Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

You turn it off. The key is to get the red light off.

Okay, then let's not

All right, welcome everybody. Good evening and welcome to the Planning Commission of the City of Marina Valley. I now call this meeting to order at, what is it? 6.04 p.m. I invite Commissioner Sykes to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. And just be aware, Commissioner Baker's not gonna stand, he's having a little issue with his back.

Remove your hats. Hand over heart, ready to begin.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. All right, may we have a roll call, please?

Yes, Chair. Commissioner Zaitz?

Here.

Commissioner Taylor? Here. Commissioner Steffen? Here. Vice Chair Baker?

Here.

Chairperson DeGeneres?

Here.

We will now move on to the approval of agenda. Can I have a motion and a second for the approval of the agenda?

I'll move that we approve the agenda as submitted.

I'll second.

Okay, can we have a vote?

Yes, we'll have a roll call vote. Commissioner Zaitz.

I probably won't time the question. It was asked if we could move one agenda item up before public speaking. Is this the time that we do this?

Yes, this is on the approval of the agenda. So any changes would have to be suggested now. as far as reorganizing the agenda.

Did you wanna move an item?

Yes. Which item? The item that's gonna be continued, which is...

Item one.

Where would you like to move item one? Because it is the first item.

I would like to put it just before non-public hearing items.

I believe Commissioner Zients had requested that that item be moved up before public comments on items not on the agenda. Correct.

Okay, do we have to vote on that? I so move. Do we have, okay. Do we have a second?

I'll second.

Okay.

Commissioner Zients? Yes.

Commissioner Taylor? Yes. Commissioner Steffen?

So we're moving one item up, is that what it is?

That's the motion. Yes. Vice Chair Baker?

Yes.

Chairperson DeGeneres? Yes. Motion carries.

Excuse me, Chair. Excuse me, Chair. That may be.

All right, before we hear public comments this evening, I ask and encourage everyone participating to keep their comments respectful to others, especially towards individual speaking. I embrace and support the First Amendment right to free speech, including everyone's right to speak at this meeting. Her opinion on issues concerning our city. However, Any person wishing to speak under the public comment section of the agenda, scheduled items, or public hearings must fill out a request to speak form available at the door. The completed form must be submitted to the secretary prior to the end of the public comment period. During the public comment period for each item, including the items not on the agenda, each member of the public who is signed up to speak will have a maximum of three minutes to speak. The public must direct their comments to the chairperson of the commission. And I'd just like to add too, As people are speaking, please allow them to speak because these items, we are in a hearing and those items do get read into record and we'd like to hear what the people have to say, even if that comment is of an opposing view of one that you may have. So let's please be respectful and keep these meetings going in the proper way.

Now we'll move into

Now we'll move into public comment on any items not on the agenda. Are there any speakers on the agenda?

Excuse me, Chair. Not sure why that's happening, but so there was a motion and a second and it passed to move public hearing item number one. So now is the time for that item before the public comment on non-agenda items.

So that means that if that item is continued then it technically will not be on the agenda So the public will have an opportunity to comment during the period where we allow public comments an item That they won't technically be part of the administrative record in the event were sued I

if everyone heard that if you're making comments on this item number one they won't be entered into record if you want to speak on that item then when that item does come before us then you would have to come to the hearing and then have your comments read into record during that time right now it's just in the comment public comment period Okay, so we're looking at item number one, which is a master plot plan, I believe it is.

Nope.

Yeah, it's a master plot plan for a continued use permit for construction of a 5,000 square foot convenience store with a filling station. canopy with 10 filling stations, car wash tunnel, vacuum stalls, a 7,000 square foot retail building for future development, and a vacant project site is located in the southwest corner of Cactus Avenue and Indian Street.

is allowed to comment just on the issue of the continuance before a formal motion is made so at this point since there's likely to be a motion to continue then the public should be allowed an opportunity to comment just on the issue of the continuance Yeah, during the public comment period and items not on the agenda, then they'll be able to comment on that item because it will no longer be on the agenda.

Yes, Chair. Our first speaker is Ana Luisa Ruiz, followed by Seth Cox.

Hello. So this is my actual first time coming to one of these hearings, and not too clear on the procedure or process that we should be taking for these meetings, but I did have just questions. I don't know if they can be answered, but my backyard, it leads directly to the field that it's going to be constructed on, and I do have concerns. I spoke with my neighbors, and they have their own concerns, but I'm here to speak on mine. The backyards to most of our houses, my house in particular, is a wooden fence. So my concern is what type of fence or wall unit will be placed instead of that and will any of the homeowners be liable for any of the costs?

This is your three minutes to speak. It's not a question and answer period.

Okay, thank you. Also, I do have concerns. I didn't have the opportunity to review any of the planning paperwork. We were informed that was available in the city offices, but I do have concerns regarding the safety. I know that I've lived in that community for over 30 years. and we do see a lot of homelessness and a lot of loitering, and that is another concern I have regarding that area, that we will have more loitering. I do have two small children. It is a community with a mixture of age groups, and that is always gonna be a concern, of course, the children and the school traffic, trafficking back and forth of students from that middle school and high school that are next door, corner of Indian and Cactus. Those were my only concerns. I wanted to share any questions.

Our next speaker is Seth Cox.

Good evening, council chair, staff, audience. I'm glad we seem to get a bigger turnout here than we do in the chamber. Maybe we should have it here more. I want to talk on I-1. I'm in District 3, so it's not in my backyard. But as a citizen of Marina Valley, I have concerns about this also. Again, not going to get any answers, but I will point out some things you should consider when the continuance is brought back up. It is the only commercial lot still on the zoning plan from Paris Boulevard to the next major one. Okay? I don't know how it stayed that way on the zoning because that whole corridor right there is residential. Schools are churches. Okay? If you're talking about sensitive receptors and taking those into consideration, putting a fueling station, a change in word, it's not a gas station, it's a fueling station, and adding up those numbers, you come up with about 17,000 square feet of some kind of space, 7,000 of it unknown. Okay, are we going to go down the path of let them build it and then we all decide what can go into that 7,000 unoccupied space? Would we allow a liquor store to go in there in that commercial area? Would we allow an adult bookstore to go in there? What would we allow in that 7,000 square foot building that has no designation of use yet? If you go look at your map right now, if you want to go to Google Maps and look, the intersection of Cactus and Indiana right now is backed up all four corners red. What do you think is going to happen when you put that on that corner? So before you come back in July to bring this probably back to the agenda, I would ask you, behoove you, beg you to go look at the documentation. Take a ride out there and look at that corner. The lady did just say it backs up on the south side full of houses. On the east side, the school, a charter school, actually it's a daycare, so infants. All right. It is total residential and children-specific areas, not a fueling station area. Thank you.

Do we have any other speakers?

We have no more speaker cards, sir.

For this, is this for non-agenda or? No. I'm confused. Okay, let me sit down then.

All right, so at this time, we'll now move into the public comment. And any item? I'm sorry. There has to be a motion and a second. For the continuance? Aye, aye, aye. It is that's all right do we have a motion in the second for the continuous Do have a second Meeting It's actually the meeting of July 23rd as stated on the agenda I All right, do we have a second? I second it. Commissioner Taylor?

Yes.

Commissioner Steffen? Yes. Vice Chair Baker? Yes. Chairperson DeGeneres?

Yes.

Motion carries.

All right. Now I think I know where we're at now. Okay. All right, we're moving to public comments on any item not on the agenda. Are there any speakers for items not on the agenda?

Yes, Chair. Our first speaker is Tatiana Flores, followed by Ismael Gonzalez, then followed by Luis Palomares.

Oops. okay good afternoon or good evening planning commission my name is tatiana flores i'm an organizer with ccaej and today i brought with me some copies of region in crisis 2 which was mentioned last meeting so i don't know if i can pass them to you guys later but um essentially i just wanted to talk about it a bit So this is a follow-up to the first region in crisis. So it's been about three years since the first one, and it covers a multitude of topics, including disproportionate burden of warehousing, the housing crisis that is caused by warehousing, and job precarity. And I wanted to read a little bit of the actual text itself. So it says, pro-warehouse arguments rely upon growth in international trade, growth in local jobs, and the growth in e-commerce deliveries to justify land use decisions that are harmful to adjacent communities. These arguments are countered by current trends in trade, employment, and imports, as well as negative community experience and quality of life. So I really wanted to highlight how a lot of these warehouse jobs that are promised are now being like lost to automation or and if they are there, they're very low paying. So I wanted to use this also as a moment to highlight some resources that we have for youth going on right now at the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice. So we'll be having a Youth for Change Summit in July 8th and 9th, and it'll be an opportunity for kids between the ages of 13 to 18 to participate in activities such as water testing, hiking. We'll have a college and career panel, really trying to give them more resources to be able to seek employment outside of warehousing. And I know there's a narrative that MoVal is built out already, but a lot of the issues that are addressed in the region in crisis will impact us in the future and continue to impact residents in communities like Mead Valley or Nuevo where they're still facing development and losing a lot of residential land that is being rezoned to industrial. So I have flyers with me. This is an open invitation for anybody who has kids or grandkids amongst these ages to really be able to participate. It's a free program and summit. And I mean, if I wasn't staff, I would want to participate in the activities myself, you know? So that's my time. And I don't know who I could hand these to for you guys to get them. I know chairperson Dejanet already got one, but... I think I'll give four more. Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Ismael Gonzalez, followed by Luis Palomares, then followed by Carla Cervantes.

All right. Hi, good evening. Planning Commission, city staff, everybody in attendance and everybody watching at home. My name is Osma Gonzalez, 20 year long resident of District 2. I want to begin my open comments by addressing the temperature outside. According to my weather app, it's 80 degrees outside and looks like it's going to be getting hotter pretty soon into the next week. I've even heard some news outlets estimate our temperature reaching about 100 degrees pretty soon. With that being said, yesterday I wanted to inform This planning commission that I and a few others in this room, fellow environmentalists and advocates, were able to be the featured guest speakers on a toxic tour led by UCR and the People's Collective for Environmental Justice yesterday. We led a toxic tour of about 25 students all around the Inland Empire, first going to Mead Valley, then to Paris, then to Moreno Valley, and then over to San Bernardino County. This is what I told them. Riverside and San Bernardino counties consistently rank first and second in terms of worst air quality in the country for ozone and particulate matter, according to the American Lung Association. Air pollution in the Inland Empire kills 808 people each year, according to Earth Justice. There are about 42 million square feet of pending or approved warehouse area in Moreno Valley alone. That's nearly 985 acres. And according to the region in crisis, the first addition that my colleague Tatiana just mentioned from 2023, that's about 25%. of all pending and approved warehouses in the Inland Empire. 25% is happening here in our city. There are about 85 warehouses here in Marina Valley, 31,000 daily truck trips, and 40 pounds of particulate matter that are generated every day and goes into the air. 40 pounds, imagine that. Going into our lungs, being absorbed by our skin, being absorbed by our food and water. There are 264,000 pounds of greenhouse gases being emitted daily, and this is all coming from the Region in Crisis 2023 edition. The World Logistics Center is called the world's largest master plan warehouse development, and that is single-handedly taking up that 25% of development in the IE. So with that being said, I hope you guys read the Region in Crisis. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Luis Palomares, followed by Carlos Cervantes, then followed by Roy Blecker.

People can hear you back here. I don't think they can hear some of the staff or some of the commissioners. Just letting you know. Okay, I'm here to talk about the general plan. I know it's gonna be on the agenda, but I wanna still say something right now. Bring it on, let's make it happen, it's time. You know, once it gets on, we can start doing what we need to do, put all our ducks in a row because we've been out there and I know the general attorney or he's brought it back to the council and to the staff, to the planning commissions, I don't know how many times already. So let's just get all our ducks in a row and do what we need to do to make it happen. That way they don't gotta send it back again. Okay, on another note, our mayor, on one of the last meetings he was talking about, he was talking about something about the, what they were talking about in Paris, all those places they want to bring, golly, my mind is blank today. Say it again? Data centers. And he said, at one of the meetings, our mayor said, oh, we gotta talk about the data centers, because we've gotta address that issue, more or less in so many words. Well, please don't bring them here, because we're talking about buildings. This is way, way worse than that. So I hope that our mayor is not gonna allow that here, because I know the mayor in Paris sent it back to the planning commissioners, because it's a hot potato. They don't want to bother with sending back planning commissioners. So we hope, really, right? I've seen that meeting. So we hope that's not even the next thing over the horizon, because hell no. And as far as the mayor, you know, he cost this city, people don't know, but I'm going to say it, $2 million of our tax dollars on a frivolous lawsuit. So please, out there, don't vote for him again, because what has he brought to our city in the last, I don't know how long he's been here, six years? Look around us, look at our city, how it looks. I'm not talking about buildings, I'm just talking about, you know, no restaurants, nothing for our students, nothing for our, you know, he sent away that project, Hillwood project, it was gonna be the last building that ever can happen here. They were going to give us $60 million, four soccer fields, water the grass, I believe a team post. They took it to another place. We wouldn't have had to worry about how we're going to build a police station or a library instead of the art library. We would have had it there on the $60 million. And they raised us a penny taxes. Use our money wisely, please. Use our money wisely. Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Carlos Cervantes followed by Roy Blecker then followed by Franco Pacheco.

Was it on? OK. Good evening, Planning Commissioners, fellow residents. My name's Carlos Cervantes. I'm here with Sierra Club San Gregonio Chapter. I just wanted to echo some of the sentiments from my colleagues to please read through the Region in Crisis Report. It's super interesting. There's the first one that came out a few years ago, and this one is more about the loss of housing and opportunities. Of course, Moreno Valley is not alone in this. There are a lot of different things happening throughout our region. But I did wanna change it a bit, change it up a bit and invite you all to some outings and events that we're gonna be having through the Sierra Club. You don't have to be a member to participate in our events. We have tons of things for all levels, any age, any background, you guys are always welcome to join us. We have hikes, two mile hikes, that's more my speed, but if you wanna do a 10 mile hike around Lake Gregory, be my guest. We have Crafts Peak Hikes, Green Valley Lake, Campground, car camps. We're gonna have a meteor shower viewing party. It's also open to the public. So if you guys would like to join us, that would be awesome. I think that there's a lot of misconception about nature not happening within the IE. We always try to leave to San Diego, Orange County, LA County to try to find nature, but there's nature within the IE that should be protected and enjoyed. Otherwise, why are we even coming here to speak about these things, right? So yeah, I wanted to go ahead and mention those things. Because summer is coming, I've seen a lot on social media at local coffee shops, there's a lot of hiking groups that are being formed, which is great, but when you're being led through a hike with the Sierra Club, it's people who are CPR certified, first aid trained, they have to take a course to navigate without Wi-Fi, and so I just wanted to let the public know, make sure if you're gonna go on a hike, try to go on a hike with us, because we wouldn't wanna see you on the news hiking with another another hiking group that might not have that training. But yeah, if you guys are ever open to coming to one of our outings, I promise I will not hound you guys for the decisions that you make here. I will allow you, I will enjoy your guys' presence outside of just you guys as commissioners, and we'd love to have you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Roy Blecker, followed by Franco Pacheco, followed by Lindsey Robinson.

Rest assured, everyone can hear Hurricane Louise. I will submit to you, as you've heard, but you're probably looking at the ultimate environmentalist. I'm for an environment that creates the highest and best opportunity for all. Now you just heard the nattering naboms of negativism that always want to cast us and everything in a negative light. Mary Nichols, the same Mary Nichols whose name is on the California Air Resources Board down there in Riverside. She started the suit in 1972 in Riverside, as they say, we're all going to die of diesel smoke. Well, if that were the case, I, probably everyone else in this room, would not be here. What they systematically do not grasp, in my opinion, and I think the evidence will clearly show, is everything has a negative impact. What they don't tell you is the positive impacts of all the things we've done in our economy to give us the opportunities we all have today. To live in the homes you live in, to drive in the cars, to go take in the amenities that we all have. So what my proposal is Instead of coming up all the time with a 36 pound sledgehammer and trying to smash everything to death, let's work together to create that environment that's going to work for all. That's your job, those sitting on the dais up there, those in the well that do the work, us as citizens. That's all our responsibility. And if we keep rolling the rhetoric like we are, you're just gonna hear more complaints and overall, you're gonna drive us all into the ground. So that's my challenge to everyone. While there may be negatives, come up with the positives and how we can accentuate them for everyone.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Franco Pacheco, followed by Lindsey Robinson.

hello commission my name is franco pacheco with inland valley alliance came out to support some of our allies here in merino valley and also i'm your neighbor um i did want to mention something i don't know if anybody here has noticed i had a really hard time finding the place here i don't know if next time you guys can put a sign on the sidewalk or something because it was there was not even a sign on the door that this was uh the area to be in for the commission meeting um Also, data centers. So yes, Paris has started the process to do a ban on a data center, and right now they're drafting up language for that. Also, for anybody interested in this room, there is currently a petition going on to address data centers on the Riverside County level It's called notinmyvalley.com. I encourage everybody to look into it, sign up and get involved because the way it's looking, we're gonna be the next ones here. And Riverside County has the most unincorporated county land. So a lot of these projects, that's where they're gonna go in. And even though they're not in your incorporated city, it's still gonna affect you. Also, because I might not be able to stay the whole meeting, I just want to address a general plan. The Planning Commission, you guys got to make the best decision possible to give to the council so that we are protected in the long term. I would say diesel particulates, and we're like in the 97th percentile or something like that when it comes to asthma rates, respiratory illnesses, all those things. And I know we had speakers here talk about negativity and kind of shedding a negative light on speakers that are generally concerned about their environment. And if it's not the duty of us to bring it to the council so they can address it, What are we doing here? It's our civic duty to basically bring this stuff up to you guys, bring up the errors, the things that we feel that need to be changed so that we can all move forward in progress. Yeah, you know, I hear a lot of complaints about the general plan taking a long time. And this is going to affect us for like the next 25 to 50 years. So it's important that you guys get it right. And there are some things in there that I would like you guys to go further. Like I said before, I might not be able to stay the whole meeting. So one comment I would like to make is the sensitive receptors, the 1,000 feet sensitive receptors. we should make that from the property line and make that clear because they can do a workaround on that.

This is items not on the agenda.

Yeah. And anyways, yeah, so please make good decisions, make it as strong as you can, and let council make the final decision, but it's up to you to give them the alley-oops. Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Lindsey Robinson. Good evening, staff and commissioners and public. If you recall at the McDonald's meeting, something occurred that I had not seen before at the end when all of a sudden public testimony could be used as statement of facts to deny a project. My question is, there was overwhelming people at other events against warehouses and high density and commercial up in the northeast for different projects and that was never allowed otherwise they would have been denied if our facts were allowed and all of our comments so you guys need to ask why was it never allowed on those other occasions and just for McDonald's because that's wrong and we should need to revisit also you didn't have all the information for the general plan update you're getting it in bits and pieces and that is also wrong so we really need to go back. It doesn't matter how long it took and like the mayor's comment, oh, it's taken so long already, just vote yes. No, that's not the way to do business. And I agree with Roy Bleckert. We share the same birthday too, by the way. that we need to work together, because in 2006, staff, environmental groups, residents, all worked together, came up with a general plan, everyone agreed on, there were no lawsuits. Then comes campaign donations that bought out our council, and we ended up with Ben Zivi's sketcher building. that destroyed our whole general plan from 2006. The final build-out plan that everyone agreed on, no lawsuits. This is so wrong that you get to use our money to fight our lawsuits. We have to come up with our own money to sue back. So we have to pay twice. And you've done... Your staff continue to lie to you, so please, please read and learn what they're saying and show that it's wrong, and don't let them do that to you anymore. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any more speakers?

We have no more cards, sir.

All right, the next item on the agenda is approval of the consent calendar. All items under the consent calendar are considered to be routine and non-controversial and may be enacted by a motion unless a member of the commission requests that item be removed for separate action. Items withdrawn for report or discussion will be heard before the action of the consent calendar. Questions or comments from the public on the consent calendar matter must pertain to the subject under consideration. At this time, would a commissioner like to pull an item from the consent calendar for a separate vote or discussion? All right, do we have any public comments for items on the consent calendar?

No speaker cards, sir.

Do we have a motion and a second for the consent calendar?

So motion. Second.

Okay. We have a motion and a second.

Commissioner Zaitz?

Yes.

Commissioner Taylor? Yes. Commissioner Steffen?

Yes.

Vice Chairperson Baker? Yes. Chairperson DeGeneres?

Yes.

Motion carries.

Okay. The next item on the agenda is non-public hearing items, and we don't have any items there. So we're going to move on to public hearing items. Since we continued item number one, we're going to move on to item number two, which is the ordinance adopting logistic use facilities, mitigation measures negotiated with the California General Attorney's Office, PEN 260055. Do we have a staff report?

Thank you, Chairman Dijonet. At this time, I'd like to introduce Principal Planner Regine Kennedy to present this item.

Good evening, chairs and members of the Planning Commission. Regine Kennedy, Principal Planner. The item before you this evening is a proposed ordinance that implements development and operational standards for new logistics use facilities within the city of Moreno Valley to address impacts to air quality and impacts to sensitive receptors. Logistics use facilities are located in industrial zoned land in the city, many of which have already been developed, entitled, or in the development process. Out of these, the remaining vacant and available industrial land is primarily located in the Edgemont area along the old 215 Frontage Road, which are within proximity of the March Air Reserve Base. Development in these areas are limited by the airport land use compatibility plan requirements. associated with limitation to numbers of persons per acre, prohibitions in certain designations for new and expansion of existing housing units, and limitations of other uses that are determined to bring large groups of people to a property or would create circumstances that are hazards to flight operations. the proposed ordinance contains development and operational standards that were a result of negotiations with the california attorney general also referred to as the ago as part of the general plan update which was approved by city council on april 21st 2026 these development and operational standards exceed the mandatory basic requirements of assembly bill 98 also referred to as ab98 and Senate Bill 415, referred to as SB415. These state laws establish statewide standards for new logistics use facilities, including design, truck routing, environmental protections, and housing requirements. These laws require buffer zones and additional standards for facilities near sensitive receptors, like schools, hospitals, daycare centers, and residential areas. Staff presented these proposed development and operational standards to the public at a community workshop on May 13th, 2026 at Palm Middle School as directed by city council. Staff in consultation with the city attorney reviewed all of these comments and suggestions from the workshop and determined their feasibility and consistency with the AGO's recommended measures. These have been incorporated in the draft ordinance dated May 28th, 2026, which is the ordinance that staff is recommending today to the Planning Commission. It is important to note that the AGO has already reviewed the staff recommended ordinance. The proposed staff recommended ordinance exceeds the requirements of AB 98 and SB 415 by requiring a minimum 1,000 foot buffer to a sensitive receptor where state law requires a minimum buffer of 900 feet. furthermore the ordinance would apply to all new logistics use facilities in the cities regardless of square footage whereas in state law these standards would only apply to logistics use facilities that are 250 000 square feet or greater lastly the proposed ordinance is consistent with the definitions set forth in both ab98 and SB 415, including the definition of expansion to a logistics use facilities, which our city attorney will be expanding more on later. After the May 28th Planning Commission hearing, the city attorney met with two environmental groups who had suggested additional changes to the staff recommended ordinance. This is summarized in the supplemental staff report attached to the agenda packet, along with a draft ordinance for discussion purposes. This is dated June 25th, 2026. This will include further revisions that were suggested from the two groups. The draft ordinance for discussion purpose will be presented by Steve Quintanilla, who is our city attorney, and will provide further background and will walk the planning commissioners through these ordinances. So I will hand it over to Steve Quintanilla. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Kennedy. Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay, thank you. So here we are again. We started this a while ago and our negotiations with the Attorney General's Office commenced in November 2025. And so we had numerous meetings with the Attorney General's Office on a number of mitigation measures that are intended to address air quality impacts. I'd like to point out that these mitigation measures were all addressed in the context of the final EIR that was prepared for the general plan update, and the basis of all these mitigation measures, even including the proposed revisions, the basis of them have been included in what we call the mitigation measures reporting and monitoring program. So they're all covered in the EIR. And what these revisions do is they add an additional layer to some of these mitigation measures. So what I'd like to do is to present the suggested revisions that we've received from Mr. George Hay and representatives of the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice. So I had the opportunity and pleasure to actually meet with them on several occasions to discuss these mitigation measures as we were going through the process of negotiations with the Attorney General's office. I'd like to point out that all these suggested revisions are suggested revisions. They're coming from these different organizations, and they do not necessarily reflect a recommendation by staff. But what I can represent is that none of these recommended revisions are inconsistent with the primary objectives that were negotiated with the Attorney General's Office. A copy of these revisions have all been sent to the Attorney General's Office. In fact, I know Jessica from the AG's office is watching tonight, so they let me know they'll be monitoring this tonight. They won't be able to participate, but I just want to point out that I have not received any objections from them thus far. So again, these suggested revisions are revisions that have been suggested by the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice and George Haig, in addition to the initial revisions that came out of the community workshop. So I think for efficiency purposes, what I would like to do is go through the latest revisions and talk about those. And if there's any questions as to the reasons underlying these suggested revisions, you can ask and I'll be available to address those questions and or we can ask the source of some of these revisions at the time they come up and testify. So let's begin with the supplemental staff report. And so instead of going through the ordinance and jumping back and forth between the different provisions that deal with the same topic, I thought we'll deal with these issues topic by topic, and I'll talk about the revisions that are related to each topic. So let's start with the first one, the 1,000 feet separation. We just had a speaker here who mentioned that the measurement between the distance measured between sensitive receptors in warehouses should be from the property line when, in fact, that's what the ordinance provides. And so what, for clarification purposes, There's a revision that's been suggested that we just have a section that's titled location and it should read basically and I'll paraphrase this but it's written out in the staff report that no logistics development project or facility or park or expanded logistics use facility developed under our 2024 general plan update shall be located within a thousand feet from any sensitive receptor. So again, that's between property lines. the property line of the sensitive receptor. And in most instances, when we're measuring the distance from roads and other public rights away, we usually measure to the center divider. Here, it pushes it out closer. So we're going from property to property line. So that's one of the suggested revisions. And again, to make this a much more efficient process, I would ask, as we go through these and describe each one of these proposed revisions, I would like to ask, and you can just nod, if there's a general consensus to include this, because in the end, my recommendation is going to be, you know, adopt the ordinance subject to the changes that were read into the record tonight, if there's a consensus. Now, this doesn't preclude you from making changes, My only concern is that there's a consensus reach on each one of these issues. So unless there's any objection to the location provision, I would just like to ask, just through a nod of your heads, whether or not there's a consensus on having this provision that explicitly provides that no logistics facility developed under our 2024 general plan update shall be located within 1,000 feet, property line to property line, from a sensitive receptor. So it looks like there's a consensus on that so I'll make a note of that. The next provision is titled applicability. This is something that can go unsaid but you know for just clarification purposes and keeping in mind that when the public looks at our regulations, they're going to be looking at our municipal code. It's not reasonable to expect that the public should jump over to Assembly Bill 98 or Senate Bill 415 or the government code to figure out what the regulation is. So in this particular provision, it's been suggested that we specifically identify what this ordinance applies to. And so what I added here are a provision that basically says that The purpose of these regulations or these mitigation measures are to be applied to address air quality impacts of proposed logistic use facilities, logistic use developments, or expanded logistic use facilities as logistic facilities are defined in AB 98 and SB 415. I think it's important to include this definition simply because not all warehouses are logistic use facilities. So, and not all logistic use facilities are warehouses. So what we do is we look toward AB 98, SB 415 and pull out exactly what these regulations apply to. So with that said, I would just like to ask, unless there's any questions, if there's a general consensus on including this provision that clearly states what these mitigation measures apply to. Looks like there's a consensus on that as well. Thank you. The next provision here has to do with what is called cool roofing. So under AB 98, cool roofing is one of the requirements for warehouse facilities. So it's been suggested here that we kind of identify where cold roofing should be installed and Basically, it's going to be on the roof But it should be installed in areas where the roof doesn't contain any solar panels skylights HVAC systems or other essential fixtures and equipment and Again, this is something that doesn't necessarily have to be included in the ordinance, but it just provides clarification. So there's no expectation that you have to have cool roofing and you can't have this kind of equipment on your roof. There was a definition that was offered to included the ordinance and I came up with my own definition But after consulting with the building official the city it was suggested that instead of using the definition I came up with which was based on some state regulations He suggested that we follow the definition that's contained in the California energy code which is one of the uniform codes that the state puts together that we formally adopt every three years. And so that is actually what's enforceable. And so the recommendation from the building official is that we rely on the California Energy Commission's definition which reads, which should read, cool roofing shall mean roofing material with high thermal emittance and high solar reflectance or low thermal emittance and exceptionally high solar reflectance as specified in the most recently adopted California Energy Code which is California Code of Regulations Title 24 Part 6 that reduces heat gain through the roof. Now, it was initially suggested by Mr. Haag that we include a requirement that the solar reflective index, this is how much solar, you know, the heat is reflected. The higher the number, the more reflectivity there is. He suggested at least 78. However, The building official informed me that the proper reflective index is based on occupancy, roof type, climate zone, and compliance. And that if we adopted a particular standard here, there may be a restrictor standard that's imposed by the California energy code so if you were to adopt this provision I would suggest that we adopt we adopt the cool roofing definition as set forth in the California energy code which is one of the codes that the city adopts so unless there's any objection I would ask if there's a consensus on including this Well, the current, yeah, I understand right now it is 75. 75. Because of the climate zone we're in. Okay. And so the California Energy Commission has determined that that is sufficient for purposes of cooling down these places.

Right. Why can't we leave the, at least 78?

You can do that. At least 78?

I just believe that with the weather the way it is, it's going to keep getting hotter and hotter and hotter. If somebody said it's 80 degrees out there, it felt like 90.

So at least that's at least 78 that I would be comfortable with that so that that allows us flexibility to have our Restricted provisions that the California energy code is updated because we're our climate is getting hot, right?

Correct that index can increase it can increase yes based on So we need it to be at least 78. At least 78. If we say 78, then OK. At least 78. So if it goes up to 79 or 80. OK.

So minimum is 78. OK. So we'll go ahead and include that. So if there's consensus on that, we can move on to cool concrete. So did they nod? Did you guys all nod on that one, the cool roofing, at least 78? OK. The next issue is the opposite. We're going to look down on the ground now. And this is new. This is about cool concrete. So it's the same idea behind cool roofing, except that cool concrete would have a solar reflective index of at least 29. And we're not talking about very big areas other than perhaps the parking lots. But this would apply to drive aisles, streets, sidewalks, and any internal concrete flat work, which could be like a patio. So at least 29 was actually what was suggested by Mr. Haig, and he probably knows more about this than I do. He had to explain it to me. But I did follow up and I get, oh yeah, he was actually telling me the truth. So coal concrete reflective index of at least 29. And this is gonna be based on the California Energy Commission's latest version of their energy efficiency standards. And so that's what would be referenced in the ordinance. So cool concrete. We didn't have that in the original. That was something that was not negotiated with the AG's office. But again, it's not inconsistent with the objectives of the mitigation measures we negotiated. So it's an additional layer of protection for the public.

Thanks, just so people know cool concrete basically what it does it does it reflects the heat it doesn't hold the heat and What happens is when you have these large? Slabs of concrete they hold the heat and then when the Sun comes down they don't cool down and Then the next day they're hotter and hotter and hotter by having the cool concrete it dissipates or it doesn't absorb the heat so then when evening comes or when cooler days come and It lowers the temperature in the area. I can't remember the actual technical term for it, but there is a technical term for the heat building up in that area because of the concrete. And by having this standard, it lessens that.

Okay, so the next issue has to do with an expanded facility, because again, these mitigation measures apply in situations where there's an expansion of an existing facility. One of the issues that came up with, well, we should include an expansion, any expansion that's due to cubic footage, basically airspace. And in the context of a logistics warehouse facility, that would mean lifting the roof or making it bigger this way. After discussing this issue with staff, it was recommended that we do not include cubic footage. And here are the reasons why. If we were to require, first of all, cubic footage, add cubic footage is basically going to result in a rebuild. These things are built, they're called, they're tilt built. So they manufacture this concrete, or they lay the concrete there and they just tilt everything up and stick a roof on it. Well, if you were to expand the Tupac footage, you're gonna have to move those sides out, those big blocks of walls out, or the roof up. Well, we're gonna capture that. That's gonna be a rebuild. If they're gonna lift the whole roof or move the sides out, they're gonna have to get building permits. that will kick them back into this process, and these mitigation measures would apply. And keep in mind, too, that one of the issues we can't predict is that if we place a limitation on cubic footage, that might preclude adjustments in the building to accommodate the best available technology at the time. It deals with efficiency issues or deals with energy conservation issues. But again, if they were to add additional cubic footage, because the way they're built, it's going to require a rebuild in order to push those walls out or lift the roof. And then that would be sufficient to bring them in under these mitigation measures. So that's one of the concerns is that if we have this limitation, that may preclude some of the current warehouses to use the best available technology for purposes of energy efficiency. And we're not talking about, because one of the concerns that was expressed is that if you allow more cubic footage, that's more storage. That means more trucks. And so the comfort that I have here is that because of the way it was explained to me as far as how they construct these things, it's basically going to be a reconstruction in order to get that cubic footage. Now, I know this issue has come up in the context of some cannabis tax measures, where some cities have taxed cannabis based on the amount of space they use to cultivate. And they grow some cannabis up in the air. And so I know some cities, and I've been involved with some of these measures where we included cubic footage to be able to tax that square footage, but basically airspace. So the recommendation at this time is that we do not include any reference to cubic footage with the understanding that if they do otherwise expand the facility, they have to rebuild it, they're going to fall under these mitigation measures.

That wouldn't include expanding out, right?

If there's any more additional space, yes.

Mm-hmm.

Well, that's going to involve square footage if it's down on the ground, but if you're going to expand the ground, you're probably going to expand the cupid footage as well.

Mm-hmm.

If you expand the square footage.

Well, I mean, it's like adding, if they added an additional room, that wouldn't necessarily mean that they would put a roof on top of a tilt-up building. So let's say they have their square foot pattern, right? If they decide, okay, hey, we need an additional room next to it instead of going up? We would look at square footage. That's still square footage?

Yes, that would be square footage.

And cubic footage, would that mean if they go up?

Yeah, basically if they go up. I mean, you're still gonna expand your cubic footage if you go out horizontally. But we would be looking at square footage.

Okay, now what I read is that, and you have it right here, is that AB 98 and SB 415 does not use cubic footage. That's correct. So could this create some type of discrepancy?

Well, yeah, there's... Again, keep in mind that all of these mitigation measures exceed the basic standards and the basic design specifications in AB 98 and SB 415. So all of these are likely going to be inconsistent with AB 98 and SB 415. But with state law, we can come up with more stringent provisions. We just can't make it less stringent than state law.

I see. Yeah, go ahead. I'm trying to formulate this.

So basically SB 98, they're like minimum code. That's what we have to reach. Correct. If we decide to make it more stringent, that's on us and we can do that.

Correct.

Okay. The only thing I guess, I know square footage is square footage on the ground. Cubic feet is area inside of a building. The only thing I see with this, and you can explain, and if it's legally and gonna cover us, that's fine, is where it says existing square footage or cubic footage. So, in a layman, somebody may think, okay, we can only go 20% more square footage, and then we can only go 20% or 15% square footage, 15% cubic footage, and we wouldn't fall under this. So would we have to put and or in there so that way they combine cubic footage and square footage? Because if they go up, if they only go up, say, 15 feet or 15% and then go out 15%, are we under that 20%?

I'm just looking to see if somebody could jump on this and say, hey. I think we would be double counting. Either measure square footage or cubic footage.

So would it be advisable to put an and or or just or?

Well, the recommendation from staff is to eliminate any reference to cubic footage.

Because square footage is flat. Correct. So they can.

But if you add another story, we would count that as square footage. But another story would necessarily. If they put a floor in it. Yes, if we're looking, square footage is gonna be based on a plane, a flat plane.

Yeah, because see, they could go higher, and as long as they don't put a floor in it, it's cubic footage, not square footage.

Right, but the way these are built, when you're looking at tilt-ups. The tilt-ups, the way I understand it, when you're driving by, you see this big wall up there and you see these boards that are holding it up. They basically put it together like a puzzle. Once they put it together like a puzzle, that's it, that's all. If you were to try to build another floor on top of that, you're gonna have to do a whole new structural build in order to put another floor on top.

Not necessarily if it's cement because they're all made out of cement.

That's my, because the roof existing wouldn't hold that additional weight.

No, but they'd remove the roof and they'd go up.

If they start using the roof for a purpose other than a roof, then we would count that as square footage if they changed the use.

Expanding the use yeah, they could cut out the roof and it would fall under the Building and structural I believe if they cut out the roof and basically supported it to make it taller But they would have to go back through Permit and all the rest of them then it would fall a hundred percent under this ordinance because it is a change Correct

I'm getting a headache thinking about this again.

I don't know anything about it, but we've been studying, so it is getting, it is a headache, but we want them to get it right. And the thing is, is that I don't really want, and a lot of people don't want the warehouses to be able to expand, to go up, to whatever. So basically, if keeping it at cubic feet, and then they got to go through planning again and everything, then maybe that's what they need to do.

And they would have to come come see us if they did something of that nature would that be true Yes, it would require a revision to their discretionary entitlements Which means that we had to go back to the same process to amend it that we went through the first time around to approve it. I Where am I? Oh, diesel generators. This is for clarification purposes. Oh, the consensus was to remove reference to keep the footage, but keep the 20% and the square footage. So we're on diesel generators now?

Yes.

Diesel generators. This is just a clarifying provision. And this is actually something that the AG's office also picked up on when they saw it and okay That's something I think we both missed And so diesel generators shall not be used at any time Not just to construction when we were negotiating this that the issue came up while we're talking about construction activities And that's where it got dumped into but the intent was to prohibit the use of diesel generators at any time and unless there's an emergency and there's no feasible alternative power source. So no diesel generators.

Okay, here's where the one I picked up on, and I'm not that bright, I don't think. Can we take out where no feasible alternative power source exists? Can we remove that? Because they say shall not. So, I mean, if you're going to try to change the word to, okay, we can do it if there's no feasible alternative, I mean, what's the purpose of saying no diesel generators? I don't understand that.

No, is that something you want to do? Just remove the reference to or where no feasible alternative power source exists? So they can only use a diesel generator in an emergency.

Is there a definition or will be a definition provided for an emergency? Because my emergency is not your emergency.

Oh, that's correct. But we have to think of all possible emergencies. The determination would be made by the city as to what constitutes an emergency on a case by case basis. But if we were to define what an emergency is here, we better cover all the bases. I think it's better to defer to staff on determining when an emergency exists. Because what may be an emergency for one facility may not be considered an emergency for another facility.

But the city is enforcing- I would imagine we're talking like a power outage. Like the power is out is gone.

They don't have another alternative power source and they know for emergencies, right?

The suggestion commissioner Stefan suggested that we remove any reference to or where no feasible alternative power source exists, which means that no diesel generators shall be used except for Emergencies. Emergencies period. Because the city enforces, we're the ones who enforce the ordinance, it would be up to staff to determine at that time whether or not there is an emergency based on the particular circumstances.

I can understand if this is like a warehouse that's distributing medical equipment, things of that nature, but just because you don't get your slippers that day because we had a power outage, I don't think would be considered an emergency. Just because they couldn't do normal daily operations, I don't think that would be an emergency.

A fire.

Yeah, like a fire or something that knocks out your power.

Which the diesel generator caused. right no i imagine refrigeration unit medical supplies that sort of thing power added you got to keep that stuff cool yeah and they have the option except emergency but this first paragraph that's the way that age you wanted it so i think we should take out this last where no feasible so uh delete or where no feasible alternative power right just emergencies then period period yeah now i did know i did read something that

The AG actually has generators on all water house projects developed under the 2024 GPU shall be prohibited from the use of diesel except for emergencies.

That's it.

Right. Could we have that wording in there? Well, it's in there. Well, not, it doesn't include the GPU.

Yeah, that's this ordinance applies to all of those. Anything developed, constructed, approved, considered under the 2024 GPU. Yeah, that's a general provision. And you'll see some other provisions like that that apply across the board instead of incorporating that same provision in every one of these sections.

Oh, like the next one.

So is there a consensus on this diesel generator provision with the removal of or where no feasible alternative power source exists? Okay, next issue. Okay, this is one of those other, this is one of the provisions that's generally applied across the board instead of including this under every single section that deals with equipment, devices, or fixtures. So the recommendation is to include a provision that provides that all equipment, devices, and fixtures that are required to be installed pursuant to this ordinance shall remain operable in good working condition and properly maintained throughout the time the logistics use facility remains open and operable. So there we go. I'd just like to point out from a code compliance perspective, even if we didn't have this provision, if somebody reported or we discovered that they have a particular piece of equipment that they're required to have is not working, we can issue a citation. So this is fine.

Just a quick question, because this is brought up to me. I'm going to jump back to cool roofing real quick, consider it's a active type thing. And I'm probably going to answer my own question. Say they have to reroof this particular building, then they would have to use that current cool roofing standard, correct? Yes. They're going to remove the roofing?

Yes. Setbacks, okay. So there's a minimum setback, and this is all around the building, of 20 feet. So what's a setback? A setback is how far the actual building, the front of the building, is set back from basically the sidewalk, in most instances, or the neighboring property. So the physical side of the building has to be set back 20 feet basically from the property line of the logistics facility. Now what was added here or what's been suggested to add here is to increase that setback to 50 feet on each side where the logistics facility is being accessed basically by trucks. So there's no issue with queuing or stacking the trucks being backed up. So that was the rationale behind that. There's no objections to this from staff. So what was added here is not only the 20 feet applying to each side of the building, but increasing that setback to 50 feet if that side of the building is used for access. by trucks or I think it's just regular, any vehicles.

On the 20 feet, is that a landscaping setback? No, that's the building setback.

We have landscaping setback too. We'll get to that here.

Yeah, that's what I was gonna, because we have a landscaping setback. Yeah, there's a landscaping setback. And then we have only a 20-foot buffer from the wall. It's the building. Right, we're moving that to 50? Yeah.

Only where there's vehicular access.

Okay, so with no car access, you have 20 feet. 20 feet. But then we have landscaping. 15 feet.

Wait.

I just want to make sure that we're consistent because if there's only 20 feet between the wall and the line, but we're requiring staggered trees, we're taking up a lot of that 20 feet. So with that being said how does fire access If you can't get a car through there's only 20 feet average car about 7 feet wide then you have landscaping Okay, first of all, so

There's a 20 feet setback from the building to the property line. Is that okay? We're talking about the building? Okay, all around. Are you okay with requiring that to be 50 feet, an additional 30 feet, if vehicles are coming in and out of that site? Okay, so we're fine with that. We're talking about building setback, and we're going to get the landscaping.

I'm OK with that as long as the and whatnot does not cut into the 20 feet. See, I don't want to have a 50 feet and then have 40 foot of road, and then we only have like a 10 foot. You understand where I'm coming from, that I don't want the road to overtake our landscaping.

and get rid of their stuff.

Well, yeah, they'll drive in, turn around.

I just want, like you were saying. I can't see 20 feet of anything.

Yeah, I just want to remember that we have that.

I think it's a standard that they use.

Right. I just want to make sure we have a 20-foot.

Landscaping. And then, boom, they're the wall right there. You couldn't get anything around that corner. To me, that sounds like that'd be an issue.

Well, no the 20 feet there is no road On the other side of whatever fire exits they happen to make to get into that property It's just where there isn't going to be a road and this is my understanding Where there isn't going to be a road there's going to be a 20-foot setback if there's going to be road fire access or parking they want a minimum of its does it say a minimum or a max and Yeah, minimum of 50. My only concern is if they put parking and whatnot, I don't want them to cut into that 20 foot of landscaping. That's my only concern.

What you're looking for is on this page. Yeah. It's right here.

Well, I know it's on the next one, but I want to make sure it's on this one too.

Now I know why we don't have a landscape buffer setback because we want to encourage them to have that landscaping up front. So there's no, we don't require them to set it back so they could actually put it right by the, you know, adjacent to the sidewalk. That's the reason why there's no setback for the landscaping.

Okay. Is 20 feet going to be set aside for vegetation or what?

Or the trees? No, 20 feet is for the building.

For the building? I mean, we're the...

It's on page 13. We have to have some trees. No, there's a buffer zone, too. Yeah, we'll get to the buffer zone. But there's no setback for the landscaping, meaning the landscaping could go right in the very front, because we want to encourage the landscaping to be as... So there's not going to be no setback at all? Not in setback for landscaping.

So what, the building's just going to be there?

The building's setback. I mean, if the building's there, the landscaping's going to have to be in front of the building.

And that's it. So it's not going to go all around in certain areas of the building at all.

Well, let's...

I'm just saying because the...

Okay. Why don't we do this? Why don't we go to the landscape buffer zone? Because I have been looking for some provisions here. Let's get back to landscape buffer zone. Because it sounds like you guys have more questions as to what's being recommended. Yes. And so we'll go back to that one. Wait a minute. I'm lost now.

So I think this is what you were looking for. So they're asking for a long entire .

Oh, yeah.

Oh, OK. But you might not .

Oh, because that was actually, oh, that was. I think I got an answer here. I'm sorry. I have the revisions, the latest revisions here, not the initial, the original version, but the landscaping is the entire perimeter of the building. Yes.

Yes. No.

no you mean will landscaping take up part of that 20 feet buffer yes uh chair dejanay if i may so the way the it's drafted today um it would require a 50 foot setback from all property lines if that if that portion of the building had a circulation element around it whether it's a drive aisle parking space or whatever the case might be the way the the way the ordinance is drafted currently with respect to buffers it doesn't prescribe a minimum width for buffers it describes minimum planting pattern uh size of trees and height of potential berm if there's not a block wall provided so there's no minimum width prescribed for the landscape buffered the setback only applies to the building so to to commissioner zeitz's point the landscaping could be within that setback area as well as drive aisle elements, if that makes sense. The building wouldn't be within that setback area.

No, I understand that.

And what I'm thinking is that we have landscaping in the front. We're going to make it nice. But the way this reads is that I can put that building 20 feet up to the edge of the property. But still, I have to put landscaping all the way around it. So if I back that all the way back up 20 feet, somehow I gotta get landscaping in there.

Well, if you have a building, you're not gonna be able to put the landscaping to the building. So if there's a 20 foot setback, the landscaping is gonna have to be in front.

No, the landscaping says around the entire perimeter of the facility. Yes. But the way this part reads is that they have a provision that says I can move the building 20 feet up to the edge of the property line.

No, you have to have your building at least 20 feet away from the property line.

20 feet, right, so at least 20 feet. So if there's one portion of that building that's 20 feet away, somehow landscaping has got to take up some of that.

That's correct. Currently, that's how most development works. Landscaping is just a portion. It's typically located within a setback area. And not all buildings have drive aisle elements or circulation elements within those setback areas. The way the provision is drafted today and recommended by our community members is that rather that setback area being 20 feet, it would be 50 feet if it has a drive aisle element, a circulation element between property line and the building does that make sense so within that 50 feet there could be landscaping a dry vial element and then the building the building wouldn't be any closer to 50 feet to the property line in those circumstances the way it's that's correct

And you've got a 45-foot palm tree. It's not going to be that skinny at the base.

That's generally how it works today. That's how the built environment is today. Within that 20 feet, you might have a 10-foot landscape buffer. You might have a pedestrian path, a circulation pedestrian path around the building, which is critical for emergency access, right? We want our firefighters to be able to, first responders to be able to get around, all the way around the building. So in very few circumstances would you have landscaping coming all the way to the building.

hardly any circumstance because they have to maintain fire safety access around the building and I just I just want to understand okay thank you and I fully understand with access and all that other stuff but I think what chairman and myself are thinking of is we need no matter what else you put in there emergency path a road fire access parking, we would like to see a 20 foot width on landscaping. And then if you have to add another six or eight feet because for emergency vehicles or emergency access, or if there's some other code that may push it so the trees can't be that close to it, that's you add on to the 20 feet. that way when these trees grow they're not trimmed back we're not defeating the purpose of having double white uh staggered training i mean because if we cut all the bottom branches off we're like consider we're killing the aspect of having the trees there so commissioner's lights that that item would generally be covered under the landscape buffer section not the setback section right

I believe that's addressed.

Okay, yeah, because when I researched this, it just stuck out to me that it didn't do enough to reduce greenhouse gases or ozone, because we all know that plants are the ones that do that for us. So basically, I guess when we get to, I don't know if this is the area, like you said, it may not be the area right now, but I would like to see trees that are at least five feet taller than the building. Frankly, I know that they get these little box trees, but jeepers, creepers, by the time they grow, you know, they need to be big, and then you need to have vegetation in there, too. Because this is the purpose. This is why we're in trouble with all these warehouses, is because we didn't have enough of the landscaping, the trees. I mean, that's just how I feel, is that we need vegetation.

How about if we discuss that right now? Because they're called concrete jungles.

Okay, okay.

Okay. We'll skip the lounge for now, but here's what the landscape buffer is.

Okay, okay So it says minimum 20 feet so in in our landscaping buffer If we ask for the 20 feet or there has to be a 20 feet then this would automatically bump this out, correct and

The landscaping is going to be in front of the building, regardless of how far it's set back. It can't go behind the walls. It's going to be in front of the building. So wherever that building is, the landscape will be in front of it, because it goes around the entire perimeter.

Well, in front, side, rear, whatever it may be. But what I'm just clarifying is, with the 20 feet and the 50 feet we're discussing now are setbacks. But if we ask for and have you put in a 20-foot landscape buffer, And the plans don't work out. If we put it in and then you need your emergency path or whatever and it comes out to like 30 feet, then that's what it's going to have to be, correct?

Yeah, we address that issue too with respect to emergency access. Let me just, why don't I just read this and then you guys can, I think it covers most of the issues you raised. Landscape buffer. Buffer areas shall include a solid wall and or a landscape berm of at least 15 feet in height that includes drought tolerant natural ground landscaping with proper and a dedicated irrigation system and solid screen buffering trees and may include other landscape access and passenger vehicle parking improvements. Trees shall be used as part of a solid screen buffering treatment and planted in two staggered rows along the length of the property line along the entire perimeter of any new logistics use facility, logistics use development, logistics use park or expanded logistics use facility. Trees for this purpose shall be evergreen, drought tolerant to the extent feasible, composed of species with low biogenic emissions of a minimum 36 inch box size at planting, which are capable of growing to a height of at least five feet above the logistics use facility's closest building or structure and spaced at no greater distance than 30 feet on center with its own proper and dedicated irrigation system. Palm trees shall not be utilized, and all dead or dying trees shall be immediately replaced with the same species or variety. It should be or. The buffer area may include any landscaped areas within a public right-of-way or public or private pedestrian walkways, provided they do not conflict with any emergency access as determined by the fire department or police department. There's your landscape buffer. and it's gotta be in front of the building and it has to be five feet above the building. That's a lot of trees. Okay. So if there's a consensus with that, we can go back to the lounge. Okay, lounge. So the lounge, here's what's added. So we wanna make sure that the drinking fountains also fill those reusable individual drinking water containers. So you've seen those, we had those at City Hall. Yeah, so that was suggested. Okay with that? Okay. Now we're on. Huh? What?

Oh, they're fine.

Electrical vehicle chargers. So what was added to this is that there's a reference to level two or faster electric vehicle charging stations. So we just inserted that. Instead I think we initially had at the beginning fast chargers, but the recommendation is that we actually reference level two or faster. Okay, so everybody okay with that? So page eight, oh, truck loading bays and truck refrigeration units. It looks like there are a lot of changes here, but this just boils down to, so the facilities are required at every loading bay dock door to have fully functional plug-ins for these truck refrigeration units, okay? So that's the basis of that. What was suggested we add here is a requirement that at these truck loading bay dock doors, there also be plug-ins for auxiliary power. You know, that's because the concern is if they have to go and turn on their radio or charge their computer, they have to start up their diesel engines. So by having this capability to plug in your auxiliary electricity from your truck, you won't have to turn on your diesel engine. That's what that's about.

So you're suggesting to add auxiliary powered units on all dock doors?

Yes, that's the suggestion. So this is basically because a lot of the trucks, just so people know, more modern day trucks, the people live in them. They have air conditioners, they have refrigerators, they have microwaves. So we need to make sure that the APU, which is auxiliary power unit, most modern day diesel trucks have a separate little motor, diesel motor that runs that. And when they don't have a place to plug in, they fire that up to keep their systems going in their truck, whether they're sitting there sleeping or whatever. So we need to have these plug-ins so they don't fire up those second generator motors or the APUs. And for the people who do RVs, they call that shore power or marine.

So is there a consensus on this particular issue?

So we're adding APUs.

TRU's have already yep, they're required. We're adding the auxiliary power outlets. That's that's beautiful The next issue is zero emission equipment. So not we just the purpose was not to limit it to forklifts, but we Includes yard vehicles and other equipment that's used on site. Everything has to be zero emission by January 1st 2028 but any of you have gone into Lowe's or Home Depot you see most of that equipment is electric now a days and or battery operated, or parking of zero emission vehicles, fuel efficient vehicles, and carpool, vanpool vehicles. So there's gonna be signage that's letting everybody know where they can park.

And the signage is still gonna be multilingual? Yes. Because I think it said that before, multilingual.

Yes, and that is a requirement. Okay.

Just one other thing I see if we could add to this is I understand the signage is on the property and all this Example is when you drive by a construction site. It says any dust coming from this thing Please call a QMD or this phone number or whatever Can we add something to have a sign posted that the public who is in front of this or close to it? can read this so if they do see a vehicle and truck idling too much, they can make that call. I understand that most logistics centers Most logistics centers will police themselves, but if they're idling, say, on the street out front, waiting in line to get into the system, they may not know about it. But this just gives the public a little extra information so they can do their part to help keep this down. And it's a simple sign. It isn't a whole big thing, but I think it should be posted in a conspicuous area. So people can read this so if they see trucks idling there, they can make that phone call and they don't have to go on the property to try and find that phone number.

Yes, that's addressed under idling and signage. You've been talking to George Haig. So for the transit route information, so it's the most current, and we have to place it in a conspicuous location. Now, I had discussions with Mr. Haag about this, and he has suggested, well, some of the signage should be read from, you should be able to read it from five feet away or from the truck cab. And Mr. Haag, I can't see one foot ahead of me, so that would be very subjective to determine you know, how far a sign should be. So I know with the word conspicuous, conspicuous location is actually words that have been litigated, you know, as to what is a conspicuous location with respect to posting required signs like, let's say, labor signs. And so, you know, again, this is something that the city enforces. If we go out there and we see this sign, it's like, well, how's the public going to see this if it's behind, your landscape buffer. That's not a conspicuous location. As these things go through the process, when the staff pulls this out, they're going to say, oh, OK, now you have to have your truck route information or your idling signage. That's going to require to have this complaint line number for the South Coast Air Quality Management District. and it has to be placed at a location conspicuously visible from any adjacent public right-of-way and to truck drivers upon entering the facility from any adjacent public right-of-way.

Okay, but my thing is that the signage is visible, but it's different from being legible. And sometimes when you go by some of the signs, they're so small. It's like you're signing a contract. Don't read the small print.

That's a determination we would make during the entitlement process. When it comes up to signs, okay, one of the conditions is that we want a certain font size because it's on this, you know, if it's a sign that's going to be seen by, that needs to be seen by somebody driving by, then naturally the staff's going to want a certain font size. Yeah, because let's, you know. But it won't be the same fonts that we're going to have on the transit information.

I'll just use an example on the McDonald's project. You had to pass by it like 20 million times if you were going to read it at that intersection. There's nowhere to park and stop. If you're going by it, you can't see it. You know, you can't read it. It's visible.

Are you talking about the public hearing notice sign?

You can see it, but you can't really read it. You have to go park up and then walk down and then read what it was. So I'm just saying that some of the lettering, maybe it needs to be a little larger. I'm not saying that, you know, that's just an example. You know, you go by and, yeah, you can see that there's something going to be there because we've got the city logo on there. But some people can't read really what's there. I'm just saying. I'm using glasses, too. Oh, continue.

That maybe we can address during the omnibus ordinance with respect to signs. Yeah. Because the signs, you know, like the labor signs don't have to be, the fonts don't have to be as big as the signs for filing, calling the Air Quality Management District to report an idling or dust issue. Yeah.

Oh, I'm sorry. Some of the signs are visible, but they're not legible. So that was my concern, because I had got this brought up by a few people that had talked to me about it, especially with that, because it was a hot, hot item. So a lot of people didn't really know what was even going on there.

Well, I just know that if it's litigated, conspicuously visible is going to require that it also be legible. But I guess we should make a note of that whenever we put up signs. She's talking about these kind of signs.

Even those signs were the signages for the truckers and all that. they can see it, but sometimes if they don't really see the lettering quite a good size, they're not going to be able to really read it. Because it is visible to them, and they just look at it, but they're not really reading it so much.

Again, conspicuously visible, if a judge were to look at it, they would say, well, can they read it? What's the font size? Where is it located? What's the color? Is it bold? Is it italicized?

Yeah, maybe it should be bold. That's an idea. You always read when it's in bold or like this. You know, we've got this here.

But I think with signs, though, I mean, some people may look at our signs and think everything's bold. I think conspicuously visible is sufficient. It requires it to be legible. It requires it to be in a location where the target audience can easily see it.

I'm sure after a while they're going to know what it says. You know what I mean? If they're going there enough times, they're going to see the signage.

They're going to read it at least one time carefully, I would hope.

Yeah, my concern about concluding details like the font size and whether it's bold or I tell I think that may create some unintended problems Because then we're going to treat everything as uniform Rather than looking at the specific circumstances and determining all this particular sign that's geared to the target audiences of truck drivers and you know, they should be able to see it as they're driving through. So conspicuously visible for that sign would be different than conspicuously visible for a complaint sign to report dust and or idling. Because again, the target audience for reporting dust and idling would be the public driving by. So when staff approves these projects, they're going to have a condition saying, this needs to be conspicuously visible. What's that mean? Well, your project, based on your project and where the streets are located, where the entrances are, that's going to mean something different based on the project. And that's what conditions of approval are about. Whereas we don't want to require all signs be within 10 feet or visible from the truck cab because what's that mean? It depends on who's driving the truck and their eyesight. I think conspicuously visible is sufficient to address all these issues. Oh, okay, so we're down to... Oh, okay. Oh, idling signage. We just talked about signage, so idling signs, anti-idling signs need to be posted to inform truck drivers of the maximum three-minute heavy-duty truck engine idling restriction. They have to be posted at the entrances to the site and at the dock doors and truck loading bays. And the signs need to include a complaint line that goes to the Southern California Air Quality Management District. They have a complaint sign. You've probably seen some of these signs at construction sites, like call if you see dust. So those are the signs we're talking about. And those, too, have to be placed at locations conspicuously visible. And that's going to be different, again, depending on the layout of that particular project. and the proximity to certain public rights-of-way.

So when you get to the part about, you said you're gonna get a little more specific with the signing at another stage. Yes, yes. How about QR codes as well? Somebody's driving by, they can't stop, they can easily hold up their phone, bada bing, bada boom, they get the information, the telephone number, who to call, dah, dah, dah, dah, dah, dah.

For as long as QR codes are around.

As long as they last. It'll probably change to something else in the next 20 minutes.

So a QR code, somebody driving by has to get out of their car and take a picture of it? So they stop and stop traffic? You can drive by a QR code and take a picture? I mean, that would seem like a hazard for somebody to encourage people to take pictures from their vehicles.

They could still just QR code it and boom, be on their way. And I don't know what we would word that as is the latest.

Again, my concern would be traffic safety issues, any type of distracting drivers.

Because people would have to get out and park and get to the sign and

I have no objection including that. I'm just thinking from a practical sense. It's just the first person gets in an accident who had to get out and take a picture of a QR code and sue the city. Why did you put a QR code there? Because the QR code is there. Okay. Got it. I get what you're saying. I understand that, but I'm thinking from a public safety perspective. Okay, so idling and signage. Is there consensus on that? We're down to the last two. Abatement fund. So as you know, there's an abatement fund that's been suggested that we're establishing to this ordinance that's basically going to require the developer to pay $1,500 for each estimated daily truck trip. to this fund that is for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning HVAC units and air filtration systems for anyone who resides or is in the nearest sensitive receptor. And so what was added to this is what's what suggested what's been suggested is that we have this abatement fee be increased annually based on consumer price index The one that applies to Riverside San Bernardino area So that's the change here now with respect to the procedures That's gonna come later so you may see that come later and Because, you know, typically, well, in a lot of cases when we adopt ordinances, sometimes we need to set up procedures to implement or to administer that particular ordinance. And so we come up with those separately as policies that will generally go, you know, this one will likely come to Planning Commission and go to City Council so the public have an opportunity to discuss it. Because there was a comment made about, well, you know, How long is it going to take? Or what sort of application needs to be submitted? Or the homeowner shouldn't have to have paid money out of their pocket up front. Those issues will be addressed in the context of those procedures. And there are samples out there. I know that this came from a settlement agreement, I believe, with the city of Fontana that the attorney general's office and or the Sierra Club worked out with the city of Fontana. So I know they have a set of procedures in place. And the other issue that's come up, and this is not part of the ordinance, the other issue that came up in the context of this provision was who's going to administer this? Well, the Attorney General's Office actually suggested some vendor, but we have not committed to that. It's all going to depend on the city's resources, staffing, but we'll take a look at that. And that's something that the city will have to retain that vendor. So the issues as far as administering this program, that's something else that's going to come up later. So unless there's any objections to having this automatic annual increase, Is there a consensus on this?

Yeah, so you want to add the abatement fee shall be subject to adjustments annually?

Yes. The abatement fee shall be subject to adjustments annually for any increase in the consumer price index based on the CPI for Riverside, San Bernardino, Ontario area. That's the one that's applicable to us. And finally, training programs. This sounds like ethics training. So you know every two years you have to do ethics training? Well, the suggestion is that every three years all the employees and managers at these facilities have to do, have to participate in these training programs that address issues of efficient scheduling and load management to minimize truck queuing and idling. And they have to do this every three years. Are you adding anything to that? No. The last paragraph that's in bold. What's being suggested is what's underlined in bold and italicized.

So that's going to be added?

Yes, if you approve it.

I thought we were leaving it out. I jumped in there right away.

Okay, so if there's any consensus on that this is the last one. Yeah So again, these are all the revisions that came in since the community workshop and So they're all they all arise out of the mitigation measures that were negotiated with the Attorney General's office Again, although I'm not recommending one way or the other I can say that none of these suggested revisions conflict undermine or contradict the objectives negotiated with the Attorney General's office. Right, Jessica? I know she's listening.

I think you did a great job. I really do. I'm really happy with it. I'm real happy with it. The last thing I ever want is for it to come back. The last time I was a little bit But this time that's why I'm asking a lot of questions.

No, no.

Yeah.

So at this point, I would suggest that you open up the public hearing and allow the public to comment and testify.

Or ask questions of staff. Well, at this point, we would move into commissioner questions, but I think many of us had our questions out. I'd like to take, before we move into public testimony, then we take a short 10-minute recess. I think people have to stretch your legs, find the restroom, stuff like that. All right, so we'll take a recess at 7.59 p.m. and we'll return at 8.10 p.m.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, guys, we're getting ready to come back to order here. All right, we're gonna come back to order here in the meeting. All right, I'd like to call the meeting back to order at exactly 8.15 p.m. All right, so it looks like we went through, you know, I have to say that was the longest staff report in history. That was, that's a lot, and it was really good. I think a lot of things were done, and wow, just fantastic work on working with the public and other entities to get this thing going. With that being said, we'll now open the public hearing at 8.15 p.m., and we'll move on to public comments. The clerk will call upon, excuse me, each person who is requested to speak. Do we have any speakers?

Yes, Chair, we presently have eight speaker cards. Our first speaker is Evan Brooke, followed by Ismael Gonzalez, then followed by Tatiana Flores.

Okay, thank you, commissioners. Thank you, staff and city attorney. This has certainly been a long report, but we do have, or at least I would like to see some further additions to strengthen this ordinance. First of all, before I get into that, I'd like to mention that It was somewhat unclear how the consensus, where the consensus went on the expansion in cubic footage measure. And so if someone could reiterate that to me so I can understand whether there was consensus or there were changes. So that just wasn't clear. But let me go ahead and get into the concern that I raised via email with the commission yesterday. How will we know that the ordinance is being followed? How will we know the ordinance is being followed? Currently, the city has a complaint-based system for monitoring and enforcement. Monitoring depends on reports from residents. I don't believe that this system can adequately monitor violations of this ordinance and that that makes this ordinance de facto unenforceable. So I'd like to start by considering the operational emission controls on page 14 and 15. The bottom of page 14, this measure reads, the logistics use facility operator shall ensure all classes of forklifts, yard vehicles and equipment used onsite shall be zero emission. How will we see what kinds of equipment are being used inside during operations? When there are walls and trees doing their intended job, blocking our view, how will we know the yard equipment is actually zero emission? It is unlikely, or I find it unlikely, that residents would call to complain, and that this and other aspects of these standards are unenforceable because they are too difficult to observe, then we should not rely on residents to complain about them, to have them enforced. To overcome these issues, I urge you to apply common sense. When you give staff another job, you pay them to do that job, to actually do that job. The common sense solution is to provide the city's division tasked with monitoring and enforcement with the funding necessary to implement a directive to actively monitor warehouse construction and operations. So what I am asking for and recommending is a directive for active monitoring and the funding to monitor this ordinance. Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Ismael Gonzalez, Tatiana Flores, and Brielle Fiera.

Hello again. István González here, District 2. I want to begin by saying hello to George Haig, who's watching live online, and he sends his best regards to the commission, to city staff. Thank you so much to Steve, the city attorney. He's been such a great help in revising this ordinance to the liking of the environmental groups here today. It was quite substantial, all the revisions that were made today. I want to go ahead and emphasize what my colleague Evan Brooks just stated. I think there needs to be an active monitoring to all the provisions here in this revised ordinance. The city does need to make sure that the developers, the people who are proposing these projects, be held to these standards until I guess for the whole life of their properties. I want to go ahead and just maybe emphasize that cool roofing should stay at least 278. You guys did such a great job on asking those important questions regarding these provisions. The cool roofing, the cool concrete needs to be reapplied every so often. So please really do put due diligence into maintaining active monitoring of these developments. I do want to just state that I believe that the landscape buffer provision should include at least 20 feet in that provision there. Anything beyond 20 foot around the whole perimeter can count as the setback setback buffers for cars, for driveways, anything like that. I definitely think that having those trees is extremely important, almost, you know, a priority, put it, based off of all the data that I said to you earlier, those trees are gonna help us out in the future, mitigate any sort of pollution, and it's gonna go ahead and clean the air over time. Please, Definitely add those APUs, the auxiliary power units, to all bay doors, to all places where truckers can park, because we definitely don't want them idling their diesel engines near sensitive receptors. With 12 seconds on the board, I just want to say again thank you so much for your due diligence on this, especially with Steve managing the revisions. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Tatiana Flores, followed by Brielle Fierro, followed by Christina Torres.

Good evening again. Thanks for the opportunity to speak once more. My name is Tatiana Flores, resident here in MoVal. And after reviewing the general plan update and the proposed mitigation measures, I first want to share that I, along with many others, am happy to see that many of the comments that were raised since the Paul Middle School Workshop were addressed. I'd like to thank the city attorney, especially for meeting with our respective groups and allowing us to contribute to these efforts to reduce air pollution concerns and bring good resources to community members, whether that be through abatement funds or worker programs outlined in the measures. So I'm here to express my support for all the changes that were drafted and shared by the city attorney in the beginning. I did want to mention, however, that I think we should revisit the cubic footage. I think that that was brought up as a concern after seeing what has happened in Redlands. They wanted to go for a warehouse ban, but they opted to allowing warehouses to expand like in height. So I think we should maybe reevaluate that before it goes back to council. And then I know we discussed the diesel generators and there was a good question about what constitutes an emergency. And I know that the city will have a role in deciding what that is, but hopefully we as constituents also have an opportunity to comment on that, to really see what an emergency is. And just following up what Ishmael mentioned about the landscape buffer, but also adding that I would suggest having some imagery potentially to actually show what we're talking about. I know a lot of us were starting to get a bit confused during that discussion and deliberation. So maybe in the future having an image of the actual buffers and the landscaping would be beneficial just for ease of understanding. And then, maybe my last point, but for the abatement funds, I know that Steve mentioned that procedures will come later, but I want to show my concern right here, right now. Just wanting to emphasize that residents should not have to pay upfront for any of these HVAC systems being fixed or placed. That should be something that is included in the procedures. I know that'll come in the future, but just wanna start that conversation now. And once again, as someone who cares a lot about labor justice as well, I'm really happy to see all of the lounge and training programs that are coming for workers that are either driving or working in the facilities. I think that's something that developers and I guess employers should always try to do. Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Brielle Fierro, followed by Christina Torres, then followed by Lindsey Robinson.

Good evening, Planning Commissioners and Chairman. As a lifelong resident of District 1, a mother and a teacher, I'd like to thank you for your time, your hard line of questioning, and most importantly, for listening to your constituents, our dedicated staff, and the Attorney General's guidelines. By coming to a protective consensus on most of the logistics facilities mitigation ordinance, You are demonstrating your dedication to our city's seal, people, pride and progress. Tonight, you're proving that when the people are heard, Merino Valley is a place where dreams soar safely. By backing the thousand foot setback and making it crystal clear, you are giving our neighborhoods breathing room. But we do hope that this paves the way to a future of 1500 foot gold standard. I know I'm not alone when we also say we're hopeful of inclusion of cubic footage in the expansion definition or at least a clear boundary. You recognize that modern warehouses are increasing their industrial capacity without increasing their physical footprint, at least wide as they're increasing upward. So we think that including the cubic footage would be truly forward thinking. We also want to thank you for realizing that we cannot allow these massive warehouses to become hot, easy-bake ovens. Mandating the cooling roofing with an index of 78 alongside the cool concrete with a reflectance of 29 for the parking lots, for example, directly fights the urban heat island and albedo effects, so I appreciate that. Requiring these features under lifetime maintenance rules ensures that our city stays cooler for generations to come. You made the right call asking the right questions by closing the dangerous loophole on diesel generators as well. Eliminating the phrase where no feasible alternative power source exists means that we are drawing a hard line against toxic polluters and restricting them to absolute life safety emergencies Protects the air that us and our children are breathing Thank you for also understanding that our trees are fundamental and not just decorations, but they serve as a functional buffering shield We want to ensure that there is a 20-foot minimum buffer around the landscaping so requiring an adequate perimeter with at least two staggered evergreen tree rows creates that solid buffer that actively filters ozone and filters that trapped greenhouse gases right at the source. Also mandating the level two EV conduits during the initial construction is also just common sense, so thank you for that. It will save us lots of money compared to costly retrofits, and it proves that our city is looking forward to a greener economy. So multiple points were reviewed, including tying our air quality abatement fund to the consumer price index so it doesn't lose value over time. And we're thrilled to see that the commission takes our concerns seriously. I also wanted to add that for being called negative naysayers, I'm proud of the advocates who consistently showed up to raise concerns because look at what happened, progress and positive change. Our nation's founding fathers championed the people's rights to address grievances with our government, so thank you for giving us the time to speak up, and thank you for working hand in hand with our advocates.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Christina Torres, followed by Lindsey Robinson, then followed by Franco Pacheco.

Hello, everyone. I want to say thank you to the Planning Commission, to staff, and especially to Attorney Quintanilla for all the work you've done on this and all the considerations you've taken in, especially with comments from the Attorney General and George Haig and Tatiana. I do want to mention about the landscape buffer that I do also think it needs to be at least 20 feet wide. There's nothing in there mentioned about width. And that's also one to account for the trees getting mature in size, since they won't be mature once they're planted, even at the 36 inch box. The trees are needed not just for aesthetics to hide the warehouse, but more importantly to filter noise and air pollution and also help manage stormwater runoff. by taking in the water into its roots. So for all those reasons, it would be very, very useful to have that. I also want to mention in this city, I know the important thing is what to do with the youth and job training the youth and stuff like that. I found this interesting comment in the Bay Area air quality management district information from San Francisco. And in their... information on policy strategy on vegetative buffers and barriers. They mention at the very end that a consideration to be taken in with these green buffers is that local governments can also set up green job training programs and workforce development programs for landscape maintenance and stewardship programs. So that's also something to take into consideration. Speaking of the signage though, the discussion you had on the signage, here's a thought that came into my mind, is cannot, wouldn't it be more useful, and people go look for information on the internet, if a picture was taken of every sign like that, signage that was placed that you can't see because you gotta stop and park, and put it on the city's website with the location that maybe you can access that sign by location. So instead of having to unsafely QR code, take a picture and all that kind of stuff, the actual photo of the sign be on the website by location that you can find it there. So thank you. I appreciate everything you've done.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Lindsay Robinson, followed by Franco Pacheco, then followed by Carlos Cervantes. Our next speaker is Franco Pacheco. Carlos Cervantes.

Hello again, commissioners. My name is Carla Cervantes. First, I want to express my sincere appreciation and thank you for all your hard work on this ordinance. Thank you for stepping up to protect residents, preserve quality of life, and help create a better Moreno Valley. I also want to extend a deep thank you to our dedicated local community activists and community members. Your tireless advocacy, research, and collaboration have been essential in bringing these vital environmental health issues to the forefront. Tonight I want to offer a crucial recommendation to ensure this ordinance is completely future proof. I'm asking the commission to explicitly include cubic feet or total building volume as part of our official definition for warehouse expansion. Currently planning regulations heavily rely on horizontal square footage to define the size of a project However, in neighboring cities, as my colleagues mentioned previously, they have given us a pretty clear warning of how developers adapt to circumvent these rules. For example, in Redlands, warehouse developers who face strict limits on increasing their flat square footage are actively planning to increase the height of their buildings instead. So by stacking vertically, they can dramatically increase the logistic capacity and cargo processing, all while technically staying within their allowed footprint. If we only regulate square footage, we leave a massive loophole wide open. A taller warehouse means vastly more inventory space that translate directly to more intensive round-the-clock operations, higher automation, significantly more heavy-duty truck trips and idling and driving through our community. It's vital to recognize that our choice here doesn't exist in a vacuum. Setting a strong precedent by closing this loophole will positively impact neighboring areas as well and communities across our region. We share the same air basins and connected traffic corridors. Regional protection starts with strong local policy, so I do appreciate all the work that you guys have done on this. I'm very grateful that you guys were listening to a lot of the recommendations, and I hope that when it goes to city council that they will approve it, or even make it better. Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Roy Blecker followed by Luis Palomares.

Don't ask me, ask Dave Slauson about the story of George Haig in the 63 Falcon. What you're hearing is a bunch of reports that were built on a bunch of false information, misdirection, and most important of all, the embodiment of how you destroy a society. The aforementioned Mary Nichols in 2015 was California Air Resources Board President. She fueled and pushed The lie of the climate con, AB32, that was totally bogus and put together by somebody who wasn't even qualified. This is what breaks my heart. You're not shifting emissions or preventing them. You're shifting the impact. You're not eliminating them. If the standards were imposed on the house, let's say, for example, Dave lives in, that you're imposing now, your home would have never been built, and even if it was, you couldn't afford it. What you're systematically doing is raising the cost and the opportunity of future generations with this ridiculous mandates and regulations that first, as the evidence will show, and I will invite anybody, we'll go through the cows, come home and broadcast it for everyone to see. Prove me wrong. And while, as it's getting closer and you will hear, I will be looking at the roots of the grass before most of this has the impact, the next generations are gonna have to live with this. So really what you should look at is the 50% rule. Is it 50%, is it gonna be harmful, or is it gonna be beneficial? And what's going on here tonight is on the 50% minus side, just like we've been doing. You can do that. You want to talk about pollution? The fires from Palisades, Altadena put more damaging environmental smoke than if we shut off every diesel generator, car, truck, or anything. Just like the environmental damage of 12 acres of solar panels that are burning right now in Boyle Heights. Let's get back to reality. Maybe the future will be brighter for everyone.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Luis Palomares.

Luis Palomares, community activist. Wow, we finally get it going, huh? I'm glad. The city attorney, thank you, thank you, thank you. Staff, well, I guess you put a little input, but I believe most of it was the city attorney. He probably got tired of coming back and back and back. So we finally got it right, I think. And our commissioners, thank you, thank you so much. Because these are commissioners that know what they're doing. These are commissioners that are gonna say no if it's no. These are commissioners that have the experience to make the hard decisions. These are commissioners. But, I'll go into another note right here. Our mayor wanted to take three of these commissioners out. Imagine if we would have put the amateur, or the 22-year-old girl, maybe, I don't know how old she was, wasn't a documented citizen, wasn't even a registered voter. We would have had to deal with this general plan with three amateurs up there. So thank you, commissioners. that you're still here. And after this election, I guess it'll all change up because I'm sure he wants to bring in new amateur hour, but it scares me. So thank you, thank you for all your hard work and all your input. And like I said, Quintanilla, thank you again. So here we go. Let's hope we can make this happen and go forward. Thank you. And I wanted to shout out for Roy's birthday's today, he's my pal, thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any more speakers?

We have no more cards, Chair.

Okay, at this time, if there are no more speakers, then we're gonna close the public testimony at 8.40 p.m. and move into deliberations. Unless we have a motion and a second. Go forward.

So chair, if I may, before the, when the maker of the motion goes to speak, we'd like to have Regine Kennedy, principal planner, read in some modifications to the motion based on the, exactly. So thank you.

Thank you. Regine Kennedy, Principal Planner. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve resolution number 2026-09 recommending that the City Council find and determine that PEN 26-0055 is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. pursuant to section 15308 and section 15061B3 of the CEQA guidelines and be introduced and adopt ordinance dated June 25, 2026 with deletions regarding the diesel generator verbiage and cubic footage as based on consensus by planning commission. Thank you.

I make a motion to say what she said.

Yeah, I'll make a motion to approve everything that was said and the revisions that are attached to the ordinance. I second.

Will that suffice?

Yes. Commissioner Zaitz? We need a second. She did.

Oh, sorry.

Yes. Commissioner Taylor? Yes. Commissioner Steffen?

Yes.

Vice Chair Baker? Yes. Chairperson DeGeneres? Yes. Motion carries.

We have a staff wrap-up.

Yes, thank you, Chair. So tonight's action by the Planning Commission is that of a recommendation to City Council on the proposed Municipal Code Amendment. Pursuant to section 9.02.050 of the Municipal Code, the Planning Commission's recommendation will be considered by the City Council at a notice public hearing in the future.

All right, that's gonna move us into item number three. Looks like we have a conditional use permit, PEN 250183, to allow for the expansion of an existing charter school to serve as a resource center for the students, located at 27140 Eucalyptus Avenue, Suite E. Do we have a staff? Excuse me.

Yes, thank you, Chair Dijonet, members of the Planning Commission. At this time, I'd like to turn it over to Christian Lua, Assistant Planner, to provide the staff report to the commission on this item.

Good evening. Hello.

There it is. Good evening, Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. Christian Lua. The project before you this evening is a request to consider a conditional use permit to allow a resource center of 3,240 square feet for an existing charter school, Audio Valley Charter. The proposed project is located at 27140 Eucalyptus Avenue Suite E that is situated north of Eucalyptus Avenue and east of Mason Street. The parcel site is approximately 1.87 acres that is located in the community commercial CC zoning district which allows schools public or private within 300 feet of a residential use or zone subject to the granting of a conditional use permit. The project will occupy a nearby 3,240 square feet tenant space suite E within the Stone Ridge Town Center, which is located in the neighboring parcel north of the existing Audio Valley Charter. Surrounding land uses for the project site are all commercial development. Broader surrounding land uses for the commercial center include the California 60 freeway, to the north commercial development to the east vacant land zoned community commercial to the west and residential and open space to the south a Conditional use permit is required to ensure certain changes and uses will not be detrimental to the surrounding uses. I The proposed project includes 3,240 square feet in the vacant Suite E tenant space and will be used as an extension to the existing Audio Valley Charter as a resource center to serve students grades six through 12 through a non-classroom based independent study program. The proposed project will be accessible from three existing driveway entrances along Eucalyptus Avenue, two existing driveways along Fir Avenue, and one existing driveway along Mason Street Existing parking spaces throughout the shopping center, the drive aisle layout and circulation will support the proposed project. Operating hours are from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m., and at any given time, the proposed project will have a capacity of no more than 25 students and six staff members. No exterior building modifications or additional site improvements are proposed as part of this project. And to minimize the impacts with respect to the operations, the proposed project will have no direct instruction on site, but will provide one-on-one tutoring sessions and small group tutoring sessions of three to five students working on similar curriculum and assignments. Additionally, the proposed project will utilize a quote unquote university model where students attend twice per week to submit the required curriculum and review academic progress with assigned staff while still serving an independent study model. Students that make adequate progress have the option to come in only as needed. The proposed project complies with section 9.02.060 of conditional use permits, all applicable development standards of the zoning code, and 9.02.200 of public hearing and notification procedures. With the recommended conditions of approval, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt resolution number 2026-14, determining that Conditional Use Permit PEN25-0183 is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA, and CEQA guidelines. as a class one exemption under existing facilities. In accordance with the CEQA section guidelines, section 15301, and approving conditional use permit PEN 250183, subject to the attached conditions of approval included as exhibit A of resolution number 2026-14, and as shown on the approved plan. This concludes staff's presentation. I'm available for any question. Also present with us tonight and available for any questions are representatives from the proposed project.

Thank you. Are there any commissioner questions for staff? no okay all right okay we'll now open up the public hearing at oh i buried it there 8 50 p.m and would the applicant like to speak is the applicant present

Good evening, Tim Tudor, Deputy Superintendent of Audeo Valley Charter School. We've been successfully operating for 15 years in our current space and just would like a little bit more space to serve our students with the activities that they do. With me is our Chief Business Officer, Lynn Alipio, and our architect, Brandon. So we're happy to answer any questions if you have them.

All right, do we have any questions for the applicant? Well, thank you, sir. I appreciate your time. All right. We're now going to move into public comments, and the clerk will call upon each person who has requested to speak. Do we have any speakers?

Yes, Chair. We have two speaker cards. Our first speaker is Roy Blecker, followed by Louise Palmares.

This should be the all-time easiest one you've ever had to pass. We're gonna run a little intelligence test here. Hopefully, after public comments, you will make the motion to pass this, and we can move on to the next item.

I think that was the shortest Morris ever spoken. It's his birthday. Thank you, sir. All right.

Our next speaker is Luis Palomares.

Louise Palomares, community activist. I think it's great. We need more charter schools here, because we know damn well that the Marina Valley Youth Fight is failing students by record numbers, especially our special needs students. The superintendent over there, Dr. Rubicava, and two of the board members, Brandy and Luna Clark, and Brandy, golly, anyway. Yeah, bring it on, I'm all for it. Whatever's gonna help our students. And my question is, it's from what grade to what grade? And is it set two times a week? So are these students that are falling behind, falling through the cracks, and they gotta catch up there? That's a question I would like to have answered, please. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Do we have any more speakers?

We have no more cards, Chair.

All right. At this time, if there's no more speakers, then we'll close the public testimony at 8.52 p.m. and move into deliberations or a motion.

If nobody has anything to say, I will go ahead and make a motion. that we accept staff's report on.

Yeah, I can.

Without my glasses. Resolution number 202614. With the conditional use permit PEN 250183 and approve it.

I second.

I second.

I second.

Can we have a vote, please?

Commissioner Zaitz?

Yes. Commissioner Taylor? Yes.

Commissioner Steffen? Yes. Vice Chair Baker?

Yes.

Chairperson DeGeneres? Yes. Motion carries.

Okay. Do we have a staff wrap-up?

Yes, thank you, Chair. Please let the record show that the motion passes by a vote of five to nothing. Actions taken are final unless an appeal is received by the Community Development Director during the 10-day appeal period as outlined in Municipal Code Section 9.02.240.

All right, the next item on the agenda is I-4, and that's a plot plan, PEN 240075, to develop 184 multifamily resident units consisting of 23 two-story residential buildings on 9.39 acres. In the mixed in the quarter mixed-use district do we have a staffer We do chair Dijon a at this time.

I'd like to introduce assistant planner DJ Patel who provide a staff report for this item Good evening chairman and members of the planning committee

Dejan Patel, Assistant Planner. The project before you this evening is to request to consider a plot plan for the development of 184 multifamily residential units consisting of 23 two-story residential buildings on a 9.39 acre vacant site. proposed project is located on the north side of cottonwood avenue and east of paris boulevard in the corridor mixed use commute district the 9.39 acre vacant site is currently vacant surrounding land uses include existing single family homes zone r5 to the north east and west of the proposed site To the south of the project site is a single-family home, the Riverside County Fleet Services and Operation Site, a mostly vacant lot, and a church all within the commie zone. The project site is currently zoned corridor mixed use commune district. The commune district allows a density development proposed by the project. The project consists of 23 two-story residential buildings, each containing eight dwelling units for a total of 184 residential units. The development is supported by a comprehensive range of amenities and site improvements including a clubhouse, swimming pool and a spa, recreational areas, landscape open space, lighting, internal circulation and parking spaces. Access to the site is provided by Cottonwood Avenue via primary entrance featuring separate ingress and egress driveways along with the gated entry equipped with the call box and control access for residents and guests. Internal circulation is provided through private drive aisles that connect the buildings and parking areas throughout the site. In addition, emergency access gates are provided from Watson Bay and Patricia Lane. However, these connections are restricted to vehicles for emergency and not available for daily vehicle access. The project provides a total of 334 parking spaces, including both covered and uncovered spaces, exceeding the minimum requirements of the municipal code. The project also provides 56,980 square foot of common space, exceeding the minimum requirements established by the zoning code. This includes a dog park, a tag lot, a swimming pool, and a spa, and a clubhouse. At the center of the community is an amenity area that includes clubhouse, pool, spa, decorative landscaping, and comfortable sitting areas for resident use. Additional landscape is placed along property boundaries, internal drive aisles, and pedestrian pathways, creating a cohesive and inviting environment for the residents. Overall, the landscape designs will enhance the character and the livability of the development while ensuring full compliance with the city's municipal code and landscaping requirements. The project is designed with the balance massing and low-profile hip ropes, finish and concrete tiles. Each building features smooth stucco exterior walls enhanced with foam trim detailing around windows, doors and roof lines. Details also include decorative shutters, curved entryways and second floor balconies with coordinated wall-mounted railings and trim elements. Covert porch is also supported by ornamental columns and exterior lighting is integrated at building entrances and balcony areas to enhance visibility and architectural character. The project consists of 184 units consisting of 81 bedroom units and 104 two-bedroom units. Floor plans do range from sizes 731 square foot to 1,093 square foot, offering a variety of living options. After review of the project, the staff recommends the following revisions to the conditions of approval as part of the memo on the DS. Condition number 13 is to be modified that the project shall comply with the city's landscape standards as set forth in the section 9.17.080 of the municipal code. Condition number 72 is to be remote as it's only intended for the commercial development and it's not applicable to the residential project. Because all the access for pedestrian and connectivity are adequately addressed through the standard designs for the residential development. Condition 49 is also remote because it also applies to the projects within the high fire zone and this project does not fall within the high fire zone area. Condition 101 also to be removed this condition requires the mission of the CNRs This doesn't apply to multi-family apartment complexes. I Proposed project complies with section 9.02.070 plot plan and all applicable development standards of the zoning code as well as section 9.020.200 public hearing and notification procedures. The staff recommends that the planning commission adopt resolution number 2026-15 adopting the initial study mitigated negative declaration prepared for the plot plan PEN25-0075 interrupting the mitigation monitoring program prepared for the proposed project pursuant to CEQA and CEQA guidelines. and also add up Resolution No. 2026-16, approving the plot plan PEN24-0075, subject to the attached conditions of approval included as Exhibit A of Resolution No. 2026-16 and as shown on the approved plans. One public comment has been received for this proposed project. This concludes staff's presentation. Also, we have the applicant team present for questions as well. Thank you. Thank you.

Are there any commissioner questions for staff?

Yeah, I want to know, have you guys addressed the traffic that's going to be coming into that area? I'm very familiar with it. I go to St. Christopher's, and during church time or when they have any functions, there's a lot of traffic. Huh, nobody can hear me? I'm just concerned with the traffic. And then we got a school, and then across, I believe there is some sort of, is it a fire station, or is it some sort of public? No, I think there's some sort of facility there. Is it the sheriff's department?

I think it's the Riverside County Fleet Maintenance and Maintenance. Right.

So have we addressed any of that? Because let's face it, if they get an emergency call and there's a lot of traffic and then you've got to have like the two lanes and then you're going to have to have a turn lane in there, left turn lane.

Yeah, I can have the transportation team answer the question.

I didn't hear you, honey.

I can have the transportation team answer the question.

Oh, okay.

Yeah, hi. I'm Seth Jennison, principal traffic engineer. So to your point of the traffic impact analyses, a VMT scoping form was prepared in 2024 for the project. They found that the AM peak hour trips added by the project would total 74, and the PM peak hour trips would total 94. And as such this project didn't meet the city's screening threshold of a hundred peak hour trips And so no further traffic impact analysis was required What are you gonna do with the street there how is it going to be Formatted that's my question So the developer will be required to build out their half width of the street to the ultimate right-of-way and then the the layout will be determined but it's fairly clear that it'll just match into the westbound lanes coming into the area and then turn into or match into the westbound lanes as they leave this.

Is there gonna be a left turn lane for St. Christopher's?

I believe there's a two-way left turn pocket for both directions, westbound and eastbound.

Okay, and then there's not gonna be a bike lane because I don't think there's enough room for that.

There's an existing westbound bike lane that the project will be required to extend throughout the extents of their frontage.

Okay, I'm just concerned with that because with having the public safety there and they have they get calls randomly and they have to be coming out and that's my concern that the school the church And then you got all the apartments now. So that's just my concern. It's mostly the ins and outs of there and having traffic going smoothly on that street without too much. I know you guys do traffic studies, I know, but in real time, sometimes it's a little different than what's on paper. I often find that. So that's my concern, living in this area. People that are gonna be there.

Okay, yeah, thank you.

Okay.

So was there entrances and exits? It doesn't look like it on Cottonwood. Can they enter and exit on Cottonwood?

Yes, that's correct.

See, here's Cottonwood right here. Oh, right here. Okay, got it. So it's like a central. Okay, there it is. That's what I was looking for. And then it looks like you can also enter and exit on Patricia Way?

That's only for emergency vehicles.

Only for emergency. Is that gonna be a, right turn only, coming out?

From the Cottonwood Avenue?

From the complex, is that right turn out. Can they make a left there, coming out?

Yes, they could. Really? On Cottonwood? On Cottonwood. Step on the gas.

Is he gonna add a left, a turn in? Did I hear that correctly? Okay, so both ways so they can, okay, got it, okay. Then it looks like the pool area, And look, is that a park down there on the south?

Yeah, that's a dog park. There's a dog park at the south of the property.

Okay, so that takes away a little bit of footprint. So then this isn't actually a true R10 then? It probably backs it out a little bit, doesn't it? Because of the golf course area and the little dog park? Or does it still stay at an R10?

No, it's gonna be a commune zoning.

The corridor mixed-use zoning I'm full of questions Did you do when you did the traffic study did you do it at the peak times like when st. Christopher's is actually coming in and out because It's a nightmare there And school school going and coming to

I don't have that information about when they collected existing traffic data. Oh, I apologize. They did not collect existing traffic data. They didn't? They only estimated their trip generation for the project, and it was determined that it didn't meet the threshold.

Yeah. I just wish they would have because this is the problem on a lot of the streets here in Moreno Valley. When school's in session or out of session, Oh, my goodness. I mean, they have one way in and one way out, and that's how most of these places are, so I just wish they would have done that, because as long as you guys get the street widened up and they allow for the traffic to be able to flow properly, because right now it's, you know, it's a little dicey there. Yeah, that's St. Christopher's. Yeah, and let me tell you, well, this is, no, that's right here.

I know, but they're gonna improve this part.

Yeah, they're gonna widen it up, I guess. Okay, that was my question, was if you had done it during peak times, in real time, okay.

The zoning on this property is now commercial.

It's a corridor of mixed use. I'm sorry, say again? Corridor of mixed use.

Mixed use, okay, if you were to With this particular project, what does it calc out to houses per acre?

So if for the 9.37, it would come out to 234 units.

Not total, because I know it's per acre. In other words, if we were going to put an R on it, what would it be?

So it's 25, 15 to 25 per acre. It'd be what? 25. It'd be a 25. Yeah. R25?

Yeah.

That's the max density and the commie zoning.

So let me, Commissioner Zaitz, if I may expand a little bit on that response. So the effective density of the project as proposed is about 19 units per acre, 19.5 units per acre, which is below the maximum allowed for the commie district, which is 25 units per acre. Could expand a little bit on that so the zoning was our 10 prior to adoption of the general plan Upon adoption of the general plan that the site was rendered corridors mixed-use. So that's what the current zoning is for the site today. I the effective density is 19 units per acre more or less so we're not doing a zoning change there's no zone change involved with this application any other commissioner questions for staff

Okay. All right. Well, then we'll move in the, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Commissioner questions and staff, public hearing. Okay, we'll open up the public hearing at, I can't read that, 9, 11 p.m. And would the applicant like to speak?

Hello. My name is Sydney Marshock. I am. Can you hear me better? Perfect. My name is Sydney Marshock. I'm here on behalf of the applicant and the property owner and developer RSI Development Lake Elsinore LLC. And I want to thank the commissioner for their time and city staff for their assistance in getting this project to where it is. We really appreciate their help and we're available for any questions if you have any.

EV charging stations? Yeah, I know.

I always like to ask.

Yeah, let me pull up

I didn't see if they were, since I went through it back and forth, was it, yeah, is it standard or is it level two, tier two? Are they space car ready? I just.

So we are currently, the total EV ready spaces required is 86. Wow. And we are,

I guess my question I understand that since this is going to be a look at what eight eight units per building

Yes.

Those EVs, are those charged, the electrical outlets, is that charged to the apartment complex to the individual person? Will they have an account or how? I come in there, I have a car and I want to charge it. Do I get to charge for free or do I get to charge or does, how does that work?

Yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you. I'm Bob Colgan. I'm from RSI.

There is standards that we have to follow as we get through the building permit process. We'll definitely meet all of those requirements, but currently what we've done on other projects is we have a fee-based charging station, so any of the occupants of the project can come in and charge, and they'll use either their credit card or a card system to charge their vehicles.

Are these centrally located or throughout?

Throughout.

Throughout. Okay. All right.

That was my question.

Assigned parking?

Parking will be assigned by units, yes. And then there's going to be some open parking as well.

Okay, and then they have to have, imagine, some type of parking pass or something like that?

They'll be assigned to the renters by unit. They'll have their own parking.

Okay, now here's the scary part. We do have some predatory towing companies out here. I would probably, you know.

Not in Moreno Valley.

Not in Moreno Valley, okay. The ones who are providing services to. Okay, perfect. That's what I'm looking at because, you know, they'll come in and tow everybody out of there. So we got to be real careful about who we partner up with to ensure that the people that are supposed to park there park there. Yeah.

I have a question. Are you going to be doing any of the improve? Can anybody hear me? This thing, it's on. Are you going to be doing any improvements along with the city for the street improvements that are going to be done?

For the street improvements? Yeah. On Cottonwood you mean? Yes.

On front of your, where your apartments are going to be.

The requirements that are given to us as a condition, obviously we're going to be doing, which includes widening, adding some.

And again, I ask anyone in there in the well, the city, somebody has to make it work because it's narrow.

You know, for all that tough it's gonna, you're talking about 180 something apartments. Come on, how many people and how many cars are gonna come in and out of those apartments? Also. Not being EV.

Yeah, EV. Not be EV friendly, but that's another story with the development of it. But I would like to see that study done, brought back to us, and make sure that we're on the right track with this. I mean, how long would it take to do that study?

Commissioner if I can add just to provide a little bit of clarification Even if we go ahead and perform a traffic study and it is determined that two lanes are required through that corridor You got to keep in mind that at each intersection on the west and the east end it bottlenecks back down to one link so in order to really correct the situation we'd have to correct the entire corridor and not just the development. Otherwise, we're just creating a pinch point. And so that's why going through the exercise, and even if the study comes back warranting two lanes in each direction, in order to really correct it and this developer to correct it, he'd have to correct the entire corridor.

No, and I fully understand that, but we've seen a lot, and we're an older city, and we see a lot of it just going down Ironwood Avenue. You'll see three, four lanes and all of a sudden drops to two. That's because we didn't think ahead. If it requires two lanes, three lanes, then we need to build it that way. That way eventually when everything else is built out, we don't have these in and out and diving back and forth. So that's what I'm concerned with. I want to make sure that with the evaluation that you guys are going to do, is what is proposed now with what you've done going to work in 10 years when this is done? Or when they continue the rest of the street, is it going to be wide enough? Because unfortunately, this city's kind of a hodgepodge when it comes to roads. There's in and outs, curbs sticking out into the drive lanes, things of that nature. We need to make this more universal or more And if we have to make that property in front of them be the starting point to widening this road, then that's what we need to do. It's just like when we put signals in on a one lane road and then two years later we pay for all new signals because now we bump it out to three lanes. I think we need to have a little more foresight in this.

Let me ask you a question here. In previous settings, when I worked with cities, do you do any streets at large? I mean, you go in and do an improvement and it's charged at large to all the taxpayers. That ever happen? No, it doesn't. It doesn't happen here.

No. And we also can't require this developer to go and improve the entire.

No, I understand that. But I mean. And I don't know how we're gonna straighten this out because I don't think Roy Blackard's ready to put some money up and maybe the county is I don't know It's gonna take an assessment on those properties along. There's no other way to get around it Either that or we do it at large with the city. I mean I've done that before too. I

I'm just saying, do they want to kick the city? Do they have any money for this? I mean, they got some money. I mean, let's put it to where it needs to be put.

So for my understanding, are you saying that it's the south side that you believe will correct the issue?

Yeah, well, so it would be uniform and flow the same way.

Yeah, and even if we were to improve the south end, the corridor is still one lane with a bike lane currently.

Can you remove the bike lane?

That's why I say that would be a decision that would go throughout the entire corridor because this is actually going to connect the remaining gap in the bike lanes. So if we choose to remove the bike lane, you have to remove the bike lane throughout the corridor. You can't just remove it in that center segment. Does that make sense?

Well, the thing is is I think the cars are the ones that are going to be driving through there more than a bike lane, really. So I mean, that's just my take on it for this street. I know other streets maybe not, but I believe I'm not sure, but I think I've seen some streets that don't have bike lanes.

Yes. And I agree with you. It would be a more comprehensive look at the area, not necessarily this development.

I don't want to deny it. I don't. I don't. I think we just need to table it and maybe look at it a little further.

Well, it kind of sounds like Marina Valley is not going to go back and reconstruct Cottonwood. And it kind of sounds like unless Cottonwood is completely revamped, nothing can probably go in that vacant spot. Matter of fact, I'd like to caution commissioners that we're not discussing revamping Cottonwood. We're discussing this project. And it kind of sounds like to me that the church already has a lot of traffic It already is there. I understand that. And maybe the widening in front of this will help to ease some of that traffic because they're going to be able to get in and out of their project because they're going to make street improvements. And the church issue is still going to be there.

Well, it's not just the church.

Well, the church, the sheriff's department, whoever's there. It's still going to be there, but the developer is saying, I'm going to improve.

But you've got emergency vehicles 24-7.

That already exists. That's not going to change.

They only have this right now.

Right, but in order to make this happen, he's going to improve the street in front of the property, so that way you can alleviate the traffic going in and out of that property. Wow.

The thing I'm hearing is they're willing to at least take a look at it. So I don't think it's no harm, no foul if we kind of continue it.

Let's talk about this project.

And one thing to think of. All right.

Do we have any other commissioner questions of staff? All right, if there's no more public testimony, then we'll close the public testimony at 9.37 p.m. and go into deliberations.

Go ahead. The project itself, it fits what our 2040 has put in, whether we agree with it or not. And I do understand where Chairman says by making it wider, it'll make it go in and out. People will be able to come in and out of their project better. And I know he's not responsible for fixing the whole road. I just want to make sure that this isn't going to be a hodgepodge later, and that was my concern. I mean, if he's building it out as far as the... width as the, what is it, a Winchell's on the corner there? If it's gonna be the same width as that, it doesn't do any good to make his even wider, because all that's gonna do is bottleneck. And I understand where Commissioner Steffen is coming up, that we need to have some kind of flow in traffic. My concern also is parking in the neighborhoods, is how can that be deterred, that way it doesn't disturb the neighbors that are there already, if there's something they could come up with that. As chairman says that EVs, they're not individual, you have assigned spots, but you don't have EVs for these people. So anybody that happens to have an EV has to hunt a parking spot to be able to charge his car at his own home. And that just seems very strange, not strange, but very inconvenient. If there was maybe possibly some way That they could have a few of the assigned parking spots have EV chargers That they could pay maybe a little extra to get that good spot because not everybody's gonna have an EV, but I think it would be Beneficial to and maybe even a selling point or a renting point to you that hey we have so many assigned EV spots. So if you have one, it's this much more a month, and you guys go ahead and do that. I would hope that would be something that they could do. I think promotional-wise, that might help you a little bit. Can he speak? I don't want to step out of bounds.

Okay.

But that's just my thought. I mean the project is what is the city says goes in there We can't do anything about that so that it goes in there And I understand the concerns with was missed with the other commissioners about the traffic and everything but we can't make the road any wider than what is Down the street and that's going to be the maximum that it's going to be and I fully understand that So at this point I don't think a traffic study is gonna help us any. I don't think we need to go that route. I do believe, and this is just my personal thing, in future maybe we can have a little more current things for us. That's very disconcerting when it's two, three years old because our city's changing every day. So, thank you.

I understand that we have a need for street improvements. 50 some odd years I've been here and our old streets are Alessandro, Cottonwood, Sunnymead, Ironwood, Frederick, Ecock, Paris. Merino Beach is fairly new, and Redlands has been out there forever. And as we're growing, these streets are really starting to catch impact. However, and I'll just reiterate that we cannot require the applicant to approve Cottonwood. But that's not what we're discussing tonight. We could absolutely ask the city to do that, but that's not on the table today. um that's another time that's another place that's another venue that's another whole deal we're trying to see if this applicant right here has dotted his eyes crossed his t's and do we have any findings to deny and i i can't find anything i think i think it's a good project i think it'll work my thought is this as he improves that area or the street in front in the frontage that that is probably going to allow Egress and entry into the project which probably won't add too much additional to what's going on there if it's if it's a so minimum that a peak traffic study was not required by the city, then I just don't, I don't see it. The church already has its problems, you know, and you know, that we can't require this applicant to fix the church's traffic problems. It's gonna be there, even if we put a neighborhood there, that church is still gonna have problems getting in and out. not going to change now again if we do see as a city that there are some issues that are coming along then yes we do need to to take a look at and and start addressing how are we going to improve our old streets um we gotta we gotta start looking at that because we're putting up big projects we're putting up lots of houses and we're still having

are still all little bitty streets we used to have.

But I don't see any issues with the project. Again, I would like to see some things. I lived in an apartment for a little while. I was fortunate enough to have a garage where I could charge my Tesla at the time. But I would hate to have to pull in there and people have guests and they take up the charging and me living there, I wouldn't be able to charge. I'd be like, wait a second. So what the garage is, they charge you a little extra and say, this one is yours. That works. I don't know how you would control that, but I can't imagine somebody coming home after working, they got to charge their car and they can't because they're all taken up.

Yeah.

that would be an issue. Now I can't get up and go to work the next day or I gotta get up the next day and go find a charger somewhere and then go. I have two EV cars and it's great to be able to charge at home. And this is gonna be people's home. So it might be some type of consideration that there's a few that are assigned parking. But I'm for the project, it looks great.

Okay, ready for motion?

Let's do it.

Okay, you don't want me to make a motion yet? Okay, go for it. Okay, we're going to adopt resolution 2026-15, adopting the initial study and mitigated negative declaration on plot plan PEN240075, and then also adopting the mitigation monitoring and reporting program prepared for the proposed project. To sequel and sequel guidelines also adopt resolution 20 20 26 16 approving plot plan PEN 24 0 0 7 5 subject to the attached conditions of approval included in exhibit a and also resolution number 20 26 16 is shown on the approved plan.

I second We have a vote

Commissioner Zaitz? Yes. Commissioner Taylor? Yes. Commissioner Steffen? Yes. Vice Chair Baker?

Yes.

Chairperson DeGeneres? Yes.

Motion carries. Real quickly, I just want to make certain that the motion would have... Captured the four conditions that were either removed or modified So just let the record show that as amended per the staff report where we discuss the amended conditions of approval Okay So staff wrap up. So please let the record show that the motion passes by a vote of five to O. Actions taken are final unless an appeal is received by the community development director during the 10 day appeal period as outlined in section 9.02.240 of the municipal code.

All right, the next item on the agenda is other commission or business, which we have none. The next item on the agenda is staff comments. Do we have any staff comments?

I'd just like to take this opportunity to thank all the city departments and divisions that helped us get here today to this venue. It was a lot of coordination. I'd really like to thank Stacy and Brandy from our division who helped make this possible today. We're here temporarily while the council chambers are being renovated. It was no easy task. There was a lot of people involved to get us here today to this meeting. So thank you everyone who helped us have this temporary venue.

Thank you. Mr. Kerr? Yes. I also have an announcement. I sent out an email earlier to the Planning Commission regarding the study session the council has scheduled for September 8 regarding data centers. September 8. That's for the data centers.

All right, the next item on the agenda is Planning Commissioner Comments. Under the preview of Planning Commission, do we have any comments?

I do. I wanted to announce that I'm gonna be a candidate for District Two, City Council. I have been on the Planning Commission for more than eight years and while I've enjoyed every minute, whether you guys have or not in the well, there will be a vacancy in my district and I believe it is my time to move up and serve in another capacity if I'm fortunate enough to make it with the city that I love. So maybe you guys won't have to put up with me so much. Thank you.

Any other planning commission or comments?

I'll just do another quick thank you. You guys did a fantastic job allowing people to come in and express their views and comments and helping us with this ordinance is wonderful. I'll keep it short because I see the glazing going on there. You guys have a long day. I'm sure you guys have been here since. um what 8 7 30 this morning something like that but i'd like to start with where i was born all right the planning commission is adjourned at 9 49 p.m to our next regular meeting at july 9th at 6 p.m thank you