►
From YouTube: Hol PC 102722
Description
Hollister Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2022
A
B
C
D
F
D
I
D
J
D
D
D
K
My
name
is
Jeffrey
small
and
I
am
here
representing
the
San
Benito
High
School
District.
The
district
is
required
to
accommodate
students
from
new
residential
development.
Even
though
Hollister
high
school
is
over
capacity
to
prevent
an
educational
crisis
from
overcrowding.
A
second
High
School
must
be
constructed.
K
D
L
L
We
now
have
to
file
our
two
tentative
maps
to
meet
the
180
day
deadline.
We
supplied
those
with
a
density
bonus
application
at
preliminary
development
plan
checks,
the
tentative
map
applications
from
bkf,
and
we
were
told
that
those
would
not
be
accepted
and
our
checks
would
be
shredded
and
that
we,
the
only
thing
we
could
submit,
was
for
pre-zoning
I,
said
at
the
counter.
Well
we're
already
pre-zoned
and
it's
my
understanding
that
pre-zonings
are
like
zonings,
they
don't
expire.
L
L
The
state
law
is
very
explicit.
66454.
The
first
sentence
says
any
subdivider
May
file
a
tentative
map
that
for
property
in
the
county
as
long
as
they're
contiguous
with
the
city
limits
we
are
so
I
just
want
to
bring
this
to
your
attention.
I
went
to
the
city,
clerk's
office
and
the
planning
department.
They
don't
have
a
form
for
a
appeal
of
a
development.
L
What
is
it
called?
The
development
supervisor
head
planner
the
city
clerk
doesn't
have
one
there's
no
fee
structure.
Hopefully
we
can
avoid
that,
but
we're
we're
on
the
clock
right
now,
and
this
would
be
the
first
Denial
in
the
housing,
accountability
process
and
and
you're
only
allowed
five.
So
that's
where
we
are.
Thank
you.
D
So
site
and
Architectural
Review
2022-4
Jeffrey
Eaton,
slash
E2
architecture.
The
applicant
is
a
requesting
site
and
Architectural
Review
approval
for
the
construction
of
a
forty
five
thousand
seven
hundred
and
five
square
foot
addition
to
an
existing
52,
729
square
foot,
industrial
building
and
related
improvements,
including
a
new
parking
lot
located
at
1700
Shelton
Drive
in
the
M1
zoning
District
further
identified
as
San
Benito
County
assessor
parcel
number
051-120-022
SQL
categorically
exempt.
So
can
we
get
staff
report?
Please
there's.
M
No
staff
report
that
applicant
indicated
to
staff
that
they
had
some
timeline
issues
with
the
project
on
their
own
part,
so
they
requested
that
we
continue
it
date
certain
to
the
next
meeting
that
allows
us
to
avoid
noticing,
since
we're
specifically
continuing
it
to
that
meeting
and
then
the
hope
would
be
that
they're
ready
to
go
at
that
meeting.
There's
no
issues
with
their
project
on
our
end
or
anything.
D
M
A
D
M
M
M
So,
just
to
reiterate,
KB's
filed
an
appeal
for
basic
two
two
main
reasons.
One
is
that
they
believe
the
letter
indicating
that
the
project
was
not
complete
was
not
submitted
in
a
timely
manner,
and
the
second
is
that
KB
disagrees
with
staff's
determination
that
a
second
permit
would
be
required
in
order
to
allow
the
development
standards
which
are
setbacks
and
lot
coverage
as
proposed
by
KB.
M
M
The
city
council
amended
the
development
agreement
to
allow
the
extension
of
the
term
of
the
agreement
as
part
of
that
extension
award,
Holmes
agreed
to
construct
33
small
lot,
single-family
detached
home
homes
for
moderate
income
families.
The
development
agreement
was
then
amended
for
a
second
time
in
May
7,
May
17th
of
2021..
M
This
is
a
close-up
where
you
can
see
the
cluster
Lots
approved
as
part
of
the
tentative
map.
The
specific
plan
calls
out
these
Lots
as
garden
homes.
Sometimes
they're
referred
to
as
small
lock
homes,
but
there's
never
there's,
never
more
detail
given
on
these
homes
anywhere
or
what
they
were
supposed
to.
Look
like.
What
does
a
garden
home
mean?
None
of
that
information
is
provided
in
a
specific
plan.
As
you
can
see,
though,
these
lots
are
smaller
than
most
of
the
Lots
in
the
area.
M
M
These
Lots
were
approved
under
the
tentative
map
of
a
size.
That's
not
discussed
anywhere
in
the
specific
plan.
At
the
same
time,
the
specific,
at
the
same
time,
the
tentative
map
was
approved.
There
was
a
specific
plan
amendment
to
increase
density
in
the
area,
but
it
never
mentions
these
Lots
or
any
revised
standards
for
the
Lots.
M
M
The
absence
of
Standards
related
to
the
size
of
a
lot
does
not
waive
all
development
standards.
Again.
It's
common
cities
will
have
lots
that
aren't
this
size
it's
expressed
in
the
zoning
ordinance.
They
still
have
to
follow
the
development
standards
for
setbacks.
Lot
coverage:
that's
in
the
zoning
ordinance.
M
One
lot
size
is
close
to
being
compatible
with
KB
and
that's
the
lot
size
for
the
Duets.
Those
are
lots
where
they
imagined
a
3
500
square
foot
lot
per
unit.
That
would
be
attached
for
a
total
7
000
square
foot
lot,
but
it
is
a
smaller
lot.
It's
3
500
square
feet
for
one
basic
dwelling
unit
that
you
could
sell
and
the
setbacks
for
those
are
consistent
with
typical
R1.
It's
not
that
much
different
than
most
of
the
other
ones.
M
This
chart
gives
you
a
little
background
information
on
what
we're.
Looking
at
KB's,
proposing
a
five
foot
front
yard
setback.
The
duet
is
15
feet
to
structure
20
feet
to
garage
by
comparison,
the
city
does
have
small
Lots
within
the
city
for
the
R1
pz.
Those
are
very
small.
Lots
2500
square
feet
is
the
minimum
allowed
and
those
standards
meet
are
the
same
as
the
R1
standards.
M
The
side
yard
setback
they're
proposing
five
feet.
The
duet
is
six
feet
on
one
side,
obviously
zero
on
the
other.
It's
one
foot
off
Street
side
is
consistent.
Rear
yards
consistent
lot
coverage
is
unknown.
I
don't
have
that
information
from
them.
I
can
assume
by
looking
at
their
plan,
that
they
don't
meet
lot
coverage,
but
I
don't
have
their
calculation
parking,
they
have
a
two
car.
They
have
two
cars,
I
just
don't
know
the
dimensions,
but
again
that's
consistent
with
the
setbacks
or
the
the
standards
for
parking
Street
trees.
M
M
M
The
Planning
Commission
quite
regularly
looks
at
the
plan
unit
development
permits
and
they're
approved
quite
regularly,
where
we
allow
a
developer
to
establish
development
standards
for
their
site,
and
it's
really
to
encourage
Unique
Designs
housing
types
that
would
Norm
normally
not
be
allowed
under
the
typical
requirements
of
the
zoning
ordinance
and
plan
unit
developments
are
not
something
unique
to
this
city
they're
found
in
most
cities
in
California
to
allow
for
Unique
Designs
again.
This
is
just
a
little
close
up
in
case.
You
wanted
to
see
what
those
setbacks
look
like
for
KB.
M
So
when
I
mentioned
that
those
development
standards
don't
meet
this,
this
standards
that
we
have
established,
the
reason
that
we
hold
people
to
them
is
one
they're
in
the
municipal
code.
But
two
when
we
approve
when
the
Planning
Commission
approves
a
project,
the
Planning
Commission
establishes
findings
in
the
resolution
that
forms
the
record
for
why
we
approved
a
project
staff
can
go
back
20
years
from
now.
If
we're
questioning.
Why
was
this
project
approved?
M
This
seems
whatever
you
go
back
and
you
can
look
at
that
record
and
you
say
now
I
see
why
we
approved
it
in
this
case,
because
the
project
didn't
meet
those
development
standards.
We
do
not
feel
that
they
would
comply
with
the
West
Fairview
specific
plan
or
the
general
plan,
as
currently
proposed,
with
a
site
and
Architectural
Review
again.
This
city
allows
for
another
type
of
permit
to
be
applied
for
by
an
applicant,
which
we
would
then
review
and,
for
example,
of
a
specific
plan.
Amendment
was
approved.
M
Obviously
we're
codifying
their
standards
into
the
specific
plan.
They
would
then
be
consistent
with
a
specific
plan
and
the
findings
could
be
made
to
get
into
a
little
bit
of
the
history
of
KB
in
the
west
of
Fairview
staff
and
KB
met
back
in
February
to
discuss
their
proposal.
At
that
time.
Kb
had
indicated
that
they
may
be
looking
for
setbacks
that
didn't
comply
with
the
setbacks.
M
In
July
of
2020
KB
had
been
expressing
concerns
to
staff.
They
wanted
to
go
to
the
Planning
Commission
meeting
to
get
approval
of
their
project
in
an
effort
to
assist
them.
We
allowed
them
to
apply
for
the
sna
at
their
own
risk,
while
the
attorneys
were
discussing
whether
or
not
a
secondary,
a
second
permit
was
needed.
The
reason
for
that
is
once
projects
are
submitted
to
the
city
staff
has
to
Route
them
to
our
design,
Review
Committee.
M
Who
then
has
the
opportunity
to
ask
for
more
information
say
the
project
is
not
complete
for
them
or
ask
for
design
modifications
if
it
didn't
meet
a
certain
code
and
so
by
starting
that
process
that
allowed
us
to
get
moving
more
quickly.
While
we
were
still
having
this
discussion
in
July
on
July
25th
2022,
this
City
attorney
determined
that
the
project
did
not
conform
to
the
required
setbacks
and
then
reiterated
those
three
options
to
them:
modify
specific
plan
Amendment
or
plan
development
on
August
5th
2022.
M
M
Various
follow-ups
was
conducted
by
the
City
attorney,
their
attorney
staff
in
September
on
September
6th,
the
city
met
with
KB
and
their
attorneys,
and
then
on
September
6.
We
sent
a
follow-up
email
so
in
order
to
assist
KB
and
try
to
get
this
project
moved
along,
we
offered
five
options.
The
first
option
was
a
planned
unit.
Development
and
all
they
needed
to
do
was
tell
staff
that
they
were
okay
with
that.
We
would
then
prepare
all
the
information
for
them
waive
the
fee.
M
We
asked
the
city
manager
if
he
would
waive
the
fee
in
order
to
move
this
project
along,
so
that
we
could
get
Ford
for
an
approval
option.
Two
is
the
density
bonus
option.
Three
was
a
specific
plan,
Amendment
option.
Four
was
if
they
felt
that
they
wanted
to
apply
for
a
planned
unit
development.
They
could
do
so
and
pay
the
fee
option.
M
If
you
select
option
one,
we
will
bring
the
plan
development
for
approval
by
the
Planning
Commission,
with
a
recommendation
by
staff
for
approval
at
the
October
Planning
Commission
meeting,
which
is
tonight's
meeting
after
that
email
was
sent.
Kv
filed
an
appeal
on
those
main
two
appeal
points
which
we'll
go
over
more
so
KB
filed
an
appeal
and
that's
why
we
are
at
tonight's
meeting.
M
M
H
M
There's
no
plans,
there's
a
just
a
conversation
plans
start
rolling
in
after
April
pieces
of
it.
We
did
have
a
lot
of
City.
We
had
City
turnover
when
this
was
going
on.
Abraham
Prado
left
the
city
staff
was
understaffed.
Responses
were
delayed
because
of
that,
but
there
was
no
project
before
the
city
ends
at
the
May
meeting.
When
we
met
with
KB,
we
asked
them
for
a
few
more
pieces
of
information
for
their
application
and
we
asked
them
to
apply
for
a
second
permit.
They
didn't
want
to
do
that.
M
They
wanted
to
wait
to
hear
from
the
city
attorney
so
that
then
delayed
that
further
every
step
along
the
way
staff
has
sent
emails.
Saying
if
you
want
to
be
on
the
September
meeting,
I
need
your
permit
applied
for
by
this
date,
we've
consistently
kept
up
with
trying
to
get
them
to
a
hearing
where
we
could
recommend
approval.
We
just
differ
on
what
we
think
we
need
to
do
to
get
them.
M
J
I
M
M
As
part
of
that
letter,
we
once
again
restated
our
opinion
that,
in
order
for
us
to
recommend
approval,
we
needed
a
second
permit.
The
project
could
have
gone
forward
if
they
said
here's
your
plans.
We
want
to
go
to
a
public
hearing,
but
I
would
have
had
to
recommend
denial
at
that
meeting.
That
would
have
been
staff's
opinion.
We
don't
want
to
do
that.
We
want
their
project
to
be
approved.
We
want
their
project
built.
We
just
want
to
do
it
the
correct
way.
Kb
is
not
an
outlier.
M
There
are
other
developers
in
the
city
that
don't
want
to
meet
setbacks,
and
so
we've,
given
them
the
option
of
a
PUD,
but
there
are
also
developers
in
the
city
that
don't
want
to
follow
the
municipal
code
and
that's
a
choice
that
you
make
during
the
hearing
on
whether
or
not
if
they
don't
have
enough
trees.
Is
that
okay?
Is
it
not
okay?
What
if
they
don't
have
enough
parking?
These
are
decisions
that
are
always
made
at
Planning.
Commission
meetings.
M
This
one
is
a
little
difficult
because
we,
the
check,
was
received
by
someone
at
City
Hall
planning's,
not
close,
not
open
on
Friday.
We
couldn't
take
in
the
check
on
that
day.
We
did
it
the
Monday
after
so
there's
a
two-day
timeline
where
we
disagree
on
whether
or
not
we
could
have
done
anything
I
can't
route,
a
project
where
someone
hasn't
paid
a
fee
where
we
haven't
accepted
the
fee
and
logged
it
into
our
system.
M
M
So
so
DRC
is
once
a
month
and
we
meet
on
topics
that
are
that
require
all
of
us
to
discuss.
In
this
case.
Nobody
really
had
any
comments
on
it.
They
were
fine
with
it.
So
there
was
no
need
for
us
to
discuss
it
in
person,
but
we
are
required,
pursuant
to
the
municipal
code,
to
Route
these
projects
for
review
by
DRC,
and
it's
just
a
committee
of
staff.
M
So
for
appeal
point
one
I,
don't
really
think
this
is
like
the
major
issue
of
the
project
and
KB
said
they
would
give
us
plans
so
I'm.
Not
very
so
yes
appeal
point:
two:
an
additional
permit
is
not
required.
Obviously,
staff
and
the
City
attorney
disagree
with
their
interpretation,
as
I've
kind
of
discussed
before
I'm,
going
to
go
into
greater
detail
with
that,
but
that
was
their
main.
Their
second
appeal
point
in
the
first
letter
submitted
as
referenced
in
that
appeal
letter.
M
They
ref
they
reference
the
July
5th
letter
from
Katie's
attorney
and
that
letter
goes
into
greater
detail
about
why
they
feel
that
a
second
permit
is
required.
So
their
appeal
point
three
is
the
specific
plan
does
not
contain
setbacks
applicable
to
the
cluster
lots
and
is
evidenced
by
the
city's
own
findings.
The
project
is
consistent
with
applicable
objective-specific
plan
standards,
the
city
and
the
staff,
and
the
City
attorney
disagree
on
that.
M
M
The
lot
sizes
appear
to
have
been
approved
in
error,
so
they're
legal
non-conforming.
You
know
none
of
us
were
there
at
the
time,
so
we
can't
say
what
happened.
We
can
for
certain
say
that
the
tentative
map
was
approved
at
those
lot
sizes.
So
those
lot
sizes
are
allowed
to
remain
were
not
we're
not
asking
them
to
change
the
map
and
make
the
Lots
bigger
we're
not
asking
for
any
of
that.
We're
just
looking
at
setbacks
in
the
lot
coverage.
M
M
We
just
want
to
approve
it
properly
appeal
point:
four
staff
has
never
mentioned
the
need
to
amend
the
specific
plan
or
apply
for
a
plan
unit
development
permit
and
it
remain
KB
Homes
understanding
that
the
city
would
work
reasonably
with
KB
on
any
future
applications
staff
has
consistently
maintained
that
the
setbacks
didn't
meet
the
standards
of
the
specific
plan
or
the
zoning
ordinance.
We
have
consistently
told
them
that
they
would
have
to
either
amend
the
specific
plan
or
apply
for
a
planned
unit
development.
M
M
M
Kb
home
then
submitted
an
application
for
site
and
Architectural
Review
for
phase
two
on
May
18
2022,
but
City
Planning
staff
would
not
accept
the
application
without
guidance
from
the
city
attorney
two
date.
City
staff
has
refused
to
process
the
application.
I
think
this
was
maybe
they
were
unaware
when
they
wrote
the
letter
that
we
had
taken
in
the
application,
but
just
to
reiterate,
we
did
take
in
the
application
we
processed
the
check.
We
routed
it
for
review.
M
We
then
sent
them
an
incomplete
letter
as
we
are
required
to
do,
and
this
city
and
staff
always
provides
comments
to
the
applicant
in
order
to
guide
the
development
so
that
we
can
recommend
approval.
We
don't
want
to
stand
up
here
and
recommend
denial
of
a
project
we'd
like
to
get
everyone
to
a
place
where
we
can
recommend
approval,
and
so
by
giving
comments
to
applicants
on
the
design
of
their
project
that
helps
us
to
get
in
a
better
place
for
them.
M
M
M
The
setbacks
in
the
specific
plan
and
the
zoning
ordinance
are
consistent
with
R1
zoning
small
Lots,
located
in
an
r1pz
which
are
very
tiny,
Lots
or
2500
square
feet
same
standards
as
typical
R1
of
Greater
lot
size.
In
this
case
we
disagree.
We
think
the
setbacks
are
in
there.
We
think
that
they
could.
If
they
chose
to
apply
those
setbacks,
it
would
make
a
smaller
home.
But
again
we
do
not
have
a
problem
with
the
project.
M
As
designed,
we
just
want
to
have
the
legal
path
to
recommend
approval
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
prepare
adequate
findings
so
that
20
years
from
now,
if
someone
says
why
did
that
project
get
approved,
we
can
say
well.
We
have
a
planned
unit
development
and
the
Planning
Commission
allowed
them
to
have
different
setbacks
and
lot
coverage.
M
The
housing
accountability
act
requires
the
city
to
approve
the
project.
The
Aja,
including
several
recent
amendments,
to
increase
the
supply
of
housing
throughout
California
by,
among
other
things,
presumptively
requiring
the
approval
of
housing
projects
that
comply
with
objective
local
land
use
standards.
M
M
The
housing
accountability
act
does
not
require
staff
to
recommend
approval
of
a
project
which
meets
no
development
standards
in
the
city.
The
five
foot
front
yard
setback
that
they're
proposing
is
not
an
identifiable
setback
anywhere
in
the
city
unless
it
was
approved
through
a
plan,
your
development,
so
they
are
requesting
a
setback
which
they
have
come
up
with
and
nothing
in
the
housing
accountability
act
says
that
we
have
to
allow
a
project
which
doesn't
meet
the
development
standards
or
is
a
standard
of
which
a
developer
wants.
That
is
not
not
consistent
with
the
city's
requirements.
M
M
Statement
we
have
never
indicated
that
we
want
to
recommend
denial,
we're
not
up
for
a
review
where
you
will,
where
you
are
maybe
denying
it
and
setbacks
does
not
modify
the
density,
which
is
the
number
of
units
of
a
development
project.
So
we've
we've
been
discussing
density.
A
lot
density
refers
to
the
number
of
units,
even
if
they
had
to
comply
with
the
setbacks.
That
does
not
change
the
density
and
we've
never
indicated
that
we
thought
that
they
should
modify
that
map
in
any
way
to
create
larger
Lots.
M
M
The
city
seeks
to
impose
on
the
cluster
lot
setbacks
applicable
to
lots
of
at
least
five
thousand
square
feet,
notably
even
if
the
5
000
square
foot
lot,
setbacks
were
applicable
to
the
cluster
Lots
KB
would
be
entitled
to
a
waiver
of
such
setbacks.
Pursuant
to
the
state
density
bonus
law,
the
state
density
bonus
law
is
a
law
that
allows
a
developer
to
increase
the
density.
M
If
a
developer
meets
those
thresholds
in
the
law,
they
are
allowed
to
increase,
based
on
the
percentage
again
of
what
they're
providing
they're
allowed
to
increase
the
density
of
the
site
and
they
are
allowed
to
have
certain
requirements
of
the
the
zoning
ordinance
waived.
So
you
could
have
a
waiver
of
setbacks.
M
You
could
have
a
waiver
of
house
type,
there's
a
there's,
a
there's,
a
wide
number
of
things
that
they
could
request
that
the
city
wave
in
this
situation,
because
the
density
bonus
law
says,
if
you
give
the
city
these
extra
affordable
units
over
what
you
are
required
under
any
ordinance
or
other
requirement
to
provide.
You
then
get
a
bonus
from
the
city.
This
is
a
much
harder
one.
This
one
is
always
required
staff
to
do
more,
more
research
on
it,
because
the
33
lots
are
part
of
a
larger
development
that
was
approved.
M
The
33
lots
are
required
to
be
built
as
part
of
the
D
the
development
agreement.
It
was
an
incentive
to
the
city.
We
are
unsure
if
density
bonus
law
applies
in
this
situation,
based
on
when
the
request
was
made
when
the
appeal
was
filed,
staff
has
never
had
any
time
to
review
it.
There's
also
the
question
of
whether
or
not
that
would
require
the
development
agreement
to
be
amended,
and
that
requires
approval
by
the
city
council.
So,
as
far
as
moving
the
project
more
quickly
forward,
this
isn't
the
best
option.
M
M
M
The
project
isn't
up
for
review
by
you
right
now.
This
could
come
into
play
and
we
would
let
you
know
if
you
were
recommending
that
they
modify
the
lots
to
have
lower
density.
That
would
be
something
we
would
tell
you
would
not
be
allowed,
but
staff
is
completely
aware
of
this
and
has
never
recommended
that
the
density
on
the
site
get
lower.
M
Appeal
point
to
all
the
housing
crisis:
Act
of
2019
precludes
a
specific
plan,
amendment
to
add
setbacks
for
the
cluster
Lots.
Again,
there's
nothing
in
there.
That
says
that,
just
because
an
applicant
submits
a
project,
this
city
has
to
approve
it.
There
are
reasons
that
that
act
is
in
place
and
it's
to
prevent
cities
from
allowing
residential
development.
There
are
cities
that
are
not
pro-development
and
they
really
do
make
it
difficult
to
approve
projects
to
get
projects
built,
but
again
it.
M
Appeal
Point
13
again
is
the
permit
screen
lining
act
and
it
refers
to
just
this.
We
different.
We
have
a
different
opinion
on
when
the
clock
started
than
they
do
again.
It's
only
two
days,
KB
has
said
they
would
give
us
the
plan,
so
I
don't
feel
that
that's
the
biggest
issue
that
we're
looking
at
tonight.
M
So
in
conclusion,
staff
would
really
like
to
see
this
project
constructed
as
proposed.
The
staff
and
the
City
attorney
feel
that
the
project
does
not
meet
the
development
standards
in
a
municipal
code
or
specific
plan,
or
for
that
matter
in
any
established
zoning
District
in
the
city.
With
that
five
foot
for
single
family.
For
that
five
foot,
front
yard
setback,
the
city
allows
applicants
to
apply
for
a
specific,
planned
Amendment
or
a
PUD
which
would
allow
a
developer
to
establish
the
development
standards
for
their
project.
M
A
specific
plan
Amendment
does
require
final
approval
by
the
city
council.
That
does
take
a
little
bit
longer.
Some
people
are
concerned
with
applying
for
specific
plan
amendments.
They
may
see
it
as
more
controversial,
but
if
they
did,
we
have
a
secondary
option
in
this
city.
We
have
a
planned
unit,
development
and
the
Planned
unit.
Development
is
approved
by
the
Planning
Commission,
and
that's
that's
where
it
stops.
It's
not
a
rezoning
of
a
project.
M
The
plan
unit
development
allows
the
developer
to
establish
the
development
standards
that
they
want
for
their
project.
So
this
is
something
that
the
Planning
Commission
quite
regularly
reviews
our
plan
unit
developments
because
we
do
have
the
r1lpz
Lots,
which
are
small,
Lots
and
developers,
are
consistently
asking
for
different
development
standards
that
apply
to
them
and
to
the
houses.
All
the
houses
in
their
development
staff
has
oh
without
the
approval
of
a
secondary
permit
staff,
and
the
City
attorney
believed
that
none
of
the
required
findings.
M
Those
three
findings
that
I
showed
you
can
be
made
and
staff
has
continuously
told
KB
that
we
would
recommend
approval
of
a
project
with
a
second
permit,
even
going
so
far
as
to
state
that
they
didn't
have
to
apply
for
it.
We
would
do
it
for
them
and
that
we
would
waive
the
fee
and
any
action
by
the
Planning
Commission
can
be
appealed
to
the
city
council.
For
some
reason
you
denied
it.
The
applicant
could
appeal
it
to
the
city
council.
M
Likewise,
if,
for
some
reason
you
approved
it,
someone
can
appeal
it
to
the
city
council,
it's
the
same
for
all
projects
that
appeal
can
be
filed
so
for
this
appeal
tonight.
Staff
needs
you
to
make
a
basis
on
the
appeal
and
then
direct
us
to
what
you
would
like
to
do
next.
So
that
way
we
can
move
this
project
forward,
so
we
have
come
up
with
five
options
for
you
tonight.
M
One
is
to
deny
the
appeal
and
require
the
applicant
to
apply
for
a
specific
plan.
Amendment
the
specific
plan
Amendment
would
basically
insert
a
page
into
the
specific
plan.
It
will
establish
the
setbacks,
the
lot
coverage,
the
parking
requirements
for
these
homes
and
then
in
the
future.
They're
there.
If
a
homeowner
said
I
would
like
to
add
on
to
my
house,
can
I
we
can
go,
look
at
the
setbacks
and
say
you're
already
15
feet
in
the
back.
No,
you
can't
or
oh
you're
20.
You
have
a
20-foot
setback.
M
Yes,
you
have
five
feet
for
an
example,
but
those
setback
standards
are
then
there
for
us
to
use
forever
and
it
will
be.
It
would
be
very
helpful
to
staff
and
Future
Property
Owners
feed
downside
for
the
specific
plan
amendment
is.
It
does
require
a
longer
path
to
approval.
It
would
have
to
be
reviewed
by
the
Planning
Commission.
The
Planning
Commission
would
make
a
recommendation
to
the
city
council
and
then
the
city
council
would
would
act
on
it.
M
M
It
would
also
allow
staff
to
establish
the
setbacks,
the
minimum
ones
that
they've
proposed
that
would
allow
Future
Property
Owners,
should
they
choose
to
and
want
to
add
on
to
their
house
or
if
they
ever
needed
to
do
some
sort
of
improvements
where
we
had
to
look
at
what
the
setbacks
are.
That
would
be
in
the
planned
unit
development
for
us
to
use
it's
obviously
a
little
harder
to
find,
but
it's
still
there
we
can
use
it.
It
establishes
the
clear
record
for
what's
allowed
on
those
properties
going
forward.
M
The
third
option
is
deny
the
appeal
and
require
the
applicant
to
apply
for
a
density
bonus.
This
is
an
option
that
KB
has
requested
again,
as
I
mentioned
before
I'm
we
are
unsure
if
we
could
recommend
approval
of
that
density,
bonus,
we're
unsure
if
it
complies
with
the
law,
it
could
require
development
agreement
Amendment,
and
so,
if
we're
looking
at
the
fastest
path
for
approval,
this
is
not
the
preferred
option.
M
M
Number
four:
you
can
uphold
their
appeal
and
Grant
them
the
appeal
and
you
can
direct
staff
to
bring
the
site
and
Architectural
Review
to
the
Planning
Commission
during
a
public
hearing,
staff
will
bring
a
blank
resolution
in
the
Planning.
Commission
would
be
charged
with
writing
the
actual
findings.
So
you
will
be
in
this
case
preparing
the
legal
record
for
the
project.
M
We
feel
that
would
delay
the
project
I'm
unsure
what
those
houses
would
end
up.
Looking
like,
we
are
always
willing
to
go
with
a
plain
unit:
development
to
allow
for
Unique
Designs
in
the
city
to
provide
different
sorts
of
housing
types
all
throughout
the
city
and
in
this
case
to
have
them
redesign
their
project.
It
is
your
option:
that's
not
our
favorite
option
and
I
believe
it's
not
Katie's.
Favorite
option
either
that
I'll
leave
these
options
up.
But
that
concludes
my
presentation.
C
N
M
M
Option
two
staff
will
still
uphold,
but
we
told
them
in
that
email
where
we
said
we
will
prepare
all
the
documentation
for
you.
We
will
waive
the
fee
that
still
holds
that's.
Why?
If
you
select
option
two
they're
ready
to
go
for
November,
we
can
notice
them
tomorrow.
I,
don't
need
anything
from
them.
O
A
M
Option
one:
while
a
cleaner
path
for
ease
of
use
in
the
future
is
the
longer
option,
which
is
why
staff's
preferred
option
is
option
two,
because
it's
faster
so
option
one.
We
could
notice
them
tomorrow
they
go
to
the
November
Planning
Commission
meeting,
but
then
we
have
to
notice
them
again
and
we
have
noticing
timelines
that
we
have
to
meet.
And
so
then
they
go
to
city
council,
maybe
in
December,
but
then
it's
the
holidays.
So
it's
a
different
schedule,
so
it
could
be
January.
It's
a
lot
longer.
D
D
D
D
B
B
D
P
Good
evening,
members
of
the
Planning
Commission
Andrew
saby
Cox
castle
and
Nicholson
Council
for
KB
Home,
the
applicant
and
appellant
I,
would
ask
at
the
outset,
before
I
dive
into
any
of
these
issues.
In
light
of
the
45-minute
presentation
by
your
staff,
that
was
pretty
comprehensive
and
thoughtful,
but
is
pretty
meaty
that
I'd
be
given
more
than
three
minutes
to
address
some
of
these
issues
so
that
we
can
have
a
bit
more
of
a
colloquy
year.
D
B
At
your
discretion,
if
you
do
extend
the
public
comment
time
for
one
public,
commenter
you'll
have
to
do
the
same
for
others.
It
sounds
like
there
may
only
be
the
one.
The
other
thing
I
mean
in
the
past
I
have
seen
you
all
ask
the
applicant
questions.
So
you
know,
maybe
he
has
three
minutes
for
his
comment,
but
there
may
be
time
after
that
you
could
direct
questions
towards
him.
P
P
There
is
no
objective
standard
for
setbacks.
That
applies
to
this
lot
size.
There
just
is
not
one,
and
what
staff
has
done
is
very
creatively
and
and
an
attempt
to
adapt
or
adopt
or
suggest
you
could
infer.
Those
are
not
objective
standards
and
under
state
law,
as
it
gets
stronger
and
stronger
because
of
the
problems
that
applicants
face
in
trying
to
build
housing
in
this
state,
you
simply
are
not
allowed
to
ask
for
a
discretionary
permit.
This
project
has
a
final
recorded
map.
G
H
About
the
plan
unit
development
process,
staff
was
willing
to
waive
fees
plan
unit
developments
are
for
projects
such
as
a
lot
of
the
in
a
multi-unit
development.
It
gives
the
applicant
the
the
option
of
using
Creative
Design
techniques
and
proposing
setbacks.
That
may
not
be
written
very
clearly
in
the
in
the
municipal
code
or
the
zoning
ordinance,
but
it
gives
you
the
option
to
propose
what
setbacks
you
feel
as
and
your
design
staff
would
be
appropriate
for
the
project.
So,
given
that
I,
don't
quite
understand,
I,
don't
understand
why
you
resist
that
path.
Right.
P
And,
and
if
it
were
not
a
question
of
I
mean,
quite
frankly,
it
comes
in
California,
it
comes
down
to
avoiding
entitlement
risk
and
not
asking
for
a
discretionary
approval
where
one
is
not
needed.
If
you
don't
need
a
discretionary
approval,
it
is
ill-advised
to
ask
for
or
voluntarily
seek
one
because
you
can
be
told,
no,
where
you
cannot
be
told.
No,
it
does
not
behoove
an
applicant
for
housing
in
California
to
ask
for
permission
when
one
is
not
required
to
do
that.
So
it
really
is
it's
that
simple.
P
It
is
a
question
of
state
law.
If
discretion
is
not
needed,
then
it
should
not
be
sought
because
you
can
say
no
and
and
I
I
understand.
I,
feel
I
feel
the
support
of
the
staff,
and
we
very
much
appreciate
that
this
is
not
the
sort
of
project
that
that
you
that
you
would
have
to
hold
your
nose
to
approve,
but
it's
it
is
that
simple.
These
are
rights
that
that
applicants
now
have
and
they're
they're,
very
difficult
to
Forfeit.
P
It's
the
I
think
it's
not
only
my
view,
but
I
think
it's.
If
you,
the
staff
report,
acknowledges
that
there
are.
There
is
no
setback
standard
for
this
lot
size
there
just
isn't,
and
that's
not
that
wasn't
our
choice.
The
the
city
adopted
the
Fairview
spec
plan
it
it
approved
these
Lots
it.
The
final
map
is
recorded.
There
just
aren't
standards.
I
So
I'm
curious
about
I
think
the
option.
You
said
that,
if,
if
we
believe
that
the
law
is
in
favor
of
what
you're
saying
and
we
just
approve,
you
know
your
proposal,
I
think
the
staff
report
was
saying
that
we
would
then
have
to
come
up
with
the
findings
that
would
be
recorded
and
could
be
reviewed.
20
years
later
and
people
understand
why
we
approved
it.
So
you
know
we're
not
attorneys
or
legal
people,
so
that
I
mean
just
to
just
a
lay
person
who
you
knows
here
almost
voluntarily.
P
It
so
I,
don't
know
if
you
had
any
comment
about
that.
I
agree,
I
thought
that
was
frankly
just
a
little
bit
unfair
to
to
say.
If
you,
if
you
approve
our
appeal,
which
is
obviously
within
your
right,
then
it
falls
on
your
back
to
figure
out
how
it
is
that
that
we
have
the
rights
we
have
I
mean
I
would
tell
you
that
we're
happy
to
write
those
findings
and
bet
them
with
your
legal
counsel
and
your
very
capable
staff.
P
You
know,
that's
not
I,
don't
think
you're
going
to
have
to
start
from
from
a
blank
slate.
It's
actually
I
would
tell
you
in
this
instance
because
of
the
function
of
state
law.
It
would
be
a
very
simple
set
of
findings.
It's
not.
This
is,
unlike
the
the
the
pain
and
paperwork
that
has
gen
been
generated
up
to
now.
H
P
So
if
you
want
a
setback
for
this
cluster
lot
to
be
an
objective
standard,
write
it
down,
I
mean
if,
for
example,
in
this
case
right,
a
staff
report
that
wanted
to
tell
you
what
the
objective
standard
is
for
this
cluster
lot
would
be
one
sentence:
if
there
was
one
the
setback
for
the
cluster
lot
is
blank
right.
There
isn't
one!
That's
and
that's
I
mean
it's
I
hate
to
make.
It
seem
that
simple,
but
it's
really
what
it
boils
down
to
is.
P
If
you
don't
have
an
objective
standard,
then
you're
not
allowed
to
impose
an
obligation
on
us
to
go
chase
a
discretionary
approval
when
we
are
in
compliance
with
all
the
objective
standards
that
do
exist.
That's
really
what's
going
on.
If
we
show
up
with
an
application
that
complies
with
all
the
stated
objective
standards,
then
we're
good.
We
don't
have
to
ask
for
discretionary
permits
because
there
aren't
any
other
objective
standards
that
we
are
deviating
from.
That's
really
what
it
comes
down
to.
I
P
It
it
would
have
been,
it
would
have
been
legally
feasible,
whether
it
was
practicable
and
whether
at
that
point
you
could
make
some
sort
of
finding
about
some
other
concern.
But
you
have
to.
If
you
don't
have
a
a
legal
standard,
then
you
you,
don't
have
the
right
now
under
California
Law,
to
force
someone
to
chase
a
discretionary
approval
and
unless
we
were
out
of
compliance
with
an
objective
legal
standard.
P
P
Ahead,
I
was
just
gonna
say
there
are
zero
lot
lines
out
there
right,
I
mean
so
setbacks.
You
know
if
you
stop
and
think
about
it,
I'm
not
recommending
it
and
no
one
has
proposed
it,
and
staff
would
tell
you
if
they
thought
it
was
a
horrible
project
and
the
setbacks
were
inadequate,
but
setbacks
are
not
some
sort
of
constitutional
minimum
right.
So
a
setback
is
an
option.
P
It
can
be
set
at
a
number
that
a
city
might
declare,
but
it's
not
as
if
you
know
setbacks
are
a
cine
Quan
on
right,
where
it's
so
right.
It's
a
standard
that
you
could
choose
or
choose
not
to
have
right.
It's
it's
within
the
discretion
of
a
city
to
adopt
one
or
not
or
several
or
you
know,
different
things
for
different
places.
Okay,.
I
I
It's
another
one,
yeah
okay,
so
someone
could
come
up
with
another
definition
of
a.
This
is
a
new
type,
an
eighth
or
ninth
type
of
lot
and
and
then
you
would
say:
well
those
there's,
no
there's
no
Municipal
Code
that
covers
the
setback
for
the
these
other
theoretical
lot
types.
So
it
seems
to
me
like
the
spirit
of
the
municipal
code.
Is
we
need
to
have
standards
for
setbacks.
P
And
well
and
I
would
I
guess
that
that
hypothetical-
and
you
know
the
danger
of
hypotheticals
right
yeah,
we
have
an
approved
plan.
It
wasn't.
This
wasn't
something
that
was
snuck
in
the
city
approved
this.
It
made
findings
of
consistency,
there's
a
tentative
Map
There's,
a
final
map,
it's
recorded
So,
this
isn't
and
it
wasn't
that
they
were
illegal
or
out
of
compliance
at
the
time.
The
city
made
findings
of
consistency
when
it
approved
this
tentative
map.
So
this
is
not
the
developers
sneaking
up
on
anybody
or
saying,
because
you
would
have
absolute
discretion.
P
If
somebody
came
to
you
and
said,
I
would
like
to
build
something
that
is
outside
of
the
scope
of
anything
within
your
code.
You
could
say
no,
but
here
the
city
has
moved
this
thing
all
the
way
to
this
point,
and
now
we're
stymied
so
that
hype
I,
would
reverse
that
hypothetical
and
say
in
a
situation
where
an
applicant
has
complied
with
all
the
standards
and
has
met
with
approval
from
the
city
up
to
the
point
of
now
site
and
Architectural
Review.
D
I
I
I
P
H
So
your
your
view
again
is
that
there
are
no
objective
standards
once
you
say,
though,
that
when
you
do
not
have
objective
standards
set
specifically
applied
to
like
cluster
lives,
to
these
small
Lots,
it's
within
the
boundary
reasoned
to
apply
it
from
the
staff
standpoint
to
apply
a
similar
lot
size
that
a
similar
lot.
The
like
the
this
duet,
for
example,
and
up
and
apply
those
setbacks.
P
No
I
would
I
would
disagree
with
that
and
again
it
it
and
I
hate
to
be
legalistic
with
you,
but
it
really.
It
comes
down
to
a
developer.
An
applicant
needs
to
be
able
to
come
and
read
your
code
and
say
what
is
the
setback
for
this
cluster
lot
and
it's
not
there.
There
is
no
setback.
If
you
ask
someone
to
say
well,
you
should
go
draw
an
inference
from
what
might
be
drawn
from
one
of
these
others.
That's
not
an
objective
standard
applicable
to
this
lot.
That
is
asking
for
a
level
of
of
discretion.
P
D
D
J
Or
I
have
no
other
speaker
cards.
I
will
make
a
note
for
the
record
that
and
I
believe
the
Planning
Commission
received
this
via
email
today,
October
27th,
a
letter
from
the
applicants
representative,
Ms
Margo
reidish
from
Cox
castle
and
Nicholson
and
copies
have
been
made
available
in
the
chambers
and
for
the
Commissioners,
but
I
have
no
other
speakers.
Okay,.
D
B
G
O
O
O
D
I
I
G
M
M
The
resolution
does
not
discuss
the
lot
sizes.
Were
they
known
at
the
time
that
they
were
that
small
I?
Don't
know,
there
is
no
record
of
why
these
small
Lots
were
approved.
Nothing
talks
about
him,
as
I
mentioned,
with
that
tentative
map,
the
applicant
applied
for
a
specific
plan.
If
he
had
said
at
the
time,
I
would
like
to
have
different
setbacks
for
these
Lots.
It
would
have
been
wrapped
up
all
together
and
we
wouldn't
be
here
so
I'm
not
sure
what
happened
this
is
15
years
ago.
M
M
We
would
have
said
fine,
but
if
we're
getting
hung
up
on
a
setback,
we
don't
have
an
issue
with
the
project.
The
city
provides
a
way
forward
for
applicants
to
kind
of
get
their
desired
setbacks
for
a
good
design
in
this
city.
The
plan
unit
development
is
done
by
the
Planning
Commission
level.
It's
not
a
rezone
like
it
is
in
most
cities.
I
I
It
sounds
like
there's
not
a
clear
path
to
get
findings
outside
of
this
planned
unit
development
because
either
well.
The
staff
has
told
us
that
we
would
have
to
come
up
with
the
findings
ourselves
and
then
the
applicants
attorneys
saying
well.
Well,
we
could
help
you
so
I,
don't
know
if
it's
a
good
idea
that
we're
we'd,
just
you
know,
have
the
applicant
write
findings
for
us
and
then
stop
saying
that
we
that
we
have
to.
I
H
Know
and
I'm
glad
you
brought
that
up
if
I
may.
If
we
approve
the
appeal,
then
the
burden
is
on
us
to
come
up
with
findings
without
objective
standards,
so
we're
in
acting
as
a
discretionary
body
here,
because
we're
going
to
to
talk
about
this
have
a
conversation
about
setbacks
without
without
anything
that
specifically
applies
to
the
cluster
lives.
H
So
we're
stop
stuck
in
the
same
position
here
discussing
findings
as
the
staff
was
when
they
had
to
they
applied
a
similar
life
science
that
was
was
within
reason
and
those
setbacks
applied
those
setbacks.
If
not,
then
the
applicant
had
the
discretion
to
apply
for
a
plan
unit
development
applying
for
a
planned
unit.
Development
is,
is
a
process
which
is
very
commonly
done.
It
doesn't
take
that
much
time
it
comes
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
given
the
spirit
of
the
haa
Act
for
applying
for
providing
housing.
H
It
follows
within
that
Spirit,
even
though
there
may
not
be
the
objective
standards
that
the
applicant
was
referring
to,
the
the
eventual
outcome
is
providing
the
housing
that
the
staff
is
supporting
by
just
providing
by
formatting
it
as
a
plan
unit
development.
It's
a
matter
of
formatting
it
without
objective
standards.
H
I
I
just
feel
that
you
know
I
I'm,
not
I'm,
not
a
legal
expert
I
don't
want
to
do
anything
in
violation
of
state
law,
but
within
the
spirit
of
knowing
what
the
haa
is,
the
the
goal
that
it
is
therefore,
is
to
provide
the
housing
and
the
staff
is
supporting
it.
It's
just
a
matter
of
formatting
as
a
plan
unit
development,
you.
B
D
Okay,
yeah
I'm,
gonna
I,
also
I
mean
I'm
I'm
kind
of
feeling,
like
leaning,
towards
sort
of
that,
the
same
kind
of
sentiment
that
all
the
other
Commissioners
I
think
have
kind
of
believed
to
I
mean
this
is
a
very
complicated
and
from
our
and
this
made
the
applicant
may
be
in
complete
disagreement.
But
from
our
perspective
it
appears
that
there
is
some
resolution
to
this,
and
we
I
mean
I.
Think
we
all
had
hope
would
have
hope
that
that
would
have
happened
before
coming
here.
D
So
there
so
I
think
we're
we're
in
a
little
bit
of
a
bind
here.
However,
we
do
have
some
options,
especially
because
we
know
that
that
the
the
information
that
we
have
before
us
and
the
way
that
we
understand
it-
proposes
a
viable
option
that
the
applicant
chose
not
to
take,
and
so
that's
I
think,
where
we're
kind
of
at
right
now.
So
that's
that's
where
I'm
I'm
kind
of
coming
from
I
agree.
We
should
I.
D
Don't
think
that
we
should
approve
the
appeal,
because
I
think
that
there
are
other
options
that
seem
to
be
reasonable
and
and
I
would
be
leaning
towards
option.
One
or
two
I
think
I
do
like
the
idea
of
option
one
providing
a
clearer
path
for
the
future,
because
I
feel
like
sometimes
we
have
gotten
ourselves
into
trouble
because
we
don't
always
apply
that.
However,
I
do
worry
about
the
delays
and
all
the
other
things
that
come
with,
that.
D
D
As
I
was
reading
some
of
the
material
when
I
was
home,
trying
to
understand
what
the
issue
was,
it
it's
become
a
little
bit
more
clear,
but
I
do
worry
a
little
bit
about
all
the
different
points
of
appeal,
because
I
feel
in
a
way
that
it
made
this
ish.
This
situation
more
complicated
than
it
needed
to
be.
D
Unfortunately,
but
I
know
that
that's
I
know
that
the
applicants
have
to
cover
all
of
their
bases,
but
I
do
think
that
it
does
come
down
to
the
what
are
what
would
be
viable
options
for
the
applicants,
and
it
seems
to
me
that
there
is
a
viable
option
in
either
one
or
two
and
so
I
think
that
that's
sort
of
where
I'm
feeling
like
I'm
leaning
towards
okay.
So
that's
that's
all
I,
have
to
say
and
I
don't
have
any
questions.
Any
final
questions
or
comments
from
my
fellow
commissioners.
D
One
so
here's
what
we're
at
anybody
any
one
of
you
any
one
of
us-
can
make
a
motion
and
we
can
say
we
can
use
any
of
the
options
that
were
presented
to
a
spice
staff
and
as
staff
also
offered,
or
maybe
it
was
Jennifer.
We
can
add
another
option
if
we
have
if
we
would
like
so
we
would
start
there.
So
we
would
just
go
through
the
whole
process
of
we'll.
Do
the
Motions
we'll
vote
on
it.
If
one
of
the
options
get
some
majority
vote,
then
we
then
that's
where
we
land.
C
K
D
C
D
C
D
H
G
G
D
Good
welcome
any
other
commission
reports-
okay
and
then
oh
actually,
I
do
want
to
say
a
quick,
a
real
huge
I,
say
I
quick,
but
huge.
Thank
you
to
commissioner
Henderson
for
covering
for
me
for
the
last
two
meetings
why
we
had
to
travel
for
work
now
that
things
are
kind
of
returning
back
to
normal.
I
am
gonna.