Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the Planning Commission meeting of January 14 2021.

Happy New Year's.

At this time, I would like to ask the city clerk to please take a roll call.

Chair Risby.

Present.

Vice Chair Mallet, present.

Commissioner Garcia.

Present.

Commissioner Mountain.

Commissioner Sanginetti.

Here.

Commissioner Jones.

Commissioner Davy.

President.

Thank you.

At this time, I would now like to ask Commissioner Davy, if you could please lead us to the Flagsmond.

Are we done in the state of the American?

Thank you, Commissioner David.

Agenda item number three.

Adoption of consent calendar.

As per our discussion the other day, item.

Item 3.2 was decided on December 10th.

And its placement on the consent is simply to ensure that the staff accurately captured that action that was taken on December 10th.

Unless someone requests to have them pulled, it will be approved with a single vote that approves the entire consent calendar item 3.1 3.2.

Please note the vote count was added to the resolution to ensure there's no confusion that the denial was approved via four three vote with three dissenting commissioners are noted and an approval on consent.

And approval of the consent is as the accuracy of the resolution, not a vote on the item itself.

So this is to clarify that the resolution is simply to memorialize the events that took place and December 10th meeting for that agenda item.

There were four denial and three for, and the motion was denied.

And this is barely basically putting it and uh memoralizing that to say that what the vote was.

So with that said, I would like to have a motion for the approval of the consent calendar.

Can you repeat that last sentence?

Have a motion to what?

For the consent calendar.

Yes.

Okay, maybe I should repeat it again.

Could I have a motion for the approval of the consent agenda item 3.1 and 3.2?

Which is I guess I I I Mr.

Chair, I have one question, I guess, before I would make a motion.

I have no problem making a motion for 3.1, which are the minutes of our meetings of October 22nd and December 10th.

3.2.

I thought, you know, we denied that on a 4-3 vote, and we recommended some language for the denial to come back in the findings in that.

And I thought, like we did with the previous denial, those findings would come back to us, and then we would vote on those findings again as a separate item.

To my understanding, this is just to make sure that the resolution uh basically explains what the vote was on that day.

Uh I can uh refer to our director if you want to add or Lori.

The action was taken by the commission on December 10th.

When you put those findings on the record verbally, that was fine.

That was enough to take the action.

Right now, all you're doing is is you know, I use the generic term housekeeping.

It's coming back to make sure that staff capture accurately what you said.

If they did, then it's okay for you just to vote on it via consent.

And if it's not, if you find something incorrect that they put in there, then you can pull the item and you can talk about it, and then you can vote on it to approve the results that way.

The only reason I question this, Laurie, this is Jeff, and that the only reason I question it is is because this is different than the we handle than the way we handled the previous denial, which was a four to three vote.

Okay.

And I think the last time it was different because I believe if memory serves, I believe that you had some issues with some of the points made by the attorney.

Um or the applicant, I forget which one of them it was, and so it got pulled for discussion.

But you're not you're not re-voting on this item.

You've already voted on it on December 10th, it was done.

As a matter of fact, the applicants already acted on it and filed an appeal.

No, I uh no, I understand that.

However, just the way that we're doing it just is different than the way we did it before, and it's a different procedure that we we're going about it in that.