Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

I think that's it.

Here we go.

Good evening. Welcome to the City of Paris Planning Commission meeting. November 19th, 2025, approximately 6.02 p.m. 6.03 p.m. And with that, we will have a roll call by our secretary.

Commissioner Jimenez?

Here.

Commissioner Jimenez? Yes.

Here.

Commissioner Lopez?

Here.

Vice Chair Shively?

Here.

Chair Hammond?

Here.

Thank you.

Thank you. At this time, we have a Pledge of Allegiance by Commissioner Jimenez.

Please stand.

Thank you very much. Item four, there are no presentations. So we move to consent calendar, approval of planning commission minutes for October 1st, 2025. Were there any corrections, deletions, additions? Seeing none, we open up for public comment on the consent calendar item. Any public comment on the consent calendar portion? Seeing none, we close the public comment portion and move to a motion. Moved by Commissioner Lopez and seconded by Commissioner Jimenez.

Yes. Commissioner Jimenez? Yes. Commissioner Lopez?

Yes.

Vice Chair Shively?

Yes.

Chair Hammond?

Yes.

With a vote of five to zero, this motion is approved.

Thank you very much. We move on to Item 6A. Specific Plan Amendment 25-00006 and Zoning Code Text Amendment 25-00007. A proposal to amend the Parrish Valley Commerce Center Specific Plan and the Parrish Municipal Code requiring a Conditional Use Permit and City Council approval Consideration for warehouse and distribution centers larger than 50,000 square feet in the light industrial and general industrial zones. The applicant is the City of Paris. We have received a memorandum directed to Chair and members of the Planning Commission from Mr. Garcia. Item 6A, and I won't read all that, but comment, letter, and opposition. So we do have received here at the desk, we're going to put it on record, that we have received that memorandum or letter. And with that,

We have a presentation by Mr. Garcia. Good evening, honor members of the Planning Commission. It's good to be here before you once again. The item before you tonight, as you indicated, is an amendment. Just to provide a little bit of background, on September 30th, 2025, Councilmember Corona directed staff to initiate a zoning code text amendment requiring a conditional use permit as well as city council approval for warehouses and distribution centers, larger than 50 000 square feet within the light industrial as well as the general industrial zones as you all know these types of requests typically require a development plan review and that development plan review is reviewed and approved by the by the planning commission in this case the city council is requesting that that be modified to a CUP and that those requests be reviewed by the Planning Commission, but ultimately be approved by the City Council. The purpose of this is to provide a higher standard of review and discretion for larger industrial projects in order to ensure that we will not have a negative impact to any surrounding portion of the community. Now this amendment would amend land use table in section 1944-020, and it would amend it as follows. So again, the warehouses would still be prohibited in the BP zone. They would be allowed within the light industrial and the general industrial, and that the use is outright permitted. However, they would still continue to require a development plan review for any warehouse less than 50,000 square feet. Any warehouse that's larger than 50,000 square feet would require a conditional use permit and that permit would ultimately be approved by the city council. The approval authority table as part of section 1954-30 would also be amended. Currently the Planning Commission is the review authority, so that would be amended to require the City Council to approve those requests. The Paris Valley Commerce Center specific plan is also proposed to be amended. The purpose of this is to be consistent with the zoning code amendment that I just described. Warehouses and distribution centers in the light industrial, as well as the general industrial zones, would require approval of a conditional use permit by the City Council. the use would no longer be permitted by right through a development plan review. Now with this in mind, the zoning code text amendment has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to section 15162 and 15061B3, in that there is no possibility that the proposed amendment may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, it is not subject to CEQA. Now staff is recommending THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DETERMINE THAT THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE SEQUEL GUIDELINES PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 15162 AND 15061B3 AND APPROVE THE ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 25-00004 AS WELL AS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 25-00006 TO AMEND CHAPTERS 1944 AND 1954 THE ZONING CODE AS WELL AS CHAPTERS 2.0 AND 13.0 OF THE PARIS VALLEY COMMERCE CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN REQUIRING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR INDUSTRIAL USES AND DISTRIBUTION USES OR DISTRIBUTION CENTERS WITHIN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AS WELL AS THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL ZONES AND REQUIRING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL BASED ON THE FINDINGS CONTAINED AS PART OF THE RESOLUTION THAT CONCLUDES THE PRESENTATION STAFF IS ABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE members of the community may have pertaining to this item, as well as the Planning Commission. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Thank you for that report. Are there any questions for staff at this time? Commissioner Lopez.

Thank you, Rafa, for the presentation. I have one question. So if we move forward with a specific plan amendment, will that be effective immediately? So even projects that have already submitted will require a CUP or just for projects that haven't been submitted yet?

This specific item would be for any new application specifically.

So the ones that are already submitted don't move forward with prior?

Correct. So any existing application, they are already vested.

Okay.

So what would happen, however, is if there's an existing application which has been approved, which expires, since those entitlements typically do expire after a certain amount of time, then this process would kick in and they would require a conditional use permit at that point in time. But any already approved projects would not.

Understood. Thank you so much.

One other comment before I forget. There was, as you indicated, a memo that was distributed and that we did get a comment letter from a member of the public. So that's been provided to the city council for your reference and we'll be happy to answer any questions.

Just for clarification, this proposed amendment would apply to all applications that haven't been entitled yet or approved.

Does the city currently know the amount of effective areas or affected land currently versus what would be affected in the future? What percentage of the light industrial zone would be affected?

That's specific information we don't have. We can look into it and get back to you.

So I know the City Council is the final, if this were to go through, the City Council would be the final word. But would the CUP application still go through the Planning Commission for recommendation of approval or denial, or would it bypass that entirely?

That is correct. So the way this has been written is that the Planning Commission would still provide a recommendation through resolution, formal recommendation to the City Council. Keep in mind that the City Council may reserve the right to modify that. once it goes before them, but that's the way that the language has been written. That's before you tonight.

Okay. I have another question. Do we have language that specifies what exactly constitutes a warehouse or a distribution center, or whether in the PVCCSP or anywhere that kind of defines what that is?

It's defined, I believe it's defined in the zoning code. We can look that up and get back to you in a few minutes. Okay, thank you. That's all from me for now.

Thank you for the presentation. So I see here that there were a few items added for the conditional use permits for warehouse and distribution centers larger than 50,000 square feet. It used to just be like the planning commission, but now I see that there was like staff and responsible agencies added in one column and then city council for the final. I'm looking at... The Review Authority and Processing Procedures, A1, there's a graph. And within that graph, the red is what's being added. So I see that staff and responsible agencies were added. Would you let me know what that means? Would you explain what that means?

Yes. So prior to an item coming before Planning Commission, obviously it would require that staff review it. As part of that, we also typically review to agencies depending on the level and the scope of the project. So if the project involves, let's say, something that would impact maybe a thoroughfare or that would require maybe review from an outside agency, then at that point we would route it to that agency. Typically we make that determination when the project comes in, and we make a determination on whether and who it should go to.

Okay, because all the other ones have that already. So was it just something we...

Yes, I think it was just something that was added, and it was just for clarification purposes.

Okay, just for clarification that that process hasn't changed. We're just adding that other section of this go-through where it would require the city council.

Correct, yeah. The main change is really the city council. Okay. So the request would go before the city council, and it would require... now a CUP instead of a development plan review so the entitlement is being changed and so obviously that's something that the city council wants to see if it's if it's over 50,000 for any requests less than 50,000 which we process it would still be the same process so it would be permit the use would be permitted by right and the development plan review would still come before the planning commission and those requests would not go before the city council unless they were combined with some other requests, like a general plan or amendment or a zoning code amendment, in that those requests require city council review and approval.

Okay, thank you. Commissioner Jimenez, if I can just add to that. The reason why it's all red, it's because it's a new row that was added to the table to specifically designate that warehouse and distribution centers larger than 50,000 square feet would require all those requirements that you see on the table, on the screen. This row did not exist before, so we're adding this row to the table now.

Okay, I was confused because it's right on the screen, but it's not right on the table inside our documents.

Yes, yeah.

It's in black.

Planning Commission is in black, so I was... Yeah, we'll make that correction before we go to City Council. Thank you.

I also...

Yes. We also have the definition for warehouse and distribution centers, and it reads that it's a building or... Can you make it bigger? It says warehousing and distribution means a building or premises in which goods, merchandise, or equipment are stored for eventual distribution.

Okay, thank you.

Welcome. Oh, okay. Warehouse distribution. Is that the code? Is it the code or?

Yeah, that's the general definition in the zoning code. So that's section 19.08. I know what you're talking about, yeah. Yeah, the general definition is section 19.08.010. So we didn't change that in the zone text amendment.

Okay.

Hopefully we'll get you that thing I made up that has the definitions one of these days. Okay. Okay, I think it gets the gist. In essence, this might be a Michael Brown question, so I'm going to wake him up. If you go through the EIR and you go through that whole process where you determine, and you go through our codes about distancing, one of the things we pass has to be so many feet from it, if it's 100,000, if it's such and such. Is that still relevant, or is this an additional thing that they want to add after the fact? So if you've gone through that whole process, environmental checks and mitigated negative decoration, all that, then we come back and say, well, now, after it's proposed, after it's done, you have conditions of approval and all that. This is an additional step we're talking about, and there's going to be some regulatory agency that's going to oversee this. How does that work? Maybe you could explain that.

So this is not an additional step. This is just a different step. Before, you used to have to do a development plan review. There was a code amendment that came before you a few months back. That has not been adopted by the city council yet. It will be going before the city council next month. But what happened is if once a project comes in, we would make a determination on how to classify it. So is it less than 50,000? That's the only level of review here that we're really doing. Is it less than 50 or more than 50? If it's less than 50, it's a development plan review, and the planning commission would be the review authority. If it's more than 50,000, it would be a conditional use permit, and the approval authority would change to city council.

Right.

So that's a real change. All of the other standards are basically kind of separate. Even though it's a code amendment, it's related to this. Technically, that's a different code amendment.

Okay. So what we looked at, I'm just getting an understanding. I think I do, and I'm just doing it for the sake of the public. If you had what we talked about, if the council would have approved it as we submitted, would this be added to that, or is this something that's addition to it? Not even the moratorium, just the idea of the $50,000. But standard, because we had a lot of standards.

So would this be, you guys go back and amend all the other? Yeah, so the standards that you look are development standards. This is not really necessarily a development standard. This is just kind of a classification system. So what it would do is one would require a development plan review if it's less, but if it's more, it would require a conditional use permit. However, assuming that the city council approves those amendments, all of these projects would be required to comply with those requirements. So they would all be subject to those standards.

Okay. So if they did approve it, this particular thing we're talking about would be added. In other words, $50,000.

It wouldn't be. I think adding it, what this does is it just makes a small incremental change. in that the city council wants to, I guess, be the approval authority for the larger warehouses. That would be it.

So it has nothing to do with what we talked about, the good neighbor and all that. I'm just trying to get the distinction between the two. This is not adding on to that, but this would be, if you have 50,000, we have a warehouse of 500,000 square feet, then the rules that we came up with, if that's passed...

All of the projects would be required to comply potentially with those development standards. This is just a separate, kind of a separate, yes, almost separate. It's related because it involves industrial warehouses, but they would all technically be required to comply with the same zoning code as long as they meet those parameters.

And the thing is, it's not retroactive. It goes back to everything whenever it gets approved. So if it was January 1st, it would be January 1st on. The ones that are entitled already, we would not be in consideration. But anyone coming before, in that time period in between, is that we were saying that if you put an application in next month, and you still hadn't gone to city council, but you put the application in, you still would be there. But if it was already entitled, you know, back into...

If it's already entitled, it's sort of, to be honest, it's water under the bridge. Yeah. What this does is that once it goes before city council, there's two steps, first and second reading. Once a second reading is done... 30 days after, it's codified. So that's when it would kick in. So any new applications that are submitted thereafter would be subject to this requirement.

Or any pending applications that haven't been entitled yet.

Right.

So this is an application type, an entitlement application. The other portion of the amendment that you saw before, those are development standards, the rules that they have to follow. So they're two separate things, and they're not going to be mixed in together because they're two separate things.

That's the key distinction.

This is a proposed change to the city's land use regulations, changing warehousing and distribution uses from a permitted use in the light industrial and general industrial zones to a conditionally permitted use. That other item that you considered was development standards, which has to do with when you build, can you build to the property line? What are the setbacks? What's the height requirement? What's the landscaping? It's so more about how you build, what limitations apply to what you can build. This is what type of use you can have on the property. It's saying instead of the use of warehousing and distribution center, instead of that being an automatically permitted use, now it's a conditionally permitted use, requires a conditional use permit.

Okay. One last question. I ask this question for a reason. No offense. Whether I know the answer or not, it's like a lawyer. I'm just going to ask you anyway. If the council modified, if we recommended something and they decided to modify some changes, it would not come back to us, so that would be the final approving authority according to this.

The council would be the final approval authority for the conditional use permit as proposed right now in the zone tax amendment.

Whatever changes they made or whatever additions or deletions.

Think of it like a specific plan amendment. The planning commission would make a recommendation to the city council as to whether to approve or deny the conditional use permit. And then the final say would be with the council.

Yeah, but I mean, if they made modifications, it would not come back to us.

Send it back to the commission, but normally it wouldn't be required to go back. They could make changes without sending it back, but presumably they could send it back to the commission for re-review if they weren't comfortable acting on it, if they wanted more due diligence done, something like that.

Okay. So does everybody understand that with this one, that if they did modify it, they're subject to modify it, that's their power, that's their authority, but they would have that discretion, right? whether to send it back to the Planning Commission. I mean, with CUP, generally, we're the last save. It's 7-11 or something like that. But this is unusual. So I'm just saying, if they have the final authority, whoever they want to do it, if they decide they want to send it back to us and resubmit it or review it, then we can send it back to them. They have the discretionary.

They can choose to send it back if they, for some reason, they wanted the Planning Commission sort of a second bite at the apple. That's something that they could do. But they have the authority to make a change. So if you were to move the project forward, they have the option to make changes and then never send it back to the Planning Commission. Okay.

If they sent it back, it would probably be for more due diligence, more setting, and then another recommendation back to the council. It wouldn't be sending it back to the commission for a final decision. It would be for a further recommendation, presumably based on changes that are made or further due diligence that they would want. They would have that discretion.

Okay. Everybody's clear with that?

Let me just clarify. So this is just for the process, right? Like if it's over $50,000, this would be the process. If it's under, this would be the process. But everything else that we had talked about with like setbacks and landscaping and everything still applies because this is just kind of changing the process but not really changing the expectations or regulations or anything like that.

Yeah, two separate concepts. This is the land use regulations, what uses are permitted and under what, with what permits versus that is the development standards. So what, how you can build kind of, you know, what limitations are on your actual development and how the, how the like floor air ratio, height, like those are all like

So applicable to everything? This just kind of changes which way they go depending on the size.

This is just talking about the land use itself and whether this type of land use is permitted or condition, automatically permitted or conditionally permitted. Once the use is permitted and they want to build their development, they would still be subject to those development standards. Once they get that conditional use permit. whether whether they're required to get a conditional use permit or not they would have to comply with those development standards but those haven't been passed by the council yet but yeah if they were if they were whatever is in place is what they're two separate i guess concepts and of regulations they exist independently of each other you have to get your use approved it's either automatically approved or you have to get it approved through a conditional use permit But then no matter what, whether it's conditionally permitted or automatically permitted, you have to follow those development standards when you build.

Okay, I like flowcharts.

And that's what development plan review is for. It's making sure that you're complying with the development standards.

Okay, so I guess when I think about a flowchart, this is you apply, this is the size, under, over, these are the steps, but at the end, they all have to merge back together and comply with whatever planning requirements there are. Okay, all the development requirements. Okay, makes sense. So the only thing that changes is like the way it happens, but the rules and applicable expectations and all remain the same. This is just...

They have to comply with both the city's land use regulations, which is what we're talking about here, and they also have to comply with the city's development standards, which is what we were talking about previously.

I think we're saying the same thing. I just am thinking it visually.

The proposed changes previously were to the development standards. This is proposed changes to the land use regulations. The only thing that creates confusion is that they're putting a distinction in the land use regulations. That's the 50,000 square foot line. So that's what seems like a development standard, but it's not. It's just a way of determining, drawing the line between what's an automatically permitted use versus a conditionally permitted use.

Okay, perfect. Thank you.

I have one final question. So we're going, this would make it from permitted to conditionally permitted. What are those conditions that need to be satisfied? Or like generally, I know like there's a laundry list, but generally what are the conditions that would be required?

Generally conditions that are designed to protect public health, safety and welfare and avoid the project use having any detrimental impacts to public health, safety and welfare.

Typically the conditions of approval would vary from project to project. So depending on the type of project, but basically what we do is we condition the project based on the parameters of the project. So the size of it, whether they have driveways, where they're located, hours of operation, just a wide variety of things that we do. But they vary from project to project in that these projects, they tend to be pretty unique in nature.

Okay. Okay, thank you. That answers my question.

And, Commissioner, there are findings that need to be made with a conditional use permit, which is, I think, is where you were heading to. Okay. There is more.

Yes.

So it's exactly what Ben indicated, is that, you know, it's to protect the public health and safety and to ensure land use compatibility as well.

And that's a more general list of conditions rather than something that's specifically attached to industrial or commercial or whatever, whenever a CUP is required.

It's a general... Yeah, we have to make specific findings for a conditional use permit that pertain to the project. So we have to come up with, we have to prepare findings as to whether or not the project complies with the six findings that are required in the zoning code. and they are contained in the resolution. Every time you consider a conditional use permit or that comes before you for consideration, there are findings included in the resolution. So, this will be no exception. This will also be required to include findings for you to consider and to determine whether or not they're appropriate. Female Speaker 1 Okay. Thank you so much.

Yeah, so I could further expand on that if you want. For example, one of the findings, one of the required findings for a conditional use permit is that the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. So if the council, since they're the final approval authority, determines that the project would have a detrimental impact to public health, safety, or welfare, they wouldn't be able to make that required finding, and so they could deny the conditional use permit. Alternatively, they could impose conditions of approval that would make the project not detrimental so that that finding can be made in the affirmative and they could approve the CUP with the conditions.

Got it. Thank you.

Okay. Okay. We're almost, we're getting there. Okay. At this time, if there's any public comment, we'll open up public comment for anyone in the audience that would like to come forward and in three minutes we'll allow them to come to the podium. But on this particular agenda item and on this agenda item only. So we open up for public comment for anyone wishing to comment on this agenda item, come forward now. I don't know if we had a list, okay.

We do have Jim Panting.

Good evening, Commission. I'm speaking in response to the proposed amendment to the building code, which would require a CUP for buildings in excess of 50,000 square feet, which may or may not be granted. And that's the operative word. If you look at what Mr. Garcia said, the difference is that the use would no longer be permitted by right. It would only be permitted by a conditional use permit, which may or may not be granted. So I would be spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to try to develop my property only to take it to the city council and have them potentially deny my CUP. Right now I have the right to build on property. My attorney has responded officially to this issue along with the proposed moratorium on industrial development, but I felt it was important enough to come speak to you directly. I've been working in the industrial marketplace in the Inland Empire for over 40 years, both on my own account and on behalf of users and developers and investors, and I feel like I'm uniquely qualified to provide insight on the topic. I'm invested in the community, owning 12 acres of industrial land, but this proposal impacts any owner of industrial property in excess of two and a half acres, because that's what you need to accommodate a 50,000 square foot building. I believe this proposal, if approved, would have devastating consequences to the city, its community, and property owners for the following reasons. The city would stand to lose millions of dollars in lost opportunity due to companies choosing to bring their business to alternative municipalities rather than spend the time, effort, and capital required to try to get a project approved with no certainty that it ultimately would be. As such, the city would lose countless jobs for its community members. Industrial land values would plummet due to the lack of clarity and the cost of entitling a project and or even knowing whether or not a project could be developed, leaving less revenue for infrastructure, schools, police, and fire protection. Three, expose the city to unnecessary legal expense to defend itself from lawsuits filed by rightfully damaged property owners who would consider this an unlawful taking of property. It would also unnecessarily overburden an already taxed staff by adding yet another procedural layer to any project greater than 50,000 square feet. As Mr. Garcia pointed out, there are already codes and requirements in place to allow for orderly development. Industrial development has created jobs, provided much needed infrastructure and billions in taxable revenue for the city of Paris. Some of the city's largest employers are industrial users, such as Ross Stores, Home Depot, and Walmart. I've heard the argument that, well, they don't provide high-paying jobs. This is disputable given the many managerial and skilled positions available to qualified workers. Plus, the city of Paris has an unemployment rate that is 50% higher than the national average. Isn't a job better than no job? Also, markets evolve. On the west end of the Inland Empire, there are many examples of buildings initially developed as speculative warehouses that are now occupied by major manufacturing companies requiring highly skilled labor and paying commensurate wages.

Thank you very much. I think the speaker time is over. Thank you very much. Take care. Anyone else? You don't have to have the blue sheet, but if anyone else would like to speak on this matter, just state your full name and spell your last name for us, and that's it.

Hello, Commission. My name is Franco Pacheco, and I'm with Inland Valley Alliance for Environmental Justice alongside with Paris Neighbors in Action. And A lot of the things the previous speaker said is kind of misleading and false. We're losing a lot of jobs to automation. And this code specifically targets warehouse and distribution centers. As I'm reading it and reviewing this, it doesn't say anything about any other type of industrial. So that's a question that I would like the staff to clarify. If the only thing that's being affected by this is our large warehouse and distribution centers, which As everybody here knows, we have an excess amount of. We have some that are empty. We have a lot that are being lost to automation. So I think this could be a good idea because it puts in another checks and balance for oversaturating the area with more warehousing, right? We need to start encouraging developers to bring other things to this area instead of just warehousing. I DO HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE FINAL APPROVAL AUTHORITY. I THINK HAMMOND KIND OF SPOKE ON IT WHERE IT DOESN'T HAVE TO GO BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION. PERSONALLY, I THINK IT SHOULD GO BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION AND THEN AGAIN BACK TO CITY COUNCIL BECAUSE IT KIND OF SOUNDS LIKE CITY COUNCIL CAN CHANGE SOME SORT OF RULE ONCE IT'S AT THEIR DESK. SO I WOULD JUST LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT TO SEE IF WE CAN GET CLARIFICATION ON THAT. And also, yeah, thank you.

Thank you very much, sir. Is there anyone else? We can close the public comment portion and move it to the Planning Commission for discussion, analysis, criticism.

This amendment is pretty clear to me. I honestly support it because it's not prohibiting the use of industrial warehouses in that permitted zone. um it's just adding that one step of uh authority so so that we could get that um just making sure that we do truly get the best projects in our city so we're not completely getting rid of the right to build warehouses but just making sure that we get the best project so i have no issues with this amendment i have to agree i

I do believe that this amendment will help to bring greater judgment to some of the projects that we've historically seen as more contentious to our community. And I hope we can view it a different way as kind of a happy medium to bridge that gap between the development community and the Paris community, who doesn't always seem to feel represented when it comes to these decisions. So I'm hopeful that this can add another level of representation for our residents and another opportunity to ensure definitively that incoming projects that are grander in scale are beneficial, more beneficial to the community because we deserve it. So thank you.

I agree with my fellow commissioners. I really like that it doesn't apply to manufacturing organizations that want to come in and build. It is just strictly distribution and just warehouses. I also just see it as another layer of checks and balances and just making sure that everything is in order you know just like we know laws and there are things that you can build in certain zoning the city council has the same regulations so I don't foresee an issue with things not getting approved that are condition to be approved in a certain section or approved uses of an area. I think it would just add a layer of protection for our community, for everybody that lives in the city. And more than anything, I think, manufacturing, because there is automation in industrial. Most of it is you just put on railings. They're cutting back on scanning. We've been, my husband's a big rig driver, where you go up to the gate and there's no longer a guard. You're connected to somebody in a different country, and it's... So their jobs are getting automated. So if it's just industrial and warehouses and distribution, it's different than having manufacturing that potentially will require people that are skilled workers that need to be in charge of machines. There's different levels of employment opportunities and different types of salary opportunities instead of just mostly entry level, which is needed, but manufacturing would also have that on top of other layers. I think it's great. It's not restricting. It's not to do away with. It's just to make sure that what is being built in our city is the best use for our community.

So I'm surprised that I didn't see very many or none at all of union members here to voice their opinions on this. They may be tired from last night. But this doesn't prohibit the construction of. It just puts a new layer of. visibility and oversight for us. Again, we want what's best for the city of Paris in design and buildings, and this particular one apparently is for more to benefit for us for health, safety, and welfare for us. And it's not prohibiting us from building warehouses. It's just another layer of oversight for us.

Thank you, and I agree. Again, I had questions because I wasn't sure and needed some explanations of things, which is good because you don't want to just blindly say things. Let me give you a reality of why I don't have a problem with this because this was initiated by the city council. So I put a period next to that. And I worked for city government 37 years. I know how it works. So when they initiate something, there's a reason why they initiate it. They have constituents, we don't. We can sit here and you say yes or no, but they do have constituents they have to answer to. So it's a little bit different when you have a planning commission. Sometimes you're quasi-judicial, sometimes you're legislative, but we still make recommendations to them. So if they may have it in mind that because their constituents are really concerned, they have to answer to their constituency. And that's perfectly well. I'm not running for office, okay? But I mean, the idea is that they have people that they have to answer to. So if the public safety and welfare is concerned, because that is one of our concerns, that is their concern, then I don't have a problem because they may have consistently selling them things they're not going to be saying to us. But again, the whole idea is we have a lot of warehouses in this city. It's not like we said no. Many times people argue because we've said no when we probably should have said yes, but we've been pretty much fair as we could be. But this is a matter of them saying that a conditional use permit is as opposed to just permitted use, automatic. This is something that they want and they specify and, again, they have people to answer to. I don't have a problem with that. We're not zoning out warehouses. This is 50,000 square feet. You're not going to have too many warehouses 50,000 square feet. I haven't seen any come before us. But nevertheless, it doesn't say. It is conditional. You usually have it with 7-Elevens, you usually have it with liquor stores and those kind of things where you have safety, security, but again, safety is a concern, security is a concern. It just doesn't stop with us, it stops at the next level. I think that's really the main difference. We're going from us being the last say to the ones who get elected and have constituents to have the last say. It's kind of hard to argue against that one. So I don't have a problem with it for that reason. And it was initiated by a council person. They have to listen to people. We listen to them, but we don't have to answer to them. They do. So we hear a lot more stuff than you guys will ever hear. Trust me. Some of this stuff comes our way. You will not believe. I can't even say it from the language, too. But it's the idea that we are here to serve the public, but we also make recommendations to the body that picks us. So I don't really have a problem with this issue. I know that you can always bring it up to the next level. That's fine. But for us, we've been asked to, you know, this is something that was initiated by another body, overseeing body that's over us. So it's not just for that reason. I can understand because we don't have a constituency following us. So with that, I don't have anything more to add unless you guys do. Okay. Mm-hmm.

You brought up a good point about it being potentially sent back to us from city council. I think that would be nice but I think our city council has done an amazing job of sending things back to us when it needs to so I don't necessarily think it needs to be added in there. Mostly because they have sent several things back and going back to ad hoc and starting fresh so I feel like It doesn't have to be super included in this.

Yes, and I agree. And it's the understanding they have the discretionary power to do whatever they like on any issue. They can send it back. Review it, go back and think about it. We might have missed things. We're human beings. We might miss things. We do. So they might see things that we miss, and then their constituents have things that we miss. It's not really an issue for me. So anything else?

Okay. Okay.

And at this point, I'm not going to read the whole thing. But I'm just going to read a line from each one to get it on the record. The recommendation for approval is to adopt Resolution 25-28, recommending that the City Council determine the project is exempt from California equality guidelines pursuant to Section 15061. As it can be seen with certainty, the proposed amendment will not have a significant effect on the environment and approve zoning code 250007 to amend the Paris Municipal Code. And I won't read the whole thing because it's a lot. Also, adopt resolution 25-29, recommend the City Council determine the project is adequately covered by the PVCCSP EIR and no further environmental review is required. The amendment also qualifies to be exempt from the California Inquality Act. Pursuant to Section 15601, this can be seen with certainty that the proposed amendment will not have a significant effect on the environment and approves Pacific Plan Amendment 25006, requiring a conditional use permit for warehouses and distribution centers larger than 50,000 square feet in the light industrial and general industrial zones. I tried to shorten it. And with that, unless we had any amendments or any changes, we'd like to entertain a motion for approval. We have Commissioner Lopez moving and seconded by Vice Chairman Shively.

Commissioner Jimenez? Yes. Commissioner Menez? Yes. Commissioner Lopez? Yes. Vice Chair Shively?

Yes.

Chair Hammond?

Yes.

With a vote 5-0, this motion is approved.

Thank you very much, and thank you to staff. With that, we move on to item 6B, scoping meeting for the preparation of an environmental impact report associated with General Plan Amendment 25-00002 and Code Text Amendment 25-00006. A proposal to update the General Plan circulation element and Title X OF THE PARIS MUNICIPAL CODE TO UPDATE THE CITY'S TRUCK ROUTES FOR COMPLIANCE WITH ASSEMBLY BILL 98 AND GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65302. APPLICANT, CITY OF PARIS. WE DO HAVE A DOCUMENT, AGAIN, A MEMORANDUM LETTER FROM MR. GARCIA, A SCOPING MEETING FOR PREPARATION OF AN EI RELATED TO TRUCK ROUTES UPDATE COMMENT LETTER AND SOME ATTACHMENT FOR CONSIDERATION. by the Parish Property LLC. I believe that's the one that submitted it. And just want to go on record that we did receive it. We didn't have much time to record, but it is for the record that it is here and we can go through that if necessary, but we did receive it. November 19th, 2025. Good evening once again.

As you indicated, the item tonight is indeed for a scoping meeting only. So the general plan amendment and zoning code tax amendment is not before you tonight. Any changes to the truck route plan is not before you tonight. It's just simply scoping meeting associated with the forthcoming environmental review. So as part of this, on September 29, 2024, Governor Newsom assigned Assembly Bill 98 into law requiring cities located in a warehouse concentration region to update the circulation element to include a truck routes plan keep in mind that the city of Paris already has a plan and so in our case we would be adding or removing certain truck routes in order to try to avoid any impact to residential communities. Under AB 98, industrial warehouses must be located along roadways capable of handling heavy traffic, including arterials, collectors, major thoroughfares, and local roads serving commercial uses, where at least 50% of the properties fronting the road within 1,000 feet are zoned for commercial or industrial uses, meaning that the purpose of that is to avoid any impacts to residential communities. In order to comply with AB 98, the city is proposing an amendment to the circulation element, as well as a code amendment to Title 10 of the Paris Municipal Code to update the truck routes, which will, in our case, add one truck route and remove three existing truck routes from the current truck routes plan. So the city is adding one truck route, and that would be for the addition of Case Road from Bonney Road to Watson Road, as identified by the yellow demarcation on the diagram. The city is also proposing to remove three existing truck routes, and that's identified by the crosshatching that you see on the diagram. The first is the removal of Ellis Avenue from McPherson Road to Goetz Road. The second is for the removal of Ellis Avenue between the Ellis Realignment Overpass and Sherman Road. The final one is for the removal of San Jacinto Avenue between I-215 and Dunlap Drive. In order to move forward with this request, there will be two entitlements that will be required. One is a general plan amendment to amend the circulation element, and the other is a code text amendment to amend Title X with the updated language, including the updated routes that will be provided. Now, with that said, I will be turning this over to our environmental consultant, Michael Brown, with Cadence Environmental Consultants. He is the gentleman that will be doing the environmental review associated with this project. Thank you.

Good evening, Chair Hammond and members of the Planning Commission. I'm going to be preparing an EIR for you. When a project is presented and is subject to the Environmental Quality Act, the first step that occurs is the preparation of an initial study. And where you go through and evaluate potential impacts of the project for a whole list of potential environmental issues under the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA. If all of the impacts would be less than significant or no impact or less than significant with or without mitigation, you can prepare a negative declaration or a mitigated negative declaration. If the initial study determines that there could be one or more potentially significant impacts, you would then prepare an environmental impact report, and that EIR can address one or more environmental effects. So you could have what's called a focused EIR that just looks at a small number of issues. So for this specific project, what do we know? We know that there would be one truck route addition to the city's designated truck routes, and that's Case Road from Bonnie Road to Watson Road. The adjacent land uses to that truck route are the EMWD, Paris Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility, and I-215. And this truck route is being added to accommodate the CUP 05059 warehouse project that was approved earlier this year. And that's really the only project that can travel along that. But it makes it official that that project was conditioned for the trucks to go along that route. But now it's a designated, it would be an official designated truck route. We're also removing three existing truck routes. Ellis Avenue from McPherson to Goetz, between the Ellis Avenue realignment overpass to Sherman Road and San Jacinto Avenue between I-215 and Dunlop Avenue. So the other thing that we know about these is that all of the roadways are presently constructed and open to traffic. There would be no new roadways. No physical modifications to the existing roadways, no construction, and no changes to the land use designations along those routes. It's simply a redesignation of the roads themselves to accommodate or not accommodate trucks. So based on that information, the initial study has determined that the project would have no impact on the following environmental issues. And I don't necessarily want to read them all. You can see them all there. But it's the vast majority of potential environmental issues. And that's largely because there's no change to the physical environment associated with these issues with the proposed changes to the truck routes. Now, you may be asking why are transportation impacts less than significant for what is essentially a transportation project? And once again, that's because there are no new roadways, no physical changes to existing roadways, no construction, and as of 2019, congestion or level of service which you have known in the past as LOS, is no longer an environmental impact under CEQA. This has been replaced with Vehicle Miles Traveled, or VMT. And under CEQA, the VMT significance threshold of significance is applicable to automobiles. And automobiles refer to on-road passenger vehicles, specifically cars and light trucks. It does not apply to medium duty and heavy duty trucks. Automobile trips on the truck routes would be unaffected by the project. So what we do not know at the present time about the project, and that it would be the subject of analysis in the EIR, is that the removal of the three existing truck routes may increase the distance that some trucks need to travel to access the designated truck routes within Paris. And the removal of the three truck routes may increase the number of trucks on other designated truck routes within Paris. So the effect of that is that there are four environmental issue areas that we will be studying. Air quality, would the project be consistent with the air quality management plan? Also, would it result in a substantial increase in criteria air pollutants? Energy, would the project result in a potentially significant impact due to wasteful or inefficient use of energy, primarily diesel fuel? And would the project conflict with an applicable plan for energy efficiency? For greenhouse gas, same issue as air quality. Would it generate emissions by trucks having to drive farther? And would it conflict with an applicable plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions? And for noise, would the project result in the generation of a substantial permanent increase in noise levels or increase vibration or ground-borne noise levels? That's because there may be more trucks now on some of the other truck routes. So those are the issues that, as of now, are proposed to be evaluated in the EIR and those specific issues. So you've seen why we've determined that the majority would have no impact, but that further analysis in the EIR needs to be done. And then we will be taking yours and the public input for discussion. for, you know, issues that they and you are aware of as well. And now I'll turn it back over to Rafael.

So currently, the notice of preparation went out on November 7th, informing stakeholders that the item is available for review. The close of the comment period will be December 8th, 2025, and the draft ERI is expected to be ready by mid-December. Those are some of the upcoming dates that are pertinent to this. With any comments, if anyone wants to have any comments, they can forward them to myself. I'll be happy to take them in so that we can account them as part of this scoping session. As part of that, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission conduct a public scoping meeting to review this, discuss, and provide feedback on any issues that should be addressed as part of the EIR for the General Plan Amendment as well as the Code Text Amendment. That concludes the presentation. Staff is available to answer any questions that members of the community as well as the members of the Commission may have pertaining to this item. Thank you.

thank you very much sir this time we have any questions or discussion for the city so the questions that i do have is actually for the additional um to the addition of the truck route which is the bonnie to get uh case road Since that is not a current truck route, and I know we're not approving any routes now, my question is, does the EI need to cover the current road conditions of that truck route and study the environmental impacts of it to verify that it is ready for heavy trucks to be on it?

I think I missed one of the words. I know it's pertaining to item number one, which is the addition of case road from Bonnie down to Watson. And some of the rationale behind that was that there was a project that was recently approved, as Michael indicated, on the southeast corner of Watson and Case Road there. And so that's the reason that that's being included as part of this.

And a portion of Watson Road is not going to be included in that?

One more time.

A portion of the Watson Road that will be used for truck routes is not included in this scope?

No, no. This portion of Watson Road that will be utilized to access Case Road is not included because we would have to include every single road as part of track routes. It would be too much. So we just, with the truck route, we're trying to show the main arterials and local streets and collectors that would be designated as truck routes. Trucks are allowed to utilize segments of roadways that will take them to the main arterials that are designated as truck routes. I'm not sure if that answers your question. Because you're wondering why isn't the portion of Watson Road designated as a truck route when there's a warehouse already there? Is that the question? Or a warehouse was already approved at that location?

Yeah, it's been approved there, but it's not being designated as a portion of the road. Yeah, yeah.

To add to what Patricia was saying too, our current truck route for the city of Paris, it's primarily arterials and collectors Watson's considered a local road so typically it just Calls out the collectors arterials and then you find the closest path to there to get to the truck route So that's why it's not called out. Otherwise the truck route map would be tough to read from an exhibit standpoint Okay Oh

I know that one of the goals of AB 98 and I think like SB 415 are to remove truck routes that front like sensitive receptors and I know that that was kind of the goal of this redesignation here but I was curious did we also take into account parcels of land that are not yet developed but are zoned to be like residential or school or any other like various sensitive receptors or is it simply already built?

Yeah, I mean, the zoning was a predominantly characteristic that we used to kind of try to minimize the routes that were not adjacent to industrial. So if they were zoned residential, we thought that at that point that would be something that could be taken out in that it would be inconsistent with the goals and the intent of AB 98. This item also did go before city council earlier this year for their consideration and we provided some alternatives to them, and this was kind of the options that they felt comfortable with as well.

Okay. I guess a follow-up to that. If we were to have... other ideas for additions or deletions or whatever to these proposed truck routes, would this be the time to voice them or would I, is it kind of a sailed ship?

So the item before you tonight is for the scoping. It's for the scoping of the EIR specifically. So the truck routes that update that amendment to the general plan amendment, specifically the circulation element and the code amendment, is not the item that's before you tonight. It's only really being provided for reference. But if anybody has any comments pertaining to that, we can definitely take them in and take them into consideration.

Okay. Thank you. I think for me, I think land use might be something that we may want to consider. I think I knew where you were going. Morgan Street is considered a truck route, and it passes right in front of a high school. So land use designation, I think, in that case, because AB 98 deals with sensitive receptors. So I don't know that's something that we can recommend to be looked at within the EIR, the impact of the truck route on surrounding land use.

THE COMMISSIONER AND CHAIR HAMMOND, IF YOU LOOK AT THE TABLE IN THE STAFF REPORT ON THE SECOND PAGE, IT TALKS ABOUT THE PROPOSED TIMELINE FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT THAT WOULD ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE TRUCK ROUTES AND HOW THOSE SHOULD BE CHANGED. And that's coming in March, anticipated for March of 2026, about that time. So that's when the planning commission will have an opportunity to actually look at the proposed truck routes and say, we think we should recommend to the council that this be added or this be removed. Tonight is just to give direction to our environmental consultant on what should be analyzed in the environmental impact report in terms of what's currently proposed. So we're developing the EIR based on the current proposal that you see in front of you. And it wouldn't be until the general plan amendment actually comes before you that you would consider whether changes should be made to the proposed truck routes.

But it would be fair to ask to also look at land use. thinking ahead because I know AB19 is about land use and sensitive receptors. So would it be fair to ask for land use impacts or would it not?

We're looking at the environmental impacts of the proposed changes to the truck routes. So as Mr. Brown was saying, the the impacts of trucks not being able to travel on certain, those three streets that are proposed to be removed, and instead traveling on the other streets that are still available for truck routes. So the additional greenhouse gas, greenhouse gas emissions that could, impacts that could arise from that, air quality impacts, noise. So we're just looking at, we're not looking at from a land use perspective, because this is just more transportation as far as what roadways these large vehicles can travel on. And what are the environmental impacts of changing those roadways?

Also, the initial study does have an evaluation of land use impacts. It evaluates consistency of the project as proposed against applicable policies from the general plan that pertain to reducing impacts on the environment. With regards to your concern about the sensitivity of land uses along truck routes, once again, we're looking at the project as proposed. It has one new truck route that does not have any sensitive uses adjacent to it. It has the EMWD facility and I-215. The three existing routes that are proposed to be removed are proposed to be removed because there are existing sensitive receptors along there. More than 50% of the existing and planned uses along those segments would be sensitive. So that's why the city is removing them.

Okay, and I guess would it address the impact? Because one of the things that you mentioned were that there was going to be additional traffic on the remaining truck routes.

There may be, and that's what we're evaluating. So, for example, if the concern is Wilson Avenue and the school located along Wilson Avenue. On Morgan, yeah. Or Morgan Street, thank you. the traffic engineer is evaluating changes to all the truck routes within the city and then we will be looking at okay what are the changes in noise levels and things like that along those segments there so if that's the case we would we will be able to say okay is there an increase at any sensitive recept existing or planned receptors along these existing truck routes okay

I guess that's what I'm trying to get at, like measuring the sensitive receptors and the impact of the potential additional traffic on these routes. But I just want to make sure we do analyze those sensitive receptors with the potential additional traffic and the impact to the land use and all the other gas emissions, greenhouse, all of that with the additional traffic.

Right. So, like I said, it's based on the proposed project and how that would affect other areas. It doesn't consider removal of any other truck wraps, though.

But would it also be, I guess, a viable thing to ask... at land use with the potential additional traffic within the remaining truck routes.

Right.

Is that something that would be viable to or should be good to ask?

I'll see how that pertains. I'll make the note on here and see how that would pertain to any changes to the analysis.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay.

Yeah, pretty much, it's pretty straightforward. I think the only, I'd have a couple of questions, but really more just observations of what is considered here. Said from Case Road, from Barney Road to Watson Road, but there's a realignment at Barney Road. And that realignment makes a big difference because there's railroad tracks there. So that consideration would not be from what's currently there, but I guess what would be, They're building right now, so I guess the question would be measured from them. And what's currently there at Bonney Road, there's a realignment of that train track. So that realignment comes off the freeway a lot different. But I think that's just, when we say Bonney Road realignment, it's really the realigned Bonney Road. And if you haven't been down there, it makes a big difference. But that distance is a lot different. And when they widen that street, there are two lanes in each side, it makes a difference. So that has to be measured. The other thing, too, it talks about, and maybe I'm not sure about this, remove Ellis Avenue between Ellis Realignment. We're talking about the existing realignment on the west side or the realignment proposed overpass, because I think the word overpass is there. And I don't think we really have an overpass that's a consideration here.

I believe, I mean, Raphael, on the slide, I believe it was everything east of Redlands Avenue. Oh, no, never mind. We're to call the sacks off on Ellis Avenue there.

Okay. But I mean, okay, but we're not talking about the proposed overpass. We're just talking about what's currently there going by the Metrolink.

Okay. Our current general plan shows Ellis Avenue going straight to the east, how it's shown here. But this doesn't relate to the overpass that we are currently working on as a CIP project for the city with the feasibility study and preliminary environmental phase.

Okay, but that's not a, is that a truck route? Because I think because you have the multi-species thing, you can't really put anything. So I'm just wondering where we're talking about. We're talking about that area just west of the 215, like if you know Ellis Avenue there. You get off the freeway and you come to Ellis, and it's a dead end at the other end by Metrolink. But we're talking about that little section, because I'm not sure what we would be measuring here, so.

The current existing roadway for Ellis Avenue, it cul-de-sacs off where that red line ends. So that hashed out area going to the east, there is no paved roadway at this point, right?

So we're saying they're taking out the truck route?

Yeah, yeah, yeah. They're removing the truck route on an unpaved roadway. And it's not tied to the feasibility study that we have for that Ellis Avenue overcrossing with the realignment.

Okay. So essentially, it's never been built. It still would have to go over the freeway. And so, but I'm just seeing the line for Sherman Road. But Ellis, if you go Ellis, there's nothing there, really. But okay, I was just wondering, because I know the NWD plant on the other side, and I've been on the other side. But I was just wondering which side we were talking about. So if we're talking about all the way to Sherman Road, we're taking that out. That was originally designated as a truck route.

That currently is.

You got to be, okay. That predates me, so don't blame me. Okay. I was not here. Okay. Okay. Just want to get an understanding of what we were talking about. Okay. And you know the body is being realigned, so in measuring that from there, that realignment goes a little different because it's farther east from where it currently is. So that's a difference. Okay.

Okay.

Okay. All of San Jacinto was a truck route, which goes back to the 90s.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

I think I got a good idea.

It predates probably both of us, Michael.

Okay. I'm pretty much settled, unless you guys have something. Okay. I'll just get a clarification. I just wasn't sure where we were talking about here. Okay. Okay.

Yeah, so there's not even a dirt road there currently. So there would be no environmental impacts of de-designating that area since no one's currently traveling on that area, if Mr. Brown concurs on that part.

Yeah, that's exactly it. It's not really a feasible route for the future. And as I brought that scoping meeting for the Ellis Avenue overcrossing about four months ago, and that whole overcrossing has been realigned, and we're working on that at some point. But yeah, the feasibility about going directly to the east, that's not feasible.

Okay. A couple of squirrels might be impacted, you know.

Okay.

Okay. Any other questions? Thank you very much. And we open it up for public comment on this agenda item and this agenda item only. I don't know if you had any blue slips on.

Okay.

She'll get to it in a second.

Jonathan Lanscote.

Good evening, Chair Hammond and Planning Commissioners. My name is John Langford and I'm a representative of Paris Property LLC. the largest property owner within the new Paris specific plan. And we oppose some of the proposed changes and have submitted an official letter, but we wanted to be here tonight to read it into the record and stress the importance of the issue to us. So we understand the balance the city is attempting to make with the proposed truck routes compliance with AB 98 and the need to avoid negatively impacting existing businesses and property owners. As a property owner, we share the city's goal to find that balance. It's worth noting that there is an active application in the city that relies on there being a truck route here, and we believe maximum flexibility should be maintained while at the same time meeting state law. We respectfully request that the city study the alternative map that includes extending the truck route on Ellis to the northeast towards I-215 over the freeway and continue towards San Jacinto. This Ellis Evans overpass has just recently been identified by the city as a preferred alternative. After the overpass, the truck route on Ellis would continue up towards San Jacinto Avenue and would continue until it no longer meets the requirements of AB 98. This solution, or one similar to it, would minimize the lack of truck route to neighboring sites, remain consistent with the city's circulation element, and meet the requirements of AB 98. Additionally, we believe there is some ambiguity in the NOP since it says the overpass does not meet the required freeway interchange spacing requirements. We hope we are right that the city is not proposing to remove the Ellis overpass, but wanted to ensure that this is correct. We would appreciate your requesting that a proposed alternative truck route along Ellis, including the Ellis overpass and extending into New Paris is studied. As longtime property owners within the city, We are thankful for your consideration here and we'll be here in March. Good to see you.

Thank you very much, Jeremy. Okay.

Tatiana Flores.

Hello, my name is Tatiana Flores and I'm with the Fright Communities Action Coalition. I wanted to discuss a bit more about AB 98. We held the summit on November 7th and we were actually able to get residents to show on a map where they did or didn't want truck routes. So I'm here to express support for the amendments proposed on Ellis Avenue and San Jacinto Avenue. My only suggestion would be to reconsider Case Road, just because we feel that making this street a truck route could open the door for more industry in the future. And we know that surrounding areas are commercial and residential. So even if there isn't anything there right now, it opens up the probability of being sensitive receptors in the future. And I would also suggest to conduct more outreach and really try to get more community input in these matters. There's a lot of people who may have been unable to show up to this meeting, for example, or to the truck route summit that I mentioned. So really being able to get their opinion and seeing where they do or do not want truck routes is very crucial and kind of required by AB 98 as well. But yeah, thank you.

Thank you very much.

Carla Cervantes.

Hi Planning Commissioners, good evening. My name is Carla Cervantes. I'm here with Fright Communities Action Coalition and also here with the Sierra Club San Gregorio Chapter. I'm writing to respectfully request the removal of Case Road from consideration as a designated truck route. Case Road is located within an area that is zoned for both commercial and residential uses. Routing heavy trucks through this corridor would create significant compatibility issues for nearby residents and businesses in the future. A more appropriate alternative could possibly be available. Trucks can access Goetz Road, utilize the short segment of Case Road that leads directly to Ellis and then continue to the Redlands map. This path provides efficient circulation without introducing truck traffic into the mixed-use portions of Case Road. Designating Case Road as a truck route would also set a concerning precedent. It could encourage future industrial proposals in an area that is not suited for that level of intensity. ultimately impacting quality of life and placing additional burdens on constituents. For these reasons, I ask the Commission to reconsider and remove Case Road from the proposed trail crowd planning. And to echo the sentiments of the previous speaker, I would highly suggest community outreach. It is in the language of the bill. That's not necessarily just up to you guys. It's also up to council to make those things known. Also, it is, Case Road is next to the metro, so this would be an opportunity to be able to make that area possibly walkable, bike lanes, making it for housing and things like that. It would be, if we put a truck route in that area, when these grants do come about in Sacramento and our assembly members are going up there and trying to get these grants here, they won't look into that area because if we put a truck route there, it will only incentivize more logistics to be in that area. And developers will come and say, well, there's a truck route there, so it does seem compatible, which it wouldn't necessarily be true because as of right now, it is commercial and housing, something that we really need in the city. So I just wanted to go ahead and let you guys know that I do believe there is a better alternative. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Franco Pacheco.

Hello, Commission. My name is Franco Pacheco in the Valley Alliance, also with Fray Actions Coalition. I'm just echoing the sentiments of previous speakers here. Case Road needs to be rethought out. That section where the metro's at, that's already zoned for residential and commercial, and putting a truck route there can further bring more warehousing to the area in the future, more warehouses proposals, and we need those for housing and commercial. Also, the AB 98 specifically says it needs mandatory public input, public outreach events done by the local governments. So we recently had a meeting to inform the public. We invited local officials and elected officials. But ultimately, The council and city of Paris needs to reach out to all their constituents and get public input on these truck routes before they're voted on. We need to take into account the sensitive receptors. We had a previous speaker speak about San Jacinto, and it's pretty empty there right now, so putting a truck route there would be detrimental to that area. It can be better used for housing and other things like entertainment. As you all know, the city of Paris, every exit off of the city of Paris, almost every exit has a warehouse on it. There's only two exits I think that don't have warehouses directly on ramps. So that would be Nuevo and I think Redlands. We've got to think this through well, and I would suggest doing more community outreach and doing some kind of workshops for the public to put in real input on these new truck routes. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is it? Just state your full name since we didn't have a... Unless you want to hand that blue sheet to her, but that's okay. That's okay. Just state your full name. You can still give it to us. You want to get it? Okay. Sure. I'm trying to save you a trip. So she can get another record. That's amazing.

Thank you. Good evening, everyone, commission, council members. So, I don't know if we spoke about this on the agenda.

State your full name.

Sorry, my name is David Alcala Jr. I'm a local Paris resident. I've spoken up here before, second time. Hello everyone again. This time I'm gonna try to stay under the three minutes. So just recently, yesterday, I got a letter in the mail from a developer who plans to put a RV park and self-storage in a 10-acre lot across the street from where I just purchased my brand-new home. Apart from buying the home there, I think that many of us have seen the self-storage here on Paris Avenue. Every time we drive by it, it's pretty dark. Nobody wants to walk through there. The way that it's set up right now, we have a walking area. on Nuevo that cuts across all the way down to, I believe, was that Ramona? So that walkway, you know, we have a lot of people that take Nuevo as well from all these new communities that are being built. Seeing a self-storage being built there honestly is an eyesore. I think that Eastville, I just went there this past weekend, and instead of bringing a self-storage that we saw or that they're trying to bring here, I think we should bring something like the food court. It's called The Station. It's a developer called... Sorry, I have a presentation for you. I'll ask for your guys' emails later so I can send it to you. They, you know, one of the things that I've noticed here, just kind of like some of the member or some of the local residents here also mentioned is The planning, unfortunately, it seems like it's just warehouse after warehouse after warehouse. And I'm sure you guys have heard this like on repeat. But I think that we really do need to plan out better usage for the younger folks, for even, you know, the older folks, you know, places where we can sit down and eat. Okay.

Did you have any comment on this item, this agenda item?

I'm sorry.

Did you have any comments on this agenda item?

I thought this was for the open at the end, the opening statements for number public comments, number seven.

That's the next item. That's the next item. Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, that's what I was wondering. Okay. You can always come back.

It's because I saw everybody giving their – or she was reading the blue slips. I thought it was for this, but – Oh, yeah.

Did you have any comments on this item?

On this one, in terms of, yeah, the truck routes, yes, please take into consideration, like they said, reach out to the community. You guys are obviously really involved in all of these – Development plans and where we're going to put commercial usage, where we're going to put mixed usage. Does it make sense to add more commercial usage? Does it make sense to start to invade that area? I don't think so, to be honest. I think that there... Kind of what I was trying to talk about earlier is we only have a certain set of land here in the city and a certain amount of roads as well. We need to really consider how those things play into effect each other down the road in 20 years. No pun intended there, but if we're going to start making roads that don't make sense and we're going to have semis going through there when you also have kids that are trying to cross the road, similar to that walkway in Nuevo, Does it really make sense? I don't think so. So let's look at all avenues and try to come to a good solution. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much.

Is there anyone else? You don't have to have a blue set, but anyone else would like to speak on this topic? Okay, we closed the public comment portion. And since this is a scoping meeting, we really don't have anything. any voting or any of that. So hopefully we get all our ideas to Mr. Brown and Rafael. And obviously, if you have any comments, you can go directly to him with the email that I think that he mentioned before, Mr. Rafael Garcia. And concerning this scope, you can always send him the information and questions that you have concerning this particular issue. And with that, We stop this and we close down this one and there's no voting. There's nothing else. Thank you very much.

You guys don't need a break, right?

Okay. This time we move to item seven. Public comments. Anyone who, I know, anyone who wishes to address the planning commission regarding items not on the agenda. Did you have another one? Okay. Not on the agenda, may do so at this time. And you please walk up to the podium. Wait for the chairperson to recognize you. Speaking clearly, give your name, spell your last name. We do not want your address up here. I don't care what it says. And we will give you three minutes to address the planning commission. So if you have a public comment on any item that's not agendized, you're welcome to come forward at this time.

Unless you want to come back.

David Alcala, Jr.

Here we go now.

Hello again. Sorry about that earlier. Okay, so I brought my laptop up because, like I mentioned, I didn't really have much time to go over that plan. I just got the letter in the mail yesterday as soon as I got off work. Today I had a long day, and tomorrow I have to open up the warehouse. I know what it means to try to bring employment here to Paris. You know our facility we employ over 40 people and that's the last time I came over here I spoke on behalf of our facility because we had a truck route that was going to be implemented right across the street from us where we have plenty of accidents already as it is. So this time around I think that the self-storage isn't going to bring any employment. I think we all know that. It's only going to be employment for one person and the owner, the person that's going to essentially pocket all the money, and they're just going to charge our residents more money and take it and spend it elsewhere. But if we want to bring people like that that have money here, we need to really bring, you know, good restaurants. We've got to bring entertainment. We have to bring big retail stores, big chains. You know, I've talked to the mayor before. I know that he mentioned that we possibly may have a Sam's Club coming. Why don't we have a Costco come? So my notes here. Goodman is the developer. The Eastville, it's called the Station. If you go there, they have a Costco, Chick-fil-A, in and out, Uncle Tetsu, Olive Garden, just to name a few. They have a food hall that if you walk into it, I actually asked the security guard, why is it so empty today? And he said, it's because it's a little town secret. But it's amazing. You know, they have so many different, an assortment of different places in there that it just, it wowed me. that's why I went back I brought my wife there and I said hey let's go check out this place sure enough we checked that out it was amazing inside and I was like why doesn't Paris have this so I urge you I encourage you to please go out there if you get a chance it's well worth the trip and it'll make you rethink what should we really do with this land? Should we just bring a self-storage that's an eyesore? I hate to say it, but it kind of looks like a prison because they did say, take a look at it. You know, in the letter, they said, take a look at it and let us know what your thoughts are. I haven't wrote up my letter to him, but I would much rather have the other developer come in. So thank you for your time and your consideration.

Thank you very much. Anyone else? Mm-hmm.

Hello, this is Carla Cervantes. Good evening again. So I am representing the Sierra Club San Grono chapter and the Fright Communities Action Coalition. So we did get a grant recently to be able to get more community input when it comes to government agencies, planning, logistics, and just educational things that we can do. So you guys will be receiving an email from me just if you guys want to collaborate on a community workshop. Just some ideas that I'm throwing out there because you guys do have a lot of credibility when it comes to deciphering a lot of the ABC soups that we see, CUPs, GPAs, all the things, EIRs. When you're learning about it, it's tough, and there's times where I get confused even now. We've been coming here for a while, but yeah, I'll be sending you guys an email I know you guys weren't able to make it to our last community workshop Or no our last our summit, but the ones that are coming over wanted to be more I'm just educational for the community So I will be sending out emails to all of you and hopefully you guys can make it to that.

Thank you Thank you very much Anyone else Speak now forever hold your peace Okay, we close the public comment portion Are there any business items? So we move on to item nine, commission updates and announcements.

I don't have any announcements, but I just want to wrap up this meeting by thanking everybody that spoke tonight. Next week we have Thanksgiving. I know some people are going to be on break. The kiddos are going to be on break. So I just wish everybody a good break, the ones that do have it. And I wish them a blessed Thanksgiving. Hopefully they get to spend time with their family. Just take a little break from the hectic work week. I know we're coming to the end of the year, so we got a couple events coming up for the city. We got the Christmas tree lighting. We got the Christmas parade. I think we still have one more planning commission meeting before New Year's, but I just want to give a heads up that these events are coming up, and I'm super excited for them, and I wish everybody a good night.

I don't have any real announcements either. I did want to express my regret that I could not make it to the planning commission special meeting last week, I think, where you guys toured different developments to get ideas for the city of Paris. And I was definitely half dead in bed with some horrible flu. So I unfortunately missed that. I did want to... maybe bring attention to this really cool thing that I did recently. However, I was healthy enough to attend my last meeting of it, but I recently completed a four-week course with Riverside County Waste Management Services, and I did my master composter course, and so now I'm certified, okay? So don't throw away your apple peels, just give them to me. It was really, really wonderful and I had a blast and it's really eye-opening to show our waste and how we can mitigate and do all these things just at home. It was just such a wonderful experience. And I thought it was super, super cool because in speaking with those that hosted the, they host many of these, they're looking to establish a bigger master composter course in the city of Paris, specifically because we have so many unique and big agriculture programs in our high schools and all that. So I just like, I think that's really cool. It's something that I feel like I had insider experience insight as to what's coming over on the horizon. I don't know, it's just my nerd special interests, but you know, I think it's really wonderful and I just wanted to kind of bring attention. If you're interested in attending any of the courses, they also have an online course, go to rcwaste.org and you can sign up. I really recommend it. It was a wonderful, wonderful series. And then I want to echo, please have a safe Thanksgiving break, have a wonderful week off, or maybe two weeks for the other districts, for all the kiddos out there, and stay warm and dry.

I also want to thank the speakers tonight and staying, and just being very active participants. Even if it's not necessarily what we want to hear, it is great. It's good to have all points of view when it comes to making the best decisions. So I really appreciate everybody coming in, even though you may not have the most popular opinion. It's still interesting because it helps us think and plan better for our city. The goal is to help our city grow. and continue to develop from every aspect. I did want to thank staff for setting up the special meeting and taking us to see amazing, amazing developments. Rafa, thank you for being our guide. It was very enjoyable. We saw developments with some different types of apartments and condos and town homes and the way that they are designed and different elevations, different ground elevations. Some had garages on the bottom, some didn't. And just the way that they are set up with so many things. There was one that actually had like affordable housing within the same development and it was a section of it. So just thinking about the future of our city, we of course ended up in beautiful Temecula and we sat there in the car for a little bit and we just enjoyed the calm, the quiet, just the landscape and people watched, people walking their pets, people walking with their young kids. It was just The walkability and use of that area and the safety that we felt being there was just amazing, all the landscaping. So we want to see something like that in our city. Happy Thanksgiving to everybody next week. Hoping everybody has a fun time with their kids. I know there's a lot of parents who want teachers to keep them year round. I did also want to say, I hope to see everybody at the Christmas parade. It is such a wonderful event to be there the way it's set up. I won't be there, you know I won't be there with the band too. And I did want to give a huge shout out, you know, and as we go through these things, and I know industrial is so hard, but there are so many events or so many sporting events at our schools that require outside use. My daughter does tennis. She does field band. That all is outside. So she's outside breathing in all the fumes, breathing everything in, as well as all the other kids. They practice six, seven hours a week minimum. Their shows are outside. And just thinking about the environment impact on them because they are outside, what are they really breathing in? What is really in the environment outside? around them, especially like, I wanted to give a shout out to the Rancho Verde Crimson Regiment. They, for the first time, attended Bands of America. We were in Utah two weekends ago. They're going to Champs on Saturday. That's only possible by all that practice outside. So are we doing the best for our students to continue to do football, soccer, baseball, all the outside sports, and even inside, right? Because a lot of that money that is given from development funds to the districts are supposed to be used for mitigation services. And they always aren't because when you look at the opposite side of that, they can take those funds and really allocate them wherever they feel is the best use for them. So they're not necessarily upgrading the vent units. They're not necessarily doing the mitigation services, mitigation needs that the funds were supposedly allocated there for. So just wanted to just put that out there. We want to make sure our community's safe. We have attendees to the sporting events. So hope to see everybody at the Christmas lighting ceremony. Then there was also, we got the flyer for The Winter Wonderland, that has been, I don't know how many years it's been now, but it is a phenomenal experience. And for sure, rain or shine, we're going to have the parade. So I hope to see all our community there and really show the support and the beauty of our city.

Yep. Thank you very much for everyone that spoke tonight. It's nice to see our few guests that routinely come in. It's been a while since they've been in, but it's always nice to see them come voice their opinions. Very nice to see them again. I do like to mimic Commissioner Jimenez on our trip and investigation of the A tour that we did. It was very. Pleasant to see and experience. What new facilities and new apartment? Communities are there. That. that we can experience with, and it was quite exciting to see that a developer actually took it onto their own hands to create a low-income housing on the same lot as a standard market rate housing as well and for it to be such a nice facility to be able to do so so i'm surprised to see that definitely need to see that in city of paris as we move forward in in our hopes in ambitions to receive apartment living in mixed-use communities here um I also want to ask the question if there is a way we can verify developments that have been approved, started and not started, and if they had been started, if they had been completed and signed off. Probably a moment of task.

Yes, there is a way to prepare a report for you for the next upcoming Planning Commission meeting and report back on the status of projects.

Thank you. Yeah, it might almost literally be a chart where you talk about application, entitlement, actual, groundbreaking, and, you know, different steps in that process. So we'll see something like that.

Well, it's been six months, and what are you doing here?

Target's up. I mean, Target's almost ready, but you know they're up because you see it visibly. Some of these are straddling departments and all this, and it just hasn't been done. But anyway, thank you, sir. I won't prolong. I'll just say, yes, I piggyback on and say we appreciate this. We listen as a commission. Some don't. But we do listen as a commission, and it's all sides. It's all sides to everything. So I don't say this, oh, this is good. No. Everyone, this is public forum. Everyone should voice their opinion. I want two things. I want to say a special thanks to Mr. Garcia for taking us and driving us around. He put up with us in a van and he couldn't get out. We love him. Yeah. We're going, let me out of here. No. No, but we really appreciate it. And we de-serioused him for at least a little while. But we do appreciate it. It's interesting that one of our speakers brought it up because this is one of the places I was hoping we'd go was Goodman's. If you have to take a special trip in a month, let's go there, period. Because that is highly, highly... Highly. Five star, six star, ten star. You want to see that as commission because that's mixed use in its truest sense. Some of this stuff is not. Some of this stuff is just garbage. His apartment, uh-uh. We don't have mixed use. Mixed use means apartments, condos, commercial, stores, all within a walkable distance. Standard planning 101, right? Walkable communities. That's what you want. You want to walk to it. We have to get our cars everywhere here. Walk to the store. Walk to the lake. Walk to these things so it's within that radius where you get your exercise, you get breathing. So that's what you want in a mixed use. And sometimes I think in the past, the 90s, you just built these gigantic places with parking lots. So Goodman's is one good example. We did go, we participated in the veterans. And that was interesting.

The car took off and made us walk by ourselves.

He just left us. He had a parking commission thing on the side, and he just took off. I said, what's the point of us? Hey, he didn't care. He's just getting out of here. So that was nice. Wouldn't wait. Beautiful car, but he wouldn't wait for us, you know. So we're like, we're huffing. I said, who are you guys with? So we had no sign, no nothing. We're just waving. So that's okay. We had fun. Oh, my goodness, you know. Lastly, we did take a side detour. We went over to Harveston development in Temecula. It's Temecula tour, basically. If you have not been to Harveston, I suggest you go there. That's one of the very few cities I recommend that you go to. Harvest Sin is a 10-star development. And there's five, there are 10. Lake, beautiful pond, turtles, all kinds of things, walk around, tours, beautiful homes, landscaping is maximum. There's nothing like that anywhere else I've seen out here. Nothing close to it. I've been there like 10 times. And I was there when they started it. The first thing they built was a lake. After that, the housing prices went up over there, but that's what drew it. But it's the beauty of the way they maintain it. So you could just sit there like she's talking about. It's green. So the idea is if you want a pinnacle example, that is a pinnacle example. The other place, nothing like that. I'm sorry, there isn't. Pocket parks are in there, and they have all that in there. One thing they did miss is they needed like a restaurant around there, but that's my personal opinion. But it's a beautiful thing. I just took it off-road. You guys need to see it. And when they were putting it together, I sat there in the community room and I looked at them building it. This is 2005. That's how long I've been here. And I said, this thing's going to go shoot through the roof. And it did. Nothing out here, nothing innocent, nothing comes close to that. I'm sorry, there isn't. So if you want a pinnacle, an example, and they're not perfect, but that is probably next to perfection in this area. So anyway, I was glad to do that. Thank you for driving us. And in a city vehicle, too. But I don't have anything else, and I will turn it over to our director for a comment. We did miss you, but, you know, there's always futures. And have a happy Thanksgiving, too. I got people come over to my house, so hopefully I'll survive that. We have to clean up afterwards. That's the thing. Okay. To our director, thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I apologize for not making our tour. I really missed you guys. But I hear only great things about how Rafa drove you around and to the different locations in the city, beautiful city of Temecula. But I won't miss the next tour. I do have some items to report for our next meeting on December 3rd We have we're bringing back an item that was continued of calendar Paris Gateway and Ramona Expressway by the i-215 freeway and and Most of you mentioned the events that are coming up in December. I just want to give you a little bit more detail. So the tree lighting ceremony will be on Friday, December 5th, from 5 to 9 here on campus. Winter Wonderland will be on Saturday, December 6th, from 11 to 6 here on campus as well. And a long-awaited Christmas parade will be on Saturday, December 13th. It starts at 10 a.m., and it's going to be in our downtown area. this street. And that's all I have to report. I wish everyone a happy Thanksgiving. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We've had double duty for our city attorney was there last night. He's here back again. We got you out before 10 o'clock, right? We're going to be done. Thank you very much for your attendance tonight. And we appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Brown. And we got a long drive. Stay awake. And some projects are going, but we really appreciate that. And I'm going to bug, you know, I'm going to bug our director to give you that thing, that zoning thing that I gave. But one of these days she'll do it. Because I'm a pest. I admit it. I'm a pest.

I promise.

Yeah, okay. I am a pest. You know that. You spray me. Anyway, thank you. And with that, we will adjourn at 7.52 p.m. Thank you very much. Good night. And those on YouTube, good night.

Look both ways when red lights are flashing and never go around lowered gates. And while walking, remember, only cross at designated crossings. Wait until you can see clearly and look both ways before crossing. And never walk on or near railroad tracks. September is Rail Safety Month, so please do your part to promote rail safety.