Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Are we good to go? Yep. All right. I will call to order the regular planning commission meeting of Thursday, August 20th, 2026. And we will start with the pledge. And roll call, please.

Commissioner Wolf?

Here.

Commissioner Wall?

Here.

Commissioner Sharp?

Here.

Commissioner Laffins? Here. Commissioner Byker-Kaufman? Here. Vice Chair Scarpa?

Here.

Chair Scott? Here.

All right, seven people here. Just a speaker card announcement. Anyone wishing to address the commission on any item listed on the agenda needs to complete a speaker card that are in the back. Once those are completed, they can be turned in over here to the clerk and they're taken in the order that they are received. Consent agenda. Nicole, do we have any speakers for consent? No. All right. So we just have one item, 2.1 approval of the meeting minutes.

Wow.

February 2026. Is there a motion to approve?

I move to approve.

All right. And a second. All right, so we have a motion by Commissioner Sharpe, a second by Commissioner Wall. And vote, please. Commissioner Wolff?

Yes.

Commissioner Wall? Aye. Commissioner Sharpe?

Aye.

Commissioner Loffins? Yes. Commissioner Byker-Kaufman?

Yes.

Vice Chair Scarpa?

Yes.

Chair Scott?

Yes. That passes 7-0. We'll move on to public comments. Members of the public may address the commission at this time on any matter not already listed on the agenda, with comments being limited to three minutes. Nicole, do we have any public comment? No. Do we have any public comment from the audience? Yes. Great. Then we will move to item 4.1, a public hearing on use permit 25-06, an architectural review AR 25-08. Garrett, you're up. It's pretty. Thank you.

All right. Good evening, Chair Scott and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Garrett Norman, and I am here this evening to present on the Skyway Travel Center project located at the northeast corner of East Park Avenue and Carmichael Drive. The subject site is shown on the screen and outlined in yellow and is just shy of one acre in size. The site formerly contained a restaurant and has since been vacant. The parcel is adjoined with the Butte County Office of Education, which houses their administrative offices and provides technical instruction to students. The request before the commission is for a use permit and architectural review to construct and operate a new six-pump gas station and convenience store and self-service car wash in the regional commercial zone. An iteration of this project was first presented to the Commission in July of 2024, and the Commission passed a motion to approve the project. The Butte County Office of Education filed an appeal of that decision to City Council. The applicant ultimately withdrew the application before going to Council after discovering improvements were proposed within an access easement that's granted to BCOE. The applicant submitted a new application last year that reoriented the site plan, eliminated a coffee kiosk from the proposal, and removed obstructions that were within the access easement. All right, shown on the screen is the proposed site plan. The access easement that benefits the BCOE property that I was referring to is in this diagonal hatch mark right here. As you can see, circulates around the parcel. So that is to remain unobstructed and access for BCOE. The fuel canopy is right here, which fronts towards Carmichael. The convenience store is adjacent to that. And then the proposed car wash is attached to the convenience store. And the entrance to the car wash comes in from the north side and exit to the south. Shown on the screen is the proposed landscape plan. This landscape plan is updated from the one that was included in the staff report and has been provided to the commission earlier today by email. A paper copy of the plan has also been provided to each of you and is also available up at the front for the public. This revised plan eliminates two landscape planners that were down here on the south end and that were in conflict with the proposed underground storage tanks. The project still meets the tree shading and landscaping requirements of the municipal code. 13 trees are proposed for removal as they conflicted with proposed improvements or were in poor condition. New trees and replacement trees will be provided, improving overall shading and landscape coverage of the site, as well as a variety of shrubs and bushes. Here are the proposed elevations of the convenience store and attached car wash. The building uses a variety of materials such as stone, vinyl siding, and board and batten. The facade incorporates planar changes with push and pull elements as well as a varied parapet creating articulation to the roof plane. Butte County Office of Education has reviewed the proposed plan and provided several letters of correspondence expressing concerns to the proposal. These letters have been included in the attached staff report and has also been provided to you as supplemental material. The applicant has addressed many of their concerns, such as relocating the venting stacks for the underground storage of tanks away from the BCOE property. ensuring that the fuel truck delivery will maneuver entirely within the gas station's property, and relocating the trash enclosure away from the gazebo where students often congregate during breaks. BCOE remains opposed to the proposed project citing concerns related to air quality, emergency response, and site security. Staff finds the project is consistent with the general plan by activating an underutilized site enhances architectural design and landscaping has been designed to reduce impacts to adjacent operations of the Butte County Office of Education is and is located in close proximity to Hwy 99 and the on and off ramps along East Park Ave. Staff recommends the commission approve the project based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions of approval contained in the staff report. This concludes my presentation, and both staff and the applicant are available for questions. Thank you.

Great. So we'll start with questions for staff, and I'll start to my left.

Yeah, Garrett, just one question, and it has to do with the easement on the property and circulation. We saw the circulation going around this building. Is there a mutual easement in place? It seems like there was some disagreement about that.

Yeah, so there was an easement that was on the BCOE drive aisles that benefited both properties. But that easement had an expiration date, which had expired in 2020. So it no longer benefits the subject parcel. All right.

And now that I'm sorry, I didn't bring this up to you earlier, but now that I'm looking at the site line, does that mean that this property does not have access to the driveway that exits onto East Park?

The subject property will have ingress and egress access right here off of Carmichael. There is no driveway access off of East Park. And this driveway access, just for clarity, will be closed and improved with landscaping. All right. Thank you.

Any other questions to my left?

A question on procedures. So we're going to need a health rights assessment from the Air Quality Board. Does that happen before or after a permit?

So that typically, that practice happens after. It's standard for entitlements for an applicant to secure their land use entitlements from the local agencies first and then go through the subsequent permitting that occurs after. And one of those is going through the local air district.

Yeah, thank you. And one more. Do we have any guidance from the general plan to discuss it? Do we have any guidance from the climate committee, the Chico Climate Board about emissions from gas stations?

This project specifically did not go before the Climate Action Committee.

That seems like any general guidance.

To my knowledge about gas stations, we do not have any policy for use permits in gas stations. Thank you.

Yeah, I have a couple questions. So the permit findings, what the staff report says is that this use would not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. There are children going to school at this Butte County Office of Education building. And that wasn't mentioned in any of the documents. It's hard for me to imagine that a convenience store that sells alcohol and tobacco would be a good thing to have right next to a school. Apparently there's children as young as 10 that attend classes there. So I'm just wondering, did you take that into consideration?

Yeah, the proposed request before us this evening is a land use entitlement to establish a gas station. It does not take into consideration the items that may be sold as part of the convenience store. There's no use permit requirement to sell alcohol or to sell tobacco products within the convenience store. So let's say this gas station wasn't here and it was just a retail store. That retail store could go in by right without any use permit requirement and they could still choose to sell alcohol or tobacco because it would be allowed within that zone. They would still have to get their permitting, of course, through ABC and what other state requirements. But there's no city requirement.

It's coming to us merely because it's a gas station.

Correct.

Eric, could you just repeat maybe and help us the current zoning that's there and then what would be allowed by right there?

Yeah, so the current zoning is regional commercial. So it actually allows a variety of land uses, usually commercial serving type land uses. So as I mentioned, like a retail store, maybe a grocery store, pharmacy, or even a small retail store would be permitted by right. They would come in for like a staff level administrative review for the architecture of the site. gas stations within the city require use permits in most zones and this is one of the zones that requires a use permit so that's why it's before the commission this evening other questions um i you know i've learned a little bit about what vent stacks are i've never heard of them before i'm sure i'll be looking for them at every gas station now but

Has there been any, I didn't really understand what I was reading when I was researching was that it's going to vent gases. And is there any requirement for that? I mean, I know we are also right next to a highway, so I'm sure there's plenty of gases being emitted there. But is there any requirements that we've overlooked regarding those vent stacks?

We don't have any policy or code requirements within the city code that would regulate the placement or location of vent pipes. A lot of that is handled through the local air district to manage that placement. What we were concerned more about was the aesthetics of that and how it may be screened. So they are including some landscaping to help with the screening because it is at that corner. But we don't have any sort of environmental regulations about where that's located. And they are required for all gas stations. And as you learned, as I did too a little bit, that you will find them when you approach a gas station.

Okay, thank you.

I have another question, which is Carmichael is a dead-end street, and so I'm just wondering about the emergency access if there's something going on at this gas station. Let's say there's a fire. Anybody needing to get out of the area would have to go right past the gas station on Carmichael to Was that something that was looked at?

Yeah, our fire department did review these plans and they will review it again if it's approved and moves forward to building permit. And there are two points of ingress and egress here that are on Carmichael. The Department of Public Works could maybe clarify more, but having access on the East Park is not a good idea because it's a heavy arterial roadway. So that's why there's no access that is there. But my general understanding about fire code and the requirements is that you at least maintain like two points of access in and out of a site. And more importantly, that the maneuvering on site is adequate enough for a fire truck to be able to get in there and circulate around the entire building and be able to pull their hose to all corners of the building as well. So that was already preliminary looked at by the fire department and there were no access circulation or concerns flagged by the fire department.

I guess what I was asking about, though, was people having to use a Carmichael to get away from the area in general. So if Carmichael is blocked, then anybody who is working in that area or just is in that area, they won't be able to get out.

I don't know if Nat has any ideas on that. It is signalized. I can't speak to what it would be in the event of a fire emergency. And it depends on how many people are there and how many people need to get out at that specific time and what those conditions are at the time that the fire is occurring. Obviously emergency personnel would show up and if there is threat to lives, I'm sure they'd have some protocol to expeditiously get people out of Carmichael and make a quick right probably onto East Park and get them out of the location.

The neighboring property does have egress off of East Park as well though.

Yeah, that's correct. There's two driveway points.

Any additional questions? Yes. I didn't see signs discussed in any of the materials. Can you speak a little bit to what signs will be on the property or is proposed for the property?

Yeah, so there has not been a tenant identified for this. So the spec, the staff report vaguely speaks to that they have locational ideas of where some attached signage would be. And as you can see them here on the elevations, we also have a condition of approval that all signage is subject to a separate review and approval process and to be consistent with the municipal code. So when that comes in, staff will evaluate that against the code and make sure it complies.

Great, are we ready to open the public hearing? Okay, so we will open the public hearing and we will begin with the applicant. Julio Tanjero.

Good evening. Hi, my name's Julio Tenajero. I'm from Milestone Associates from Yuba City. We're the design firm for the project. We're glad to be before you this evening. I want to thank you for taking the time to review our package. I also want to thank staff, Garrett, for all his help during this process. As he mentioned earlier, we originally started this project back in 24, so it's been kind of a lengthy process. The good thing about it is that the owner of the project has been totally wanting to work with Butte County. And we've done everything pretty much that they've asked by still making the project viable because we need, you know, There are some things that we just can't do based on the type of project that it is, but we did take all their concerns into consideration and actually consulted with experts in those specific concerns that they had, and we actually had a letter addressed or included in your package that you were able to refer to. Um, the easements yeah, that was kind of like surprise for us. But, um, again, that didn't kill the project. We still had access off of Carmichael. So. Although it would have been easier to be able to have more access off of the adjacent property, like originally was designed. Um, it didn't affect the project. We have. Circulation throughout the project and. avoided all the conflicts. It was reviewed by traffic. And again, all the departments reviewed it, and the comments that were presented were addressed. So there wasn't anything regarding that one access off of Carmichael. Let's see. Again, we meet all the zoning requirements, so we're not asking for an exception or a variance. We've met everything that the city required. And so... A couple questions that were brought up. The vent stacks, I mean, it's kind of funny because every gas station has them, and you really don't see them. We try to screen them, but it's a state requirement that we have those tanks vented, and so we usually do it somewhere where it's not visible. You obviously don't smell them because a lot of people are like, oh, I'm going to be smelling fumes, but if you go to any gas station, I mean, usually it's at the pump where you might smell something, but they have the vacuum pump. So it's very minimal, if anything. And the way they're designed is high enough that it's going to disperse any kind of fume. If there was, it's not going to be down at the ground level where it would affect pedestrians. So that's a common design that's been around for since gas stations have been around. So it's not that really isn't a concern. Fire Department did review the project. And again, they reviewed the driveways. We originally wanted to keep the existing driveway on the south because, again, we have more access, better for us. But traffic came back and said that it was too close to the corner and might cause conflicts. And fire reviewed it, and they said the site still was viable with the one driveway. So that worked out really well. So we kind of met with the city and agreed to close that south driveway. The cul-de-sac question, that's interesting because, I mean, right now it's a cul-de-sac, right? So, I mean, any building that's on that street that has a fire or emergency, regardless of if it's a gas station or anything else, they're going to have that conflict or evacuation concern. Like was mentioned on this project is that on our specific parcel and the Ute County's parcel, they actually have another exit. So if something happened on our site, they'd still be able to get around our property, but they would still have to come down Carmichael back to Park. So regardless if it was us or somebody else, that concern already exists. And we are, by allowing the multiple access points or egress, it was deemed that it would not create a conflict. And then the signage question, yeah, we're required by state to have price signing. So we have these monument signs that we have to provide the prices as a requirement, but we also have tenant signage. So it all meets, it all has to be designed per the city sign ordinance. And as Garrett mentioned, it comes back before you for approval under separate submittal. So you guys will have a chance to review it. And we also designed those to match the building decor. So they match the overall building architectural theme and works together. So that will be definitely encouraged with our sign vendor when we present that to you. With that, again, we're really excited about the project. This is a unique project. It's not a prototype-like project. you'd see multiple times, is a unique design for Chico. So you guys are going to have this, you're never going to see this design anywhere else. We made it specifically for this location. So we're excited about that. And again, we've been doing these projects up and down the state for 30 years. And we know the concerns about traffic. We know the concerns about safety. All those are always our number one concern when we design these. And so I want to just express that we did really do our due diligence to make sure what we provide would be something to the benefit to the city and the citizens of Chico. So with that, is there any questions I can answer?

Any questions to my left? Commissioner Wolff?

Yes. First, I'd like to say thanks for taking the time to work with the county folks and resolving, it seems like, a lot of the issues that came up. I know that took a lot of time, a lot of work, so that's appreciated. I had a question for you about the car wash and the need for any additional stacking leading into that car wash. It seems like this is a fairly small gas station, so maybe that's not going to be an issue, but I know in some other settings it can, and how does that work in terms of your experience?

This is considered an in-bay automatic, so usually they have a one-car stack because it's a quick in-and-out. It's not like you don't want to compare it to an express car wash that you see these popping up all over the place, like quick quack or surf through. These are just mostly for gas customers who might get a discount on a car wash by getting pumped. It's not going to be high traffic. So our experience using these is usually, you know, one, two stack. In this case, we designed it where the site was kind of tight, but we did provide the one stack. And then we had the overflow that even if it did back up into the aisle, it would still provide. It would be a minimal time for it because these car washes, as you guys know, they go pretty quick. So if there was any kind of stacking, it wouldn't impact that dry bile. We haven't had the problem with stacking, but if it was, I know the applicant or the owner has had staff where they go out there and they might close it off kind of like... private queuing for Starbucks or one of these coffee places, we'd do kind of the same thing. We haven't had to do it for these types of car watches, again, because they're small. Okay. But that's one of the options.

I got some questions for you, too, about some of the design aspects of the project. I noticed the canopy has a minimum height of 16 feet above the pavement, and I'm wondering about... Some of our design guidelines that talk about trying to maintain a human scale, pedestrian scale and whatnot. Is it possible to to lower that a bit and still comply with the building code? I think the answer is yes. But from your.

Yeah, we we try to do it. We design it. As you know, the minimum height on highways is 14 feet. And we try to keep it a little bit higher just for the unknown for the safety factor. And throughout almost every patrolling company has a 16 foot minimum for in this case would be more like RVs or mobile homes that are coming down the 99. They're a lot higher, but they might stack something on top. So it's more of a safety concern. You could drop it down. But overall, I think. We usually don't go lower than, I haven't done a gas station where I've gone lower than 15 feet, but usually 14 would be, that's the minimum for state highways. So if you're driving down the highway, you're going to be less than that. We just want to make sure there's no, they don't hit the canopy because that's a pretty expensive structure.

Thank you. And then about the lighting under the canopy. Some parts of it looks like the lighting comes in at around 30-foot candles and other parts it kind of disperses a little bit. And we don't know much about that really as a panel, but it seemed like just looking at what other cities have as standards and whatnot, that that was a little on the bright side. Is this something that is, from your perspective, an absolute necessity for those?

So we have the design guidelines by the corporation, plus just the industry in general. And we hire a lighting consultant who are experts in lighting. And so they have the criteria to make sure it's lit well for operation, for safety, security. But also we've got to consider that we don't want to bleed off the site and become a nuisance to the adjacent so if you look at the photometric plan they do show like you said it is bright under the canopy we want to make sure that you can see what you're doing but it does taper off as it goes out so in general it is an industry standard to keep them brighter under the canopy and then

kind of fade out as you go. Is the surface on the underside of the canopy reflective, or is it going to be a matte finish? How is that going to be treated?

It's kind of like a white... Surface on it.

Okay.

I don't know what that, it's like they call it like an ACM kind of type material, metal cladding type.

I'm just trying to get an idea if it's, you know, matte or highly reflective in terms of the actual surface. That's a good question. Okay.

I don't think it's, I'd probably be gloss, I guess. Maybe for weather purposes. Okay. Okay, thank you. That's all I had.

Any other questions to the left? Yeah.

Thank you. Can you walk me through the thinking for the crosswalk to the gazebo area?

Okay, so that's already... There was a walkway. There's an existing planter from the gazebo going south, and there's a sidewalk there. So we added that crosswalk to... We figured if somebody's going to be... the school and they want to be at the gazebo they probably want to go to the convenience store and buy a sandwich or pop or something so we just wanted to make sure that was a delineated walkway just so that it's a little bit more safety factor and just to make it clear that they could actually have access to that existing walk and gazebo anything else

I have a question. What's your anticipated life of this business? We're kind of switching from gas-powered vehicles to electric vehicles, and there's already three gas stations within a mile of the site. It seems like this place won't be in business all that long. Either that or the other places will close. Go out of business. What is your anticipated business life of this project?

I mean, average is like a 20 year life when they estimate 20 years. But we know what's happening in California and what's going on with the EB. And those these stations have actually started. A lot of these big petroleum companies are realizing that as well. So they're real. They're starting to have us. have the potential to possibly convert to EV or provide more EV spaces on site. So as you know, the California Code requires us to add some spaces based on the number of parking. So as the mandates start coming down, the requirements for EV, the site would be able to provide additional EV chargers. But they're expecting it to be at least 20 years. So I don't know how quickly... The EV mandate will be down, but they're projecting it's going to be a while still.

And are there any provisions to have money set aside to take the tanks out when they're no longer needed? So they're leaking hazardous material into the ground.

I don't know about that one. Because I know, as you guys recall, I don't know if you know, but back in the 80s, they had a big state fund that paid... gas stations to replace their underground fuel tanks because they were leaking. And so they came up with basically a code that said, hey, we're going to pay you guys a big chunk of money to just replace them. And so it was a state fund that actually, it was a federal fund that actually helped the owners do that. So I'm pretty sure that these gas station guys are big guys, as you guys can imagine. They're going to want to do whatever they can to work with the local agencies. But to make a local business owner replace them, that's going to be a big expense. And I'm pretty sure that would have to be offset somehow with some kind of incentive from either state or federal funding. Again, everybody's going to, we're all in the same boat. We all want the best for the community and for the citizens. But right now, like I said earlier, this project currently meets everything, all the zoning and the requirements. So kind of hypothetically, we're trying to figure out what could happen in the future. I mean, it's, you know, we'd just be guessing.

Yeah, I'm just concerned that the city will then be stuck with a tank with hazardous material in it, and there's no money to clean it up. And I would think it would happen. I mean, we know it's going to happen. We know we're going to switch to electric.

That's unknown. Yes, part of the application and the building permit, we're required to submit a stormwater pollution prevention plan that addresses any kind of spillage, any kind of contamination stuff that's handled. We have a plan that's required to be part of the project that we would train the staff that if there's an emergency, what they need to do to make sure it's not affecting anybody downstream from that. And so that's a requirement that the state actually makes us do on every gas station, which will be part of this project as well.

Any questions?

I actually have one more. My apologies. With respect to solar panels, I don't know what the requirements are, and are you going to be including those as part of this project, and where do you plan to put them?

Yeah, so what we do on solar, we try to put them on the canopy. Right now, we're required to do so much, but it doesn't have to be 100%. It's supposed to be a percentage of the overall use to get it down to acceptable capacity. LEED REQUIREMENTS. SO WE TYPICALLY IN THE HISTORICALLY HAVE USED THE CANOPY ITSELF TO PUT THEM UP THERE BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING UP THERE. SO IT WORKS PERFECTLY FOR SOLAR PANELS. ON THE BUILDING ITSELF IT'S A LITTLE BIT HARDER BECAUSE THERE'S ROOTCOP UNITS, THERE'S EXHAUST FANS, THERE'S OTHER ITEMS THAT KIND OF RESTRICT THE SPACE. We've also looked if it's... Some of the owners have decided to put canopies over the parking. Have you guys seen that in Sacramento and Roseville? I don't know if you guys have done it here, but you can put canopies over the parking and use that as solar. So it all comes down to the profitability, the cost and benefit of adding these solar panels. And right now, based on... What we're proposing is we're going to do the state requirement for permitting, and most likely it will be on the canopy.

All right. And maybe a question for staff on that point. Does the commission have any authority over the design of those panels or not? Yeah.

where they can be placed. So our overall discretion is limited. And a lot of this is handled through the building permit stage. And so when it comes back through planning, we will take a careful look at it to see where it is placed and make sure that it is in an appropriate location and not some kind of obscure location that will kind of interfere with the overall design and aesthetic. All right, thanks.

Can I add to that really quick?

So that's actually a good point also, because being 16 feet, that's the bottom of it. The top of it's going to be like 19 feet. So, I mean, you're not going to even see the panels from the street. Also, the catch 22, because you want to screen them, because you don't want to see them, but you also can't screen them from them working. So it's worked out really well where they're on the canopies are up high enough. You don't see them, but they still have maximum efficiency.

Would you mind, and I just kind of want to orient us that the planning commission, we're dealing with the land use and that's the decision that we're making tonight is on the land use permit. Can you walk us through what the rest of your process looks like? if there was a decision tonight? Where do you go from there?

All right. Madam Chair, if I may, just to clarify, we also have before us the design review component.

Oh, correct. Yes. Thank you.

I just wanted to make sure that was understood.

So by right, it's commercial use and in zone, it's an approved use with a use permit, which means it's required to come before you by staff and you. So the process here is we present it to you And let's say you guys vote yes and take their staff recommendation and approve it. Our next step would be we would get the conditions of approval. Those would be part of the resolution. And then we would take those conditions of approval and prepare construction documents that would be presented to the building department. And then we would submit all that for building department. We'd also have to submit to Environmental Health for the gas portion, also the food portion. All the departments are going to have to be submitted and we have to get approval from all the different agencies. And then once we get that building permit at that point, then we're going to start construction and depending on that.

I'm most interested in, I forgot about the design side, so thank you for correcting me, but the environmental portion. What does that look like for you guys? What local entities are you working on?

So the environmental portion, Environmental Health Review is both the food portion of the C-Store because it's selling food. So even though a lot of it is heat and serve or prepackaged food, they still have to require for that. The fuel itself has to be reviewed by the CUPA department, which is also an environmental health agency that reviews all the pumps, tanks, everything that has to do with fuel. So we have to submit petroleum drawings for their review as well. As far as You know, the CEQA part of environmental, that's, as you saw in the report, it's exempt because of the infill category, but also there was nothing that was, you know, environmentally concerned that, other than the things that the county brought up, but overall the county or the city staff and agency saw that it was categorically exempt of any environmental concerns. So...

Great. Okay. Before we let him sit down, any other questions? Because we will not call him back up. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

Appreciate it. And then we'll go back to our public hearing. How many speakers do we have, Nicole? Three. Three. Perfect. Okay. And who's our first speaker? Tad Alexander, followed by Michelle Zeverly. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Alexander, and you have three minutes.

Good evening. I am the Deputy Superintendent with Butte County Office of Education. First, I want to acknowledge the city staff who have worked with us at PCOE this year to help us better understand. Thank you, Gara, for the help there in addressing many of our concerns, and we appreciate that coordination. At the same time, we maintain several significant concerns because of how close this project is and sits to a growing educational campus. BCUE serves students here through career technical education, regional occupational programs and courses, as well as foster youth services. Our CTE and ROP programs are actively recruiting and filling seats in a high demand career pathways and including healthcare, dentistry. And so this campus is gonna continue to grow and continue to see substantial student use. One of our main concerns has been touched on already is the safety issue due to a fire or potential spill. Once that driveway is removed to the south, well, they're only gonna have one driveway out. And in the event that something happens at the front end of Carmichael, it's a dead end at the other end. So we would have to see about getting all our staff and all of our students down to the other end. And we have to go past whatever that spill or that fire is at that point. There are a number of other concerns that we've put into our letter. And including the concerns with tanker truck access, different security issues, and different emergency response. Again, we do appreciate the work the city has done with us. Our responsibility is always to Butte County students. So we want to make sure that the commission fully understands that this is not a lightly used property. The proposed development will negatively impact students and educators, and it is an active educational site, serving a growing number of students and preparing for important careers within our local economy. For those reasons, VCOE continues to have serious concerns with this project as proposed, and I'm here to go on record so that in the event that something does happen and there is an emergency or there isn't a fire, We brought it to your attention. And so we've done our job for the students. So thank you.

Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Alexander? Thank you.

Next speaker is Michelle Zeberly, followed by Amanda Simone.

Good evening, Commissioners. Thank you for allowing us to speak. And I want to first start off with saying we want to make sure that you know that we are pro-business. There have been multiple businesses in this area and at this site, restaurants mostly, but also a WIC. Grocery store, public health, so we have been a good steward and we want to be a good neighbor. But our concerns rest with a lot of the congestion that this new proposed business will bring. if you can picture the area there's dutch brothers there uh... and yes there is uh... access out to east park but that has been closed off for a long time so right now there is really no access out that way so At the other end is Chico Unified School District Bus Barn. So we have school buses. This is their main bus barn and only bus barn. So we have school buses coming out that way morning, noon, and in the afternoon. Added to the Dutch Brothers and then added to our own traffic. So it's going to be a very congested area. So that's our main concern because if there is an incident of safety, it's going to be a congested area. So I just want to share that we do have career technical education programs there, and our next speaker is going to speak to that. But we also serve countywide. We're technical assistance and support for our districts with homeless youth, foster youth, and also students who are having troubles with tobacco and vaping. So we have prevention services there. So every week, we have a minimum of 40 students aged 16 to 25 of that population coming to the site to see staff and have services and supports. These are students that can have alcohol and tobacco challenges, and so that is one of our concerns is having a convenience store with those products. So it's important that we highlight those students and that this proposed business will add additional traffic and flow that will be a detriment to us. So thank you again for listening to our concerns.

Thank you.

If there's any questions.

Any questions for the speaker? And then Amanda Sammons.

Good evening, Amanda Samen, Senior Director of Workforce Development and Business Partnerships. I work at the Carmichael location every day. I have the great honor and pleasure to oversee our ROP programs. So there are some significant concerns, as you've heard earlier, for our students and our employees' safety with this specific business, including the traffic congestion. And East Park Avenue is a well-known emergency thoroughfare. Daily, I sit in my office and I hear the sirens running up and down that road. So I fear what congestion added to that area does for our ability to get in or out of the site. To paint a picture for you of what this site looks like on a regular basis or daily basis, we have approximately 100 students that move through our ROP programs on any given day. A quarter of those are high school age students that are exploring career pathways. The remainder are 18 and older, and they are completing skilled workforce training programs to enter high need, high wage careers in our community. If you have been to a local dental office, a veterinary office, a doctor's office recently, or any time, you most likely have run into one of the graduates of our programs that are offered at this site that we train. So we have certified veterinary assistants, registered dental assistants through a variety of programs, including our comprehensive program, an apprenticeship program, and dental specialty courses that we offer. We train medical assistants. We train phlebotomists. For our high school students, they're on our campus, they're exploring careers in the medical field as well as early childhood education. All of these are needs within our community. Many of our students have demonstrated an incredible resilience in overcoming addiction and other life challenges. They use these training programs as a pathway to a fresh start, meaningful employment, and a more stable future for themselves and their families serving our community. So as you consider this decision, I respectfully ask that you consider not only the use of the property, but the people whose futures are being shaped here. Please prioritize an environment that supports the health, safety, and success of our students. Thank you.

Thank you. And any questions for the speaker? Yeah, I have a question.

So there have been businesses there before, and there's been traffic in and out of that property before. Did that cause a problem?

There was parking congestion, and most of that occurred before I was in this role. So to my knowledge, the businesses that were there before worked fairly well with our population of students as well. But we had three points of access into the site, too.

Any further questions? Thank you. Any other public speakers? No. Okay. And then we'll bring the applicant back up to... Yes, it's the applicant. You're allowed to come back up and rebut anything that you heard.

My name is Amrit Deol, and I'm the owner and developer of Skyway Travel Center at 2495 Carmichael Drive. I want to thank the city staff, the reviewing departments, and all the community members who have evaluated this project. I would first like to acknowledge the concerns raised by Butte County Office of Education. VCOE is an important neighbor, and we take our responsibility to protect its students, employees, visitors, and properties seriously. In response to those concerns regarding the previous approved version of this project, we withdrew that application, reconsidered the design, and have returned with a substantial downsized and revised proposal. We took time to have additional environmental reports done. I think it's in your staff review from Base Camp. And it disproves a lot of the concerns of BCOE. Additionally, both parties are now aware that the previous easement regarding the shared parking and mutual traffic use between the two parcels has expired. The new proposal removes the drive-through coffee kiosks, relocates the fuel pumps and convenience store, moves the trash enclosure away from the students areas, and positions the fuel system ventilation stacks further from BCOE's operation. The project has undergone review by the city's public works, engineering, planning, and fire departments. According to the staff review report, the layout meets the city's circulation and safety requirements, provides adequate emergency vehicle access and turnaround, and can accommodate the anticipated traffic volumes. Security and site impacts have also been carefully addressed. Because the convenience store will operate 24 hours a day, an employee will always be present to monitor the property. The project features downward directed lighting to illuminate the site. We're minimizing spillover into the neighbourhood's properties. Drawing from experience with our other developments, we have also prepared to maintain ongoing communication with VCOE regarding security and incident response procedures. The 0.93-acre commercial property near Highway 99 is designated regional commercial and zoned for regional commercial uses. The surrounding area is similarly zoned for commercial use. BCOE, however, has received an exemption from the county and is operating in a commercial office space. The property was on the market for over a year before we purchased it, and BCOE could have easily purchased the parcel adjacent to their operations during the time. As the property owners, we should be permitted to develop the parcel in compliance with established zoning regulations. The project exceeds several city requirements, providing 34 parking spaces where 17 are required, nearly 20% of landscaping, and over 50% shading in the parking areas. Furthermore, the fuel pumps will be positioned 34 feet from the nearest property line, exceeding the required 15-foot separation. New landscaping, trees, controlled lighting, and contemporary architecture will significantly improve the site's appearance and function. We recognize our responsibility to the considerate neighbor. We and the city have been in communication with BCOE since September of 2022. I think we started this process with Tina, and then we had Bruce, and I've been here a couple times. We got it approved. And we have redesigned the project several times. I don't think I had all these gray hairs when we started in 2022. And we have ensured that our delivery vehicles can operate entirely on their own property. As courtesy to our neighbors, fuel delivery vehicles will only operate during hours when BCOE is not in session. So all the fuel deliveries we will do 3 a.m., 4 a.m. on the weekends when they are not in operations, so it does not affect the students. City staff has concluded that this project is consistent with the general plan, complies with the code, is compatible with the surrounding commercial areas, and will not significantly impact related to traffic, noise, air quality, or water qualities. And we have the studies to show that proves that. Ultimately, this project will provide vital jobs and tax revenue to the city while replacing an outdated building with state-of-the-art art facility. And I receive calls from the city about the landscaping, about there being homeless, and we solve it. We go out there. He said, we're very responsive. I have his phone. He has my cell number saved. And we make sure this property is clean as much as we possibly can. We also respectfully ask the Commission to consider the revised project based on evidence before you and to adopt resolution number 26-02, approving the use permit and the architecture review subject to the recommended conditions. We remain committed to complying with all the applicable requirements and working with the city and BCOU. And today is my wife's birthday, so I dragged her out here for a planning commission hearing. So it'd be a good gift so we can get this one approved. It's been about four or five years since it's been stuck, so we can get this one going and really enjoy our night. So thank you, guys.

Thank you. Okay, with that, we will close the public hearing. Sir, if we could just get you to fill out the speaker card so we have your name in the record too, that would be great. And I will bring it back to the commission for any questions or comments.

I've got a question for staff about the scope of our authority here tonight on the use permit. It's understood that the convenience market, as you explained, is a use that's permitted by right. There is no use permit necessary for that to be established in this location. Is that correct?

That is correct.

So that could go in without any kind of special use permit?

Correct.

The gas station is the use that requires the use permit. How about the car wash? Is that part of it as well? Is that part, is that a... I'm sorry to out of the blue question.

No, the car wash is also a permitted use in this specific zone. Not all zones, but in this one it is.

Okay. All right. Thank you.

Any other questions?

I don't have a question, but I have a comment. Mr. Alexander, you got me with the danger part. That is, you know, obviously something that we all want to take into consideration is safety and also the traffic. Yeah, that's very obvious to someone that's lived in Chico their entire lives and driving by there. But at the end of the day, I'm not an expert on that. I haven't done the traffic studies or, you know, we have to take the fire and safety and all of those things and listen to what they say. And if they give their stamp of approval, then they're the experts, not us. But certainly I think everybody would agree we would all have concerns about especially the safety issues. So I just wanted to make that clear because nobody wants to put anybody in harm. That would be awful.

Thank you. Anybody else?

I have maybe a procedural question for staff, and that's on the actions before us. There's two different actions covered in one resolution. How would we or could we proceed if we wanted to take one action on one component of that resolution and a different action on another component of it?

You can take both together or however you want to present it, as long as they are both either approved or denied to me.

But my question, I think, I'm sorry, is that, say, for example, the commission wanted to support the use permit for the gas station but did not want to support the design of the project. How would we proceed?

you would amend whatever design choices you would want to see reflected. And so we would adopt the resolution with the amendments kind of suggested on the dice.

Okay, thank you.

Of course.

Any further discussion? Do you have proposed amendments?

No, I just, I guess for commission discussion, at this point. I think that the, I don't have a concern at all with the environmental review component of this. I think the right call was made. It's an infill project that's pretty clear. I think that all the permitting that's necessary these days for projects is going to cover all that very well. And the gas station use, And the car wash there. Any use of this property is going to have some impacts. It's going to have traffic generating impacts and other impacts that might be a concern for adjoining properties. So I don't have a great concern really with the use. My concerns lie more with the design of the project and some of the details. And I'm... It's challenging because I think that with a few changes, it could be made into a much better project in terms of the design. But I don't think that we should try to design a project up here ad hoc and just kind of make stuff up on the fly. But I would support the use from it, but I do have some real concerns about the design. And the reason for that is that The reason for those concerns, as the commission knows, you know, when we approve design reviews, we have to make findings that complies with the design guidelines of the city. And so by making that action, we're confirming that, yes, it's consistent with certain policies in the design guidelines. And I've gone through that and looked at it and listed a few here, and, you know, I've I see as kind of missing the mark, and I would find it challenging to make those findings for design review on this project. For example, some of the materials used on the building, the vinyl siding, I'm concerned that that Maybe it doesn't really advance design guideline 1.2.32 that says use building materials that reinforce a sense of permanence or place. And I don't think that vinyl does that. I think that the lighting might be a little much, might be more than is really necessary here. And there's some design guidelines about that. design guideline 1.5.14, incorporate the minimum intensity of lighting necessary for safety and security to minimize glare impacts and energy consumption. So I'm just thinking maybe we're pushing that limit here on this. I found the elevations also may be in conflict with some of the design guidelines. I understand the modern design approaches on things, but there's one elevation that has seven different materials on it.

And that's especially challenging to get that to kind of hold together.

And we have a design guideline that says we should articulate a clear design concept in a written narrative, which I don't think we saw in this one. to aid decision makers in understanding fundamental design elements of a project. And I see we just have kind of a... And I don't really mean this to diminish the work that was done on this, but this seems kind of a jumbled elevation in terms of the mix of materials.

And I thought that the...

The parapet also had kind of almost a stuck-on appearance to get the sign up a little bit higher. And there was a design guideline that says avoid mansard roofs, which we don't have here necessarily, or parapets, which appear as stuck-on. or are not integrated into the roof with equal design treatment on all sides. It just seems like that was just kind of stuck on there. And I understand why that's done, but I look at this as a whole, and it's like I'm not quite there with it. I think it could be there, but I'm hesitant to try to start tweaking the project and making changes to it, trying to design something up at the dais. Thank you.

So what you were saying earlier, you feel okay about the use. The use is a very intensive use for traffic and air quality and for, I understand it's an infill project, and for the categorical exemption for the infill project, it must not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, and water quality. For the air quality, I'm feeling uncomfortable because there are sensitive receptors. Use are considered sensitive receptors per sequa. And so it's like I feel uncomfortable approving the project, and I know that there will be the HRA or the HSA, but I'm feeling a little uncomfortable just approving it and just saying it'll be okay.

And that's the gas station component of the use and the emissions from that.

It's intensive. That is why we have a CEP.

Any other comments? Can we segment off the use permit and have the architectural review perhaps go to... Yeah, I think if it's... Give me a solution, Garrett.

If it's the commission's will, you could choose to approve and adopt the findings associated with the use permit and then recommend that the architectural component come back maybe either to this commission or to the ARB board. If that's the case, I'd just ask as part of that motion that the commission provide some direction to staff on what are some of those changes you'd like to see modified so we would have clear direction bringing it back.

And I guess before we do that, I'd want to see if there was a will. We do have the recommendation of the motion in front of us to pass both the use permit and the architectural review. But would we have the will to pass that collectively? Or maybe Commissioner Wall can make that motion.

I'm sorry, what?

I said maybe another commissioner could make that motion and we could see. He's not going to.

He wants... No, I would say that I would support a resolution approving the use permit but not the design review this evening. But I don't know what the other commissioners think about that and how that follow-up design review should take place. What are people's thoughts on that? Staff, do you have any further insight on that?

If I may recommend, let's take the first use permit resolution first, or motion, and move through that. That's great. And then make a motion on the design aspect and see how the commission feels. Great.

Okay.

Well, how about this? Let's give this a try. I move approval of use permit. I'm sorry, I don't have the- 25-06.

Thank you.

An adoption of the resolution to the extent that it approves that use permit with the necessary findings.

Great. So we have a motion. Is that sufficient for you, Steph and Nicole?

And that would be a motion to approve the use permit component of the project only.

And then do we have a second? I'll second that. So we have a motion and a second. Nicole, could you take the vote? One moment.

Commissioner Wolf?

Aye.

Commissioner Wall? Aye. Commissioner Sharp?

Aye.

Commissioner Loffins? Aye. Commissioner Byker-Coffman?

Aye. Aye.

Thank you. Vice Chair Scarpa?

Aye.

Chair Scott?

Aye. That passes 7-0. And then...

How do we go about then getting a resolution on the design review? I would propose that we get it back before the ARHPB to take a look at some of the design details of compliance with the design guidelines. But I don't know if we need a separate resolution for that now.

Separate motion.

So can we do that simply with a motion without a resolution then?

Correct, because you're just recommending for ARB to review with your edits, if I may.

So then just a simple motion to, what will we say, refer the design review component of this to the ARHPB to address compliance with the design guidelines of the city.

Okay. Okay, have that. Can you give a few points of the notes you made before so we can capture that in the motion?

Sure.

I have stuck on appearance, but I think there's a nicer way to say that.

I'm sorry, what?

I have stuck on appearance, but I think there's a nicer way to say that, that material.

Okay. Well, I have a whole list of design guidelines here. I don't want to get into all of them really, but maybe we talk about using appropriate massing, fenestration, articulation materials, and buffering to provide a pedestrian level scale, perhaps in particular regard to the height of the, The canopy. Design guideline 1.5.12, subdue and well integrate exterior lighting into the overall landscape plan. Design guideline 1.2.32, use building materials that reinforce a sense of permanence or place. Let's see here. And then avoid mansard roofs. This is design guideline 2.2.26. Avoid mansard roofs or parapets which appear stuck on or not integrated to the roof, et cetera. And I think it's not to necessarily limit it to those, but those are the things that I'm kind of picking up on as the areas in which I think just some really small changes can make a big change in how this project ends up looking. And I think, and I kind of hesitate to do this stuff because people don't think that design review is a big deal, but it really is. And This is a – actually, it's a gateway into this part of town coming in off of 99. And the city is making a tremendous investment in Park Avenue there and, you know, the – That whole part of the city is getting a lot of attention from the city and a lot of money is going into beautifying it. And I think that this is an opportunity to make sure that we're really in compliance with our design guidelines here and get a great project. I'm glad that it's moving forward. I think it's going to end up being a real fine addition. But I think it just needs a little more attention.

The staff feel like they have enough to go. Yes. Yes. Okay. And to share with the applicant as well. Great. Okay. So the motion is to refer the architectural review to the architectural review and historic preservation board with the key highlights on design guidelines mentioned by commissioner Wolf. So is there a second to that motion?

I have a question. I'm so sorry.

Go ahead.

What determines, and I'm sure it's in that big binder I was given when I got on this commission, but whether a project goes to the Architectural Review Board or doesn't?

Yeah, so typically major new construction projects that are located like on an arterial roadway, like such as this one would go, but since it was combined with the use permit, which necessitated coming to the Planning Commission, we lumped both of them together and brought them here to you because this, this commission can have purview over both of those items.

It's, we're intended to streamline, but sometimes we need a little bit more.

Right. So it could have all been done in this one meeting.

If we had the will to all, if there are a majority of us who say the design as it is right now, so we have a motion, we still don't have a second. If there is a majority of the planning commission who says the design looks great, let's move forward, then that would be passed tonight. If the majority of the commission says, no, we want the design to go back, then that would go to ARHPB.

And if I may, Madam Chair, it's not... um and to be clear to everybody it's not a matter of just subjectively saying oh i like that or i don't like that it's a matter of looking at it in the context of the design guidelines that the city has and why we have them and then looking at the findings that we need to make to take that action by by approving it we're saying yeah we we believe it advances the design guidelines it makes perfect sense i i agree with everything you're saying i guess i just am

Questioning or wondering if this could have all been achieved and talked about tonight So that it doesn't have to go to the architectural review board But I guess the way the process goes it does have to and that way they could be done and wrapped up

Yeah, I think that this is the kind of project, and I think it's been handled correctly. Yeah, ideally that would be happening here right now. Gotcha. And I would, you know, kind of prefer that. But the thing is, is that, you know, I just hesitate to, as a panel, try to tweak a project and this and that, and then you end up, you know, it's just not, that process gets very cumbersome. So I think it's better if we have a, Just break it off, talk about it separately, and resolve it.

All right. Okay. Do we have a second? I'll second. Okay. So we have a motion and a second to refer the design review to the Architectural Review Board. Nicole.

Commissioner Wolf?

Aye.

Commissioner Wall? Aye. Commissioner Sharpe?

Yes. Yes.

Commissioner Loffins? Yes. Commissioner Byker-Kaufman? Yes. Vice Chair Scarpa?

Yes. Chair Scott? Yes. So that passes 7-0. All right. Thank you. Half birthday happiness. I know. Yeah. The use permit, though. That's the big one. Okay, so we'll move to item 5.1, regular agenda. Garrett, do I turn this over to you too? Yes. Okay. Okay.

So this is a bit of an unusual request that we don't get very often. But Chico Unified School District is requesting a finding of general plan consistency for a new transitional kindergarten through eighth grade Blue Oak Charter School located at 2485 Apodaca Place, which is teased right off into Bruce Road. The 2.47-acre site would relocate the Blue Oak Charter School from the current location at 450 West East Avenue and is expected to serve up to 300 students. The site was previously planned for residential, commercial, and parking under the Merriam Park Master Plan. The proposal would instead use the 2.47 acres for the proposed school or the new school and the adjacent 5.2 acre park that's adjacent to the site will still remains unchanged and will still be in place. So state law requires that local land use agencies planning commission transmit a letter determining that the school is consistent with the agency's adopted general plan or any other applicable comprehensive planning documents. Normally this letter would be completed prior to the district's acquisition of the property. However, in this case, the district has already purchased the property and is moving forward with construction of the school site. In my conversation with the district representative, it was indicated that the California Department of Education still requires this consistency letter prior to them operating. In staff's review, the location of the proposed school is supported on this side of the city and would help address increasing enrollment and growth in East Chico, including development around Merriam Park. The general plan supports the location of schools in new neighborhoods with incompatible land uses and planned circulation infrastructure. Staff is recommending that this commission pass a motion directing staff to transmit a letter on behalf of the commission to the Chico Unified School District, summarizing the consistency analysis that was provided in the staff report. I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

I don't mean this to sound snarky, but I just wonder, why does the state recognize our authority when it comes to the general plan but not design guidelines? Do we know? Is there a philosophy there?

I do not have a philosophy on a lot of the state actions.

Okay.

Okay, is there a motion to direct staff to transmit a letter to Chico Unified School District stating that the proposed school site is consistent with the Chico General Plan?

So moved.

All right, and do we have a second? Second. Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Wolf, a second by Commissioner Wall, and a vote please, Nicole.

Excuse me, Chair. Yes. Forgive me. Procedurally, you still have to open it up to public comment.

Oh, sorry. Is there any public comment? Okay. Seeing none and no one in the audience, we will close the public hearing. Redo. Yes, we have a motion and a second.

So moved.

Thank you. And Nicole. Commissioner Wolfe?

Aye.

Commissioner Wall? Aye. Commissioner Sharp?

Yes.

Commissioner Laffins? Yes. Commissioner Byker-Kaufman? Yes. Vice Chair Scarpa?

Yes.

Chair Scott? Yes. That passes 7-0. You guys, they were 7-0 all night. Okay. That's exciting. Reports and communications.

I have reports and communications for the commission. So just a heads up, we have two media items coming before the commission here. The first one we have tentatively scheduled for September 17th and the other for October 1st. The first one would be our residential readiness phase three, which consists of a host of code amendments and general plan amendments. And then the other one on October 1st tentatively is the Barber Yard specific plan. So Nicole will be reaching out to you for attendance. And it is much appreciated when you do reply just to make sure that we have a quorum for these meetings. And as always, we do appreciate your service on this commission.

Great, thank you. And we will move to adjournment. So no meeting on September 3rd?

No.

No, okay, thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So, Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. so so Thank you. We'll be right back. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

¦

Thank you. ¦ ¦ ¶¶ . . . Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¦ ¦ Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ . . . Thank you. Thank you. ¦ ¦ Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ ¦ ¦ ¶¶ Thank you. piano plays softly ¦ ¦ Thank you.

Come join us every August for Summerfest in beautiful La Jolla, California, and hear some great music.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. so so so so Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Bye. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you.

Bye.

Bye.

Thank you.

you Thank you. Thank you. Bye. Thank you. Thank you. so Thank you. so Bye. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Bye.

music music

Bye. so so you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Bye. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. you Bye. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Bye. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Bye. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Bye.

Bye. Thank you. Thank you. Bye. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. so so Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

so Thank you. so so Thank you. you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. so Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. music music Thank you. so so so so Thank you. you . . . Bye. Thank you. Thank you. Bye. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.