All right, good evening everyone.

My name is Carlos Rosario, and I'm the chair of the Planning Commission.

Welcome to the Planning Commission meeting.

Please remember to turn off your cell phones.

The parking validation machine for the garage under City Hall is located at the rear of the chambers.

Following roll call during the summary of hearing procedures, we will review how the public may provide comment during today's session.

At this time, if you're able, please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Thank you.

We will now move on to roll call.

Is not here.

Commissioner Bandal.

Here.

Commissioner Cantrell.

Here.

I'm sorry.

Commissioner Barroso.

Here.

Commissioner Casey.

Here.

Commissioner Nguyen.

Here.

Commissioner Oliverio is not here.

Commissioner Young.

Here.

That is seven in attendance.

So we have a quorum.

So now we will move on to the special meeting and study session, or should we do the summary of proceedings first?

Let's do the summary of proceedings first.

Okay, summary of proceedings.

If you want to address the commission, please fill out a speaker card located on the table near the audio visual technician and deposit the completed card in the basket.

There are also speaker cards in the back of the chambers and at the side entrance.

The procedure for this meeting is as follows.

After staff's presentation, applicants and or appellants may make up to a five minute presentation.

During the public comment period, the chair will call out the names of submitted speaker cards and the order received for those members of the public who attend in person.

As your name is called, line up in front of the microphone at the front of the chamber.

Generally, each speaker will be given up to two minutes for public testimony, and speakers using a translator will have up to four minutes.

At the discretion of the chair, the time allotted for each speaker may be changed depending on the number of items on the agenda, number of speakers, and other factors.

Speakers using a translator will have double the time allotted.

After public testimony, the applicant and or appellant may make closing remarks for an additional five minutes.

Response to the commissioner questions will not reduce the speaker's time allowance.

The planning commission's actions on rezonings, pre-zonings, general plan amendments, and code amendments is only advisory to the city council.

The city council will hold public hearings on these items.

Section 212400 of the municipal code provides the procedures for legal protests to the city council on rezonings and pre-zonings.

Agendas and all staff reports for this meeting may be accessed on the city website.

Before we begin, I want to remind the planning commission members and the members of the public to follow our code of conduct and meetings.

This includes commenting on the specific agenda item only and addressing the full body.

Public speakers will not engage in conversation with the commissioners or staff.

All members of the planning commission, staff, and the public are expected to refrain from abusive language.

Repeated failure to comply with the code of conduct, which will disturb, disrupt, or impede the orderly conduct of this meeting, may result in removal from the meeting.

So, Chair, there's a request from staff to um defer the special meeting study session until after the public hearing so that in the in respect to those members of the public who've come out so they wouldn't have to sit through our study session about resolutions that we might put that at the end of the meeting.

I think that's an excellent idea.

Okay.

Do not have to waste the members of the public's time.

So we can start with item two then.

Okay.

Okay.

Does that require a motion?

It doesn't.

Okay.

Moving on to public comment.

This time is for public this time for public comment to the next we have recognition of Anthony Tordillos' service to the City of San Jose Planning Commission.

So I have a certificate here to give former planning commissioner Anthony Tordillos.

Be it resolved by the planning department of the City of San Jose, whereas Mr.

Anthony Tordillos has served as a member of the planning commission from March 29, 2023 until August 11, 2025, as chairperson from July 10th, 2024 until June 25th, 2025.

And whereas Mr.

Anthony Tordillos, Planning Commissioner of the City of San Jose, has given him of himself with devotion, honor, dignity, and integrity.

And whereas Mr.

Anthony Tordillos has served with an interest in land use, planning, and an understanding and respect for all citizens of San Jose of diverse opinions and backgrounds.

And whereas Mr.

Anthony Tordillos will be remembered as a hardworking and sincere member of the Planning Commission of the City of San Jose.

Now, therefore, the Department of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement recognizes the commitment and contribution that has been made on behalf of the San Jose community and the City of San Jose Planning Commission unanimously approves this resolution of commendation.

Let's head down for a photo.

That's for agenda item three, right?

Should this go to public comment or just to agenda?

Because you've already done the summary visit procedures.

This is just for things that are not on the agenda.

So this is for item number three.

So after just read the public comment.

Okay.

All right, moving on to public comment.

This is the time for public comment of the planning commission on non-agendized items.

Please fill out a speaker's card and give it to the technician.

Each member of the public may address the commission for up to two minutes.

The commission cannot take any formal action without the item being properly noticed and placed on an agenda.

In response to public comment, the planning commission is limited to the following options.

Responding to statements made or questions posed by members of the public or requesting to staff to report back on a matter at a subsequent meeting, or directing staff to place the item on a future agenda.

Staff, do we have any speakers?

It looks like we have a few.

All right, I have a stack of cards in front of me, and I'll start with here.

If you haven't filled out a speaker card and would like to provide comment, uh please come down to the front and center of the chamber once I'm done with the cards.

First card, uh Juan Estrada.

Hi, my name is Juan Estrada, and I am here as a member of the public.

Um I'm actually here to speak on another matter, but realize it's a great opportunity to address this one because it is not on the agenda, but it's very related, and that is that I am here to provide public comment because I have the privilege of being able to come here.

I drive a vehicle.

I'm not working right now, already got off work.

So I'm able to come here and speak and give you the input that you need to make better decisions.

Not better, but uh more informed decisions.

And uh so I want to let you know that uh the current ban on providing comment virtually uh disenfranchises many in our community, myself included, when it's uh not convenient.

And so I want to let you know that ending the process of remote participation, which the city did in which you could probably choose to allow for your commission uh denies a large segment of the community the opportunity to participate in our democratic process.

Some examples include disabled residents who rely on technology to speak, or who otherwise have to arrange rights with paratransit, immunocompromise residents who take on unnecessary risks to their health by spending hours in a packed room, working people without the ability to arrange their schedules around hours long council meetings, parents with small children who can't take time off to attend city meetings, and so I just want to reinforce that if there is an interest in hearing from the community, hearing from the public, um you could choose to pursue allowing comments virtually for your commission.

Thank you.

I think Commissioner Oliverio did it.

Yeah, uh for the attorney.

I believe it's the council and the city clerk that set this policy and not the commissions.

Is that correct?

Might even be the city manager.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah.

All right, seeing no more public comment.

Moving on to deferrals and removals from calendar.

Any items scheduled for hearing this evening for which deferral is being requested, will be taken out of order to be heard first on the matter of deferral or removal.

Staff will provide an update on the items for which deferral and removal is being requested.

If you want to change any of the deferral dates recommended or speak to the question of deferring or removing any of these other items, you should say so at this time.

Staff, do we have any other items to defer today?

Um, Chair, this is Deputy Director of Planning Maniras and no items for deferment.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

All right, we will now move on to the consent calendar.

Uh there will be no separate discussion of individual consent calendar items as they are considered to be routine and will be adopted by one motion.

If a member of the commission requests a debate, separate vote or recusal on a particular item.

That item will be removed by the from the consent calendar by the chair and considered separately.

The public may comment on the entire consent calendar and any items removed from the consent calendar by the chair.

Staff will provide an update on the consent calendar.

If you wish to speak on one of these items individually, please come to the podium at this time.

On the consent calendar tonight, we have two items.

Review and approve the action minutes from July 9th, 2025.

And CP25-008 and ER 25-068 administrative hearing is a conditional use permit to allow 24-hour late-night use of a new 12,824 square foot fitness center within an existing building on approximately 2.7 gross acre site located on the east side of Monterey Road, approximately 235 feet southeast of Alma Avenue.

Motion to approve the consent calendar.

We have a motion.

Second.

A second by Commissioner Bandal.

Um there's no further discussion.

We'll go to a roll call vote.

All right.

Let's see.

Vice Chair Bickford is not here.

Commissioner Barroso.

Yes.

Commissioner Bandal?

Yes.

Commissioner Cantrell?

Yes.

Commissioner Casey?

Yes.

Commissioner Nguyen.

Yes.

Commissioner Oliverio?

Yes.

Commissioner Young?

Yes.

And myself is yes.

Making that eight with one absent.

And the motion passes.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay, so now we have no items on the agenda for tonight's public hearing, so we'll move on unless there's anything else to do.

No, open the uh general planning.

All right, opening the general plan public hearing.

Uh we have no items on the agenda tonight for the general plan consent calendar, so we'll move on to the general plan public hearing.

Tonight we have one item on the agenda for tonight for the general plan public hearing, and that is GPT 25-002, a city initiated general plan text amendment to modify policy IP-2.11 of the envisioned San Jose 2040 general plan.

Good evening, planning commissioners.

Uh Ruth Gueto, principal planner with the citywide team.

Um we are here to discuss uh general plan text amendments related to the composition of the task force for the four-year review.

Uh bit of background.

On June 3rd, 2025, City Council approved the scope of work for the third general plan four-year review.

As part of that staff report, uh staff proposed a new approach to the task force composition that would achieve the council's direction to streamline the four-year review process provided through the adoption of the March budget message and also would align with the limited scope of the current um effort.

The approach is to designate the planning commission as the task force for the upcoming four-year review, an action that would require a general plan text amendment to policy IP 2.11 as well as major strategy 12 and IP-2.5.

Policy IP-2.11 requires the City Council to convene the Nvision San Jose 2040 task force during each four-year review.

Staff proposes to amend the policy by removing reference to quote, reconvene the envisioned San Jose 2040 task force, quote, and instead allow for the convening of an advisory group such as the planning commission.

This language does not preclude the council from convening a group made up of the original task force members in the future.

Staff is also proposing amendments to other policies and sections in the general plan that reference the envision 2040 task force as they relate to four-year reviews, and those amendments are listed in exhibit A of your of the staff report.

However, since the time of the posting of the staff report, we have received comments from members of the public that the recommended changes to this policy imply the planning commission will become the default task force and would remove the opportunity to reconvene the original task force in the future.

Staff would like to clarify that that is not the intent of these changes.

We are trying to insert flexibility and choice in the convening of a group.

To that end, we suggest amending language IP dash IP dash 2.11.

Okay.

As follows.

Adding a task force shown here highlighted in yellow, in addition to the advisory group.

We think this clarifies that one or the other can be convened in the future.

Although not part of the general plan text amendment, we thought we would use this opportunity to describe staff's outreach strategy for this four-year review.

While we did receive support from council on this new convening process, council also asked for comprehensive public outreach pro a comprehensive public outreach program to be led by the Office of Racial and Social Equity and the Planning Department.

The outreach strategy you see in the staff report was coordinated with our partners in the Office of Racial and Social Equity.

They provided edits and feedback on the approach to the outreach and will continue to partner with us as we roll out this effort.

Some of the methods we will employ include a project website, digital surveys, and social media outreach.

We'll also conduct four in-person open house events based on specific topics and have at least one either virtual or in-person focus group meeting with a community partners identified in the city council memorandum and in the um outreach strategy.

We will communicate in multiple languages and provide interpretation services at our meetings.

A few other strategies include having flexible meeting times, so evenings and or weekends, having activities for children at the open houses, as well as partnering with trusted community organizations to either co-host an event or help us in getting the word out and bringing people to the event.

And with that, this is the staff recommendation in the staff report.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, staff.

This time we'll do public comment.

Each speaker will have two minutes.

We will start with Juan Estrada.

Followed by Alex Shore and Manuel.

Dear Planning Commission, my name is Juan Estrada.

I am a member of the not yet reconvened envisioned San Jose 2024 General Plan for Review Task Force, but I am not here as a representative of that task force.

I'm here as a community volunteer fulfilling my responsibility as a resident of San Jose by providing public comment.

Regarding the proposal to replace the broad-based cross-sector envisioned San Jose 2024 General Plan Four-year Review Task Force with the smaller, less representative but very capable planning commission.

Um it's true that when you request input from the community, opinions will vary.

I can understand how someone might consider that unwieldy or a problem for them.

It can be challenging to get what you want when you let diverse opinions uh enter the conversation.

Any use of the planning commission or any other group to serve in an advisory capacity instead of the task force for the third four-year review, should be a one-time change.

I appreciated the shift in language that staff just indicated.

I do notice the comma needs to be moved a few steps forward to make it clear that it's one or the other, and yet it still allows for the possibility that I don't know who would choose, perhaps it's staff could every year choose to take one or the other.

Um I therefore ask you, along with about 30 members of the public and perhaps some others who have written letters to amend policy IP 2.11 by adding the following new sentence after the existing paragraph.

The envisioned San Jose 2040 task force can choose to delegate its role for an individual four-year review to an advisory group such as the Planning Commission.

We also ask that you reconvene the task force to review the current staff recommendation so that it may also make a recommendation regarding it in my outreach to fellow task force members.

I've learned that it's possible none of us have been notified about this proposed change.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Alex Shore with Catalyze Silicon Valley.

Want to talk about two topics on this.

One is about process and the other about outcomes and outcomes, whether it's the general plan task force or the planning commission that reviews this.

We think we need a general plan that is more pro-housing, and so we want to continue to keep our eye on the ball when it comes to the outcomes.

When it comes to the process, we want to thank staff for implementing through this plan community engagement principles that are best practices, including as Ruth talked about, allowing children's activities to be on site during community meetings to make meetings more inclusive for folks.

So praise to staff for tactics like that.

We do want to mention to the commission in case you're not aware, as the Silicon Valley Council of Nonprofits pointed out, the City of San Jose now has a bench of nonprofits, 22 of them that can provide community engagement services to the City of San Jose to assist with any and all topics, including planning.

Catalyze SV happens to be on the bench.

It's an incredibly wonderful diverse bench of organizations, and we hope that staff will use that bench to reach the community through this process.

We also know that as SVN talks about, having more folks with lived experience and folks who are underrepresented in the decision making process is incredibly important.

And so we would encourage staff, whether it be through uh the general plan task force or their own outreach activities outlined in this plan to focus on those communities that are traditionally left out of the process because the task force tends to be more grass tops and elites than it has happens to be folks who are really really deeply affected by issues like homelessness and affordable housing.

So we encourage you to think about the bench and think about underrepresented folks when you're going through this outreach plan, and as always catalyzes fees is here to help if we can.

Thanks.

Hi.

Uh good evening, Chair Rosario and San Jose Planning Commissioners.

My name is Lenor Salazar, and I'm here on behalf of SV at home to share support for the proposed amendments to policy IP 2.11 for this year's four-year review.

We want to be clear that our support for assigning the planning commission as the advisory body is for this review only, as a one-time change that reflects the unique scope and timeline of the cycle.

As you all know, the general plan of San Jose's roadmap for how we grow, shaping decisions about housing, jobs, transportation, and the environment.

Every four years, the city takes a step to uh back to assess the progress and make course corrections.

And in the past, this work has been guided by a large 40 plus member task force.

Uh that approach is valuable, uh specifically for widening range uh for getting a wide range of uh views, um, but it can also be really resource uh intensive.

Uh the cycle is narrower in scope.

You know, it's gonna be focused on increasing residential capacity, which is wonderful, uh, and has a shorter timeline the cities as the city prepares for the next housing element cycle.

So, given that, uh, we agree that having the planning commission serve as the advisory body makes sense.

Commissioners bring deep expertise, represent every district, and can hold open public study sessions that keep the process transparent and accessible.

Uh as Alex kind of pointed out though, uh, we do want to stress that the community engagement must be robust and targeted, uh, specifically to ensure full uh participation, especially from historically marginalized communities whose perspectives are critical to shaping the city's future.

So thank you for your time.

All right, with that, we'll turn it over to the commission.

Commissioner Young.

Yes, thank you, Chair.

Um first of all, I'd like to thank the staff for clarifying the um the intent of the um change, which is it would just be for this uh cycle only.

Um I'm very honored that uh city staff and the planning director and the council uh consider us and give us an opportunity and a and a great responsibility to review the to review the general plan.

Um I wanted to assure the folks here and the folks that wrote that um uh we uh represent a very diverse interest group here.

If any of you have attended our meetings, you will hear very vigorous discussions on many different topics.

So I want to allay a concern that this is going to be like a rubber stamp process.

It won't be.

I'm certain that we'll have many vigorous discussions uh as we do, and just want to assure the members of the public that we will listen to the input.

I'm looking forward very much to hearing the input uh from our residents, and I know the other commissioners are as well.

And the final thing I wanted to say, and I wanted to thank Mr.

Estrada for uh bringing this up is um the ability for folks to uh give input virtually.

Umyself and other commissioners uh over the past year or two have um raised this issue.

We very much I'll speak for myself.

I very much want to restore virtual uh input from the public.

Um I understand that there are security issues with that.

Um I know that the city clerk and the city manager have been working through that, but I this process would be a wonderful opportunity to re-implement uh virtual input from the public because as you mentioned, Mr.

Stra, there's lots of folks that can't come here in person.

Absolutely.

Um so um I would just urge once again our uh deputy planning director to um put input through whatever means you can to either the city manager or the council that um at least speaking for myself and I I think I speak for many of the commissioners, we would like to have virtual input to our meetings.

I think it's very important.

So thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Young.

Commissioner Cantrell.

Hey, okay, great.

Um, actually, I I want to say thank you to the staff to actually make those quick changes reflecting the concerns of the community, really really indicates the spirit of of this work and what we're trying to do here.

So I think that's that should really make everyone feel a little bit more comfortable.

I do have a couple of questions for staff.

One I think we have to be honest, our outreach has not been very inclusive of African ancestry organizations or communities in the past.

And I I think at this point we have to double down and agree that that will for certain happen in this review process.

And there are two things I'd like to make sure we do to ensure that.

One is that at least one African ancestry serving organization from the list be included as a partner and a vendor to help support the process of recruitment.

And two, that that or those organizations be fairly compensated for that work as well.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Um so the process to um bring on a community organization to help us with outreach as a consultant.

Um we typically do put out like a mini RFP to several groups, but we will be sure to include any group that you have mentioned of African ancestry so that they can also respond.

It's possible that some organizations may not have the capacity to help us at the time when that when that mini RFP goes out, but I don't believe we can make a commitment right now that we will select such an organization.

I think we have to wait until we put that out there and evaluate responses.

Don't we currently already have a list of organizations that are already approved?

We do have a list of approved organizations, and that's why it's a mini RFP.

So we just pull a list of you know whoever you know we think may be interested or want to do that.

Sometimes it's three or five, depending on the topic.

We email them this is our scope, this is our budget, and then wait for them to respond.

And depending on their response, we can say, you know, okay, we'll go with that group or another group.

Okay, and they receive notice of this our mini RFP.

Yes, there should be a contact with with each organization, and we would email them again and give them a time frame to respond to us.

So we can make sure to include a group of that that you outlined African American ancestry.

Okay, and this will be public, so I could see the notice myself as well.

Uh it's usually done just through email.

We don't have like an online um uh website or host to do that, but we can reach out to you once we do and just let you know we've done that.

That would be great.

I firmly believe in believing but verifying, so I'd I'd love to get notes.

Thank you.

We can do that.

Commissioner Casey.

Uh thanks.

I had a few questions for staff as well.

Um I wanted to clarify in your presentation.

Um the presentation of the city council mentioned um that there'd be about six study sessions with the public.

Uh in the current proposal that you have, you talk about four open houses with the public and then one meeting with community leaders meant is that meant to meet that goal of the six public meetings?

No, those are separate.

Okay.

I didn't see the six public meetings called out in in your um memo proposal.

Um yeah.

I think we were thinking outside of the study session, everything else we would do, and that's what we put in there.

But to clarify, we still plan to hold at least six study sessions with the commissioners, in addition to everything you see in that document.

The six public meetings with the commissioners and the general public.

Okay, because a lot of the letters coming in don't necessarily seem to I think people focused on the one sentence change and not that there'll still be the outreach to many of the organizations that'll have the say it's it's not 11 people locked in a room making the decisions without the public.

So I think clarification um may help on that piece.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah.

Uh and then the proposed scope of work that was approved by the city council.

Um, just for everyone's clarification, does that mean any other topics and or items proposed by the public, including um by the task force or the general public, they're not open for consideration.

So is it that's this the step the set agenda, or can other items be included?

Because again, many of the letters kind of touch on reopening the entire envision 2040 plan, and I don't think that's anyone's intention, but I don't know where the line is between reopening the entire plan or doing just what the city council approved in the previous council meeting.

Yes, it's gonna be just what the city council approved.

We won't be able to take on any more tasks.

Again, because we have such a limited time, but it's it's what the council approved.

Okay, that's helpful.

And I think that's some of the letters that I read as well.

I think uh again, just the the communication out to the general public.

I think will be um well, obviously, this is the first step in that, but I think that'll be important for people to understand.

Um, and then I guess uh touching on what Commissioner Young said as well the the composition of the planning commission.

Um, some certainly uh insinuated that we're in the pockets of developers and special interests and things like that.

I I can assure you uh there's one representative per district and and then one at large on the planning commission.

That that's who we're beholden to, our district and obviously to the general city, um uh not um to any other lobbyists and things like that.

So I want to assure them that we have the best interest in mind for for the city and for our districts as well.

Um and there was also comments uh in the letters referring to uh the council, the planning commission being appointed by the city council for clarification.

I understand the task force was also appointed by the city council as well.

Is that correct?

I do not know how the original task force was appointed.

Maybe the former council member can, but these last two times for the general plan four-year review, the mayor at the time issued um a memorandum, an informational memorandum, and outlined the organization and the person.

And it it was all the original organizations, it's just that sometimes people left and went to another org, but it was I think it was always based on their affiliation.

Okay, but in general, we were both kind of assigned to our roles through the same general process.

Okay, thank you.

Uh, and then it definitely want to address that groups aren't left behind.

I mean, my understanding and reading through the different uh materials, this public outreach is still there, the public comment is still there, the different groups, whether they be developers or nonprofits or religious organizations, etc.

Notwithstanding um the Commissioner Cantrell's request as well, they'll all have the same um ability for input into any modifications that they would have if the task force led it versus the planning commission.

Is that correct?

Yes.

Um I I think we talk a little bit about this in the staff report that there's still the the process of transparency, these are going to be public meetings.

We have our website, um access to staff, myself and the rest of the team, as much as we can, right?

Again, that's a capacity issue, but um, you know, we are here as public servants, and whatever we can do to help you know give that information out or communicate or engage with people, that's that's our job here.

Okay, no, and then just for clarification, I I don't know everything, so it's important that I get that valuable input from the different perspectives and things like that.

So I want to make sure that that um process is still there to help me make an informed decision.

So okay, thank you.

Those are all my questions, Commissioner Oliverio.

Thank you, Chair.

I'd just like to make a motion to approve the staff recommendation with the uh edits modified by uh Ruth for the commission to vote on, so that's motion to approve the staff recommendation.

Second and I further along wanted to say that uh having been a part of the actual general plan task force as a council member serving for five years, we had 40 plus members on a meeting, which would go very long and oftentimes multiple people saying the same thing over and over again.

Um so having a uh geographic representation of every district, uh, I think is a good good mix, and I would warrant and I'd actually probably say it might be more comprising of the city as a whole.

Um, I think oftentimes general plan task force in any city are typically political insiders and interest groups that are appointed, and I think with a commission, uh, granted it's appointed by the council, but there's a different vetting that goes on for a planning commission, and as many of my colleagues said, there'll be plenty of participation opportunities, whether it's the official meeting or the workshops, plenty of public comment to be made.

When I think about the our task force meetings, oftentimes what we would talk about would be some uh document prepared outside of the planning commission that would be presented.

Uh so there's so many opportunities for people to provide their feedback, and I think it behooves each of all of us representing these districts to let the word get out because even if you have public meetings for any government entity, you know, the majority of people don't pay attention, right?

So people don't know there's a general plan task force until you have a general plan parcel that's on the agenda.

Uh and so um any rate, so I think uh it'll be we'll look forward to having a good time and uh getting the work done and taking those topics really seriously and appreciate the staff and all my colleagues and look forward to the work.

All right.

With that, we have a motion from Commissioner Alavario to recommend to City Council to adopt the resolution and a second from Commissioner Bandal.

Uh we may now go to a roll call vote.

Commissioner Vic Bickford is absent.

Commissioner Barossio.

Yes.

Commissioner Bandal.

Yes.

Commissioner Cantrell?

Yes.

Commissioner Casey.

Yes.

Commissioner Nguyen?

Yes.

Commissioner Oliverio.

Yes.

Commissioner Young.

Yes.

And myself a yes.

That would be eight yeses and no uh no, so the motion does pass.

And that concludes the agenda here.

All right.

Moving on to referrals from city council boards, commission.

Close the general plan calendar cycle two.

Just go close.

With that, we will close the general plan calendar 2025 cycle two.

Okay.

Referrals.

Uh from city council boards, commissions, or other agencies.

Staff, do we have any referrals?

No referrals.

Thank you.

Thank you.

On to good and welfare.

Do we have a report from City Council?

Um, I think that could cover 12A and 12C.

So we will have a joint study session with the City Council that is uh being considered for September 18th.

Uh and that'll provide a general plan and land use overview uh for that joint study session.

All right.

And then anything on subcommittee formation, reports, outstanding business, or commission calendar and study sessions, which you sort of just spoke on.

I believe our next meeting is going to have two business items as well.

So we will be meeting in the second meeting of August.

Okay.

In that case, we will open the floor for any comments to the public record.

If not, then this meeting is adjourned.

We have the special meeting now, right?

And then we have two convenes where you use special meetings.

Okay, then we will now convene the special meeting study session.

All right.

Just uh hand it over to staff to start the special meeting.

Staff, would you like to start?

Yes, thank you.

So we have um proposed changes to the resolution and staff report format uh for development review projects that come before the planning commission.

And our planning supervisor, Laura Miners, uh, will make a brief presentation.

Thank you.

Hello, thank you.

I'm gonna share my screen.

Okay.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, and Planning Commissioners.

My name is Laura Miners, planning supervisor on the development review team.

Um, this is an informational study session to introduce and discuss structural and formatting changes to future resolutions and staff reports.

Based on requests from staff and city officials, there are a few issues with the current formatting, including the resolutions and staff reports are repetitive and contain redundancies.

The staff report should focus more on critical information.

The length of the hearing documents is too long, and the format of the documents does not align with the formatting of similar permits in other jurisdictions.

Specifically, as you can see on this slide, the current formatting has the consistency analysis in the beginning of the document and the findings after the analysis.

The findings currently reference back to the analysis to support consistency, which makes the documents repetitive.

Additionally, the contents of the staff report and resolution are basically identical, which makes the documents redundant.

One of the changes proposed to the structure and formatting of the staff report is to eliminate the repetitiveness and redundancy from the document by focusing on summarizing critical information to the project for city officials and members of the public to be able to understand the issues more clearly.

Detailed analysis will remain within the resolution document and can be referenced as necessary.

Hearing documents are usually extensive in length because of our current templates and formatting.

It is not uncommon to be presented with a 20 to 30 page staff report and another 20 to 30 page resolution with each project, which is arduous for staff to write and arduous for city officials and members of the public to read.

With this change, we want to bring the documents more into conformance with the length of similar permits from other jurisdictions, while at the same time highlighting and summarizing the critical information.

This slide is a summary of the actual changes that we are proposing.

For the resolution, the first few pages with the whereas statements, the project description, and the descrip the excuse me, the description of the site and surrounding uses will remain the same.

However, instead of going into the consistency analysis, the document will go directly into each finding.

For example, finding number one requires consistency with the general plan.

Finding number two requires consistency with the zoning ordinance and municipal code, et cetera.

Other findings require consistency with other city policies.

The new resolution will provide the consistency analysis directly under each finding.

The staff report will be a simpler document with a general overview of the project, a condensed summary of the findings, a summary of any public comments received, whether in support or opposition, and a discussion of the issues and exemptions specific to the project, such as if the project is subject to the density bonus, if the project is requesting any incentives, waivers, or design guidelines, exceptions, or any other project-specific issues.

Once again, the goal of these changes to the resolution and staff report is to make critical information more accessible and understandable to city officials and members of the public, to remove repetitiveness and redundancies, and to shorten the staff report into a more digestible length.

Several other alternatives were evaluated, but upon coordination with the city attorney's office and upper management within the planning division, the changes presented to you today have been determined to meet these stated goals.

We would like to begin the implementation of these changes for the hearing on October 8th.

This concludes staff's presentation.

We are happy to open up the item for discussion.

Commissioner Alabario.

Thank you, Chair.

Yeah, anything to make it easier for the public, easier for the elected planning commissioners, et cetera.

I think no need to repeat it.

I one would add one thing as a just a comment to consider.

I know that we often get proposals that come to the commission and the city council where the applicant will say, hey, this is going to produce X amount of revenue and fees for the city, which is a reason why you should vote for this, but it's never validated.

I don't know if the numbers are correct.

And I always felt it would be a good idea for the city to proactively estimate the park fees or estimate the crimp fees, the property tax, whatever, since at least there's one truth source of truth being the city versus applicant A and B who say two different things for the same proposal, but inherently I don't have any way to validate that.

Does that make sense to the planning?

To the chair, uh that is correct, and I believe we do have a policy that in certain instances requires like a fiscal impact analysis to vet those numbers and identify what the issues are, but that's only in certain circumstances.

Got it.

I think a majority of the projects from a planning and land use perspective, as long as it meets all of the requirements.

Um, the revenue generation piece does not factor into that land use decision unless there is uh, you know, their community benefits that are proposed to go with that project or there are significant concerns that require that they be offset with those community benefits.

Understood, but that still leaves us as the same situation.

Applicant walks up and says, look at all these things it's gonna do.

I don't know if that's true, versus I think it would be good if it was the city that made those findings and that those findings were factual, and we made our decisions with that.

That's all my input.

I've just wanted to share that as something since we're considering uh making these changes.

Thank you.

All right, Commissioner Young.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, I I would just like to thank the uh planning staff and the city attorney's office for the work they've done in this.

I think this is wonderful.

Um, you know, as as a commissioner, I've been reviewing staff reports for a few years now, and um they're they're very they're very weighty, and and there, and there is a lot of duplication.

And so I think the ability for us to be able to more quickly um identify the key issues uh will be really helpful.

And um I just really appreciate the work that was done on this.

I think it's um I I I read over the um example uh staff report and resolution.

I think it's great.

So thank you.

Um other comments from commissioners.

Are we voted by this?

No vote.

No vote.

There's no action on that.

Study session.

Since there's no action, I I'll just say this.

Anything you can do to make it easier for anyone to look at this and process it is absolutely welcome for certain for us for the community, for the developers uh is well.

It's it's fantastic.

I I I think getting these very weighty things down.

I I think I often find because it's so hard to track errors and conflicts within that duplicity within the document.

And and this will help to resolve those things.

So that always creates questions for me.

So thank you.

If you're making my job easier, I appreciate it.

Commissioner.

Uh Commissioner Bondel.

Thank you, Chair.

I like to thank staff for their hard work as well.

I read in the staff report that you guys looked over the bigger major cities as uh San Francisco, LA.

So just looking forward to the new structure.

Thank you.

No further discussion.

There's no further discussion, then we'll adjourn this meeting.

Meeting is adjourned at 723.