►
From YouTube: Hol PRC 091423 0
Description
Hollister Planning Commission Study Session
September 14, 2023
D
A
A
This
is
a
time
for
anyone
in
the
audience
to
speak
on
any
item
not
on
the
agenda
and
within
the
subject
matter:
jurisdiction
of
the
Planning
Commission
speaker
cards
are
available
in
the
lobby
and
are
to
be
completed
and
given
to
the
secretary
before
speaking
when
the
secretary
calls
your
name.
Please
come
to
the
podium
state,
your
name
and
city
for
the
record
and
speak
to
the
City
Planning
Commission.
If
you
are
joining
us
by
Zoom,
please
click
on
the
bottom
of
your
screen.
A
To
raise
your
hand
if
you're
a
joining
us
by
zoom
using
a
cell
phone,
please
press
star,
nine
each
speaker
will
be
limited
to
three
minutes
with
a
maximum
of
30
minutes
per
subject.
Please
note
that
state
law
prohibits
the
plan
commission
from
discussing
or
taking
action
on
any
item
not
on
the
agenda.
F
G
All
right,
good
evening,
chairman
Henderson
members
of
the
Planning
Commission
Jeffrey
small
I'm,
the
municipal
advisor
to
the
San
Benito
High,
School
District.
It's
wonderful
to
see
everybody
tonight.
The
San
Benito
High
School
District
is
concerned
that
the
minutes
from
the
August
10th
meeting
mischaracterized
my
testimony
regarding
the
best
pro
best
road
property.
My
testimony
was
regarding
best
road
I
know
through
other
environmental
work
done
at
Gavilan
and
Fairview
Corners
that
there
are
some
environmental
sensitivities
out
there,
and
it
is
true
that
to
build
could
be
costly.
G
G
A
H
Good
evening,
good
evening,
tonight,
you'll
be
looking
at
tentative
map,
2022-1
and
density
bonus
2023-3
for
a
single
family
residential
development.
The
project
is
located
at
Sienna,
Sienna
Road.
In
promise
way.
The
project
site
is
currently
vacant.
It
is
partially
surrounded
by
single-family
residential
dwellings,
as
you
can
see
on
this
map
and
then
also
surrounded
by
some
vacant
vacant
land
used
for
agricultural
low
density
uses
in
the
area
as
well.
H
There
probably
isn't
because
we're
missing
some
information,
but
what
we
do
is
we
wrap
together
what
we
have
and
then
we
send
it
or
we
distribute
it
to
the
applicant
as
one
complete
package,
and
we
did
that
on
August
24th,
as
required
by
the
permit
streamlining
act.
We
are
required
to
give
them
a
list
of
everything
they
need
to
give
us
within
within
that
30-day
period
for
completeness
the
applicant
then
resubmitted
in
September.
We
then
sent
them
comments
in
October.
H
We
had
to
make
a
sequel
determination
within
30
days
of
completeness
that
was
done
and
then
once
that
determination
is
made,
the
the
subdivision
map
act
requires
us
to
bring
the
project
before
the
decision-making
body,
in
this
case
the
Planning
Commission
for
a
decision
on
the
project.
So
that's
how
we
kind
of
got
Where
We
Are
Tonight
within
those
incompleteness
letters
and
all
the
letters
that
have
been
sent.
H
H
H
The
way
that
the
housing
accountability
act
works
is
that
staff
and
a
city
is
limited
on
ways
in
which
you
can
deny
a
residential
development
back
in
the
day.
You
could
deny
it
because
the
design
wasn't
attractive
enough
or
whatever
reason
you
had,
but
now
it's
very
specific
it
has
to
be
due
to
safety
or
it
doesn't
meet
the
code.
H
H
So
in
the
last
round
there
are
two
two
options:
so
I'm
going
to
talk
about
both
of
them.
Just
so
you
know
we,
we
can
fully
discuss
their
project
as
far
as
the
density
Bonus
Goes,
however,
they're
proposing
to
restrict
one
unit
for
very
low
income,
which
is
five
percent
of
the
total
number
of
units,
and
because
of
that,
they
qualify
for
a
density
bonus.
H
So
as
part
of
that
density
bonus,
they
are
requesting
a
waiver
of
development
standards
such
as
setbacks
and
lot
coverage
which
they're
entitled
to
they
then
get
to
have
a
density
bonus
of
units
and
what
they're
requesting
is
the
maximum.
So
that's
four
units
and
again
that's
allowed
by
the
density
bonus
chapter
as
well
as
state
density,
bonus
law,
so
they
are
entitled
to
that,
so
that
increases
their
density
on
the
site
up
to
22
units
and
then
they're
eligible
for
the
parking
requirements
under
the
density
bonus.
H
H
Option
A.
However,
then
changes
the
thank
you
so
option
b
has
22
lots
for
residential
and
what
happens
is
Lot
21
becomes
a
larger
lot,
and
now
this,
this
kind
of
remainder
a
lot
over
here
becomes
another
house
option.
A
then
changes
it.
So
all
22
are
located
within
this
area
and
then
a
child
care
facility
is
proposed
on
parcel
b
or
a
future
child
care
facility.
I
should
say
the
concerned
stuff.
H
The
bonus
allowed
is
either
related
to
the
floor
area
or
square
footage
of
the
child
care
facility.
So
if
you
had
a
high
rise,
let's
say
and
5000
square
feet
is
going
to
be
a
child
care
facility.
They
get
an
extra
5
000
square
feet
as
their
density
bonus
if
they
wanted,
or
they
can
have
an
additional
incentive
that
contributes
significantly
to
the
economic
feasibility
of
the
construction
of
the
facility.
So
the
bonus
that
they're
requesting
has
to
be
tied
to
the
construction
of
that
child
care
facility.
H
As
part
of
this
density
bonus
he's
request,
the
applicant
is
requesting
a
waiver
of
the
annexation
fees
for
all
the
units
which
is
currently
13
500
per
unit.
The
fee
doesn't
get
paid
until
building
permits
are
issued,
so
that
fee
will
likely
go
up,
but
it
would
be
a
fee
that
the
city
would
then
pay
on
their
behalf
to
the
county.
H
H
H
So
at
a
minimum
there
will
be
66
cans
on
Cienega.
Now,
if
there's
a
Jadu
and
an
80
Adu
on
the
site,
there
will
likely
be
more
cans
because
you
are
likely
going
to
require
the
person
in
the
Adu
Adu
or
Jadu
to
have
their
own
trash
services.
So,
if
that
were
to
occur,
we
would
have
a
total
of
198
cans
on
Cienega.
H
The
larger
concern
is
that
the
police
department
has
told
us
that,
in
order
to
do
this,
they
would
have
to
have
a
24-hour
parking
ban
on
Cienega
Road.
The
police
department
has
informed
staff
that
they're
not
going
to
enforce
that,
because
what
they
don't
want
to
have
happen
is
some
leaves
a
car
out,
and
then
they
start
getting
calls
I
can't
put
my
can
out
someone
left
their
car
out
come
move
it
like
the
the
flip
side
of
that
is
I.
H
H
H
So
since
the
beginning,
this
has
been
a
major
concern
for
staff
because
of
the
likelihood
that
people
are
not
going
to
place
it
perfectly
we're
going
to
impede
circulation
in
the
area
and
then
not
necessarily
a
safety
concern,
but
expressed
from
the
beginning.
Is
that
if
you
are
in
one
of
these
lower
Lots,
let's
say
four
nine,
five
or
ten
and
you
bought
the
house
when
you
were
younger
and
now
you're
older
or
you
have
mobility
issues.
H
H
Right,
and
so
that
is
a
concern
that
we
have
just
as
a
as
allowing
people
to
age
in
place
or
people
with
mobility
issues,
what
happens
20
30
years
down
the
road?
If
that,
if
the
layout
is
the
way
it
is
with
the
cans
on
siennica,
the
biggest
concern
that
staff
has
is
in
regards
to
life
Safe
Life
Safety,
the
fire
marshal
determined
that
the
project
does
not
comply
with
the
fire
code.
H
H
So
what
that
means
is
the
fire
truck
will
park
on
Cienega,
and
then
there
are
a
number
of
houses
where
we,
the
150
square,
the
150
feet
rule
is
not
met
so,
for
example,
if
the
fire
truck
parks
on
Cienega
these
houses,
all
sides
of
the
structure
would
not
be
would
be
further
than
150
feet
away
because
there
will
be
cars,
potentially
trash
cans,
potentially
both
on
Cienega.
It's
likely
that
we'll
also
have
an
issue
with
these
houses
as
well,
because
the
fire
truck
will
have
to
be
parked
further
away.
H
I
I
What
do
I
press
right,
arrow,
okay,
perfect?
So
this
is.
This-
is
straight
out
of
the
fire
code,
section
104
duties
and
powers
of
the
fire
code.
Official
104.1
General,
the
fire
code
official,
is
hereby
authorized
to
enforce
the
provisions
of
this
code.
The
fire
code
officials
shall
have
the
authority
to
render
interpretations
of
this
code
and
to
adopt
policies,
procedures,
rules
and
regulations
in
order
to
clarify
the
application
of
its
Provisions.
Such
interpretations
policies,
procedures,
rules
and
regulations
shall
be
in
compliance
with
the
intent
and
purpose
of
this
code.
I
503.2.2
of
the
authority,
the
fire
code
officials
shall
have
the
authority
to
require
or
permit
modifications
to,
the
required
access
widths
where
they
are
inadequate
for
fire
or
rescue
operations
or
where
bless
you
or,
where
necessary,
to
meet
the
public
safety
objectives
of
the
jurisdiction
and
then
dead
ends.
This
is
what
it's
all
about.
503.2.5
dead
ends
dead
end
fire
apparatus
axis
Rose
in
excess
of
150
feet
in
length
shall
be
provided
with
an
approved
area
for
turning
around
Fire
Apparatus.
I
I
Section
d-103
minimum
specifications
access
road
with
with
the
hydrant,
so
this
is
just
good
information
to
have
out
there
where
a
fire
hydrant
is
located
on
a
fire
apparatus.
Road
the
the
minimum
Road
width
shall
be
26
feet,
so
fire
access
road
is
normally
20
feet,
but
anytime
you
put
a
fire
hydrant
on
the
road.
I
You
have
to
expand
it
out,
26
feet
wider,
so
it
took
me
a
few
years
to
catch
that,
but
I
finally
got
it
and
understood
it
after
being
here
for
a
little
bit
dead-end
fire
dead-end
roads,
dead-end
fire
operas,
so
it's
in
excess
of
150
feet
shall
be
provided
with
width
and
turn
around
Provisions
in
accordance
with
table
103.4.
So
if
you
look,
if
you
have
zero
to
150,
you
have
to
be,
if
you're
less
than
150,
it
has
to
be
20
feet
wide.
That's
excluding
a
fire
hydrant!
I
I
And
then
you
get
into
the
501
to
750,
it
gets
into
26
feet
and
then
over
750.
We
have
to
figure
out
something
else,
probably
a
second
Axis
or
a
third
axis,
and,
and
you
got
to
understand
on
those
fire
apparatus
roads,
you
have
to
put
up
some
signs
either
paint
the
curbs
red
that
says:
Firelane
no
access
because
20
feet
and
the
reason
is
because
roads
20
to
26
feet.
I
You
can't
have
parking
on
both
sides
of
the
roadway,
and
if
you
have
roads
26
feet
to
32
feet,
you
could
only
have
parking
on
one
side
of
the
roadway,
so
these
developments
usually
can't
have
parking
on
any
parts
of
the
roadway,
so
that
would
impair
fire
apparatus
and
even
the
garbage
trucks
too.
I'm
more
concerned
about
the
fire
apparatus
but,
like
I,
said
wider
than
32
feet
than
parking's
allowed
on
both
sides.
I
So
with
that,
I
did
some
investigations
on
some
developments
that
we've
we've
had
in
town
Heartland.
If
you
look
is
one
of
the
developments
over
across
from
the
Presbyterian
Church
on
Cienega
Road,
so
I
was
told,
Heartland
doesn't
mean
it.
Heartland
could
get
away
with
it.
So
I
went
down
to
Heartland.
If
you
look
at
Heartland,
where
the
t
is
in
the
middle,
you
see
how
it
tees
off.
I
went
to
one
of
the
driveways
that
went
down
there.
The
streets
are
20
feet
wide,
but
they're
only
144
feet
in
length.
I
So
does
that
require
a
turnaround?
No,
it
doesn't.
It
meets
the
code
and
I
measure,
so
the
measurement
right
on
that
part
right
there.
Also
in
Heartland,
you
see
the
Hammerhead
or
the
T
all
the
way
over
there
I
measured
from
the
middle
of
the
T
to
the
end
of
it.
It's
115
feet
one
way
and
115
feet
the
other
way.
But
if
you
look
it's
red
on
both
sides
of
the
curb
too,
because
it
doesn't
meet
over
that
32
feet
or
26
feet
in
width
so
that
whole
T
is
red
fire
lane
no
access.
I
Kb
Homes
West
of
Fairview,
that's
a
development's
getting
built
right
now.
If
you
look
down
at
the
middle
picture,
they
have
these
mini
cold
mini
developments
right
there
with
like
three
or
four
homes
that
go
down
there.
The
farthest
it
goes
back
is
from
the
street
140
feet
back
to
the
length
to
a
mini
Hammerhead
back
there,
so
that
doesn't
require
turn
around
in
there.
But
in
that
back
little
Hammerhead
that
they
have.
I
It
goes
back
40
weeks,
40
feet
for
a
total
of
80
feet
in
both
directions,
so
40
feet
yeah
we
could
get
a
fire
engine
back
there
and
back
it
up
and
turn
around
their
widths
without
a
fire.
Hydrant
are
26
feet
wide
and
that
so
it
gives
us
a
little
more
playroom
in
there
to
move
around
Allendale.
Here's
a
good
one
north
of
Park
Hill.
So
if
you
look
over
on
Allendale
right
under
Shearwater
Street,
you
see
that
little
U
right
underneath
there.
I
This
is
a
perfect
example:
it's
a
Egret,
Lane
and
Raven
Street,
so
I
started
in
the
beginning
of
the
street.
In
that
left
hand,
picture
and
I
walked
150
feet.
So
right
on
that
second
picture,
that's
150
feet
where
I
walk
to
so
I
continued
out
a
little
farther
to
the
end
of
the
end
of
it.
It
was
203
feet
to
the
end.
So,
yes,
our
hose
can
meet
it,
but
it
doesn't
meet
the
turnaround
standards.
It's
past
150
feet,
so
we
have
to
have
a
turnaround.
I
So
what
they
have
is
it
drives
around
in
that
big
U
through
the
other
side
of
the
the
development?
And
if
you
look
right
here
on
this
next
one,
here's
the
second
part
of
the
street,
where,
where
the
U's
out
and
from
the
beginning
of
the
street,
to
the
back
of
that
U,
it's
196
feet
and
you
see
where
it
kind
of
used
out.
But
in
addition,
in
addition
to
that,
the
proper
turn
around
and
the
U
that
continuously
goes
through
there.
A
I
I
I
E
I
B
I
I
J
H
Because
of
that,
in
order
to
fully
study
it,
a
negative
declaration
or
environmental
impact
would
be
required.
Those
are
very
costly
to
prepare
so
under
the
California
Environmental
Quality
act,
section
15
270
for
project
Switzer,
which
are
disapproved
they
are
exempt
from
SQL.
So
in
this
case,
where
staff
is
recommending
denial
at
this
point,
no
further
environmental
review
would
be
required,
but
if
it
were
to
move
forward,
obviously,
as
is
some
level
of
SQL
review
would
be
required.
C
H
H
Yeah
so
kind
of.
In
conclusion,
the
project
is
inconsistent
with
the
general
plan.
The
proposed
layout
does
not
allow
the
city
to
provide
adequate
emergency
responses,
including
emergency
fire
responses,
as
determined
by
the
fire
marshal.
The
plan
for
garbage
collection
on
Cienega
Road
has
the
potential
to
result
in
unsafe
circulation
on
the
street.
H
The
plan
for
garbage
would
require
the
city
to
enforce
a
24-hour
parking
restriction,
to
even
allow
the
cans
to
be
located
out
there
with
some
sort
of
I
guess
in
a
line
18
inches
apart.
However,
the
police
department
has
said
they're
not
going
to
enforce
that,
so
cars
will
likely
be
like
located
in
that
area.
H
So,
for
example,
the
paradise
fire
resulted
in
changes
to
the
fire
code
building
codes
change
as
we
learn
our
lesson.
For
example,
windows
on
a
second
floor
and
above
used
to
be
able
to
extend
all
the
way
to
the
floor,
and
that
resulted
in
loss
of
life,
and
so
the
building
code
doesn't
require
it
anymore.
So
codes
are
ever
changing.
The
zoning
ordinance
is
ever
changing
too.
Projects
that
were
approved
even
15
years
ago
are
likely
not
going
to
be
approved
today.
H
H
K
H
H
They
each
have
a
two-car
garage,
I'll,
be
parking,
the
two-car
garage
and
then
there's
some
parking
at
the
End
of
the
Street,
but
most
of
the
parking
will
be
on
Sienna
Road,
especially
if
there's
an
Adu
we're
going
to
have
a
number
of
cars.
So
the
Sienna
Road
will
have
a
number
of
cars
where
fire
truck
Parks
is
where
it's
I
guess
going
to
fit.
D
Just
wanted
to
to
add
on
to
with
the
options
for
tonight
that
Steph's
recommending
option
one
the
opting
adopting
a
resolution
for
denial.
If
the
the
commission
would
decide
to
continue
this
item,
the
state
law.
Well,
it's
actually
our
subdivision
ordinance
requires
it's
an.
It
would
be
an
agreement
between
the
commission
and
the
applicant
to
basically
waive
the
50-day
requirement
for
the
commission
to
take
action
and
have
a
mutual
agreement,
but
that's
an
agreement
between
the
commission
and
the
and
the
applicant.
If
you
would
choose
to
continue
it.
H
E
E
L
I,
just
I
just
wanted
to
point
out
that
I
sent
the
commission
an
email
earlier
today
and
I
wasn't
sure
if
you
all
received
it,
but
it
was
in
response
to
the
applicant's
emailed
to
you
earlier
this
week,
I
mean
in
that
email.
There
was
kind
of
an
implication
that
if
you
chose
not
to
approve
the
project
that
you
as
individual
Commissioners
could
be
liable
for
attorneys
fees
or
costs.
L
Should
the
project
go
to
litigation
and
I
just
wanted
to
make
it
clear
to
you
that
it
would
be
the
city
that
would
incur
those
costs,
not
the
not
you
personally.
In
addition,
Erica
did
mention
this,
but
you
know
the
city
attorney's
office
does
review
all
project
recommendations,
resolutions,
staff
reports,
not
just
this
one,
but
you
know
at
all
of
our
meetings,
so
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
was
clear.
F
You
Mr
chair
the
first
Speaker.
Oh
actually,
let
me
we
did
receive
some
written
comments
this
evening.
The
planning
division
was
forwarded,
the
email
which
I
believe
the
Commissioners
received
earlier.
That
has
not
been
printed
because
it
is
several
hundred
pages
long
of
attachments,
but
it
will
be
noted
in
our
record
and
then
tonight,
at
the
meeting
we
did
receive
three
written
comments
from
the
applicant.
F
Those
begin
a
hard
copy
has
been
provided
to
each
of
you,
those
begin
dear
planning,
Commissioners
dated
seven
September,
14th,
four
code
requirements
and
intent
and
fire
hoses
distances
fire
hose
distances.
So
those
three
were
received
from
the
applicant
and
then
we
also
received
a
written
comment
or
possibly
a
PowerPoint,
and
that
will
accompany
a
speaker
that
is
also
here
tonight
and
that
speaker
is
Tom
Connors
and
that
that
written
or
hard
copy
presentation,
the
title
cover,
has
an
image
and
it
says
birdhouse
preschool
and
daycare.
M
M
Feet
is
required
in
the
backup
distance
for
a
hammerhead
or
a
U-turn
or
or
y-turn
whatever
you
want.
All
Lots,
5
and
10
have
to
do
is
wheel,
their
carts,
16
feet
towards
Sienna
Road
and
all
of
those
lots
all
10
Lots
will
then
be
within
that
magical.
150
foot
backup
area
in
terms
of
the
fire
code
I
gave
you
this
morning.
M
I
happened
to
Google
and
there
it
was
the
beginning
number
is
the
length
of
the
fire
hose
to
the
furthest
corners
of
the
building
I've
even
not
accounted
for
setbacks,
I've
calculated
that
you
can
go
to
the
furthest
corner
of
lot
5
and
the
furthest
corner
of
lot
10.,
and
you
will
be
at
150
feet
from
those
two
corners
of
those
two
lots
which
are
the
deepest
Lots
you're
going
to
have
left.
I
think
141
feet
from
that
point
of
the
fire
host
to
Cienega
road.
M
So
your
fire,
Access
Road,
suddenly
disappears
and
is
141
feet
below
that
magical
150
feet
when
I
went
out
and
and
toured
around
with
Mr
bedola
Fire
Marshal,
the
dollar
I
even
said.
Okay,
you
guys
on
previous
projects,
have
made
us
put
in
Evas
I'll,
give
you
an
Eva
at
the
end
of
that
alley.
That
has
a
lots:
five
and
ten.
Oh!
No!
We
don't
want
that.
That's
going
to
be
a
a
danger
to
people
and
robberies
and
all
that
fine,
so
the
you'll
have
the
KB
cluster
homes
were
approved
last
year.
M
M
N
Good
evening
I'm,
Tom,
Connors
and
I'm
here
with
my
daughter,
Caitlin
Wentz
and
my
son-in-law
Kyle,
we
live
at
477,
South
Street
in
Hollister,
it's
in
an
historic
Hawkins,
build
home
that
many
in
the
community
refer
to.
As
the
birdcage
house,
you
may
be
familiar
with
it,
we're
the
owners
and
operators
of
birdhouse
a
licensed,
in-home
preschool
and
daycare
facility.
N
N
So
why
am
I
here?
Why
are
we
here?
Three
simple
points:
we're
here
to
highlight
the
critical
need
for
more
quality
licensed
child
care
in
Hollister.
It's
a
very
significant
need
and
my
desire
is
that
every
accommodation
be
made
to
make
the
proposed
child
care
facility
on
this
side
a
reality
to
show
our
support.
J
As
a
large
in-home
daycare,
we
are
limited
to
only
14
students,
as
stated,
we
receive
multiple
calls
each
week
from
families
seeking
child
care
since
we're
at
capacity
the
only
solution
that
we
can
offer
these
families
is
to
join
our
wait
list.
Our
waitlist
stands
at
over
85
Hollister
families
seeking
child
care
to
fulfill.
Our
wait
list
only
would
require
opening
more
than
six
Child
Care
Facilities
of
our
size.
J
According
to
our
preliminary
web
search,
there
are
approximately
18
care
providers
in
Hollister,
excluding
birdhouse.
There
are
only
six
actual
private
licensed
preschools.
All
these
schools
are
a
maximum
capacity
and
on
a
waitlist
status,
the
remainder
of
these
facilities
are
privately
owned,
relatively
small
daycare
only
operations.
J
J
B
O
Good
evening
planning
commissioners,
my
name
is
Ingrid
cywack
I'm,
a
licensed
contractor
before
the
sewer
moratorium
in
2002
I've
built
about
150
homes.
Here
in
Hollister,
I've
owned
this
particular
parcel
for
25
years,
I've
paid
the
property
taxes
on
it
and
mowed
the
weeds
several
times
a
year
for
all
those
years.
My
property
is
an
odd
shape
piece
with
the
lower
five
thousand
square
feet
cut
off
by
promise
way
when
Benchmark
completed
Saddlebrook
next
door.
To
me,
I
thought
we
could
use
their
layout
for
our
project.
O
O
O
O
F
A
C
A
A
E
I,
really
don't
prefer
the
density
bonus
on
this
lot.
It's
too
little
and
the
city's
not
really
benefiting
from
the
density
bonus
and
there's
too
many
unknowns
with
the
daycare
and
I
agree
with
you.
We
need
daycare,
but
we
also
need
it
feasible.
It
needs
to
be
built
if
you're
going
to
use
the
density
bonus
off
of
a
child
care,
then
I
expect
the
plans
to
be
submitted
and
it
to
be
reviewed
and
a
building
permit
to
be
issued
at
the
same
time,
you're
building
those
houses,
because
that's
what
you're?
E
This
is
a
professional
telling
you
that
this
isn't
violation
of
the
fire
code.
How
do
I
ignore
that?
I
cannot
ignore
that
the
best
I
can
do
this
evening
and
then
I'm
concerned
with
the
parking,
the
monster
house
with
four
five
six
bedrooms,
because
that's
what
I'm
getting
the
feeling
of
it
has
more
than
two
cars.
E
E
Again,
though,
it
has
to
have
parking
and
improvements
and
any
other
improvements
that
are
on-site
requirements,
any
utility,
easements,
landscape,
easements
and
then
again,
you're
cutting
it
way
down,
and
so
that's
going
to
be
a
very
small
daycare.
Maybe
so
there
there's
one
thing
and
of
course,
I'm
I'm,
assuming
there's
no
access
on
the
San
Benito,
which
is
a
good
idea,
but
I
really
gotta
pay
attention
to
what
Steph
is
saying,
but
I
wouldn't
be
opposed
to
seeing
a
redesign
again.
E
K
I
would
just
like
to
point
out
that
the
per
code
fire
apparatus
was
0
to
150,
with
no
turnaround
and
per
the
applicant's
own
email,
giving
if
they
were
to
ask
them
to
back
in
150
there's
an
additional
141
that
comes
at
291
feet
and
I
think
that's
a
huge
issue
that
even
per
Fire
Marshals
onwards,
it
there's
too
much
danger.
If
it's
three
o'clock
in
the
morning,
it's
dark
lights.
Fire
smoke,
people
running
everywhere,
it's
just
too
dangerous.
In
my
opinion,.
P
A
Okay,
thank
you.
I
had
a
question
for
staff.
Maybe
you
might
be
able
to
answer
this
so
I'm
curious,
I
didn't
realize
there
was
such
a
shortage
of
daycare
in
the
town
is.
Is
there
are
daycares
limited
to
people
doing
it
from
their
home
or
could
could
somebody
rent
an
office
space
and
do
and
do
it
there.
H
Site
and
architecture
review,
so
we
can
check
and
make
sure
that
it's
going
to
be
built
with
the
density
bonus.
All
the
density
goes
on
to
the
larger
goes
away
from
that
small
parcel
and
onto
the
other
parcel,
so
house
can't
ever
be
built
on
that
remainder
parcel.
So
it
couldn't
be
like
someone
decides,
they
want
to
build
a
house
and
have
a
home
daycare
they're
not
allowed
to
have
a
home.
The
density
is
all
gone.
It's
going
to
have
to
be
just
a
child
care
facility.
H
We
are
very
supportive
of
child
care
facilities,
but
I
have
to
follow
our
code
and
our
code
says
you
will
have
the
permit
application
as
part
of
the
density
bonus.
There
is
child
care
facilities
are
located,
are
allowed
to
be
located
throughout
the
city
with
a
conditional
use
permit.
The
state
also
requires
the
city
to
allow
for,
for
family
day
cares.
It
used
to
be
before
where
cities
would
limit
the
number
of
children.
The
state
has
removed
that
limit,
where
we
used
to
call
them
small
and
large.
Now
you
can
go
up
to
12.
H
C
F
F
And
if
I
may
also
aircad
the
taking
the
density
bonus
out
of
it,
a
child,
a
commercial
child
care
facility
is
a
permitted
use
in
the
R1
it's
permitted
across
the
residential.
It
does
require
conditional
use
permit
and
it's
new
commercial
construction.
So
it
requires
side,
architecture
reviews.
So
that's
not
something
that's
being
required,
because
it's
a
density
bonus,
that's
being
required
because
it
is
a
new
construction,
commercial
and
in
the
residential
R1
zoning
District.
F
It
requires
a
conditional
use
permit
per
our
code
because
it
is
a
density
bonus
that
conditional
use
permit
might
have
some
additional
regulations
to
ensure
it's
in
compliance
with
density,
bonus
law
for
child
care
facilities,
but
this
entire
site
could
have
been
proposed
as
a
commercial
daycare
center
as
well.
That's
also
a
use
allowed
in
this
zoning
District.
H
Or
fifty
seven
hundred
square
foot
lot
for
a
residential
dwelling
and
then
Lot
21
took
over
where
Lot,
21
and
22
are
on
the
preferred
option.
It's
an
again
a
larger
parcel
and
then
all
of
the
all
of
the
area
is
taken
with
the
preferred
option,
which
is
the
child
care
facility.
That's
because
the
applicant
is
with
the
child
care
facility.
You
get
an
extra
incentive,
I.
E
Yes,
yes,
because
you
want
ideas
right,
it
just
seems
to
me
that
it
doesn't
have
to
sit
fallow.
If
you
would
just
increase
the
lots
to
accommodate
22
Lots
spread
across
those
those
parcel,
A
and
B,
then
it's
a
building
site,
yes
well,
I
mean
if
they
don't
want
to
give
plans
and
sign
architectural,
and
the
only
other
option
I
see
is
to
redesign
the
residential
to
include
parcel
B
or
leave
it.
E
H
H
You
to
submit
it's
just
an
unknown
at
this
point:
does
it
fit
and
then
within
the
density
bonus
law,
both
the
chapter
and
the
state
law?
There's
regulations
on
how
that
child
care
facility
is
run
because
they
have
to
have
affordable,
I,
guess
rate
related
to
the
affordability
of
the
units,
and
it
has
to
be
in
place
for
the
the
year
that
the
unit
is
required
to
be
affordable
and
I.
Don't
have
any
of
that
information
because
I.
H
E
A
Yeah,
my
my
so
I
did
have
a
question
about
the
the
concept
of
offering
a
density
bonus
for
a
child
for
a
child
care
center.
So
it
was
the
intention
that
a
development
would
develop
lots
and
a
child
care
center
and
then
that
the
and
then
the
marketing
would
be
hey.
If
you
live
here,
there's
a
is,
it
was
a
designed
to
attract
young
families
per
se,
so
that
they'll
have
a
a
child
care
center
right
there,
or
is
that
that
not
really
the
concept
so.
H
Acknowledges
that,
in
addition
to
us
needing
affordable
housing,
we
need
child
care
and
So
within
the
density
bonus.
Obviously
you,
the
bare
minimum
is
you're
dedicating
a
percentage
of
the
units
and
you
get
certain
incentives
related
to
that
percentage
right.
So,
in
his
case
for
this
example,
with
the
five
percent,
you
get
the
one
incentive
and
he's
electing
to
do
the
waiver
of
the
development
standards
with
a
child
care
facility.
H
You
have
two
options:
one
is
you
can
request
an
additional
incentive
and
that
incentive
is
supposed
to
be
related
to
the
construction
of
the
child
care
facility,
or,
you
could
say,
the
square
footage
of
this
child
care
facility
that
I'm
building
I
want
you
to
add
it
into
my
overall
density
bonus.
So
I
get
an
extra
amount
above
that
limit.
H
That
is
within
the
code
and
I
understand
it's
like
very
confusing,
because
the
density
bonus
law
is
a
lot,
but
the
intent
is,
if
you
want
to
a
developer,
is
giving
us
a
child
care
facility
and
then
within
the
law,
he's
also
following
these
requirements
for
the
affordability
within
it,
and
then
because
of
that,
then
the
city
is
giving
you
something
to
help.
You
build
that
right,
because
it's
expensive
to
build
and
and
child
care
facilities
are
expensive
to
run
so
really
the
the
the
incentive
is
supposed
to
cover
that
facility.
The
construction
of
it.
A
E
L
E
E
A
B
C
A
A
Q
Hi
good
evening,
Commissioners
I
am
presenting
Starbucks
site
and
Architectural
Review
2022-6
next
slide.
Please,
the
proposed
project
is
located
on
the
northeast
corner
of
the
intersection
of
West,
Side
Boulevard
and
4th
Street,
highlighted
by
that
blue
triangle.
Rectangle
next
slide,
please,
the
applicant
has
provided
elevations,
which
are
typical
of
a
Starbucks
staff,
does
not
have
any
issues
or
concerns
with
the
current
design
that
they
have
with
the
elevations
next
slide,
please
those
are
just
additional
elevations
from
the
south
side
of
the
building
and
the
west
side.
C
Q
N
Q
Cross
through
the
drive-through
aisles,
the
applicant
met
with
staff,
and
we
discussed
some
of
our
concerns
and
they
provided
this
revised
option.
But
staff
feels
that
it
hasn't
completely
identified
the
concerns.
It
also
does
not
locate
the
building
at
the
frontage
at
Street
Frontage,
which
is
one
of
the
requirements
by
the
municipal
code.
It's
not
it
doesn't
locate
the
parking
lot
at
the
rear
of
the
building,
which
is
another
concern
and
recommendation
in
the
municipal
code.
Q
It
also
requires
pedestrians
to
cross
across
a
parking
lot,
as
you
can
see,
there's
a
path
of
travel
in
the
center
of
the
site
plan,
but
it
doesn't
Grant
access
from
the
pedestrians
to
directly
access
that
building.
They
still
have
to
go
around
the
side
of
the
building
next
slide.
Please
staff
communicated
those
concerns
to
the
applicant
and
their
team.
We've
met
with
them
a
few
times
and
gone
over
different
options.
Q
They
have
been
receptive
to
our
concerns
and
they
have
provided
a
revised
option
next
slide,
please,
which
we
feel
has
addressed
some
of
the
concerns
that
we
previously
had.
They
have
now
provided
progesterone
access
off
of
4th
Street
and
on
West
Side
Boulevard.
They
have
located
the
building
at
Street
Frontage
and
they
have
granted
access
off
of
Westside
Boulevard.
Q
We
suggested
or
recommended
reconsidering
relocating
the
trash
enclosure
which
is
currently
located
on
the
Southeast
corner
of
this
slide,
to
eliminate
it
and
either
put
it
on
the
north
property
line,
as
you
can
see,
labeled
option
A
along
the
west
side,
Boulevard
or
relocated
to
the
fourth
to
4th
Street.
On
the
left
hand,
side
label
this
option
b.
We
provided
this
alternatives
to
both
engineering,
the
fire
department
and
Recology.
Q
For
that
consideration,
engineering
did
express
some
concerns
and
we
do
have
engineering
here
on
the
call
to
address
those
concerns.
Recology
said
that
they
would
opt
for
option
b,
that
that
was
a
more
feasible
option
than
option
A
and
the
fire
department
indicated
that
they
also
didn't
have
any
concerns
with
option
b.
Q
The
main
concern
is
that
there
are
still
concerns
when
it
comes
to
queuing.
We
would
be
eliminating
the
previously
proposed
entrance
off
of
4th
Street
and
just
limiting
to
West
Side
Boulevard,
which
can
have
the
potential
to
create
queuing
and
perhaps
some
issues
with
Recology
and
their
trucks
entering
the
site.
So
we
are
asking
for
your
suggestions,
York
recommendations
as
to
how
to
proceed
with
this
design
and
provide
options
for
the
applicant.
F
It's
gone
their
presentation
that
they
have
with
some
Alternatives
that
they've
been
working
through
with
staff
to
try
and
address
some
of
the
issues
and
because
the
site's
so
constrained
we're
kind
of
running
into
one
issue
or
the
other.
So
that's
really
why
we
wanted
to
have
this
study
session
with
the
Planning
Commission
to
get
some
feedback
before
bringing
this
item
for
public
hearing.
F
R
Well,
while
we
wait
for
that
Mr
Mr
chairman
members
of
the
Planning
Commission,
my
name
is
Mark
angstrom
with
angstrom
properties.
Part
of
the
applicant
team,
also
with
me,
I,
have
Claudia
Krill
Krill
Jen,
with
Starbucks
on
the
real
estate
site.
I
have
tamura
Chavez
who's,
the
regional
manager
for
Starbucks
a.
M
R
O
R
And
and
our
goal
tonight,
we're
we're
two
years
into
this
process
is
to
walk
away
with
a
general
consensus
of
an
acceptable
site
plan,
because
we
have
vetted
out
all
of
the
other
conditions
with
all
the
other
departments,
and
so
the
only
one
that
we're
I
think
stuck
with
is
a
site
plan
that
that
works
the
best.
And
so
what
I
would
like
to
do
is
kind
of
walk
you
through
the
evolution
from
2021.
When
we
started
on
this
and.
B
R
R
So
here's
the
site,
and
what
we
learned
early
on
before
we
could
do
anything
is-
is
that
between
Public
Works,
Kimberly
horn,
who's,
a
city's
traffic
engineer
and
our
traffic
engineer,
there
had
to
be
consensus
of
where
the
driveways
could
be,
because
it's
very
limited,
it's
less
than
a
half
acre
or
it's
writer
to
half
acre.
So
we
conducted
traffic
studies
and
the
takeaway
from
that
was
is
that
we
identified
right
in
only
off
of
4th
Street
and
then
Ingress
and
egress
off
of
West
Side.
R
So
with
that,
we
could
turn
it
over
to
our
planners.
Who
then
would
in
turn
start
working
on
various
site
plans,
so
I'm
just
going
to
kind
of
walk
you
through
the
evolution
of
these
site
plans,
bear
in
mind.
We
also
had
from
the
planning
side
criteria
that
you
know
the
building
had
to
be
on
the
corner.
We
had
to
have
the
parking
in
the
rear
we
had
to
have
pedestrian
access,
so
we
tried
to
incorporate
all
of
those
every
time
we
dealt
with
fixed
locations
for
Ingress
and
egress.
R
R
S
Also
part
of
the
ownership,
so
the
previous
one,
if
you
want
to
go
back
Ava
one
sec
in
this
submittal,
we
asked
for
a
deviation
for
the
parking
calcs
in
the
next
slide.
We
Shrunk
the
building
because
we
weren't
able
to
get
the
parking
calc
deviation.
So
then
the
building
footprint
becomes
1500
ish
square
feet,
and
then
we
make
the
21
stall
calc.
B
R
R
The
the
goal
here
and
the
difference
between
this
and
the
alternative
site
plan
really
has
to
do
with
traffic
circulation
and
queuing,
which
is
first
and
foremost,
and
that
that's
why
we
have
tomorrow
here
that
has
to
live
with
whatever
we
end
up
with,
and
she
manages
this
District
region,
Starbucks
nose
queuing,
it
knows
delivery,
and
it
knows
where
these
problems
could
we
could
run
into
them.
This
particular
site
plan
has
cueing
that
will
accommodate
14
cars,
which
is
adequate
more
than
adequate
fifth
coat.
R
R
R
This
one
creates
some
problems
and
that
the
queuing
opportunity
to
the
extent
I
think
this
is
two
four
six
eight
this
is
this
is
12.,
could
back
up
into
West
Side
quite
easily
and
as
soon
as
it
starts
to
back
up
into
West
Side,
you
would
have
landlocked
all
of
the
parking
that's
in
the
primary
parking
field.
There
we're
not
so
worried
about
the
parking
stalls
that
are
on
the
North,
because
those
would
normally
be
associate
parking,
but
the
parking
field
we're
concerned
is
is
that
we
could.
R
We
could
box
them
in
there
and
we've
eliminated
the
Ingress
off
of
4th
Street
so
which
provided
better
circulation,
and
so
this
isn't.
You
know
that
this
is
both
of
them.
Both
of
them
are
okay,
one
is
just
for
Superior
and
being
able
to
handle
traffic
flow
and
customers,
both
of
them
I
think
satisfy
the
intent
of
the
design
requirements
for
being
on
the
street
and
pedestrian
access
are
concerned.
R
Operationally
is
the
impact
that
this
this
could
have
if,
in
the
event
that
this
stuff,
you
know
the
the
traffic
started
to
queue
up
and
I'm
I'm
happy
to
bring
tomorrow
up.
If
you
would
like
to
make
any
comments
operationally
or
cloudy
or
if
you
folks
have
any
questions
relative
to
to
traffic-
and
our
traffic
engineer
has
you
know,
reviewed
the
alternative
with
the
Ingress
off
of
forestry
and
our
traffic
studies
reflect
that,
and
it
satisfies
all
the
city's
conditions
from
from
the
public
works
standpoint
planning
is
a
little
different
and
yeah.
T
Almost
tripped
on
my
back
good
evening,
honorable
planner
commissions,
my
name
is
Claudia
carola
Chang
I
am
with
Starbucks
I'm
a
store
development
manager
that
supports
the
new
store
growth
for
our
company
and
there's
just
two
items
to
to
add.
So
today's
Starbucks
basically
operates
60
or
more
out
of
the
drive-through
so,
and
the
remainder
of
that
about
30
percent
is
with
our
mobile
order,
so
people
utilize
our
our
mobile,
apps
and
so
forth,
and
the
remainder
of
that
is
people
actually
come
inside
our
stores.
They
sit,
they
order
and
so
forth.
T
So
that's
I
think
an
important
thing
to
to
mention,
and
then
the
other
part
to
also
mention
and
consider
is
our
average
drive-through
Peaks.
Our
drive-through
Lanes
should
accommodate
more
than
13
to
15
car
Stacks
during
Peak.
However,
there
are
non-peak
periods
and
during
that
non-pig
periods,
as
you
may
know,
the
two
existing
stores
that
we
do
have
they're
both
drive-throughs
the
Peaks
could
range
up
to
20
cars.
T
So
we
want
to
make
sure
that,
within
this
site,
we
can
accommodate
both
the
normal
flow,
which
is
13
to
15
cars,
but
also
some
of
those
Peaks.
So
we
don't
go
into
west
side
or
4th
Street
and
that's
why
we
think
that
one
of
the
other
plans
is
a
bit
more
Superior,
because
we
know
our
business
is
more
than
60
drive
through
and
also
we
during
Peaks
we
could
have
up
to
more
than
15
to
20
cars.
That
was
the
two
items
I
wanted
to
add
and
I'm
here.
E
E
E
They
have
the
room.
This
one
does
not
so
my
opinion
here
and
I've
listened
and
I've
read.
This
site
is
too
little
for
everything
you
need
to
put
on.
There
then
I'm
concerned
about
the
ordering
board
being
anywhere
near
the
east
or
North
property
lines,
because
you
have
residences
right
there
and
those
boards
are
loud,
then
the
other
concern
I
have
is
cars
idling
next
to
residential
perimeter,
because
there's
a
big
line
at
Starbucks,
Idol,
Idol,
idol
forever
yeah.
P
R
E
R
E
D
M
D
M
E
U
C
U
F
So
our
code,
as
far
as
skewing
only
requires
I
believe
six
queuing
vehicles
so
they're
meeting
our
code
for
queuing.
The
real
conflict
has
been
mentioned
has
been.
Is
this
site
meeting
that
pedestrian
orientation
requirements
in
the
code
this
site?
So
staff
has
had
some
concerns
about
the
orientation
of
the
building
being
behind
the
drive-through?
So
it
really
is
kind
of
a
vehicular
orientation
in
this
design.
F
After
alternative
they've
staff
and
Starbucks
are
really
trying
to
work
to
make
this
site
work
for
both
of
us
here,
but
we're
kind
of
getting
stuck
so
Mark
has
expressed
just
in
the
the
short
day
or
so
that
he's
had
to
review
a
potential
alternative
option
that
there
might
be
some
concerns
with
the
backing
out
of
the
Recology
track
onto
one
of
the
roadways.
So
there
might
still
be
some
Public
Works
concerns
in
addition
to
cueing
concerns
and
the
other
Alternatives.
So
we
kind
of
are
looking
for.
E
F
But
this
would
be
something
that
Starbucks
is,
is
preferring
with
kind
of
the
middle
point
of
The
Pedestrian
path
here
from
fourth
but
kind
of
this
direct
pedestrian
path,
which
is
likely
where
a
pedestrian
would
walk.
And
then
staff
was
looking
at
this
alternate,
although
I
can
switch
back
to
magda's
PowerPoint.
We
talked
with
the
applicant
team
yesterday
about
some
possible
tweaks
to
this,
to
see
if
it
could
work
for
both
of
us
and
let
me
switch
really
quick.
F
So
we
talked
about
as
Magda
mentioned,
possibly
relocating
this
trash
enclosure,
so
you
might
be
able
to
get
a
little
bit
more
Bend
and
moving
it
either
to
fourth
or
to
West
Side.
We
did
talk
to
Recology.
We
sent
this
over
to
them.
They
had
a
preference
for
option
b,
however,
as
Mark
might
be
able
to
allude
to
there's
some
traffic
concerns
of
either
front
loading
trucks
and
then
backing
out
or
backing
in
and
then
reversing
with
Recology
there.
So
you
know
stuff
in
the
applicant
are
just
kind
of
stuck
and
hoping
for
well.
E
F
E
Of
the
Northerly
property,
so
how's
our
city,
engineer,
thinking
about
those
two
driveways
that
are
really
close.
It's
really
unfortunate.
We
couldn't
incorporate
with
the
algorensei
there
and
have
a
bigger
turn
in
there,
but
now
you
got
two
driveways
and
I'm
assuming
it's
the
code,
so
it's
probably
not
an
issue
right.
F
So
this
driveway
on
fourth
yeah,
it
falls
under
a
section
of
the
code
that
requires
a
engineering
approval
and
requires
it
be
required
for
site
circulation.
Otherwise
it
is
too
close
to
this
intersection
and
the
other
El
grants
they
drive
through,
but,
as
has
been
discussed,
the
public
works
on
both
teams
has
talked
through
circulation
and
the
improvements
required
to
forth
in
order
to
allow
that
drive
through
access,
as
currently
designed
in
the
most
recent
submittal.
So.
R
R
E
A
I
was
wondering
so
you
mentioned
that
there
could
be
a
potential
issue
of
people
getting
of
cars,
getting
landlocked
in
the
parking
lot
because
of
too
many
cars
in
the
drive-through
Lane.
Is
there
any
reason
why
the
end
of
the
drive,
the
drive-through
Lane?
Why
you've
got
it
curving
on
into
the
parking
lot
again?
Isn't
there?
Is
there
any
reason
why
you
couldn't
just
have
an
option
for
the
cars
to
go
forward
and
have
kind
of
a
second
driveway,
so
the
cars
could
exit
straight
after
pickup.
A
R
Yeah
I
mean
there's
a
a
few
things
that
we
could
tweak
and
maybe
add
another
one
or
two
on
this,
and
you
know
our
goal
you
know
tonight
is
to
Come
Away
with
something
you
know
that
that
we
could
work
on
I
mean.
Obviously,
we've
had
20,
plus
we're
a
couple
years
into
this,
we're
looking
for
direction.
We
operationally,
we
think
ours
operates
the
best
and
will
minimize
any
problems
later
on
down
the
road.
That's
just
our
experience.
R
D
Wanted
to
mention
just
with
with
with
drive-throughs
as
As
Eva
was
saying.
Our
code
only
requires
a
queuing
of
six.
The
city
does
require
queuing
analysis
in
certain
certain
cases,
and
usually
we
don't
see
anything
above
about
what
12.
that
would
be
required
and,
and
so
there's
even
in
a
queuing
analysis,
because
we're
only
looking
at
these.
These
there's
worst
case
scenarios,
where
we're
going
to
have,
we
possibly
will
have
something
going
on
to
West
Side.
It
happens
in
every
drive-through.
D
You've,
probably
seen
it
and
and
a
lot
of
drive-throughs
are
are
very
inadequate
and
most
of
the
ones
that
we've
seen
are
this
double
stacking.
This
double
drive-through
is
a
relatively
New
Concept
that
we've
seen
to
be
able
to
accommodate
those
additional
cars.
Where,
usually,
you
would
only
see
probably
six,
seven,
six
or
seven,
maybe
eight
that
would
be
able
to
fit
on
any
site
so
from
a
staff
perspective.
We're
not
necessarily
concerned
about
the
the
length
of
the
drive-through.
D
D
Basically
what
is
the
most
important
to
the
Planning
Commission
if
we
have
to
modify
anything
that
is
within
the
the
requirements
for
this
particular
District,
those
findings
will
need
to
be
made
and
right
now,
this
is
closest
to
the
findings
of
what
what
planning
can
make.
But,
of
course,
there
may
be
some
wiggle
room
that
we're
going
to
have
to.
So
that's
what
we'd
like
to
to
hear
from
you
in
this
case.
R
And
just
to
clarify,
we
did
do
a
queuing
study
and
these
satisfy
our
queuing
study.
We
also
do
I,
don't
even
know
if
it's
required
or
not,
but
we
do
a
a
a
study
that
the
queuing
study
dictates
how
many
cars
we
need,
but
we
also
do
a
a
parking
management
plan
that,
in
the
event
we
start
to
breach
and
do
that
you
know
what
do
our
Associates
do?
How
do
they
go
out
and
manage
it,
and
so
we
have
that
plan
that
we
use
internally,
that
Tamira
Works.
P
P
Talks
about
pedestrian
linkages
between
buildings
and
uses
shell
uses
shall
include
features
such
as
walkways
Corner
entrances,
paseos
outdoor
patios,
water
features,
benches
and
tangible
public
are
in
mixed-use
developments
because
the
because
this,
the
drive-through
it
seems
to
be
quite
a
concern.
Why
don't
we
encourage
more
community
space
there
by
creating
some
type
of
outdoor
area
covered
trees?
However,
that
would
kind
of
encourage
that
reduce
the
amount
of
people
that
are
actually
going
through
the
drive
through
and
start
to
include
more
pedestrians.
It.
R
R
C
D
Well
so
Amber
it
looks
like
she's
looking
at
it.
There
are
some
there's
are
some
instances
where
parking
reductions
can
be
granted
and
I
think
that
you
considered
one
at
a
previous
right
and
yes
and
yeah.
So
there
are
some
some
ways
that
we
can
do
that.
But
let
me
let
the
staff
kind
of
do
their
research
over
there
and
we'll
get
right
back
to
you
and.
R
C
P
E
V
Yeah,
as
as
Mark
had
mentioned,
there's
I'm
sorry
I'm,
Tamara
Chavez
nice
to
be
here
with
everybody
it
it's
not
a
popular
demand
anymore
by
customers
right,
everybody
wants
to
be
in
the
car,
easy
access
and
not
have
to
get
out.
I
do
have
four
locations
in
my
market
that
are
Cafe
only
and
one
of
them
actually
is
a
grab
and
go
location.
So
it's
highly
the
mobile
order.
App
is
a
big
population
of
it,
and
this
location
has
no
seating.
So
there's
other
options
like
that
too.
V
So,
but
the
big
demand
is,
is
the
drive-through
for
customers.
It's
convenient
and
this
design
is
great
with
the
two
lanes
coming
in,
which
will
alleviate
a
lot
of
the
concerns
around
backing
out,
and
we
also
have
other
options
that
we
could
do
too,
where
it's
a
handheld
device
where
our
employees
can
go
out
in
the
lane
and
start
doing
those
orders
prior
to
the
customer
getting
to
the
box,
which
speeds
us
up
a
lot
faster.
V
So
we
have
other
designs
that
really
help
alleviate
and
make
the
time
go
faster,
but
cafes
and
not
super
popular
I
mean
a
design
like
this.
Is
is
great
and
we
have
the
other
two
locations
in
Hollister
that
have
fairly
large
lobbies
as
well,
that
will,
you
know,
support
our
customers
in
those
areas
too.
V
Because
we
got
all
those
empty
lots
right,
they're
gonna
fill
up
yeah.
That's
what
I
loved
about
this
design
too.
There
was
because
we're
reducing
space
for
the
traffic
and
the
parking,
and
so
we
have
less
space
to
be
operationally
set,
which
means
we
can't
have
a
huge
Lobby
to
offer
our
customers
having
a
really
nice
outside
area
that
can
be
used
in
that
area
and
and
customers
can
use
Wi-Fi
and
everything
like
you
would
inside.
E
E
C
D
Yeah
so
I
do
have
an
answer
for
your
parking
reduction
question.
We
have
a
couple
different
code
sections,
but
the
the
first
one
that
allows
a
reduction
off
straight
parking.
So
it's
a
general
parking
reduction.
The
director-
and
in
this
case
the
would
be
the
Planning
Commission
May
Grant
reduction
in
offstream
parking
in
compliance
with
the
parking
section,
so
an
administrative
permit
with
no
notice
and
rights
of
appeal.
D
The
applicant
should
provide
evidence
to
demonstrate
to
the
satisfaction
of
the
director
that
any
requested
reduction
is
necessary
for
the
efficient
operation
of
the
subject,
use
and
will
not
result
in
a
parking
deficiency,
but
that
is
through
the
submittal
of
a
parking
study
which
demonstrates
need
in
Industry
standards.
I
think
that
the
the
applicant
has
gone
through
a
lot
of
this
already
internally
and
likely
would
have
that
to
be
able
to
provide.
But
there
is
in
general
parking
reduction.
D
D
E
M
D
E
My
opinion
is
I
would
really
like
to
see
them
work
something
out
and
bring
something
that
I
could
feel
comfortable.
I'd
like
to
see
maybe
a
few
less
parking
lots
spaces.
Because
again
it's
and
I
hear
what
you're
saying
it
it
is.
It
is
more
correlated
than
pedestrian,
but
it's
close.
It's
close
right
there.
So
my
my
preference,
listen
to
you.
You
make.
R
E
D
Yeah-
and
it
sounds
like
that
first
code
section
gives
the
flexibility
a
lot
of
Municipal
codes
are
extremely
rigid
when
it
comes
to
parking,
and
that
is
something
that's
a
little
bit
different
from
this
code.
So
and
it's
really
for
wanting
to
make
a
site
work
for
everything
that
you're
asking
for,
because
every
site
is
different
and
every
use
is
different.
So
it
sounds
like
that's
a
code
section.
If,
if
the
Planning
Commission
has
consensus
to
direct
staff
to
look
at
a
potential
parking
reduction
for
the
uses
that
would
be
required
on
the
site.
E
Well,
because
I
worked
in
planning
for
20
years
for
the
city,
I
always
try
to
abide
by
staff,
not
always
but
most
of
the
time.
Yes,
because
they
are
the
professionals.
I
am
not
even
though
I
read
a
lot.
I
really
and
I
love
commercial
development.
There
can't
be
enough
for
me,
but
of
course,
we're
always
concerned
with
traffic
and
then
egress
Ingress,
egress
and
concerned
about
the
killing.
E
P
E
D
That's
correct
so
not
yet,
but
the
vision
of
this
area
is
to
have
it
much
more
pedestrian
oriented
when
you
have
the
first
project,
it's
hard
to
Envision
what
what
happens
right!
So
that's
why
we
have
these
goals,
so
we
start
filling
in
these
storefronts.
You
know
buildings
closer
to
this
back
of
sidewalks.
So
hopefully,
as
we
see
things
fill
in,
there
is
more
pedestrian,
but
but
right
now
there
there's
very
little.
R
R
P
F
Yeah,
if
there's,
if
there's
potentially
direction
from
the
Planning
Commission
for
us
to
work
with
the
applicant
to
explore
reducing
parking
spaces,
there
might
be
a
little
bit
more
option
to
shift
and
we
might
be
able
to
get
something
that
might
be
completely
different
than
any
of
these
Alternatives.
We
haven't
really
looked
at
them,
but
there
are
a
few
other
Alternatives
that
they've
also
provided
they've
done
a
lot
of
work.
We
really
appreciate
them.
F
If
there
might
be
a
few
more
spaces,
we
could
lose
in
favor
of
room
and
I.
This
is
my
professional
but
personal
opinion.
I
haven't
run
this
through
anyone,
but
I.
Think
if
we're
looking
at
an
alternative
for
parking
reduction,
where
the
goal
is
pedestrian
orientation,
I
think
that
could
be
part
of
the
findings
that
you're
making.
As
you're
trying
to
encourage
pedestrians
to
utilize
this
site,
so
in
granting
this
reduction,
you've
made
a
different
design
of
the
site
to
kind
of
try
and
get
that
pedestrian.
F
So
I
think
if
that's
something
we
can
look
at
and
then
we
can
also
look
at
if
the
Planning
Commission
thinks
that,
with
some
additional
enhancements
in
the
landscaping
and
in
the
open
space
areas,
that
would
attract
a
walker
or
someone
who
would
want
to
sit
outside
and
kind
of
use.
This
site
in
that
way,
for
their
studies
that
that
they're
feeling
that
the
planning
commission's
feeling
that
we
might
be
able
to
make
some
of
those
pedestrian
orientation
findings
within
the
constraints
of
this
proposal.
We
can
look
at
that
with
the
applicant
as
well.
C
E
W
W
W
W
This
is
why
the
preferred
alternate
has
kind
of
been
really
pushed
by
the
Starbucks
team
is
because
operationally
it
provides
the
most
flexibility
for
all
users.
The
term
pedestrian
orientation
is
the
component
of
this.
This
District,
which
is
why
planning
staff
has
been
so
adamant
to
like
get
us
to
orient
the
building
in
a
manner.
That's
you
know
right
against
the
sidewalks.
We
understand
that
we
just
think
it
contradicts
the
overall
goal
of
getting
the
site
to
operate
in
the
most
efficient
manner,
with
the
way
that
we
see
these
sites
operating
so.
W
Your
business
model
is
defined
by
code
to
a
certain
extent,
and,
what's
lacking
in
there
is
acknowledging
that
those
cars
that
are
in
the
drive-through
Lane
are,
in
essence,
parked
customers.
So,
if
you
could,
you
know
make
a
determination
that
you
know
they
provided
the
parking
spaces
required
by
the
code,
specifically
for
the
building
square.
Footage
and
they've
also
accommodated
additional
users
in
vehicles
not
necessarily
parked,
but
moving
through
the
drive-through
Lane
to
make
this
facility
operational.
I.
Don't
know
about
that.
They're.
W
W
F
So
parking
and
This
falls
under
fast
food
counter
service,
because
the
only
other
options
are
takeout
only
which
this
obviously
you
can
sit
and
then
table
service,
which
this
is
not
table.
Service,
restaurant,
so
five
spaces,
plus
one
space
for
every
three
seats
in
the
dining
area,
or
one
space
for
each
100
square
feet
of
gross
floor
area.
Whichever
is
greater
right.
W
D
D
D
F
F
Yeah,
so
one
of
the
comments
on
the
initial
submitter
submittal
Commissioner
Ross
from
staff,
was
that
it
didn't
meet
the
parking
requirements,
so
they
did
a
combination
of
increasing
the
parking
and
reducing
the
building
size
to
get
into
that
parking
requirement
range
and
then
we've
stuck
at
the
the
same
or
at
least
a
similar
size.
Since
then,
this
submittal.
R
F
P
F
The
applicant
shell
Pride,
provide
evidence
to
demonstrate
to
the
satisfaction
of
the
director
or
again
Planning
Commission
in
this
case,
because
it's
that's
the
approval
level
that
any
requested
reduction
is
necessary
for
the
efficient
operation
of
the
subject,
use
and
will
not
result
in
a
parking
deficiency
through
the
submittable
parking
study
which
demonstrates
need
and
Industry
standards.
So
I
think
that
again
there
might
be
an
opportunity
where
Starbucks
might
have.
They
obviously
have
many
locations
right.
F
So
they
might
have
information
about
how
many
people
Park,
how
many
people
walk
to
a
site
that
might
have
similar
walkability
access
or
the
planned
build
out
of
the
Western
West
Gateway
and
neighborhood
mixed
use,
kind
of
goals
of
the
immediate
vicinity
and
the
applications
we
have
in
place
or
where
you
know
they
can
show
that
they're
customers
in
their
drive-through
account
for
cars
that
might
have
otherwise
parked.
So
there
is
a
reduction.
E
E
C
E
R
P
D
Well,
the
applicants
obviously
heard
what
the
comments
have
been
said
and
kind
of
digest,
some
of
it
and
and
and
go
back
and
so
I
think
it
would
be
really
falling
on
the
applicant
and
working
with
staff
on
this
code
section
for
hey.
What
do
we
want
to
do
on
the
site?
What
does
it
really
want
to
be
that
that
meets
our
code
meets
their
the
operational
standards
and
where,
where
does
the
city
need
to
have
some
wiggle
room,
potentially
with
parking.
T
T
T
That's
that's
definitely
been
Santa
Ana,
for
example,
that
would
be
the
same
footprint
or
we
would
have
to
eliminate
it
and
go
more
towards
a
drive-through
only
with
maybe
a
walk-up
window,
which
would
activate
pedestrian
ability
to
walk
up
to
the
window,
order
a
place
to
order
pick
up
in
addition
to
the
patio,
but
the
actual
building
would
be
more
like
a
drive-through
only
which
would
have
no
Lobby.
You
would
not
be
able
to
walk
into
our
store
to
place
the
order.
You
would
only
activate
with
a
window
in
additional
to
that.
E
D
Lot
of
that
has
to
I
mean
site
planning,
really
is
a
lot
of
it.
You
can
have
pedestrian
oriented.
You
know,
walk
up
only
I,
really
it
has
to
do
with
design
and
site
planning.
So
I
I
think
I.
Think
we've
heard
a
lot
okay
tonight,
I,
don't
know
if
there's
anything
any
other
further
direction
that
the
Planning
Commission
has.
F
P
F
F
If
you
can
shift
the
connection
right,
there
might
be
some
leeway
if
there's
a
few
less
parking
spaces
required
on
the
site.
So
I
think
we
can
look
at
both
the
preferred
option,
as
proposed
with
the
kind
of
more
drive-through
queue,
but
with
the
with
the
building
not
up
against
the
street,
and
we
can
look
at
this
alternate
and
we
can
look
into
both
those
strategies
and
see
if
there's
something
in
either
of
these
site
plans
that
can
work.
F
Yes,
so
that's
been
staff's
kind
of
concern
about
that
pedestrian
orientation
with
the
drive-through
in
this
design
that
you're
not
getting
that
pedestrian
orientation
or
kind
of
a
safe
access.
Now
the
applicant
did
talk.
This
is
like
a
slow
merger
point
in
the
drive-through
and
it
obviously
is
a
drive
through
so
they're,
not
speeding
through
here.
So
hopefully,
people
are
paying
attention,
but
that's
been
a
concern
as
well
about
kind
of
making
that
pedestrian
orientation
finding
when
pedestrians
are
crossing
this
drive
through
to
get
to
a
building.
F
I,
don't
know
if
it's
this
initial
submittal
but
I'm
not
seeing
Oh
here
or
some
of
the
older
submittals
we
had
you
know
so.
We've
had
kind
of
some
paths
here
where
we
were
crossing
the
drive-through
entrance.
So
you
know
that
that
can
kind
of
be
moved
or
we
can
look
at
this.
We
have
the
most
recent
submittal,
where
the
pedestrians
coming
from
West
kind
of
took
a
long
way
around,
but
a
safe
way
around,
and
then
we've
had
an
alternate
from
fourth
coming
here,
but
again
we're
crossing
the
drive
through.
F
So
it's
kind
of
the
the
long
path
that
you
don't
think
of
pedestrians,
naturally
going
to
take
they're,
probably
going
to
take.
You
know
this
path
or
kind
of
this
angle
right,
but
so
there's
been
some
alternates
of
Where
The
Pedestrian
path
and
where
The
Pedestrian
enters
from
both
west
side
and
fourth
proposed
by
the
applicant.
So
if
there's
discussion
from
the
Planning
Commission
on
kind
of
where
that
might
be
best
as
well,
we
can
merge
plans
and
thoughts.
F
So
that
was
kind
of
the
concern
of
staff
is
like
yes,
we're
providing
a
sidewalk,
that's
great,
but
are
they
going
to
use
your
sidewalk?
And
then
we
have
the
kind
of
second
option
of
The
Pedestrian
on
Fourth,
because
it
is
a
little
bit
more
direct
here.
So
we've
looked
at
a
really
direct
path.
We
have
the
really
direct
path.
We
have
kind
of
a
mid-direct
path
but
again
crossing
the
drive-through
Lane
here
and
we
have
the
kind
of
most
indirect
path
as
options
that
we've
looked
at
too
with
the
applicant.
D
V
D
It
might
be
something
that
would
be
well
for
all
I
mean,
and
staff
will
definitely
do
that,
but
even
if
the
Planning
Commission
wanted
to
go
kind
of
take
a
look
at
that
as
well
I
mean
what
does
it
feel
like
I'm
I'm.
Definitely,
I'll
definitely
do
that
and
encourage
my
staff
to
do
do
it
as
we
as
we
work
through
these
issues.
K
Crossing,
as
well
as
across
the
street
McDonald's
has
in
that
parking
lot
with
Ace
Hardware
same
thing:
pedestrian
access
off
their
sidewalk,
where
there's
a
stop
sign
for
the
drive-through
traffic,
wide,
yellow,
bump
dots
that
designates
that
they
have
the
right
way
to
go
through.
So
it's
not
uncommon
to
have
them
cut
through.
K
K
Okay,
if
those
four
spots
were
eliminated,
would
that
possibly
generate
up
to
I
think
I'm,
looking
at
another
six
extra
vehicles
that
could
possibly
cue
and
then
the
win-win
situation
for
more
outdoor
seating,
there's
already
two
different
Pathways.
We
could
then
create
that
into
more
covered
outdoor
seating
and
make
it
even
more.
K
E
E
R
C
R
E
F
R
You
for
giving
us
some
guidance.
His
staff's,
been
great
to
work
with.
You
know
we're
all
just
trying
to
get
this
right
and
you
know
we
want
to
be
a
good
member
of
the
community
and
you
know
operationally.
We
want
it
to
work,
and
you
know
the
staff
has
codes
and
compliance
issues
that
we're
dealing
with.
So
we
we
do
want
to
get
it
right
and
I.
D
D
F
So,
commission
Illinois,
if
I
may,
at
the
last
meeting,
the
commission
adopted
the
minutes
with
a
change
to
add
the
language
regarding
the
environment
and
what
Mr
small
spoke
about
to
add
more
language
about
what
he
had
addressed
during
his.
So
that
was
how
the
commission
adopted
the
minutes,
so
we
could
bring
them
back,
but
what
staff
will
do
to
accommodate
what
the
change
that
was
made
is
to
just
put
in
a
Verbatim
of
what
was
said
by
Mr
small
into
the
minutes
that
was
already
adopted.
F
R
D
F
Yeah,
if
I'm
a
chairperson,
Henderson
I,
just
thought
of
something
to
add
just
for
the
Commissioners
to
be
aware,
staff
is
working
on
the
six
cycle.
Housing
element
update,
as
you
may
be
aware,
and
we're
working
with
Kinley
horn
on
that
and
one
of
the
next
steps
is
to
schedule
a
joint
study
session
with
the
Planning
Commission
and
city
council.
F
We
were
looking
at
potentially
the
25th,
but
I,
don't
think
it's
going
to
work
for
consultants
and
staff,
so
we
haven't
reached
out,
but
we're
hoping
to
get
something
on
the
agenda
between
the
Commissioners
and
the
council
and,
like
last
week
of
September
first
week
of
October.
Is
the
goal
so
be
on
the
lookout
we'll
reach
out
to
you
when
we
have
a
date
or
two
that
works
for
staff
and
consultant.
F
D
We'll
be
reaching
out,
and
and
with
the
joint
study
session
sessions,
we
only
need
to
have
a
quorum
of
one
of
the
either
the
council
or
the
Planning
Commission
in
order
to
hold
it.
So
if
there's
not
a
quorum
of
both
just
FYI
I
believe
that
the
if
it
was
say
the
the
commission
did
not
have
a
quorum,
they
speak
as
members
of
the
public
right.
D
D
Our
contract
with
Kim
Lee
horn
has
a
set
for
you
know
if,
if
we
stay
on
track
being
able
to
get
our
draft
up
to
the
state
really
as
soon
as
possible-
and
it
really
is
going
to
be
up
with
up
to
the
the
state
how
how
long
they
turn
they
take
to
turn
it
around.
So
we're
really
trying
to
keep
the
momentum
up.
So
we're
asking
a
lot
of
you
a
lot
of
meetings
in
this
this
next
month
in
two
months,
but
it's
been
a
lot
of
meetings.
Yeah!
F
D
B
A
E
Bunch
of
stuff,
just
so
I
would
be
up
to
you
know.
I
got
to
refresh
my
memory.
Well
did
Roland
resendis.
Excuse
me
councilman
rosenda,
subjected
to
me
speaking,
because
I
didn't
have
a
majority
of
votes
of
the
Planning
Commission
to
send
me
there
so
and
I've.
Never
and
I
sat
on
this
commission
for
six
years
and
we
never
had
dick
a
vote
on
if
somebody's
gonna
go
speak
to
the
council.
E
So
clearly,
I
was
singled
out
to
not
afford
the
speaking
that
I
wanted
to
clarify
a
couple
things.
Luckily,
Gary
coats
did
clarify
these
the
the
thoughts
we
had
on
the
North
Gateway,
but
there
was
a
couple
of
other
things
that
I
did
want
to
say,
but
I
was
not
afforded
the
opportunity
to
speak
on
behalf
of
the
Planning
Commission
so
in
the
future,
we'll
make
sure
that
we
give
a
vote
so
that
that
ever
never
happens
again
because
I
was
offended.
E
Like
you
don't
know,
yes,
I
spent
a
lot
of
time
prepping
and
it's
I'm
a
plan
and
I'm
commissioner
Lenore
not
Carol
Lenore.
He
was
calling
me
out
and
then
I
burst.
I
didn't
represent
this
commission
to
the
best
of
my
ability,
so
I
want
to
apologize
as
I
did
that
evening,
I
yelled
out
it
was
wrong
and
and
I
won't.
Let
that
happen
again.