Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'm Commissioner Stewart. Do we have a roll call, please? CHRISTIE WOODARD.

Chair Stewart? CHRISTIE WOODARD.

Here.

CHRISTIE WOODARD. Vice Chair Tooman is absent. Commissioner Cashman? Here.

CHRISTIE WOODARD.

Commissioner Dela? Here.

CHRISTIE WOODARD.

Commissioner Schmidl?

Here.

CHRISTIE WOODARD. Commissioner Serpa? Here.

CHRISTIE WOODARD.

Commissioner Scudley?

Here. CLARE DUDA.

Yeah, I have a pledge of allegiance. You want to lead us, Matt?

Sure.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, to the country that it stands, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

All right.

We have no corrections or anything to the existing agenda, or do we? No corrections, all right. And no presentations here, so we have a public comment. We have two different reports of public comment. One, if you wish to make a comment to the commission on items that are not on the agenda, you may do so. So do we have anyone that wishes to make any statement to the commission? No, all right. Well, then we'll go right on to our consent items which is the draft of minutes for our planning commission meeting on may 19th 2026 uh is there any comment that we have from anyone about that have no so do we wish to approve them as presented

I make a motion to approve the minutes as presented for the May 19th, 2026 meeting.

I'll second that. So we have an okay with approval in a second. We can just do a voice, can't we? All in favor say aye. Aye. Okay. Great. Okay. The big one today is our public hearing to consider a new convenience store with fuel sales, monument sign height allowance, and a quick serve restaurant. A lot of stuff going on. with a drive-through lane located on 10480 Live Oak Boulevard. Oh, there she is. She's already. Okay, go ahead. Give us our staff report.

All right. Good evening, Chair and members of Planning Commission. So as mentioned tonight, we do have two use permits for consideration. And so we do have the first part is going to be a new convenience store with fuel sales, a monument sign that exceeds the allowable height allowance. And a quick serve restaurant with a drive-thru. So these two uses, the fuel sales as well as the quick serve restaurant with the drive-thru, they are permitted uses in a CMU, which is our commercial mixed use district with an approved use permit. So the project site is located at 10480 Live Oak Boulevard. It's approximately three acres, which was previously occupied as a hardware store, which closed around like the late 2023s. And then there are existing storage units which will remain. One will be moved. And then they are planning on demoing a vacant building, which is that square on the southern portion of the parcel. And then there's also a structure on the property to the north that's highlighted in red that will be demoed as well. so the plan um is to remodel approximately 12 000 square feet of the vacant building so the previous use uh true value was um the entire building but what he what the developer is proposing is going to be um the four uses listed on um in the presentation so there's a arco ampm approximately 3 700 square feet They are proposing a Buffalo Wild Wings Go, a quick-serve restaurant, approximately 2,400 square feet. There's going to be the Sonic that is going to be the one with the drive-thru, which we're considering tonight. And then there's still the existing, there's a vacant 3,600 square feet, which is towards the bottom of the screen. So I just gathered some of these pictures from Google Maps. So this is going to be one of the buildings that will be demoed. And what they are proposing is going to be additional parking and landscaping that will be constructed. And here is the site that's going to be remodeled. So this is the existing 12,000 square foot building. And over here, this is adjacent to the residential property where a new driveway will be constructed as well. So this is the west side. So here on this screen, I have the site plan. So you can see we have the building is going to remain where it is as is. And then now on the west side of the parcel is going to be the drive-through lane. And they are moving one of the storage buildings I wish I had something to highlight it, but I'm kind of towards the bottom of this screen where that green is just just to the top of that, that that's going to be the relocated storage building. And then you'll see there's also the fuel pumps. The existing elevation, so this was provided as part of the submittal of just a diagram of what's currently there and then as shown in the pictures from Google Maps. and um so this is what is being proposed and so um it seems like a lot of thought was put into the building definitely an upgrade of what is there currently so they're adding in some brick stone veneer there's wood siding and there is blue for the sonic um which is their look that they're going for. And then we also had requested as some of those elements as shown on the north elevation on Ramsdale Drive, just some sort of elements to break up just a blank stucco wall. And so you can see that's what those squares are just to add some elements to the building. For the proposed canopy, so it's very standard canopy, but they are adding in this the brick veneer and in the column so just to add again the architectural element and really make it a nice product so as part of the analysis what we did is the to look at the combat compatibility with neighboring uses so as i had mentioned the cmu zoning allows for fuel sales and drive-throughs with an approved use permit And so the code does require a masonry wall to be constructed along, if it's a commercial zone next to residential. Since this is infill, what we have worked with the developer is that a masonry wall will be constructed along the residence that's along Ramsdale Drive. That was shown in the slide earlier. really to provide a noise and a visual buffer. And a new masonry wall will be constructed along the drive-through lane to prevent any headlight spillage onto Ramsdale Drive. So it's depicted in the red. That's where the new masonry wall will be. The one next to the residential will be a minimum of a six-foot height requirement. So a traffic study was also prepared for the Live Oak marketplace, and it concludes that impact is presumed to be less than significant. Traffic along State Route 99 will utilize the two existing two-way left turns to enter and exit the site. A third driveway will be along Ramsdale Drive to provide access to the site and which will also be the closest to the quick-serve restaurant with the drive-through. And we also added a condition of approval that all queuing of vehicles must remain on site. So there shall be no queuing along Ramsdale Drive or along State Route 99. And then recommendations from the traffic study, they've been incorporated into the site plan. So that was the race crosswalks along the drive through. And so those have been incorporated into the site plan. Another component of this use permit, it's going to be for a new sign. So in your plan, it calls it a pylon sign. So pylon and monument sign are very similar. Pylon just means it's greater in height. And so with the monument sign, what we have proposed here is just with the dimensions, it meets more of the monument versus the pylon. But so structures may exceed the height limit as long as a use permit is approved. And so what the applicant is proposing is to increase the height of the sign from the allowable 10 foot monument sign to approximately 34 feet. The additional height is to provide additional visibility for the businesses in the proposed development. And the sign has been designed to incorporate materials and elements from the primary building. And so you can see, again, The picture that's shown is just for a visual representation. When it does get submitted, it will go through the building permit process and it must comply with our standards as well as the site distance triangle. So that you can see that's why we've left that clearance at the bottom just with the location of it. You know, if anyone is coming north or south, you're able to see the vehicles. And so that's what is being proposed here. There is an option should the height change, it will be just to meet the requirements, but it will not exceed 34 feet in height. So an environmental review was also done. And based upon analysis of the application, it was deemed that it is categorically exempt from review, subject to CEQA guidelines section 15532, infill development. And the findings are on the screen, which are required. Those are findings that are required in order for the project to be exempt. I'm happy to go into them in further detail if needed. And we also have the use permit findings. So per the LIVO municipal code, these are findings that are required in order to approve the project. So as shown on the screen from A through E, all the findings were made and therefore staff is recommending approval of the project. Again, I'm happy to go into further detail if needed. And so tonight, this is our recommendation as shown on the screen. I do have the developer and Benny is here. If you guys have any questions or if you would like to make any comments and staff is also available to help answer any questions.

All right. Thank you. Does anyone in the mission have questions, Jaspreet? I'll lead off a couple. I got on to maybe a tangent or something about notification and such. And what I didn't see, Did the city issue like a 10 day advance notice as the California regs say they were supposed to do for a public hearing?

Yes. So the state requires a 300 foot notice. Um, I did go out to 500 feet for the neighborhood and it was published in the newspaper as well.

What newspaper is that?

The appeal Democrat.

Okay. I was like, I didn't find the thing. And so, um, and the notification to the residents i didn't see any list or anything where they also noticed they were noticed yes and were there any comments from those people there were no comments um i noticed again the community calendar doesn't even show our meeting tonight on the website um that would be helpful if we have some of those uh things going i think i mentioned that before i don't know if there's a problem with that But the council meetings are shown and an activity later on with the food trucks is shown, but our meetings have shown. Maybe that would be helpful. Okay. What was the other thing? I want to understand this process that we're asked to approve this today without Caltrans all of the activities that they say needs to be done. What is the reason for that? You know, I'm not quite, it seems to me I wouldn't want to approve something of Caltrans. I'd say, hey, I want you to do this, and then we didn't. We've already approved it. How does that work?

So we did have multiple meetings with Caltrans and we had the developers reach out in order to get the project moving forward. I did provide the letter from Caltrans. So they are requesting two warrant studies to be completed, which are somewhat timely. However, with the discussion with Caltrans, it was discussed that they are okay to move forward with the approval process, so the use permit. However, the building permit cannot be issued until Caltrans signs off. So that was the agreement between Caltrans, the city, as well as the developer. And really all it is, is they're requesting a pedestrian warrant. And in the traffic study, it was provided that during a four-hour study, there was no pedestrian like there was no pedestrian access along 99. So really what the developer has to provide is just an additional study for that. And then with the signal warrant, same thing. It does say in the traffic study that a signal is not required, and they're just requesting the additional information, which the developer is working on. So even behind the scenes, there are still discussions with Caltrans.

Let's see here. um i had another question this is um about the sign height difference i know that there's other signs that are taller than 10 foot here but they are kind of grandfathered in um why a 10 foot is not considered adequate

So again, the developer has requested for additional height just to allow for the visibility of the other businesses. So for Sonic, as someone's coming down around the corner, they might not see it. But with the greater height in the sign, it'll have the Sonic, Buffalo Wild Wings go. It's kind of towards the middle of the development. So it allows for that visibility. And there was thought put behind it. When it first comes in, you're a little like, oh, That's a big sign, you know, but you do see throughout the corridor there are signs that are greater. And then the municipal code does allow for it with the use permit. And so when we were looking at this sign, you know, we determined for each building or each business that will be there, it's probably going to be about like a two foot sign and then allowing for that visibility. And then that height difference is also just for that site distance triangle. So if you do have a monument sign with that base as required, you know, there are impacts to visibility. And so we had determined just with that the two, you know, to allow for the greater height as well as allowing that base to be open will allow for that, the traffic site distance triangle.

and open space then was uh you thought was enough that you could see oncoming traffic coming from the north yes yes for both all right now for now that's all i've got people have some other questions

Just one question on the Caltrans. So they're potentially requesting a future traffic study, but you're saying there's not enough pedestrian activity. Is that along the sidewalk or is that people trying to cross the highway? What is that exactly?

So originally it was for across the highway. So to have a pedestrian access with the flashing beacon. But when we had our conversation with Caltrans, And Ben can definitely help me out here more with the traffic portion. But really with coming in on a corner with speeds of 40 miles per hour, you know, the city has concerns and Caltrans has concerns as well. So that's where they are requesting that to show that the pedestrian access is not required. And I'll let Ben add more to that.

Yeah, I mean, Jaspreet pretty much just answered it. so regarding the traffic I'm here tonight with my public works hat on, um, basically I'm happy to answer any in-depth questions, but that's when we first, when the project first comes through, we require a traffic study. And so when the traffic study came back, one of the standards is that you include pedestrian, um, travel because we're, we want to know how they're coming on the West side. And we actually incorporated that with a sidewalk access and how they get across the parking lot and then on the East side. And so the, the, um, the developer, you know, through the traffic study, they put a crosswalk across Highway 99. And honestly, bells and whistles and flashers go off because it's, you know, not that we don't want to have safe travel, but just putting a flashing beacon there doesn't make everybody safe, right? And so that's what really triggered Caltrans and through our discussions is that They showed an effort to show the pedestrian going there, but we really don't want it. Unfortunately, we just don't want it. It goes across to the east. There's not really houses there. It's kind of the way that layout is with Ramsdale. It's on a curve. It's on a 40 mile an hour entrance coming into the city. But Caltrans doesn't want it. I don't want it. I don't think it's a safe spot to pass. We need to route people that are going to pass down to one of the signalized intersections and they need to walk up. And so the traffic study. And then when Caltrans saw that, you know, they wanted to know more. They wanted more basis, more information to justify why we need to have it or kind of check their box, I would say, is to cover themselves as to, hey, why do you need it? Do we have to have it? And so that was pulled out. because they didn't want it. We didn't necessarily want it. And then where am I going with this story? And so then, so that was the pedestrian. You know, it's not a good spot for it. We don't recommend it. It's just not a good spot. And then there isn't a demand for it that people can't use the Colostree or the next signal down. but so then you have the issue with the risk so time is money um the developer they chose to say hey we'll go forward with the risk we'll wait for caltrans final buy-off um as we do the traffic analysis um it's just a risk because a bigger project it might be a substantial risk they might say hey you need overpass right and that would be a project killer but really um We know what the traffic studies and the numbers on Ramsdale, it's barely adding any traffic. It's like one second delay during the peak. It's not anywhere close to triggering a traffic signal improvement, but they wanted the information just to check the box that, hey, this is where the traffic is. going through the Warrant Study Alliance. And so that's where the developer basically requested to move it forward for the timeline with the risk that they'll do whatever Caltrans tells them to do. And then Caltrans says, hey, they usually like to wait, but in this case, we're okay with going to the building permit. So I hope that explained it.

Just one other follow-up question. Did the traffic study show anything on speed? Did it track speeds? coming up to the proposed business?

It did not. You know, the traffic studies, they usually volume and delay the level of service. I would note that the level of service in here, if you look at it, just because it's going to come up in a future meeting, the level of service the traffic engineer listed is D. That is our standard. So if you look at, so I want to be careful when I, I just want to make sure the information is the same when we talk about it later on. So level of service D is the general plan. That's the threshold for delay that existing plus project before somebody needs to do something to make the intersection better. Technically, when you come up to the highway, there's an exemption for the highway where it could actually go to level of service E. And so where you could have a longer delay because you're coming up to a state state route. And so when you see a future project like McDonald's come through that level of service is actually going to be E. And so it was a little bit confusing in this section. We, it would have been updated, but with the draft, but so I want to be clear on that, that technically they're, they superseded at their A's C's. I think it went from a B and then one second difference changed it to a C during the peak time frames. But, was i going with this your question speed and so there was talk about like this signal warrant so there's multiple signal warrants um so they look at it based on volume um based on pedestrians um time of um the the percentage of vehicles versus the percentage of vehicles on each cross street so they have multiple signal warrants and so one location so they analyzed different locations ramsdale and 99 they analyzed the intersection or the the um the driveways to figure out what the delay is in or out and one one location the north driveway one of the seven signal warrants it met it barely met that um and it barely met that because of the speed because it's 40 miles an hour. And so I think it's like 75% of the cars. Um, or if it's not that it's, um, it's, it's, um, it's some sort of crazy standards. It's in the very back of the traffic study, but it barely met it. And it was because of the speed. And so if you change it from 40 to 35, which would be the recommended mitigation, if that was really the, if Caltrans really had heartburn with it, we'd say lower the speed to 35, you're coming into town and then it doesn't matter. And then I just want to be clear, too, just because a location barely tags one signal warrant, it's bucking. There's multiple signal warrants. Just because one location all of a sudden meets one criteria of the signal doesn't mean a signal goes in. And it's just a reference for, you know, is that signal approaching where they need to mitigate it through some sort of action? And so that was kind of long-winded. But based on your speed, no. But behind the scenes, the conversation with the traffic engineer is really, you know, they should lower, Caltrans should lower the speed of anything coming into town. So it's not 40, it's more of a 35 coming in.

Those new things on either side of town for traffic, that's to deter people from going up on the islands, right?

Yeah, hopefully so. Yeah. And my blind people as they're coming in and I, and my, yeah.

But that's the goal. Thank you. Any other questions? Well, okay. You wanted to add something?

No.

Well, we have some public here. I'd like to open the public hearing for those people that wish to address this project. So does anyone wish to speak? Please stand. You'll step to the podium. And then name and address. Thank you.

My name is Catherine Smith-McQuarrie. My address is 97840 Street in Live Oak. I think it's great that you're considering bringing in some nicer looking buildings. I thought it was really pretty the way that the rocks and things were. My concern is that with the new curbs that are dividing our highway now, if you're coming from Live Oak to this new place, you're going to have to get there somehow. So where are we turning? Is there a U-turn that's going to happen? How are we accessing it from Live Oak? Getting back to Live Oak is fine, but getting there from Live Oak? might be a little bit tricky, especially now that we have all of the curb hopping restraints and everything. So that's one of my questions because I would hope that this is going in for the purpose of serving the people of Live Oak who live mostly on the south side of this area. My other question is the pedestrian study seems to be accurate now, but if we're putting in restaurants, could there be some anticipation of more people walking there? And then are we prepared for that to keep people safe and in the right places for what they need? And then my last question just for the council in general is an encouragement, really more than a question, you know, keeping in mind what will Live Oak look like in 10 years and 15 years and 20 years. I've been here for most of my life. My grandparents were here. My parents were here. My children are here. I'm hoping when my grandchildren are here that it will be a beautiful place with lots of things for them to do and lots of homes for them to live in and jobs for them to have. And as a parent of children, children who are in their 20s and in their teens, it's really hard to find a job. So having these opportunities is really good because then they don't have to go to Sacramento to work. So that's a good thing. I want to make sure we highlight the positives, but I do have those questions about access with the division of the lanes and the curbs that are there, and then also the pedestrians, and then the noise levels for the people that do have to live over there. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do we have anyone else that wishes to speak on this project? Okay. Well then, I'll close the public hearing. Now, any further questions that we have? Anyone on the Commission? What's that? Okay. All right. So is everybody of a mind that they can vote? So I'll request a motion if someone has to make a motion on this particular project.

Pardon me?

I'm having my fingers not hurt. Do you want to hear from the business owner? Oh, you know, good idea. Yes, if the business owner wants to step up, we'll open the public hearing again. Here we go. Sorry.

Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Benny Dundon. I'm the president of Dundon Development Group. Just want to open it up to you guys, see if you guys have any questions for me and I could get into more details about our project and how it could better serve our community and similar projects we've done in the past and why Caltrans has made exceptions. We've done numerous projects with Caltrans, so that's why Caltrans is okay with us going ahead and moving forward with this application while we're still working on the back end with Caltrans to make sure we meet the requirements there. As far as the sign is concerned, the questions there on the sign, the height increase, the reason why we're asking for a height increase is when we're coming, I guess, southbound from 99, there's a curve there. So if you have a price sign at around 10 feet with all the other businesses, you're not going to be able to see that and it's going to cause traffic collisions and you'll be able to, people stomping on their brakes and the people getting rear-ended back there. So that's the reason why we're asking for the site increase and the sign price increase. and then as far as jobs uh to answer your question our development here probably create more than 60 jobs um not not permanent jobs and then we also have jobs that's gonna be created while we're doing the development it's over a 15 million dollar investment into the town um In towns we'd have previously developed in, we've been the number one taxpayer in those and generated that much revenue for the cities. Again, we want to be a part of the community. I know it's a little difficult. Sometimes there's other businesses that are in the area that might be impacted. Our goal isn't to hurt any other business. It's a free market. We decided that, hey, this is a vacant building. It's been vacant for quite some time now. And it was a great opportunity for us to move in and bring some businesses, some national brands, such as Buffalo Wild Wings, because... I mean, I think the closest one is in Yuba, but past that, I think even south of that is where, yeah, we're going to SAC and Sonic. I think we have one in Yuba. I know there was Arco previously in town. There is an Arco, we're proposing an Arco. So the questions of the, these brands do their own particular studies. So that's why we chose to go with these brands and they know that this area needs it and it can serve our community. So happy to answer any questions, public or from any of our commissioners or chair.

Just to reiterate the noise concern that she asked, the masonry wall is going to try to buffer out the noise and then the headlights and all that, right?

That's correct. So the masonry wall designed with Jasper and Ben, we worked on that. significantly to make sure that none of our neighbors are being impacted and want to be great neighbors to everyone that's there. So masonry wall is going to help. The landscaping is going to help with the buffering. And then also the equipment that we're going to be installing is going to be designed so the voice or the mic is going to be echoing and the speaker is going to be just echoing in that area, not surrounding out. So no one else will be able to hear it.

I'll ask you a question, too. Of course. On the Sonic Park where you have the look almost like a little roundabout there that you're doing There's a proposed wall that would be along the street That right razor. Well, yes 36 inches. Was that right Chaz Preet? That seems small you have Pickup trucks that I think can have high lights up to like 54 inches That seems like it's gonna shine right in to the people that are across the street and

so so i i mean does that we mean to make that higher you want to go down to there i mean i'm okay with making it up to four feet if that satisfies or five feet but you know what ends up happening is you're gonna have some lifted trucks do these big trucks i mean we're in a farming area farming community do we do have higher trucks here um So when we do traffic studies, we look at the cars and the patterns of our customers that are using a sonic typical customer is a family or a minivan that's coming into the drive through more of our people that are coming in for lunch or the people that are dining in our stores or they're having lunch or dinner within the restaurant. So they're not typically the ones that are going through the drive through. But if the proposed use, if that satisfies the headlights, no problem. We can move it up to four feet. And I think we've had numerous conversations with Jasprey and Ben and the rest of the team at Live Oak, along with all the other departments that were willing to do any other steps additional that might be needed. And that long goes with Caltrans, if anything else is requested from them, we would make those appropriate adjustments to our plans.

So where the cars will be going around a circle, I guess, to calling in their order, whatnot, picking it up. Is that going to be elevated from the street level?

Are you talking about the mic and speaker?

Well, no. I'm talking about where the cars are going to go in a little U, right? Yes. Is that portion of your property going to be elevated from the street level?

No.

It's actually going to be lower. Will be?

Yes. Because the grade level, in order to meet the storm system design there, it's actually at a lower grade than the rest of the facility. The back end of the property is actually at a lower grade.

So that's going to be below street level?

Yes.

All right.

And then you have, I think, along Ramsdale, we've designed the wall and then we also have bushes that are going to be there. And over the time, yeah, I think, yeah, when we first do our development, it's going to take some time for those bushes to grow. But eventually they'll be at a point where we could cut the landscaping based on the needs of the area.

Really important to a pickup truck with a trailer, trying to get in with your travel trailer and some of the, it's really difficult outside of town and stuff. And that really, I think you know this, that you can get people in there that are stopping and traveling. I can't drive in there with my third car trailer anywhere in town. There's the traffic. So you'll have the best place. So you buy fast food.

Yeah, no, most definitely. So the way we designed this fuel canopy and then also the circulation amongst the whole site is we raised our fuel canopy to be at 16 feet allows trucks and car trailers or toy trailers that we're bringing in also allows for someone that's coming off off. Off of Live Oak Boulevard, that's coming southbound into town. They can pull right in, get diesel or gas, and pull right back out. So it allows the circulation there. And same thing with our tanker path. That's the same thing. They're going to be coming in. They're going to be able to go right out.

That's another question. So where are the tankers going to go? I saw where the fuel tanks are going to be. Yes. Do they go through and then are actually going to be further west of where the tanks are? Is that where you fuel them? Possibly. Away from that?

Yes. So right there. Yeah. So the way this can be designed is going to be pretty much tanker path comes in, valves fuel off, pulls right back out. So then when you have trucks coming in southbound, that is less risk because we don't want truckers or fuel tankers to be coming in and making a left turn into the property. So we're having them coming from southbound, coming into the property and then exiting right out and just making a right back out and they could catch back onto 99.

Yeah, they'll exit going southbound as well. Yes.

Any other questions?

No questions?

No questions. Thank you. Appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Now we've heard. Is there anyone else that wishes to speak about this project? All right. Seeing none, I guess I'll close that public hearing once again. Okay. All right. Where are we? Is anyone? Have further discussion or they wish to make a motion concerning this project? As presented by.

I'll second that motion. Is there a second? Yes. Alan?

And Commissioner Scutley? Yes. Commissioner Serpa?

Yes.

Commissioner Schmidl?

Yes.

Commissioner Dela?

Aye.

Commissioner Cashman?

Yes.

And Chair Stewart?

Yes.

Motion carries.

Congratulations. All right. OK. Now that we've, that was our biggest item, but now we've got something Jaspreet's up again about our adjusting the planning commission bylaws.

All right, this one's not as exciting as our use permit one, but so good evening. And tonight what we're presenting is our planning commission bylaws update. And so really it's just a cleanup of what we've had adopted in 2004. So when I first started, I took a look at the bylaws and I went to Ben and I said, hey, these don't match what we're currently doing. One of the first things you'll know is On there, it says that we meet on Thursdays at 7 p.m. or Tuesdays at 7 p.m., and that's not accurate. So really, this is just a cleanup, and it's not really major changes to what we're doing. It's just, you know, just to better align with the meetings today and to allow for clarity and modernization. So again, the intent isn't to substantially change the role of the Planning Commission just to update them to meet the current procedures. So the primary changes included clarifying meeting dates, times, and locations. This one is actually a big one. We are proposing to change our Planning Commission to meet on the 4th Tuesday at six p.m. of each month. So currently we meet the first and the third subject to projects or what we have going on. But really just to better align with even council meetings, what staff is proposing is to change it to the fourth. And then if we need to schedule any special meetings, it does still allow for that availability. Then we do have just the attendance requirements, the agenda and meeting material requirements. It stated that we send it to the newspaper as well as the radio, I think it was mentioned in one part. Really, we're just cleaning it up. And with that, we are also saying the agenda and meeting material requirements still comply with the state requirements, as Chair Stewart asked, regarding public hearing notices. You know, those, we are still, nothing's changing with that. It does get posted in the Appeal Democrat. Let's see. So really the public hearing, public comment procedures, just a cleanup of what it was. So in your staff reports, there is the clean version, and then there was also the track changes. And really just minor updates, but kind of making a big deal and allows for us to conduct our meetings in a proper order. And I'm happy to answer any questions.

Does anybody have any questions? You've done a great job of explaining it. Okay. So we can open it up to a public hearing. Anybody have any comments from the public? I'll give it my magic tap. No. Okay. Do we have a motion? Or is there a discussion between us?

No. A motion to adopt the resolution updating the plan and commission bylaws.

Second.

Here we go.

Commissioner Scutley?

Yes.

Commissioner Serpa? Yes. Commissioner Schmidl? Yes. Commissioner Dela? Yes. Commissioner Cashman? Yes. And Chair Stewart?

Yes.

Motion carries.

Moving right along. Okay. Any updates that we have about what's coming up? I heard something mentioned about McDonald's. We have an option for that coming up?

Yeah, so I do have quite a list of updates here for the commission tonight. So Ben did steal my thunder earlier, but McDonald's use permit. So that is going to be our next planning commission meeting. And they have actually already submitted their building permit plan. So, you know, that same thing is they have to get their use permit approved prior to the building permit being issued. But that's definitely exciting That's on the corner of Nevada Street and State Route 99. We also just recently updated our nuisance ordinance, so that will go into effect October 2nd. So really, it was a major cleanup of our two existing codes into one allows for more clarity and a clear process for our code enforcement team. And let's see what else we have. Valley Pizza, so that was a building permit that was issued for a new business coming to town. And an exciting thing here, we also received a $1 million grant for um the pool so it's gonna rehab the pool so we have um that uh from prop 64 um we do need to update our cannabis ordinance um in order to um get that to us but uh definitely a big win for the city um you know the pool is definitely something that um is needed in the community and that those uh renovations is very exciting so we're looking forward to getting that and moving forward We also have a Little League grant project that's in the works. So that's for two new fields with the bleacher renovations, water fountains. So that is also in the works. The last one I had was, so Ben and I, we met with Habitat for Humanity as well as their broker. They are in due diligence for, it's the Silver Oak subdivision right next to the Leo Chesney facility. So about 25 acres. And what they're doing is they're interested in about a new tentative subdivision map for about 130 homes. And very similar to what they have done in East Linda off of Hampton and Smartsville. So we met with them, and I believe they were also interested in the Leo Chesney facility. So if you guys had heard, that was up for sale as well. So, you know, should it go through, there will be a new tentative subdivision map coming to Planning Commission as well. And I think that's all I have. I don't know if Ben wants to add anything else.

And now I got more questions. I'm just full. So the Leo Chesney Center now is owned by whom?

It is owned by the Glad Tidings Church.

I thought so. And so now they're talking about selling it to Except for Humanity.

Yes. So it was on the market. And so it is now under contract.

Ah, okay.

For the Facebook post I saw.

It's pending. I'm not a big Facebook guy, so I see what you're saying. The other thing is, I'm curious. We got an announcement from the school system saying, hey, we bought property right over there off of Larkin, where Nevada comes. And evidently, I didn't see it until I got all the things. You can see the school through there, so there's a physical connection to there. What's the process there? I, way back, I remember having something where the state comes in and says, hey, before you develop any schools, you need environmental impact statement and you need to have a public hearings and comments and going on and stuff. Did I miss all of those? Was that held through only the school district or what's going on with that?

I will let Ben answer this one.

Okay. Okay.

so there is processes um it's probably just the timing and timing and how it comes forward and so the school district is in search for this and this is via meeting with um superintendent go branson and i try to meet up with him every other month or so just to kind of understand you know stay in relationships as far as what the city and the school district has going on And so he's been in search for property for a couple of years now because Luther Elementary is popping at the seams with 900 plus kids. And so he's been looking for another elementary site. This site became available through some negotiations. They really liked that site because of the compatibility with the backside of the high school, the share of the fields and having the access there. We were glad it was off of Pennington because of some of the issues just with the traffic on Pennington. Larkin is definitely busy still, but that was their chosen site. And so the school district could pick that property and purchase it without any sort of authority. They did ask us, what is the zoning? Can a school go there? And so it is residential, it's zoned for residential. And so under the residential development, that school can go there through into that spot through, I believe it's an use permit process. So similar to what just happened tonight, but instead of being for fuel cells, it's gonna be for a school. And so there'll be studies. There'll be a full blown staff report with conditions of approval that will get into the weeds as far as maybe lights and setbacks and school drop-offs. And so, but right where he's at right now is they've purchased the property. They understand that they will have to go through an entitlement process to actually build the school. But he's really trying to get funding for the school because if the bond, you know, so bond is on for November, if the bond doesn't pass, then that will, you know, reschedule, you know, how they do things. And so in a perfect world, I would assume, this is me assuming, the bond passes, then that provides him the funding for the designers and for the environmental work. And then they'll work with the city to get it approved and put a school there. The city then loses a little bit of control because then it goes to the state architect. And so we'll have control of our access onto Larkin in and out. We'll have control of some of the effects offsite, you know, for walls and sound and lights, but really everything regarding the building and the architecture of the school goes to the state architect.

Hope that answers. Yeah, good. It looks like to me where that location is, you've got a T between Nevada and Larkin, and that looks like a real traffic issue that could happen there.

you know you're gonna have to put a stoplight you have to do something but yeah and that will definitely be analyzed with all of it and they'll need a traffic study we'll will them and i will tell you every school has a traffic problem and so we will definitely um i will definitely be looking at it for how are you not going to create a traffic hazard for me with a new one a lot of the old ones you know see schools were built in different times you know, 80 years ago. Um, and they kind of inherit these problems as more people drive and drop their kids off. But with this one being a fresh start, I'm definitely, it's going to be a scrutinized for the best pickup drop off we can anyways, but, but parents are crazy. Myself included, you know? Thanks Ben. Okay.

Well, there was a lot of updates there. Thanks very much for that. All right. there anything else everybody's good all right well how about closing the meeting so we'll close the meeting right now thank you all for attending