we shouldn't be involved. So the problem is the city created the problem because when they put in these plans and changed the zoning, we now became in conflict with our CC and ours and you're zoning. I hear how it really works. Someone comes in to the city and says, I want to be in Wellington Plaza. I do retailing through my shop and I do retailing through the internet clothing. That's clearly not something that we would allow. But the city says that's fine. They look at this owning, this owning is, it's very generous. It's just about anything could come in there, hot shop, just about anything. And so the city says that's fine you're in. We walk in and say we're enforcing our CCNRs and this actually happened. This happened with the beauty salon. We went to enforce the CCNRs and they blew us off. They said, we don't care about CCNRs, we're going in. So they went in, they got established, and we went to legal counsel and said, what do we do now? And he said, well, you better go to the courts and argue it through the courts. So now what the city has done with their plan and putting the zoning on us that they did, they're forcing us to now have to litigate to enforce our CCNRs. Now CCNRs and zoning are both individual. You have to be approved by both to fulfill the obligation of getting in to a project. So if you don't match the CCNRs, you can't go in. If you don't match the zoning, you can't go in. So both have to be one of the other have to be complied with and if they're not, you can't go in. So both have to be one of the other have to be complied with and if they're not, you can't go in. So we can't afford to litigate every time a tenant tries to get in. So all we're asking for is for you to put us back where we were before you did this general plan. Whoever put those plans together, I personally think, and I've been in real estate for years, they should have looked at the zoning of every project and said, what are we doing to these projects? Are we hurting them? Are we helping them? And you can see that this has hurt us dramatically. We spent a lot of money having to come to the city. It's quite a get back where we were. We didn't get it the last time. The commission voted five in favor of our request. We went to the council. We got a three to two vote against. We talked to the two, two of the people of the three that voted against and we said, why did you vote against? It just seemed so logical. They said we didn't understand it. And I said, well, why didn't you understand? And he said, well, we couldn't talk to anybody who could tell us what was really going on was COVID. Nobody was really in your seats. You were all at home doing it by the phone. I was on the phone. I was not allowed to talk. So I couldn't, I couldn't talk to objections that the council had. So the vote went down. But we think that this, the conflict you have put us in, no tenant, no owner should have to go through. Again, if you look at the project, it cannot be commercial. There's just no way. And one of the council members said, well, the future, they may want to change it, and they may then want to have commercial. But you can't, you can't physically do it because of the plant, the way the interior's done. You can't modify it because the board is responsible for the common area, and as it's a condominium, you only own your interior airspace, you own the rest of it, you can't make the changes, you can't put big windows in, you can't put in big doors that you would like to have in retail. So there's no sense to even talk about it, potentially being retail because it can't. Now, I would have to say, if I was the owner of the whole project, I'd love your retail. I'd have all kinds of ideas of what I could do with that, but I'm not. I'm only one 40th. And if you take the other 39, 40th and try to get them all together to say, oh, let's make this an apartment complex. Let's make this a retailails. And now let's do this. Let's do that. Never happen. Never happen in a million years. So we are what we are. We're an office complex. We were built as an office complex. All of the founding documents say on them, office condominium complex, every single document, everything in here refers to office. And yet when the city did their plans, I don't know if anybody even looked at the CC&Rs to see if there were conflicts. And there is. All we're asking is we want a remedy to this conflict. We can't afford to go to court to not have retail tenants in our center. And the center does not lend itself to retail tenants. Now, the one thing about the beauty salon. We have an agreement with her not in writing, but in verbal. And we would put it in writing if we need to. We will grandfather her in. We have no intent on kicking her out, even though she is retail and she uses way more parking than she should. And we'll even go so far as to grandfather, her selling her space to someone else as a beauty salon. And we think that's fair. But in fairness, we need to be able to run our business and part of it is not having retail in a project that is obviously office. Thank you for your time. Does anybody have any questions for me? I've got a few, but I'll open it up to my other commissioners first. Do you have any questions for the applicant? For the applicant, I have some for the city. So. Chair, for the applicant, I reviewed your CCNRs. Have you implemented a parking program? Have we done what? Implemented a parking program. What does that mean? Restricting parking, having certain stall status side for certain members, you know, that's up to you, how you manage your parking. Well, your CCNR has provided you with the authority. Before I got there, they decided they wanted to, and I've been there since 94, but before I got there, they decided they wanted to assign parking spaces. And one of the owners was an attorney, and they took the association to court on the basis that you could not do that. That was not fair to all attendance. And basically, the association lost. And so now we just the parking is first come first serve. But I don't understand how putting in a program like that would help us. When people come into park, they take a spot and when it's full, they go somewhere else to find a place to park. In my opinion, a well-managed parking program will dissuade commercial tenants because they know they'd have to adhere to a parking program. That's been my experience. So since 1994, there's been no proposal from the owner's to implement a parking program. I am, to be honest, I've never heard of a parking program, and I wouldn't even know how to implement it. I do know that when this lady came in to the city, she had a higher requirement of parking because she was a beauty salon, then we could accommodate and the city waived it. And I have no idea why they waived the parking requirement, but they did. And they said, you can go in, we're gonna waive the parking. We, as I said, have three per thousand, which is not enough for a normal office complex, which is today, four per thousand. So we're one parking space short for 1,000. So we're quite a few short, even as it is as an office complex, forget putting on commercial or retail. Is there an active honors association in place? Yeah, I'm the president of the association. Are there a lot of members? Is it, is it, everybody's a member? Are there active meetings and a board director? We have, we have a meeting every three months and we have an annual meeting once a year which everybody's invited to. Every other year we have a vote on who wants to come on the board and that's handled per the proper application for a vote such as that. And the issue Mr. Huguichi is really very simple. I mean, if we stay the way we are, we cannot function. We will always be in conflict. There will always be commercial people that wanna come in. I had someone call me the other day that wanted to come in to do eyelashes and fingers, hands. And obviously that is not, we have a list of the office candidates that are acceptable to the association. That's been in the CCNRs for years. And the point is, quite frankly, I'm standing here wondering how the heck this happened. We for years until, what, 2018? Never had a problem. Not one single problem that we have with the city, with people coming in, with other, and then all of a sudden, you put a plan on us that should not have been put on us. And the project next door is a residential condominium project. It is not in this plan. We are an office condominium project. We should never have been included in this plan. This was an error. It doesn't do us any good. It doesn't do you any good. Well what you're asking for from my opinion is is a effectively a rezoning which I don't take lightly right that's that's a very important part of the city's general plan and part of our land use plan and vision for the city. So no no sir I'm not asking for a rezoning. I'm asking for the city to remedy a screw up that that they made in 2018 and had Shadrant have done it. The city changed the zoning on us. They imposed upon us a zoning that made no sense at all, not to anybody. And I've talked to city staff members, I've talked to some of the council people, and they all understand. understand in fact there's been quite a few mistakes made that are getting remedied and that's what we're asking for. We're asking for a remedy to a problem that is not of our doing. Okay, I appreciate that. You know the I only have a signature from yourself, Mr. Carter. Do you have written approval or maybe like a petition or other consensus, a written form of consensus from the other members of the associates? Yes, we do. Well, in this case, what we did was the board owns enough ownership that the board on its own can approve it. But we did talk to everybody else. We have nobody that's against it. Nobody. Would it be too difficult to ask to provide maybe the names as signatures of those people? Well, it's I think that would take a long time. I mean, you've got 40 legal ownership. So somebody has designed for every one of those ownerships. And the last time we did this, which was in 2020, I believe, we had 100% signed and notarized by everybody in there. there. And one guy changed his mind at the last minute because he was trying to sell his unit and he figured if he had commercial zoning and they have a little better opportunity to sell his unit. And he figured if he had commercial zoning and they have a little better opportunity to sell than if it was only office, that would be problematic. It would be quite a job to go and get everybody to sign. We've got everybody, we can get 70%, which is what the city attorney said in the very beginning was satisfactory. And I can probably get that fairly quickly. But I mean, some of these people, you don't see them for weeks or months, or you know, they may be working out of another city or state or something. So it's what you're asking for is probably not unreasonable, but it's it's going to be very difficult to get within any time frame that's reasonable. There's a little bit of my questions for the applicant right now. Thank you very much. Any other questions for the applicant right now? I have questions for the city through the chair. Can we address the city? Thank you for your time. Take a seat. We can now redirect our questions to the city. And then I'll open it up for public comment after that. So questions for the city. Yeah, I don't. If you don't mind. In the letter that was given to us, there was a sentence that said that the plaza has not been properly informed about the inclusion in the first street. in the letter that was given to us, there was a sentence that said that the plaza has not been properly informed about the inclusion in the first street specific plan was first street specifically not noticed or was there is there some. Not find one owner. I'm asking the city. I'm sorry. That's okay. I think we know the answer. Really, Chair. The first street specific plan was adopted in 1985. I would assume that in 1985, as with any other zone change requirements that we do, we are required to do a public notices for that. And the first specific, the first street certificate plan does allow the commercial uses within the project area. So I know, if I was a long time ago, but is there anybody from the city who remembers the process, or is there any documentation on like the public hearings about the specific, the DC specific plan and opportunity for community to opine. I'm sure there was, there would be some archive documents related to the adoption. Yeah, okay. Yeah, there was one of my concerns of this request for a spot zone, which I have a hard time supporting. But the other question I had was I've heard similar requests from other communities about the city and the relationship with the HOAs. What is our position in terms of seeking approval from an HOA prior to engaging in the request for permit through the city or is there none? And if not, why? Because I think other cities do have that. But I'm just so I'm just curious. With respect to the CCNR, the city does not have the obligation to enforce the CCNRs. But we do include some provisions which which is, if it is in the interest of the city. For example, in a residential community, we want them to make sure that they regulate parking, that they're not allowing the garages to be used as storage, things of that nature. But the actual enforcement of the entire CCNR, the city is not obligated, only certain provision that is applicable to our code related type of requirements. Apologies to interrupt Commissioner Mello, but I did one quick follow-up question that's relevant. Although the city doesn't enforce CCNRs, we do condition and require projects to have CCNRs, probably specifically to avoid this issue, correct? That is correct. In a situation where the development includes multiple owners or multiple lots, we do require the preparation of the CCNRs and the recordation of the CCNRs. So future owners would be able to find out what are required when they purchase the property in the future. Okay. So my question would be, I think there's other studies who have a requirement that you get your H.O.A.'s approval prior to submitting for a permit. Is that a policy issue or is Is that just guideline that we've gone along or is that, am I incorrect in my assumption that other cities do that? I believe that is a policy in each one of you. And you will individual cities get to decide whether they want to enforce the CCNR or advice, the applicant that they need to comply with the CCNRs. Okay. Is your name there? Yeah, I was just gonna add to that because I'm thinking of situations where that is applicable. For example, I know if you're proposing to do certain improvements to a home like landscaping or so forth or things that may require building permit level approvals, sometimes presumably based on policy, there's a requirement that you show that you have prior approval by the HOA to do that work so that a conflict's not created. However, I don't think it's typical for a city when they're being asked to issue a certificate of occupancy or do their own internal zone clearance to ask for review of CCNRs to see if there's any issues with respect to the uses that are permitted by the CCNRs as compared to the base zoning for that vocation. Okay, so I was just trying to explore other options that might be available to the city. But I guess my last question is what has changed since this was denied by City Council in 2020 that were recommending this again if anything. There was just a minor, the previous tech amendment included language regarding natural disasters. we just removed that based off council's recommendation. So, but a lot of it the core of it is still the same As far as to the uses it's exactly the same so not much change Thank you for the chair that's all ahead for now So quick. The only difference is removal of language for natural disasters from four years of good five years ago, Antana. Thank you, Chair Doddy. The request is still the same that the applicant wanted to limit the allowable uses to offices only. I think at the time, I think what has changed is the composition of the council has changed and the composition of the commission has changed. But nothing else has changed. Okay, I believe I was here in 28. But what I thought coming in, I understood I am now thoroughly confused by it. So I just want to just take a moment. We're going to down it down for me here. This. I'm going to give a hypothetical just so it'll help me understand this. If a commercial business came to the city and said, okay, we would like to open the nail salon. Is there a world where we say, well, this is kind of like the federal and state government, federal takes precedent, that's the C&Rs. And that just becomes an agreement with the city, rather than legal issues back and forth litigation, because there's got gotta be a world where we wanna redevelop that office building. And then, so I guess I'm trying to understand are we trying to change the zoning? Are we trying to give an exception? Just help me understand that better. Through you, Chair. So what is, what staff has proposed, and what is back to the amendment to the specific plan, is not to exclude the project site from the specific plan. What we are proposing is to create an exception by including the section that is included in the staff report. Generally, we're giving an exception to the Wellington Plaza. So we'd respect the Wellington Plaza. Only office users would be allowed. But Wellington Plaza is still located within the boundary of the downtown commercial core specific plan. In the future, should the owners, the association decides to redevelop the site in our mind that the association at that time can come back to the city and remove that exception. And that will trigger back all the development standards and allowable uses, but aside. Then I did understand this. So, okay. So then my second hypothetical question is tomorrow, a frisbee shop comes in and says, I wanna open with this ordinance passed. Do we say, sorry, don't have enough parking and we have this exception. So we're going to approve this business not going to give you I don't know if you need to see you here. It goes in I think that becomes an issue with the association CC and ours. So if other than office uses will come in and request for a business license and provided that this proposal is being approved by the Commission and the Council, then the business license will reject that use. Now, there's no world where the Frisbee store can get a business license because one of the 40 owners has decided, I can only get a Frisbee store in here. That is correct. So we will be enforcing our zoning code, which is basically what is being proposed tonight. Okay, thank you. One of my questions would be one of the arguments against a commercial overlay continuing is the parking requirements. Now if we were to reduce our parking requirements within the downtown specific corridor, I guess the question is if there was a commercial use that was trying to come in, apparently, allegedly, previously it was waived the parking requirements, Are we able to waive parking requirements or reduce our parking requirements for this one overlay as well if they have difficulty expanding the parking? I do want to clarify that statement. So the site was built under the old probation. The parking ratio at the time was 3 per 1000. Since then, the parking has changed where retail and office uses has the same ratio. So it's not that the city waived the parking requirements for the beauty salon, but at the time of the beauty salon application came in, we took a look at the code at that time, and the beauty salon and office uses has the same ratio. That's how we were able to allow them to go in without providing additional parking. Interesting. Okay. Through the chair. Yep. To the city, who selected the permitted uses proposed in the text amendment? I believe the applicant. The applicant did. So this would be limited to general and just to be clear, general and professional offices, which is what the applicant would like, banks, financial institutions and credit unions, which can also be perceived as retail uses, photographer studios and tutoring facilities. That was based upon what the applicant's request is. My understanding is that this is the same language that was brought forward from 2020. And my understanding that the planner that is in charge of the time were working with the association. And this is the agreeable language. And to be clear, just to be clear, this proposed amendment does not change any of the parking requirements pursuant to the downtown commercial core specific plan. This is just limited to permitted uses within Wellington Plaza. That's correct. Thank you very much. No other questions? Any other comments from city? Staff. Then we will go ahead and open it up for the public hearing portion of it. Vera, are there any public comments either in person or on Zoom? Chair, there are none. Thank you. Answer to Mr. Melo's question. At the time of the city imposed the downtown specific plan. And then also the first street specific plan. We cannot find one owner in Wellington, plaza, who was notified that that plan was under consideration. We cannot find one owner who was given an official notice that you were going to have discussion on it. And because of that, the owners of Wellington Plaza essentially were not allowed proper due process under the law. And we were never allowed to have come to the city, talk at a hearing like this, which we certainly would have done. I mean, we're not stupid. We understand the impact of things like this on our city. When the opioid clinic was trying to go in, I was in here making comments, probably two or three times to assist people within the city and ourselves to not have that come in. So believe me, we know what's important to us and what isn't important and we would never notify. Not one of us. And I today, because I've got different ownership in that property, have received three notifications of this hearing. So I don't know what the process was back then. I have no idea if it was a screw up or what, but I can't find anybody that will admit that they got a notice. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Carter. Through the chair. Uh, the city council. You know, is there a planning commission? Uh, with their planning commission, did I miss them? In 2020? Yeah. In the 2018. I believe is when 2018 is when it came in front of the planning commission and then it was voted on by the council in 2020 2018 was the adoption of the downtown core in 2020 the applicants made an application for the same Request it went to the commission and then to the city council in 2020 and Let me give you context for why I'm asking this. As I believe one of our conversations at every planning commission meeting is, was this noticed? Okay, so that's always been a really important piece. I mean, it's a pretty heavy burden to expect for the owners to read the specific plan, but I am just curious. I know you have different owners who could have changes, but I was just wondering if anyone preferred back to the noticing of that plan. Yes, in 2018, we did notice, yes. Thank you. I have a quick question for staff. So my HWA complexes within like basically its own mini special district, I've came over what it's called, but if they have their own mini zoning within that, when this was built, was that how this condo, or commercial condo complex was orchestrated, and then we overlayed on top of that or pulled them into the downtown specific corridor? My understanding is that in 1980s, 7980s, that's when the project was built as an office condominium. In 1985 the city proposed this first street specific client and this development was included in the specific client and at the time the project site is included in development area 3 I believe and development area 3 allows commercial uses. So that includes other type of commercial uses other than offices. And then in 2018, the city absorbed the side into the downtown core specific plan. And at that time, there's no difference between what's allowable in the first year to sit in and the downtown court with exception of the residential component. This was in a 2018 issue this. It was. Yeah. Are condo complexes permitted in the city today? As a new development. Yes, depending on the zoning. Any other questions or public comments, Vera? Share their none. Thank you you. No, there are public comments. I will close the public hearing. Bring the item back to the commission for deliberation. Is anybody like to kick I'll just say, whereas I just say, where as I understand the frustration the applicant has and I'm going to appreciate their struggle. I don't see anything different than 2020 here. I'm not in favor of spot zoning. I'm not in favor of exceptions to the specific plan. So I guess I'm looking to you guys to see if there's some solid foundation. I'm not thinking about here that I should reconsider. But as we sit right now, I have a hard time supporting this and giving a recommendation to approve it. So again, I want to ensure that I am understanding this correctly because it's, it's an amendment for now, but if there were to be changes or a sale in that building, it could be redeveloped as mixed use. But it would have to come back to the city as my understanding. So why would we put that on the property or the future property owners? Yeah. you know, this is part of a downtown specific plan. I think that we put these specific plans in place for a purpose. If we start creating Swiss cheese with exceptions, then why are we even bothering to that's the reason why I think that's the reason why I think that's the reason why I think that's the reason why I think that's the reason why I think that's the reason why I think that's the reason why I think that's the reason why I think that's the reason why I think that's that are recommended. In addition, this is exactly why we have CCNRs. The CCNRs are the mechanism in every condo association, whether it's residential or in owners association for office condo complex, which I'm a part of from my own business to address parking concerns as well as for enforcement land use. That's explicitly why they're there. So I'm against this for all the reasons where we're swiss changing a specific plan that's more of a high-level policy document and we can't offload one association's enforcement burden on the city. That's just not fair. Now I'm open to talking to a policy issue with having a sign off from the owners association or any future, maybe, land use changes or business licenses. That's fine. That tends to get owners for those, and more hurdles for business licenses. In addition, uh, boy, it escapes me now. Yeah, but I'll probably come back to me, but, um, yeah, those are my thoughts for now. Oh, oh, sorry. And for the applicant, look, if you, if you'd like to bring this back, I think we're willing to entertain that. But again, I at this point, I can't tell if it's just yourself or two owners or 40 owners, you know, to make such a drastic change to the permitted uses for that property, you know, I need some conviction and some and, and you know, at least a few people will show up to the public hearing to reconsider this. So I would encourage you to gather those signatures and confirmation that this owner association wants to make that big of a drags to change and frankly a limitation on their on their on their rights as as property owners. That that was my final thought. Thank you. Other comment portion has been closed at this point. So we're going to keep it on the commission deliberation. Chair, put that Mason. Listen, I am educating myself as I go along. I just want to be really clear. These this plan was in place in 1985. This specific plan with the downtown core was adopted in 2018. The first street specific plan was adopted in 1985. Okay. So then in 2018 and we noticed the folks and we can work with the association to, or they can work on business license approval, right? So I think what I'm asking is what can we do to prevent changing doing the spot zoning as it were, that they're immediate concerns and I agree. I think a bank is going to have people pulling up and going and meeting and that's I consider banks retail. So I'm just, this isn't making sense to me as it is. As long as there's a way to assist, we want to be business friendly. We don't want to to make all the owners miserable, but we also would be moving heaven and earth to make this and whoever you're representing change it. Through to chair, I wouldn't categorize this as a spot zoning because the site is still zone as a downtown core commercial. What is being requested is the limitation on the type of commercial uses. In this case, the limitation is for office only. I hope that makes sense. It definitely doesn't, only because to the point of the, the uses listed, those are not office only unless we are not inviting or allowing the general public to come into a bank, a dental office. I think of, I guess is there an operational definition of offices. Sure, under the city of doesn't code. General office professional office include dental office attorneys. Thanks. Thanks. I believe it's included as part of the office. Staff is checking. Yeah, it's good. So generally professional offices. So I just think it's important what staff's perspective is that this is not spot zoning. This is not a major change, but if the building were to sell and it wanted needed to be redeveloped, that it could be redeveloped to the downtown for a specific plan and the first street specific plan as it was. Yes, at the time of redevelopment, then we would need to come back to the commission and council to remove the exception. Okay. And so it was at what if it's a full remodel. Remodel as in expanding, I mean, I guess it would have to go through the city if we were going to expand office buildings or maybe knock down some walls, There's some consolidation for larger spaces. As long as the TI, the tenant improvements, the remodel fits within the definition of an office and they're meeting the development standards, then that would be allowable. All right. Thank you. Through the chair, I do want to clarify one question just in them and this is an interesting thought experiment frankly. So we're limiting the There's actually no office category in the down-tech commercial core specific plan. It's all called services. But are we We're limiting the permitting uses related to commercial uses only So for example, we have have a section called, section five is residential standards. Under DA3, mixed-use residential and live work are allowable uses, obviously it's redeveloped. Are we limiting those uses as well or eliminating those potential uses? So the way the Dunflin Core is set up is that we are allowing the underlaying commercial zones to continue. And there is a specific section under the downtown core where it regulates commercial uses. However, should property owners want it to develop residential use, then they need to go to the next section, which is section four, I believe, that's where the development standards for a mix use is included within the Delta Core-specific plan. Okay, and so this is an affecting section four, this is just expecting the commercial section. That's great. And it's also not affecting the parking standards. So long as those partner are complying with the the the proof and the premium land use parking standard. Okay. Great. I do have for you the definition of general office. We actually have general office definitions and professional office definitions. The general office definition means an office for the conduct of any of the following uses or uses or uses determined by the community development director and or planning commission to be similar. It would include accountants advertising agency contractors and building consultants drafting economic consultants, escrow, public utility office, not including corporate yards, real estate and real estate offices. And then if you allow me a moment to scroll down to professional office, thank you Raymond. Professional office means an office for the conduct of any of the following uses or uses determined by the Community Development Director and Planning Commission to be similar. Architect Attorney, Chiropractor, Dentist, Designer, Doctor, Draftsman, Engineer, Land Planner. Thank you. Orthomatologist or optometrist. Sorry, I couldn't see with my eyes on that one. He did art at it. Pediatrist, thank you. Surveyor's physician surgeons and any other license or state California practice healing arts, including clinics for outpatients only. Thank you. So our definition and professional office effectively includes also medical office. Correct. Medical office as a general rule requires higher parking ratios, right? Typically it's five to one, five per, five per thousand. Is that fair to say? I think our code says that above 4,000, then they go to the next ratio. If I'm not mistaken. I had that open previously, let me scroll back to that one. We do office, general office is 4,000. We do have a different one from medical. And if you give me a moment, I will pull that for you. So for general office administrative and corporate under our code, it's one space for every every 250 square feet for the first 25,000 square feet. And then anything beyond the 25,000 would be part would be the ratio would be one per 300 square feet of general floor area. that's for office administrative. Now for medical or dental offices, that's one space for 250 for the first 4,000 square feet and anything excess of that would be six spaces for For each one thousand square feet. Okay, so the average is out to about five perth, you know I guess you could start with five per thousand because there is a dentist office there right now and I think it's fair it's fair to characterize that medical office tends to park higher than general office. So I would even argue that this this proposed amendments not going to affect it's not going to make the parking issues better in the in the in this in this property because as you as Commissioner Mason mentioned, we're becoming a city of dentist office. So that's going to be a continued use. That's going to be actively going in there. I would imagine based upon this through the chair. Also, I wanted to clarify earlier as far as the process of business life since any any use that is expanding beyond the the the use that is currently at that space, we do ask for any verification documents, for example, parking and also letters of operation to ensure that they are either if they're expanding, we require that parking parking summary to ensure that it's not expanding whatever, or intensifying the parking on site. That makes sense. Yeah, but we have relatively lenient parking standards pursuing to the DCCSP, the Downtown Commissioner Corps. There are parking exceptions under the Downtown Corps that an applicant can explore as the in-loop parking program and amongst other ones that if there is a deficiency in parking the applicant can we do instruct them they can explore those out. I guess as I recall the parking ratios required the data technical misrecord specific plan were a little bit lower or more lenient because it was supposed to be it's a more walkable community which is explicitly why the CCNRs are important and the the the authority to form their own parking program is exactly why we have the CCNRs that's that's a process my HOA went through it was painful but we implemented a parking program in a decal system that's what we looked with that for the past 10 years. Any other comments? Personally, do you have comments? I was going to say I have a really hard time on this one because I'm sympathetic. I know that we're trying to revitalize first street and I know that enforcing CCNRs are expensive, but we do have a lot of associations with CCNRs in the city. And as a city being pulled in as Judge on CCNRs, it gets a little challenging. But I know that that also is an increased expense that is not anticipated for business owners. So those are my comments. Chair Patel, I'm sorry. I just was going to say I think based on all the context that was provided and the answers to your last, the last two questions about parking. I would support staff's recommendations at this point and I appreciate the patients that you've taken to walk us through this. So it doesn't sound like we're moving heaven and earth. We are being business friendly and accommodating to an unfortunate situation for the owners. I do agree that if I am open to the requests that you see more people represented who want this, but I think we're basically not gonna be approving business licenses for anyone that is going to be retail or demanding a lot of parking, but we could still redevelop the area. So again, long way of saying I'm in support of this. Is that a motion? That's a motion for me. Yes, I will make that a motion. And I will second it. So in the other comments or we can do a roll call vote. Wait, I would like. Sorry to crosstalk, but you're in support of the motion because we still we would allow. Community development and business licensing to enforce the zoning of the CCNRs? Let me restate that. We would not require the city to enforce that, but through the application process, I know, again, as a small business owner, I know what you have to go through, sign off, and to get approval. It's just checking off the list, and if this becomes an ordinance, It's just, it's not. It's not, it's not enforcing CCNRs. It's enforcing the ordinance. That's how I understand it. But to be clear, this, this does create an interesting precedent where one, not not even one zone in DA3 or, or in, in the Dan Tech commercial core specific plan, it's one property owner. One individual is affecting and and and putting a very limited scope on the zoning. What's to preclude other other business owners for pursuing or property or pursuing those limitations on their on their on their property. I am concerned that this limitation does impact the economic opportunities for those condominium owners. And if they, I would wanna hear from all, basically all of them, unanimous approval, that they wanna limit their land use opportunities to these four, which seem the almost randomly selected land uses uses. I totally agree. And I feel like, you know, I know staff said this is not spot zoning, but I'm really struggling with the fact this is an exception that's very limited to a very small group of people in a very small definition. And there's one person here from the 40 people at own that's speaking up. I mean that's so here my comments again not to I appreciate the the context that you're sharing of and you have more experience in this area. I'm more of an aesthetic person. Okay, so my perception is that when we did this downtown core specific plan and I'm not throwing anyone in from the city under the bus is we did not do enough diligence at the time to understand if I look at these pictures if I and I drove by a Wellington plaza, it's an office building. And I'm going to compare it to Larwin Square where I've got an office building on one side and I've got retail on the other and they're appropriately parked I believe but it's a long way of saying this is this is an exception that doesn't change the zoning it just changes who can go in there now because it's really limited parking. It's my assumption of what I'm hearing and I would think that the owner. Shouldn't that be addressed to the CC and ours and not through the city process because this the process is what the future of the city's going to be and where it moves to in the future. or not, it's not to reinforce somebody's current zoning in my opinion. It's, this isn't addressing parking. This is addressing. moves to in the future, not to reinforce somebody's current zoning in my opinion. And it's, this isn't addressing parking. This is addressing specific permitted land uses. The parking issue is still going to be an issue. I have a wave. I think that's pretty solid evidence for that because we're not changing the parking racial requirements. Yeah. And I think going to the point that there's 39 other owners of that building, if this, I am taking this gentleman at face value and also the work of staff that he is representing the owners of the building. Again, nothing personal. Just based on what I've heard today. They could always appeal. And what is the appeal process? The appeal process is with attendees. Attendees. So any commercial condo business owner in the Wellington Plaza that does not agree with however this commission decides, however it is, is able to appeal within 10 days. This is a recommendation. I should, yeah, I should clarify that it is a recommendation to the council. Yeah, personally, I think I'm also taking a face value. Mr Carter is a president of this association in theory. He and I'm sure it's in the CCR that he has elected by the commercial commercial condo owners. And as someone who's trying to be proiness in the city of Tustin, if this is the well of the majority of the owners of Wellington Plaza, I think that I want to have some a little bit of flexibility for a business owner to be able to do what they want, whether it's to eliminate some uses, it seems strange, because I personally I think it'd be more more advantageous to a Mender CCNRs to adopt what the city has proposed. Like I said I don't see this as beneficial but if that is the will of this business owner I want to be a pro business friendly and that's how I'm seeing it. This is limiting business owners for example one owner wanted a in there. And now this is going to preclude any future salon uses. No, I agree. I don't think this is a good idea. But I think if it's the, I don't think it's a good idea for the Wellington Plaza. But I think if it is the will of Wellington Plaza to do so, I want to respect the business owner to be able to do what they choose. But I think that's not the hypothetical present here, hypothetical. You're talking about would require all those owners to come out and say that and say we as a like Commissioner Gucci was saying they would all show up here or they would all appeal and and go to the city council and say no we do want this this is now this is a mistake, but that's a different story. This is, I agree with Commissioner Gucci. What about the salon owner? I'd like to hear from the salon owner or anybody else who has a use there currently that what decision would they like to see? And last time this is brought before the commission and the council was five years ago, I assume the clause association president Mr. Carter has been reelected since then. Yes. And I would assume that the other condo association owners had they they knew that he tried to do that five years ago. And if they had a huge issue with that, they probably would have removed him from the presidential role of the association. So that's a lot of assumptions I know, but yeah, that's a lot of assumptions. And having been part of office owner association myself, I served on one. It's very absentee. You know, again, this is a pretty major decision. I would agree with Commissioner Mello and I'm'm a Paul Giske, a development director, justina, but I do think this is spot zoning, the definition of spot zoning, because we're many in a specific plan. Yeah, it just sounds like an exception, but a specific plan is a zoning document. It's a pretty major land use change. And this is a very limiting, and this is. I'm almost I can't even think of an exception like this. Maybe except for not to get towing the weeds, but for like Edward's life science and Irvine in the IBC. But this is very limiting. And if we were going to move forward with this or support this again, I think we got to hear from those 40 owners and actually have a bona modified, you know, affidavit or notice documents saying they want to change this because yeah. Again, I think we got to hear from those 40 owners and actually have a bona fide, you know, affidavit or an owner rights document saying they want to change this because taking the word of one person to make this drastic change is not the proper way to do this, in my opinion. And the motion before us is not to make a recommendation to City Council. This is a City Council decision. Yeah. Yeah. So I mean, that's a perspective I'm looking at this from. What is our recommendation to the City Council? And to be candid, I'm trying to, the audience questions or comments that put that on the record in that context. And I'll also provide input to the applicant. If you would like to pursue this, I think it's, it, it, it behooves you to get that,, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it Commissioner Higuichi. May. Chair votes have me since. I and chair Delta. I. Motion does not pass. two, two, one. And with that, we will open it up for other motions. And we can defer to Michael. I believe some of our options are approved and I continue. Can we issue a recommendation of no support or? through the chair. So if there have any questions, please do. I would like to ask you a condition of. No support. Or. Through the chair. So if there were an alternate alternative motion that the commission wants to consider, you're free to do that. If the commission. Feels that they've considered this to the extent they'd like to tonight. In essence, we will report up to City Council of, you know, the emotion was made that did not vary. So no action was taken by the commission to make an affirmative recommendation. And then the council will go from there in terms of what they would like to do with the proposal. So it's going to the council regardless whether or not it just has our approval disapproval. If it has our disapproval, does it still go to the council? Yes, they would be made aware of your recommendation to deny the proposal. Understood. So it's going to regard this whether we approve, disapproved, or stuck. And different. All right. Well, no other motions on the table, then I think we will call it a day on this vote. And we will do we have so do we need to make a motion of no motion? How do we get out of public here in the vote? No further action is required. Staff will go ahead and coordinate with the applicant to let them know in the matter will go up to council for consideration. Well. With that, we will move on to our next item. Item number four, continuation requests for compass at Red Hill Development proposal at 1 3751 and 1 3 4 1 Red Hill out Do I have a motion to continue this item until the planning commission meeting of May 13th? I'll make the motion I'll second Thank you We are going to have a roll call vote in the continuation. Commissioner Mello. Aye. Commissioner Higuichi. Chair Pro Temason. Aye. And Chair Douthet. Aye. Motion passes 401. Thank you. Sure. Come back May 13th. With that, we will move on to regular business, which we have now. And with that, we'll move on to other business. Thank you, Chair Dotthead. I have a couple items that I would like to report to the commission. First is the, we have just hired a new deputy director of Economic Development. His name is Valentin Flores, so he will be helping me with anything related to economic development. He came from the city of Bell and city of Downey with a lot of experience in business retention and business as a traction. So we're looking forward to have Valentin, we call him Bell to join our team. His first day will be next week, next Tuesday. The other item that I would like to mention to the commission is the historic preservation week of 2025. So it's going to happen on May 12th through the 19th. Similar to last year, we will have guided tour. This year we'll have movie night. And then there will be many other activities that will be done throughout the week. So please mark your calendar for that. And I believe that is all I have to report out to you if I could through the chair that the ODS was approved by the City Council. So that will be put into effect here roughly within 30 days from April 1st and that the development agreement amendment for the Jessup, if you recall, you reviewed, that was approved as well. So there will be a reimbursement of funds for the fees paid, for a lodging fees. So I want to report out those determinations by Council. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any zone administrator, meetings? Very good. Plenty of commission comments and reports. Start up with Commissioner Higavitch. I'd like to report that staff may miss the biggest report that the CDBG strategic plan was approved by council as well. Thanks to Adrian. So kudos to you Adrian. Great. meeting. I don't have anything. Thank you. Nothing for me. I just want to mention that the townhomes under development on the corner of Al Camino and Newport is very impressive. I've had some people ask if they're modular and I said no, they watching them do their framing so it's pretty impressive. And other than that, I have no other comments. And with that, the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, May 13, 2025. See you all then.