Mar 03, 2025 Planning Commission

[00:00:04]

COMMENT ON A SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEM IN A NUMBER OF WAYS.

FIRST, BY EMAIL

[Call To Order]

THIRD, THE PUBLIC CAN PROVIDE COMMENTS IN PERSON AT THIS MEETING.

ALL WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED WILL BE DISTRIBUTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS APPROPRIATE PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE MEETINGS AND PUBLISHED IN THE CITY WEBSITE.

IF RECEIVED BY THE DEADLINE, I REQUEST THE PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY TO PROCEED WITH ROLL CALL VICE CHAIR CASTLE CASTLE PRESENT.

COMMISSIONER ARM PRESENT.

COMMISSIONER VALENZUELA.

HERE.

COMMISSIONER ES HERE.

COMMISSIONER, UM, COMMISSIONER OR CHAIR MILLER.

I APOLOGIZE HERE.

AND COMMISSIONER SANCHEZ AND COMMISSIONER FOREMAN ARE ABSENT.

THANK YOU MADAM SECRETARY.

WE WILL NOW HEAR PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS OR MATTERS THAT ARE NOT ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA UNDER STATE LAW.

WE CANNOT RESPOND TO PUBLIC COMMENTS AND ITEMS REQUIRING PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.

THESE ITEMS MUST BE BROUGHT BACK ON A SUBSEQUENT AGENDA UNLESS THEY ARE OF A DEMONSTRATED EMERGENCY OR URGENT NATURE.

AND WE DO HAVE ONE ITEM FOR THIS, UH, PARTICULAR PART OF THE MEETING, AND I CALL ALICIA MORRISON.

PLEASE COME FORWARD.

OH, I'M SORRY.

YES, WE DO NEED TO DO THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

PLEASE HOLD ON A MOMENT.

I'M GONNA CALL, UH, UH, COMMISSIONER ARMA TO LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE.

FACE THE FLAG, THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT, WHICH STANDS, ONE NATION, OUR NATION UNDER GOD IN INVISIBLE THE WITH LIBERTY IS JUSTICE FOR ALL MY APOLOGIES.

UH, PLEASE, MS. MORRISON,

[PUBLIC COMMENT]

GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.

I WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS MY GRATITUDE FOR YOUR SERVICE ON THIS COMMISSION ON DECEMBER 2ND.

EACH OF YOU LISTEN TO THE CONCERNS OF THE RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES ALONG ORANGE STREET AND SWEETWATER ROAD.

YOU LISTEN TO HOW OUR LIVES AND THE LIVELIHOODS OF THE LOCAL BUSINESSES THAT WOULD'VE BEEN NEGATIVELY IMPACTED WITH AN INCREASE OF AIR NOISE AND LIGHT POLLUTION, THE INCREASE OF DANGEROUS TRAFFIC THAT IT, THAT ALREADY AND CONTINUES TO BE A NUISANCE.

THANK YOU FOR DOING YOUR DUE DILIGENCE IN CAREFULLY EVALUATING THE PROJECT THAT WAS NOT A GOOD FIT FOR THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE IMPACTS IT WOULD'VE DONE TO US.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU MS. MORRISON.

WE WILL NOW BE

[1. Approval of the Agenda for the Meeting on March 3, 2025]

ITEM ONE IS THE APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 3RD, 2025.

THAT IS THIS MEETING TONIGHT.

IF THERE IS NO DISCUSSION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION, DO I HAVE A MOTION? WE HAVE A MOTION BY VICE CHAIR, UH, CASTLE AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER VALENZUELA TO APPROVE THE AGENDA.

MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

MOTION APPROVE UNANIMOUSLY.

THANK YOU.

ITEM TWO

[2. Approval of Minutes from the Meeting of December 2, 2024]

AND I HAVE A COUPLE OF SPEAKERS WISHING TO, UM, COMMENT ON THIS ITEM I CALL LUISA MCCARTHY.

GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.

I'D JUST LIKE TO, UH, START THE DAY BY REQUESTING AN EDIT ON THE DECEMBER 2ND MINUTES IN REGARDS TO, UH, THE DECEMBER 2ND, 2024,

[00:05:02]

I ALSO WANNA TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY WHILE I'M HERE TO ALSO EX EXTEND MY GRATITUDE FOR DOING THE RIGHT THING AND DENYING THAT PARTICULAR LARGER THAN LIFE ONION PROJECT AS A PUBLIC HEALTH NUISANCE PROJECT.

FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO TOOK THE TIME TO SEE THE AREA, TO VISIT THE AREA, TO SPEAK TO THE RESIDENTS, TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE FAMILIES THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED IN THEIR FUNERAL POSSESSION POSSESSIONS.

I THANK YOU FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART AND ON BEHALF OF MANY OF THE RESIDENTS THERE IN LINCOLN ACRES AND IN THOSE FOUR STREETS AND ABOVE, LITTLE DID I KNOW THAT THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT WILL, WILL GROW, WOULD GROW INTO A NEIGHBORHOOD UNITY.

SO FROM BAD THINGS, GOOD THINGS HAPPEN.

AND WE WILL NOT STOP UNTIL WE ENSURE THAT THINGS ARE DONE RIGHT BY THE BOOK LEGALLY AND TRANSPARENTLY.

THANK YOU.

UM, MI UH, MA'AM? UH, MS. MCCARTHY? YES.

I'M NOT CLEAR ON THE, UH, THE CHANGE THAT YOU WANT TO MAKE.

SHE WANTS FROM NEUTRAL.

OKAY.

PAGE FOUR OF, UH, AGENDA NUMBER TWO.

OKAY.

VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU, MA'AM.

THANK YOU.

OKAY, NEXT WE HAVE, UM, MCKAYLA LANCO.

SORRY.

GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS.

MY NAME IS MICKAYLA POLANCO AND I'M ALSO HERE FOR THE SAME PURPOSE AS, UH, MS. MCCARTHY.

I, UH, WAS NOTED AS NEUTRAL ON YOUR AGENDA, AND I STRONGLY OPPOSE THE PROJECT BROUGHT UP TO YOU AS COMMISSIONERS ON DECEMBER 2ND.

AND I ALSO WANTED TO THANK, UM, LILIANA ARMENTA, COMMISSIONER LILIANA ARMENTA, RANDY MARIE CASTLE, MARTIN MILLER.

UM, AND I BELIEVE ALSO MS. BARROW FOREMAN WERE THE YES THAT VOTED, UH, NO TOWARDS THE PROJECT.

I'M NOT SURE IF MS. COMMISSIONER CLAUDIA VALENZUELA WAS HERE.

I THINK SHE WAS ABSENT.

UM, BUT I WANTED TO THANK YOU FOR, UM, DOING THE RIGHT THING, UH, FOR ALL CONCERNED, NOT JUST FOR SOME OF THE PEOPLE CONCERNED, BUT FOR ALL CONCERNED.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU.

UH, MR. FRANK RIVERA.

GOOD EVENING, UH, PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN MILLER AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS BY INTRODUCTION.

MY NAME IS FRANCISCO RIVERA, A STATE LICENSED PROFESSIONAL CIVIL ENGINEER AND STATE LICENSED TRAFFIC ENGINEER WITH 40 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN ALL ASPECTS OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND DEVELOPMENT OF MANY MULTI-THOUSAND UNIT SUBDIVISIONS, INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROJECTS, REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS, LARGE UTILITY PROJECTS, REGIONAL AND LOCAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING, ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS, AND TRAFFIC ENGINEERING OPERATIONS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR LISTENING.

ON BEHALF OF ALL WHO SPOKE AGAINST THE SWEETWATER ROAD COMMERCIAL PROJECT PRESENTED ON DECEMBER 2ND, PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING.

I WATCHED THE PUBLIC HEARING MEETING, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR SINCERE DISCUSSION AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED.

AND I'M GLAD THAT YOU REALIZE THE SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE ISSUES THE PROPOSED PROJECT WAS GOING TO CREATE RELATED TO PUBLIC SAFETY, AIR POLLUTION, AND PUBLIC NUISANCE.

THE PROJECT WAS UNLIKE ANYTHING I HAVE EVER CONSIDERED IN MY ENTIRE CAREER.

SIMPLY PUT, IT WAS JUST TOO MUCH ONSITE DEVELOPMENT AND TRAFFIC GENERATION FOR TOO SMALL OF A SITE WITH NO UPFRONT TRAFFIC MITIGATION PROPOSED UP AGAINST AN ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY.

I AM HERE TO LEAVE YOU OR I WILL SOON BE, UH, DROPPING OFF AN INVESTIGATIVE REPORT ON WHY THAT PROJECT SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN APPROVED.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK THAT YOU DO ON THE DAIS FOR THE PUBLIC BENEFIT.

THANK YOU, MR. RIVERA.

AND IN FULL DISCLOSURE, MR. RIVERA AND I HAVE A LONG HISTORY OF WORKING TOGETHER, BOTH PROFESSIONALLY AND SOCIALLY.

[00:10:09]

UH, SO FAR AS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES, UM, WE HAVE TWO CORRECTIONS, AND NOW I NEED A MOTION, UH, FROM A PLANNING COMMISSIONER.

AND A SECOND PLEASE.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION, UM, TO APPROVE WITH THE, UM, MIC POLANCO MADE A PUBLIC COMMENT IN STRONG OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM.

LUISA MCCARTHY MADE A PUBLIC COMMENT IN OPPOSITION, STRONG OPPOSITION OF THE ITEM.

THOSE TWO CHANGES ON THE MINUTES.

DO I HAVE A SECOND? OKAY.

WE HAVE A MOTION BY VICE CHAIR CASTLE AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ARMA TO APPROVE THE MINUTES WITH CHANGES.

MADAM SECRETARY, WE WILL NOW VOTE.

PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

MOTION CARRIED.

FOUR YESES.

ONE ABSTAINED BY COMMISSIONER VALENZUELA.

AND FOR THE RECORD, WE CAN GET HER ABSTAINED.

YES, THAT'S FINE.

WE'LL, WE'LL TALK ABOUT IT.

, WE'LL TALK ABOUT IT DURING MY TRAINING.

.

OKAY.

OKAY.

I JUST WASN'T SURE BECAUSE IN PREVIOUS TIMES WHEN I WASN'T PRESENT, I NEEDED TO ABSTAIN.

YEAH, I MEAN, I, WE'LL GO INTO MORE DETAIL, BUT I KNOW BEST PRACTICE PEOPLE.

WE'VE BEEN DOING ABSTENTIONS, BUT TYPICALLY I'LL GO MORE DETAIL LATER, BUT IT WILL BE COUNTED IN THE RECORD AS A YES VOTE IN THIS INSTANCE.

I'LL EXPLAIN THE RULE IN MORE DETAIL.

THAT'S FINE.

YEAH.

I WOULD'VE VOTED YES, BUT I WASN'T HERE.

SO, , THANK YOU.

THANK YOU MADAM SECRETARY.

OKAY, THAT, UH, ENDS, UH, I NOTICED PEOPLE CAME IN LATE.

ARE THERE ANY, ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON, UH, THE ITEMS? OKAY.

UM, WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON

[3. Planning Commission Training Regarding Processes and Procedures]

AND I INVITE THE DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY TO INTRODUCE THEMSELVES AND ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND GIVE THE PRESENTATION.

GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS, ASHLYN LUTZ, THE DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY.

UM, I'M THIS, THIS TRAINING IS KIND OF A NUTS AND BOLTS.

IT'S GONNA BE A REFRESHER, KIND OF AN OVERVIEW.

SOME OF THIS MAY BE FAMILIAR TO SEVERAL OF YOU, UM, BUT THERE HAS BEEN SOME CHANGES IN SOME OF THE LAWS THAT I WILL GO OVER, UH, TONIGHT.

SO FOR TONIGHT'S, UH, PLANNING COMMISSION TRAINING, WE ARE GONNA BE GOING OVER CONFLICT OF INTEREST MEETING PROCEDURES, UH, SPECIFICALLY DISCLOSURE DISCLOSURES, UM, WITH THE LIVING ACT AND EX PARTY COMMUNICATIONS, MOTIONS AND VOTING, AND THE CITY'S PLANNING APPLICATION PROCESS.

SO, UH, THE POLITICAL REFORM ACT, UH, MORE SPECIFICALLY, GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 8 7 1 0 0 APPLIES TO PLANNING COMMISSIONERS.

IT PROHIBITS A PUBLIC OFFICIAL AT ANY LEVEL OF STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT FOR MAKING, PARTICIPATING IN, MAKING, OR ATTEMPTING TO USE THE OFFICIAL'S POSITION TO INFLUENCE A GOVERNMENTAL DECISION IN WHICH THE OFFICIAL KNOWS OR HAS REASON TO KNOW THE OFFICIAL HAS A FINANCIAL INTEREST, AN OFFICIAL HAS A FINANCIAL INTEREST WITHIN THE MEANING OF THIS SECTION.

IF IT IS REASONABLY FORESEEABLE THAT THE DECISION WILL HAVE A MATERIAL EFFECT ON ONE OR MORE OF THE OFFICIALS INTERESTS AS IDENTIFIED AND DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE DECISION'S EFFECT ON THE PUBLIC GENERALLY.

SO WHAT THIS MEANS THAT, UH, AN OFFICIAL IS PROHIBITED FROM TAKING PART IN ANY DECISION THAT IS REASONABLY FORESEEABLE THAT WILL HAVE AN, A MATERIAL IMPACT ON THE FINANCIAL INTEREST.

AND I'LL GO INTO MORE DETAIL NEXT.

SO WHAT DOES MAKING OR PARTICIPATING IN MAKING A DECISION MEAN? UM, MAKING A DECISION MEANS AN OFFICIAL THAT AUTHORIZES OR DIRECTS ANY ACTION VOTES APPOINTS A PERSON, OBLIGATES OR COMMITS THE OFFICIALS AGENCY TO ANY COURTS OF ACTION OR ENTERS INTO A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION ON BEHALF OF THE AGENCY.

PARTICIPATING IN A DECISION MEANS AN OFFICIAL PROVIDES INFORMATION AND OPINION OR RECOMMENDATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF AFFECTING THE DECISION.

AS ALWAYS, THERE'S EXCEPTIONS TO THIS.

UM, THERE'S SEVERAL, BUT THESE ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT ONES I THOUGHT THAT WOULD APPLY TO YOU.

UM, IF YOU MAKE AN APPEARANCE AS A MEMBER OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC, SO FOR EXAMPLE, YOU GO BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL AS A CITIZEN TO PROVIDE A COMMENT THAT WOULD NOT BE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST THAT YOU WOULD NEED TO DISCLOSE.

THE SECOND ONE IS PUBLIC SPEAKING.

SO IF YOU DO A PRESENTATION SOMEWHERE, THAT'S ALSO, IT WOULDN'T BE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

AND THE LAST ONE IS ACADEMIC DECISIONS.

SO IF YOU'RE TEACHING A CLASS OR YOU'RE PARTICIPATING IN AN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION, ALSO WOULD BE EXEMPT FROM THIS AS WELL.

THE FIRST STEP IN DETERMINING

[00:15:01]

SO THE GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION IDENTIFIES FINANCIAL INTERESTS THAT MAY GIVE RISE TO A DISQUALIFYING CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

AND THESE ARE THE SPECIFIC ONES THAT ARE IDENTIFIED, WHICH INCLUDES A BUSINESS ENTITY, REAL PROPERTY, SOURCE OF INCOME, TOTALING $500 OR MORE IN VALUE RECEIVING GIFTS TOTALING $500 OR MORE IN VALUE, OR, UH, OFFICIALS, PERSONAL FINANCES, AND THOSE OF THE IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBERS.

SO THE SECOND STEP IS TO DETERMINE THE FORESEEABILITY OF A FINANCIAL EFFECT ON A FINANCIAL INTEREST.

SO EXPLICITLY INVOLVED MEANS AN OFFICIAL'S FINANCIAL INTEREST IS EXPLICITLY INVOLVED IN A DECISION IF THE INTEREST IS A NAMED PARTY IN OR THE SUBJECT OF THE DECISION.

AND AN INTEREST IS THE SUBJECT OF A PROCEEDING.

IF THE DECISION INVOLVES THE ISSUANCE, RENEWAL, DENIAL, OR REVOCATION OF ANY LICENSE, PERMIT, OTHER ENTITLEMENT TO OR CONTRACT WITH THE INTEREST.

FOR EXAMPLE, IF A COMMISSIONER HAS A BUSINESS AND THAT BUSINESS HAS APPLIED FOR, FOR EXAMPLE, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT THAT WILL BE EXPLICITLY INVOLVED AND WOULD BE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

THE SECOND ONE THAT'S IS NOT EXPLICITLY INVOLVED IS THAT THE FINANCIAL EFFECT OF THIS DECISION IS REASONABLY FORESEEABLE IF THE EFFECT CAN BE RECOGNIZED AS A REALISTIC POSSIBILITY AND MORE THAN HYPOTHETICAL OR THEORETICAL.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE, THIS ONE'S A LITTLE BIT TRICKIER TO FIND AN EXAMPLE FOR, BUT SAY A COMMISSIONER OWNS A BUSINESS AND THE CITY PROPOSES TO REZONE SOME PROPERTY ACROSS AND DOWN THE STREET FROM THE BUSINESS, AND THAT COULD, THAT NEW ZONE COULD SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE OR DECREASE THAT BUSINESS'S, YOU KNOW, PROFIT THAT COULD BE, UM, AN EXAMPLE.

AND SO THE LAST STEP IS TO DETERMINE IF THE DECISION'S REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FINANCIAL EFFECT ON THE OFFICIALS, OFFICIALS FINANCIAL INTEREST IS MATERIAL, AND THERE'S DIFFERENT MATERIAL MATERIALITY STANDARDS FOR EACH OF THESE, UM, THAT ON THE SCREEN.

BUT THE TWO THAT I WILL GO OVER IN MORE DETAIL THAT I THINK WOULD BE MOST APPLICABLE IS GONNA BE BUSINESS ENTITY AND REAL PROPERTY.

SO FOR BUSINESS ENTITY, THE MATERIAL MATERIALITY STANDARD FOR A BUSINESS ENTITY IS EITHER THE BUSINESS IS EXPLICITLY INVOLVED IN THE DECISION OR THE DECISION MAY RESULT IN AN INCREASE OR DECREASE OF THE BUSINESS.

ANNUAL GROSS REVENUES OR THE DECISION MAY CAUSE THE BUSINESS TO INCUR OR AVOID ADDITIONAL EXPENSES OR TO REDUCE OR ELIMINATE EXPENSES, OR THE OFFICIAL KNOWS OR HAS REASONS TO KNOW THAT THE BUSINESS HAS AN INTEREST IN REAL PROPERTY.

AND THE SECOND ONE, WHICH I THINK IS MOST APPLICABLE IS THE MATERIALITY STANDARD FOR REAL PROPERLY.

SO, REAL PROPERLY IS IF IT'S EXPLICITLY INVOLVED, IF IT IS REASONABLY FORESEEABLE, A DECISION WILL HAVE A MATERIAL FINANCIAL EFFECT ON OFFICIALS INTEREST IN REAL PROPERTY ANYTIME THE INTEREST IS EXPLICITLY INVOLVED IN THE DECISION.

SO EXAMPLES IS THE ADOPTION OR AMENDMENT OF A DEVELOPMENT PLAN OR DETERMINATION OF THE PROPERTY ZONING OR REZONING, OR SPECIFICALLY INVOLVES THE ISSUANCE OF OR DENIAL OR REVOCATION OF A LICENSE PERMIT OR OTHER LAND USE ENTITLEMENT.

SO NOT SO MUCH HERE, BUT SOME JURISDICTIONS IF YOU HAVE TO APPLY FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO DO SOMETHING TO YOUR PROPERTY, THAT WOULD BE AN EXAMPLE OF THAT.

AND SO THE NEXT ONE IS FOR REAL PROPERTY THAT'S NOT EXPLICITLY INVOLVED.

A DECISIONS REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FINANCIAL EFFECT ON AN OFFICIAL'S INTEREST IN REAL PROPERTY IS MATERIAL IF IT IS ANY OF THE FOLLOWING.

SO FIRST, IF THE, IF IT INVOLVES THE PROPERTY LOCATED 500 FEET OR LESS FROM THE OF OFFICIAL'S PROPERTY, THAT IS A PRESUMED CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

THE SECOND ONE IS, IT INVOLVES PROP PROPERTY LOCATED MORE THAN 500 FEET, BUT LESS THAN A THOUSAND FEET FROM THE OF OFFICIAL'S PROPERTY.

AND THE, THE DECISION WOULD CHANGE THE OFFICIAL'S PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL.

THIS ONE IS NOT A PRESUMED CONFLICT, BUT THERE IS A BALANCING TEST TO EVALUATE WHETHER THERE COULD BE A CONFLICT.

SO THAT WOULD INCLUDE WHETHER THE, IT WOULD AFFECT THE INCOME PRODUCING POTENTIAL, THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF THE PROPERTY CHARACTER BY SUBSTANTIALLY ALTERING THE TRAFFIC PATTERNS, THE LEVEL OF INTENSITY OF USE, PARKING VIEW, PRIVACY, NOISE LEVEL OR AIR QUALITY OR MARKET VALUE.

AND THEN THE LAST ONE IS THAT IF IT INVOLVES PROPERTY LOCATED A THOUSAND FEET OR MORE FROM THE PROPERTY LINE OF THE OFFICIAL'S PROPERTY, IT'S ONLY A CONFLICT IF THERE IS CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT THE DECISION WOULD HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT ON THE OFFICIAL'S PROPERTY.

SO THAT WOULD BE VERY FACTS SPECIFIC TO

[00:20:01]

SO WHAT DOES ALL THIS MEAN AND WHAT ARE YOU TO DO WITH THIS INFORMATION? ? SO CONFLICT OF INTEREST REVIEW IS VERY TECHNICAL AND COMPLEX AND VERY FACT SPECIFIC.

SO I WANTED TO PROVIDE THIS KIND OF OVERVIEW TO HOPEFULLY WHEN YOU GET YOUR AGENDA PACKETS AND YOU'RE TAKING A LOOK AT THE, THE ITEMS THAT ARE COMING BEFORE YOU, THAT THIS WILL KIND OF JUST BE IN YOUR MIND.

SO IF YOU THINK YOU HAVE A CONCERN WITH ONE OF THESE, I STRONGLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO REACH OUT TO ME.

SO THAT'S WHY I GAVE YOU GUYS ALL MY CARDS JUST AS A REFRESHER.

AND THEN I WOULD WALK YOU THROUGH AND WE WOULD EVALUATE WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE A CONFLICT.

AND THEN DEPENDING UPON THAT, IF YOU, IF WE DETERMINE THAT YOU DO HAVE A CONFLICT, THEN YOU'LL HAVE TO RECUSE AND SAY THAT YOU HAVE A CONFLICT WHEN THE CHAIR ASKS FOR DISCLOSURES AT THE TIME OF THE MEETING FOR THAT PARTICULAR ITEM.

AND THAT BRINGS ME TO MY NEXT SECTION OF THE TRAINING, WHICH WE DISCUSS DISCLOSURES.

SO MEETING PROCEDURES.

SO FOR DISCLOSURES FOR EACH ITEM, DISCLOSURES ALLOW TRANSPARENCY BETWEEN AN OFFICIAL AND THE PUBLIC.

THE THREE MOST COMMON DISCLOSURES ARE GONNA BE CONFLICT OF INTEREST LEVINE ACT, OR OTHERWISE KNOWN AS PAY TO PLAY AND EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS.

SO WE ALREADY DISCUSSED CONFLICT OF INTEREST, BUT SO FOR THE LEVINE ACT, THE PURPOSE OF THE LEVINE ACT IS TO PREVENT PUBLIC OFFICIALS WHO ARE MEMBERS OF BOARDS OR COMMISSIONS FROM BEING INFLUENCED BY CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM INDIVIDUALS AND PARTIES APPEARING BEFORE THEM.

UM, SO WHILE LICENSE PERMIT OR OTHER LAND USE ENTITLEMENT FROM THE CITY IS PENDING, AND FOR 12 MONTHS AFTER A FINAL DECISION IS MADE ON THE MATTER, AN OFFICIAL MAY NOT SOLICIT, ACCEPT, OR DIRECT A CONTRIBUTION OF MORE THAN $500 FROM A PARTY OR A PARTICIPANT WITH A FINANCIAL INTEREST ON THEIR RE OR THEIR RESPECTIVE AGENTS.

SO HYPOTHETICALLY, IF A COMMISSIONER DECIDES TO RUN FOR AN ELECTION AND THEY START DOING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND ACCEPTING CAMPAIGN DONATIONS, IF THEY WERE TO RECEIVE, UM, A $600, SAY A CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION FROM A DEVELOPER THAT HAS A PENDING PROJECT, UH, THE COMMISSIONER CAN EITHER ACCEPT IT AND DECIDE TO, UH, DISCLOSE THAT AND RECUSE FROM THE ITEM, OR YOU CAN NOT ACCEPT IT AND YOU CAN STILL PARTICIPATE ON THAT ITEM WHEN IT COMES BEFORE YOU.

AND THAT EVEN WILL CONTINUE A YEAR AFTER THE DECISION IS MADE.

SO IF IT COMES BEFORE YOU, YOU PROVE THE PROJECT, THEY STILL CAN'T CONTRIBUTE TO YOUR CAMPAIGN FOR A YEAR AFTER THAT.

UH, OR AN OFFICIAL MAY NOT MAKE, PARTICIPATE IN MAKING OR ANY WAY USE THEIR OFFICIAL POSITION TO INFLUENCE A DECISION IF THEY HAVE RECEIVED A CONTRIBUTION OF MORE THAN $500 FROM A PARTY OR THEIR RESPECTIVE AGENTS WITHIN THE PREVIOUS 12 MONTHS, UNLESS THEY HAVE A PROMISE TO RETURN THE CONTRIBUTION WITH 30 DAYS AFTER THE DECISION OR HAVE ALREADY RETURNED THE CONTRIBUTION.

SO SOMETIMES YOU MAY NOT KNOW THAT SOMEONE WHO DONATED TO THE CAMPAIGN HAS A, A PROJECT IN THE PIPELINE.

SO YOU CAN EITHER AT THE MOMENT WHEN THE PERSON COMES UP WITH THE PROJECT CAN DISCLOSE AND RECUSE OR YOU CAN MAKE THE DECISION TO RETURN THE CAMPAIGN CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION WITHIN 30 DAYS AND THEN YOU CAN STILL PARTICIPATE, UM, IN THAT DECISION MAKING PROCESS FOR THAT ITEM.

AND I JUST WANNA NOTE, UM, THAT THERE WAS A CHANGE.

IT WAS ORIGINALLY IT WAS LOWER, UH, IT WAS $250.

UM, AS OF JANUARY 1ST OF THIS YEAR, THEY HAVE INCREASED IT TO $500.

SO $500.

HOW, OH, IT'S ON $500.

IS THAT A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME? LIKE ONE YEAR OR, YEAH, SO THERE'S SOME DISCUSSION AND THERE ARE PROBABLY BE SOME CHANGES BECAUSE THERE WAS SOME QUESTION OF IF IT GOES BACKWARDS.

'CAUSE ORIGINALLY THE LEGISLATION WAS, IT'LL BE A YEAR, A YEAR FORWARD AND BACKWARDS FROM THE DECISION.

UM, THEY, IT WAS KIND OF HARD TO DETERMINE THE BACKWARDS.

SO RIGHT NOW IT'S GOING FORWARD FOR A YEAR.

I HAD ANOTHER QUESTION AS WELL.

SO THE $500, THAT IS ONLY BEGINNING JANUARY 1ST, SO IT WOULD BE ANY FUTURE ELECTIONS, CORRECT? NOT PAST ELECTIONS? YES, CORRECT.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

IT'S STILL TWO 50 FOR 2024 AND PRIOR, CORRECT? YES.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

MM-HMM .

AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, IT ALSO INCLUDES SOLICITING.

YES, THAT IS CORRECT.

AND JUST, AND ALSO IT CAN, IT COULD BE INCLUDE ANYONE THAT'S IN THE, FOR THE, THE APPLICANT.

IT COULD BE THEIR CONSULTANT, IT COULD BE THEIR ENGINEER, IT COULD BE ANYONE THAT'S INVOLVED WITH THAT PROJECT THAT THEY GIVE YOU OR THAT THEY DONATE A COMMISSIONER $500.

IT'S ALL INCLUDED, NOT JUST THE APPLICANT THEMSELVES.

[00:25:01]

SO EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS OCCUR WHEN DECISION MAKERS RECEIVE INFORMATION OUTSIDE OF THE NOTICED HEARING.

EXAMPLES ARE AS ANY INFORMATION THAT IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

SO SITE VISITS, SPEAKING WITH PARTIES SLASH PUB THE PUBLIC AND CONDUCTING OUTSIDE RESEARCH.

UM, SO WHAT NEEDS TO BE DISCLOSED DURING THIS, THESE TYPES OF COMMUNICATION? SO IF YOU'RE GONNA HAVE A COMMUNICATION WITH THE, THE PARTY OR A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC, IT'S USUALLY A GOOD IDEA TO PROVIDE A SUMMARY OR A DESCRIPTION OF THE CONVERSATION YOU HAD.

UH, THE WHOLE POINT OF DISCLOSING EX PARTY COMMUNICATIONS IS TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT AND THE PUBLIC TO KNOW WHAT THE COMMISSIONER IS GONNA BE BASING THEIR DECISIONS UPON.

AND IT GIVES THE APPLICANT AND THE PUBLIC AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE COMMENT BASED ON WHATEVER INFORMATION YOU DISCLOSE ALONG WITH WHAT'S IN THE STAFF REPORT.

UM, AND THEN SITE VISITS YOU CAN JUST, LIKE YOU ALWAYS DO, UM, SAY THAT YOU WALK A SITE VISIT AND THEN AGAIN, CONDUCTING OUTSIDE RESEARCH, EXPLAINING WHAT OUTSIDE RESEARCH YOU CONDUCTED AND WHAT THAT RESEARCH TOLD YOU.

SO BRIEFLY, THE LAST ONE IS THE MEETING PROCEDURES IS MOTIONS AND VOTING.

I JUST WANTED TO BRIEFLY GO OVER THE BASICS.

AS YOU ALL KNOW, WE FOLLOW ROSENBERG'S RULES OF ORDER.

THERE'S THREE SUBSTANTIVE MOTION TYPES THAT YOU CAN DO.

YOU HAVE THE BASIC MOTION, WHICH IS THE MOTION IS THE ONE THAT PUTS FORWARD A DECISION FOR THE BODY'S CONSIDERATION.

FOR EXAMPLE, A COMMISSIONER WILL MO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE PROJECT X.

UH, THE SECOND ONE IS A MOTION TO AMEND.

SO IF A MEMBER WANTS TO CHANGE, UM, THE BASIC MOTION BEFORE THAT'S BEFORE THE BODY, UH, THEY CAN MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND IT.

SO FOR EXAMPLE, UM, I WOULD LIKE TO AMEND THE MOTION TO APPROVE, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE CHANGES TO THE, YOU KNOW, HOURS OF OPERATION THAT ARE LISTED IN THE CONDITIONS.

AND SO TYPICALLY WE, YOU ALL DO THAT, UM, BEFORE WITHOUT DOING A FORMAL MOTION TO AMEND, WHICH IS TOTALLY FINE.

IT'S CALLED A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

BUT I JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THIS.

SO IF DURING A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, THE ORIGINAL MOTION MAKER DOESN'T WANT TO MAKE TO APPROVE THE MOTION TO, THE MOTION TO AMEND, YOU CAN MAKE YOUR OWN SEPARATE MOTION TO AMEND IN A SECOND IF YOU LIKE.

AND THEN THE LAST ONE IS A SUBSTITUTE MOTION.

SO IF A MEMBER WANTS TO COMPLETELY DO AWAY WITH THE BASIC MOTION THAT IS BEFORE THE BODY AND PUT A NEW MOTION.

SO FOR EXAMPLE, THEY MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THE PROJECT.

UM, AND SO WHEN THERE'S MULTIPLE MOTIONS ON THE FLOOR, UH, IT'S UP TO THE CHAIR.

USUALLY THERE'S ONLY THREE.

SO THE CHAIR HAS THE DISCRETION TO, UM, NOT TAKE A FOURTH MOTION UNTIL THE OTHER THREE MOTIONS ARE RESOLVED AND THE MOTIONS ARE TAKEN IN ORDER HOW THEY'RE LAST RECEIVED.

SO BACKWARDS.

SO FOR EXAMPLE, IN MY, IN MY EXAMPLES, THE MOTION TO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION WOULD BE TAKEN FIRST.

IF THAT'S DENIED, THEN THE MOTION TO AMEND WOULD BE TAKEN.

IF THAT'S DENIED, THEN IT WOULD GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION.

AND THEN VOTING.

SO VOTING, SO AS A COMMISSION, IT'S YOUR OBLIGATION TO VOTE, AND ABSTENTION SHOULD BE USED AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE.

SO ASSUMPTIONS, EXCEPT FOR VERY MINOR OCCASIONS THAT IF YOU'VE SEEN FROM A VOTE, YOUR VOTE WILL IN THE RECORD WILL GO, WILL BE SUPPORT, WILL BE, SORRY, HOW DO I PHRASE? THIS WILL BE COUNTED IN THE MAJORITY VOTE OF THE QUORUM.

SO IF THE MAJORITY VOTED YES, THEN YOUR ABSTENTION WILL BE COUNTED AS A YES VOTE.

IF IT'S THE MAJORITY IS NO, IT'LL BE A NO VOTE.

UH, THE MINOR EXCEPTION WOULD BE IS IF SAY THERE IS A TIE, UH, SO TWO, TWO, AND THE FIFTH IS A ABSTENTION, THEN THERE IS NO MAJORITY VOTE.

SO THE MOTION WOULD JUST DIE.

SO JUST WANTED TO .

CAN YOU GIVE US AN EXAMPLE OF, BECAUSE I NOTICED THAT SOMETIMES WE HAVE USED ABSTENTIONS ON LIKE, NOT JUST A MEETING MINUTE, BUT AS ALMOST, SO WHAT'S AN EXAMPLE OF AN ABSTENTION THAT CAN MEET THE, THE THRESHOLD? YEAH.

SO EXAMPLE, SAY, UH, WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING AND THE ITEM IS CONTINUED TO ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING AND YOU WEREN'T AT THE MEETING, THE FIRST MEETING AND YOU DIDN'T GO BACK AND REVIEW THE MEETING OR DIDN'T TAKE A LOOK AT THE NOTES.

BUT THEN YOU'RE HERE FOR THE CONTINUED, THE CONTINUED ITEM.

YOU CAN ABSTAIN FROM THAT VOTE BECAUSE YOU CAN SAY THAT YOU WERE NOT, WEREN'T ABLE TO PARTICIPATE AND YOU DID NOT HAVE THE TIME TO REVIEW THE FACTS OR THE STAFF REPORT.

YOU CAN ABSTAIN THAT WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE ABSTENTION IN THAT CASE.

OKAY.

SO MY PREVIOUS EXPERIENCES WITH MEETING MINUTES IS EVEN IF YOU MISSED, YOU COULD VOTE YES OR NO 'CAUSE YOU HAD THE MINUTES TO BE ABLE TO APPROVE.

SO CORRECT.

THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME HERE THAT I HAD HEARD WE HAD TO ABSTAIN.

SO I CAN GO BACK TO

[00:30:01]

YES, I READ THE MINUTES, I REVIEWED IT, I WATCHED THE MEETING, WHATEVER THAT MIGHT BE CORRECT.

AND THEN I CAN VOTE YES OR NO IF THERE'S SOMETHING.

OKAY.

YES.

FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, 'CAUSE THAT WAS HAPPENING BEFORE I CAME ON BOARD, I THINK IT WAS JUST, I THINK IT BECAME LIKE A BEST PRACTICE EVEN THOUGH IT WASN'T TOTALLY CORRECT.

AND SO THIS GIVES ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE SOME GUIDANCE AND WE GREAT.

THAT'S HELPFUL.

THANK YOU.

YOU'RE WELCOME.

OKAY.

AND SO THE LAST SLIDE I HAVE IS THE CITY PROCESSES FOR PLANNING PROJECTS.

I HAVE HAD SOME QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS.

SO I JUST WANTED TO THROW UP A BRIEF, A BRIEF SLIDE ABOUT THIS.

SO PLANNING APPLICATIONS ARE SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT TYPES.

THERE'S MINISTERIAL AND DISCRETIONARY.

MINISTERIAL IS A STAFF LEVEL APPROVAL.

HOWEVER, IF, UH, THE APPLICANT DOESN'T, UM, AGREE WITH STAFF'S DECISION, THEY CAN APPEAL IT AND THAT WILL COME BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

UH, DISCRETIONARY APPLICATIONS ARE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, VARIANCES AND PLAN DEVELOPMENT PERMITS.

AND THOSE ARE DECIDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

UH, OTHER, UM, DISCRETIONARY APPLICATIONS ARE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS.

AND THESE ARE DECIDED, DECIDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER RECEIVING A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

SO AFTER STAFF REVIEWS THE ITEM AND IT'S READY TO COME BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THE PRODUCT WILL BE BROUGHT BEFORE YOU AND YOU CAN TO MAKE YOUR DECISION.

UH, THE, THIS IS WHERE IT GETS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.

SO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MAKE A DECISION AND IT WILL GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL AS A NOTICE OF DECISION.

THE CITY COUNCIL THEN HAS THE, IT'S THEIR PURVIEW TO EITHER UPHOLD THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION OR THEY COULD SET THAT ITEM FOR A PUBLIC HEARING AT THE CITY COUNCIL.

IF THAT HAPPENS, THE CITY COUNCIL CAN EITHER OPEN IT FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND REHEAR THE ITEM AND THEY COULD STILL UPHOLD THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION, OR THEY CAN OVERTURN IT AND DENY, UM, AND GO AND GO AGAINST WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECIDED.

AND SO IF THE PLANNING COMM, THE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDS THE DECISION, THE DECISION CAN STILL BE APPEALED FOR 30 DAYS FOLLOWING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION.

SO IF THE THERE IS AN APPEAL, THEN IT WILL AB IT'LL HAVE TO GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL AS AN APPEAL AND IT WILL BE SET AS A PUBLIC HEARING.

SO WHO WOULD BE ABLE TO APPEAL IT? SO IT WOULD, IT COULD BE THE APPLICANT, IT COULD BE A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC.

ANYONE CAN APPEAL.

UM, USUALLY IT'S LIMITED TO IF YOU SUBMITTED LIKE A CO A PUBLIC COMMENT OR YOU PARTICIPATED FOR, FOR THE PUBLIC, UM, USUALLY, AND THEN THE APPLICANT CAN APPEAL THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION AS WELL.

OKAY.

SO UPCOMING TRAININGS.

THE NEXT TRAINING WILL BE A CQA OVERVIEW AND UPDATE.

UH, THAT'LL EITHER BE AT THE NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OR ONE IN APRIL.

I'M ALSO SO OPEN TO SUGGESTIONS.

SO IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE THAT'S INTEREST YOU AND YOU WANT ME TO PROVIDE A TRAINING, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN LET ME KNOW.

UH, I'D BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO DO THAT.

UM, SO ANY QUESTIONS? YOU GONNA EMAIL THIS TO US SO WE CAN I CAN DO THAT, YEAH.

THANK YOU.

YES.

MM-HMM .

THIS WAS GREAT.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

YOU'RE WELCOME.

FOR THE OVERVIEW AND, UM, KEEPING EVERYBODY INFORMED, I, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE AN ANNUAL REMINDER ON, ON WHAT THIS IS FOR THE COMMISSIONERS.

THANK YOU.

YES.

AND I'M ALWAYS HERE IF YOU GUYS WANNA REACH OUT TO ME FOR QUESTIONS.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

THANK YOU.

[4. Review of a proposed vacation of an unused section of Orange Street west of Euclid Avenue for conformance with the General Plan]

ITEM FOUR IS A REVIEW OF A PROPOSED VACATION FOR AN UNUSED SECTION OF ORANGE STREET WEST OF EUCLID AVENUE FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN.

WILL STAFF PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND SUMMARIZE THE ITEM.

GOOD EVENING AND HAPPY NEW YEAR CHAIR, VICE CHAIR, THANK YOU.

AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION STAFF AND THE PUBLIC MARTIN READER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.

AND WE'RE HERE TO TALK ABOUT A GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE REVIEW FOR A PENDING STREET VACATION REQUEST.

SO THE AREA WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS IN THE 1600 BLOCK OF ORANGE STREET, UH, IN A CUL-DE-SAC.

YOU CAN SEE IN THE PICTURE LOCATED ABOVE WHERE THE RED, UH, OVAL IS, IS ACTUALLY THE TOP OF AN EMBANKMENT THAT LEADS DOWN TO EUCLID AVENUE.

THERE'S A FENCE AND A BROW DITCH IN THAT LOCATION IS NO THROUGH ACCESS.

THE AREA IN QUESTION, AND I'LL SHOW YOU A PICTURE IN A MOMENT, BUT IS APPROXIMATELY 1500 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE, AND IT'S PRACTICALLY A DIRT AREA NEXT TO THE HOUSE THAT'S AT 1640, UH, ORANGE STREET.

AS I DID MENTION THE, THIS PART OF THIS CUL-DE-SAC IS SEPARATED FROM ORANGE STREET BY A CHAIN LINK FENCE, A BARRIER AROUND THE CUL-DE-SAC, AND THAT THERE'S NO PEDESTRIAN ACCESS, BICYCLE ACCESS, VEHICLE ACCESS OF ANY KIND BETWEEN THE TWO, UH, SEGMENTS OF STREET,

[00:35:01]

UH, AS YOU CAN SEE IN THESE, UH, IN THESE SITE PHOTOS HERE, THERE ARE SOME SDG E LINES GOING ACROSS THE AREA.

SO THERE IS, YOU KNOW, A DEFACTO EASEMENT IN THAT AREA BECAUSE IT'S, YOU KNOW, CURRENTLY IN CITY RIGHT OF WAY.

BUT, UH, IF THIS IS VACATED, THERE WOULD BE AN EASEMENT THAT WOULD BE RESERVED FOR ACCESS BY SDG E TO THEIR FACILITIES IN THAT LOCATION.

WHILE THE CITY IS TECHNICALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS, UH, AREA FOR WEEDING MAINTENANCE DRAINAGE AND SO FORTH, BECAUSE IT'S KIND OF A, AN ODD AREA THAT'S NEXT TO A HOUSE, IS NOT READILY APPARENT THAT IT WAS CITY PROPERTY.

AND ACTUALLY SINCE THE PROPERTY OWNER PURCHASED A PROPERTY ABOUT THREE AND A HALF YEARS AGO, THEY'VE ACTUALLY BEEN TAKING CARE OF THIS THEMSELVES.

UH, AND THERE'S ALSO, THERE WAS SOME ISSUES IN THE PAST, ESPECIALLY DURING COVID WITH SOME ENCAMPMENT AND SECURITY ISSUES WITH PEOPLE ACCESSING THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE.

UH, ON TOP OF THAT, THERE IS ALSO SOME DRAINAGE ISSUES, WHICH YOU CAN SEE A LITTLE BIT IN THE PICTURE.

ON THE LEFT NEXT TO THE DRIVEWAY, YOU CAN SEE A BIT OF A GULLY, UH, FORMING DOWN THE SIDE OF THERE.

SO THAT'S UNDERCUTTING THE DRIVEWAY.

SO THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THE APPLICANT WANTS TO, UH, SECURE THE AREA TO BUILD A FENCE, TO PUT IN A RETAINING WALL SO THAT NO DRAINAGE OR THE DRAINAGE WOULD BE HANDLED APPROPRIATELY AND SO FORTH.

OKAY.

SO AGAIN, THOSE ARE THE PICTURES.

THE, THE RED DOTTED LINE IS THE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY LINE NOW.

SO IT'S ABOUT FIVE FEET TO THE EAST OF THE HOUSE AND LEADS DOWN TO A CHAIN LINK FENCE AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY THAT SEPARATES IT FROM ANOTHER PROPERTY.

BEHIND THAT, UH, YOU CAN SEE A PARKING AREA THERE.

SO THIS IS THE PLAT MAP THAT THE APPLICANT PROPOSED.

SO THIS IS AN EXACT, UH, AREA AFTER A SURVEY WAS PERFORMED.

AND, UH, SHOWS, YOU KNOW, PRETTY MUCH ALL THE WAY AROUND TO ABOUT THE HALFWAY POINT OF THE CUL-DE-SAC, A LITTLE PART OF THAT WOULD ACTUALLY END UP GOING TO THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH.

AND, UH, THE, THE HASHED AREA IS THE AREA TO BE VACATED TO THE APPROXIMATELY 1500 SQUARE FEET.

AS I MENTIONED, ALTHOUGH THE, THE CITY IS TECHNICALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS AREA, UH, IT'S OSTENSIBLY PART OF THIS, OF THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY 'CAUSE NO ONE ELSE CAN REALLY GET TO IT, UH, EASILY APART FROM THEM.

AND THERE'S BEEN CONFUSION IN THE PAST AS TO WHETHER THIS WAS PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PROPERTY.

UH, WE ARE OF COURSE AWARE OF THAT NOW.

UH, WE MENTIONED THE SECURITY ISSUES, THE DRAINAGE ISSUES.

SO NOT ONLY IS THERE A, A GULLY FORM THAT'S ENDANGERING THE DRIVEWAY CONCRETE, BUT IT'S ALSO BRINGING TOPSOIL INTO THE STREET, WHICH IS NOT ONLY A CODE VIOLATION, BUT IT'S ALSO, UH, MESSY AND NOT A GOOD USE OF, OF THE RAIN WATER WHERE IT CAN BE SEQUESTERED OR REDIRECTED APPROPRIATELY.

UH, THE APPLICANT DOES OWN THE UNDERLYING FEE TITLE TO THAT PROPERTY.

SO THE, IN THE ORIGINAL SUBDIVISION BACK IN THE EARLY 19 HUNDREDS, I THINK 1924, UH, THERE WAS, THAT WAS PART OF THE PROPERTY.

SO THE STREET EASEMENT OF ORANGE AVENUE OR ORANGE STREET, WHICH I'LL GO INTO IN A LITTLE BIT IN A MOMENT, WENT OVER THAT AREA.

NOW, IT WOULDN'T BE BEING USED IF IT WERE VACATED THEN THAT AREA VACATES, OR EXCUSE ME, REVERTS BACK TO THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY.

UH, THIS IS A SLIGHTLY MORE DETAILED OVERHEAD.

SO THE, THE RED MO, THE, THE RIGHT SIDE WHERE IT SAYS 1640, THAT'S THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY.

THE BLUE AREA IS THE, THE AREA PROPOSED TO BE VACATED.

AND YOU CAN SEE, EXCUSE ME, A 15 FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT THAT WILL BE RESERVED FOR SG AND E TO ACCESS THEIR OVERHEAD UTILITIES.

SO AS YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH, OUR STREET VACATION PROCEDURES REQUIRE FIRST AND INITIATION AT THE CITY COUNCIL.

THAT WAS DONE, UH, BACK IN FEBRUARY.

AND THAT WAS ACTUALLY THE SECOND TIME IT WAS DONE.

IT WAS DONE EARLIER, UH, LAST YEAR.

UH, BUT DUE TO SOME BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, THE APPLICANT AND PLANNING THAT PROCEED, THAT PROCEDURE OR THAT TIMELINE GOT EXTENDED.

SO WE HAD TO REINITIATE BACK IN FEBRUARY.

THE STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE DOES HAVE OUT, DOES OUTLINE THE PROCEDURES WHICH ARE, UH, IN OUR CODES AND POLICIES.

AND AFTER THAT INITIATION AT THE CITY COUNCIL, THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITHIN 40 DAYS MUST MAKE A DETERMINATION THAT THE VACATION IS WITHIN, UH, IT'S CONFORMING WITH THE GENERAL PLAN.

SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR TONIGHT.

SHOULD THE COUNCIL OR THE PLANNING COMMISSION, EXCUSE ME, FIND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE FOR THIS REQUEST, THEN THERE WOULD BE A PUBLIC HEARING AT THE CITY COUNCIL WHERE EVERYONE THAT LIVES ON THAT STREET OR NEAR THAT AREA WOULD BE NOTIFIED.

AND OF COURSE THAT WOULD BE ADVERTISED IN THE PAPER.

UH, I DID ALREADY MENTION THAT THE AREA WAS SUBDIVIDED IN 1924, SO AT THAT TIME, ORANGE AVENUE CONTINUED DOWN TO THE SOUTH AND EAST.

BUT THAT'S SINCE BEEN, UH, NOW TAKEN OVER BY EUCLID AVENUE.

[00:40:01]

SO IT IS OBVIOUSLY VERY, IT IS QUITE A SMALL AREA, 1500 SQUARE FEET IN GENERAL.

UH, IT'S NOT A DEVELOPED STREET.

IT'S NOT CONSIDERED A STREET MAJOR OR OTHERWISE INNER CIRCULATION ELEMENT.

IT'S NOT PART OF ANY PAVED AREA OR ANY OTHER PEDESTRIAN VEHICULAR OR BICYCLE THOROUGHFARE.

THE, OBVIOUSLY THERE'S FENCING AT THE END OF THAT AND A BROW DITCH ON A EMBANKMENT GOING DOWN.

SO THAT FURTHER CUTS OFF THIS SEGMENT OF STREET FROM ANYWHERE ELSE.

AND YEAH, AGAIN, NOT USED FOR ANY MOTORIZED ACCESS.

SO IT WOULD BE CERTAINLY, UH, CONFORMING WITH A GENERAL PLAN, UH, AND THAT IT'S NOT DESIGNATED AS A ROAD OR A STREET, IT'S NOT A TRAVELED WAY.

AND THIS VACATION WOULD ALLOW FOR THE APPLICANT TO REGULARLY MAINTAIN AND CONTROL THE SITE DRAINAGE AT THE LOCATION AS WELL AS TO PROVIDE SECURITY FOR THE SIDE OF THEIR HOME.

AND THEN OF COURSE, THE CITY WOULD NO LONGER BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE, WHICH WOULD SAVE US MAIN MAINTENANCE MONEY WITH OUR PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ON ALSO ANY POTENTIAL LIABILITY IN THE AREA.

OKAY.

SO I'VE SAID ALL THESE THINGS A FEW TIMES ALREADY, SO I WON'T DO IT AGAIN.

UH, BUT AGAIN, WE'RE ASKING FOR THE PLAN COMMISSION TO MAKE A FINDING OF GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE FOR THE STREET VACATION AND THEN WE WOULD BE GOING ON TO A PUBLIC HEARING SHOULD THAT HAPPEN AT THE CITY COUNCIL.

SO THAT DOES CONCLUDE STAFF'S REPORT AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.

THANK YOU MR. READER, VICE CHAIR CASTLE FOR CLARIFICATION.

UM, SO CAN YOU GO, YEAH, WE'RE AT THE OVERHEAD RIGHT THERE.

UM, SO THERE'S ONLY ONE PROPERTY AND THAT'S GONNA BE 1640 ORANGE.

THAT IS, UM, IN INVOLVED IN THE VACATION.

THE OTHER PROPERTY THAT FACES EUCLID, UM, THAT YOU CAN SEE THAT'S BEHIND IT.

THERE'S A LITTLE STRIP RIGHT THERE WHERE THERE'S CARS PARKED TOO.

IS THAT CITY PROPERTY AS WELL OR IS THAT PART OF WHERE, WHERE DOES THAT LOT LINE GO? WELL, NONE OF IT'S TECHNICALLY, WELL SOME OF IT'S TECHNICALLY CITY PROPERTY, BUT IT'S ALL, UH, RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT AT THE MOMENT.

AND, UH, IF I SHOWED YOU A PARCEL MAP OF THIS AREA, IT WOULD LOOK PRETTY MESSY.

'CAUSE WHEN, UM, EUCLID AVENUE WENT THROUGH IT, IT DID A LOT OF DAMAGE AS FAR AS WHERE THE PARCELS WERE AND WHAT THEY LOOKED LIKE.

AND IT'S, IT'S, IT'S QUITE A MESS.

IN FACT, THIS, THE APPLICANT, UH, SPLIT THE, UH, THE ENGINEERING ESTIMATE WITH US, WITH THE CITY IN ORDER TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THEIR PROPERTY IS.

UH, JUST BECAUSE IT WAS, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, QUITE DIFFICULT TO DEAL WITH, BUT WE'RE ONLY DEALING WITH THE AREA NEXT TO THEIR HOUSE.

UH, IF THERE WERE OTHER AREA THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD ATTACH NEXT DOOR, BUT WE'RE ONLY DEALING WITH THE 1640 FOR SOME REASON, THIS PICTURE, WHICH WAS PROVIDED BY THE, UH, ENGINEER SURVEYOR PUT THE 1638 ON THERE AS WELL.

BUT THAT'S NOT PART OF THIS.

OKAY.

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE 1638, RIGHT? THAT'S STILL PART ON BOARD.

YOU'RE TALKING ONE TO THE SOUTH? CORRECT.

THE ONE, THE ONE TO THE SOUTH THAT HAS THE EUCLID MM-HMM .

SO THERE'S SOME VEHICLES THAT ARE PARKED RIGHT THERE.

MM-HMM .

UM, IF YOU CAN SEE THAT, IS THAT PART OF THE YES.

SO THIS LINE WOULD WOULD STOP THERE.

WOULD STOP THERE? YES.

THAT'S ALL THAT'S INCLUDED IN THE, WHAT I'M ASKING IS THAT OTHER PORTION DOWN THERE, IS THAT ALSO UM, EASEMENT RIGHT THROUGH THERE? YES, THAT'S ALSO, YEAH, PRETTY MUCH ALL THE WAY ALONG EUCLID AVENUE IN THAT LOCATION.

THERE'S GONNA BE, YEAH, THERE'S PROBABLY THE SAME SITUATION THERE, BUT THIS IS A, A PRIVATELY INITIATED REQUEST.

SO ON THIS, THEY WERE GONNA CHIP IN, THEY WOULDN'T BE PART OF THIS REQUEST AND THEY'RE NOT HAVING THE SAME ISSUE BECAUSE PEOPLE CAN'T REALLY GET DOWN THE SIDE OF THEIR HOUSE AS MUCH.

OKAY.

WHICH IS KIND OF THE PROBLEM HERE ARE BECAUSE THERE'S A FENCE RIGHT THERE THAT THEY'VE YES.

THEY'VE PUT UP.

CORRECT.

CORRECT.

THERE IS A FENCE HERE.

SO YOU, YOU CAN'T ACTUALLY WALK, YOU CANNOT WALK THROUGH MM-HMM .

BUT YOU CAN WALK DOWN THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE DOWN INTO THERE.

WHO PUT THAT FENCE UP? WAS IT THE 1640 OR THE EUCLID THAT'S BEEN THERE SINCE BEFORE THE OWNER OWNED THIS PROPERTY? SO YEAH, I WOULD SAY THE ONE TO THE SOUTH.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

WELCOME.

YES, COMMISSIONER VALENZUELA.

THANK YOU.

UM, I DO HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING THE, UM, UTILITY EASEMENT.

SO, UM, IS IT JUST AN ACCESS EASEMENT? UM, BECAUSE A LOT OF TIMES THE UTILITIES REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN THE AREA UNDERNEATH OR AROUND IT.

'CAUSE I SEE GUY WIRES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO, UM, AND YOU SAID THERE ISN'T ONE NOW IT'S FUTURE.

SO IS THAT, IS THAT EASEMENT GOING TO BE COMPLETED AS PART OF THIS PROJECT WHEN IT COMES BEFORE US? AGAIN, IF, IF THIS GETS VOTED MOVED FORWARD TO MOVE, IF, YEAH, IF THIS MOVES FORWARD, IT GOES TO A PUBLIC HEARING AT CITY COUNCIL AND THE, THE CONDITIONS ARE THE SAME AS THE RESOLUTION THAT YOU HAVE.

SO THAT DOES INCLUDE A CONDITION REQUIRING THE AERIAL EASEMENT AND ACCESS TO THE, THE GROUND UNDERNEATH THAT EASEMENT.

SO THERE WOULD BE A NEED FOR, YOU KNOW, DOUBLE LOCKED GATE OR SOMETHING SIMILAR WHERE SDG AND E WOULD, WOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE ACCESS TO THAT AREA.

OKAY.

THE GUY WIRES ARE, ARE EITHER END

[00:45:01]

IT'S MORE OUT TO THE FRONT.

I THINK THE PICTURE.

GOT IT.

I HAD EARLIER SHOWS THAT YEAH, YOU CAN SEE THE G WIRE NEXT TO THE TREE THERE.

MM-HMM .

MM-HMM AND THEN THE NEXT ONE WOULD BE WELL BEYOND THE PROPERTY.

SO THAT WOULD BE WITHIN THE EASEMENT, BUT THE, THEY'RE PREPARING OR PROPOSING THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO BUILD A FENCE KIND OF LEVEL WITH THE GARAGE.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

YOU'RE WELCOME.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE COMMISSIONERS? ONE MORE QUESTION.

WHERE CAN YOU, UM, SHOW WHERE THE FENCE WOULD BE PROPOSED TO BE BUILT? UH, YEAH.

IF YOU LOOK AT THIS PICTURE HERE, SO YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE FRONT OF THE GARAGE IS.

JUST IMAGINE STRAIGHT ACROSS THERE JUST TO STOP PEOPLE FROM WALKING BACK NEXT TO THE HOUSE.

OKAY.

OKAY.

IS THERE A MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION THAT WOULD LIKE TO BRING A MOTION TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION? SO MOVED.

DO I HAVE A SECOND? I NEED A SECOND.

WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VALENZUELA VALENZUELA AND A SECOND BY COMMISSION ARE AMENDED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NUMBER 2025 DASH ZERO ONE.

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY CALIFORNIA, FINDING THE VACATION OF AN UNUSED SECTION OF ORANGE STREET, WEST OF EUCLID AVENUE AND CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN APPLICANT.

CITY INITIATED CASE FILE NUMBER 2022 DASH 24, SC BEING THE MAKER OF THE MOTION.

COMMISSIONER VALENZUELA HAS THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.

ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? THANK YOU.

IF THERE IS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION BY ANY COMMISSION MEMBERS, THE COMMISSION WILL NOW VOTE ELECTRONICALLY ON THE MOTION.

MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE MOTION TO APPROVE UNANIMOUSLY WITH COMMISSIONERS PRESENT.

THANK YOU.

OKAY.

THAT TAKES

[STAFF REPORTS]

DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY.

UH, NOTHING AT THIS TIME.

THANK YOU.

DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.

NO COMMENT.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.

UH, THANK YOU MR. CHAIR.

I SAID EARLIER HAPPY NEW YEAR AND WELCOME BACK.

WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU THIS YEAR.

THANK YOU.

YOU'RE WELCOME.

MOVE ON TO THE COMMISSIONERS NOW, VICE CHAIR CASTLE.