Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

[Music] Hey. [Music]

the target uh building which is the major one uh tenant building. A vicinity map is shown on the screen for reference. The architecture is in line with the target brand and is accented by its target red color. The remainder of the building is a gray color scheme with a stone veneer and a metal auding. And then they're proposing niche wood panel accents. This is um north elevation is the primary frontage for this building. They continue the gray color scheme to the south and west elevation with some accents of red as well as part of the architecture for the multi-tenant building which is highlighted in yellow in the vicinity map. They are proposing a contemporary style with a neutral color scheme. Incorporated into the building are varying roof lines and articulation and the building is accented by gabled and pitch roofs and a stone veneer. The same style is carried to the south and west elevations as well. And then for a coherent look, the architectural style is carried to shop the shops 2 building as well as well as pad a um architecture. The remaining buildings will follow the same architecture or the corporate brand architecture of future tenants. As noted earlier, the applicant is proposing a sign program as well. This is to allow two monument signs and two pylon signs along Oak Valley Parkway, a freeway oriented pylon sign to the west of the property, and design guidelines for pad A, major 2, shops one and two, and retail one, which are highlighted in the light brown. The freeway oriented sign will be 60 ft in height and provide on-site signage for tenants. The sign is held by two columns and accented by stone

veneer. The two pylons are proposed at 20 ft in height and will have a similar design as a freeway oriented sign. And then a monument sign, two monument signs at 6 feet in height are provided as well. Signings for these signs will also be for on-site um tenants. Other provisions of the sign program include wall placement and wall height sign height limitations. All of these signs will require a separate sign permit application with the planning and building department. The target which has a grocery store component will be applying for a type one and type 86 ABC license. and then another ger will apply for a type 20 license as described in the staff report. This would exceed the allowable number of offsell licenses and therefore requires a PCN finding. This is justified due to the nature of the use which is grocery stores. The site is not located within 600 ft of a public or private school public park nor nor place of worship. It is also not within 100 ft of a residence. Thus, the project meets the distance requirements provided by ABC. So, the project does qualify for A15183 exemption projects consistent with the community planner zoning. An analysis is included as attachment A and has found that the project is consistent with the 2020 general plan EIR and a previously certified project EIR at the same project site. As described in the staff report, the project is consistent with the MSHCP and will convey to RCA approximately 23 acres of conservation. I will now turn it over to Rob Steel, our economic development consultant. Good evening, Rob Steele. Uh I'm a economic development consultant to the

city. Been with the city approximately one year. I was originally engaged, I think, to bridge uh the staffing until you have your full complement of uh economic development professionals that you now have. And this was one of the projects that was delegated to me to make sure that it um moved forward uh through the process. I have a brief slide presentation on development agreements. Um and um we start with uh who are you entering into a development agreement with? Um, AVG Partners LLC is the underlying land owner. Uh, they own that large site that Melody showed a few minutes ago. Um, at the corner of Oak Valley Parkway and the I 10 freeway. Uh, their partner, joint venture partner is Regency Centers. They're a national owner of shopping centers, developer of shopping centers. Um, generally speaking, Community Orange Shopping Center is either grocery drug anchored or in this case, as you've seen, a Target uh groceryer anchored shopping center. uh they have a substantial portfolio of these shopping centers throughout California and the nation and they're well suited to undertake this project. So what is a development agreement? Uh they were authorized by government code by statutes of the state of California and also by a city adopted resolution 19874. Uh a development agreement is a contract a voluntary contract between a city and an applicant. Um and the the goal is to provide benefits to both parties. Uh certainty has value to developers. Uh knowing what your rules and regulations you're subject to, what development impact fees you're subject to. Um as you know, kind of time is money as well. So those are all very important elements of the value exchange between the city and a developer. Um, one thing that the development agreement does is it vests the land use uh, approvals that you're considering this evening. Those become what we call

the project approvals and the city is obligated to apply those rules to this project notwithstanding any future changes you might make or citizens might make through a referend. So, it locks in the rules and regulations uh, for this particular project. That doesn't apply to every project. So that's in that that respect it's unique um and one of the main reasons why development agreements are used. The city because it mitigates developers risk is usually entitled to some form of compensation. That compensation can take the form of actual cash, you know, a development agreement fee sometimes. Other times it's basically uh the project itself that the city's after. So the revenues, the jobs, the goods and services that come with the project that are most important to the city. And I would say it's that last component that this project development agreement is basically um negotiated for is uh the city wants the new goods and services that the shopping center provides along with the jobs and the sales tax and property tax revenues. the project scope. U I think Melody covered this uh so I won't bore you with more details but u 230,000 square feet is what the phase one project is uh includes uh 148,000t Target a 24,000t grocery store and then the the ancillary shop space that was presented of about 58,000 square feet. Uh Target will build its store under a ground lease. So the developer will improve the site all the horizontal improvements and then deliver the site to target and they will do the vertical component of the construction. Uh Regency will build the remainder of the center under build the suit leases or ground leases with other pad users. So they may on a smaller scale lease pads to restaurant tours, fast food restaurants, coffee shops,

what have you. uh for some of the out parcels. Uh and then there is a future phase two planned on that uh western side of the project. You may have seen major three on the map. That would be a future phase hopefully not too far behind completion of the first phase of the project. Regency intends to grade the entire site, make some of the backbone infrastructure improvements, detention basins, retention walls along the flood control channels. So you'll see work com commence on the entire site but uh the primary horizontal and vertical improvements will be on the phase one site only. U this bears repeating the entitlements you're considering this evening and you can see there's several of them. Uh as I mentioned in the first slide all of these entitlements that you grant the conditions of approval become part of the project approvals and those are the only rules that can apply to this project with some exceptions. uh we don't uh accept them from the building code for instance or the fire code. If there are any changes to the uniform codes, they're still subject to those. So there are certain reservations of authority that the city retains. Uh but by and large the the setbacks and the development standards are all encompassed within uh the project rules. There is a proposal for a digital display uh that would uh promote both on and off on-site off-site advertising and uh as it's my understanding that under the Bowmont municipal code that is considered a billboard. Uh a section of your code does not provide for uh billboards that advertise offsite. um Regency as part of their request under the development agreement requested relief from that prohibition and ask for permission for one digital display board to be located near the I10 freeway to capture the traveling

public. Uh they are required uh to procure all permits from other agencies that may have jurisdiction. So Calrans for instance uh will probably have jurisdiction um and this they will agree to hold us harmless and indeidentify us from any claims that may arise from those applications. What the development agreement does and you will adopt or the city council will adopt the development agreement by ordinance. It is a legislative act. So uh they will use that vehicle to wave that prohibition on the digital display board for this particular location. So, it won't apply citywide. It'll it'll be unique to this location and in exchange for the benefits that uh we'll derive from this project. The developer must submit an application to the planning department for that approval. Um it will, as I understand it, come before this planning commission uh with conditions and it is uh what is defined in the development agreement as a sub subsequent discretionary approval. So, it's not guaranteed. they have to meet the criteria and the conditions that you set forth after your proper consideration. So, locationally, that's the approximate sign location on that parcel closest to the freeway there. And this is a conceptual plan. Um, it is non-dimensioned. Again, it hasn't been formally submitted to the city, but you see the digital display board there at the top just below the branding for the city of Bowmont and then the branding for the shopping center below. And then I believe those will be placard positions for tenants that are located on the project site. This is a pretty simple development agreement. Um compared to most um the basic terms are that it becomes effective when the ordinance adopting the development agreement becomes effective. So that's usually first reading, second reading of the city council and then 30 days thereafter. Uh the owner has to acquire fee title the property. right now

they're partners but uh Regency does not own uh the property uh and we put an outside date of June 30th 2026 so basically they have one year to acquire the property um in order for the development agreement to become effective and they plan to be much more uh efficient than that but that is an outside date for the purposes of the agreement the term of the agreement is 10 years uh so that's the lock period on that those vesting privileges I mentioned on the land use entitle ments and there is a mutual option for one five-year extension. Um typically we tried to provide adequate time for them to complete the construction of the project in 10 years is probably more than enough for them to complete their planned um project both phases one and two. Um but it does provide them some cushion in case um things uh get delayed. Uh not to repeat fest entitlements for the term of the development agreement. Um the main incentive if you're on the city's part is that the city is agreeing to reimburse uh the partnership for the cost of Oak Valley Parkway improvements. Um those include five intersections uh five signalized intersections, all of the halfw improvements along Oak Valley Parkway. uh and all the incidental improvements that go with that. Undergrounding utilities, installing or relocating utilities that may need to be uh upsized. So all the work within the public right away uh will be widened to the general plan standard and uh through lanes of traffic will be established so there's no bottleneck east of the site. So customers have convenient access to the site. All the signals hopefully are operational and synchronized so that it improves the customer access to the shopping center and for folks that are not accessing the shopping center helps them get through the shopping center. And importantly, the developer will pay

all the development impact fees. So this reiterates the scope of work that I just mentioned. So there's uh five signals. There's one uh project driveway that's mentioned and they will have to make some widening improvements uh at that location. No signal as I understand it, but there are six intersections in effect that are being improved and are subject to the reimbursement from the city. And again, undergrounding utilities, a very significant cost taking the overhead lines there along Oak Valley Parkway and putting them underground um to the um the extent of the phase two project, the phase one and phase two project. uh and any ancillary uh overhead lines, cable, uh fiber optic that may be there, all will go underground. The estimated hard cost of those improvements was 7.6 million. So that doesn't include design work, project management, uh what we normally consider soft cost. So the actual cost of the project are probably in the mid8s, I'm guessing, somewhere around there, uh to the developer. um and they've agreed to uh accept a 6 million maximum reimbursement from the city for the cost that work. So again, just pointing out the the scope of the improvements, the five intersections that are involved. You'll see the three kind of project related intersections there in the middle. There's two at the wings, one at Elm, and one at Desert Lawn. Uh those are unimproved, un non signalized intersections at the moment. So they will install new traffic signals and make all the intersection improvements at those locations. Uh even though those weren't on the project site, they're off the site and they were required by the traffic study that was performed by the applicant. So the reimbursement agreement isn't a form exhibit to the development agreement. It's the sort of the nuts and bolts that dictates how the city is going to reimburse the $6

million. Um it will be added to the city CIP and budget. Uh that is is our requirement of the development agreement. Um and the city agrees to re reimburse Regency for the actual cost. And it's important to note it's the actual cost of improvement uh when they've substantially completed those public improvements. So the public works director will have to sign off that the work is complete substantially complete. Um the on-site improvements are substantially complete. So all the flat work and the vertical work uh that's required by the development agreement uh and that's basically that certificates of occupancy have been issued for not less than 50,000 square feet and of that 50,000 square feet I think 23 or 20,000 square feet has to be one of the anchors. So probably be the grocery store anchor has to be a component part of that 50,000 square feet. So at least a portion of the shopping center that Regency controls, the vast majority of what they control will be vertical and then hopefully the other uses come online as well. The targets the the largest at 148,000 square feet obviously and um that should fall shortly thereafter. Uh there is a provision in state law that uh unless um or it is the city can only reimburse for the actual costs of public improvements that are granted as a condition of regulatory approval. So uh you will be conditioning them tonight to make all those improvements. If we uh only reimburse for those actual costs, then they only have to pay prevailing wages on the public improvements. So, all the Oak Valley Parkway improvements, they will be required to uh comply with some components of the public contracting code and the prevailing wage statutes, but their private improvements. The the vertical structures of the shops, the target, any of the pad users are not subject to the prevailing wage requirements. And that

was one of the major negotiating uh objectives of the two parties was to avoid burdening the project with prevailing wages because that would be a substantial incremental cost to the developer and probably render it in feasible to develop. The city hasn't decided on exactly how it's going to reimburse Regency just yet, but uh two potential sources are development impact fees. uh we've discussed with the developer uh reimbursement agreement that is a separate reimbursement agreement from the one I just mentioned but it would reimburse them if other developers pay fair share of fees towards certain intersections and then any other available monies to the city general fund monies that uh are available to make the $6 million reimbursement and what do we get in exchange uh obviously the expanded goods and services a general merchandiser a new specialty grosser and all the shop space that normally uh co-enants with those uses. Uh you get full circulation improvements to Oak Valley Parkway. So you no longer have bottlenecks and unimproved se segments of that road at least on the east side of the I10 freeway. Uh approximately 450 full and part-time employment opportunities for phase one. Uh I mentioned the potential for a second major in phase two of 50,000 square feet or so would add additional employees. And then just for phase one, the estimate for sales taxes is 665 $675,000 net per year. Net means that we've made a deduction for cannibalization sales that would be reallocated from existing shopping centers in uh Bowmont. So that is a net new number to the city uh that you're not now recognizing. And then property taxes of approximately 100,000 plus or minus a year. And there there are some indirect revenue sources that are generated by these two numbers. Pool allocations on sales taxes and property taxes and LW that'll add add some additional revenues. So this is sort of

a conservative estimate of what the net new revenue should be to the city. Uh but it will be a substantial addition to the city's revenue base. And roughly in terms of timing, um entitlements are under consideration this evening. We're expecting the development agreement to be approved in July for second reading. Uh it becomes effective 30 days after that second reading in August. Uh I believe Regency expects to start grading operations in October. Uh perhaps pull building permits late this year, early next year. Uh target pulling permits uh second quarter, late first quarter, early second quarter of next year. and then phase one complete approximately April of 27. I think the second quarter of uh 2027 is a a safe estimate of the expected completion date. So what is the planning commission's role with a development agreement? Um your role is not to approve the development agreement. Uh your role is to make these five findings and make and pass that recommendation along to the city council. Um so the staff report that you have uh provides narrative explanation of each of these five findings and I won't repeat them here but basically uh in the broad uh overview uh your role is to make findings that it's consistent with the general plan that it's consistent with good planning practice uh that it's uh consistent with uh health and safety of the residents of of Bowmont and uh won't adversely affect property values in the community and Again, uh the staff report provides detailed findings of each of these um of these standards, and these are standards that were set forth by the city council in that resolution 1987 34. I do have

one modification to the development agreement I'd like to enter into the record just um because it's a significant one. Um in section 2.71 of the agree development agreement page 11 at the very bottom of the page uh it has a proviso that um the city manager has the authorization to increase the maximum reimbursement amount that $6 million I discussed by 10%. Uh however uh when we made the offer of 6 million the intent was that that was not to exceed amount. So, uh, we'd like to strike that one sentence from the development agreement and keep the 6 million as a maximum not to exceed that'll facilitate the budgeting. We know what our uh object is uh in terms of budgeting. So, and I briefly discussed it with the regency before the meeting uh and uh I make that one amendment with your permission. With that, I will turn it back over to Melody. So um before I go on to the recommendation um we do have some changes to the conditions of approval. Um so the first one being removing building condition number 60. So um per building official that's already included in the building code. So they'll they'll comply with that during plan check review. And then I have also provided red lines for sewer conditions 46, 47, and 48. Um, so those those are requested changes with with the recommendation that I'm going to read right now. So with this um planning staff or staff recommends that the planning commission hold a public hearing and approve plot plan PP2024-0059 sign program plan 2024-0157 variances

V2024-0019 and V2025-0031 and sequa exemption subject to the attached conditions of approval with those amendments. that I explained and approve a finding of public necessity convenience and necessity. direct staff to prepare a notice of exemption for the applicant to file with the Riverside County Clerk Recorder and the State Clearing House and wave the full reading and adopt by title only a resolution of the planning commission of the city of Bowmont recommending that the city council of the city of Bowmont approve and adopt a proposed development agreement plan 2025-0177 buyin between the city of Bowmont and Bumont Regency ABG subject to the attached conditions of approval. This concludes our report and staff is available for questions. Would also like to note that our city attorney is on call in case there are any questions. Uh Miss Nancy Dfug. Great. Thank you for that report. Do we have any uh questions from the commission? Mr. Yes, I have a question and I'm going to stay away from the development agreement as much as I can, but I know my question may tie into it a little bit. Uh, one of the questions is starting the permit to start obtaining permits, do they need to have fee title on the property? I don't believe so. They just need permission from the property owner. Okay. So, if that's the that's the case, the other part of the the question I have is on Oak Valley, um I've seen how impacted that can get and my concern is is once they start the horizontal improvements on Oak Valley, is there a time limit that they need to complete

those those uh improvements? The development agreement doesn't have a time limit. Uh but they will need to complete them in order to get their certificates of occupancy. So they're motivated to get those completed as soon as possible and they don't get reimbursed uh either. No. And and and I do understand that. I know that um a little further down the road there's residential communities that are are being constructed. I know it's not commercial, but I can't tell you how many times that road has been closed or diverted or what have you. I just want to make sure that we don't have this issue uh once we start opening up Oak Valley to put in the horizontal construction due to the horizontal construction. Do you normally have a condition? No. So there are no limitations on construction. As uh Rob had mentioned, the project itself is the incentiv incentivizes them finishing the roads. We'll also have bonds. So if they fail to uh complete those improvements in a reasonable amount of time, the city has the option to pull the bonds and finish the the construction uh through the city city's means. Okay. And I and I see in the conditions of approval um condition number 22 prior to the issu issuance of an occupancy permit that those uh street improvements means all street improvements have to be completed if let's say they're working on the the major one shopping component of this. Is that correct? Yeah. The city will inspect those improvements. I think Rob had touched on that as well and make sure that they are all uh fully complete and acceptable prior to the issuance of the the certificate

of occupancy. There may be some deferred improvements. Um, for instance, some of those traffic signals that are remote or or off-site, those may be deferred or through negotiations, the applicant may request other improvements um deferred. However, the city will be, you know, negotiating partner with that and make sure it's it's not a hindrance to local residents or uh traffic. Okay. Okay. And then the last question that I have is reducing the parking by 181 parking stalls. Um and this is where I may touch again. I want to make sure that they don't come back and and say, "Well, we want to reduce an additional X." Um, we've had that come before a planning commission before and I I just want to make sure 181 is where we're stopping at. Yes. So, the variance is only for 181. A further reduction would require them to come back to planning commission. Okay, that's all I have. Thanks. Any other commissioners questions? Yes, I have some questions. I don't understand the justification for so many variances. What is the justification for the electronic billboard sign where the city has said we don't want them and now suddenly we're going to grant one um one applicant a billboard sign and we've turned it down in the past. We have an ordinance specifically prohibiting that. And would the u objection or the refusal for that variance cause the project to fail? The uh sign itself is not part of the variance. That's part of the

development agreement. And the development agreement as an ordinance is taking that sign and approving it as part of the city's code now because now it's it's part of the ordinance without that development agreement. uh language that freeway oriented sign would not be able to happen because of the city's current prohibition. You're correct, sir. The variances only pertain to the parking and to the open space, but not to the uh sign. Okay. So, if we were to approve this, the sign would not be approved. If you were to recommend limbo, yes, the the development agreement itself, you're recommending to the council. If your recommendation was we recommend the development agreement without the sign, you you have the right to do that, then it's up to the council to decide whether to take that recommendation or do their own. Thank you. Yes, sir. Now, I also have a question with the the parking. There was some statement about shared parking, but at this point in time, I don't understand I I I don't believe that there's any indication of who all the tenants will be. And we saw a recent uh situation where we agreed to some shared parking. It's an absolute mess. The shared parking didn't work out because the anticipated tenants that they thought they were going to get aren't the tenants they got. And so it appears to me that there's a expectation that there'll be shared parking. But we have no indication of how that shared parking is going to work because we don't know who the tenants are. Would the not allowing the shared parking, the 181, would that cause the project to fail? Is there a change that can be made perhaps one of the buildings

um not be developed? Uh is this an absolute uh requirement? And I'd have the same comments and the same things on the open space variance is why is this variance necessary? Is this a convenience or is this a financial matter for the developer? Um why are we this looks like a a list of variances. While I'd love to see this project be approved and completed, it just seems like we're making a lot of concessions that in the past both the city council and the planning commission have decided these are important items and now we're we're shuffling them away. Uh I don't want to get caught up in a oh this would be great to have these retailers but let's cast aside all the planning that we've done in the past. I'll tell you so in talking to the developer um they've been looking at the site for over 20 years and it is a financial feasibility issue uh because of the 23 acres of conservation that are required uh and overall need to have a certain amount of square footage to make the project feasible economically. Um they have to really tighten everything up. So the 23 acres those can't be developed they have to be conserved. uh the way the site is configured, you know, it's not a rectangular site completely. So, there's different areas that have to be graded to accommodate the configuration of the buildings. So, all in all, to make this project work, the city had to step in with this development agreement, identify, hey, we can help out with fee credits, right? Uh and ultimately this is all the parking that could be begotten because again we also have landscaping uh standards and

minimum parking size standards. Uh so the 181 ft uh spaces that we see with the shared parking that's been configured uh with the type of uses that are there uh we figure is very minimal uh compared to what we're getting in return. And that's why staff feels this can be supported. Okay. and the open space. Yes, the open space similarly, sir. The the the same. Okay. Same thing because of the configuration of the lot. And again, 23 acres being dedicated to conservation. Uh there's minimal areas. And again, if it was a a let's say this was just a straight shopping center, rectangle, it'd be a lot easier to provide that open space. uh developer has looked at different options and every option that they've looked at they have to meet certain standards for the parking sizes for the planter sizes. Well, I certainly understand that. I've been involved in the development of over a hundred shopping malls. Um and I just don't see where where there's that much of an economic value to dropping one of these tenant buildings or one of these tenant spaces, making it smaller. I I can't get my hand around the fact that that one uh reduced uh rental space is is going to collapse this entire uh economic plan. What I'd like to officer is um we have the developer here that can answer that question uh better than I can I think in terms of the uh economics. Hi, good evening. Uh, my name is Chris Sanchez. I'm a vice president of development at Regency Centers. And, um, I think Gus is speaking along the correct lines. There's almost so only so

much surface area that we can develop. Um, we have a 29 just under 29 acre project, right? We have 280,000 square feet. Typically retail surface parked singlestory development. Our target is 10,000 square feet of building per acre. So we're under that at 280,000 ft, 29 acres. We tried to maximize parking as best we could and get as close to that 10,000 square feet of building per acre um for our coverage for our returns for our revenue assumptions. Um that goes hand in hand with open space. More open space, less parking, right? Um less open space on the margin, um more parking. So, we're trying to balance all of those factors. But I I do hear your concerns, Commissioner Kulie. That's all I have right now. Mr. Any questions? Uh yes, I have three. Um on the digital sign by the freeway, has consideration been made taken into cons well consideration be in the evening when you have a bright digital sign facing the freeway both directions for possible distraction to drivers. That's number one. Yeah. Yes, sir. That will come to you right now. It's a conceptual plan, but that type of detail will come to you under a separate application. Uh that will be reviewed by the planning commission. So, yes, right now there's not that detail provided. All right. Okay. Thank you. Um can I just ask a follow up on that? Oh, go ahead. So, when it does come back in front of the

planning commission, would it be correct for me to assume that it has already gone through CALR's approval so that we can dispense with that question about distracted driving? It'll likely be a concurrent review, sir, because CALR tends to take a little longer. Uh, but what the applicant would like to do is get this started right after the DA is executed to come back uh with the sign proposal. And it'll be in the form of a modification to the sign program. And so that'll come to you, I would say, within the next 3 months at most. But we are um encouraging the applicant to get the CALR project uh process started sooner than later. Okay. Sorry, Alan. Thanks. Okay. Uh second question, parking um seems, you know, like a minor issue, but it's I've seen it u pose problems in the past in other centers. What size are the parking spaces? Are they designed for compact cars, full-size cars, SUVs, pickup trucks? So, our code requires 9 by19 feet for parking stalls and that's what the applicant is proposing and that justifies standard stalls. Yeah. So, it justifies the standard SUV. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Last question. The um Sorry, I got to put my glasses back on. All right. um public convenience and necessity regarding a variance to the alcohol licenses. Across the street from on Oak Valley, we have um one retailer, the gas station that serve sells alcoholic beverages, a bar, and at least two restaurants that serve liquor.

So, I don't understand the public convenience of making it available just on the other side of the street. It's certainly not a necessity to be able to not go on one side of the street versus another. The ride aid is out. someone will take its place um and undoubtedly come back to us and ask for u approval to have liquor there as Ryaid did. But still, we've got over four establishments right now, including a bar um and two restaurants. Um I have difficulty finding that to be the justification for um public convenience and necessity. So, so the licenses you referenced are in a different census track than this development. So, the way ABC um limits licenses is per census tract. The census track where this project is located, they have two offsell um licenses and they're only allowed two on sale per ABC. However, the there could be a finding a public convenience and necessity to add these um these licenses per what is the public convenience and necessity to not cross the street. It may be what I'm I'm trying to visualize this. Um the tract allows we're making a variance to allow four instead of two. I think two is enough. So, so it's not a variance. It's a finding of of public convenience and necessity. It's it's it's a separate um finding public necessity. Can you define that for me? Typically, sir, what happens? The reason ABC has these findings of public convenience and necessity is in

situations like this where you have a grocery store that has the convenience of serving alcohol. So, somebody goes, let's say, to Target, rather than saying, "I can't buy my alcohol here. now I've got to go across the street and buy it elsewhere. It's the convenience for them to be able to get it there and then. In other words, shopping for their items there plus being able to purchase alcohol. That's their public convenience. So, when we look at the public convenience and necessity, we're looking at the actual use. In this case, it's a grocery store or a retail store that happens to sell alcohol. It'd be quite different if it was, let's say, a bar or or a nightclub where there really wouldn't be any necessity to go there. You know, you're not buying anything else. So, that's really the intent of cities being able to make that finding of public convenience a necessity. I I understand what you're saying, but as a resident, if I know that that grocery store doesn't sell liquor, then I'll go across the street if I really want it. Um, it just seems the regulation of or ABC saying you can have two, but if you can justify public necessity and convenience, we'll let you make that decision and add more. So, who's getting the original two and that development? Is it not the target and potentially sprouts? It would be in this situation uh likely both that would be able to sell the alcohol. Uh but without without that public convenience and necessity, we would be saying that neither of these stores would be able to have that service. Well, we're already allowing ABC is already allowing two. The developer wants four. So two, one goes

to Sprouts, one goes to um Target. Let's assume that's correct. Then we have proposed other retailers yet to be identified that would then be allowed to apply for those liquor licenses that may or may not be be wanted. Two existing. Yeah. Okay. So there's already two existing um licenses which I I think was included as an attachment to the staff report. So that that's why with these additional licenses, it it would need the public convenience and assessment. Where are those two? Let me look at the staff report. Are those are the ones uh Melody within the same census track just across the street? Correct. [Music] The ones across the street are under a separate census tract. Um, and if I recall, it's one of the the club houses on the the communities that has a license, I think. Okay. I I'm sorry, I didn't understand that. So, so the the question that was asked by staff was so the north ones were on a separate census track. So ABC with their over concentration doesn't take those into consideration for the oversaturation of this property. This one's on a separate census tract and there are two existing offsell licenses for this tract census track not this property. I understand where and where are those two is what I'm asking. From what I recall, just from memory, it's it's it was one of the community's club houses that had Morango and and one other had had a liquor license.

I believe that's 1906. The restaurant, the golf course. So, the golf course has the one of the existing licenses. Yes. So, the golf course, the Oak Valley golf course is the same census track as this one. That's one. And then would the other one be the Holiday Inn? No, the Holiday Inn is on it on the northern census track. So which is the second melody? You said Morango. Okay. Morango as in Tuckwit. Correct. You're telling me that the same census track that Tuckwit golf course is at is the same as this project. Correct. It it extended to the to the west the census tract. Well, that's actually southeast or but sorry for um Okay, you answered my questions. Thank you very much. Okay. Uh just I think a couple questions from me. I think commissioners asked to some of my concerns on the variances, but um going back to the development agreement and the digital sign, uh I don't know if it's part of this process here, but would that be something where the city would be able to have advertising on that billboard on an ongoing basis? That would be the idea that uh the city could share in the advertising, sir, for public um uh reasons. That's correct. and the applicant has shared that as a possibility, something that they would do. Uh but again, this is something that um we would do as a separate uh project when it comes in. Uh we can discuss those terms at that point. I have another question. Sure. Go ahead, Commissioner Goldlin. I want to go back

to the liquor thing, the alcohol. If the Tuckwit is in the same census tract, what is Stater Brothers that is closer to this facility off in in that area? I'm curious the Stater Brothers on on Valley, right? Um so a separate census track is a different So that that's also a se separate census tract in the city of Kalamesa as well. Okay. Um, okay. Thank you. My last question, um, and I know we talked a lot about the traffic improvements along Oak Valley, but, um, are there anything we can speak to, uh, for the actual interchange itself? Is there any coordination that's going to need to happen there with CALR or any additional improvements? The uh I 10 Oak Valley Parkway interchange project is a TU WR Cog U project and the um project is required to pay a tough fee towards that towards those improvements. Do you have a time frame on that project by chance? I do I had one more comment for staff um on the improvements um on Desert Lawn putting in a signal there. I would suggest coordinating that with the other signals that are crossing the freeway. So that would alleviate tremendous amount of backup. If one turns green, that's red. So you have a green so you can get in line for the one lane passing, you know, crossing over the freeway. It'd be great if they were synced together. We'll have uh Mr. Vesttol first refer to Mr. Su's comment, then Mr. Collins.

Okay. Thank you. So, for the timing, it is a a large interchange. We're currently in the PAED phase, which is like preliminary engineering. So, it is probably a 10-year project. Uh, with respect to I'm sorry. Can you um Oh, the signal timing. Signal timing. You're dealing with one lane each direction crossing over the freeway. So, I'm just suggesting that you put a signal in on Desert Lawn. Uh, but you're going to have another signal at the entrance to cross over the freeway, which is allowing for people to turn right going east. and that backs it up normally. So if the lights are not synced together, you're going to have even more backup. So I would suggest engineering uh look at that. So the synchronization is there to provide an even flow or I shouldn't say even a smooth flow. Yeah, I think synchronization uh will be a key factor in finding that last bit of efficiency throughout city of Bulmont. So in this suggestion just to keep it in mind that's all. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions from commissioners? Seeing none, we'll go ahead and move on to uh public hearing and I will open the public hearing at 7 PM. Uh do we have any requests to speak? I have no written requests and no emails. Benny, do we have any callers on the line? No callers. Hearing none, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing at 7 p.m. And I'll uh turn it back to the commission for comments or a motion.

I'll go ahead and make a motion. I move that uh we hold a public hearing to consider request for approval of a plot plan PP2024-0059 sign program plan 2024-0157 variance V2024-0019 and V2025-000031. I'll second the motion. Okay. Can we discuss this at this point? There can be discussion before the roll call. Okay. Sure. Go ahead. I'd be much more comfortable if we if the recommendation deleted the sign program portion. Um I don't see that the there's been any justification for that any uh any indication that the project would fail without that sign. There's been multiple discussions as to whether or not we wanted to approve those kinds of signs and we've turned it down in other situations and to say let's go ahead and approve the sign program as it is with that electronic sign. I think that flies in the face of the work that's been done before. I really want to see this project go forward, but I think we're we're making some exceptions and some variances based on a statement by the developer that they've looked at the finances and they have to have this much in order to make it work. I don't think we've seen any justification, but there's be a definite value to our our citizenship of the city. And I don't have a problem with with varying the parking lot and varying the open space, but the sign program I I really have a problem with that though we've turned it down multiple times for

multiple developers and now suddenly it's kind of like the flames to our feet approve this or we're not going to do it. It just doesn't seem to make sense. Sir, just for clarification, um you're referring to the portion in the development agreement with the LED freeway sign, correct? Not the sign program itself. Correct. Just the LED sign. And what I would what I'd request is in our recommendation is that if we make a recommendation that we approve it, but I think that recommendation would be that it prohibit any electronic sign. And the reason I want to be clear is because the sign program right now does not have the freeway LED sign. You'd have to modify the sign program later to bring that back. Um the LED sign is within the development agreement. So your recommendation or what you're proposing is that it be removed from the development agreement. Okay. Um Okay. So, no, what what I'd like to see the recommendation say is that uh we approve what's here, but we recommend to the city council that it not allow an electronic sign. Okay. Period. Understood. Go ahead. Um I think I'm going to uh disagree with you on that, Commissioner Kley. Um I think um that uh a project of this size and scope um and I know the staff's worked really hard on this development agreement. Um so I think I'm of mine to um push this to city council uh with the recommendation that the development agreement be uh made in whole. Um but that's just me. I'll I'll defer to my other commissioners up here. chair and uh commissioners, our economic development consultants has some

additional information that might help with this. If um you we can give them the floor on that. Just to address your comment, Commissioner Kulie, we did very early on perform a financial analysis of this project, the real estate project. We hired a consultant that specializes in looking at developer performance, considering the rents, the cost of construction, and all these components, the 6 million contribution, the digital display board. I think there's also some electronic or uh fueling stations, electric fueling stations on the site. They all were part of the U financing program for this project and uh the basic conclusion of that report was that the project did not meet normal rates of return thresholds even with these supplemental sources of revenue. So it was sort of but for the assistance from the city this project would probably not go forward. So, uh, we were sensitive to your inquiry as to why we're making these concessions and part of that was to help, uh, make this project become financially feasible. Thank you for that. I would have liked to have seen that in the information that was given to us. Um, that makes a a difference in um, in how I perceive it. How does that address the digital sign that is only um projected at this point? Not, you know what I mean? It's not a formal request at this point. It's conceptual, but are you anticipating uh revenue to the city from that or increased revenue to the project noticeably and um verifiable? Uh it is a proposal from the developer at this point. There's no guarantee as we pointed out that they're going to get permission to build it either from you or from CALR or other agencies with jurisdiction. But if they are successful in getting all the entitlements to build

it, it is an additional income stream to help support the project economics. So, okay. Um, unfortunately, we've had some informal conversations about sharing in the revenue stream, but uh, you may recall in my presentation I said there's one safe harbor in avoiding prevailing wages on the project, and that is uh, you're only reimbursing them for the actual cost of the public improvements. And there's one proviso that says, "And you cannot have a proprietary interest in the project." And unfortunately, uh, the attorneys have deemed the, u relationship, a sharing relationship on the sign as possibly being a proprietary interest, which would trigger a prevailing wage burden on all of the improvements. So, in exchange for a very limited revenue stream to the city, you would burden the developer with perhaps $10 million of additional cost. So, uh, we still need further conversations on that. Um, but, um, that's kind of where we are right now. Okay. Thank you. So I have a question and I go back to my original statement was if I know CALR can be very difficult. I've dealt with CALR so I bless you for that. Good luck. Um can we require that CALR approval be received prior to taking a second look because ultimately it'll be CalR will make that determination whether they're going to issue the permit or not. Correct. That that is correct, sir. Ultimately, it will be up to CALR. However, what we don't want to do is delay our process because if it takes CALR a year and then all of a sudden they have to start with ours, it's going to be another two to three months. No, where I was where I was going to go with this is if we give them the approval and CALR says no, then and I want I will touch on the development agreement a little bit. Um, I want to make sure we're held harmless for that first off, which it sounds like

we are held harmless on on that. Yes. But that way we alleviate the concerns we have right here about an illuminated sign. And could we also not Well, no, we couldn't go concurrently. So, that's that's what I would request. or at least some sort of um some sort of justification that they think that CALR will approve that sign and it won't be an illumination problem for people on the freeway. That's the only other thing I can think of. Can I speak? Sure. I think it's worth mentioning that the sign is designed as a multifaceted sign. Yes, there is electronic advertising a component of it and we're happy to include city announcements as we as we've discussed, but it's also a city gateway sign. It definitely calls out the city of Bowmont, has a city of Bowmont logos. I think it's designed really well to be a multifaceted sign. It's for the shopping center. It's a gateway sign on the west end of of the city of Bowmont and it kind of accomplishes several things there. Um, regard to CALR, there is an interim step that we're working on submitting to CALR to get their initial buy off. And in good faith, I'll go ahead and do that. Um, and I I don't think that will take the three months of time that it will take us to get back in this room with you all um and discuss to discuss the sign again. So, we should have some initial feedback at the very least from CALR um prior to coming back to discuss the um the LED freeway sign. Okay, that work. So, do I have to modify my motion or will it stand? I think we have a motion in a second, right? So, we can do a roll call. Correct. Unless you would like to modify your motion. You have an option to No, I'm good. Okay. I would just answer with the modifications to

the conditions of approval that Melody had proposed. Oh, sorry. Um, okay. So, let me read the whole thing again. Sorry about that. So, I move that um given the with the modifications that Melody has produced that we approve. Let me get back to that. Sorry. You don't have to state the entire You can just say with modifications as presented. Okay. With modifications as presented by staff. And I'll second that again. And we have a motion and a second. Can we have a roll call vote, please? Commissioner Kulie, yes. Commissioner Coblin, yes. Commissioner Qua, yay. Chairman Southern, yes. Okay, that item passes and we moves us on to uh staff comments. No comments from staff. Uh, no comments from staff, sir. Well, welcome back, Commissioner Smith. And do we have any uh comments from the commissioners here? Okay, seeing none, we'll go ahead and adjourn this meeting at 7:12 p.m.