►
From YouTube: Gov Hol PC 20200924
Description
Hollister Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 2020
B
D
E
Abraham
on
the
g-pack,
can
I
come
to
city
hall
for
that
or
do
I
that's
what
I'll
do
I'll
be
in
city
hall.
B
C
F
G
G
C
Aye
the
approval,
the
minutes
pass
communications
from
the
public
on
items
not
listed
on
the
agenda.
This
is
the
time
for
anyone
in
the
audience
to
speak
on
any
items
not
on
the
agenda
and
within
the
subject
matter:
jurisdiction
of
the
planning
commission.
When
the
planning
commission
calls
your
name,
please
come
to
the
podium
state.
Your
name
address
for
the
record
and
speak
to
the
commission.
C
C
B
The
entitlements
being
considered
tonight
consists
of
the
tentative
map.
Only
individual,
certain
architectural
reviews
in
the
form
of
commercial
buildings
will
have
have
come
before
you
already
and
will
continue
to
come
before
you
at
a
later
time
to
review,
site
orientation,
parking,
landscaping
and
so
forth.
The
entitlements
for
tonight
are
only
for
the
tentative.
B
Map,
as
you
know,
the
property
previously
received
canada
map
approval
in
june
on
june
29
2017.,
the
applicant,
the
application
or
the
approval
has
since
expired,
and
the
applicant
is
here
tonight
to
essentially
do
get
another
approval
and
finalize
the
process
for
a
final
map
subdivision
to
continue
the
process
with
the
engineering
department
and
get
that
finalized
and
approved
for
the
finalization
of
the
15
lots.
B
There
is
a
personal
map,
also
a
tentative
map
example
with
you,
and
also
on
the
screen,
which
I
will
go.
I
will
go
through
in
just
a
little
bit
parcels
one
through
nine
would
be
located
south
of
east
park
street
west
of
highway
25
bypass
and
north
of
the
existing
le
schwab
and
walgreens
shopping.
Centers
parcels
10
through
15th
would
be
located
north
of
east
park
street
west
of
highway
25
bypass
and
east
of
prospect
parcels
one
through
two.
B
If
you
can
look
in
the
screen
located
nor
more
towards
the
western
side
and
as
mentioned
earlier
south
of
east
park
street,
and
they
will
consist
of
parcels,
one
would
consist
of
a
1.91
acre
site
and
parcel
2
would
consist
of
a
1.62
acre
site
parcels.
1
and
2
have
previously
also
received
entitlements
for
a
seventy
one
thousand
five
hundred
and
fifty
nine
square
foot
building
with
multi
tenants
for
future
commercial
for
future
commercial
uses.
B
The
applicant
is
here,
as
mentioned
in
case.
You
have
questions
regarding
potential
tenants
parcels
one
and
two
are
located
to
towards
the
west
of
the
project
site
south
of
east
park.
Street
parcels
parcel
three
is:
can
consist
of
1.2
acres
and
it's
mostly
the
an
area
for
parking
within
the
subdivision.
B
Parcel
4
consists
of
0.82
acres
and
if
you
recall
previously
that
parcel
received
a
saturn
architectural
approval
for
restaurant
use,
it's
a
future
use
of
a
denny's
restaurant
parcel
5
consists
of
0.92
acres,
and
that
is
the
site.
If
you
drive
by
there,
you
will
see
and
previously
came
before
you
signed
architectural
approval
for
a
multi-tenant
use.
B
It's
currently
the
chipotle
use
and
future
land
use
for
verizon
as
well
parcel
number
six
closer
to
state
highway,
25
again
south
of
east
park
street
consists
of
1.41
acres
and
it
is
the
site
of
an
existing
building
where
smashburger
is
currently
located
at
the
northern
end
and
aspen
dental
at
the
southern
end
of
the
building
parcel
number
seven
is
0.63
acres,
and
that
too,
is
a
future
commercial
building.
B
Parcel
number
eight
consists
of
0.69
acres,
mostly
parking
as
described
on
the
center
map
and
parcel
or
lot
number
nine
parcel
number
nine
one
point:
one
eight
acre
and
again
is
described
as
mostly
parking
in
the
tentative
map.
B
Now
the
parcels
to
the
north
of
east
park
street
consists
of
parcels
10
through
15,
as
described
and
parcel
number
10,
1.03
acres
and
that's
more
towards
the
east,
closer
to
the
highway
25
bypass,
and
there
has
been
a
restaurant
building
entitled,
but
not
yet
built
on
that
parcel
parcel
number
11
consists
of
0.74
acres
and
there
has
been
a
car
washing
title
there,
but
not
yet
built
parcel
number
12
consists
of
1.99
acres
and,
as
you
see
in
the
screen,
it's
mostly
parking
parcel.
B
13
is
1.28
acres
for
future
buildings
that
that
has
not
yet
received
10
signed
architectural
approval
will
come
before
you
at
a
later
time.
Parcel
number
14,
0.62,
acres
and
parcel
number
15
is
1.36
acres,
and
that
is
the
sites
that
is
the
the
building
has
been
constructed,
not
yet
open.
But
it's
for
a
medical
dialysis.
B
It's
been
approved
and
constructed
and
nearing
its
opening
date.
The
property
owner
of
hawkins
companies
previously
received
tenant
map
approval,
as
indicated
before
the
applicant
desires,
to
obtain
approval
of
the
tenant
of
this
tenant
map
for
the
same
project.
To
be
able
to
proceed
with
the
final
map
and
complete
its
subdivision.
B
One
of
the
one
of
the
things
that
we
emphasize
here,
as
we
did
back
in
2017,
is
that
inner
inner
connectivity,
essentially
somebody
can
from
walgreens,
would
be
able
to
eventually
when
all
the
site
is
developed,
be
able
to
go
all
the
way
through
smash,
burger,
all
the
way
to
east
park
street
and
then
from
there
eventually
and
and
back
so
that's
one
of
our
general
plan
policies
to
have
inner
connectivity,
which
is
one
of
the
things
that
the
one
of
various
things
that
the
commercial
applicant
has
been
able
to
meet
and
exceed
for
this
project.
B
With
that
staff
recommends
the
planning
commission
review.
The
applicant's
request
receive
all
written
and
oral
testimony
regarding
the
proposal
and
make
the
following
motion
adopt
a
resolution
to
approve
intended
map
number
2020-2,
subject
to
the
conditions
contained
in
the
draft
resolution
and
that
resolution
would
be
2020-18.
E
B
We
can,
we
can
discuss,
it
would.
H
B
H
Yeah
this
application
tonight
is
really
just
to
establish,
not
re-establish
the
timeline
that,
just
by
a
mere
oversight
that
the
tentative
map
expired.
If
they
would
have
come
back
just
slightly
before
the
expiration,
it
would
have
been
an
automatic
extension.
So
nothing
is
really
changing.
It's
just
re-establishing
the
timelines.
E
But
when
the
the
tentative
map
expires
isn't
that
we
can
still
kind
of
just
review
it
again
as
or
is,
I
know
this
has
been
approved
previously,
but
I
I
just
wanted
to.
I
was
looking
at
the
the
street
on
profiles
just
wanted
to
make
a
general
comment.
C
Any
other
questions
for
steph,
commissioner
stevens
did
you
have
any
questions
for
steph.
C
A
Good
evening,
as
abraham
said,
my
name
is
brittany,
elliott,
I'm
with
hawkins
companies,
855
west,
broad
street,
suite
300,
boise,
idaho,
83702,
and
we're
here
tonight
just
to
request
approval
of
tentative
map
2020-2,
and
the
first
thing
I
like
to
do
is
say:
thank
you
abraham.
For
that
fantastic
presentation,
I
will
not
go
through
most
of
that
information
again.
However,
I
want
to
say
thank
you
for
all
your
staff's
work
getting
us
here
tonight.
A
A
A
A
C
Okay,
if
we
have
no
additional
questions
for
the
applicant
or
speaker
cards,
I'll,
go
ahead
and
close
the
public
hearing
at
6,
15.
E
Mr
chair,
if
I
may
please-
and
I
I
like
what
you're
doing
out
there-
I
like
this-
well-designed
development.
I
appreciate
that
the
only
comment
I
making
as
we
going
through
our
new
general
plan
update
and
we
talk
about
street
streetscapes
and
street
design,
and
I
maybe
I'm
wrong,
I'm
not
a
civil
engineer,
but
I
would
call
park
avenue
a
minor
arterial.
E
It
connects
residential
commercial
shopping
centers
of
the
like
the
design
guidelines
that
we
had
in
the
old
general
plan
prefer
to
have
the
planning
strip
between
the
sidewalk
and
and
the
curb.
Now,
since
there's
a
precedent,
that's
already
established
out
there
with
park
street,
it
makes
sense
to
carry
out
that
existing
designed,
curb
sidewalk
planning
strip
and,
as
you
drive
as
I
drive
down
monterey
street
and
older
street
coming
to
city
hall,
I
notice
that
you
have
curb
planning
strip
sidewalk
acts
as
a
pedestrian
protection
buffer,
and
it
looks
really
nice.
I
like
that.
E
Look,
so
I
just
want
to
keep
that
in
mind
as
we
go
through
these
projects
plan
developments
tentative
maps
if
we
can
somehow
identify.
Maybe
this
is
part
of
the
new
general
plan
process,
but
identify
those
areas
where
we
can
embrace
the
curb
landscape
strip
and
then
sidewalk
in
certain
areas.
I
think
that
would
be
certainly
be
very
helpful
to
beautify
our
city,
and
that
was
the
comment
I
wanted
to
make.
C
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Hey
boy
any
other
comments
from
the
commissioners
right,
if
there's
no
additional
comments,
what's
a
pleasure,
the
commission
on
this
item.
E
B
E
2020-18,
thank
you
abraham
and
the
conditions
in
the
draft
resolution.
C
D
B
1.310
acre
parcel
parcel
b
for
future
road
improvements
along
the
property
line.
In
addition,
the
applicant
is
also
requesting
to
the
creation
of
an
adjacent
13.157
acre
remainder
parcel
this
located
this,
this
project
site
located
in
the
north
gateway,
which
is
a
commercial
district
zoning
district
of
the
city
of.
B
H
B
Along
pacific
way,
which
would
be
on
the
southern
part
of
the
project
site
regarding
access
access
right
now,
you
know
for
for
future,
commercial
development
would
be
off
of
pacific
way
to
the
commercial
site.
There
is
no
access
from
highway
25
bypass.
That
is
a
caltrans
requirement
that
prohibits
access
onto
private
private
properties
along
along
the
bypass,
and
then
the
other
axis
that
is
being
proposed
and
the
city
is,
is
recommending
or
is.
B
Okay
with
is
a
right
right
in
only
for
the
future
commercial
development
of
this
site
between
lots,
two
and
three
so
as
northbound
traffic
is
on
san
felipe
road
vehicles
are,
are
able
to
make
a
right
turn
onto
this
future
road.
However,
there
would
be
no
right
out
from
here.
We
just
feel
that
it's
too
close
to
the
intersection
of
highway
25
and
san
felipe.
B
There
is
a
currently
a
median
on
san
felipe
road
that
bisects,
the
north
and
south
traffic,
and
so
as
vehicles
are
heading
out
on
the
future
development
of
pacific
way
at
this
time.
You
know
if
at
this
time
we'll
be
right,
you
know
right
out
only
right
in
right
out.
B
The
applicant
in
this
case
there
is
a
condition,
condition
number
60,
which
would
require
a
fair
share
per
register
of
the
of
the
cost
for
the
improvements
of
that
intersection.
So
that's
been,
that's
been
analyzed
and
considered
and
should
be
going
before
the
city
council.
Once
we
get
the
recommendations
from
the
traffic
analysis.
B
Before
going
into
the
recommendation
for
approval,
we
do
want
to
bring
your
attention
to
a
few
conditions
of
approval
that
the
city
engineer-
and
I
discussed
with
the
applicants-
engineer
mr
allen
andrett,
and
so
we
just
want
to
bring
them
to
your
attention.
Briefly
condition.
Number
one
addresses
the
timeline
for
when
the
minor
subdivision
would
expire,
if
they
don't
submit
properly
to
the
city
engineer,
to
make
it
into
a
parcel
map
and
record
it.
So
essentially
it's
a
two-year
approval
process,
and
so
we
just
want
to
add
a
new
sentence.
B
We
knew
third
sentence,
two
conditional
number
one
which
states
on
letter.
I
put
it
on
the
screen
in
red
font,
and
it
indicates
it
is
the
applicant's
responsibility
to
submit
the
required
tender
parcel
map,
parcel
map,
easements
and
all
supportive
documents
to
the
city
of
hollister
in
a
timely
manner
to
comply
with
state
law.
Just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
that
language
was
included
in
that
condition
and
then
also
condition.
B
Number
one
indicates
that
the
approval
expires
in
two
years
and
it
also
states
that,
for
an
effective
plan
review
period,
the
applicant
shall
submit
a
parcel
map
package
for
the
review
of
the
city
engineer
no
later
than
march
24
2022,
essentially
it's
six
months
prior
to
the
two-year
expiration
date.
So
all
we
want
to
do.
There
is
just
change.
The
word
shall
and
put
should,
because
the
expiration
date
is
actually
two
years
and
if
we
put
shall
it
makes
it
seem
like
it's.
B
A
expiration
date
is
a
year
and
a
half
from
now,
and
it
really
isn't
it's
just
a
really
hard
recommendation
on
our
part
that
they
really
should
submit
at
least
six
months
in
advance
of
the
expiration
date.
That's
it
for
condition.
Number
one
condition
number
13
very
briefly.
This
is
not
for
a
development
at
this
time
is
just
for
subdivision
and
condition.
Number
13
is
a
standard
condition
that
we
indicate
in
subdivisions
that
that
the
property
owners
show
stripe
every
two
years,
the
parking
styles
and
so
forth.
B
So
since
this
is
not
an
actual
development,
sometimes
we
do
bring
in
actual
developments
with
the
subdivision.
But
in
this
case,
because
it's
just
a
subdivision,
it's
no
developments
being
proposed.
All
we
would
like
to
add
to
condition
number
13
is
as
as
applicable,
the
application
maintain
a
restripe,
so
obviously
it
would
not
apply
to
them
at
this
time.
B
I
just
want
to
clarify
some
language
on
that
condition
and
the
language
that
we
are
proposing
and
that
we've
discussed
with
the
applicant's
engineer
is
indicated
in
red
font,
and
that's
essentially
that
the
application
note
on
the
map
that
interior
private,
reciprocal
parcel
easement
shall
be
reserved
on
the
parcel
map
for
use
by
the
parcels
served
upon
development
of
any
one
of
the
parcels.
B
Condition
number
23
indicates
it
talks
about
a
soils
report
and
there
there
there
may
be
when
soils
reports
are
required
at
certain
intervals
or
certain
at
a
certain
stage
of
the
parcel
map.
So
we
just
wanted
to
be
clear
and
at
the
end
of
that
condition,
just
indicate,
as
required
by
the
city
engineer.
So
when
they
come
in
and
submit
they'll
get
what
the
city
engineer
and
city
engineer
will
indicate
to
them.
B
B
That's
all
we're
adding
to
it
and
condition:
number
39,
it's
a
non-vehicular
axis
strip
condition,
and
essentially
the
condition
right
now
just
indicates
that
the
subdivider
should
dedicate
a
one
foot,
non-vehicular
access
strip
along
all
streets,
and
so
we
want
to
be
a
little
bit
more
clear
specific
to
this
project
and
we're
adding
the
red
font,
which
indicates
the
entire
san
felipe
road
frontage
less
at
locations
as
determined
by
the
city
of
hollister,
and
also
a
non-vehicular
access
trip
along
the
entire
pacific
wave
frontage,
less
allocations,
as
determined
by
the
city
of
hollister,
just
for
clarification
purposes
and
finally
condition
number
44.
B
B
As
stated,
the
applicant
has
been
working
for
very
various
months
with
with
the
city
of
hollister,
along
with
his
traffic
engineers
and
civil
engineers
as
architects,
and
he
is
actually
here
as
well
and
for
any
questions
that
you
may
have,
and
we're
also
here
to
try
to
answer
any
questions
that
you
may
have.
Thank
you.
B
My
understanding
of
it
and
danny
is
here
our
city
engineer
as
well
is
a
condition
that
is
included
to
make
sure
that
if
there
is
going
to
be
no
access
onto
that
road,
then
we
want
to
make
sure
that
that
that
easement
or
is
is
indicated
less
the
areas
where,
where
access
would
be
provided
and
then
that
that
would
be
determined
by
the
city
of
hollister,
with
the
consultation
of
the
city,
engineer
want
to
elaborate
on
that
danny.
E
G
Any
question
so
I
remember
we
had
some
like
a
local
general
plan
covering
that
area.
Does
that
have
any
any
anything
to
do
with
this.
B
Yeah,
commissioner
henderson,
I
believe
you
what
you're
referring
to
is
the
the
area
in
orange
on
the
screen,
which
is
an
area
that
consists
of
120
acres,
that
is
essentially
between
santa
ana
road,
all
through
the
through
north
north,
all
all
along
the
highway
25
bypass
all
the
way
to
san
felipe
less
the
area
covered
in
teal
color
on
the
screen,
which
is
a
3.25
acre
site
that
we
are
currently
discussing
before
you,
and
so
this
potential,
this
particular
site
has
actually
been
with
the
city
of
hollister,
the
120
acre
site.
B
That's
within
the
master
plan
area.
That's
that's
what
the
chapel
road
master
plan
and
that
actually
was,
was
pre-zoned
and
meant.
Various
of
those
parcels,
including
the
adjacent
15-acre
parcel.
That's
actually
also
now
owned
by
mr
villa
who's.
Present
here
same
applicant,
same
property
owner
is
actually
tied
to
that
master
plan.
B
So
so,
and
mria
could
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
I
think
the
only
reason
why
he's
not
moving
forward
with
the
subdivision
of
that
actual
additional
15,
acre
site
or
close
to
20
acres,
I'm
sorry
is
because
it's
it's
still
tied
to
that
master
plan.
So
he
just
wants
to
get
going
and
at
least
subdivide.
This
separate
parcel.
That's
adjacent
to
that
that
other
parcel
that
he
owns.
That's
not
in
the
master
plan,
so
you
can
get
something
going
for
com
for
future
commercial
development.
C
Okay,
if
we
have
no
further
questions
for
staff,
I'd
like
to
go
ahead
and
open
this
up
to
the
public
hearing
and
we'll
open
up
at
6
32.
C
any
speaker
cards
on
this
item.
F
It
doesn't
look
like
anyone
that
would
like
to
speak
in
the
audience.
Is
there
anyone
on
zoom
you'd
like
to
speak?
No
one
on
zoom
that
wraps
it
up.
C
B
E
C
Okay,
moving
on
to
item
number
three
site
and
architectural
review
2020-13
staff
report,
please.
I
I
The
applicant
is
requesting
approval
of
the
master
sign
program
to
allow
for
the
construction
and
placement
of
two
freestanding
signs
in
the
shape
of
airplane
wings,
located
at
the
intersection
of
airport
drive
and
san
felipe
road
of
the
property
located
at
60
airport
drive.
The
signs
are
intended
to
be
the
initial
stages
of
a
comprehensive
master
sign
program
and
overall
branding
for
the
hollister
municipal
airport.
I
I
The
existing
two
freestanding
signs
or
excuse
me,
the
two
freestanding
signs
are
proposed
and
will
replace
the
existing
low
skill
freestanding
signs
with
a
sign
designed
to
replicate
airplane
wings.
The
new
freestanding
signs
will
be
12
feet.
I
I
I
As
of
now
there's
only
one
proposed
tenant
to
be
located
on
the
airport
wing
signs
and
the
airport
will
continue
to
work
to
include
more
tenants
on
the
sign.
As
mentioned,
this
will
be
the
initial
stages
of
an
overall
branding
upgrade
for
the
airport.
The
base
of
the
airport
wings
is
circular
and
one
foot
in
height
and
contains
a
flagpole
low
light
to
illuminate
the
sign
at
night.
Additionally,
the
base
contains
six
blue
taxi
lights
for
aesthetic
purposes.
I
I
The
existing
site
is
not
landscaped
but
contains
decorative
rock
lining
to
the
entrance
of
the
airport.
The
area
is
unable
to
be
landscaped
due
to
two
culverts
that
are
directly
next
to
the
sign
area.
I
I
The
placement
or
replacement
of
the
sign
in
this
location
does
not
comply
with
the
setbacks
required
for
free
standing
signs,
as
it
will
vary
between
four
to
six
feet
for
both
locations.
However,
this
is
the
only
location
available
for
a
free
standing
sign
on
the
property
and
due
to
the
shape
and
vegetation
of
the
location.
This
is
the
best
feasible
area.
The
signs
will
be
approximately
50
feet
from
each
other,
separated
by
the
driveway.
I
The
need
for
two
signs
is
to
have
each
sign
face:
northbound
and
southbound
lanes
of
san
felipe
road.
The
sign
also
is
not
in
compliance
with
the
requirements
section
172050,
subsection
c4m,
which
requires
the
freestanding
signs
to
be
low-skill
monument
type
signs,
as
the
proposal
is
for
a
large
skill
sign
for
aesthetic
considerations.
I
For
these
reasons,
the
master
sign
program
will
allow
exceptions
to
the
setback
and
the
monument
type
requirements
for
the
installation
of
the
two
signs.
The
city
of
hollister
planning
commission
may,
in
accordance
with
section
17
12040
subsection
h1
allow,
for
an
exception
to
the
regulations,
otherwise
provided
in
chapter
17
20
signs
as
part
of
the
master
sign
program
to
better
integrate
the
sign
with
the
existing
project
site.
E
The
the
material
of
these
monument
signs-
I
know
the
signs
by
van
they
they
do
really
good
work.
There's
gonna
be
some
graffiti
type
of
prevention
coating
on
it.
I
guess.
B
We
have
the
director
of
the
airport
who's
also
online,
and
he
can
address
a
little
bit
more
more
of
that.
I'm
sure
there's
some
type
of
coding
that
can
be
placed
on
it
and
mike
chambliss.
Our
airport
managers
are
also
with
his
hand
up
as
soon
as
you
open
up
the
public
hearing,
I'm
sure
he'll
be
able
to
address
that
if
you
like
yeah.
C
D
Good
evening,
commissioners,
thank
you
for
the
consideration
of
this
item.
Commissioner.
Cuboid,
specifically
on
the
graffiti
airport
staff,
has
appropriate
materials
and
equipment
to
remove
any
graffiti,
that's
placed
on
the
aluminum
or
the
concrete,
and
since
we
do
have
staff
base
there
every
day
of
the
week
and
they
would
pass
it
on
their
way
into
the
job
site.
I
assure
you
any
graffiti
that
could
apply
would
be
very
short-lived.
C
That
great,
thank
you
any
other
speakers
on
this
item.
Okay,
we'll
go
ahead
and
close
this
down
at
6
41
for
the
public
hearing
portion
and
bring
it
back
for
discussion
for
the
commissioners.
E
I'd
just
like
to
say
that
I
like
to
design
I
I
commend
mr
chambliss
and
the
sign
maker
for
for
coming
up
with
this
design.
I
I
know
it's
gonna,
be
a
great
improvement
out
there
and
signs
of
things
to
come
for
airport
right,
yeah,
welcome
to
our
hollister
airport,
yes,
yeah.
E
E
B
E
2020-20
with
the
findings
in
the
draft
resolution.
G
C
Motion
is
second
further
discussion,
all
right
all
in
favor.
Bye,
congratulations
on
the
the
project.
Good
job
looks
great
thanks
again.
Okay,
moving
on
to
new
business.
B
Thank
you,
mr
chair
brian.
It
would
is
code
enforcement
gonna
address
this,
so
I
can
address
it
if
you
like,
mr.
F
Prado,
if
you
don't
mind
addressing
it,
the
code
enforcement
staff
was
a
unable
to
come
tonight.
So.
B
Not
to
worry
absolutely
mr
chair
members
of
planning
commission.
Thank
you.
This
item
before
you
is
in
on
the
new
business
was.
B
At
that
time,
newly
adopted
general
plan
general
plan
was
adopted
in
december
of
2005,
and
so
then
the
city
worked
very
diligently
to
update
the
code
to
to
be,
in
conformance
with
the
general
plan.
As
part
of
that
major
overhaul
that
the
city
of
hollister
did
one
of
the
things
that
that
occurred
was
that
previously
accessory
structures
to
a
property
in
the
form
of
for
the
use
of
a
storage
or
or
whatnot
would
were
allowed
to
be
placed
on
the
property.
As
long
as
there
was
a
five
foot
setback.
B
So
with
this,
this
change.
What
happened
was
that,
in
order
for
it
to
have
a
little
bit
more
clearance,
the
city
decided
to
include
it
as
a
10-foot
setback
and
more
clearance,
because
you
know
at
the
same
time
usually
for
for
accessory
structures.
There
can
be
storage
of
even
gasoline
or
products
that
can
be
combustible
and
so
the
the
greater
the
setback.
The
the
better
chance
of
it
being
away
from
from
the
home
in
case
of
a
fire
or
whatnot.
However,
the
houston
municipal
codes
requirements
for
a
accessory
storage
better.
B
Yet
the
california
building
code,
in
consultation
with
the
building
official,
is
a
five-foot
setback
and
so
the
the
reason
why
this
is
being
brought
before
you
staff
has
had
multiple
discussions
with
different
departments
and
the
code
enforcement
office
has
recently
have
been
not
just
recently.
But
over
the
years
I've
received
many
many
compliance.
B
Orders
have
sent
many
compliance
orders
for
existing
buildings
accessory
buildings
that
are
with
within
that
10-foot
setback,
maybe
not,
maybe
not
more
than
10
feet,
but
maybe
like
five
feet,
they're
still
at
five
feet,
but
not
not
at
10
feet
and
so
therefore,
they're
they're
out
of
compliance
and
one
major
reason
as
well
is
that,
as
you
know
now,
we
have
been
improving
a
lot
of
more
a
lot
more
single
family
homes
that
have
smaller
backyards
and
when
they
inquire,
which
is
essentially
on
a
daily
basis,
we
we
get
an
increase
regarding
accessory
structures
approximately
and
a
lot
of
the
times
when
we
say
that
the
minimum
requirement
is
10
feet
away
from
the
main
house.
B
It
makes
it
infeasible
for
for
people
to
build.
All
we're
talking
about
is
a
10
by
12
10
by
12,
no
bigger
than
15
feet
in
height
no
electrical,
no
plumbing
and
no
mechanical,
and
so,
and
so,
if
it
is
going
to
be
bigger
than
10
by
12,
then
it
really.
Then
it
should
be.
You
know
10
feet
or
or
more
away
from
the
main
house.
B
So
the
request
for
tonight
and
this
this
then
the
code
enforcement
recently
actually
did
a
a
survey
of
the
city
and
sent
out
over
just
recently
and
not
counted
over
the
years,
just
in
the
last
few
weeks,
over
130
quota
compliances
because
of
existing
accessory
structures
that
are
within
the
10
feet,
setback
and
are
just
you
know,
10
by
12
or
smaller.
So
the
hope
is
that
we
come
before
you
and
request
that
we
actually
included
a
draft
resolution
ordinance
actually
indicating
that
it.
H
B
Be
okay
to
bring
it
back
to
the
five
foot
setback
as
long
as
it
is
120
square
feet
or
smaller,
and
no
bigger
than
than
15
feet
in
height
and
with
what,
in
the
form
of
a
consensus.
If
the
planning
commission
agrees,
we
would
then
next
step
would
be
to
take
it
to
the
city
council
for
ordinance
adoption.
B
I'm
pretty
sure
that
I
covered
all
brian.
If
I
missed
anything,
let
me
know,
but
I
think
I
think
that
was
a
gist
of
it.
Bringing.
F
As
you
as
you
know,
and
as
mr
prado
stated,
our
backyards
are
becoming
smaller
and
we
we
want
new
homeowners
to
be
able
to
enjoy
their
backyard
with
the
space
that
they
have
and,
as
you
know,
space
is
a
is
a
commodity
at
many
of
our
properties
here
in
the
city
and
so
working
with
the
the
code
to
permit
people
to
have
storage
facilities
in
their
backyard
on
smaller
lots
is,
is
really
a
win
for
the
whole
community.
F
So
that's
where
this
idea
came
from
is
we
had
a
lot
of
enforcement
measures
and
it
was
apparent
that
people
are
doing
the
best
they
can
to
fit
structures
in
their
backyards,
and
so
this
is
that
first
step
to
bring
this
eventually
to
the
city
council.
But
we
want
to
bring
it
to
you
too.
First
here
so,
and.
B
E
Structure
when
you,
I
know
that
we
have
charlie
and
chafer
here
and
I'm
sure
they're
concerned
about
fire
rating
issues.
But
when
you
have
two
structures
on
the
property
line,
you
draw
the
imaginary
property
line
between
the
structures
and
you
want
to
maintain
a
certain
distance.
B
J
It's
okay,
I'm
sorry
with
the
hollis
fire
department
and
the
fire
marshal
for
hollister
and
san
benito
county.
No,
I
think
this
is
okay.
You
know
this
is.
This
is
a
great
place
to
get
great
compromise.
Theoretically,
we
want
to
be
able
to
get
into
within
100
feet
360
around
the
structure
and,
with
these
lots
are
so
small
we're
able
to
get
hoes
and
get
in
there
in
between
pretty
quick
right
off
the
engines
on
the
hose.
So
it's
a
good
plan.
It's
a
good
deal
great.
C
That
I'm
sorry,
what
did
you
say?
The
current
setback
is
for
one
of
these
storage,
the.
B
From
from
a
property
line,
it's
five
feet
from
from
the
fence,
essentially
to
to
the
main
house,
is
10
feet,
10
feet
away
and
actually
to
the
property
line.
If,
if
it
is
120
square
feet
or
less
it
can
be,
it
can
be
a
little
closer,
actually
up
up
until
18
inches
to
the
property
line.
B
If
it's
just,
if
it's
just
an
accessory
structure
of
120
square
feet
and
eight
feet
tall
one
of
these
just
sheds,
if
it's
over
eight
feet
in
height
up
to
15,
then
it
would
have
to
be
three
feet
away
at
minimum,
and
you
know
if
there's
any
type
of
electrical
orienting,
then
minimum
of
five
feet
yeah.
B
That
is
correct,
yeah
and
that's
one.
One
thing
it's
funny
because
building
official
greg
johnson
was
gonna
be
here,
but
he
indicated
that
he's
on
call
in
case
we
have
any
questions,
but
he
he
did
indicate
that
david
hugo
would
probably
be
able
to
answer
those
questions,
and
then
he
actually
called
me
by
name.
He
said
I'm
sure
david
who
would
be
able
to
answer,
but.
B
Is
correct,
chairperson,
munzer
at
this
time?
If
there
are
no
other
questions,
what
we
would
like
is,
if
you
can
ask
the
commission,
in
the
form
of
a
consensus
if
they
are
okay
with
the
staff
bringing
this
item
forward
as
a
or
necessity
council.
C
E
B
D
Commissioner,
can
I
just
ask
a
question:
yeah?
Are
they
going
to
present
at
that
meeting?
What
came
out
of
the
different
public?
I
guess
they
were
called
public
forums
or
public
meetings
that
they
had.
E
You
know
roxanne,
commissioner
stevens,
I
I
did
not
participate
in
the
visioning
sessions
by
the
general
public,
but
I
I
printed
out
about.
I
don't
know
how
many
pages.
B
E
Were
made
and
appreciate
the
general
public
for
participating
in
that
process,
and
so
yes
that'll,
be
I'm
sure
that'll
be
on
the
on
the
agenda
for
the
next
meeting.
That.
C
Thank
you,
mr
boy.
Okay
next
meeting
is
thursday
october
22nd
at
6
pm
with
that
being
said,
make
a
motion
to
adjourn
the
meeting.