Good evening. We're gonna call the meeting to order. It's July 14th, 2025 or 2026. I'm sorry of the planning commission. Welcome. Thank you for joining us tonight in the back of the room. There is a table where you could find copies of tonight's agenda as well as staff reports for the item that will be heard tonight on the same table. You will find request to speak cards if you would like to speak to the commission this evening. Please fill out a card.
and place it in the speaker card tray
on the table at the front up here.
Once we begin the public hearings portion of the meeting,
each item will be announced with a brief description
of what is being proposed.
After the presentation and questions by the commission,
the public hearing will be open,
and anyone wishing to speak to the commission on this item
will be invited to do so.
When their name is called,
please come to the speaker podium at the front.
Each speaker will be given three minutes to speak.
Once everyone wishing to speak has made their comments,
public hearing will then be closed
and we will bring the matter up to the commission
for discussion and decision.
If you will be speaking to us this evening,
please be sure to make all your comments
when you come to the podium or online.
As a courtesy to all comments made from the audience
during testimony or commission deliberation
will not be allowed and will not be included
as part of the public record.
At the conclusion of the hearing,
the commission's options will be to approve,
continue or deny a project application.
Now I will proceed with roll call
and confirm certain matters for the record.
I would like to note that commissioners Armstrong,
Hubbell, Morella, Obelinski, and Schmidt are in attendance.
We have an excused absence for our vice chair doctors.
Item B on the adoption of the agenda.
Planning Director, are there any changes
to the proposed agenda?
I have none.
Hearing none, I would like to move forward
with tonight's agenda.
Do we have a motion to adopt the agenda?
So moved.
Do I have a second?
Thank you, Commissioner Smith.
All those in favor say aye.
Aye.
The motion is approved unanimously and we have an agenda.
Item C is the public forum.
The first item is the opportunity for you
to address the planning commission on items
that are not listed on tonight's agenda.
Is there anyone who would like to address the commission
on an item that is not on tonight's agenda. Anyone online? There are none in the room and
none online so we will move to item D the consent calendar. The consent calendar section of the
agenda consists of items that are acted on in one motion unless a commissioner or member of the
public requests that the commission remove an item from the consent calendar for discussion.
by approval of the consent calendar the staff recommendation will be adopted if the item is
removed from the consent calendar the commission will follow the procedures described in the agenda
for new public hearings the item on the consent calendar is item d1 planning commission minutes
and the recommendation is to approve the planning commission minutes of may 26 2026 may have a motion
to approve the consent calendar as proposed.
I move.
I move, do I have a second?
Second.
Thank you, we have a second, a motion and a second.
And the, all those in favor, say aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
The motion is unanimous.
Item E, policy matters.
There does not look to be any report.
tonight. Item f continued public hearings. There are none present on the
agenda. Item g new public hearings. So item g one on June 9th 2026 the city
council adopted resolution 35 dash 26 establishing a one year pilot facade
improvement program to encourage investment in exterior improvements to commercial properties.
As part of that action, the City Council directed staff to prepare any necessary amendments
to the Arrenda Municipal Code to implement streamlined review procedures for approved
facade improvement program projects. The proposal of the proposed ordinance implements that
directive by amending chapters 17.8.5 I-Downtown Commercial District 17-18-5
exempt signs 17- or 17.21.3 permit required for removal or
destruction of a protected tree and 17.30.3 design review requirement. The
amendments exempt approved facade improvement program projects from
Planning Commission design review sign permit requirements, tree removal permit
requirements, and outdoor dining permit requirements. While maintaining
compliance with applicable building, fire, accessibility, and encroachment
requirements. These amendments are intended to reduce permitting timelines,
lower projected costs, provide greater certainty to applicants, and support
successful implementation of the council approved pilot facade improvement
program. The staff recommendation is the following the staff recommends to adopt resolution
number PC 2026-05 recommending that the City Council adopt ordinance number 26-07 amending
chapters 17.8.5 i-downtown commercial district 17.18.5 exempt signs 17.21.3 permit required
for removal or destruction of a protected tree 17.30.3 design review requirement for the purposes
of streamlining permit requirements for approved facade improvement program projects. And tonight
we have a staff presentation from Cole Haslip. You have the floor. Thank you chair members of
the commission. It's a pleasure to be able to present to you tonight. Let's go ahead and get
into Facade Improvement Program Streamlining.
So this is the agenda for tonight's presentation.
We're going to be talking briefly about what a Facade Improvement Program is, describing
what the Adopted Facade Improvement Program is.
We're going to go through some example images, and then we're going to move on to how we
got here to this meeting tonight with the issue before you.
We're going to talk about the proposal for Facata Improvement Program streamlining, and
then we'll conclude with staff's recommendation before turning it over to the chair to facilitate
discussion and questions.
So to begin with, what is a Facata Improvement Program?
Well, in short, it's just a grant program which is designed to help businesses improve
building exteriors and the overall downtown appearance.
you can see we've got an example image from the city of Milpitas which has employed a facade
improvement program. I think it's good context to know that facade improvement programs are
extremely common in the Bay Area, California, and the United States at large. They are a very proven
and effective tool in communities that are seeking to improve storefronts in their downtowns.
So the program that council has adopted is a one year pilot facade improvement program.
It lasts from July 2026 through June 2027.
So if you go to the city's website today, you can submit an interest form as a business
that would like to apply for the facade improvement program.
The program has a $75,000 program budget that allows businesses to get up to $10,000 with
no match required for approved projects. And on projects that cost over $10,000,
there's a 50-50 match up to 30K total from the city. So theoretically on a $50,000 project,
an applicant could get $30,000 from the city and they would have to match it with $20,000 of their
own. This covers permanent improvements to the facade and exterior buildings in the city's
commercial area as well as some other things that are described in more detail in the staff report.
It's important to note that there are certain things that are non-eligible. These are generally
temporary improvements, interior improvements, so we're not talking about anything inside the store,
no new tables or chairs or anything like that. Non-visible improvements are also not an eligible
item, and that's because this is all about the appearance of the downtown. So if people
can't see it, it's not something we're interested in funding as part of this program. And then
of course, routine maintenance. This is really for upgrades and new permanent fixtures, not
just changing the light bulbs outside, right? So the way the program works, there's a standard
application. I mentioned they can fill an interest form right now after they fill out
that interest form, they would then have a conversation
with the program administrator, which is myself.
We would talk about more details of the program,
talk more about what they're proposing to do.
And if the project seems like it's a good fit
for the business and for the city,
then we would invite them to fill out a standard application.
It would include things like property owner consent,
if they aren't the property owner,
a visual representation of existing and proposed improvements,
detailed scope of work and a project budget with prevailing wage compliant contractor quotes.
The approval process is administrative, so we've talked about how to do that here at the city and
one of the things that we're currently planning on is an internal committee of staff from different
departments to take a look at these projects as they come through and make sure that they align
with the goals of the program overall.
All right, this is my favorite part of the presentation.
We have some great before and after images here.
This is from the city of Dublin, which currently has a facade improvement program.
This is the before.
This is the after.
Here's another city.
This is a Starbucks at the city of Monterey.
It's very prominent in their downtown area.
This is before and this is after.
We thought this was a really interesting one because we thought it highlighted just what
some small changes could do to an improved storefront.
You see they really just upgraded the railing and changed out the color of the letters from
green to white and all of a sudden the building just pops.
Alright now this is some wish casting.
So you will notice this is some of the storefronts that we have in Arendelle currently.
This is now.
This is what it could look like with an improved storefront.
This is now.
This is a potential future.
And now, maybe sometime in the future.
And last but not least, this is now and this is a potential future.
So you'll notice that some of the businesses changed in the before and after, that was
not intentional on staff's part, chat GPT's just not quite there yet to keep all the businesses
exactly the same, but really the goal of this program is to support the existing businesses
not to change them all out.
All right, so moving on to how we got here to this meeting tonight with the item before
you.
said previously, City Council approved resolution number 3526. That approves the Facade Improvement
Program. There's really two components to the Facade Improvement Program. One is the grants,
that's currently live, that's currently good to go. The second component is the streamlining,
that's what we're here talking to you about tonight. It's important to note that because
they are separate, so if Council ultimately decides not to implement streamlining, the
the grants portion will still be live for the next year.
So that resolution told us that we should come back
with the streamlining to council.
And as part of that process,
we are required to bring it to the planning commission
because it includes amendments to the zoning code.
And that's what we're doing tonight.
So why streamlining?
Well, I think it's important to point out
that streamlining is a recommendation
and the city has adopted downtown precise plan.
It says that the city should explore streamline regulations
for entrance and facade remodeling on downtown building.
They will contribute to the pedestrian environment
and historical character of downtown.
We feel like tonight's proposed changes are in alignment
with that piece of the downtown precise plan.
And we also feel like a pilot program
is an excellent opportunity to test out
of these recommendations than the DPP. So currently as it stands if a facade improvement
project was to get approved without the streamlining they could still be subject to discretionary review
by the planning commission they might have to acquire a sign permit they might have to acquire
a true removal permit or an outdoor dining permit. It would all depend on the character of the
individual proposal, of course, though. Ordinance number 2607 would exempt approved facade
improvement projects from these requirements. And before I move on to the recommendation,
I also think it's important to note the way this program would work if implemented with streamlining
is staff would get a proposal from the applicant, right? And so it could include things like the
removal of a tree or outdoor dining. It's totally within staff's discretion to be able to say,
we actually like your facade improvement project, but we're not going to approve the tree removal
as part of this. You're going to have to go through the process for that. Or we could say,
we like it, but we're not going to fund the outdoor dining. You still have to go through
the traditional process for that. So an application submitted staff has discretion to decide what's
approved and what's not. If something is approved it would get that streamlining
benefit. If it's not approved it wouldn't get the streamlining it would have to go
through all the normal processes. Also we haven't exempted them from all of the
building requirements so all those life safety, health, all those regulations for
the fire code building, those are all still relevant no matter what and all
projects would be required to get a building permit as well as an
encroachment permit. Although the fees on the city side for those permits are
because we're trying to reduce the cost of facade improvement overall as part of the program staff's recommendation tonight is to adopt the resolution before you that gives an affirmative recommendation to the city council that they should adopt an ordinance amending title 17 to implement streamlining for approved facade improvement projects.
improvement projects.
That's the conclusion of staff's presentation,
but I would be happy to answer any questions
that you may have.
Chair Armstrong and commissioner,
let me just make one slight clarity.
The DPP has not been readopted.
So that you'll see that conversation and discussion
come before you at a later date.
So cold is referring to it, but I heard adopted,
and so I wanted to make sure you recall it's not readopted.
Thank you for that coin of clarification. So I am going to open it up to the commissioners
if they have questions. And I have a question. It was more about the funding of the 75,000
grant. Where was that? Where did those funds come from? How was it funded? The grant?
Yeah, it comes out of our general fund. Okay. So that is the source for most of our revenues
and most of our overall programming here at the city so we're not using any grant funds
from the state or our regional body. It comes purely from our general fund which has a lot
of different sources. And also have there been any interest from the business owners
and stakeholders so far in signing up? Yeah we haven't got any interest forms completed yet
and we're, we're feeling like we're really just starting the communication kickoff for this
project. Um, so I had a meeting today with our comms team about regular social media posts.
We're going to be collaborating with the local chamber of commerce on getting the word out.
It's an interesting, uh, program because unlike a lot of things, we're really only targeting our
business community. Most of our comms channels were used to hear at the city are let's get the
word out to everyone. Although we're trying to be a little bit more targeted with this because
it's really for businesses. So one of the other things that we've talked about is pulling some
information from our business registry. Through that we can get the names of business owners,
their addresses, their email addresses and we can use that information to send targeted
advertisements for the program directly to them. We also have a part-time staff member here at the
city of Orlando, who's brought on pretty much with the sole purpose of one-on-one business engagement.
And they've been promoting the program to the businesses that they work with on a on a regular
basis. We're also just starting to roll out with staff here as well. So one of the things I'm going
to be working with our team on is anytime a business comes in the door for anything,
let them know that this program exists. We don't want anyone to feel like, you know, we got to the
end of 2027, we gave out $75,000, there's some nice storefronts, but oh, I never heard about
this program, I didn't have a chance to apply, that's not fair. So we want to make sure that
we're doing everything possible to make sure everyone has access to the program, that they
know about it, and that they have the ability to apply. Thank you. Two questions, one is it just
Just to follow up on the funding,
finishing at $75,000 is the total amount
that we have for this program.
And is that annually or is that just currently what's there?
That's currently what's been allocated for this year.
So, you know, one of the things that we've talked about,
because when we brought this to city council,
one of the comments was, is that enough money?
Right, that's where I was going.
And we said, you know, if we run out of money,
we can always come back to the city council
and we can always ask for more.
the city's budget is an ever moving process.
So once something's been adopted,
we can always go back and change it.
I think it would be great if we were so successful
with the program that we had to go back and ask for more.
And so, yeah, yeah.
Great, one more question is on that Starbucks photo,
you know, things are quite subjective, right?
I'm sure there's somebody would say,
actually the green was better because it hides it away.
And now the white sign pops and you can see the commercial plastics sticking out.
How does, in this program, how does staff deal with sort of that subjective approach
to when it's debatable?
Yeah, I mean, all art, all design, all architecture is subjective, right?
So some of the things that staff is going to be looking at when we get the proposals
is does it fit with the general character of the neighborhood, the surrounding business,
the surrounding signs, those sorts of things.
And do we feel like it's in alignment
with typical improvements that are generally
well received by most people?
Thank you.
Kind of on that same vein, two subtleties
in the way you presented a couple of the facades.
For example, the first one, the Emeryville Project,
the building was painted.
And then there was a little bit of,
I'll call it standing seam over the corner entry.
So what would qualify as applicable to this grant money?
Because you meant then go on to say that quote,
maintenance isn't applicable.
So I'm a little bit concerned about, you know,
what gets to be included?
And does the business owner really understand
what they're getting into, keep going?
Yeah, I'm going.
So this is the before, and then this is the after, right?
The Emeryville.
Yeah, the Emeryville one.
A Dublin.
Emeryville, sorry.
Emeryville.
Oh, Emeryville.
Keep going.
Milpitas.
First one.
Oh, yes, Milpitas.
Milpitas, I'm sorry.
That's OK.
That's all good.
Yeah, yes, this one.
So, I mean, yeah, there's a nice paint job.
And yes, there's some standing seam.
And it looks like they fixed the stairway or something like that.
So it strikes me as this is kind of putting an awful lot of eggs
in the basket of sort of on the same as the previous question.
Who gets to decide what's applicable?
Who gets to decide what looks good or doesn't look good
when you've basically streamlined out the planning
commission whose role had been to kind of create an aesthetic
or to a proven aesthetic for a project?
And I'm a little bit concerned that we've
the city and not the city of
the street. So we're kind of
we're basically handing you the
keys to the city as it were not
to be pejorative here, but I
just wonder the tree removal
being abandoned as far as a
permit required the whole thing
seems to be kind of a let's
just to help with the rules,
let's just let them paint or
let them fix and I'm a little
Um, and so I, to answer your question about what is considered a repair and what's not,
right?
Because we said regular maintenance is not a part of this project.
Right.
Um, we think there's a substantial difference between when something has, has failed, um,
so much, um, that we're not talking about a repair, we're talking about a complete refurbishment,
right?
Um, and so that determination would be made as we get the application based on what's
there.
And a paint job in one circumstance could be considered approved, an eligible piece
to be considered for approval, and others it might not be.
And so I think part of that determination would be how does that incorporate into the
overall new facade, right?
So for example, you know, if it's changing out the paint with the same color paint, you
know, that's going to be less likely to be considered eligible than something that is
completely new paint that complements a whole new facade design after the
question is the scope of things that are being essentially bypassed the
various programs that no longer require permit fees and so on and so forth are
we allowed to modify this thing tonight or is it it's a gay SEA or nay yeah so
if if you want to make changes to the resolution to say the Planning
commission recommends just for example, you know, approving the exemptions for
design review, um, but not to tree removal, outdoor dining, et cetera. We
can prepare that resolution for you to adopt tonight. Okay. That's okay. I
don't know how the commissioners feel about it, but I had some thoughts. Thank
you. There are any other questions from the point of the question of
clarification just around the same page we're not we're not we're not bypassing
any of these requirements you're just streamlining them into an administrative
process that's reviewed by staff and so they're still reviewing applications for
the normal concerns or normal course of business concerns for outdoor dining or
tree removal it's just instead of going to four places and going through four
processes you streamline them through this administrative process I just want
make sure that's correct and clear. That's correct really the whole goal is
to have one point of approval. So to that end they would still be subject to
for instance the example that the tree removal permit it would still get some
level of scrutiny and after it would be reviewed. Yes a request for tree removal
as part of a sod improvement project would be submitted to staff staff would review it.
We would make sure that it aligns with the overall goals of the community to have a good
downtown having great trees is clearly identified in our plans as important to us as having
a good downtown.
And so before we approved anything first it would have to you know be in alignment with
with our plans, and then also it would have to be
incorporated into an improved facade overall, right?
So if it really had nothing to do with the facade,
and someone said, well, let me do the facade improvement
program just so I can get rid of this tree,
even though it has nothing to do with it,
staff has the ability to take a look at that and say,
well, that really, we're not really interested
in approving your tree removal.
If you wanna do that, you have to go get a permit.
and are we talking about the planning staff?
We're talking about city manager's office,
planning staff, you know,
that's the internal committee we're talking about, right?
Not the planning staff.
We would hope that planning staff would be involved
in our committee to make a group decision
on behalf of staff.
Yeah.
But ultimately the decision rests
with the city manager's office.
City manager's office, okay.
Because the question-
Yeah, that's where I am.
I understand.
The question, I think following up on that,
that I have is that such as the tree removal permit,
if you were to elect to say,
yes, you're welcome to chop down the oak tree,
but you have to follow the city's rules for replacement.
If you don't have city planning staff's knowledge
of what the rules are, they're gonna be whacking it not,
I mean, the potential exists for the tree to be removed
without the required replacement,
irrespective of the permit cost itself.
So I'm a little concerned
that this isn't a planning department function,
That is, it's somehow not to upset the city manager.
Again, somehow you're giving,
I mean, it's like asking the fire department's opinion
about cutting down the street trees
when you make a building more than two stories tall
and they say, chop them down and we say, wait a minute.
I'm a little bit anxious about this kind of overall
lessening of the rules, if you will.
And so, yeah.
I think one of the benefits here at the city of Orinda
being a smaller organization, right,
is that we all have relationships with each other.
So I know all of the planners,
LaShawn and I have conversations often.
So these aren't decisions that we anticipate
making in a silo where only one person
gets their eyes on an application.
That's why we've been talking about a committee process
where we have different departments
way in on the proposal and try to reach some consensus
among staff, that way we are capturing that
whole of the organization knowledge.
So the implementation isn't fully documented
in this code revisions as far as how it will be affected.
That's still to be determined as far as this approval
committee or whatever you want to call it.
Could you clarify your question?
You've reduced, you've said where the permits aren't
required or the permit fees aren't required for certain
of these elements of the planning code.
And that you talk about this committee,
is the committee an established entity
or something to be determined as to who's gonna participate
yet in process?
I guess is my question.
So the permit fees is separate to this ordinance, right?
Because our fees are established by a resolution
here at the city of erranda.
So that's something that's separate
and wouldn't come before the planning commission.
In terms of the development of staff's review process,
that is still something that we are building here.
And it hasn't been finalized in terms of who's going to be on the committee,
you know, how often they're going to meet, all those sorts of things.
Two questions of clarification.
So in the situation where somebody puts together a facade improvement request,
the grant request around signage.
And let's say the staff talks and says,
no, this is not the right look.
So they don't get the grant,
then they would go through the process
to pay with their own dime to the usual process.
Is that correct?
That's there.
And then two is, can you explain to me just,
I'm thinking about the tree addition here,
the section eight bit.
I can certainly see the addition of trees
being in the spirit of the facade improvement program.
I could see the removal of trees because they're
dangerous or overgrown or diseased as not being anything
to do with facade improvement program.
I'm struggling to figure out what
inspired the inclusion of this, because I
can't think of too many instances where
I think removing that healthy tree really
is in the spirit of the facade improvement program.
And is there an example you have or a little bit of background on how that bit got added?
The reason why it was included is because when we were developing the ordinance in order
to implement the direction we got from council was we developed, we tried to think about
every possible scenario where someone could submit a project and they could end up having
to submit a permit.
And then we said based on direction we got from council about streamlining, we need to
bring an ordinance forward that exempts them from those things.
so we don't have a specific example of there's this storefront with a tree, and it might
be good if they were able to get rid of it as part of a facade improvement. More so,
we wanted to set ourselves up for a scenario where we got an application removing a tree
as part of a facade improvement project made sense that we wouldn't have to go through
a permit process and thereby slow down the implementation of it.
Thank you.
I think my overall, you know, I like the concept of a facade improvement plan and streamlining.
My only issue is more of having a planning staff or someone from planning to at least
have some also input in the in the process because it seems like it's a big part of you know our
mandate and so not necessarily the commission here but planning staff our director someone
because it directly impacts essentially what you know our responsibilities are.
Chair Armstrong, just before you go into your comments open to the public open for comments,
please request opening. Okay, yeah, because you're going into your reasoning. Got it. Okay. Yeah.
And that's a question then for you. You know, is that a possibility of having, you know, a liaison
or someone that's from the planning staff included in the committee. It's a goal. Okay.
Any other questions from the commission? Okay. Hearing none, I'm going to open the floor for
public comments. Are there any public comments online? There are no public comments. There are
are no members of the public in the room.
So we are going to close the floor at this time.
And I'll bring the matter up to the commission
for discussion and action and additional comments.
My comment, my initial comment as well,
it's only one year, how much damage could they do?
But it does make me nervous
that the whole thing is kind of open ended.
that I like the idea of improving for SODS,
but who gets to decide what's an improvement?
I mean, does a white Starbucks lettering
beat a green Starbucks lettering?
And maybe the answer that I'm heading toward
is I'm willing to approve the ordinance
for the one-year pilot program,
as long as it's clearly established
that this is a one-year approval.
Am I clear on that?
I guess is my question.
That's all we can do.
Mike, if we approve this
ordinance, is it set in place
forever or is it the money just
one year?
So the way that it is set up
currently is that the ordinance
makes permanent changes to the
code.
However, it is only good as long
as there's a facade improvement
program.
The facade improvement program
must come back to the city
council before the end of the
And that's, that's what we're
doing right now.
So if we get to 2027 June and
Council says we don't really
like the direction of this or
for whatever reason decides not
to continue the facade
improvement program, then it's
null and void.
The changes to the code are no
longer relevant.
It only goes back to Council.
It doesn't go back to
commission.
That's correct.
I think one of my concerns is that,
first of all, it's a $75,000 program,
so I'm also not overly concerned
that we're gonna see outrageous changes,
but also concerned about how this carries on
into the future and sort of the precedent we're setting.
I am a little bit concerned with the subjectiveness
and maybe the amorphous criteria.
I think you mentioned about sort of being in harmony
the surrounding area. Well, in some cases that's probably a terrible idea. In other
cases it's a great idea. And, you know, what, you know, a normal person or, you
know, a reasonable person would think is an improvement I think is extraordinarily
subjective, particularly, you know, with a small town like Arenda. And so I
struggle with that. I think that the outdoor dining thing is is a no-brainer
And as easy and as a two-way door than if we end up having problems in the future, we can easily resolve.
I'm open to doing this for a year, but would really, in that instance, want to challenge the staff to sort of have an opinion about the direction that they'd like to see the facades go in an ideal world.
It's just really hard to understand what that might be.
The photo of the Milpitas building is a great photo,
but I think that it's a perfect example.
It is subjectively an improvement.
That may not be, though, the direction of the character
of facades that we want to go, despite it
being an improvement over the existing condition.
And that's the part I'm struggling with,
because I think the owners and operators want to very much want to improve it and take
advantage of the grant process and it's wonderful the city wanted to provide that, but improvement
to them is not necessarily the direction of the character we want to see the town moving
in.
And so there seems to be a lot of subjectiveness involved, even starting with the owner's
application without the direction from the city to even inspire which way we want to
see the city go.
And so I'm just a little bit nervous about it.
being said, it being limited to a year, I would be open to it, although I'm a bit concerned
that it doesn't come back to the commission after that year and it goes straight to the
council. Is there a way that that can be amended in the language or not? Or in this evening
or not? Yes, that could be your recommendation. If that's what you want to recommend and modify,
pose as a modification. Yes, that modification could be that at the expiration of the term
or the program or the expiration of the funds, it comes back to the commission for for for
reactivator renewal versus going just directly to the city council would be a similar processes.
you would be asking for the ordinance to be changed
so that it comes back before the Planning Commission
for another recommendation prior to renewal.
And what if, let's say we both have $75,000 next week.
The program still exists and the funding,
they have to go find it.
Right, but they can still find it this year.
I mean, it could turn into a $250,000 program, right?
Prior to the year of us, we-
Why is the program expiring?
Well, both issues I think is that there's a one year time
term, but the dollar amount is actually not fixed.
They could go back from where.
So to try to answer your question, right?
Because there's two components to this.
There's the streamlining, which is what we're
talking about approving tonight.
And then there's the overall program.
I think you have a couple options in what you're describing.
like. One is that you could.
Uh, amend the resolution to say
that the Planning Commission
would request, um, a report
from staff prior to it going to
City Council at the end of the
one year or at the expiration
of the $75,000, you know,
whichever happens first, Um,
to the grants program essentially.
So that's one option and staff would recommend that
because that's someone I'm most confident that we can do.
The second option would be to recommend
that the ordinance establishing the streamlining
also have a one year shot clock on it, so to speak.
That one, because I'm not a city attorney,
I'm less confident about our ability to do that.
but I think there's a couple of ways to achieve that.
Each of which would allow the Planning Commission
to hear a report on the program
and then send a recommendation to City Council
on whether or not it should be continued.
The resolution PC202605 says,
whereas on June 9th,
the City Council adopted resolution 3526,
establishing a one year facade improvement program.
So that to my mind says you got one year to try it out
and you have to come back after the end of that year
to see if you're gonna add a new one.
Am I not reading that already in the ordinance?
Yes, that's correct.
But we're not required to come back to Planning Commission
to give a report.
Good point, good point.
Thank you, good.
Okay.
So just one more question.
Because I think we're, I'm losing, I guess,
alignment with the fellow commissioners
on the subjectivity piece,
because I actually disagree and maybe I'm off pace.
But as staff, when you review these,
you review them against the DPP, right?
Like you review them against,
maybe that's the wrong document.
We take a look at all of our planning documents
and we try to identify the common themes in there
and we're reviewing them against that
as well as what's reasonably considered an improvement
and align with the eligible.
For the aesthetic and maybe planning staff gets
where I'm going with this, but because it,
if it's one thing to delegate these,
because I'm very supportive of streamlining
regulatory burdens, but if there was conviction
that they're being reviewed against language
that's in the DPP and I know that I'm new,
maybe I'm misspeaking on the,
but if that went to the planning commission,
so if it's in line with that,
then I think that's an easier pill to swallow maybe.
I mentioned earlier, as a result of our lawsuit, our DPP, we do not have one adopted.
Fair enough.
Okay.
Sorry.
I mean, I'm completely aligned with you.
If we had something in place like that, and they write, then I do have other plans, right?
So we have like Connect Orinda and other things that describe some of the architecture and
improvements that are generally desired in the city of Orinda.
And those are the things that we would look at to establish the themes.
can you hear me now? Yeah,
I'm not sure I'd quite a phone
just for clarity say, are we
talking about two different
things? One is the pot of money
that people can apply for
approval. And then the second
is we will have an ordinance
that if people bring their own
capital can go through
streamlined process to be
Okay, so it is combined it if
the money isn't there, nobody
can exercise the ordinance for
currently, right? So you can apply to the program right now and you could get approved
your project to get funds. If you did that today, you would still have to go through
any applicable processes, right? If this ordinance is adopted by the City Council, then if you
submit your project, you get approved, you get your money, and you don't have to go through
the processes were timeout exempting. So there's no scenario that this ordinance
would approve that would allow someone to get streamlining without an approved
facade improvement project reviewed by staff. I think what I'm hearing a lot
from the commissioners is just the concern of, and I'm gonna characterize it,
but just some sort of safeguards, you know, there's the subjective piece that
hearing some sort of I guess yeah review safeguards to ensure that you know at
least for me that there's you know a robust review you know I'm not talking
about slowing anything down but a robust review from people subject matter
experts perhaps that have some level of knowledge about you know the precise
plan the downtown precise plan or just other movements you know in the city in
the city planning and for me it seems the obvious an obvious subject matter
expert would be the expertise of the of a planner or someone there as well just
as a voice to have a look and make sure you know what's being proposed is you
know even within certain scope of what what we were you know the North Star
here horrendous so for me that's kind of what I I'm seeing of I would like
something that maybe had a little bit of safeguards in there and they for me it
that's not going to happen.
That seems like easy fix would
have someone another person
there.
But I don't know what other
people think about that.
I think as the discussion goes,
I agree with what you're saying
about wanting to streamline and
just it needs to be easier and
there needs to be less red tape
for folks to do wonderful things
to make the city better.
So in that spirit, what I'm
frustrating situation, right? I can imagine someone applying for the grant with a facade,
the staff saying, we don't like the design, you're not getting the money. And they were
great, then we'll pay for ourselves. It comes to us, we say, we love the design, it's approved.
Right? And then the question of, wait a minute, for free, you know, you guys didn't like it,
it's a what's one body, right? Or not for free, excuse me, but to get the grant money,
there's one subjective body looking at it. If I pay myself, there's a different subjective
the body looking at it. And are we going to create frustration and concerns from citizens
that are saying you got too many processes, too many bodies looking at the same type of
thing and evaluating it and they start worrying about escalations of when staff says no to
this and well then if they come to us can they go back and say well the planning commission
liked it so can we have the $5,000 you know match or whatever it is. And so I just I worry
about how to make this, I think the spirit of it is right.
I'm just concerned that the application of it
could actually create some frustration
and a little bit of dueling bodies
around approving in the same arena.
I agree, I agree, I agree.
I'm interested if there's a pathway
on what the chair recommended
because I think we'll absolutely have a guiding
right or standard, it's difficult.
All right, so maybe I'll ask the chair,
So are we suggesting we add some wording to the resolution
that the review that this project has to be reviewed,
at least part of the review process
must include planning staff at some level on this.
Is that the kind of the safety valve you're looking for?
Because there's nothing here, at least I didn't read it,
it says that you apply, when you apply for this program,
there's nothing in the ordinance that says who's reviewing it.
am I misreading it?
No, you're correct.
There's nothing in the ordinance
that describes who reviews it.
And you can certainly add something to the resolution
that says the planning commission recommends
this ordinance go forward,
but that planning staff be include in the review process
of all proposals.
That's okay.
Okay, all right.
I would support that.
Yeah, I would support that.
Yeah, I think I'm aligned with that.
just question to your point on confusion if this is a good process for review for a grant why is
it not a good process for review if somebody is paying for themselves it's an excellent question
and we we think that that would be best answered after we have some data at the conclusion of the
one year pilot program okay i mean that's where i mean personally and i'm probably a little bit
if we're trying to make people's lives easier and more streamlined.
We should probably think broader than $7500 for quick approval, but, um, I would support today with, uh, and support my fellow commissioners and what they would like to see.
Can you put some words on that then because I'm having trouble right? Okay. Um, and director cross, you might have, um, a very good answer to that question.
you might have to help me with but maybe so it sounds like the Commission is
looking to approve but with modifications yes yes and I think the
modification would be that the approval process include Planning Commission staff
planning department staff planning department staff. Correct. Can I add something to the effective and that there should be report back to planning commission at the end of the year's term to see what if anything got accomplished and how successful or whatever it is.
Am I am I pressing my luck. No, and I think actually to review the to review actual the designs that were approved. Yeah, just, just as a year end, at least as a part of the renewal process of the program that at the end of the year's term.
that are report that report be submitted to Planning Commission for review and approval something to that. I think that's great and for accountability. And yeah, and that's measured that would make me a lot more comfortable with it. I'm fine with with that addition.
I think. So I would say for the record, when emotion is made to make sure to adopt the resolution right at the amendments adopt resolution, can I make a make a motion.
to adopt resolution PC2026-5, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera
with the additional amendment that the approval
or that the review process
for the facade improvement program includes planning staff
and that at the end of the one year term of the FIP
that a report is brought back to the planning commission
for review and approval of continuance of the program.
for the first time. Can you
read the entire recommendation
for the record? I need to read
the whole thing. Can I make a
suggestion before you get to
that? I think some of us talked
about saying one year or the
exhaustion of the 75,000,
whatever comes from it. Staff
recommends to adopt resolution
number PC2026-05, recommending
17.8.5, I downtown commercial district.
17.18.5 exempt signs.
17.21.3, permit required for removal
or destruction of a protected tree.
17.30.3, design review requirement
for the purposes of streamlining permit requirements
for the approved facade improvement program projects
with the added proviso that that review process
of the projects includes planning staff.
And the term of the approval is one year
or the $75,000 funds being consumed.
Which ever comes first.
And reporting back to Planning Commission.
Reporting back to Planning Commission for continuation.
Thank you.
For Planning Commission to offer a recommendation
to City Council on the continuation.
To continue, yes.
right. I think we have all of the amendments in that motion. Do I have your mind? I think
we have all of the amendments in that motion by, can I clarify one word? Yes. On on planning
staff. I think you said the word review. Is that the right word or is it approved? The
review process includes planning staff review and approval processing against planning staff.
Yeah. Yes, that's my understanding as well. Do I have a second? Second. Commissioner Woblinski
is the second to that motion. And we'll do a roll call vote. Commissioner Schmidt? I.
Commissioner Hovner? I. Commissioner Morroa? I. Commissioner Woblinski? I. And Commissioner
Armstrong is an I, so that motion passes unanimously.
Okay, item H, and thank you, Mr. Haslund,
appreciate your presentation.
Hayslip.
Hayslip, thank you.
Item H, other commission matters.
Are there any other matters seeing and hearing none?
Item I, planning commissioner's report.
And I do not have a report tonight.
So item J planning directors update.
Yes, two updates.
42 Charles Hill, it's on appeal.
It will go on appeal before the city council on August 18th.
And then the planning commissioner rules and procedures.
I went back as well and looked at our ordinance.
And so actually it was correct.
A high vote means a denial.
and you can't reset a new motion.
I appreciate your looking into Robert's rule of order
on the spot and burning a crisis.
So that was really good.
Thank you.
Okay. So that concludes my updates.
Thank you.
Item K, adjournment.
Can I have a motion to adjourn?
Move.
Do I have a second?
Second.
All in favor?
Aye.
Aye.
We'll see you next time.