Okay, everybody, it is two o'clock.

We're gonna call the uh Wednesday, March 25th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting to order.

Would staff please do a roll call?

Commissioner Sanchez?

Present.

Commissioner Garcia?

Present.

Commissioner De Succi?

Present.

Commissioner Lopez?

Present.

Commissioner Ulett?

Here.

Commissioner Mylam?

Here.

Commissioner Orion?

Here.

Commissioner Bustamante?

Present.

Commissioner Profit?

Here.

Chair Peck?

Here.

A quorum is present.

Thank you.

Can we get the Spanish English interpreter, please?

Good afternoon.

Buenas tardes.

Las personas can escuchar esta audiencia in Espanyol.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

All right, today we're going to have two agendas.

First hearing is a combined hearing agenda.

Cases on the combined hearing agenda are cases where staff recommends approval.

The planning commission doesn't require any further detailed discussion, and nobody in the audience is signed up to speak.

All cases on consent will be read into the record in one uniform motion.

The second agenda is an individual hearing agenda.

Everything on individual will be heard separately before the commission takes action.

So the the way I see it right now is everything except for items 10 and 11 are on consent.

That is correct.

And we're going to have Commissioners Bustamante and Commissioner Ulett recuse from the consent agenda.

Correct.

So it is 202 and Commissioners Bustamante and Ulette have left the meeting.

All right.

Move to approve consent agenda.

Second.

We have a motion by Commissioner Prophet.

A second by Commissioner Milam.

Staff please do a roll call vote.

Commissioner Prophet?

Yes.

Commissioner Mylam?

Yes.

Commissioner Sanchez?

Yes.

Commissioner Garcia?

Yes.

Commissioner DeSucci?

Yes.

Commissioner Lopez.

Commissioner Ulett.

Oh, sorry.

Um Commissioner Orion?

Yes.

Chair Peck.

Yes.

Motion passes for approval.

Thank you.

You can call the Commissioners back in.

It is 202, and Commissioners Bustamante and Ulett have rejoined the meeting.

We'll move on with item 10.

Commissioner DeSucci has to recuse on this item.

It is 2002, and Commissioner DeSucci has left the meeting.

Good afternoon, Commissioners at Arthur Gomez, Senior Planet of Development Services.

I don't number 10 is a request for an approval of the resolution amending the North Sector Plan from suburban tier to regional center.

There were 32 notices mailed, zero in favor, zero opposed.

The Bavarian Forest HOA neighborhood association did not provide a response.

The proposed change to regional center designation is inconsistent with the established locational criteria for regional centers.

The proposed amendment is inconsistent with the character and infrastructure requirements of regional centers.

These centers are designed designed for large-scale operations, including shopping malls, hospitals, and wholesalers that serve the regional market rather than a neighborhood one.

While the subject property currently supports uses similar to the one being requested, its immediate proximity to an established residential neighborhood should require more sensitive approach.

The zoning commission to recommend approval for the zoning portion on the request on March 17th.

Staff is recommending denial in the request and the applicant is answering any questions.

Good afternoon, John Cooley 7119, Parkside Place.

I'm here to answer any questions you guys have about the application.

Okay.

Nobody signed up to speak, so we'll move on to Commissioner Questions.

We'll start on the left with Commissioner Bustamante.

No questions.

No questions.

No questions.

No questions.

No questions.

No questions.

Comment.

I think the the I understand staff's position on that, but this use seems to be consistent with with what we're seeing along Western Oak.

So no further questions.

I agree with that comment.

No further questions.

Same.

No questions.

Any more questions or we'll entertain a motion?

Move to approve applicants request.

A second.

We have a motion for approval of the applicant's request by Commissioner Prophet and a second by Commissioner Mylam.

Staff, please do a roll call vote.

Commissioner Profit?

Yes.

Commissioner Mylam.

Yes.

Commissioner Sanchez.

Yes.

Commissioner Garcia.

Yes.

Commissioner Lopez.

Yes.

Commissioner Lett.

Yes.

Commissioner Orion.

Yes.

Commissioner Buster Monte.

Chair Peck?

Yes.

Motion passes for approval.

Thank you.

All right, we'll move on to somebody let Commissioner DeSucci know he can come back.

And we will move on to item 11.

Commissioner Orion has to recuse from this item.

So it is 205.

And Commissioner DeSucci has re-entered the meeting and Commissioner Orion has left the meeting.

Don't hold me back as a neck.

All right.

Well, good afternoon, everybody.

Uh Clayton Wallace, interim principles planner with uh development services.

So item number 11 is an appeal of a certificate of determination.

So just to run y'all through super high level, so I'm going to start high and we'll get lower.

So plating.

When is a plat required?

35430A1.

So it states the owner of a tract of land uh within San Antonio City limits or the ETJ must make a plat available uh available whenever they are requesting new utility services or major building permits.

So major building permits, new construction, additions, um, but but those are the two plat triggers.

We have 18 reasons why you don't have to plat.

35430C lists uh the 18 reasons why a property owner can get a plat exemption.

Most cover single family detached uses, non-habitable uses, uh parks, uh cell towers, security fences, stuff like that.

I mean there's a there's a lot of them, um, or other types of low impact development.

But there are only two that generally allow for new utility connections and building permits for um non-detached single family dwelling and commercial uses.

So now we're gonna get towards the actual application.

So this application was filed on February 6th.

It is for an existing duplex.

Uh it is requesting new utility connections and building permits for a parcel made of antiquated lots 37 and 38.

So this little screenshot down here from the bottom is what was requested and build a say.

So they're requesting water service, sewer service, electric service, and building permits.

So they want it all.

So with that information, staff then reviewed this permit or this application under 35430 C 17.

And this exemption states that a commercial or multifamily lot uh is located in the original 36 square miles of the city of San Antonio, and it was established prior to June 14, 1927.

As long as it's in its original configuration, um it can be entitled to um that plied exemption that would allow for multifamily commercial single family uses.

Um a couple things with this one.

It specifies lot.

Again, if you remember this subject property is made up of two lots, it's a parcel made of two lots, so this is specifically for one.

So we wouldn't be able to issue this for two parcels because it has to be on one lot.

And then uh also 35515 A2B, a building built or may not be built over a common property line in any of the following conditions.

And number two is under no conditions, shall a duplex, triplex, fourplex, or any other multifamily dwelling be permitted without rezoning and platting.

So this uh code section 35515 comes into effect when they're requesting new things.

Again, they're requesting new utilities and building permits.

So they need to be in compliance with 35, 515, A2B.

So staff found that they do not meet exemption 17.

So then we reviewed it under 15.

So 15 allows for sewer and water service to existing buildings if the following conditions are met.

Condition A, uh the applicant has to provide evidence that the single family or non-single family development or whatever the use is, um, has had electrical service for more than five years prior to the date of application.

So that's five years from February 6, 2026.

Uh so they have to have provided that.

There was no evidence provided from CPS that states that the meters had been there for existing prior for five years.

So that's kind of flat out there.

Um but they've also submitted an address certification verification on uh January 27th uh for the addresses.

So in generally, CPS will only request this when you're requesting new services.

They're not gonna have you come get an address verification for a meter you've had on your house for 20 years, 10 years, five years.

It has to be new is what they're when they're looking for this address verification.

So automatically they don't meet A.

So and based on their request, they're also requesting building permits.

They're also requesting electric service.

So this would have only granted sewer and water.

And again, 35515 A2B, a building may not be built over a common lot line if they're trying to do a duplex.

Rezoning and plotting will always be required.

So based on those findings, we did uh they did not qualify for this exception.

So with the application, um, it was denied on its uh on its inability to qualify under any of the plotting exemptions and what the applicant is requesting, which was utility connections and building permits.

So staff recommends that you uphold the denial of the uh certificate of determined nation.

Uh I believe we have someone here from CPS if you have questions about that, and the applicant is also here.

Thank you.

Um would you like to address the commission?

I did bring my speech to pass out if that's okay.

That way I'm I'm kind of new to this, so if you'll bear with me a little bit in case something gets missed.

Uh good afternoon.

Thank you for allowing me to present today.

Uh my name's Jamie Little with ADA Consulting Group 221 West Rhapsody Suite 102, San Antonio, Texas 78216.

And I'm here on behalf of the owner of 439 Barrett Place to respectfully request the approval of our appeal regarding the denial of the certificate of determination 26-106-00055.

So just to jump right in, this is this property is an existing occupied duplex built in 1940 on lots 37 and 38 of an antiquated 1913 plat.

The duplex has continuously operated as two independent dwelling units for decades, with one SAWS water meter and two CPS electric meters serving the structure.

Importantly, City Council formally recognized this duplex in 1992 through ordinance 76368, which rezoned the property to R7 with a supplemental use permit specifically for a duplex, despite duplex already being allowed by right in R7 at that time.

The action is clearly acknowledged and legitimized the long-standing duplex use across the two lots.

UDC 35702 would further deem this existing duplex a legal existing building, thus applying UDC plat exception 35, 430 C 15, and 16.

Uh, could staff please bring those up on the the um the common monitor, please?

Uh 3540 C 15 and 16.

Do you have the exceptions by chance?

And 16, please.

I have it here, I have it, I can read it.

Thank you.

So while he puts that up, I'd just like to comment that these two plat exceptions allow for existing buildings to be re repaired regardless of their plat status because of reason 16 and the ability to attain water or sewer service.

Uh and that's through reason 15.

So specifically reason 15, I'm sorry, excuse me, reason 16.

The property qualifies if the request for permits within a lawfully permitted existing buildings footprint includes remodeling, general repair, and maintenance, roofing, ADA accessibility, trade permits, and similar improvements shall not require a subdivision plat.

These exceptions will allow the owner to obtain their necessary repair and trade permit, particularly an electric permit to address a compromise panel, and if desired in the future, pursue a separate water meter.

In the past, we've applied for a COD using 35702, and staff correctly applied the appropriate section of 35430 as they're obligated to do.

But in this case, staff denied the COD by sp based primarily on UDC 35515, which prohibits a building a excuse me, building a duplex across a lot line.

This section applies only to new construction or conversions, not to existing lawful, non-conforming structures.

The duplex at 439 Barrett Place is not being built, converted, or expanded.

It already exists and has operated in this configuration for over 80 years.

Applying modern development standards retroactively is inconsistent with the intent of 35702, which protects long-standing uses like this one.

Staff also declined to apply product section 15 and 16 despite both being directly applicable.

And I can't stress this enough.

Exception 16 is especially critical as it allows repair, maintenance, and trade permits for any existing lawful building, regardless of lot configuration.

Without it, the owner cannot pull a trade permit to repair an unsafe electrical panel.

Our application met all the requirements under 45, I'm sorry, excuse me, 35430 D, and staff's obligation was to determine which exception applied, not to require a separate application fee or or separate uh application and fees.

So in summary, staff erred by applying the incorrect UDC section by not recognizing the property's non-conforming rights, and by declining to issue a COD under exceptions that clearly apply to the long-established duplex.

Since we qualify for these inspection with these exceptions, we respectfully request the planning commission grant this appeal and issue a COD under 35430 C16 and ideally also 15.

So the owner can obtain necessary repair permits and continue lawful use of this historic complex duplex.

Thank you.

Is there any questions?

Thank you.

Nobody is signed up to speak, so letter Commissioner questions.

We will start on the right with Commissioner De Suki.

I wish I have access to all these uh guidelines earlier just to go over them.

But let me ask you this there is an existing duplex on the lot right now.

Correct.

Is it occupied?

I'm not sure.

I believe it is, but I'm not sure.

I believe the the meters have been in existence for over 60 months, so but I'm I'm not sure.

So there is no power already?

Uh no, they have.

So the duplex has two active water meters and one, let's see, I'm sorry, I apologize.

One active water meter meter that serves both the units and two CPS electric meters, one for each unit.

So it has two of the electric, one of the panels behind the meters needs repair.

That one, they've all been in use for over 60 months.

Haven't been used for over.

No, they have been in use.

They have been used.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

So this is an active account.

Correct.

For CPS on SAS.

Yes, one of the electric meters is in need of repair.

I don't, I mean, I believe it's the panel behind the meter, and that one, I believe, has been in disrepair since I don't have the exact date.

I can't remember if it was it hasn't been six months yet.

It's been less than six months.

Okay.

And the request here is to apply for a permit for utilities.

Uh trade permit to fix to fix the non working CPS.

I'm sorry, the um the electric panel behind the meter that needs to be repaired.

That's what the trade permit is was for.

And that's where you requested to get that, so you were not able to get that from the city.

Correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

Question to CPS.

Yes, please.

Like the actual address.

I'm talking about CPS synergy.

Uh I really don't have the address, so I don't know if you need that idea for your later date.

Okay.

Uh so CPS is providing service for this duplex.

Yes, there are two active meters with this address.

Okay.

Uh is CPS in any objection to this?

Uh no, based on the information I have, I don't have any objections.

No objection with this uh for the applicant to pull permit to make the repair.

No, sir.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh no further question.

Before you leave, Mr.

CPS, sorry.

Um we heard that CPS requested an address.

Uh would you repeat that?

So, yeah, so the facts of the case that we have so far is that there is an open address verification stating that CPS requesting address verification for um the lot.

And again, they did not provide any documentation at the time of either of these that they are active meters for the property.

So you know, not to doubt that there may or may not be, but for staff, we when we request this information, CPS provides, it's on letterhead and official this meter and it this meter has been at this address from this date to this date.

And it's a standard letter that we get for anybody who requests this type of exemption.

At this time, we have not gotten that.

So that proof of the 60 months has not been submitted.

Can you address that?

Yeah, if you need some verification, um I mean I don't I don't know what that process is.

I'm with the service and metering department, so I don't deal with that side.

Um I'm sure I can get someone to verify that if we need to.

Um I just know I looked when I look in the system and I look for this address, I see two active meters at the account.

Okay, thank you.

That's it.

And for the applicant.

So there's only one active water meter.

Are are you requesting another one?

Well, we're requesting that the our COD application get approved under 15 as well in case the at some point in time the owner wants to add one if it's permitted.

Are there any other trade permits requested other than to repair that meter?

Not that I am aware of.

Okay.

So for staff again, the requests.

I I I'm guess I'm So the request though the again the request if that was originally submitted.

Jose, can you pull back up?

Sorry, can I jump in here real quick?

So the original application was for uh the new utility requests and building permits.

In practice, you know, a a lot of things either don't need a permit or you can come get a counter permit.

Trade permits are generally not a plat trigger.

It's major building permits, so new construction and additions, or new utility connections.

So when they are requesting services, we're not going to review it under the the exemption that allows for trade permits, interior remodel, because that's not what they're requesting.

So that's what our denial is based on.

Um and we've communicated as well, and I believe she said in her presentation, they can they're welcome to reapply if they feel like there's another exemption that they qualify for.

Um this is not a flat, you can never request this again, but with the information that you provided, and then the following appeal, you know, we're not going to change our denial.

So had you and the applicant talked?

Correct.

So when they when we issued the denial, they had reached out and we had explained it, and then they filed the appeal, and then there was additional information submitted that said, oh, well, we're just going to do a remodel.

And then the communication was, well, then you can resubmit for a new certificate of determination, and we will re-review it with the information that's required.

So I mean, they they still need to provide that what they're doing meets that qualification for the can you pull up uh the UDC or put the screen back up for 16?

Okay.

So on 16, it's remodeling, general repair, maintenance.

So again, they they need to submit the documentation that shows that's what they're gonna do, and we'll re-review it.

And if we feel that it meets that qualification, then we can re then we can issue a certificate of determination for that request.

But again, at the time, this was not what the request was for.

This application requested new utility connections and building permits, which we are assuming is either new construction or addition.

It didn't mention I want to do a remodel of my existing house, I'm gonna fix uh a panel for the electric meter.

And generally with MEPs, they can go pull those over the counter.

It's not something that is a major plat trigger.

It's new utility connections and major building permits.

So is that does that answer it?

I'm sorry.

That more than answers.

Okay, cool.

Thank you.

Commissioner Prophet.

Do you do you want to say anything about that?

Hey, I I think what our issue is is that under 35430 D, our uh application provided everything it was required to provide.

We weren't required to provide anything else.

And really it should be up to staff to determine what exceptions we we apply for or that we qualify for.

So when they tell us that they're gonna deny us on something that's not even applicable to what we're doing, and then make us pay more money to do another application, it's it's a little frustrating.

We've gone back and forth with them on this.

So I I don't know.

So he's showing here that you requested water service, sewer service, electrical service?

Uh from my understanding, the trade permit is to fix the panel, and that would where we would use the exception uh 16, I believe.

And then if later on the owner wants to provide a separate SALS water meter, they could.

So that was what the request was for.

So to be clear, the request is what is shown on your screen.

It was a request for water service, sewer service, electric service, and building permit.

So we are going to review it under what it was submitted for.

We're not going to re assume which possible combination of those things you actually need now, and then have some open-ended revisiting of the discussion sometime down the road based on how plans may change.

So if the request changed between the initial submittal and when the decision was made, that would be a separate application for staff to conduct that review.

So okay.

So this Logan, maybe you can answer this for me.

I mean I've actually had the fun experience of going and getting a uh a counter permit, and folks there really helped me through what I should ask for and what I should request.

How did this request come and and is and is this all it says?

Is this the entirety of the request?

So the the application specifically stated uh their their um it's 35702.

They're saying it's a nonconforming, you know, we qualify as nonconforming, but it's not nonconforming.

It's a it's a per a duplex permitted by zoning.

There is no nonconforming application.

This isn't a nonconforming request.

So I think to summarize, the application when it was submitted included a section of code that they wanted the application reviewed under.

When we found that that was not applicable, we tried to find a solution that would work.

We requested five consecutive years of CPS information.

We were never provided it.

So we were not able to show that the criteria was met in order for that application to be approved under any of the criteria.

And then we ran into the secondary issue of the code specifically addressing that what they're seeking is not permitted in that subsection B.

I am kind of curious that we couldn't find five years of CPS records if it's been continuously occupied.

It is incumbent on the applicant to provide that information to staff.

Understood.

Okay.

Development services department does not have direct access to CPS's information.

I guess I don't have any further questions.

Commissioner Prophet.

I think expressed a lot of the same questions that I had.

I know sometimes you know things can seem very bureaucratic and uh uh burdensome in doing the applications, but but it just seems um the code seems pretty clear, especially you're requesting additional sewer line, right?

So that the request is for new sort new sewer service and electrical service, which under the current UDC permitted exemptions or would not be permitted an exemption under the current UDC.

Is that am I interpreting that correctly, staff?

I am sorry, what was the hypothetically if if the proof of the electrical service was determined, then there wouldn't be a need to seek an exemption, right?

Because they would still need to if they're wanting sewer and water, they would need to reapply and provide that documentation to see if they qualify for that.

I mean, we we have we weren't able to get to the other uh criteria.

We weren't able to review this this exemption completely because we didn't have that proof.

So if they would like to provide that proof and reapply, um they're welcome to, but again, 35, 430, um, or I'm sorry, not 430, it was 35510 B2.

Uh it's a duplex crossing an interior lot line, so it would be denied again for that criteria.

Um now that they are requesting new, they need to be in compliance of with that section.

So I a plat would be required.

So the structure is not being fundamentally changed.

It's been uh arguably duplex since 1940, something like that.

It was built in 1940s and it's been operating that way for 80 years.

With the supplemental so it was zoned correctly.

But the trigger now is the UDC has changed.

Well, the trigger now is new connections.

So when you it's allowed to exist as it is right now, with not we're not going to go out and say, hey, you're a duplex, you need a replat.

They're wanting new utility connections.

They're wanting new things, and so they need to come into compliance with our current development code, correct?

It may have been different in 1992 than it is today.

Correct.

And doing a desk permit perhaps wouldn't have triggered.

So again, the plat triggers are major building permits, so new construction and additions or new utility connections.

So counter permits, interior remodel, under so interior remodel is under 50 percent of the total structures.

So as soon as you break that, it's considered new construction.

But in general, MEP work, you you you I'm not gonna make you plat to have a plumber come out and replumb like a like a water softener.

So you know uh the really the the trigger in this request is the new utility services.

Right.

Okay.

All right.

I have no further questions.

Thank you.

Commissioner?

I I might muddy the waters.

But um I'm just curious.

So the application was for the electrical panel to be repaired.

Is that correct behind the meter?

Correct, yes.

What what part um of this um connects the dots to sewer and water service?

I think the idea was that we could apply for whatever we would qualify for, so that if in the future we would already have this on the books, it would just be something for the owner to have because they technically would qualify for it.

And if I may add, I would just say the uh the repair of a panel was not part of the stated reason for applying.

So it was not in the description.

There they are welcome on the application, they can provide a narrative of what they are requesting.

That was not part of it.

I I guess that's where I'm a little confused.

So they uh they you didn't state number one what you actually wanted, and then they also took it as you want new utility services, meaning water and sewer, but that was more like a future planning like not something that would be existing.

I just would like to point out that under 35430 D, when you apply, those items are not required in in Section D for the certificate of determination is what they are asking for.

Now our office did go back and forth with them with the information they asked for, and they did tell us that six uh exception 16 could be applicable, but they wanted us to resubmit after they denied us for something that's not even applicable to our project.

I I would like to chime in on that in the aspect of after the denial was issued and the appeal was requested, that is when communication via email was established, kind of discussing the case.

I gave them the option, well, if you would like us to review it under a different exception, that was when we were provided information that there was uh a CPS meter, then that okay, well then please submit a new application and we will review it under that exception.

The information that we were given at the beginning of the application was asking for again to reiterate all utility services and building permits.

That was the information that we were given, and that is what staff reviewed it under.

Any time we get a request for a new review to review it under something else, we always request that the applicant submits a new application if we have already made a determination because the staff has already done the work and put in that time and effort into that initial application.

I just I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but there are 17 different plat exceptions, each of which require individualized criteria to qualify for that exception.

You know, we try to make these plant exceptions accessible.

They are a nominal 200 fee.

You know, it is not a fee that covers the the work of staff to go through iteration on iteration on iteration of well, I want everything, now I only want two of the four things or three of the four things.

So yeah, we are going to conduct the review, and when we conducted that review based upon what was submitted, which is displayed on your screen now, it didn't qualify.

And we issued the denial, and then when additional communication took place, we advised that there may well be a path forward under a different exception.

It would require that they provide different information and a new application for us to conduct that review.

But we do not have a plat exception for what they submitted this application for no further questions.

Commissioner Garcia.

So I understand you had brought up the cost.

Is it um is it more of an issue where we don't the owner or or your team does not want to resubmit, you don't want to go through all that again.

Um is there is does that does that make sense if they go through that process and if they revise that scope, what are their chances?

So they So I I'm not going to advise on chances in the middle of a public meeting, but certainly, you know, CODs are you know, it it's kind of like a plat.

If they meet the criteria, it gets approved.

It's not, it's not a, you know, a recommendation.

So if they meet the criteria for any one of those 17 exceptions, they will get a plat exception.

We issue hundreds of plat exceptions every year.

Has that been ex I mean it it sounds simple?

I mean, maybe it maybe it isn't, but it sounds is that is that something that can be done with it.

I think part of the problem is is there was a bunch of communication right after the denial where they kept going on about a reason that wasn't applicable to our project.

And when it brought up that we could use exception 16 and that they would most likely approve it, they wanted us to reapply, which doesn't seem appropriate because that's not what 430D says that we should, that we it should be our burden.

It's staff's burden to do.

And I like I pointed out, they've actually done that before.

We have projects where we've applied for something and then they told us no, this is what we're going to give you your um approval on, which was not what the application initially said.

I would just reiterate that it is incumbent on the applicant to provide the material that is required.

Staff will try to assist.

If we have ready access to material that is in a cello, we will access it.

We don't have access to CPS's information.

And to be honest, I don't think it was strictly monetary because a new application is 200 dollars and the appeal fee is 350.

No more questions.

Commissioner Lopez.

Commissioner Bustamante.

Uh I was hoping Lopez would be the lawyer.

Um not that I am acting as a lawyer in this capacity today.

That is the City Attorney's job.

But you know, from that experience, you know, what it the nub is, and this will be to the City Attorney's offices, is what is the record before us today?

The right the record before us today is in terms of the planning commission's decision?

Correct.

Is whether or not the staff has adequately reviewed this application and whether or not they have made an error in the determination of a denial.

Okay.

They're appealing that denial.

And based on the application that was submitted at the time.

Not that was attempted to be changed after the fact or as as conversations change, but how it was recorded at that time.

Okay.

So once the determination was issued, no further information should be considered by this panel today, correct?

Correct.

All right.

And I think that's the primary issue procedurally for me.

This is a procedural problem in my mind.

So no further questions.

So to me, there is a lot of moving parts here, but I think it boils down pretty simply.

You know, the application that was submitted was for various things, none of which was the real reason that you the real thing that you needed to do, which was the repair of the electrical meter.

In my mind, if you would have requested the repair for the electrical meter based on what I know about the UDC.

And that's all you needed, I think that you probably could have gotten an approved certificate termination.

Again, I'm not going to put words in staff's mouth, but that's what maybe I would understand.

The rest of it polluted the waters with the sewers, with the utility services and whatever else there was, I don't remember what it was.

But again, going through the sections of the code that are applicable here, those are the things that muddied the waters which precipitated the denial of the request.

You know, can can read the thing and says that if you're going for an MEP permit, which essentially repairing your electrical meter is, I don't think anyone has a problem with that.

I don't think anyone has a problem with that.

It's the other, it's the it's the new services or the requests for services from SAWS and other utility purveyors that can really complicate the waters because you've already got services, so then do you end up with multiple services on a lot, or how does that work?

And then it triggers the review about the duplex and over the common lot line.

Well, over the lot line.

So to me, the solution is pretty simple.

Either uh submit a new application for the electric service only and see if you can get it based on that.

That's my opinion on what they've done.

So correct me, staff if I've said anything wrong, but I don't believe so, no.

Okay.

Any other questions from the commission?

No entertain a motion.

I just I'm a little disappointed it got here.

It seems like this is something that could have been taken care of previously between staff and the applicant.

Just gonna put that comment out there.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

All right.

Um I'll move to up hold the denial by staff.

We have a motion by Commissioner Profit to uphold staff's denial of the uh applicant's request.

Second.

And a second by Commissioner Bustamante.

Yeah, staff, please take a roll call vote.

Commissioner Profit?

Yes.

Commissioner Buschamantiu?

Aye.

Commissioner Sanchez.

Yes.

Commissioner Garcia.

Commissioner DeSucci?

Yes.

Commissioner Lopez.

Commissioner Ulett?

Yes.

Commissioner Mylam?

Yes.

Chair Peck?

Yes.

Motion passes for upholding the denial.

Great.

Thank you.

Is there a director's report today?

Maybe an update on planning commission application or interviews or whatever.

Was Orion going to return?

Do what?

Orion?

He accused himself?

Oh, he can come back.

Oh, he left.

Okay.

So for the record, Commissioner Orion left the meeting permanently whenever it was that he exited the meeting.

205.

I do not have an update for you at this time.

Great.

Thank you.

Any other director's report?

Well, just uh confirmation for um for the the city council determination, the the planning commission interviews will be held next Thursday at City Council, next Thursday at the A session at 9 a.m.

Everybody that's already going in for interviews has already been communicated with.

And they've they've requested questionnaires or responses to their questionnaires.

So it's not going to governance committee?

That's correct.

They're doing it, they're changing it this year.

It's going directly to City Council in front of the A session, and all the interviews will be held there.

You said everybody's been contacted about the interviews?

Correct.

I haven't been contacted.

Okay.

I'll I'll speak with you after the meeting.

Just to add to the record, Commissioner Orion re-entered the room at 243.

Thank you.

All right.

And that meeting is when is that plant commission?

Yeah, that's next Thursday.

It's April 2nd.

Is that the big city council meeting?

Yeah.

Right.

So the the council members and the mayor will be there to ask questions of the potential applicants.

There were 30 some odd applicants that were whittled down to 13, and those 13 will be there in front of the city council to answer their questions.

I expect a long meeting.

Okie dokie.

Thank you very much.

Anything else?

Great.

It is 244 and we're adjourned.