May 11, 2021 4:00 PM - Redding Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

a quorum , so I'm going to call the meeting to order. We have no meetings to approve and no Announcements so we will move down to planning commission items. There is nothing on our consent calendar so we will move to the public hearing. Moving on to the public hearing, we will be considering A recommendation to the city Council regarding a zoning application where we would recommend adoption of an ordinance with Code title 18 zoning pertaining to temporary uses. >> Thank you chair and members of the commission. It's been a while since I have presented to the commission, I'm sure. I'm very rusty. I'm going to be brief tonight because largely you have heard a lot of background about what has brought us here, but I will update you from the last time you heard about this topic, which was from a micro shelters to today. They heard a report about these micro shelters and there was a recommendation from this body with changes to modify the chapter 18 to allow for these Micro shelter systems to be in place. It has a number that is being presented to you today with no more than 30 individuals and an allowance for them to be used for transitional housing for the homeless. The same time that was going on, the state was looking at improvements to the code and that got approved by the governor in November. Eventually he deviated us from the past. We were on. With the changes in the building code And with the introduction of the legislation that led a pathway for Anissa polities to declare a shelter crisis which we will talk about a little bit to take Advantage of these new appendixes and to move into an area Where we can actually have these shelters be in accordance with the building code. I guess that is a way of saying what we were doing before wasn't actually meeting any building codes, we were doing it the same way any other jurisdiction was doing it on the West Coast. Nothing wrong with that but I would rather do it with the parameters stated by the legislature. So we took a lot of the information we had our of the micros shelter ordinance amendment and incorporated some of those elements. We started with the framework that these elements should be confined to a single type. That was somewhat of my recommendations to the Council and they agreed with that. Within appendix O which is called emergency housing. There is several different opportunities for housing individuals that are homeless. They call them membrane structures and the one that seems to resonate with me. Are these emergency cabins. There are 8 x 8, 9 x 7, 10 x 10.Often times they are going to have an electric box on them. They much more resemble a tiny home Than anything else I would have been recommending. I also think It would be better for the community as they look at accepting new alternatives. There won't be tents. I want something that's more of a subdivision feel, something we are used to and Canada stepped within the community. You look at all the wraparound services that will be provided, I think we have an opportunity for transitional housing. Appendix O and X both have the definition of emergency sleeping In, though I use that as the basis of what municipalities are doing across the state of California. There are a lot of ways in which they are approaching this and Sacramento had a way where they married. This ordinance division with the guidelines. If you have the ordinance revision Which set the framework for how this would work, and then you have the guidelines which can be easily modified just by a vote of the Council. You can actually have criteria established for operational plans and as changes are necessary because what we learned through operation, we can make those adjustments relatively quickly and easy room just simple adoption. The way this would work is outlined in the proposed ordinance. They would not require a permit. The modification of 18, 1720 is a temporary use of exempt from permits. We added an element for the emergency housing sites, which can be put in place Only when a declaration of a shelter exists. There is also a newer state legislation where the Council has the ability to declare a shelter crisis. The shelter crisis is any significant homelessness that affects the well-being and health and safety of individuals. It is a subjective criteria that council gets to determine. Council Feels that there is shelter under that division, they vote for it and the shelter exists. They can make that resolution approval declaring the shelter crisis. And when they do that, if they adopt appendix O and X they can move down the process of Not meeting the California standard Building code. The ordinance we have put forth is The process under which You would develop these emergency shelter sites. You have three different things you will hear about in terms of the discussion. The emergency shelter site and within that site, emergency shelter facilities which would be rest rooms, bathrooms, office manager sets, maybe a place to eat and then you have the emergency sleeping cabins which are the actual walkable units that people use for transition purposes. So this is the broad criteria under which These will be constructed. It talks about where it can be cited and we have made it where it can be cited anywhere within the city limits. It is not restricted to any zoning because the temporary restriction of this nature, you could restrain it to specific zoning and then you have an allowance for it to be at a location. Likewise, you could have a facility location that will work perfectly for everybody but the zoning would prohibit it. It can be allowed anywhere in the city with some criteria. For it can be situated anywhere as long as it is 500 feet from a property line. Can't be more than 1/2 mile from another shelter site within the city limits, and this would be subjective to setback. The requirement to have an operations plan that is vetted and presented to the city Council. If they haven't been able to achieve the next level of housing or permanent housing within that window, we are probably not going to make it so we are going to start with somebody else. The operations plan, the administrative guidelines really gives the meat behind how the operations plan gets put together. The ordinance you saw last August simply said an operations plan, and left it vague about what it means. We have given some broad parameters on how these sites are to be constructed and operated and we did a very detailed guideline on how you would prepare for that. I think in the operations plan. There is a requirement for up to 8 to 10 additional developments. Everything from that medication distribution to storage of items. We also have all of the requirements in terms of ADA requirements, and non-discriminatory behaviors and administrative guidelines. We have an issue in our community in terms of getting individuals from off the streets into a better situation, permanent housing, and I think all of us would prefer that. There is obviously, any number of barriers. What this site would allow for is to be selected in a location as approved by city Council that is fully vetted through the neighborhood. Dates and locations. It has the full operations plan that requires it to be vetted and distributed. As to cover everything from wraparound services so they can get out of the situation they are in. But it starts with the ability to have a walkable home. If they can keep their positions locked up, safe, protected, what could they accomplish that day that they otherwise wouldn't be able to if they had to carry their goods wherever they go? They can get showered and cleaned up, they can go to program offerings to correct addiction habits, if they have those. Who knows what the case may be, but it gives them an opportunity to get off the street and into a safe environment where they can begin to move into a more safer space. So this would be a requirement that a site would have to be identified, a site plan would have to be created and operations and necessary plans developed . That would be vetted through my office and submitted to the city Council through all surrounding property owners within a 350 foot radius. If the Council approved that, it would be good for one year and it is an intended item in the ordinance that is not in your copy, it would be a permit that is good for one year and has to be renewable on an annual basis. Based on your comments today, one of the things that will be added as it is sent to the city Council is that one year requirement and then they will have to redo it. If the Council feels we are not successful or not working, they can cancel the shelter crisis. Everybody feels that this is a very good plan going forward, and would help our situation with the homeless. I will wrap there and be available for any questions you might have either before or after the public hearing. >> I have a couple questions. Is adoption in appendix O and X state mandate? >> No, and we actually did not adopt it. So council would have to prior to doing this. >> So it's not a criteria like state has done with ADU's? >> That's correct, it's optional. >> I'm a little surprised that the definition of an emergency is going to be so subjective because it seems like it can vary from city Council to city Council. If you had a very progressive city Council, they might save 50 homeless people. If you had an officer they might say 100 are susceptible. I would like to encourage you all about making that more objective in some ways. Limiting it to the sleeping cabins, does that include anything else coming up? Often times in states of emergency is, FEMA will provide small mobile homes. >> This will not take the place of other declared emergencies. If we had that sort of declaration we could still do the trailers or other tiny homes. This is a specific shelter crisis definition when enacted by council allows deviation from standard California building code. They are two different emergency situations. >> In recalling the recommendation that the planning commission sent out to the Council last fall, I recall that this proposal appears much more liberal than what the planning commission sent out, especially in terms of location. Location was much more limited and also in terms of the resident's behavior, this seems like it's pretty loose where you can't use drugs on-site. But if you are hi, it's okay. We will forgive you one or two times. That's a comment that I feel like it was really loosened up. And I think the planning commission had sound thinking and wanting to determine specific locations. The location difference be the same 300 feet that we always use for projects or would it be farther? >> The requirement that we included is 300 feet. I expect the first couple to be picked up by the press that the planning commission thinks we should do a broader radius and we bring that recommendation to the commission. If you think that is what's necessary. >> That brings me to another issue. Is there a specific reason why it will be bypassing city commission and going directly to council? >> . These are elements and as you just noted, we recommend them to be situated anywhere within the city. To me, that brings up additional heightened political adversity and if the Council wishes to move forward in this regard, the Council should be the one that takes that responsibility, whether they approve it or not. Shelter crisis is clearly a subjective requirement under the law. I hear your comment in terms of councils can change, councils can change in terms of ordinance as well. If you want to make a definition in today's council, today's council doesn't like it. It is really just a representative form of government. If they were going to make that determination of a shelter crisis, my opinion is that they should be dealing with this. I don't have an issue with the planning commission wants to see every one of these and make a recommendation. It does take a longer time to actually get them approved, which some of the operators might not appreciate. Also, since his temporary nature is not your traditional land-use . If the planning commission feels like the recommendation from this is, you should see every single one of these before it comes to council, I have no objection to that. >> Was disclosed forward to the Council and receives approval, do you anticipate an emergency shelter crisis will be declared right away? >> That is my estimated timeline. The times we have talked to council to date , Council has pushed us forward to this point. So my assumption is that they are also going to declare a shelter crisis. You bring up a good point in that you can have this ordinance, you can have it on the books and if they don't declare a shelter crisis, it doesn't go anywhere. I would recommend this opportunity be on the books regardless if council declares a crisis shelter or not. >> Thank you very much, I will start to my left. >> I was just going to make a comment for staff who prepared all of this, they did a fantastic job. Any little thing, they covered it. >> As you are probably aware, at our last planning commission meeting when we went over's, I spoke to the whole commission and our recommendation at that time was to move forward with the presentation that we had from staff. What we did was make two revisions. When I made the motion, the things I heard was, regardless of the size of this, whether it was six residents or 30, let them at least have a public hearing and I think that has been addressed with administrative board of review or planning commission. Having the Council deal with this with a final say is very appropriate and having that public input is crucial. The second point we brought up it has to do with zoning designation. I see what you mean terms of taking, we may have a site that meets all the requirements, zoning wise, but it's not a good site, we may have something that may be a prohibited one. I think the two we really discussed was public facilities and residential. In the end we decided to leave public facilities alone because that is an ideal location. I think the larger concern was having it residential. An existing assembly culture used property may be in a residential zone. I have been here before, where neighbors show up in torches and pitchforks because they want to lease spaces to neighbors that they are never going to use. So I'm seeing an awful lot of blowback. That is kind of what I saw as well, you can't have substances on site, you can't be using on site. The way I think they are going to go outside, down the corner, up the street, that's where substances can be acquired and consumed. That was my main concern on this is. Is there a way we can still keep the level of scrutiny that council is going to implement, especially with administrative guidelines. They are certainly well thought out, but also maintaining some safeguard distance. I didn't know if they were going to necessary given automatic approval In the other zoning locations, just if we would be able to do that in the restrictions. >> Whatever recommendation comes to the planning commission. We will present to council for their discussion and deliberation. There are residential locations where there are probably really good facility locations. That are technically residential but not nearly residential. I think the intent of the residential guidelines was in your instance, the example you gave is it would be somewhat near a residential neighborhood and individuals might go off and do nefarious activities. Off-site and we should address that with the security plan. We would work with the police department on what our extra security measures required in that setting. Each setting would require a different overview and a different scrutiny over the security plan, and I think it would be incumbent on staff in particular before it goes out to public digestion that we address those topics head on. Even if it isn't nefarious activity, it's just people wandering in and out. >> That is a good point and I see what you mean about the zoning designation of that parcel. Satisfying the following criteria, aligned for child care criteria, maybe we can put it within a residential zoning even if it was a certain density something that might be able to fall in so even if it was that particular parcel, at least, it is not surrounded by residential area. It did indicate if we were six or less residents, and it was very briefly mentioned that may allow for an alternative security. >> It was on-site management. The one you approved previously actually said less than six. I didn't write that because to your point, this might be a location where if it gets approved, we want 24 seven on-site management. The way I wrote it is if it is six or less, you can request to have alternative management. It has to be approved. You have a 16 hour management presence, but you have eight hours overnight where they are not going to be there, maybe that is okay, but I wanted to make sure there was nothing there, where they would be scrutinized. >> I think we will come up with our recommendation here. I did notice after our last meeting. We did go through a lot of deliberation and I know we had a little bit of change. Even with appendix O and X our points were still valid and I noticed they were not conveyed during that Council meeting. I want to make sure whatever recommendation, it does get passed on. Whether it is in the staff packet or the presentation to council. >> That's a good comment. Essentially, we started out with whole cloth. The context of that last one is considering units to be constructed that would meet the building code. And staff saying we want to move away from the zoning specific as well as in the previous one, it was sort of building it back and that's why it wasn't presented, because we weren't presenting an alternative to that. Whatever recommendation, it will definitely go forward. Whatever planning commission has four recommendations will be presented to council. >> Thanks for presenting, fun to have you on this side. A couple quick comments. This could possibly be an oversight but I at least thought I would question it. I wonder if this is 3 A and B that allows the particular zoning to be in the city of Redding. When I read that, I think, great. If I am by a church. I can be next to a school and I didn't know if that was intentional. >> That is not the intent. I will look to my right and see if the city attorney is understanding and agrees with your comment. The intent is that it should be within 500 feet. I know there were some institutions that wanted to do that and I think it would be acceptable. I think that is a good comment. >> If it does read that way it could be possible to say it only needs to satisfy the 500 feet and not be less than 1/2 mile. >> I think I understand your comment clearly. The way I'm reading this, and applicant can either satisfy A or B and I think I understand your comments satisfying A might not be a good thing. >> Doesn't guarantee 500 feet away from the school. >> That is a really good observation because that is how I would interpret this. >> We will work on that for sure. >> Minor saying, I didn't think it was meant that way. Then I go down the same page to 4F and it has this thing about normal operating hours. I don't know what normal operating hours are when somebody lives on site. >> It will be in their operations plan. It will tell us when intake is going to be. They will have certain staffing on board and they will have to have people in waiting areas were when there is active activities going on whether it is services being provided or meals being served posttest or 9 o'clock when people are supposed to be settling down and there are no formal activities going on. We are really going to be relying on that operational plan so we can hold them to that. >> They were also probably satisfied with the security plan that was required. For my satisfaction, I'm good on that one. Another question on location, I was wondering, I know there is a lot of incentive right now on downtown and we have created this great downtown. I was wondering if it would be prudent to specify areas. We should not have these. Areas that we would rather not have a lot that was a possibility of going up, but it has been used for a temporary use that doesn't allow it to go up. >> I think we are talking in general terms unless the recommendation is downtown specifically. Once again, the recommendation you are not making that judgment, the Council is. >> I'm not making the recommendation at the time, but I wanted the planning commission to consider if there are certain areas of our community if it would be best if it were not because we wanted the parcel to be considered for other things. >> Again, if that is the commissioners recommendation. That's fine. I think the Council would Generally feel the same way in certain areas that you might find an objection, they will as well. If your recommendation is every one of these sites comes back through that planned you will be able to implement that. I still personally feel having a wide open spectrum of where these can go and letting the process vet out those that are inappropriate is my way of thinking. >> I think solutions like this are certainly needed and important for our community and California as a whole. I like this kind of ingenuity and I appreciate staff taking the time and working through it. If we create some really cool tiny home, Maybe we can even do some market rate stuff, which I think would be fun eventually. I think a step in this direction is a great thing, thank you. >> I have some comments to make. First of all, packet page 10 3B2. >> The administrative guidelines? >> Yeah. It says situated not less than 1/2 mile measure from property line to property line. I wanted to find out what is the criteria to settle on 1/2 a mile? >> It has been used in other communities and it seems like a good measuring metric. There is no scientific modeling that drives that. >> And on page 11 it says J restrooms. Must have a minimum of one toilet per 15 occupants. What is the criteria of the toilet? Is it an outhouse? >> They could have a porta potty. That would be part of the site plan. If there is an area that is separate, that would be fine but if it is close to residential, that is not okay. There are certain sites that's going to dictate how that is. I think we have seen some facilities that are actually quite nice. They may suggest they use one of the nicer ones that was used in the park. I think we would all agree that is okay. >> And M, residents to stay no more than 10 months in a 12 month period. I just want to make sure I understand some people will obviously not have to stay for 10 months. Back to the criteria . >> That came from the people who do this work for a living. That was a response. I had less than that, and I had eight months and the feedback was we need 10 to make sure we can get people from point A to point B. >> To go further on that, how many community organizations have expressed interest in putting in these homeless shelters? >> Probably three at this stage and some of them work together. I would say the first one that would likely go up is Laurel Parks. >> Once this gets implemented, how many homeless shelters do you think our community is going to be able to facilitate? >> This is not a homeless shelter. This is an emergency shelter site. The demand and the success I think will drive the answer to that question. We are seeing great success in other parts of the state. I think there is so many other factors that affect homelessness. I don't knows you saw but the governor today just announced I think $2 billion. She is going to put directly towards housing for the chronic homeless. That could have a direct effect on what we require for this distorted facility. So I don't have an answer to that question. At this stage. >> I think I read somewhere that there is approximately 450 homeless people and I'm just wondering as we attack this problem, is the number going up or down? >> It has been fairly static, it goes up and down, but over the years it has been fairly consistent. We have had as many as 1200 and as low as 200 over the years. It fluctuates and depends on the economy. >> Where is the money coming from? Is it going to be coming from the state? >> That was just announced today. It's different money. Most of the money on the east site will be from private sources. I suspect the Council will be asked to provide some grant opportunities. One thing we are thinking about is purchasing some units available for lease and housing to provide some grants. A lot of the operations, if not all of the operations will come through the county or private donations. >> As a sidebar, the CRDC board, we certainly look at these issues all the time and I think Dave did a wonderful job administrating the program. Getting 70 million bucks from the state to be able to put those apartments downtown is a real feather in the cap. >> Before I open the public hearing, I have one more question. On packet page 33 under drug and alcohol use and possession, it says restriction policies must not be based on substance use and on the it says drug testing on participants is prohibited. Is that a civil rights issue, or is that the direction staff chose to go? >> I don't think that's a civil rights issue. Keep in mind civil rights is primarily what government does to you. And these are entities that will be handling these facilities and sites. I think what you are seeing here with these requirements is a considerate effort to be a little bit lower barrier than what we have presently. For example, if you have a site and somebody goes down a river 2 miles away and drinks a little alcohol and shows up at the site, that's not going to get you kicked out, but if you show up at the site and you are drunk, and you are trying to fight somebody, that will get you kicked out. So that is intentional, I know it is a little bit unorthodox, perhaps for this community but it is indeed the underlying goal and purpose of this. >> These operators are going to have to have liability insurance. I'm assuming. >> These are meant to hit a bar we can't hit today. These are meant to allow very low barrier shelter. My opinion is that we need to actually move in this direction. If we want to begin to make change and that requires some additional thinking. In the state of California, possession of an illegal narcotic is a citation. You don't go to jail, it's a citation. We have to take that same perspective in mind when we are thinking about this sheltering opportunity. If you can't get into a shelter environment, we are not going to make a change. My opinion is we should be looking for opportunities to allow the lowest barrier possible and if an operator doesn't want to operate, they don't have to. If we need to make adjustments in the future because it's not working, we can do that for my preference and recommendation is we stay with the lowest barrier possible. >> I will open the public hearing at this time. Is there anyone that would like to address the commission on this matter? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing. Any other comments from the commissioners? ? >> In regard to the notice area, I would like to see that brought in. Our community largely is not a flat community. You can have the neighborhoods, these are going to go into residential neighborhoods. Perhaps. There is church and residential neighborhoods, and then you have like a goalie and a neighborhood right across the street, it seems like that would be impacted. And we have other applications where we actually send it out to staff. >> I have no objections in terms of widening the area. >> So I would be interested in hearing from the commissioners here on how they feel about that and if they are thinking, how far they think it should be. >> I'm certainly open to being widened. I don't know if there is a precedent for if we widened, how much wider. >> . My recommendation is that you double it to 600 and just recognizing it adds extra expense in staff work to actually get that out. From my perspective, 600 feet would be adequate and not too overbearing or expensive. >> Thank you for that suggestion. Do we want to strike IIIa just to be proactive? >> I certainly want to see it dealt with. >> Before we moved to that, we don't need to complicate this with a lot of process that we have the suggestion we brought in the notice, and if I can get a nod of three heads, we could call that a planning commission recommendation. We will consider that a planning commission recommendation and now onto the next issue which was suggested. >> That is to ask the city attorney to craft language in a manner that meets the intent and we are talking about 3A. Or to strike it because there is a conflict. >> That might be something that we may even pick up before it goes to council. To me, that's kind of something that is obviously problematic. It would be good, maybe the recommendation would not be to the city attorney because it is to the Council. But if we could get that recommendation to council, if not corrected prior by staff. Do I see three? Great. >> Visit also indicate in the event of a declared emergency, you have until July 1 to put a plan in place regarding a full on and more specific comprehensive plan with regards to emergency housing? I'm curious just because it is relevant to what we are doing here initially and what you think that will look like July 1. >> It's July 1, 2022 where we will have to prepare a report to the state. I don't know what that plan is. Until we have either some operating, or not operating at all, but it requires us To report to the state. >> So that is more state-level. >> Backtracking a little bit, This hasn't specifically been asked yet. When I go through my logistics and create one of these shelter areas and city Council allows the shelter crisis and one year later, new council, doesn't like it, they cancel it. On day one. Everyone has to go out and tear everything out. That seems problematic and possibly putting in some kind of wine downtime for three months so corrects, something that would allow the operators and the residents to plan would seem reasonable. >> Maybe I could comment on that. I hate to say this but you are starting to think like a lawyer. That is something I recommend against, putting a specific wind down time that this attorney will always suggest a specific wind down time. If they had given a wind down time, it would have made it a lot easier and I would have avoided three years of work. There are certain investments and capital that you at least want to honor and it could be the wind down. Let's say somebody has four months left on their permit and council says we don't want to have a declaration of shelter crisis anymore. That being said, you will notice when we drafted this we put some language saying no one has property right to do this, no one has invested right to do this. Part of only having one year terms is to provide the Council and community flexibility where if this isn't working, we can retreat from it quickly. The answer to your question is absolutely, I would recommend a wind down, but I would not recommend codifying what that wind down would be. >> Does it make sense to put in a note that we would recommend city Council at the time create the appropriate wind down time or do we think that's going to take care of itself? >> I think that's going to take care of itself. >> Typically that would be an administrative function. They looked at me through the administrative work to make it happen. Possibly in staffs jurisdiction that we can build that. >> You can think of any number of examples. The reason why council wants to stop this shelter crisis is because it's not working. We have bad actors out there and it is creating more harm than it is doing, and we might want to act more swiftly. >> Does the renewal process require the operators apply for renewal90 days before it expires? I wonder if we should put something like that in there just in case it is the intent of the Council to do away with this shelter emergency, then they will have a heads up. >> We will craft the ordinance. >> I would love to see that as a recommendation. >> One last item to see if there is any discussion. Is there anybody else That thinks there are very specific areas. We should recommend this does not go? >> I think it gets difficult to define specific areas. You only have certain areas within the city and that is usually by a specific plan or master plan of some kind, something that is designated a Specifically his own, and I think that can get a little tricky. Said at least do some element of discouragement. Of being within a residential area. It doesn't necessarily preclude it from being on a parcel that is residentially zoned. The parcels that aren't being used or being developed because of all kinds of different reasons that might work. I think the main part of this would at least be the discouragement of having them within proximity of residential neighborhoods. If we want to preclude these from certain zones Were certain areas that are specified when we look at or work on any of those specific plans as the commission, we can address that. Maybe at that time and say these are specific uses that are allowed or not allowed and at that point, we might be able to say this isn't something we want. >> You reminded me something, bringing up these Residential uses, it seems to me there is a persistent pattern of cell phone towers and motels Being put in close proximity to neighborhoods that are less Socioeconomic affluent. So I have a real concern that if we allow these near residents or in residential neighborhoods, they are not going to end up in that part, they are going to end up in a less advantaged neighborhood . >> Some good comments. Can this commission formulate some kind of recommendation? >> I can debate that a little. Not your comment specifically but the city's plans for residents living in a residential areas. Certainly, there is something possibly about single families. I guess it is somewhat less concerning to me Because in a way, residential Areas. >> The reality is you can have a residential home That is rented by an operator and they can put these individuals in those homes today. I don't know that Just because they are in a smaller unit, they should preclude that. If the operator is a good operator, the likelihood is that site is going to be better what Maintained than other facilities. >> Were you suggesting they be limited to multifamily residential areas? >> I was not suggesting that. I was mainly commenting we are talking about Residents in residential areas. Areas we would like to see building and actual construction happening, I wouldn't call these fully temporary, they are semipermanent. >> Keep in mind you have to have ownership, you have to have control. These are fairly expensive things to put together. To the comment earlier about why we go to 600 feet instead of 300 feet, it is all unique and we have canyons. That same characteristic in our community is why I would recommend we allow process where they can go where the Best fit, not based on arbitrary zoning. >> I certainly would not want to see a codified Allowance for certain density residential for exactly that reason. Those are the examples I could think of with some of those persons around town because they can be somewhat isolated But I would not support saying yeah, we could do it from our tenants or higher. I would not be supportive of that. >> Did you get an answer to your digestion, that there be a satisfactory answer to your suggestion that there be discouragement of residential? >> Thinking it through, can't really codify discouragement. >> So the reality is, these sites are going to be ready-made which is going to be on a church parking lot or something or they are going to be a in a location where they are going to be seeking grant funds and they need the city's assistance. We will discourage it By not giving them the grant. >> What I heard right now is we are not going to do anything with the residential Prohibition , we are going to recommend that the noticed area be doubled to 600 feet and if the staff or city attorney does not craft the language of 3A in a manner that better meets the intent, that will be a recommendation going towards the city Council and we are also going to recommend there be a 90 day renewal application process Where within 90 days of Expiration, they will have to make renewal. >> I would like to see if you wanted to see every one of these before it goes to city Council. >> No, we just discussed that. >> There is going to be a bunch of upset folks. >> I certainly don't need to see everyone. >> Just the site development permit portion of this, Your administrative section is up to Council. I wouldn't mind hearing the title 18 portion of this. >> Do we need a specific motion for these three recommendations? >> Let's go ahead and do that. I believe you already described what the recommendations are so we can go through the record and consider that emotion and I will just see if there is a second. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Thank you so much for your hard work. The next item for commission consideration is information only and has to do with residential driveways. Who will be making this presentation? >> It will be a public works staff member and she is a coordinator with public works. >> Good evening, my name is Shelby I am the traffic operations manager. The main reason we are going to be doing the updates, some of the developers have expressed a desire to construct driveways. Our current maximum is 28 foot and we are looking for 22 to 36 foot wide driveways. We have also been looking at some design challenges related to ADU's. We held two meetings requested by developers for current standards. Again, the standard people were having the most difficulty with is the width, can't be more than 20 feet wide. Just some examples, a smaller home is only an 18 foot driveway. Moving into the 90s. The driveways bigger. The middle photo is a subdivision that was built approximately in 2013 and that driveway is 36 feet. And the last driveway is a 58 foot driveway. >> Those were all permitted, even that 56 foot driveway? >> I suspect the driveway on the very bottom, the driveway cut was probably constructed to standard development and the homeowner probably went back in after the fact and removed the existing curb cut and extended it out. That's probably what happened. Again, the homes on the cul-de-sac lots Where presenting challenges with reduced frontage. Sometimes the frontage was 40 feet, 50 feet. The particular standard. They were having a difficult time dealing with was more than 50% of the standard being devoted to driveway. After meeting with the developers, planning staff and public works staff met a few times and these are some of our concerns. If we are going to allow greater widths with some of the concerns. Mailboxes, fire hydrants and those kinds of things we need to have enough room for and those things require 5 feet of separation from the driveway. We have quite a few neighborhoods that have issues with having enough Room for on street parking and it is illegal to park in front of the driveway. Obviously, if it is your home. It's not a big deal but if anybody else did it, it is illegal. When folks put out their garbage cans and recycling cans, there is space for that. Mailboxes and from planning perspectives, it reduces the space allowed for trees and landscaping, and overall the general aesthetics of having too much concrete. After meeting with the developers, the external engineering consultant and meeting with staff, we came up with some changes. We are separating the lots based on the frontage width. We have made the determination we are going to keep our existing standard of not more than 50% frontage. The cul-de-sac homes or lots that are just reduced frontage, we made the decision that the 50% rule should not apply because it is a disadvantage and the maximum driveway is limited to 20 feet. Are there any questions? >> I just want to make a comment. It would be helpful if we received this information in the packet so we could have understood it. I have a hard time seeing it from the screen. I would just like it in the packet please. >> I agree with that comment. Anything else? >> Does gravel count? I know folks love gravel. >> We have been discussing that. Internally, we probably need to look into having more detail landscaping standards. There probably needs to be some distinction of what landscaping versus drivable surfaces. Gravel does not count. So with these new standards, is strictly AC. >> Easements. Will there be drainage easement and then expand that out to the 28 or even go further. Does the presence of those easements preclude them being able to paint over that portion and have a driveway? >> We have had these come up. More recently, and if someone would like to do that and it meets our construction standards, we have been allowing them to do improvements and that states if they would like to have improvements in the easements they can do so, but they are responsible for the maintenance and if we want to go in and do work, they are responsible for the restoration. >> Any other questions or comments? I attended via zoom planning conference and these driveways were a big issue. There was a comment section, and we are not the only community struggling with this. Looking at the comments from other participants, it has a lot to do with the ADU's. >> I'm sorry the print is a little small, but on the lower left-hand exhibit. You can kind of picture, this would work. Not sure about planning, but the right-of-way from a public works perspective. You can have your main driveway and the driveway that goes for the rear. You can have a 20 foot and for this lot. In particular, it is 100 feet frontage. You have a 25 foot and there are some other standards, spacing between the driveway, but the biggest issue we ran into was the width of the driveway. >> Is there a minimum driveway width? >> Yes, it's 3 feet. >> Is there anything else? Thank you so much for the presentation. At this time, I will open the public comment and this is for members of the public to comment on non-agenda matters with the city's jurisdiction. The planning commission can't take any action but if you want to advise us of something or say a few words, we welcome you. >> Seeing none, I'm going to close the public comment period and open it up for commissioners comments. >> When is Costco Going to be starting? I thought it was going to be in spring. >> There was litigation with the project. >> I thought the city Council erode that? >> No. >> So the litigation is still out there? >> It is, later there going to be looking at the initiative and depending on what occurs, that may or may not take care of the litigation. >> We are obviously down two planning commissioners. Is the mayor looking at appointing commissioners soon? >> I will update on that. >> I just wanted to make mention I am on the CRDC board and we look at these houses and there is a company that was built on this home and it was about 2500 bucks apiece and they are really busy because communities are building. Thank you. >> Good to know. >> It's great to be back. >> It is good to see everybody. Directors report, we are waiting. >> Welcome back. I want to make a few comments and that is we really have not been holding anything back or up for you. We have a combination of a lot of the maps that are in digress and they are in the building department. We do have a number of maps and some of them are complicated but they are in progress. Things are taking a little bit longer than we would like them to that we have reinforcements on the way. Next week we will be making announcements about annuity director and new building official. So we are very excited about them joining our team and they will be here in June. In addition, I just want to note Jim Wright our building official just retired about a week ago. We have created another development supervisors. So Eric has been doing double duty, supervising the center for most of last year. We have now created a development services supervisor that oversee the perspective and we value Eric's knowledge in troubleshooting abilities. We also have new staff in the permit center with some turnover we have had recently and Nolan Wilson has been Promoted recently to the supervisor of the building. Really trying to adjust, we have a lot more activity going on in the building department and that doesn't seem to be slowing down so activity seems to remain strong and we are reinforcing our staff to better serve the community. Also, while Shelby is here you will be seeing more of her. She was just recognized by a young professional so we are more excited in having her take a more active role. We do have two openings on the planning commission and we did a recruitment. One of our cover models on recruiting people to put in for this opportunity. We had a great response, the mayor is finishing up her interviews this week and I hope we will have an announcement at the next council meeting about who will be taking those spots. We have a new senior planner and Lily will make that introduction. >> We recently brought on a new staff member and he is charged with our general plan update. We will be rolling out what the plans are. He has been rolling with Kent manuals and we have an outline of what that is going to be. He is coming to us via Newark , New Jersey with urban planning and a degree in architecture. A lot of knowledge and an experience that will make our process better rounded. We are not going to do a full on 25 member committee, but we are also going to use some community involvement. >> There being no further comment or