CITY of
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes
Vice Chair Garza called the meeting
to order at
Commissioners present: Vice Chair Garza, Commissioner Bagley, Commissioner Cosio, Commissioner
Spencer
Commissioners late: Commissioner
Ostrowski, who arrived and was seated on
the dais at 7:42 p.m.
Staff present: City
Manager (CM) McClintock; City Planner (CP) Sundt, and Minutes Clerk Johnson
Note: the City Attorney was referenced several times
during the meeting; this will be found as CA Thatcher within the minutes.
Vice Chair Garza opened the public hearing for items not
appearing on the agenda. Noting that no persons were present to address this
agenda item, the public hearing was closed.
COMMISSION BUSINESS:
Vice Chair Garza:
CONSENT AGENDA:
A.
Affidavit of
Posting Hearing Notice
B.
Affidavit of
posting January 2, 2007 agenda
COMMISSIONER SPENCER MOTIONED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT
AGENDA, AS MODIFIED. COMMISSIONER BAGLEY SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED (4-0-0-1) WITH THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES:
COMMISSIONER BAGLEY, COMMISSIONER COSIO, COMMISSIONER GARZA, COMMISSIONER
SPENCER; NOES: NONE; ABSTAIN: NONE;
ABSENT: COMMISSIONER OSTROWSKI.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ~ REQUIRING COMMISSION ACTION
Commissioner Bagley was excused for the next agenda
item due to the potential for conflict of interest; he is the City’s Code
Enforcement Officer.
A.
HISTORIC DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT – 303/307 THIRD STREET
RENOVATION
CP Sundt gave the staff
report, providing an overview of these buildings in the historic district which
are in need of major renovation and repair to the external walls. As he
explained the report, CP Sundt spoke of the issues with
Turning to
CP Sundt reminded that the Secretary
of the Interior has guidelines for such renovation reviewed by staff stone to
perspire easily masonry point any motor that needs application, there is a
project: historic motor expands/contract more readily
Vice Chair Garza posed the
question of the process of paint removal. CP Sundt explained that some of the wood
must be taken out because of dry rot elements. CP Sundt said that the actual
process is to use ‘stone hand tools’ which are hand scrappers designed to not
remove all the paint from the structure but will only remove the areas where paint
buckling is occurring. “When we can see peeling, first, there needs to be an
investigation as to what is the cause. With old walls where it becomes apparent
there is need to remove moisture, it may be found during the renovation that runoff
from adjacent roofs and that may necessitate a longer process,” CP Sundt said.
He also noted the applicant is interested in considering a different color
scheme for 303.
Owner Mary Lopez was present
and spoke to the color schemes for the buildings. “I’m thinking the colors
should be in line with the previous selection of yellow; somewhat subdued; for the
Cutting Horse Restaurant. As to the other building, the color schemes in place
now are complementary. I want variety, but not that great,” Ms. Lopez declared.
She went on to explain that she had contacted a paint expert in
Vice Chair Garza called
attention to the balcony where leakage is causing problems. Ms. Lopez responded
that was due to wind currents in a non-protected area. “The areas that are protected
become very vulnerable with the wind blowing rain onto the balcony,” Ms. Lopez
explained. “We think this may continue posting a problem, but we will
periodically use a sealer on the area.”
Vice Chair Garza opened the
public comment period.
Cara Vonk, Chair of HRB,
noted this matter had received the attention of Board members in looking at
colors with one suggestion offered: the two buildings should be painted
different colors. This was based, Ms. Vonk said; on historic data that these
are two separate buildings.
CP Sundt agreed this
discussion/recommendation had taken place and said it was determined that the
matter would be returned to the HRB in February as the colors were ‘still up in
the air’.
Ms. Vonk continued, stating
it is clear that the condition of the sandstone, a soft porous stone, is
fragile and the paint removal must be carefully done to avoid scraping.
Furthermore, she said, the downspout near the base of the building has caused
erosion of the sandstone near the sidewalk, and should be looked at very carefully.
Ms. Vonk called attention to
a worthwhile book; The Preservation of Historic Architecture (U.S. Interior
Department: (2004) ISBN 1592281265), which contains sections on wood and
masonry.
In response to Vice Chair
Garza’s query what can be done with the downspout, discussion ensued.
Whereupon, CP Sundt assured he would attempt to get suggestions from Ms.
Lopez’s expert. CM McClintock commented the most effective method would be to divert
water away from the base, but that would require cutting the sidewalk which
would be ‘difficult’. “It has been cut for other things,” she noted.
Ms. Vonk suggested directing
the downspout to another area. CM McClintock clarified that the trouble spot is
‘not down the peak but from the roof next to the Cutting Horse’ and therefore, cannot
be sloped away.
With no others present to
address the matter, the public hearing was closed.
CP Sundt advised that a determination
for resolution - with conditions – was amenable but application would still
need to be heard at the February meeting of the Planning Commission for decision
of the colors.
Discussion ensued among the
Commissioners:
°
Commissioner
Spencer stated cutting the sidewalk
would be acceptable if the elements are damaging the structure. Sandstone is
really soft and preserving the structure is more important than the sidewalk.
°
Commissioner
Cosio asked about the gutters. CP
Sundt clarified how the water flows from an adjacent building. He expressed thinking that it may be possible
to realign the gutter. “However, the area may not have enough space for
drainage. Another alternative,” he said, “would be to relocate the downspout
but that would change the façade of that building.”
CM McClintock cautioned that
the City may not be able to force the applicant to cut the sidewalk.
Discussion followed
regarding the possible design for the downspout. CP Sundt stressed prudence when
looking at and accessing the problem.
Vice Chair Garza spoke on
the need for having the matter returned for the next meeting. “We need to
preserve this important structure,” he declared.
Vice Chair Garza called
attention to Condition 4 of the proposed Resolution for next month and suggested
adding Condition 5: mitigate water damage from downspout storm water flow.
COMMISSIONER SPENCER OFFERED RESOLUTION NO 2007-01 (PC), APPROVING A
HISTORIC DESIGN REVIEW FOR RENOVATION OF THE EXTERIOR(S) OF 303 AND 307 THIRD
STREET, INCLUSIVE OF THE FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED THEREIN, AND WITH
THE ADDITION OF CONDITION 5: REGARDING THE DOWNSPOUT/STORM WATER FLOW ISSUE.
COMMISSIONER COSIO PROVIDED THE SECOND TO THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED (3-0-0-2) WITH THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: COMMISSIONER COSIO, COMMISSIONER GARZA,
COMMISSIONER SPENCER; NOES: NONE; ABSTAIN: NONE; ABSENT: COMMISSIONER BAGLEY,
COMMISSIONER OSTROWSKI.
Commissioner Bagley rejoined the meeting at
B.
TITLE 10 - BUILDINGS AND SUBDIVISIONS (ADD ARTICLE 14
– MERGER OF SUBSTANDARD LOTS)
CP Sundt presented an
overview, noting that CA Thatcher has been working on the Ordinance and
Resolution since the Commission meeting where the issue of merging substandard
sized lots surfaced. At that meeting, City staff was told to move forward with a
lot merger Ordinance.
Commissioner Ostrowski arrived and was seated on the
dais at 7:42 p.m.
CM McClintock provided
information regarding timelines for enactment of an ordinance noting that,
based on action at this meeting, a hearing could be set for March 20, 2007.
Commissioner Cosio asked
about the number of lots within the City that are substandard. She also
requested clarification of the sizes of those lots; whether they are 5,000 sq
ft, and not the minimum 7,000 sq ft. CP Sundt indicated that the City has not
undertaken a full analysis yet of the number or size of lots that are
substandard . “There are several as we
look under Highway 156 (
CM McClintock noticed that
CA Thatcher had modeled this draft ordinance after the
Commissioner Cosio inquired
as to the determination of 5,000 sq ft. CM McClintock clarified that City staff
arrived at the 5,000 sq ft number as many of the substandard lots are between 5,000
and 6,000 sq ft’. CM McClintock reminded, “The configuration of the historic
area decides many important issues in the City – and this is one of them.”
Commissioner Ostrowski
commented that for making the larger lots, the ‘old (existing) lots’ are set but
we may run into problems again as he cited the criteria for Community Standards
where the Commission ran ‘afoul’ previously.
Vice Chair Garza opened the
public hearing.
Cara Vonk advised that HRB
member Rebecca McGovern, who was unable to make the meeting, had requested Ms.
Vonk convey the message that 25 years ago, the City’s Mayor had worked to have
all the substandard lots merged through official action.
Tony Boch stated that he did
not know how the documents got lost, but about 25 years ago when he was on the
Planning Commission the City’s substandard lots had been merged. He recalled
for the Commissioners that he had brought that same item up at the
Genio Bonifaeino told the
Commissioners he owns the property at Sixth and Pope. Mr. Bonifaeino asks if
there would be any impact on these existing lots, which he insisted were not
substandard but part of a legal subdivision:
Staff and the Commissioners
discussed with Mr. Bonifaeino:
Ø
any lot under 5,000
sq ft would be merged under the Ordinance at the time of Planning action
request by the owner
Ø
all lots are
4800 sq ft {40 125 sq ft} in the
Ø
the Planning
Commission had determined that 5,000 sq ft would be the minimum
CP Sundt emphasized the
intent was not to provide limits on Mr. Bonifaeino’s property and assured that
City staff would clarify with CA Thatcher the methodology for correction of the
oversight. “Our concern is that the Highway 156 right-of-way appears to be
overlaying some of the substandard lots in that area.”
CM McClintock explained the
process that this action would ensure: a merger would transpire instead of the
applicant asking for a variance to merger the lots of substandard size.
Mr. Bonifaeino reminded that
the lots in the
CM McClintock said the matter
could be brought back to the Commissioners pending recommendation by CA
Thatcher.
Commissioner Cosio asked if
in the ordinance, it is clearly stated: if a house is on a lot, there is no
effect on that property of having it merged into another lot.
CM McClintock read from
Section B-2: grandfathering in with legal access is the key, noting she will
verify that with the City Attorney.
Commissioner Ostrowski
commented the proposed ordinance sounds good. “We just need to assure Mr.
Bonifaeino that his legal lots will not be merged.”
CM McClintock pointed out
that lots may be merged with required findings made before the merger.
Cara Vonk asked for
clarification whether under the proposed Ordinance, the {merger} action would
be at the request of the applicant or could the City Council do so, on their
own volition. {It is with the request of the applicant.}
CM McClintock reminded that
the Planning Commission makes the recommendation for action, but the City
Council has the final authority.
Ms. Vonk asked, “Even over
the objection of the owner?” CM McClintock explained, “Yes, the courts have
tested the action.”
With no others indicating a
wish to speak to the matter, the public hearing was closed.
COMMISSIONER OSTROWSKI OFFERED RESOLUTION NO. PC 2007-02,
RECOMMENDING TO THE SAN JAUN BAUTISTA CITY COUNCIL: ADOPTION OF A SUBSTANDARD
C.
TITLE 10 - CHAPTER 10-5. RESCIND ARTICLE 4 – CONTROL AND REGULATION OF
MOVING OF HOUSES
CP Sundt reported that the
primary reason for this requested action was that the City cannot prevent
placement of manufactured homes within the City limits. The action before the
Planning Commission, CP Sundt said, will ensure the Municipal Code language
will be inclusive of the housing and community development requirements.
CM McClintock explained
design element guidelines still apply and the Planning Commission must approve
certain pre-manufactured parts of buildings. The action before the Commission,
she said, states: because the manufacture was completed outside the City, it is
not precluded placement within the City.
Responding to a question
from Commissioner Cosio, CM McClintock said the existing language is within a
‘very old piece of Code’. Commissioner Ostrowski expressed the view that this
is cleanup so the City is not in violation of State statue.
Vice Chair Garza opened the
public hearing.
Cara Vonk noticed that a
manufactured house was recently built on
With no others present to
address the matter, the public hearing was closed.
COMMISSIONER SPENCER MOTIONED TO APPROVE ORDINANCE
NO. 2007-01, RESCINDING ARTICLE 4 (CONTROL
AND REGULATION OF MOVING OF HOUSES) OF CHAPTER 10-1 (BUILDINGS) OF TITLE 10 (BUILDINGS
AND SUBDIVISIONS) OF THE SAN JUAN BAUTISTA MUNICIPAL CODE. COMMISSIONER COSIO PROVIDED THE SECOND TO
THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED (5-0-0-0)
WITH THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES:
COMMISSIONER BAGLEY, COMMISSIONER COSIO, COMMISSIONER GARZA, COMMISSIONER
OSTROWSKI, COMMISSIONER SPENCER; NOES: NONE; ABSTAIN: NONE; ABSENT: NONE.
D.
TITLE 11 - ZONING, AMENDMENTS INCLUDING A NEW
LIGHTING ORDINANCE (SECTION 11.12)
CP Sundt reported this is an
effort to craft a Lighting Ordinance which is ‘more understandable and
user friendly’. CP Sundt, with the agreement of the Commissioners, began the
process of systematically perusing the document. He was specific as to pages
and sections, with changes throughout the entire document noted and explained.
Several passages were deleted with others modified or added. Frequent
explanations and examples were provided. It was noted that following adopting
of the Lighting Ordinance, the entire text would be available for
viewing on the City website.
Turning to the matter of
wireless installations, CP Sundt commented this had been removed at the present
time. CM McClintock explained that, due to the rules and regulations,
telecommunications are an issue which cannot be placed in the Municipal Code.
Commissioner Ostrowski asked
about fences and walls (page 20; J) which have a height limitation of six feet
and said that many in the City exceed that limit. CM McClintock responded that a building
permit is needed for additional heights.
CP Sundt called attention to
page 25, noting this item deals with preservation and will be retuned to the
HRB February 15, then the Planning Commission in March, and to the City Council
March 20, with a hearing anticipated for April 17 and the document to become
effective
Considerable discussion
ensued regarding signage in the downtown and the historic district, with
emphasis on sidewalk sandwich boards (including placement), and motel/
hotel signs. CP Sundt told
the Commissioners that the law is specific that access for entrances and
sidewalks cannot be blocked by free standing signs or flags or banners.
CM McClintock advised that
she had solicited other City’s ordinances and found that the one provided by
the City of
Commissioner Cosio
questioned the
CP Sundt continued, calling
attention to:
·
enforcement
·
banners flags
{combining for clarity}
·
portable
freestanding signs {cannot have if banners/flags present}
·
notice of
violation
·
removal of
illegal signs (garage sale/political)
and creation of fiscal penalties
·
modified definition of ‘lot’
·
permitted uses
·
attachment
CP Sundt told the
Commissioners that, as there were preparations to address the Lighting
Ordinance, he had worked closely with Ms. Vonk. He explained the process of
using the
·
measurements of
lumens
·
several County
zones {San Juan Bautista has one for the entire City}
·
one zone within
the City limits the entire area to 50,000 lumens
·
some adjustments
of lumens may be required
·
still need for
‘slight clean up’ for the Lighting Ordinance
Commissioner Cosio led
discussion regarding low sodium lighting. It was noticed that low sodium globes
for the City’s lighting fixtures will be required in the future. Commissioner
Cosio raised the issue of increased costs, saying this type of lighting may not
be viable. CM McClintock reported the low sodium fixtures will be used for
replacements when needed. CM McClintock explained that an analysis will be made
to ascertain if a substantial change is needed to the fixtures. CM McClintock
stressed the need to start the process as the City considers maintenance. “If
we need to change a single bulb, it is likely that the low sodium would not be
feasible, but if we need to replace a pole, we will use the low sodium but the
base of the pole will look the same,” CM McClintock assured. Responding to
questions regarding cost, CM McClintock noted, “The low sodium are not costly
and research indicates they last much longer.” CP Sundt agreed, saying, “Low
sodium has the lowest energy use.” CM McClintock continued, “The trade off is
not too long for the pay back. If and when the bulbs have to be replaced, we
plan to put in low sodium which will match the existing fixtures. After the
Ordinance goes into effect, we will get low sodium.” CM McClintock further
stated, “If we can’t find low sodium for the City fixtures, then we can’t do
it, but the first choice is to go to low sodium.”
Commissioner Ostrowski
expressed concerns of lumens currently in place at:
·
·
Earthbound Farms
Discussion followed
regarding:
°
The county’s ‘dark
skies’ Ordinance need small rural city so chose 50 K lumens probably
handicapped to city to make more difficult
°
lighting
provides the effect of safety/security in more populated areas
Commissioner Cosio called
attention to section 113.080 holiday
lights wherein the Ordinance requires those lights that are on
overnight to be on a timer. CM McClintock said the rationale was to conserve
energy lights but if the downtown lights are turned off, members of the Chamber
will object. One of the attractions of the town during the holidays, she said,
is driving through the downtown where the lights are featured. Following
discussion, it was determined that the reference to turning off holiday lights
at night would be deleted.
Commissioner Spencer retuned
to the topic of 50,000 lumens per acre and said if low pressure sodium lights
were used, and shielded downward, it would make a ‘very big difference’.
Vice Chair Garza opened the
public hearing.
Cara Vonk, Chair of the HRB,
said the membership were in favor of a Lighting Ordinance but had not reviewed
the proposed Ordinance. “I think this is better,” Ms. Vonk stated, “to keep it
simpler. Fifty thousand lumens complies
with the County ordinance and closer to the requirements at
Ms. Vonk called attention to
some discrepancies in the staff report which CP Sundt will amend.
Ms. Vonk said it was very
important to let people to know if they will need a permit for installing
lighting. She also urged an exemption under section 113.080 for light fixtures
which are historic (barn lights, downtown City lights, etc). “Those,” Ms. Vonk
said, “may not comply. If the fixtures are not replaceable, the City needs an
exemption.” CM McClintock noted that in most
of the fixtures, bulbs can be replaced. Almost all can be dealt with a
different bulb in the fixture. A discussion of 113.080(b) followed.
Ms. Vonk asked if
residential properties were excluded under section 113.080(a) and CP Sundt
explained that residential is not exempted as it reads ‘already in place’.
Discussion resulted on the topic of shields needed for porch lights.
Vice Chair Garza recalled
that the
Ms. Vonk spent considerable
time discussing ‘clean up language’, and stressed that overall it is a ‘very
good Ordinance’.
Turning to the signage
issues, Ms. Vonk objected to the process stating it had not been properly
noticed. “I don’t think it has been made clear that this is a completely
revised Ordinance regarding signs. This should have gone to the HRB,” Ms. Vonk
said, and she asked that it indeed be sent to the HRB.
CM McClintock explained the
requirements of the Brown Act in relation to the sign Ordinance. “These are
minor changes but the lighting is a whole new section to be added to
Title 11 of the Municipal Code.
Commissioner Ostrowski
suggested having the sign portion sent to the HRB then retuned to the Planning
Commission next month. CM McClintock said the information had been provided by
the Main Street Program and the Planning Commission could address the matter.
Commissioner Ostrowski spoke on available lighting technology, including solar
night lights and lights not requiring shielding, but low to the ground.
With no others indicating a
wish to speak to the matter, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner discussion:
Commissioner Ostrowski said, “The sign thing has been kicked around so
much. I don’t see letting the HRB look at the lighting as a problem.”
Commissioner Cosio agreed, “It would not hurt to have the HRB look at
it. As far as lighting, this is a great first effort but the issue is so large,
I don’t know if this Ordinance addresses everything.”
Commissioner Spencer suggested that lighting for new construction could
be required to shield fixtures and use a 60 watt bulb.
Use of motion lights was
explored. CM McClintock suggested consideration of set times for on/off. Vice
Chair Garza observed the motion lights allow families to feel safe. Commissioner
Bagley said it might be hard to enforce set times for the motion lights,
such as have a maximum time of 15 minutes. The issue of security companies and
the relationship with lighting was deliberated.
CP Sundt suggested writing
into the Ordinance a section on security lighting with motion sensors for new
construction.
COMMISSIONER OSTROWSKI MOTIONED TO SEND SECTION 11.13
(SIGNAGE) TO THE HRB THEN APPROVE TITLE 11 (LIGHTING) [ORDINANCE 2007-02] AS
MODIFIED DURING DISCUSSION.
Commissioner Cosio continued to express concern about the low sodium lighting.
CM McClintock noted, “If it does not work, we can provide exemptions.” COMMISSIONER COSIO PROVIDED THE SECOND
TO THE MOTION WHICH PASSED (5-0-0-0)
WITH THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES:
COMMISSIONER BAGLEY, COMMISSIONER COSIO, COMMISSIONER GARZA, COMMISSIONER
OSTROWSKI, COMMISSIONER SPENCER; NOES: NONE; ABSTAIN: NONE; ABSENT: NONE.
CM McClintock clarified that
staff will take the referenced section to the HRB then the item will be
returned to the Planning Commission.
CP Sundt and CM McClintock
told of sampling of other Cities, which address downtown establishments. CP
Sundt spoke on Title 11 of the Municipal Code whereby with the direction from
City Council there could be accommodation of certain franchise businesses.
Currently as written, the Ordinance prevents formula businesses or franchises.
City Council has indicated it would like to have discussion regarding expansion
of opportunity. CP Sundt said that to
even invite coffee roasters or small stores in the City is prohibited by the
current Ordinance.
CM McClintock said in her
research, this is the only historic town that precludes formula
businesses. CM McClintock told of the
current restrictions and told the Commissioners she provides the City Council
with ‘health of business in town which at present there are more going out of
business or for sale than are going on’. CM McClintock explained the stats for
success with franchises, emphasizing the current proposal would only be
applicable if there is an unmet need,
where the service or goods are not already available. “We are not looking at bringing in a
McDonalds. This Ordinance addresses the unmet
need requirement. However, an individual who has a store in another
City but would like to begin that same business in San Juan Bautista, the City
Council might want to talk to them, but currently they can’t be ‘courted’ under
the current Ordinance,” CM McClintock said. She went on to discuss the existing
inns in town and the desire of some to associate with a national chain yet
retain local ownership. “This is especially important as many visitors do not
know of hotels in town and won’t stay here unless they can make reservations
through a national service,” she said.
There is no intent to
threaten current businesses. Only if there is a demonstrated unmet need, could
a business be considered. This most definitely a target for completion to
current businesses, but this could support other businesses in town and
hopefully would bring tourism and/or new businesses.
Vice Chair Garza suggested a
coffee roasting company, and all present enthusiastically supported such an
idea.
CM McClintock told how the
Ordinance will maintain relations with current businesses. “This remains a
local Ordinance within our design guidelines,” she said, while stressing the
required findings of unmet need. CM McClintock asked the Commissioners to keep
in mind the 20% structural deficit in the City’s budget. During discussion, CM McClintock
listed the possibilities for new business which might be attracted to the town.
Vice Chair Garza opened the
public hearing.
The following spoke in favor of some form of the
proposal presented by the City:
Jim Gibson, a representative of the Windmill Market urged the
Commissioners to approve the modifications as outlined by staff. Mr. Gibson
said he thought a Starbucks franchise would be ‘natural’ for the town and would
help entice tourists to stay and spend.
Jerry Lewis urged the Commissioners to accept and modify the
staffs’ recommendation. “We do need a draw in town. I agree that keeping the
historic flavor is essential, but we need nuggets to bring in business,” Mr.
Lewis said. He spoke at length of Murphy’s
Tony Boch said he thinks this action is needed to help
revitalize the area. Mr. Boch spoke on former businesses in the town.
Cara Vonk was present to advise that she feared the ‘proposal
will have major negative impact on local economy ‘. Ms. Vonk stressed that she,
and other members of the HRB, continue to believe the importance of emphasizing
the cultural experiences available in San Juan Bautista. Ms. Vonk spoke at
length of other cities which have ‘lost their identity’ due to having an
emphasis on franchised businesses.
Commissioner Ostrowski wondered
if the businesses in
CM McClintock advised that a
small mini hardware franchise had expressed interest in locating here, but
currently was not allowed to do so.
Mr. Boch accentuated:
“Something has to happen.”
CM McClintock said it one of
the big concerns townspeople have is with the food industry as she underscored,
there has to be an unmet need, and in cases there may not be justification for
an unmet need. She also pointed out that most restaurant chains require certain
demographics which may not be applicable in this area. “What we are doing, is
providing an opening for an application to ascertain if there is an unmet need.
If an owner wants a second store and will be using the same logo and business
cards, San Juan Bautista could be a possibility. But today, we can’t consider
them. Staff is looking to open options,” CM McClintock explained. She went on to tell those present of the
City’s deficit. “If we do not turn around the finances of the City, that
deficit could turn into bankruptcy or we could go into dissolution within three
years,” CM McClintock explained. “Currently, we are collecting less sales tax
than in 1996. These are very stark realties that must be faced. We must make
changes. The question is; where do you want to go? Staff needs to know what you
want to do.”
With no others present to
speak to the matter, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioners discussed:
ª
Murphys CA
has15,000 new homes which make a difference in spending levels
ª
San Juan
Bautista has economic problems a Starbucks may not be able to solve.
ª
Understanding of
the need to do something to get the City turned around
ª
need to explore
each franchise request on a case by case basis
Commissioner Cosio asked who
would determine ‘unmet needs’, and CP Sundt explained the process which would
be ascertained once a permit application is filed. He also noted the process
would not go to the HRB, but the Planning Commission. It was noted that all
Planning Commission decisions are appealable to the City Council.
Focusing on the wording in
the proposed Ordinance, Commissioners directed a modification: residents
as there is need to consider businesses, too.
Commissioners agreed that in
having visited other cities, there are attractive amenities which catch the
attention of visitors, and that creates energy for local businesses. All
agreed, too, this is ‘tough – a real challenge’.
CM McClintock interjected
that staff is looking at other options as well. “We are trying a multifaceted
approach, including potential development on the west side of Highway 156, and
a combination of other things,” she said. “Most are larger projects, about 3 –
5 years out, and that will help ensure success. But we have to be able to make
it through this tunnel to the light so we will be bringing in smaller items as
attempts to get over this stretch. It may be a long time before monies begin to
flow in,” she indicated.
Vice Chair Garza agreed; “We
must do something for downtown. The store owners are scraping by. We need to
look at the ‘big picture’. If something doesn’t happen, we will not have
Responding to questions, CM McClintock
explained that even if the City was forced to cease operations, financial
requirements and accountability to the State would remain.
Commissioner Spencer
clarified that the franchises must abide by the process of conditional use
permits, which are heard by the Planning Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER SPENCER OFFERED A MOTION APPROVING ORDINANCE
2007-03 [TITLE 11 AMENDMENTS TO INCORPORATE LARGE-SCALE
RETAIL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, FORMULA RETAIL OR RESTAURANT BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
AND FORMULA VISITOR ACCOMMODATIONS ORDINANCE], INCLUSIVE OF THE CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT REQUIREMENT. COMMISSIONER COSIO SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED (4-1-0-0) WITH THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES:
COMMISSIONER BAGLEY, COMMISSIONER COSIO, COMMISSIONER GARZA, COMMISSIONER
SPENCER; NOES: COMMISSIONER OSTROWSKI who commented, he thought this was
the wrong direction to move to save San Juan Bautista ; ABSTAIN:
NONE; ABSENT: NONE.
Comments and Announcements:
Commissioners:
Vice Chair Garza advised he had been contacted by a Third Street
resident, across from the MacAlpine property, where a dirt bike track had been
creating excessive noise about 1:00 p.m. CM McClintock indicated she will
discuss the matter with the Sheriff.
Vice Chair Garza spoke of
two recent incidents of persons tripping on the uneven sidewalks in the
historic district, and expressing concern about liability issues. CM McClintock
responded that City workers had wanted to put in putty fill but the City had
been told not do so and noted that perhaps it was time to consider the matter
from a safety prospective. She explained that the sidewalk repairs are not
feasible under the current Ordinance, and spoke on the zoning which drives much
of the responsibility of the City and the residents.
Commissioner Cosio asked about the drain which appears to have been
opened on
City Manager:
CM McClintock reminded that
at the next meeting, the Commissioners will select a new Chair and Vice Chair.
She also announced that there is now a full City Council, and standing
committees have been formed which will be working on particular issues.
Councilmembers Edge and Paradice have been chosen to work on Business
Development.
Adjournment:
ACTING ON THE MOTION BY COMMISSIONERS BAGLEY AND OSTROWSKI FOR ADJOURNMENT AND AS AGREED BY
ALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT – NONE WERE ABSENT, VICE CHAIR GARZA DECLARED THE
MEETING COMPLETED, AND ORDERED AJOURNMENT AT
___________________________
Reuben Garza, Vice Chairman
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Trish Paetz, Deputy City Clerk