Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

[Music] Heat. Hey, Heat.

land. Heat. Heat.

[Music] [Music] Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to our June 10th planning commission meeting. We'll open this meeting at 6:00 pm. Oh, okay. Uh, Madame Clerk, please call a role. Commissioner Nighton here. Commissioner Ramirez here. Commissioner Thomas here. Vice Chair Holler is absent, and Chair Madrid here. Uh, Ron, would you please uh lead us in the pledge of allegiance? To the flag of the United States of America, to the republic for which it

stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you, Ron. Um, so I see there's no presentations tonight. Um, madame U clerk, are there any modifications to the agenda? There are none. Thank you. Okay. Uh can I ask the planning commission for an all in favor to approve the agenda? I I I. Any opposed? Hearing none, the agenda is approved. Okay, that takes us to item 10.1. Could the community development director please introduce this? Did I speak skip pages? Oops. Excuse me. Oh yeah. Item six. Just testing you guys. See if you're listening. Okay. Madam clerk, are there any requests to speak on non-aggenda items? There are none. Okay. Okay. Approval of the minutes. There is one set of minutes for the planning commission's approval. Does the planning commission have any modifications? Could I ask the planning comm? Do we have any modifications? No. No mods. Okay. So, can I ask the planning commission for an all in favor to approve the May 28th, 2025 minutes? Yes. Yes. Yes. I Okay. Hearing none opposed. Minutes are approved. Uh there are no consent calendar items. There are no public hearing items. Now we're at 10.1. So, this is item 10.1. Could the community development director please introduce this item? Uh thank you chair. As as promised uh we did uh promise the commission that we were going to bring back this discussion item. Um it was

requested a few meetings back from the commission. So we did uh present this to council uh few weeks ago. Uh there was some good discussion and dialogue between council members and staff. So we're here to uh report uh a little bit on AB98 as well. and Doug uh Darnell will do the presentation today. All right. Thank you, Mr. Hernandez. Uh good evening, uh Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. Doug Darnell, principal planner. Um I'm pleased to present this uhformational discussion item to the commission this evening, which is an overview of AB98. Uh I'll cover its key components and imple imple implications for men. Um, AB998 is while AB98 is quite complicated, I'll do my best to be clear and cons as concise as possible for the commission. So, AB AB98 was signed into law uh September 2024. Um, it's intended to address impacts of logistics development across the state um but has a particular focus on the Inland Empire region. Um the law imposes minimum distance uh requirements between logistics facilities and sensitive uses um which are referred to in the law as sensitive receptors. And per the law, sensitive uh receptors include residential, child care, parks, schools, hospitals, and other similar uses. Uh the bill essentially became uh came about because of the high number of logistics uses within the Inland Empire um

in communities uh close to us such as Paris, Marino Valley, etc. Uh and here in the aerial photo um here's a a real world example of uh several logistics warehouses adjacent to and surrounding schools, homes, and other sensitive uses. So, the intent of the new law is mainly to address air quality, noise, and traffic impacts to communities heavily impacted by logistics. Uh here's how AB98 defines a logistics use. Uh so it's essentially uh large warehouse facilities where products are moved and stored for later distribution uh with high volume of heavy duty trucks for move movement of cargo and goods. Uh in general AB98 applies to logistics uses where loading bay doors would be located within 900 ft of the property line of a sensitive receptor. here uh this map shows jurisdictions within the AB98 uh warehouse concentration region. Um so th this is this is the area the legislation focuses on. These are the jurisdictions that have a prolifer proliferation of large warehouse facilities and u big rig trucks um where the requirements are more stringent for these areas. Um I would note that men is not included in this uh concentration region. Um this shows you the basic loading bay setback and buffer standards for logistics uses.

Um the standards vary based on four different categories shown here. So uh starting first with category one. Uh this would be logistics 250,000 square feet or more. Uh where the existing um the existing site is zoned for industrial uh allowing for logistics uses and um for that category uh there's a setback requirement of 300 ft. Uh that's from property line of the nearest sensitive receptor to um nearest truck loading bay. Also, there's a 50 foot landscape buffer width requirement. Uh, this this would be a fully landscaped area adjacent to the sensitive receptor um with burming walls and and heavily planted trees for screening. Then uh category two uh would be 250,000 square feet or more sites that are not zoned for industrial uh meaning if if uh a logistics use wanted to come on that site, they'd have to reszone the property to allow for it. So the requirement is different. Um and this is also within 900 ft of the sensitive receptor. Um it would require um it would increase the loading bay setback uh to 500 ft and uh and then um landscape buffer increases to 100 ft. And then category three um it's the same as category requirements are the same as category 2 but it doesn't apply to us because um that's for the concentration region. And then finally, category four, logistics uses less than 250,000 square feet. Um,

no loading base setback requirement, but um there is still a buffer requirement of 50 ft from a um along uh next to a sensitive receptor. So in addition to those requirements, um I got one question on that previous slide. Sure. Um Oh, pardon me. Yeah, there you go. Um, is there any property in Meny that falls in the category two that's not zoned industrial? I would say potentially. Okay, Commissioner, the the short answer is yes. All right. I mean, there could be any property that is not zone industrial that a a potential developer would want to develop it as industrial and and it would require a zone change, right? Um obviously um in most likely staff would not be in support obviously at that point. Um, there could be uh some maybe business park zone property that doesn't allow warehousing that, you know, could potentially make sense. But again, it it it it really depends on on the on the area and and and what's around it. Not likely, but still a possibility. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Okay, so moving on. Um other requirements uh and these are requirements for new or expanded logistics uses. Um and um uh just to um give you the definition of what would be an expanded logistics use.

Uh that is basically an increase of 20% or more of an ex existing uh logistics warehouse floor area. Um so and There's a multitude of requirements, but these are kind of the key ones shown here. Um, such as uh two two to one replacement. Uh, if a if a if a proposed logistics development comes in and um there needs to be demo of existing residential structures, they need to replace those structures 2 to one. Um there's also minimum uh truck stacking depth for entry gates and this is based on the number of loading bays. So the more loading bays, the more uh truck stacking depth needed. Um in addition um anti- idling signs at site entrances and truck exit driveways. Um also the operator must submit a truck routing plan to the city for review. uh the plan must identify routes that avoid sensitive receptors to the greatest extent possible. Other provisions of AB98 uh require updates to the circulation elements of of general plans. Um and and this would be as needed to establish truck routes that avoid sensitive receptors. Um and this would be uh they'd need to identify routes that uh are primarily on the roads type of roads shown here. Um but but preferably arterial roads and major thorough affairs. Um for meny this required general plan update must be adopted uh no later than January 1st, 2028.

um concent concentration region jurisdictions have a shorter time frame. Um they have to get it done by January 1st, 2026. So more difficult for them. Um also uh so incl conclusion uh AB98 has major implications um uh and such as increase in development costs for logistics projects. Um it might prevent redevelopment of of existing logistics uses. Um could prohibit uh logistics use uh if it is unable to meet the requirements of AB98. Um AB98 was rushed through the legislature last year. Uh so um there are a number of uh cleanup and clarifications needed. Um and as a result, there's two subsequent bills are moving forward right now to address those issues. Uh issues with unclear and conflicting requirements uh and and definitions. Uh and then finally, uh the Western Riverside Council of Governments is uh providing technical assistance and support to uh jurisdictions in the Western Riverside County region um to help with navigating the law and uh they are also working with legis the legislators um for more clarity and flexibility in the law. So with that, this concludes my report and staff's prepared to answer questions of the commission. Thank you, Principal Planner Doug Darnell. Commissioners, do you have any questions for staff? Chris, could you pull up uh could it pull up the EDC Northgate, the Northern Center for

we have and we can look at I had some questions about some partial how this would affect is not Yeah, it's not it. We if they could get Google Maps up of the area that might I hear something say Google Maps or GIS look at it. I don't know. I'm messaging them right now. While they're working on that, um for Doug, I have a question. Okay. For the redevelopment aspect of it, if um I know that you're going to pres Well, we're going to revisit the um Oh gosh, it's escaping me right now. Um the new plans for the um economic corridor. Um, and I noticed that on one of the maps it said redevelopment of warehouses. Would that impact those plans? Are you following me? The presentation they did. Yeah. Yeah. The one we were all tired on. Oh, and we we embraced. Okay. We're talking about the Metife Innovation District specific. Okay. No. Um and in fact I mean currently that that's the southern gateway uh economic development corridor. Currently the um logistics warehouse development is not allowed there and that would not be part of the vision we want to accomplish for that that specific plan. Thank you. You're welcome.

Okay. So I guess everyone can see the Google. Can you guys see the Google map? Everybody see it? So, I don't think this shows all the current projects on there. But, for example, okay, so there's something there on just to the right of Evans and to the left of Evans all has projects I believe already booked there and then to the left of Hole Street. So, so basically see all the housing that's uh there you go. So Floyd Avenue to left a hole. If anything of over 250 wants to go in there, they would have to purchase that prop. I'm asking I'm phrasing a question. They would have to purchase the property and then find other housing to replace it in another location. Is that basically what this rule say? Yes, that's part of the requirements. Yes. Okay. So at a 2:1 ratio. At a 2 to1 ratio. So, I guess my question is uh we have if you if there was a map that showed the current approved warehouses plus there's a couple I think the law said I was reading it said if they've already applied their grandfather they don't apply to this. Right. How many warehousing projects in the northern gateway do we have that have applied that we haven't seen yet? I I'll walk you through the corridor and let you know what has been approved uh and what's currently under review. If if I can have it zoom out a little bit more and and so it covers from Barnett although right there that right there is fine. Okay. So, uh, we have, uh, the two, uh, 250,000 square foot warehouses along Barnett, just south of Ethan. That's called the Felin, uh, project. They're approved or they're approved. That was the very first project that got

approved. Yeah, we've seen them. They're they're good to go. Yeah, they're they're they probably were approved uh maybe close to two years ago. Yeah. Uh, I think that was the first one that got approved. Uh the second project that got approved is the KO project and that's roughly a 700 uh,000 square foot warehouse and that's west west of buyers uh west of buyers south of Cuffle Road. Okay. I I that's that's correct. That's correct. So, um there there you go. Okay. So, um 174 that's filling. Okay. Uh number one, number one is KO. Okay. And that's already approved. That's the second one. The third one that got approved is um uh it's two 210 on the on the east side. That one. Yeah. That one that was just approved a couple meetings ago. Okay. Now, Eerie's warehouse, which is the one in the middle, 196. That one. That one came before the commission again a few months ago. And this is the one that the commission uh denied. And that's it. Yeah, that's that's a one Maretta. And the applicant appalled the project and he went to council and and council basically uh gave him an opportunity to for the applicant to go back and have

additional meetings with the residents, specifically the residents to the north side and and see if they could try to work some of the concerns that the residents have. So again, we we have three projects that are approved. This one is not approved yet. So, uh, if we can zoom out again. So, Eeries, uh, not approved. Uh, the big one that you see there, that's, uh, Panaton. Uh, that was going to be a really big one, and they put that project on hold probably three years ago, and we haven't heard anything from them at all. So they're still vet they're still they're still grandfathered into into um um into um before the September date. Correct. And the same with Aries. And same with Aries. I have a question. How long does the grandfathering last until the project gets either withdrawn, approved, or denied? Can those maps run out though? So say they get get a warehouse approved. There is a a lifetime on there is an expiration of three years that uh the commission grants. Uh there is an opportunity to do a one-year extension. So technically um and and it's not automatic. So, it really depends assuming they're going through the process and they're they're, you know, seeking uh plan check approval then and if if they're running short on time, we would grant an extension. But if they haven't done anything for two years, then it it's possible that that we wouldn't grant the extension. So, what's the light blue stuff on the southwest? Uh, that's actually

residential. Okay, that's residential. And then there's there's if we can go back to uh and there's three more that are small projects. Uh zoom in. No, no, zoom in. There you go. Uh and that's the two all the way on the left side, which is 189 and 181, I think. Okay, that one. That's called the compass project. It's an applicant that submitted three different sites. these two and another side closer to Barnett. Uh these are small uh on the smaller side. Um these ones are going to the process. They're almost done as well, but they they've they have placed them on hold until until the um cities work out the differences uh between the track traffic concerns that that they're approved, but they haven't gone forward. They have they're not approved yet. Not approved. They're not applied. Yeah. Yeah. that that acreage next to that big large square there that doesn't look like it would even apply to AB 94 due just due to the size of the property. Is that correct? Uh because it would be less than 250. It would be less than 250, right? Yeah. Yeah. But since they apply before September, they will be exempt. uh someone that applies if if they're less than 250 they they will still require the 50 foot buffer if if they were which is part of our good neighbor policy right now. Yeah. And and also uh AB98 requires if it's less than 250 requires the 50 foot buffer as well. So couple one comment and one question.

We'll do the question first. If I wanted to identify likely area. Okay, first of all, north gate is the the northern gate gateway is Mclofflin north to Ethan. Is that the border? What's the border? Uh Mclofflin uh technically it's the north of the Edison Eastman which is just north of Mclofflin, right? So okay. U north of Mclofflin obviously south of Ethan. Okay. And and everything everything west of the of Bernett. So, if I wanted to identify, if we could zoom out a little, identify parcels that are unlikely to be a new warehouse, it would first of all, the one between Hole and Miretta sounds like looks like they could do that there, right? Because there's some little out buildingings, little houses. No big deal. But there's there's a few homes there's a few residential homes there. You see those? Exactly. Do you see those shaded small shaded areas? That's not going to stop them. They'll go find some. So, uh um pretty much we we don't need to worry about the Floyd to cuff area, right? Cor correct. And also on the west side of Gary, there's some more residential homes as well. If Floyd continues to the west, you see more residential homes on that south side of Floyd right there. Okay. So, in your planning opinion, pretty much they're not going to do that. But I know a lot of those people on Floyd and Couple wanted to sell. A lot of them had agre had offers. Some turn them down. They're waiting for more money. eventually when this is built up and Ethanax widen and we get all that good development going on there. In your opinion, would this make it more likely that the Cuffle Floyd area and

just to the left of it would be smaller suites and things like that? Obviously, if it's a warehouse, it's probably unlikely if it's a logistics facility because industrial developers, they don't do residential. So, they're not going to go in and and and construct residential at a 2 to1 ratio. If it's a manufacturing facility, obviously, it's not a logistics, then they don't have that requirement. So, that is a possibility. uh if it's uh the business park uh type of development, if it's commercial, then they don't have that requirement either. Okay, that makes me feel better. Um so far looking at these dark purple, blue, whatever they are, I'm half color blind. So um we have sewer lines coming down from Ethan now or at least when they build these we will have sewer lines coming down buyers Gary mya whole Evans and what's that one to the left no to the right of Aaron Allen drive whatever that one is so so all of these will have the infrastructure coming down from Ethan back, right? Most of them will. Gary may not because uh if assuming Aries gets approved, uh sewer may be off of Maretta and not off of Gary. So they would bring it down Maretta if it's not there. They'll bring it down Mirror to connect below Mclofflin. Oh, okay. Mhm. Cuz one of the arguments at the council meeting was we don't need to do this because we it's going to stop them and and and we do need some because we need the infrastructure. That's the big argument here. So it looks like we're going to get most of our infrastructure already with what we

have. That's most for the most part. Okay. What's the 175 and 169? The yellows are those those are commercial commercial and they're approved and the one uh the 169 is approved. Uh 175 it's going through the process commercial such as gas station. Uh 175 as a gas station and it has a retail a retail building as well. Um I don't know roughly six to 8,000 square feet retail. Okay. Detach detach from the convenience store. Um okay, that's all I got. Thank you. You got any more? Michael. All right, it's my turn. Um, one thing I would like to be clarified is, um, I read the staff report. I was at the city council meeting three weeks ago. Um, I've seen the presentation today, saw the presentation previously. Um, so I know what the city is coming out with. Uh, I also looked at the summary from, uh, Rutan Tucker. I read the bill. I read the, uh, cleanup bills. Um, even though they don't apply here yet. Um, with all that being said, the staff reports mentioning January 1st, 2025 as the effective date. Everywhere else I read said January 1st of 2026 is the effective date. You, in fact, I believe the fourth line of the bill has is of on the front page is the effective date of January 1st, 2026. So where are we at? That's correct. So

January January 1st, 2026. That was a So even though there was a deadline back in September, there's a missing 15-month window between when everybody had to come in come in here try to get things approved and the actual date of No. We got six months. Yeah. Now, now we do. Now we have six months, but it didn't come. It wasn't in uh or in effect six months ago. Five months ago on January 1st. Okay. So, that's a typo. We we apologize for the confusion on that. Oh, no, no. I'm just I'm I'm okay. That's why I wanted the clarification. Um there's a uh January 1st, 2028 deadline to um basically rewrite the general plan and make those truck circulation elements. Is that going to be an issue for for Nick's department? That's piece of cake. No big deal. Okay. um SB98, does that have any effect on the global traffic study or the current lawsuits? They can't hear you. No, no, there's no uh Okay. Um I'm going to I'm going to save this question because I'm going to bring it up later to Ty. Uh the two to one replacement. Um, it it does say low income or affordable housing, not low income, but affordable housing. Can they drop a couple single wides on their current property and rent them out to their own employees?

The bill doesn't state, you know, how they would be able to rent or sell these types of properties. That would be up to the owner. Okay. And but do they and then do they have like a cash in lie of I didn't see that in the bill but can they say you know what we're going to fund it kind of like that the penalty fund um like inclusionary zoning provisions. Yeah. can or how do they where are they going to buy one lot to possibly put one house on and an ADU on to meet the requirements if they just take out one property existing property? Unfortunately, I do not know the minds of the legislators. Um, you know, some of these requirements are not uh how do I say this? It's not fully baked. Um some of them it's not exactly um tested just yet. But in other cases there have been incidences in which uh potentially in other jurisdictions in which a developer might develop something that's 100% market rate and then buy another lot to build something affordable or uh help fund an affordable housing development. It's not clear yet. I don't know if any any of these projects yet. And so we don't really know exactly how. So we're looking at possibly a third cleanup bill. a third and fourth cleanup bill possibly. Well, as you saw with ADUs, hasn't happened yet. Yeah, as you saw with ADUs, there have been changes almost every every year. So, yeah. Okay, Michael, you were making a point of um is there going to be like a inloo fee like a almost like a Quimby fee where they put Is that what you're trying to say? No, I'm saying um sorry like No, that's fine. I I'm saying like they reach out to LAR and say, "Hey, I want to buy two

properties, you know, over in Simron Ridge." And then they purchase those properties and then they make them they turn into landlords and make them affordable homes. Um there's all kinds of options I could see, but none of it's in the bill. I mean, this the guy I'm going to be nice and I'm just not going to tell you about the um the city councilman who wrote this bill, so I won't um here's another one. The project comes in, it's entitled for SP94. um it's approved. They have all the setbacks. They dot all their eyes and cross all their tees and they build a 94 conforming use. There's vacant property surrounded them. Um Romuland School District 10 years down the line decides, hey, I want to drop a school there, but it violates the conditions of S or I'm sorry, AB AB98. um it violates those conditions. Is that particular existing AB98 conforming property now grandfathered because of this of a school insertion? Because the school is obviously a sensitive receptor. Um what happens with that happens? Because if uh Bont comes down, he's saying it's a $50,000 fine. So, so again, unfortunately, you know, this scenario is not played out, you know, as to what would happen there. However, typically, um, you know, there's a saying that you're coming to the nuisance in some ways. So, you're not going to require or typically you don't require existing uses to go back

and retrofit unless there are uh any triggering events like such as expansions or changes and things like that. um you know depending on what the warehouse is um or you know whatever the uses are it it's also possible that the school might not choose to be next to that due to any potential truck traffic or any we don't know the answer is we don't know yet yes there's a lot of guesses right now as to how this will all work out okay wait till I get to you a little later a lot of that I have a feeling that's it for now I have a question have we noted Since since this bill's passage, have we noticed um applicants pulling their their applications? No. No. So that's because they're grandfathered, right? Correct. And we haven't seen any new submitts either. So looking at the conclusions, it this looks like the anti-warehouse bill to me. So we're going to have it's going to increase development costs present significant challenges for logistics use profit project. It's you know it's slow down warehouses and I think that's what well people want that are going to be happy. Yeah. Just just comment you know to answer. Okay. Thank you. Any more questions guys? Yeah I'll go I'll get back in in the queue there. Okay. So hang on, hang on. I got more. No, okay. I got this is all for Ty. So only easy ones, please. But these are Okay, that's okay. Go ahead. Okay. Reading the definitions of logistics use, it's very clear. You guys highlighted some stuff in the staff or in the presentation, but we're talking buildings that move um or products are moved and stored for later

distribution. um that does not predominantly serve retail customers or on-site purchases. So I I highlighted that that term predominantly um and it says heavy duty trucks are primarily involved primarily I'm highlighting in the movement of the goods and products. uh later on heavy duty truck is defined class 7 class 8 vehicle 26,01 pounds or greater. Um so these are my questions hypothetical development projects. Uh all the names are real names that I'm going to use here. I got four possible scenarios. Um I haven't heard any rumors of that these people are coming in. I'm just using them as examples. Um but uh tire.com they're they're a business that deals with distributing tires to residents. You online order or tire place across the street. Um different tire manufacturers drop off tires from all the makers all the makers at their facility. Um say they get a uh 50 trucks a week from big big rig 18-wheeler trucks. Um, so they have 50 trucks coming in, but all their distribution is from uh the Mercedes Transit small vehicles and they send out, you know, two, three, 400 a week. So now the predominantly big traffic doesn't apply because it's mainly small soon to be electric vehicles. Um would logistics would the logistic def

definition apply in that case just based on the limited information? Probably not. Um but it also depends on the operations. Um you know because that's just talking about just the trucks, but are they storing? How are they storing? How long are they storing? Right. So, it's likely that yes, there's an argument to say that it it could be. Um, but then what you'd have to get into the details to to argue why it's not, but a developer can't come in. And that this applies to all my examples here. If a developer developer comes in and names, they typically don't name a tenant. Um, I' I've never heard of a tenant. Um, I've heard of different words, but they've never named a tenant. If development were to come forward, we almost kind of have to the developer would have to almost come in and say this person, this this company in order to eliminate a lot of that um discretion that we because like we don't know project comes in, we don't know that it's a logistics center, a manufacturer. Well, you can unless they actually say that. One comment about that. You kind of can because these logistics centers have 100 doors. A manufacturing will have four or five. The building I work in right now has 50 doors. Yeah. And there's no distribution. Distribution. So they've actually converted now I'll say another one later. They converted the doors to um chiller yards, generator yards, things like that. Um Okay. So that's that's a that's another iffy. So just with something like that potentially in imp implementing this right a developer comes in with a type of use in mind though not you know we've seen so many of those and they're not

exactly sure what they might want but they do generally tailor the development to a targeted use. So, you know, if they do have um let's say they're looking to do manufacturing and then they're trying to get a logistics tenant, they're going to have to comply with AB98, right? Depending on the size of of the development. That's I I think that that's going to be the difficulty for a lot of these developers. That's why there is such strong push back and concern. But again, we don't know exactly how it'll really all be implemented and how developers will come to cities and say, you know, what they want to do. They might have to change their model in doing these types of applications. It's not clear yet. It'll be up to the industry to figure out what would be best for them in in the development process for these types of industrial uses. All right, I'll continue here and I'll get I'm going to try to wrap this up fairly quick. Um, another another possible use is Orbit Sprinkler Company. Um, they want a 500,000 foot building hypothetically. Uh, they plan to manufacture their products on site. They got big rigs coming in delivering the um polyropylene or whatever it's called the um the pellets for to mold plastic. They manufacture everything there. Then they also distribute. Um but 70% of the building is manufacturing and the rest is the storage, the warehouse, shipping, receiving going outdoors. Um would that fall under AB98? Because it's predominantly manufacturing yet there's still a distribution use or logistical use. So if I if I recall correctly,

there's no definition of predominant in the bill. No, there's not, right? So we'd have to, you know, we'd have to make that determination. Now, it could be, I'm sure, a variety of factors that staff would have to take into account the amount of time, you know, for each type of use, whether it's manufacturing, storage, or distribution. Uh how many vehicles for each of those things, how many employees they employ for each of those. There's long Yeah. How long something is stored. There's just a lot of factors that frankly the um the city and as well as the state is probably going to have to figure out in order to determine uh whether you know something is predominantly distribution um logistics, excuse me. So the answer is we don't know yet with any of these scenarios that because any scenario you give to me unless it's you know like an Amazon warehouse or something like that. Um we especially when it's like multiuse or you know they're combining everything together. um it's really going to require I think a very factbased analysis of that specific use and that might require more uh information from a developer than they're necessarily used to when they come for these types of applications. All right? Because um one of the thing I noticed and I'm trying to read councilman's minds is when this was presented to them um it looked like this was going to kill everything. I think Randy just said a moment ago is going to kill everything. Whatever the buildings are, whatever. I'm I'm for uh I like the job creation. I actually like the lowpaying entry levelvel jobs because everybody's got to start somewhere. Um but the way it was kind of presented or interpreted was um we're going to lose up there and because

of this assembly bill and I just want to make sure that there's other options that we could still have logistical use. Um but like we don't have a definition of predominantly. Um I think um I'm just looking at like you know because I want eventually more developers or developers to fill in like all the bottom stuff that a lot of that stuff it doesn't make sense to drive down hole to go to a Sam's Club you know something like that comes in there or you know go down Gary for to a Trader Joe's you know that those kind of places need to have prominent frontage on Ethan So, but I also don't want all this spot building 20 years down the line. I want it my vision fill that fill that whole thing up. And I just want to make sure that as today AB9 AB uh 98 it does hamper some development, but it won't hamper all development. And so that's that's my concern about it. So, thank you for your um wisdom of uncertainty. Thank you. I have one other question if after you Randy. No, I was just going to thank Michael for his questions. Go ahead, Chris. So, under the definition of AB98 of logistical use, that's Can we pull up the definition here? Can we go to the actual definition that was on one of the slides? Okay. Building m cargo goods are produced are moved and stored for later distribution to business or retail or retail customers. So if tire rack comes in who tire rack you order online you order you know four tires and you can

have it delivered to your house or you go I guess or whatever or will call that is not Amazon or Reynolds like off the 215 where it's primarily meant to for distribution to the Lowe's and the Ralphs and things do the ones my question is which one of those do we get sales tax revenue on because of the end use. Remember the there's the the new law that says where the end final lands, we get the sales tax. So on a strictly purely distribution warehouse, we aren't getting a dime. But on the tire rack, we would, wouldn't he? Because it it's it's considered end use, isn't it? Ultimate destination probably. But I'd have to double check on that. Well, well, what what what for sure type of uses do we get the sales tax revenue on? Brick and mortar retail stores. Okay. Brick and mortars. But the big hubbub was when they changed the law, the final destination get city gets the sales tax rather than the city where you ordered it from or how it used to be. So has the city here has Menathy been getting any additional sales tax revenue because of the change in that law? That's what saved men during CO we apparently got a ton of online sales. Well, is that because it went to people's houses? So I can't answer I don't think any of us here can directly answer that question for men specifically. However, I do understand that you know with the increase for example during COVID with online sales, a lot of cities that had a lot of online sales did increase uh such revenue. But that was two homes going to two homes. Two homes. So, so so when you put your, you know, when you're buying on Amazon, you know, if you put in your zip code, that's the sales tax where

it's the same thing with your car. Wherever your car is registered is where you're you're paying the taxes and fees, not where you actually bought it. where you actually bought it from. So, in relation to this whole discussion in the in Northern Gateway, if a tire rack or a other use, if it's 500,000 square feet, whatever, but the main purpose is to go not to go to other stores, but to go with these little vans to people in Meny or Parish, whatever. Are those considered logistics? if they are considered final de I guess they're not final destination they're they're called last mile last mile okay last mile if it's a last mile facility and it's 500 square f feet is it technically a distribution a logistical use as per this definition so I can make the argument that it is not okay but you know when you're looking at for example right this is how I potentially look at it it says the buildings in which caros cargo goods or products are moved or stored forward for later distribution right to business or retail dot dot dot and heavyduty trucks are primarily involved in the movement of those paral goods and products heavy duty trucks are not going to be used I believe to move those products to people's homes uh an Amazon van is not or a FedEx van I don't believe that falls under that definition it's those big 26,000 pound you know cars so that would be the argument right you're saying well actually no those big, you know, 18-wheers or whatever are not the ones that are using the the moving the cargo goods and products for later distribution or for storage to businesses or retail customers. And that would be our argument. Um, you know, someone else who wants to challenge an industrial development might argue otherwise. And unfortunately, we don't have um I think yes, exactly. We don't have any case

law. And I have a feeling that as you know things move forward the legislature will start to kind of um clarify some of these definitions or place guard rails on them. Um but you know the comment earlier about potentially hampering industrial uses of these types is is true. It's in the legislative findings. It's in the analysis and the reports and those jurisdictions that are being most affected by this are the ones with those extremely large logistics or you know distribution centers and there is no question for last mile locations. So it goes here um online tyrack say and ty rack uses little bitty FedEx type trucks to deliver to people's houses. city doesn't get any sales tax on that facility, right? They get it on the house that it's going to or do we get last mile sales tax? I think it's to the homes. Just to the homes. It's the homes where the where it's being purchased. Okay, cool. Thank you. But we can follow up with finance just to confirm if you'd like. I I do also just want to follow up on my last comment about you know definition of logistics use right someone can come in and argue that look these cargo goods or products are being stored at the facility and they are being moved to the facility with heavy duty trucks. Like again, you know, there's just so many arguments to be made and it's going to be very fact specific depending on whatever the development is going to

have or the use is going to have. Um we're very much is going to be a little bit of a wait and see. Um and hopefully these new bills will will do some better clarification um for the jurisdictions affected. Well, all the jurisdictions really. If if I may. Sorry. May I? Um I I just you know this is a challenge with a lot this legislation and so many others that I mean you know there's a lot of ambiguity and um you know it needs to be sorted out and and uh and and not very easy for um unfortunately the local jurisdictions to implement. So just wanted to add that. Well, we appreciate being on the ground floor here and you introducing this to us. Thank you. We have we have faith in you guys. You'll figure it out. The zoning, too. Any more questions? Commissioners, Michael, Chris, okay, madame clerk, was there any correspondence received on this item? And are there requests to speak? No correspondence and no requests to speak. Thank you. Okay. Okay. So, this is a receive and file item, so no action is required. Thank you again, planners. Uh, now we're at number 11, community development director comments. The community development director, do you have any updates or comments? No comments today. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner reports. Does the planning commission have anything to report on committee activities? Michael, I had to work a lot this past two weeks,

but I still managed to uh go to a few places. Um on May 31st, I went to the special needs programs informational meeting. Um on June 6, I went to Meny's Got Talent. Um, last Saturday I met with Natasha Johnson and at least got her ear and um, you know about if she wins, will she ignore us because she's more another another city or do we have her ear? And she she let me know that we can contact her anytime. So, that's good to know. Good job. And last night, um, I went to all abilities night at Storm Stadium and it looks like our, uh, our our chaperon back there, I spent two of those with him. So, thank you. That's all I got. Chris, anything, Tammy? All right. Okay. We'll move us on to U. Commissioners. Would you like to request any future agenda items? Pardon me. I don't know. I'm going to word this the way I wrote it down, but I don't know if it's a future agenda item or request from staff, but uh that map that it presented earlier um 179 163 with all those that map I look at that map a lot um to find out what's coming, what's where things are at. But say like every two months quarterly, can we

receive a spreadsheet with updates on all those projects. Um because up until recently that that map on the city's website was five or six months old if not older. Just so I know I got a project right by my house. I don't know what's going on with it unless I knock knock on their door and say why don't you have your electricity yet? Um, so I don't know if that's possible, if that's something we can request from staff. Yeah. Uh, thank you, Commissioner. Yeah, we can we can provide some updates uh at future meetings, but that that map shouldn't be older than than three months. We try to update it quarterly. So, um, it should it should be every three months should be the oldest that that map should be out there. But like some of them just say plan and review or under plan and review under construction. Um but like for the project as mentioned there's no update and why isn't there an update? Um I'm not saying it's your fault but it's just why is the project sitting there? And so if you know more than I know and I can come and bother you but I don't want to bother you with 173 different projects. So, I mean, I know you probably have it already in a spreadsheet form. If we can just have access to it, you know, shouldn't be a problem. Okay. And my second item, and once again, I don't know if it's a future agenda item or just something you guys can present to us. Um, and I don't know how or who or any of this will happen as far as staff, consultants, outside agencies or what. Um but in all the gateways

uh can we get um restrictive maps where they show the blue line areas where they show flood planes where they show uh easements where they show we just looked at the northern gateway and everybody overlooks the federal protection um item that's in that area. Um, and I'm not going to go any clearer because I don't want to put on the public record. A lot of that you can go to map my county. It's a I use it every day at work. It's a county GIS website and has different layers. You can click it'll turn on blue line. It'll streams. It'll turn on planning maps. It'll turn on anything. If you guys I assume you use it. It's free. We do. It's called Map My County. Type in Map County and you can do anything you want with it. Okay, pretty cool. That that answers my question. Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Mike. Good. Um, we had a U planning commissioner request on seeing the global traffic study and that was several months ago. That's correct. Um, the the study is not completed at this point. Well, it it is complete. uh both Paris and and Manif they're they're doing their final review on it. So we expect that it's going to complete it fairly fairly soon and that was done exclusively well because of errors right because they're on so they're still on hold okay just checking in in relation to that global study is the purpose of it to show impacts on each side manify and Paris and thus calculate a shared cost on the the infrastructure on Ethan or what what are we doing with it? What's

the ultimate the the m the main purpose for that study was to identify all the impacts of potential development that was going to be generated along the northern side of Manifi and the south side of Paris and uh how are those impacts were going to uh either be mitigated or how um developers were going to be required to provide mitigations to improve uh any potential impacts. Is that being used as a negotiation item in the current legislation, the current uh lawsuits of Paris against Manif at all? No. No. Not listed as a factor any Okay. Oh, that's just an agreement between the two cities. Okay. There aren't any other questions. I'll adjourn this meeting.