30 seconds. Stand by.
[Music]
You're
live. Good evening. Uh, welcome to the
Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
Today is Tuesday, April 22nd, 2025. It's
approximately 6:00 pm, and I am Chair
Thirsten.
Uh, does any member of the commission or
city staff know of any conflicts of
interest with any items on the agenda?
I none. I personally have one for uh 7.1
that I'm going to have to step out
for. All right. So, conflicts of
interest only me. Um, moving on to
public participation.
[Music]
Um, is there anyone in the public that
has
uh anything that they'd like to bring up
that's not on the agenda for
tonight? Seeing none,
uh we will move on to the acceptance of
the agenda. Um the acceptance of the
agenda also includes us accepting of the
minutes and uh the two items on the
consent agenda.
Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to accept
as presented. Do we have a second? I
second.
Commissioner Smith, yes.
Commissioner Connor Murray, excuse me.
Yes.
Commissioner A Costa, yes. Commissioner
Kaiser, yes. And chair. Yes. Thank
you. All right. Moving on to uh new
business.
I am going to have to step out and turn
the time over to Geyser.
Is there any reason you can't stay in
until we're done asking questions and
then step out?
No. So that it's a conflict of interest.
So he needs to leave for the
presentation and the entire entirety of
the discussion and the vote. Well, it's
it's his property.
Yeah. He can't he can't decide on his
own application.
Any reason he can't stay for questions?
Okay. So, um, before we hear
presentation from staff, we'll need to,
uh, get a motion and a second to hear
item 7.1.
Mr. Chairman, I make a I, uh, motion to
hear 7.1 as stated.
I second.
Uh, all right. We'll turn over to staff
for presentation. Uh, thank you,
Commissioner Kaiser. Uh, Adam, community
development for the record. Uh first
item we have before here is thirsten
tracks uh replat number one is proposed
non-administrative replat. Uh this is
located on the northwest corner what is
Baton Memorial West and McGuffy Street.
Uh total subject property made up of two
tracks encompass a total of 28.6 acres
in size and they are currently vacant or
undeveloped tracks of land. uh they are
zoned a multitude of zoning designations
from R2 multi-dwelling low density C3
commercial highintensity and M1 M2 uh
industrial standard zonings. Um two
existing tracks were created by the
previous parent subdivision which was
the thirst track subdivision which is
approved in August of 20 uh uh
22. shown here those tracks that we are
discussing highlighted in the red or
better yet uh bordered by the red uh two
tracks here as you can see there's a
zoning of R2 up here close on most
northern part along McGuffy C3 here
further south on the southern portion of
this northern track and then C3/M1M2
uh for the southern portion
here and shown here as you can see that
is a a completely uh vacant piece of uh
property
For some reason, mapping is still
showing that Montes Solo Street is
coming through there, but as you can see
from the the subdivision that was before
you, there's no plans for any type of
street extension uh out from that Monte
Solo
Street. So again, this is a
non-administrative replant. Uh since it
is creating additional lots, it is
required per the subdivision code to
come before the planning zone commission
for approval just like a final plat
process. Uh so this is replatting two
existing tracks into five new lots. Lot
one comes to 7.6 acres in size. That is
the largest one. Lot two 4.6 acres in
size. Lot 3 7 acres in size. Lot 4 6.6
acres in size. And lot five 2.6 acres in
size. Uh one of these lots is multif
family has the majority of the multif
family zoning on it. The northern
portion and the other lots are either on
commercial or
commercial/industrial lots. Um uh so
again this is before you because it is
required to come before you per the
subdivision code following final plat
process shown here the proposed
subdivision. Again there's lot one two
three four and five of that of the
uh of the proposed non-administrative
replac there's no change in the actual
zoning. So all zoning will change will
remain the same uses that were allowed
before will remain as as as they do now.
Only thing that's happening now is
basically these two tracks are being cut
out into
lots. My
apologies. Um additionally with this
subdivision there is a shared access
agreement between lots. So there will be
that as
well with one access point of a mcuffy
and one off a baton memorial.
Pardon me. Um, so when staff did their
analysis, we we recognized no life,
safety or welfare issues identified with
the proposed replap, it does meet all
requirements of a replap per the
subdivision code meets the standards of
the zoning code for lot size, minimum
lot size, lot uh, depth, width, and so
on and so forth like that. And lots uh,
sh have shared access that meets the
requirements of our design standards of
the city of Los Cruises as well.
Public notice was sent out to
surrounding property owners per the 2001
zoning code requirement and subdivision
code requirements. Uh staff did receive
seven phone calls. Uh mostly general
information as to what's going on there,
what's going to be built. A lot of
that's really just unknown right now.
This is just a subdivision. Um uh but a
couple actually in support of the
proposed subdivision wanting commercial
in this area cuz there's minimal
commercial uh entities that that that
that can
uh provide uh services to surrounding
residential area and uh some questions
for potential traffic issues that they
saw. One being that Montesole that I was
pointing out that road is not being
platted into this lot. So just to
clarify that
again. So this proposal did go before
the development review committee in
April April 2nd of 2025 and after very
minor discussion the proposed replat was
recommended for approval to the planning
zoning
commission. So with that staff does
recommend approval for the replat based
on the following
findings that it meets all subdivision
code requirements. Uh repack complies
with the 2001 zoning code subdivision
code and city of Los Cru's design
standards. fulfills the intended purpose
of LA Los Cusus meets the purposes and
intent for section 38-2 of this of the
zoning code and of course that our DRC
did recommend approval for this proposal
on April 2nd
2025 with that uh tonight commission
your options one to vote to vote yes and
approve the replat two to vote no and
deny three vote to amend or for table
postpone uh that is the conclusion of my
u presentation the applicant's
representative is here if you have any
questions for him and I stand for
questions. Thank you. Um does the
applicant representative wish to say
anything
before All right. Um any questions from
the
commission? Um I have a just a couple
questions. Um so to clarify this is
strictly a replplat. So
uh this is not a
subdivision plan that they're putting
forward. Is that correct or am I
misunderstanding?
Uh, Commissioner Chair, Commissioner
Kaiser, pardon me. Um, the so replat, it
is a subdivision, but it's replatting
two existing tracks into five lots. Uh,
so but it's called a replat because it's
an existing subdivision that's being
replplatted into additional lots. So
that's why we call it a replat, but
technically, yes, sir, it is a
subdivision. Okay. And then there so
basically their proposal is for no
public streets street dedications then
commissioner Kaio that is correct the
there's no street dedication required
all street dedication already exists
along uh Paton Memorial West uh McGuffy
as well there are improvements that are
required along McGuffy which are being
done by the developer at this time.
Okay. So if you go back to the um
the Yeah. Uh, was there a closer up
version or was that it?
Uh, no. Go go go back. Yeah, that one. I
thought there was a closer one, but um,
so the lots that are in front, so lot
four, lot five, uh, would have basically
a private access easement to access lots
one and two when this is developed.
Commissioner Kaiser, uh, all five locks
actually share those shared access. Uh
uh what's shows here what's shown there
as an actual solid line sir that's
actually a flag lot for lot two. So lot
two will actually have actual frontage
to Baton Memorial here. Gotcha. But
since it's actually also designated as a
shared access and utility easement.
Everybody will be able to utilize this
for the subdivision as well for cross
connectivity and access to not only
Baton Memorial but also to the one go on
the east side there going towards the
mcuffy. This one right here, if we zoom
in, it's actually a dash line because
that's just a dedicated easement for
access and utilities, sir. Okay, thanks
for the clarification. Um, and then I
think final question. So,
why why is Monte Soul Street? Why
wouldn't that not continue through to um
Baton Memorial?
Monttool Street, sir, was never actually
part of this. This here is for some
reason is just shown on any map. If you
go to Google, you go to Bing, you go to
near maps, everything that we have, it
shows a patching through. Um, but as you
can see from our actual, this is our
zoning map. It it ends right there, sir.
And the reason for that is there's
actually no additional rideway that can
come down for Montes that exists on the
proposed subdivision today, nor to the
west. Uh, so it's it's basically just
blocked right there for any type of
extension to this house, sir. And there
actually isn't enough frontage for it to
actually patch through here as well
because it kind of straddles the middle
lot, the middle of the road, if you
will. So, it's not wide enough to allow
that road to continuation down south
there.
Okay.
Um, so I I guess I I could see I
understand what you're saying from a
vehic vehicular traffic perspective. Um,
but as far as say
pedestrian
access, there's no they're under no
obligation to connect with the the
neighborhood, the existing neighborhood
that's directly to the north of them.
Then Commissioner Kaiser, there's no
requirement. Uh but that is definitely
something that staff will bring up to
not only the devel the the owner of the
property but any future potential
developer um to allow for that
connectivity sir. Um since the road is
essentially there it kind of makes sense
if you have to the pedestrian
connectivity. So staff will definitely
reach out to the developer for that sir.
Yeah, I would strongly encourage it
because I mean we talk about
accessibility and and that to me if you
don't have that connection even for
pedestrian access, you're basically
making people
walk pretty far out of their way and
drive just to literally access an
amenity that's in some cases directly
behind them. Um, so I would I would
strongly encourage staff to take
advantage of the fact that there's
already a public rideway and even if you
can't get a full road dedication, I
think having some access from a
pedestrian perspective uh would be
valuable. Um, those are all the
questions I
have. Um, any other questions from
commission before we go to public
comment? All right. Um, is there anyone
in the audience who wishes to speak on
this item? I see two individuals. Um, so
we'll start uh over here to my left. Um,
so if you can come forward, ma'am.
Um, and we'll give you we'll give you
each three minutes to speak.
Good afternoon. Please state your name
for the record. And if you could get
close to the mic, that would be help so
we can hear you. Uh, my name is Jame
Elias. And do you swear or affirm that
the testimony you're about to give is
the truth and nothing but the truth
under penalty of law? I swear. Go ahead.
So um I'm I'm one of the affected um
persons in in this plan. I live by the
Sombra Soul Street and I do have like 10
questions.
Um, one of them is uh why they're trying
to do a business on a residential area
because according
to these
um zoning code that I got out of um out
of Google. I'm not an expert obviously
um but there's some
um or van a shipments that needs to
happen and um I'm also concerned about
my children's safe uh community safety
traffic issues that Montgomery Street
it's very
narrow so there's going to be a lot of
traffic in there
um I'm also concerned about my privacy.
My wall is not that tall, so and I do
have a an over the ground pool and I
have two kids, so I this is like a huge
concern for me. Um,
and there's also in front of the the
area where they try to they're trying to
build this business, there's a daycare
and there's a temple in there. So again,
children, safety,
community. I just see a lot of issues in
here. And and last but not least, I love
my view.
the organ view. I mean, I just I just
love it and they're going to take it
away from me. So,
thank you. Thank you.
All right. And then we'll go to the
gentleman that was on my right. You can
come forward.
Your acoustics are terrible here.
If you could state your name for the
record before you begin, second swear
you would.
Yeah. My name is Larry Cavic and I own
lot number four in Tavis Estates. And do
you swear or affirm that the testimony
you're about to give is the truth and
nothing but the truth under penalty of
law? Yes. Go ahead. Uh my first question
was on page three that Adam had up
there. Uh I was a little confused as to
what he was telling us with regard to
one section being C3, another piece
being uh uh another designation. Uh
could we ask Adam to come up here real
quick and clarify that? If you want to
finish speaking, then we can address any
questions after. Okay. Okay. You made
mention uh Mr. Kaiser, you made mention
u about a pedestrian entrance. Where
were you talking about at?
Um I don't unfortunately I don't have a
pointer. Um but it would be
um why don't you finish your questions
and then we'll we'll try to get those
addressed. Otherwise, you're going to
we're going to use up all of your time.
Um are these going to be land leases or
are they going to be individual property
sales?
I'll wait for that
answer. Is it
possible? I know I everything is
possible. Is it possible that we could
place a height restriction on all the
buildings on that
property? That's all I have. Thank you.
Um, is there anybody else who wishes to
speak on this item?
All right, coming back to the
commission. Um, so staff, if we could
maybe just clarify a couple of points
that came up. Um, I think the one big
one is the zoning. Maybe if you could
revisit that because I know there's a
little bit of wonkiness going on. Yes.
Thank you, uh, Commissioner Kaiser. Um,
so the zoning that's existing on the
property is the northernmost portion up
here is zone R2, which is multifamily
low density. The southern portion of a
larger portion of that track is zone C3,
commercial high intensity. And then the
southernmost portion that actually
fronts Baton Memorial here is zone
C3/M1M2. All zoning is in in is already
in effect um uh for these properties. So
those land uses development standards,
it it's all already vested. Um so
there's no change in that. um if they
wanted to come in and develop a shopping
center on both tracks as is and not
split the lots, they'd be allowed they
could come in and pull a permit tomorrow
morning for that by right and do the
multif family as well by right. Um the
the reason we're here tonight is just
for a
subdivision slicing up those two tracks
into five lots essentially is what's
going on. When it comes to how the
developer will be selling those or
leasing or staff isn't aware of exactly
what they'll be doing. We do know of one
lot that is uh that is being sold. We
don't know how the rest will be done. Um
to answer the question about u um having
the the privacy and uh buildings right
next to your property that are
commercial since there are single family
around here. Some buffer requirements
and landscaping requirements will be
needed will be required when development
occurs uh on these properties as well.
Uh so there is that that that'll be
taken care of as well sir. Um, when it
comes to height restrictions, the that
can only be done when a zoning uh the
zoning is being questioned or being
brought before you. There's no zoning
being involved with this proposal. It's
all it's it's a subdivision uh code
matters or not not not zoning, but there
is height restrictions already
associated with those zones with the
existing zones. Yes, there is. Do you
know what they are? Uh so R2 maximum
height is 35 ft. C3 maximum height is uh
60 ft. uh which are extremely rare and
far between in Los Cruises in my 17
years here and then M1 M2 is is 60 feet
as well. Sir,
thank you. And then can you maybe just
describe a little bit about what what
give some examples of the types of uses
that would go in potentially to C3 and
then the C3 M1 M2. Sure. Uh Commissioner
Kaiser, uh what you're looking at is uh
retail shops could be going here,
shopping centers can be located in here.
Um, we're currently have under review a
uh tractor supply company that'll be
going into one of these lots. Um, excuse
me. Uh, office space can be developed in
here as well. Restaurants is also
permitted use. Gas stations, all these
types of uses are allowed by right in
these zoning designations.
Thank you. And then um I guess just to
clarify the the question around the
pedestrian access that what I was
referring to was the
um the Monte Soul Street that corner
there. Um again based on what we're
seeing I don't know if it's possible but
just encouraging staff that if it is
that it should be considered as part of
this project. So um thank you. Any other
questions from the
commission? All right. Looking for a
motion to approve item 7.1.
Mr. Chair, I present to move forward
make a motion.
Oh, we're mixing things up tonight. So,
we're just going to
This is on the vote for um item 7.1.
Commissioner Smith,
yes.
Commissioner Murray, yes. Commissioner
Costa, yes. Commissioner Kaiser. Yes.
Based on the staff recommendation and
consistency with Elevate Los Creus and
the chair had a conflict. Thank you.
All right. If we can uh get our chair
returned to the
dis paging chair thirsten.
Welcome back. We'll turn it back over to
you. Thank you.
All right. So, now we, if I understand
this right, now we need a motion to hear
7.2. Can we get a motion to hear? I make
a motion to hear 7.2.
Second. I second.
Okay. So, the proposal before you is for
Sonoma Ranch North master plan amendment
number four and the corresponding zone
changes. Currently, the property is
located on the east side of Sonoma Ranch
Boulevard south of North Rice Drive. The
total master plan when it was approved
in 1997 encompass 275 acres. What's
remaining is 106 acres. that is
essentially as part of the master plan,
but it's not being modified. And so
there's 25 acres that's
undeveloped. Five of five and a half
acres or so, 5.75 acres is what's being
requested to be master planned and
reszoned, which is currently zoned flood
control and open space
recreation. This is currently the vacant
portion that is about 25 acres or so,
plus or minus as far as acreage.
The rest of the master plan would
consume all of the single family
residential, the commercial office
multifamily that is located along Soma
Ranch. And so essentially these parcels
here are not affected by the requested
master plan amendment or zone change.
The only portion that we are here to
discuss would be the smaller portion
located at the very bottom of the master
plan of these 25 acres. This area right
here is our flood control and open
space. It's 5.75 acres. that is still
vacant and undeveloped across from
essentially the state police office if
you've driven down Sonoma
Ranch. So the master plan amendment is
to modify the planning parcel 6 and 10.
Essentially 10 was the original planning
parcel that encompassed the 5.75 acres
that is going to be modified and then
they're also creating planning parcel
17.
What they're doing is basically
modifying some of the land uses within
those designated acreage. It's an
increase in residential uses, reducing
flood control because flood control is
actually being used through the aoyos
that are currently there by the natural
flow, maintaining the open space and
recreation, and then creating office
commercial and multifamily zoning along
Sonoma Ranch Boulevard.
So essentially the zone change that goes
with a master plan because you have to
do both processes together. You'll see
that zone change for parcel 6 the.99
acres is being added to the R1A and R1B
zoning designation. Then you have parcel
10 which is remaining that will stay the
two acres of flood control and open
space. Then parcel 17 is created with
2.76 acres that can be either used for
C2 which is our commercial medium
intensity O2 which is office
professional limited retail or R3 which
is our multi-dwelling medium
density. This will give you a better
idea of what the map is changing from
and what the existing zonings are and
what was being proposed. So this is the
modified area at the bottom of the
actual zoning map and you can see in
blue that it's flood control and open
space. North of that has been reszoned
in a previous master plan that was done
in 2018 where it shows commercial office
and multif family. These are all zoned
single family residential. This area is
not being modified. So what you can see
is the 1 acre is being added to the R1A
and R1B to increase the residential
district. Flood control and open space
is going to maintain the two acres so
that way we see the park coming in for
development. And then this portion right
here is the commercial office and
residential multif family.
When staff did their analysis, what we
look at is there's always going to be
goals and actions that will follow
through, but there's also some of the
development strategies that we're
looking at whenever you propose
something. When you're looking at a
suburban neighborhood type, it is saying
to intermix basically your residential,
your commercials, have nodes that are
going to actually impact the
neighborhood. along all of these areas.
You can see where those commercial
services have become very useful to the
neighborhood because took a lot of
residents to get those developments to
actually take place. Now, you can see a
lot of those commercials, as you were
stating earlier, there's some of them
that actually do have walkable spaces
from the roads behind the commercial
buildings. So, people have pedestrian
activity. They're not relying on
vehicles. They can go to random
services. Not everything has become
necessarily drive-through restaurants or
something of a safe. You have Edward
Jones. do have different office services
provided now. So when we looked at this
by allowing the commercial to go along
that frontage on Sonoma Ranch, you're
also creating a buffer. You're putting
the higher traffic along the higher
roadways, which is your major arterials.
That buffer is now providing, you know,
leeway to the park, so they're not
directly on Sonoma Ranch. That could
create an impact as far as traffic
moving through. And then you're creating
the next buffer that goes over into a
residential. So you create a transition
We did take this to the DRC um on April
2nd. They do review master plans.
However, they are not a reviewer of zone
changes as they move forward. So when
DRC looks at master plans are looking
for infrastructures, access um any of
the improvements that would be required
for a commercial development or
residential development coming forward.
There was very little discussion as far
as any impacts that would be negative
negatively impacting the neighborhood
based on the proposed zone change and
modification of the master plan. So with
that DRC did recommend approval. Once
again, zone changes do not require
recommendation by
DRC. We did send out notice as part of
the subdivision code because that is
what the master plan um does follow to
the 500 ft within the surrounding
neighborhood. We did receive I did
receive one call yesterday. Some of the
concern was more that um are people
allowed to park on the streets next to
the commercial development or behind the
commercial development? The way the
roadway network has been created is
those are local streets. So it does
provide additional access in order to
basically access those commercial
developments. So if you don't want to be
along Soma, you would have an easier
access
point. With that, staff's findings are
that the master plan and the resoning do
match and are inconsistent with the
sections outlined in 38-2 in the 2001
zoning code. It also does meet the
intent that Elevate has provided,
showing that you do have a a mix and a
variety of land uses going throughout
the development in a suburban
neighborhood. It is harmonious with the
character areas. It is not out of
context with what is currently there and
existing and being developed.
So with that, um, your options are to
vote yes and approve, vote no to deny,
vote to amend or vote to table. I stand
for any questions and the applicant's
representative is here as well.
Thank you. Um, going to open it up to
questions by the commissioners. Do you
guys have any questions?
I just have one question. Uh, of that
5.75 acres to be reszoned, um, do I have
any idea how much of that is going to be
open open space and
recreation? Mr. Chair and Commissioner
Smith, that's going to be um, to acres
that are going to remain because a lot
of it was designated for the flood
control, not necessarily the open space
recreation. The flood control is now
being handled through those aos that are
along the property boundary. And so,
this will be for that park area. There's
usually some kind of flood zone or um
flood components that are always
associated with parks, but that'll be
generally where the park and open space
are maintained.
Thank you.
I have a couple chair. Um kind of
following along on what Commissioner
Smith just asked. Um, can you explain
when this was originally master planned
out in
1997, what was the plan for the open
space recreation? What was the rationale
for that five and change acre parcel?
Mr. Chair, um, Commissioner Kaiser, I do
not know what the rationale was to have
that 5 acres. I don't necessarily know
that it was approved as 5 acres in 1997.
There were a lot of modifications. The
primary modifications took place in
2018. So, a lot of the parcels were
reszoned. When we took it in 2018, 22
parcels were modified and we ended up
creating more and that's when that 5acre
parcel was essentially more established
as to what it could actually be
developed as from the original master
plan. I would not answer that of knowing
what those things were. But when we
changed in 2018, a lot of those
modifications took place. Okay, fair
enough. So, in 2018, what was what was
the plan? That was a designated open
space at the time. In 2018, it was open
space and flood control because a lot of
the water was moving to that area. Um,
as we've noticed and going through that
and the applicant can also explain how
the aoyo has affected where the drainage
is no longer necessary for that parcel
and that's why it's being reduced. If it
was to be maintained, a lot of it was
going to be probably a giant pond that
was going to maintain any of the water
coming off sites. But because that's no
longer in use, this is going to become
essentially the park area. We list them
as flood control because there's always
flood control components whenever you're
building those parks.
Okay. But the open space element of it
was open space, flood control, I think
you said recreation. So were they
planning to build a park? What was
Mr. Chair and Commissioner Kaiser? Yes,
it's always going to that essentially
was always going to be the designated
park area for the north for the master
plan itself. In that park area though,
there was an increased acreage to
accommodate flood control. Now that
that's not needed, the park is
remaining. The park is not changing.
That's going to be essentially the park
for the neighborhood that was originally
planned.
Okay. So
the so in 2018, uh 5 acre parcel was
identified for flood control and a park.
And now we're saying the flood control
is apparently no longer necessary even
though we have a lot more impervious
surface out there. And so therefore
we're
reducing the park
component
by x%. I'm trying to figure out how did
we decide that we're the park isn't
changing. We're just stripping out the
flood control. How do we distinguish
between those two? Mr. Mr. Chair and
Commissioner Kaiser, I'll go ahead and
have the applicant's representative
explain one how the water is being
separated. If if flood control is being
separated from the process, why that's
available. Now, as far as the park
remaining, the two acres would always be
the park that was already established,
that would still remain as the park. the
flood control and park, the way that
it's zoned and designated is always to
show that we have that component to go
associated with the park whenever we
build the ponds that are going to
suffice the park. And so we don't just
label them as open space because they're
going to have some type of drainage
component with them, but it'll still be
within those two acres that the park is
developed. We're not stripping away the
two acres of the park that was
originally planned.
So the flood control was always
specifically for the park. The flood
control was always specifically for five
acres and a portion for that park. Yes.
Now, are we just reducing the amount
that's needed for flood
control? Okay. I'd like to hear from the
applicant to better
understand how we no longer need flood
control when we did in 2018.
Good evening, commissioners and Paul
Pompio with Solder Mill Associates on
behalf of the applicant.
Uh, I got to swear you in here. Uh, do
you swear or affirm that the testimony
you're about to give is the truth and
nothing but the truth under penalty of
law? Yes, I do. Thank you. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman, commissioners.
Basically, this resoning to remove the
flood control component comes from a
variance request that the developer has
submitted to the city of Los Cusus.
Whereas, we are going to store the
runoff from this development. All of
Sonoma Ranch North uh will be contained
behind the Los Cusus flood control dam.
So as such we do not need the that
volutric storage within the development
and thereby it's been removed in before
uh after that theory was put forward to
the city. We had numerous discussions
with parks and recreation. What parks
and recreation wanted was a 2acre
developed park. They were not interested
in any other property outside of that.
So that's what reduced it down toward
that 2acre um threshold.
Thank
you. Anybody have any more questions? I
have a couple more. Keep going. Um, this
is, uh, back to staff. Um, how many
units, residential units, um, are
planned for the the extra little
piece that's going to be reszoned to
residential?
that
property residential.
Mr. Chairman, I can answer that
question. Go ahead. Okay. So due to the
lot configuration along this edge of the
of the AOYO and the property lines, we
we're getting two additional residential
lots by the reszoning of this area right
here being uh reszoned from open space
recreational and flood control to R1A or
1B. Okay. Thank you.
Um I think those are all my questions.
I had a couple of questions here. Um, in
the D is this a DRC report. Um, it says
that the basically parks and wreck was
not there at at the time. And so it says
I do not see parks here. And so I will
basically provide parks did say as long
as the develop as long as the developer
works with them through the design then
they're approving the plans.
So from the applicant's um testimony
there he says we only have to provide a
twoacre park. Is that correct Mr. Chair
and commission? That is correct. Okay.
And then is so the flood control open
space
recreational there's enough twoacre park
there Mr. Chair Commission that's
correct yes and none of that has to be
used for a pond or anything such as that
Mr. chair, that is also correct because
all of that is going through the actual
dam. Okay. I just know in the past
there's ponds and parks and ponds don't
like to mingle together for some reason.
And so I just wanted to clarify that on
there.
Um, is this going to be going under the
realiz? Is this under the realized or is
this under the old code? This is Mr.
Chair, this is currently under our old
code because as everyone knows right
now, we're unable to use our new code.
And so based on the development, that's
why you see the zoning designations um
that are placed before you being from
the 2001 zoning code. Okay. My only
other one was the uh the open space, but
I think you answered all the questions.
I don't have anything else. Anything
else for the
commissioners? All right. We will now
let me see. I got to find my notes
here. There it
is. Uh do we have any uh public
comments? Is there anyone in the public
who'd wish to uh make any comments at
this
point? Okay, seeing none, we will move
on to
um I guess a motion is hold on. Oh, just
a vote. Sorry, a vote.
Mr. Chair, may I interject? Um we do
need to take two votes. Um just so there
is an understanding that we have two
cases that are being presented. PNZ is
the final action on the master plan.
And then PNZ is a recommending body to
city council. And so I would appreciate
the votes to be separated out so that
way they are very clear moving forward
to city council.
Okay. So this we only have on here is
the 7.2. So how do you want me to break
that out? Mr. Chair, I would just
recommend approval or recommend approval
of the master plan first and then go
through the recommending approval of the
zone chains presented.
Mr.
Chair, I make a motion to approve the
master plan as presented.
Do we have a second?
So,
can can I get a point of clarification?
So, the master plan would be the the new
lots. That's what the master plan would
be, Mr. Chair, that is correct. That is
saying that the boundaries are being
modified to reflect those areas as far
as being residential, commercial, and
open space.
Okay. But does the motion have to have
the case number on it then?
because you got two case numbers on the
bottom.
Okay.
All right. So, we need a second for the
motion of a Oh,
[Music]
no. I I have a question for staff real
quick. Which case number is associated
with which item? Sarah,
Mr. Chair and Commission, case numbers
that begin with CS is going to be your
master plan. The case referring after
that has ZO is going to be for zoning
ordinances.
Thank you.
Okay, so this is on the vote for the
master plan case number 24
CS050088. Commissioner Smith,
yes.
Commissioner Murray, yes. Commissioner
Costa,
yes.
Commissioner Kaiser, no.
And Chair, yes.
Thank you. And this one will be on the
vote for the zone change case number
Z50089. Commissioner Smith,
yes.
Commissioner Murray, yes. Commissioner
A. Costa. Yes.
Commissioner Kaiser, no.
And Chair, yes.
Thank
you. Okay, now we're moving moving on to
discussion items. Is there
any You got a hand in the audience? No.
Do we have any other discussion items
for commissioners? Sure. Sure. I just
have one question. Um, last month I
asked staff if it was possible to get a
presentation um, updating us on the
progress at three crosses redevelopment
project. I would just like to request
that that get uh added to next month's
agenda.
Yes, we can get that on there. Um,
anybody else have any items for
discussion? This is uh I don't know if I
can bring this up, but I'm curious about
the Lman um corridor. I know uh it's
been several years and I know our um
city manager approved uh with the city
councilors back then on widening the
LMAN corridor uh for public safety right
now. It's getting pretty bad. Do you
have any information on that and if you
can bring it forward maybe in one of
these meetings so we can kind of get
updated on that please. Mr. Chair and
Commissioner Aosta. Yes, we can look
into something on that to see what the
progress is for Lman. Yes.
Thank you. I I only have one discussion.
I know it's not really a discussion
item. It'll be for next time.
Um, some of the presentation formatting
isn't it sometimes is confusing to me
when I'm receiving it from staff. And so
I wanted to basically just reach out to
you guys and say, "Hey, is there any
other formatting or other information
that you guys are needing from staff to
make the presentations a little bit
easier for us to understand?" One of the
examples would been last last month was
when we were talking about a park,
whether it was in the old master plan.
It isn't, it's there or it's not. So, I
think some like history uh would help
would help me out personally. Um there's
a couple other things that I'd like to
get on there, but I want to open it up
for discussion next time and just
basically give it to you guys for, you
know, bring your thoughts and
recommendations. um so that it makes it
easier for us or for you. You know, all
of us are a little bit different and so
whatever sticks out to you and what you
want to see if we can bring that bring
those recommendations kind of write them
out so that we can go over that. So
it'll be easier for us when we're
getting some recommendations or giving
recommendations to staff of what we
would like to to see from them. Other
than that, I don't have any other items
for discussion. Um we'll move on to the
staff announcements.
Staff does not have any announcements.
Chair or commission?
Okay, we need a motion to adjurnn.
I move that we adjourn. A second.
What say? All in favor say I. I. I. Hi
I.