We'll leave us in the questions. Sure. Ready to begin. I would like to lead us to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic, which stands one nation under God in the visible liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Can we have roll call? Vice Chair Cameron Carrizollas. Present. Commissioner Aaron Todd. Here. Commissioner Ashley Connolly. Present. Commissioner Derek Farage. Here. Perfect. Moving down to item four, oral communication. This is the opportunity for us to present on comments not related agenda items. It doesn't look like we have any tonight. So moving on to item 5, consent calendar, we're going to vote on these consent items separately. Michael, I don't know if you want to elaborate. Sure, just as a quick explanatory note, because we had two commissioners that were not on the planning commission at the time of the October 2024 planning commission meeting. I understand, watch the meetings for the October event, and maybe if they could just confirm for the record that they've watched those before they vote on the minutes. Yes, I watched it. Okay. Yes, I can confirm I watched. Okay. Thank you both. That's necessary to have a quorum of the Planning Commission for the minutes vote. And so we wouldn't have that otherwise. Thank you both. Perfect. All right. Voting first on item 5A. I'll make a motion to approve item 5A. That was second. I'll second. All in favor? Aye. All right, passes for all. Item 5B, this is the March Planning Commission regular meeting minutes. I have a motion. I'll make a motion to approve. A second. I'll second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. All right, passes. 4-0. Moving on to item 6. Public hearing 6-A. Consideration of Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment 24-02. And zoning change 24-01 to implement 2021 to 2029 housing element actions 3-1 and multifamily growing objective design standards. At this time we will have staff presentation. Okay, thank you Chair and Planning Commission and City of Fillmore. I'll be presenting this item. This is the housing element actions which you heard at the last Planning Commission meeting. And we got some your comments at the last meeting and we incorporated those to the extent we could into the latest zoning ordinance text amendment and I just would like to reiterate that This has been a lengthy process. I believe only seen it now for the second time It's been in the works since 2021 and We are urgently needing to get it through to city council and then off to the state HCD so they can certify our housing element. And get us out of this constraint with builders remedy and those kinds of things. I have talked with HCD, they chicken with us periodically to ask status. So they are definitely tracking it. So tonight we're looking for an action to move this forward either way. Okay, so I'll just give you a brief summary. Again, this is the housing element actions. The housing element was reviewed by this body and through City Council numerous times. It's been posted on the website for public review. It's been through several reviews with the State HCD department and it was conditionally certified. So long as we complete some of the rezone actions. Rezone Action 3-1 is to create the RMH2 zone and that's in the neighborhoods just south of here along the highway, between Santa Clara Street and SR126. And action three-two is to create and housing overlay zone. We'll get into those in more detail. This is an overall map. The small pink properties are the overlay zone and the small blue properties are the RMH2 zone. Zooming in a little more on the RMH2 zone, you can see those locations there just south of City Hall on either side of Central. The RMH2 zone is to create a higher density housing product in this area. It's mostly commercial highway now and some of the property owners in there who are residents who have single family homes are in a nonconforming status and have a hard time upgrading or remodeling or rebuilding their homes and this ordinance would render them legal basically it would allow them the ability to do ordinary remodels and rebuilds and ADUs and everything else that you would normally get in a residential zone being that it's commercial highway we're limiting those constraints under the zoning all your ordinary uses that are allowed in residential zones, such as schools and churches, those things would also apply here. Summarized in red. So this is the land use table, and this is in our ordinance. So all of the ones that are in black, but for the H.O. zone are existing, and the RPD MH2 is the subject at the moment. So those are some of the design standards, and we made a few changes per the last discussion and in doing some of the massing analysis, it was concerned about the aesthetics and the massing and how that would affect the character of the residential neighborhood. So we could do a 15 foot front setback and that would also be consistent with the Mountain View Apartments project constructed by many mansions that you see out there. So I looked at some of their parameters and saw that these properties would allow the same type of development and so we're able to go to 15 feet and still make those densities. So that allowed a little bit of relief. We also added, you can see they're more involved is the five foot additional setback for the third story. So structures would set back and that allows for again a reduction in the massing and it also allows for fire access. This is primarily a safety issue. The fire chief would like to have the ability to lean a ladder up and get on the second floor, be able to stand on the second floor and then hoist another ladder up to get up on the roof of the third floor. So that allows for those types of dimensions. And again, the 10 foot additional on the third story provides some relief to neighboring properties. Then continuing down, these are some of the pre-existing changes. And I also wanted to note, it's not in red, but it's in bold. We could go to a 35 foot instead of 40. Many mansions is just under 35 feet. So we figure it works. Everybody seems to like that product. So if the commission would like that as a mitigating factor on some of the massing, we could do a 35 foot story versus a 40 foot story. The 40 feet would still apply the residential high. And then the second main component of tonight's hearing is action 3-2, which is the overlay zone. And the overlay zone was identified through the overlay zone identification process. There were properties throughout the city that have been vacant for many, many years and underutilized to some degree. And so the housing element identified those opportunities to have more housing or allow more opportunities for housing developers. And those will allow a density of up to 24 units per acre. Those properties are identified here. They're six total. So this one's up off B Street between second and third street. This is on Cessby Avenue. And finally, this cluster here is off C Street in River. There are three parcels there. The overlay zone would still have the underlying zoning, so it would not replace the existing zoning. It would allow developers an opportunity to do residential, should they not want to do the pre-existing zoning. Since we haven't had anything under the pre-existing zoning in ever, this allows more opportunity. The HO, the Housing Overlay standards are listed there and read to the right. And you can see here the 24 units per acre density. And again, we applied those mitigating factors to the third story to give it additional 5 feet to step back. So that's in the HO zone. And again, the seeing is how 35 feet works and still allows for three story. We would apply that same here. It's not bold, but that's second line down under the max main building structure height. And if you can see my cursor. That same standard could be applied here. Objective standards. So why do we do objective standards? Because it takes the guesswork out of housing development. And with the housing shortage that the states identified, they're enacting state laws on routinely to strip away some of the local regulations and make it easier for developers or at least make it more predictable in terms of what you're going to get from city review. So we have something called objective design standards that a developer could know up front. What types of standards are going to be applied to their project and that helps them pencil it out and see if they'll get the kind of return that they need for the money and it takes the guesswork out and it speeds up the process. So while we have the new zoning to allow more residential uses, we also wanted to make sure that we have sufficient objective standards so that we can apply some standards as they come in to make sure we're still upholding the city's character and what seems to work here. So that's why we went about doing objective standards at the same time as these re-zones. So the objective design standards would go into the Filmarm Municipal Code. It's a new section, the 6.04, 0.041A. And it establishes those standards to regulate the intensity, the style, the layout, materials, landscaping, and overall just try to maintain the city's character in some of the things that the city of Fillmore has voiced as the style and design features that they would like to see. They're drawn from pre-existing approved documents as well as pre-approved projects, and also looking at whether cities have done throughout Southern California to adopt the same objective design standards. The objective design standards are written in detail after this slide, but I just wanted to get to the recommendations. Tonight's recommendation is to conduct the public hearing. Adopt planning commission resolution 251058, recommending City Council approve zoning ordinance amendment 24-02 and zone change 24-01, implementing the 2021-29 housing element action 3-1 and 3-2 to change the zone designation of the parcels and adopt development standards specific to the residential development within these zones. Multifamily residential development objective design standards added to the Fillmore Municipal Code, Multifamily Dwelling Objective Design Standards and Finding of Exemption from Sequa. I just also wanted to note that there were comments made to staff about some of the objective design standards. And so I've highlighted some of those here on access and parking. We added the bicycle parking. It's kind of a green building code type of a requirement. So it offers alternative modes of transportation. We clarified that the single family homes would still have the minimum two car garage so it should help take the parking off the street. we applied the decorative pavers, a strip of decorative primary bill pavers could go in the highly loaded developments along the rear. That would delineate a pedestrian path as well as a place where you could park your trash cans and also allow for water to be percolated into the ground. Some of the other things I wanted to just point out when it comes to sort of the efficiency of the site, we have a robust requirement for shade trees, walkability connectivity to the pedestrian pathways on an offsite, We'll comply with the water efficiency requirements. And most of the water runoff would be able to be handled on site. And those are some of the, just the main highlights of what we changed in the objective design center. It's based on the last discussion. And I'd be happy to go over those or take any feedback from you as you discuss the project. I'll leave you with the recommendations again on screen. Thank you. Any questions? I've got one that I can think of for now, regarding the landscape, does this city require that any point or during construction or after the trees are planted a warranty to where if a tree dies because of lack of care or anything that it is to be replaced within a certain timeline? And the reason I ask is because over on Mountain View trees have perished. They've replaced them since but it took about five years to do. So I'm just curious if that is something that we could look at. If there's not adding some type of verbiage to ensure that the looks stay as if it was day one. Yeah, on the public, on the public right of way street trees, they do come with a warranty. Is it one year? Yeah, it's one year warranty. And we have a typical design standard for those. So. Street trees. They do come with a warranty. Is it one year? Yeah, it's one year warranty and we have a typical design standard for those. So hopefully through our efforts on Mountain View and then down in the bridges. We monitor for the health of the tree. Is that standard for one year or is it standard for every project. So yes, they have a warranty, but they also have a bond. So when they die, we call the bond and we have them replaced. The trees and question that you're discussing on Mountain View, they died probably about a year after they were planted. So we missed that opportunity because they didn't die earlier, but anyway, they're to answer your question. Yes, we have a bond to replace trees within a year. Okay. Paid for by the developer. Okay, I just want to make sure that when stuff like this starts to come up that we ensure and keep the integrity of the project looking as if it's continuous instead of something slacking off but focus is added somewhere else. Okay, thank you. Yep. Yeah. Oh, so this document, is it just, you changed the single family dwelling. Yes. And then we made an additional change that didn't make it into the exhibit A, but it is written in the staff report. There was a discussion about, as I mentioned, the desire for homeowners to be able to make improvements to the homes without having to come up to code with everything. And so one of the ways that we address that is adding a footnote to the land use table. So under section L, single family dwelling, the single family dwelling is permitted. And then the footnote one, if you look on the last page of the handout, that highlighted section just puts it in plain English to make it clear because if you were having questions, we assume maybe others would at the same time. So I just wanted to add that into the table. So it's easily referenced. And it basically says that if you're legally constructed, so a home that was constructed pre the codes, you can go ahead and continue to maintain that use and you can rebuild it, expand by 150 feet and rebuild within those same dimensions and not have to come up to the requirements of setbacks and things like that. So long as the fire department's okay, we don't wanna let a fire hazard go by. So that's just the one caveat there that we will have a fire department take a look at it and just make sure they're okay with that, with what's existing. And can you remind me, sir, what is the DE staff for in this? Oh, DEs are for development permits. Those are discretionary action and C's are all are conditional use permits those are also discretionary actions permitted means it's ministerial Yeah, so I have some other questions on the builders remedy issue that we talked about last time where the state law allows for developers to bypass our zoning and build low or lower income housing. Is the city, is that happening right now? Is that because we're not fully approved by HCD? Is that this time period only? Yes. Okay. I believe a developer could seek the builder's remedy to propose any kind of a development because the housing element hasn't been officially adopted. Okay, even though it's been tentatively adopted. You know it's been conditional. Conditionally certified. It's been conditionally certified, but it's not certified. Okay. So it's like, that's an urgent issue. So it's an, yeah, that's a primary urgent issue. Are there any builders, normally projects that are coming through to you right now? We have not had any come to light. No, but it is posted on the state website now. They post the status of cities. So I think the development community is learning where to look for these kinds of things. Because the state's definitely broadcasting. Who's in complainant and who isn't? And so some of the sophisticated developers out there might try to take advantage. Yeah. OK. Is there anything else that makes this urgent other than what we just talked about? Is there some funding or something that we're not going to get if we don't approve it by a certain deadline? I believe there are low income housing projects out there who are applying for funding and can't get the funding if the city doesn't have a certified housing element. Oh, okay. Yeah, that's one of the criteria, I guess, for this particular money. But the city is not like not going to get money from the state or something or there's not some consequence, not like a date. Like if you don't do it by X date, you're going to this consequence. No, the city itself would not lose out on any monies from the state at this point. OK. But it would, the only thing that would happen is a low-income housing developer who would give us housing numbers to meet our rena might not be able to come forward. So our objective, of course, is to meet our rena. So we wouldn't show that we're adding those numbers. So it would, for a developer to come in with the money and help us meet our numbers, that's the advantage. Okay. If I could add real quickly to Brian's answer, I have a section of a letter that was sent by HCD to another city that kind of explains the importance of compliance with housing. I'm not gonna say the name of the city of the specific weather pet. I can read that and sort of from each of these perspectives. That might help answer that question. So the section of this particular letter is called consequences of lack of compliance with state housing element law. Housing availability is a critical issue with statewide implications and most housing decisions occur at the local level. Housing elements are essential to developing a blue pin for growth and a vital tool to address California's prolonged housing crisis. Such state law has established clear penalties for local jurisdictions that failed to comply with state housing element law. First, noncompliance will result in eligibility or delay in receiving state funds that require a compliant housing element as a prerequisite, including but not limited to the following. And then there's a list of five different programs that provide for state funding. Second jurisdictions that do not meet their housing element requirements may face additional financial and legal ramifications. HCD may notify the California Office of the Attorney General, which may bring suit for violations of state housing element law. Further statutes provide for court imposed penalties for persistent noncompliance, including financial penalties. It explains the government code section establishes minimum fine of $10,000 per month and up to $100,000 per month. If a jurisdiction continues to remain on comply in a court can multiply the penalties up to a factor of six. Other potential ramifications could include the loss of local land use authority to a court appointed agent. So that's obvious that second paragraph then produced kind of like a worst case scenario when I've not heard that print. But anyway that's something that HCD is putting in writing to warn others. To warn. So question, though. What, how late was this city? When was this warning issued? I don't know in particular. This particular letter was from 2022. And I'm not sure what their housing element time period was but this is for the film or it's the 2021, the period started in 2021. So we're like four years. Yeah, so that's the end. and practically speaking it's kind of getting close to when the next like housing development process like a preparation is going to start and then another practical consequence the city wants to stay on eight-year cycles and not have the HDD force that to be a shorter cycle. Oh, so did the city's having to do this every four years instead of every eight years? So that sort of like- Excuse me if I can just interject. Please note, the city of Fillmore submitted housing element drafts to HCD during this process about four or five times. So they would have it six to eight months and then come back with a laundry list of corrections. Okay. So it wasn't like we just turned it in. Right, right, right. We've been turning it in since 2021 or early or 2018 or 19. And this is common. This is common for every single city. And we are late, but know this, we're done with the housing element. Right. You're reviewing a housing housing program. After these housing programs, we have more to come to you until 2020-29. And we're already starting the next housing element cycle right now. Okay. So I guess also the motion or decisions made tonight, they have to incorporate both the zone change and the zone, the actual language and the objective standards. They both have to be approved or denied or whatever. They have to go together. Okay. And then the sequel exemption, that's only for the zone change. I think Derek might have asked this last time, but I just want to confirm that. Correct. Okay. And then since, you know, this, we talked about this landmark survey thing last time, you know, I guess CEQA, I just, I did some research into it. I just want you to confirm that officially designated landmark, it doesn't need to be an officially designated landmark to be considered historically significant under sequel. And I guess anything constructed before, you know, constructed over 50 years ago, so 1975 would be eligible potentially and have to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis if there's any discretionary approval involved. So I guess that's my question. I would have to be individually because our survey doesn't even, I mean our survey goes up to the 1930s because it was done 42 years ago. So we wouldn't have knowledge of what's there unless it's done case by case, right? Oh, something that's been constructed since that survey was done? Like, yeah, and assessed in terms of like the historical significance because that survey only captures, I mean, at that point, saying something was historical meant that it was built before the 30s. But now it's before, that's in 1975, for CEQA. Okay, but I believe those studies looked at all of the homes regardless of that criteria for 45 years. And when they did in 83, they weren't differentiating between something being born, being built pre-1930 versus later. I think they identified the ones in the study, but they did look at the whole neighborhood. But I mean, it's, it's wouldn't be, I mean, I don't think you could use that survey for anything because it's 42 years old. The survey is old, yeah, the construction of the neighborhoods has not changed. To my knowledge, there hasn't been any redevelopment of the home so that what you see today is pretty close to what was in those studies. Right, but I mean those studies are kind of outdated. The studies are outdated. I would have the full scope of what's there now, like even if them, I'm saying even like the things that were designated before necessarily are not, they may not be anymore because people have changed the materials, it doesn't have that historical integrity anymore. So then that would change to be removed, for example, whereas something else that was built later that wasn't historically significant at that time, could be considered historically significant now, because 1975 is the threshold and not 1930. Yeah, but since 1975, we would have record of that. And we haven't evaluated the historical significance of anything built post 1975. There hasn't been anything constructed that I'm aware of. No, they're not in not in that area, but Ashley's really getting to, if in the future we have someone that wants to remodel, tear down, rebuild, Persequa, we would look at the historical significance of that, architecturally. And I think that's the point that she's trying to make. And when we do that, we would look at this survey that was done, and it's outdated survey. But that's not our only source. We would continue for the research. But I would caution you, I wouldn't rely upon CEQA because CEQA is evolving and changing every single year. So I don't know what two years from CEQA will do. There's a lot of exemptions that get thrown in there and then other things get added. But your point is there's an architectural integrity that we're trying trying to retain Yeah, and my question would be like because we don't have like a current survey We'd have to or you guys would have to It case by case do the research for that Project if there is one that has because I think it's only if it's discretionary approval too. It's not, if it's under the permitted section. But I just wanted to, I guess, confirm that that is the case. That's the case. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. If they come in with a ministerial change, most likely we wouldn't pick it up unless it was identified in a document somewhere. Uh-huh. But yes, SQL would only kick in if it's a discretionary project and then we would have to do a, we would do that to be a specific reason why we would do a study. Well, it would have to be done if it's over 50 years old, right? Right. So in that case, yes, we would look at it and evaluate. We could require the applicant to have an expert, you know, an architectural expert, take a preliminary look at it and then send a letter saying whether they have identified anything that could be historically significant and therefore require a more detailed study. You know, there could be that type of a dialogue that would happen. And then oftentimes, you know, if that's the only issue under CEQA, is the potential historic character, then they could produce a study, and then it could be incorporated into the remodel, whatever's recommended. Like some mitigated measures. Do the currently, and I'm asking because I'm new, the CEQA initial studies do they always come to planning commission? Not always. Okay. Yeah. Can we request that? You could. Yeah. Okay, and that would be in the later period. Yeah It's if it goes into like a negative declaration and on then then for sure. Yes Okay, a negative declaration saying that it's not impacting. Yeah, a negative declaration basically says there's no potential for a significant environmental impact and no mitigation measures are required. That's the only time it would come to us. A negative declaration. So, even could we see it at the initial studies of CEQA portion? We wouldn't bring it until the environmental document is prepared and the initial studies of CEQA portion. We wouldn't bring it until the environmental document is prepared and the initial study would be attached within the negative declaration. And that would all come to you as one package to adopt. We don't come with an initial study and distribute the initial study for everybody to review, to see if there's an issue. We go through that process of initial study along with analysis of all the rest of the project, and then it comes to you after the initial study and after the environmental documents prepared for the initial study. Okay, and it's not possible to see it sooner. No, it's not. Not really, no. It would be a publicly available type of document once it's prepared. I don't recall the section off the top of my head, but there's a Fillmore Municipal Code section where there's a table of types of projects that come to the Planning Commission. And so any of those types of projects that are being sent to the Planning Commission for review that have a Seagua action attached to the Seagua documents would all be coming with the final approval documents at that at that time. Okay. Yeah, it comes at that time and if if you were to review the environmental document and initial study and and bring up new issues and new concerns then we would have to go go, we would go back and reanalyze it or determine whether new studies are needed. So a negative declaration could be bumped up to a mitigated negative declaration. A mitigated negative declaration could be bumped up to an environmental impact report. Okay. Got it. Okay. Do put it simply, yes, you see the initial studies. Yes. You do. You see every one of them in every environmental document we bring before you. Okay. But not every project. Not every project. Not every project. It gets an environmental review at that end depth. Some of them are exempt. And okay. And we wouldn't be able to challenge the exemption. No. Okay. Okay. Those are all my questions. Commissioner? Yep. I just have a couple here. One for the overlaid properties for section three or action three-two. Has there been any interest from any party about developing those sites? There is, there are some developers have periodically, they come and ask about in all of these sites. Well, if you present those two right there, number nine and number 10 slide. Brian, would you don't know in the last two days on the number 10 slide, we have had a developer come forward to me. On this one? Yeah. I just haven't had a chance to speak with you about it. Yeah, and I've had to speak all the time. And I see that big field. I'm like, oh, that'd be a fantastic place for multi-family, potentially low-income or affordable housing. Yeah, it's very visible. I've probably in the past five years, I must have had half a dozen calls about it. Okay, yeah. Then just my last question. Just want to make sure and clarify that the standard objectives or the objective standards that we're approving here are just for these overlay areas. They're not city wide, but they're going to be just specific to the three-dash to action. No, the objective standards are for multi-family development. So it's citywide for multi-family. Yeah. Okay, so the change, so I'm just reading your recommendation here. The change in zone designation of identified parcels in adopt development standards specific to residential development within these zones. So it'll be for the MB or the RPDM H2 zones, which can be city wide. They're not going to be specific to just these three that have been identified in this? Yes, it's, yeah, and it goes on to say multifamily dwelling objective design standards. Okay. Yeah. Just want to clarification with that. Yes. So it applies to these zones, the HO and the RMH2 and any multifamily development, whether it be in a residential high or a residential medium. Okay, yep, perfect. Thank you. Any other questions? I have just one more on the third page of the packet that you handed out on the highlighted part of the legally constructed existing family dwellings in R-MH-2 zone. Yeah. Is that Burbage have anything to do with ADU? Where it talks about the expansion up to 150 square foot beyond the existing physical dimensions. Is that a way around? Yeah, no, that's the ADU is existing. So any of these residential lots could do an ADU under ADU law, not affected by this at all. But what you're seeing is the 150 feet is also what's in the ADU law. So if you're pre-existing structure, you can add on 150 square feet to that while you're remodeling. So it applies to illegally constructed primary house, you can add 150 feet. And that 150 feet is already in the ADU law, which is not affected tonight. Okay, so and just for clarification on that, if this expansion occurs, require city approval. Yes, okay. All right. Thank you. I think I need to use the mouse. Thank you. So I just want to, I guess my comments I want to preface with, I think that in my reading of the objective standards, I thought they were good and followable and in general I agree with everything in there. And as architect I would understand and be able to make something with that but there is one item that I wanted to point out and that's compatibility and I think Brian you know who to talk about a little a little bit with the 30 lowering it to 35 feet as the maximum height and then increasing the setback of the front yard to 15 feet but I just you know I took an example house like this house on Olive Street and I did a little sun study myself and I just want to talk a little bit about like height and massing in terms of compatibility. So let's say this is our subject house and this is all like oriented to north and actually geo located for our city and I actually modeled everything the street and the heights and everything. So if you see here you know at 6 a.m. this is at the winter solstice December 21st if you have have a bunch of houses that are about the same size, it's not really that different than if you had a multi-family dwelling next to you. This is what the 10-foot setback on the side yard and then the additional five feet at the third story, which is what the code calls for right now. You can see it's not that different, right? Like most of the site is in shade. Maybe the front part of the house and the site is in the sun. But once you get to noon, this is the scenario with all the little houses. You can see that the roofs are entirely in sun. And the majority of the site is also in sunlight but if you look here if you had a multi-family next to you now the situation is your entire lot is in shade and this is from noon basically onward so this is at 3 p.m. you can see that again the entire house and most of the sight is in shade. And I mean, what's so wrong with shade, right? Like, it's hot here. We... You can see that again the entire house and most of the site isn't shade and I mean what's so wrong with shade right like it's hot here. We we want to have shade We promote shade trees like we like this right but you know when your house isn't shade all day Basically and your whole lot isn't shade all day. It changes, you know your plants they can they can't survive. If your kids are playing outside, you know, during winter months it's cold, there's no sunlight, and then heating your house, all of a sudden becomes really expensive. And then on top of that, if you have solar panels or you're thinking about getting solar panels, forget it, because now you're south facing roof in this scenario. It's not viable anymore. So, you know, I, the reason I was asking these questions earlier about like, what's our deadline? What's the urgency? Like, do we have time for another one more round where, you know, I guess this would be tying into my motion that, you know, we come back one more round with some standards about compatibility in the scenario of a multi-family dwelling being built next to a single family residence because that's not a usual scenario. You wouldn't generally see that. They're right to each other. And I think there needs to be some special language that helps reinforce, you know, massing and set back compatibility to not harm, you know, structures that are existing or new, if it's a new house, right adjacent. So that's my comments on that. And then going back to the CEQA, so I don't know if everybody, I'm sure you guys all know, but I'm just going to say it again. So CEQA is a state law that requires public agencies to identify and disclose potential environmental impacts of their actions to avoid and mitigate those impacts if feasible. This includes impacts on cultural or historical resources. So the city right now is operating on a cultural heritage survey done when Ronald Reagan was president. It was done with a film camera and a typewriter before the internet was invented. So it's outdated. It's what I'm trying to say and most likely inaccurate. And I don't think it's common practice to use 42-year-old reports as a basis to make recommendations on. For For example, Fillmore High School. It wasn't in the 1983 survey, but it became eligible as a resource in 1994, and I think everyone would agree that that's something that we would want to protect. So basically, if there's no updated survey, each parcel, like we were talking about before in the rezoned area would need to be evaluated on a case by case basis for historic. There's no updated survey. Each parcel, like we were talking about before, in the rezoned area would need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for historic resource qualities, just to conform with SIKWA. And with that information in mind, I just wanna go to something that was on the staff report. There was a statement made on page 8. And it says it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the adoption of the zoning changes and amendments to the Fillmore Municipal Code, implementing the housing element would have a significant effect on the environment directly or indirectly. So for me, in this case, that sequa exemption, that states that there is no possibility of a significant effect is not consistent with sequa, as the zoning can affect, have an effect on historic resources. And since we have no idea if there are historic resources in the area because our report is outdated, I just find that statement to be false. But yeah, I mean my motion, I guess I should I make a motion now or should I wait? I think I'll keep continuing discussion. Okay. Commissioners. Here. Here. I mean, I'm always, if he when it comes to the larger buildings around single family locations, especially with the many mansions project where the neighbors next door literally saw the concrete pall right out their window. So I would agree that maybe one more round with this so we can get more discussion out and a little more awareness out to see what others think of it as well because I know where I live. We run into somewhat of this issue, but the winners, the lease kind of got me off, caught me off guard. So I'd like to look into it a little bit more before I can make a firm decision on that as well. And thank you for sharing that because it's good to see the comparison. I guess really my only concern is after the reading of that letter from the other city is it does sound like there could be financial penalties against the city. If not that, other developers who are looking to get grants to potentially build affordable housing, you know, HUD has a lot of those requirements that if you don't, if your city doesn't have X, Y, and Z or any type of matching funds and things like that, that they, they won't get those grades. So that would be a concern of mine for prolonging it. I'm torn with this, with the, the 40 foot as well. My only issue with that is because film were small or area of influence is diminishing with agriculture, not being able to be built on. Infilling for housing is kind of where our potential affordable housing would be. And going up is kind of where we have to think about. We can't expand as they did back in the the 50s, the 60s. Everybody's got a half acre of land. That's not economically feasible to put one piece of property on half an acre anymore. So building up, you can still get your 2,500, 3,000 square foot homes with multiple stories. But again with this it's like well right if I have solar panels would you know this house there goes goes $30,000, $40,000 that I just invested in my house. So again, I'm kind of toward, we're coming up on a deadline and prolonging, can't affect the city. So I would agree with you on that that I understand another round or continuing it for another month. I would question on the mass instead of the shadowing, what would it, how far of a setback would it take for no shadowing to occur on the house next to it? Right. I mean, that's the question. And I think there has to be a study done to show and I, and actually qualify the standards that we're approving. So I mean, I don't know the answer to that question. I mean right here I'm showing the 10-foot setback for this massing. Maybe if it was 15 feet it would make a difference. I also you know pulled up some... this is from Pasadena's code where they have multi-family. It's specifically this situation. Multi-family projects adjacent to single-family districts, and they have something called an encroachment plane where at every story you have to step back five feet. So you're basically channeling the light down. You know, it potentially could make a difference with how much sunlight your house could get. So I'm not advocating for prolonging it for months and months. I find issues with the CEQA analysis and I also find issues with the historical stuff, but I'm willing to move forward and approve this. I just wanna see one more round of compatibility, language incorporated, whether it's setbacks or stepbacks or you know something requiring shadow studies something like that. Could we make those recommendations and still order it on to? I think that correct. I think that would be the way to have those specific recommendations being incorporated into the recommendation to council so that it's moving for the critical piece relates that it's moving forward to city council and then city council can take that feedback and then it's letting council make the decision about HCD if they wanted to direct staff to make those changes to the ordinance or if they just wanted to adopt it as is direct staff to follow up on those sections of the code to incorporate those changes or maybe the decision would be to let it go. So I think what the Commissioner just described would be the way to do so it at least move forward but there's still a way to incorporate those recommendations. Rather than moving to continue the amount of time until next time. Correct. And reviewing it again and then approving it. Correct. In this particular case, there's a very unusual, I think, that I'd be pushing this heart that it go for the City Council for a legislative type of council decision, but there is a timing element with this. It's important. But there is a way to do that, I think, to get your comment. If that's the planning commission's consensus direction, those comments can be passed on to the City Council as part of the Planning Commission recommendations. So if we are able to also make recommendations beyond that, can we make a recommendation that the City Council consider doing another cultural heritage survey so each property doesn't have to be evaluated individually for CEQA? If that's appropriate for a part of it, I don't see how it fits in. If it's something that does fit in with this rezoning, then this would be the time to do it. I'm not sure if it does. Maybe it does and I'm just not following. Well, there were like, I highlighted last time that there were, I don't know, more than 10 of the parcels that were included in the 1983 survey. But basically, we've discussed that that's inaccurate and outdated because it's 42 years old and now things built after 1975 are considered historic and could potentially be assets under sequas. So that's the only reason. I mean, I think it's just waste of time and money for the staff to have to review each parcel individually instead of doing an overall survey that would bring light to what's historical and needs to be protected in addition to, you know, you wouldn't have to do sequa analysis for every parcel individually when the projects come up. So you might be saying so for council to consider the, you know, potential historical qualities of existing residences, including potentially through another cultural heritage, an updated survey. So it could just be at one sentence type of recommendation to counsel and then make and make the final decision. So it would be both that and the compatibility with between multifamily and single family. With the shading issue. With the shading issue. So set box and step box. Yeah. So that could be incorporated into the planning commission recommendation. So what it would prop the specific form that it might take is we'd probably add that that would be if the planning commission adopted voted to approve that what we would probably be doing then would be tweaking the language of the planning commission resolution which I will get in front of me. So I have now... So to come up, so if we were to potentially put in some language to try to craft a design standard for this, for a council, would you be happy with something? I did sort of a very basic massing where I plugged in the 35 feet. And so this is pretty ugly, but it's obviously not what's gonna look like. It's the same height as many mansions across street. So obviously the massing looks a lot worse. But when I go through this exercise, there is enough space when you plug in the parameters for parking in the open space to be flexible on the third story in terms of where they place it. So we could possibly consider some kind of language to the effect of building shall be oriented in a north-south direction to the extent feasible to ensure solar accessibility to neighboring residents. Something to that effect. So maximize orientation of the structure of the story structure and then that would have something that staff could look at sort of objectively to. I guess I don't see how orientation north south wouldn't help the situation. OK. I'm just if you can clarify that. One other thing that I should mention, and maybe this gets to what Brian was trying to suggest in terms of those shading requirements that you were talking about, it seemed to me like it might be, like take more than just tweaking some of the language that's like in the objective standards now that we could come up with on the fly. And so that was the basis for having council consider that further that it really did. Okay. If it's something that was sort of quit, like an objective standard, it was like a quit, yeah exactly. I mean, we just, but it seems like a more complicated thing than just doing it. I would recommend making those additional recommendations and then pushing it forward to council Let them And I've got behind that. Yeah, okay, so maybe what we could do if that's kind of the planning commission consensus then we could try to sketch out what the specific recommendations are to include in the resolution and then that could also probably be like a paragraph in the Staff report that goes to the city council that the in addition to the ordinance that's here the planning commission have the following recommendations for Council to consider so the first item what is and it sounds like there's planning commission consensus on considering the, is it is massing the correct technical term to deal with the shading. Yeah, I would say compatibility in massing. And I don't know right now in the application do you require solar studies of any kind? We don't. Okay. And- But we do focus on compatibility. When you're done with your discussion and after this you go through your motion I'll explain how the Planning Commission reviewed a project exactly what you're describing right now and the shading and I think you'll be very pleased with how Planning Commission reviews projects. Okay. And I'll try coming up with some language for the resolution and then you can tell me if that kind of captures with the intent is. So what we would be doing would be having section three of the resolution read the planning commission hereby recommends that the Fillmore City Council adopt zoning ordinance amendment 24-02 attached here to in draft form except at A with or maybe subject to the following recommendations. And then number one would be consider compatibility and massing issues for adjacent multi-family and single family dwellings to mitigate shading impacts. Is that captured the issue fairly? Okay, so that was that one. And then for the historic resource, it was the second item. And I can read you what I wrote if that helps. Yeah, maybe read that in the middle. Sir, so I just said recommend that City Council get a renewed cultural heritage survey film Fillmore done in order to identify and protect our historical resources as the last survey we referenced today is outdated, antiquated and inaccurate and will not be helpful in CEQA review as anything built prior to 1975 would now potentially be identified as historical asset. Okay some of that language I would probably want to leave out that I think can capture the intent still. So it would be considered ways to preserve existing? Wouldn't it just be a planning commission recommends for consideration and performing an updated. Cultural Heritage Survey. Yeah, what I was thinking was something and it's ultimately up to the planning commission on that. I don't think it's only about preserving though. It's also about identifying others that we don't know about because like I said when I was conducted they only thought it was 1983 so historic was 1930 kind of cut off. Now it's 1975. So like you you know, the post World War II boom, like, you know, all sorts of different, you know, all the murals, all the water and power buildings, like all those buildings were done way after 1930 and those things are things we'd want to protect now. So not that we have that in the area specifically, but I'm just saying there's potential other assets that we don't know. Okay, let me make sure I don't. So that the recommendation would be that the City Council consider conducting a new cultural resources study to identify and preserve cultural and historic resources? Yeah, I mean I think they called it a cultural heritage survey but I don't know if it has to be called that. Does that, yeah, does that mean fairly accurate? Say it one more time. So the number two recommendation would be that the City Council consider conducting a new cultural resource. So the number two recommendation would be that the City Council consider conducting a new cultural resources study to identify and preserve cultural slash historic resources. Yeah, and I don't know if you want to include anything about CEQA because if there is CEQA involved with the project anything before 1975 has to be reviewed. Is there any definition of what will be considered historical? Are we talking solely housing? No, it can be anything. It can be any kind of building. It can be considered historical. And it can be because the architecture is historical. somebody who lived there was historical. Sussar Chavez was born in this house, that kind of thing. Or it's like something to do with the development of a place. Or somebody was telling me there's a historical district that's based on, these are the first homes that had air conditioning in California. I mean, that's, you know, maybe extreme, but I'm just saying, like, it could be a lot of different things that can make a historical and it doesn't have to be a landmark to be historical. I would say, so with this sequel, I don't wanna open the door too much to potential challenges on that type of ground. But we could maybe do something like consider for the consider for the SEQUA analysis or if it's more with respect to future, I guess with respect to future project SEQUQA, when applies, that applies anyway. Well, if they do the survey, and it is identified as a historical, then CEQA already has something built into it that it has to be reviewed, right? Well, CEQA, I mean, from my understanding, and I'm sure Kevin and Brian know much more about this than I do, but if it's 1975 and before, then you have to start looking, okay, is this a historical asset of some kind? And it doesn't mean it's a landmark necessarily, and it doesn't mean that it's been on some register before. It's you're reviewing it based on the fact that it's before 1975 and starting from that basis, okay, was Caesar Shava's born here, was this designed by Green and Green, like something like that, and you'd have to do that on every parcel. If there is, let's say somebody buys a bunch of parcels and they want to build a a multifamily residential building there, but there's something about the project that makes it have discretionary approval. Immediately, Sequa is triggered, and then you have to do that analysis. So if we already have, if they, we have an updated survey, then they would already have that information. Right. to do it specifically for that parcel which could potentially increase cost. And staff time. Staff time. I think our recommendation for an updated survey should be sufficient enough. I don't think we need to add the language of CQA. I think I agree with Council that it would probably, you could potentially open the door for challenges. Challenges by the city. Oh, okay, by the public, you're saying. Or the builders, developers. Oh, okay. They're tend to be, I understand what you're getting at, but it it's the planning commission's decision on what to include in the recommendation. I think our chance there with that verbiage. Yeah, I understand the sequel point. But I think you just know. oh, I want to save the house. You know, what I mean, it's actually got a practical application. Yeah. My concern is just from a, if I don't know that practically this would happen, if there were anybody who wanted to challenge on the secret, which just wouldn't want to give them a to hold with that type of thing as part of the right. I understand your concern though. Okay. But I mean, the planning commissions, the deciding or the recommending body in this case to the city council, though. So you want to take a shot at the motion? I'll make that the first motion to hear. So I move to adopt a Planning Commission Resolution 25-1058 to approve the zoning ordinance 2402 and 2401 for action 3-1 and action 3-2 with the two recommendations of to the council to if you can just repeat. And so the specific recommendations that would be included in section three of the Planning Commission resolution would be number one that the City Council will consider, can compare the, the massing issues for adjacent multi-family and single-family dwellings to mitigate shading impacts and then number two, that the City Council consider conducting a new cultural resources study to identify and preserve cultural historic resources in the zoning areas. So that would be my motion with those two recommendations. Can I just clarify though it's not only in the zoning areas it would be I would think it needs to apply citywide this cultural heritage survey because I don't think it makes sense to survey. Right. I think you just saying that that's the of the impacts. Yes. For this specific resolution. Yeah, I can leave that. I mean, I think that here since we're only rezoning those per economic sense to tie to that. I suppose it doesn't need to and ultimately it's council's decision what they probably cheaper for them to do the entire city instead of just doing the moon. But I mean that would be up to council. My concern would it be and again it's a planning commission decision is a group but if it's sort of rezoning particular properties and then the planning is recommending to a citywide study for properties that might not be impacted by this. Well, we can just leave it as the recommendation is to conduct a new heritage study. And so, I've laid out the zoning. Yeah, okay. Okay. Okay. Okay, so those are the two specific recommendations then. And then also with including the the update line of the change for the foot loop. Changes the bright and circular. And the 35 and the 15 foot. The 35 high and the 15 foot setback. That he showed today. And Brian is that already built into the. Yeah, that's it. Okay, yeah. Okay, thank you. Are we good? Should we repeat it? I think someone need to repeat the motion. I think so, we have motion is to approve the resolution subject to the too many conditional recommendations. So I just read this the motion. Okay. Do I have a second? I'll second it. All of your favorite. Hi. All of both. Motion passes 4-0. All right. Moving on to item 8. Report and communication. 8-8, planning commission. Any commissioners? I have one thing of a word to bring up. I don't know if Council has talked about it, but I have started seeing a lot more things about the new fire severity maps from Cal Fire. I know there's going to be potentially some new zoning or building requirements for that, I I didn't know if anything has been brought up regarding that. The maps have been published and the city of Fillmore went from 330 residential units up to 830. when the city, if it more adopts the new building codes in December, it will include how we mitigate for new structures and room additions for those areas. So there's going to be new building codes for those particular areas, how you fire We already have an idea of what they are or in a workshop right now Tonight is a workshop at Rio Vista Park and I think last week we had one I attended that one So it's describing things like You know, we shouldn't have landscape planters up against the buildings if If you have four buildings in that particular area, and box the ease, and those kinds of things. This bill goes to the City Council, I think in June or July. Okay. Yeah. We're in the public workshop phase right now. Yeah, I did notice on the third and tonight, there were multiple things. It's just, it was concerning when I saw the the increase. You have to increase. Yeah. It's, it looks so, it's more, isn't it? That's everybody's reaction Especially if you live in the area and then you think well my insurance rate is gonna go through the roof And that's what what about concerns look just personally, but Fillmore is a low income city I mean you're talking about potentially four five thousand000 a year for fire insurance just for fire insurance so we'll definitely hopefully good things come out with these workshops and the council hopefully. Is one of the items or requirements for these new houses being built in fire zones going to be the fire resistant paint that they've got. I don't know all the codes. So they're looking at materials. I'm not sure paint is on there. I don't know all the codes yet and they're still developing some of them. Right? I am in witnessing, I don't know if it'll be final but wooden fences probably won't need to be allowed in their new wooden fences. They have on video a fence that caught on fire just because of the heat and that wooden fence burned all the way to the residential unit and caught the residential unit on fire. I mean looking at really high winds and all kinds of stuff. Anyway, I'm not sure of all of the materials and requirements and design yet. All right. But it's going to be noticeable. Okay. Because I know vinyl is a hot topic with it, melting and falling over onto the wooden image. Imagine vinyl windows. So what they have on that video of vinyl windows that pop out, and now all the heat is blown into the house. I mean, cars got on the fire. Yep. The metal. Right. So it's just unusual. But is there any consideration to like not allowing new development and very high fire severity at all? No, we it's mitigated. We go through mitigation process. Okay. Any other? All right. Planning, community development director, report. I do have just a couple of things. The veterans memorial building, you should know, was red tagged by the city a few years ago. And then because of roof leaks and other issues as below, the building is below building standards. Veterans veterans memorial board responded by seeking a grant and they received a grant. And through the last two to three years, they've been pursuing the remodel of the veterans memorial building. We issued a building permit today for just some of the demolition and they're seeking one more permit number not from the City of Fillmore but from one other entity. Once that's done you're going to begin seeing some interior demolition occurring. It's going to be a very long, long process. It could take two to three years for remodeling, but just know the veteran's memorial building is beginning and it'll take a while. Your discussions tonight regarding compatibility on massing and scale. That was tested to this group on the Fillmore Terrace project and it was denied because of compatibility. In fact, the exact images showed tonight was as if it came from that particular project and that resulted in that project having a 100% redesign that developer listened to the commission and we have a whole brand new project because of that. The Creekside development is being graded right now and it will probably grade for the next three or four months. There's still a lot of grading that will occur. I know there are questions in the community. How long is that going to take to grade? There's a lot of grading and it's not easy. A lot of boulders. And then the last thing I'd like to say is we have had a lot of complaints recently on food vendors We are doing something about it. It seems like we aren't because you see more pop up There are four food vendors and then there are two additional ones that occur on the weekend. So it's a total of six on the weekends We will be doing code enforcement on those. City staff did present, update to the City Council for the very first time, I think on April the 6th. You're welcome to take a look at it. I win detail about food vendors. If people do have complaints on food vendors, please submit them to the Building Department or Planning Department. And I will receive those and we will investigate those and we are. It may seem like we're not, but it's time consuming on the code enforcement and to make sure we do it properly. I think it was April 6th, the last city council meeting. So I gave out, there's a 25 minute presentation about the negative things on some of these food vendors at UOC. Taking any questions you may have, I'll answer anything you have. Questions? It's just pretending to those items that you just talked about. Yeah, we know you can ask any questions you may have. Anything about projects, usually I just talk about projects that's moving forward. There's a project on Palm Street right across from the transit station. It's called Fillmore Terrace by people's self-help. Okay. And there's like one house that's still there? There's one house and they're required by federal law and they're required through the approval process that those people would need to be relocated. And so that project includes a relocation plan. It's a thick plan. Okay, okay. It was submitted and it's complicated and detailed. Has that a little bit of proof? Yes. Okay. So it went to the planning commission a planning commission said no we deny it Well, we recommend you totally change it because if you actually should building a messing scaleings The project was designed exactly like that three-story concrete block one full city block and planning commission said no way know how and and as I mentioned mentioned for us completely, totally, completely redesigned. This is not at all like what it was before. So there are new laws on affordable housing. And one of the laws states that if a project complies with the zoning and general plan, and it's an affordable project, it does not go to the Planning Commission, it does not go to the City Council, and there's no environmental review and there's no public hearing. It's called ministerial. I approved it. So it was submitted to me and I reviewed it for about a year with the redesign, with a total redesign. New architecture, new layout with all department heads, departments. We asked for a lot, a lot of redesign. There was a lot of comments. The developer did a good job on redesigning everything. And if you did not make the decision tonight like you did on the housing this was one of the projects that was seeking state funding where you could jeopardize that project. We're planning to check number three. It looks pretty good. They'll make all the corrections but it is a state funded project. It's about a $42 million project. So when you're saying like you've gone through all these rounds of redesign and the ministerial review, but before that it was discretionary, somehow? It was discretionary because it wasn't complying with the ordinance. I just don't want to get into two detail about the discussion discussion is not an agenda. But Kevin can answer an independent of the Planning Commission, meaning if there are questions about a project, Kevin can answer those independently. You see the images of Brian Schoen? That's the project. And you don't see that before picture. It's It's a nice project. Yeah. Everyone's going to like it. So some of these projects like this, or even some of the that are in the residential, or the highway zone, are they going to be at they change every six months. The project you just see, there's going to be six charging stations, I asked because I thought I heard something about the Baldwin Shopping Center possibly getting or trying to apply for charging stations or something like that. Oh, yeah, but I don't know. Okay, thank you. Any others? All right, with that we'll adjourn the planning commission and adjourn to the very other planning commission scheduled for May 21st, 2025 at 630 and City Council chambers 250 Central Avenue Fillmore California.