Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Commissioner Menendez? Here. Commissioner Lopez?

Here.

Commissioner Jimenez? Here. Vice Chair Shively? Here. Chair Hammond?

Here. Thank you very much. Thank you. And a Pledge of Allegiance by Commissioner Menendez. Would you please stand? Item four, presentation, there are no items on agenda, so we move to item five, consent calendar, approval of planning commission minutes for November 19th, 2025. Do we have any corrections, additions, or deletions noted?

None?

Okay, none. At this time, we open it up for public comment on the consent calendar items. If anyone has a public comment on this item, you're welcome to come forward at this time. We close the public comment and go for a motion. Moved by Commissioner Lopez. Seconded by Commissioner Menez.

Commissioner Menez?

Yes.

Commissioner Lopez?

Yes.

Commissioner Jimenez?

Yes.

Vice Chair Shively?

Yes.

Chair Hammond?

Yes. Thank you.

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

Thank you very much. Moving on to Public Hearing Item 6A, and I am going to read it, and that's not the second time, but I'm going to read it all to get it on the record. Specific Plan Amendment 22-05280, Tentative Parcel Maps 22-05279, TPM 38576, and 24-05150, TPM 3985. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 22-05295, 24-05141, AND 24-05142, AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEWS 22-00028, AND 23-00021. CONTINUED OFF CALENDAR FROM SEPTEMBER 17, 2025 PLAN AND COMMISSION MEETING. A proposal to consider the following entitlements to facilitate the construction of Paris Gateway Commercial Center in two phases on 20.28 acres located on the north side of Ramona Expressway between the I-215 freeway and Webster Avenue within the commercial zone of the Paris Valley Commerce Center specific plan. Number one, and I'm going to have a few corrections in this, specific plan amendment to rezone 6.84 acres of the overall 20.28 ACRE PROJECT SITE FROM COMMERCIAL TO BUSINESS PROFESSIONAL OFFICE TO FACILITATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 157,228 SQUARE FOOT SELF-STORAGE FACILITY WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. TENDENT PARCEL MAP 38576 TO SUBDIFY TWO EXISTING PARCELS INTO FOUR PARCELS IN PHASE ONE. AND TENDENT PARCEL MAP 38985 TO SUBDIFY ONE EXISTING PARCEL INTO FOUR PARCELS BY PHASE TWO. Conditional use permits to allow self-storage facility, and it should be four drive-through fast food restaurants, if I'm correcting. Two vehicle fuel stations and the off sale of beer and wine. Type 20 alcohol license at the Maverick convenience store in conjunction with the determination of public convenience or necessity. And development plan reviews for the reviews of the site plan and building elevations for the proposed commercial project consisting of a 157,928 square foot self storage facility. Two commercial buildings. totaling 12,000 square feet. Four drive-thru fast food restaurants, totaling 18,400 square feet. Two convenience stores, totaling 10,039 square feet. I'm sorry. Two vehicle fuel stations and a 5,425 square foot self-automated car wash. Applicant Mike Nagar, contract planner is Matthew Evans. And the request, it was the only time I'm going to read all this, adopt resolution 25-24, recommended to the city council, certify the final final impact report, adopt the mitigation and monitoring and reporting program, findings of fact and statement of overriding considerations, and approve SPA 22-05280, TPM 22-05279, TPM 38576 for phase one. And TPM 24-05150, TPM 38985 for phase two. CUP 22-05295 for the self-storage facility. CUP 24-05141 for the four drive-through restaurants. CUP 24-05142 for two vehicle fuel stations, the off sale of beer and wine, type 20 alcohol license, at the Maverick convenience store in conjunction with a determination of public convenience or necessity. DPRS 22-00028 and 23-00021 for review of the site plan and building elevations in phases one and two to facilitate the construction of the Paris Gateway Commercial Center on 20.28 acres based on the findings in the resolution and subject to the conditions of approval. Do we have any ex parte communication, ad hoc community meetings, and or drive by site?

I was in an ad hoc meeting for this project.

I was also in the ad hoc and I drive by the site daily. I drive by the site daily as well.

I've been by the site.

Been by the site several times over 30 years. At this time, we have a city presentation and Mr. Matthew Evans and possibly the city engineer as well.

Yes, thank you, Chair Hammond, for that introduction. Matthew Evans, project planner for the Paris Gateway Project. So just the background, this was continued from September 17th, Planning Commission meeting. MEETING OFF CALENDAR, AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THAT TIME GAVE CLEAR INSTRUCTIONS TO THE APPLICANT, AND WE'VE SUMMARIZED THOSE HERE, AND THAT IS TO INCORPORATE USES THAT COULD BE SUPPORT FOR HIGHER-PAYING JOBS, SUCH AS HOTEL, GROCERY STORE, SIT-DOWN RESTAURANTS, AND MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL OFFICES. WORK WITH ENGINEERING ON TIMING AND SEQUENCE OF OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS. including upgrades to Ramona Expressway leading to the I-215 off ramp, or excuse me, on ramp, as well as potentially reducing the number of proposed driveways on the overall site, allowing the applicant to propose methods of ensuring that the architectural characters maintained as individual tenants occupy their spaces and avoid future inconsistencies or changes to architectural design, and to present the project modifications to the ad hoc committee. So as noted, we did hold a ad hoc meeting on October 21st, and the ad hoc met with the applicant and discussed the following, and they include replacing the phase one drive-through restaurants with a future hotel site. The applicant provided a site plan concept showing how these sites could be combined into one footprint to accommodate the future hotel site. No elevations or additional details were provided. removing the in and out driveways on Ramona Expressway and Webster Avenue. The applicant proposed moving two of the driveway locations, one on Ramona Expressway, the second on Webster Avenue, and I do have an exhibit that'll show what that looks like further down the slides. Providing a $1 million in lieu of fee, installing necessary off-site improvements from Nevada Avenue to the I-215 on-ramp. The applicant agreed to the one-time $1 million in lieu fee for these future improvements. Adopting covenants, conditions, and restrictions, otherwise referred to as CC&Rs. The applicant agreed to prepare CC&Rs requiring all future tenants and end users comply with approved architectural elevations and materials for this project. And lastly, marketing of the 12,000 square foot retail building. The applicant committed to marketing the said building for general retail uses, likely to generate higher paying jobs and quality jobs, as well as medical offices and dental offices if there is interest in those. So the first thing we have here that's changed since this time The city council has, they allowed the professional, excuse me, the business professional office to be considered for self-storage facilities. So the applicant is proposing that There's a specific plan amendment to include that rezone for the 6.4 acres approximately to change from commercial to the BPO zone, business professional office, to accommodate that self-storage facility. And just to give you a little background, since you've looked at this project before, this is just a previous slide that we had that kind of gives you an idea overall of what this project looks like in the phasing. Obviously, the two buildings in phase one, those two drive-through buildings, the applicant has agreed to not proceed with the conditional use permit or DPRs for those buildings. But all the other buildings that you see here are part of this project. And then we're gonna start with phase one. This is the rendering of the phase one commercial area, minus those two buildings, of course. Here's the Maverick convenience store elevations. And this is what the canopy would look like for the gas station. This is the self-storage facility nighttime renderings. And then we move on to phase two. So this is the overall rendering for phase two. What you get a good look at in this rendering is the two retail buildings totaling 12,000 square feet. And we go to those in this first elevations set. We have building two facade and building three facade. These are the retail buildings. And then we have the automated car wash elevations. The gas station elevations with canopy. And then we have the elevations for the four drive-through restaurants. Project revisions. As noted, today the applicant is proposing the following changes from the original proposal, and that is eliminating two of the driveways. The applicant has agreed to reduce the number of driveways from five to three by removing a driveway on Ramona Expressway and a driveway on Webster Avenue. And you can see the revised proposal is the first one. And the original proposal is below, and you can see the differences on which driveways have been removed. We removed that western driveway, that westerly driveway off of Ramona, and then the middle driveway on Webster Avenue between the intersection of Webster and Ramona Expressway. Revisions further, trash enclosure and trellis structure. The applicant has agreed to provide a trash enclosure plans as well as Construct a trellis structure on the proposed parking lot walkway till buildings two and three in phase two as was suggested By chair Hammond during the original meeting first meeting and this is kind of an idea of what that would look like it's provided by the applicant and those locations As we've discussed removal of development on parcels two and three in phase one The applicant has agreed to forego approvals on parcels two and three in phase one to allow for a future hotel site that will be processed and reviewed separately from this entitlement, including a separate CEQA review. And then we have the proposed architecture. The applicant has agreed to record CC&Rs to ensure adherence to the project's approved architectural and design. And then lastly, land use tenant mix. The applicant has agreed to market the 12,000 square foot retail building space for a boutique grocery store, medical dental offices, or other professional offices and retail uses. Moving on to project site revisions. Phase one, phase two, street improvements. Street improvements along Ramona Expressway between Nevada Avenue and Webster Avenue will be constructed with development of phase one or phase two, whichever is initiated first. And then moving on, Ramona Expressway between Nevada Avenue and the I-215 on-ramp improvements. Street improvements between the I-215 ramp and Nevada Avenue will be a part of the project requirement. However, due to this portion being in the Caltrans right-of-way, the engineering condition of approval has the option for the developer to conduct the work or for the developer to pay the city a $1 million in lieu of fee with either case completing the roadway and widening without holding up the permits or occupancy of the project due to long lead times to gain approvals with Caltrans. Environmental determination and environmental impact report, EIR, was prepared for the project in compliance with CEQA. which concluded that all impacts have been reduced to less than significant or have been reduced to below significant level with implementation of mitigation measures, except for impacts related to air quality and cumulative greenhouse gas emissions, both of which have been identified as significant or unavoidable. Excuse me, significant and unavoidable. Therefore, the adoption of a statement of overriding consideration for air quality and greenhouse gas is required in order to approve the project. A total of three letters were received during the 45-day public review comment, including one from the Advocates for the Environment, one from Riverside County Flood Control, and one from the California Department of Transportation, all of which were informational in nature. And lastly, an errata to the EIR determined that the proposed rezoning from the commercial zone designation within the Paris Valley Commerce Specific Plan to the business professional park zone and other minor edits needed to facilitate the proposed self-storage facility under the Paris Valley Commerce Center Specific Plan would not create any new significant impacts, alternatives, or mitigation measures. RECOMMENDATION, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 25-24, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPT THE MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM, FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERWRITING CONSIDERATIONS, AND APPROVAL OF SPA 22-05280. Financing track, excuse me, financing tentative parcel map 22-05279. Tentative parcel map 38576 for phase one. And financing tentative parcel map 24-05150 or 38985 for phase two. Conditional use permits 22-05295 for the self-storage facility. 24-05141 for the four drive-thru restaurants in Phase 2, and CUP 24-05142 for the two vehicle storage stations, as well as the off-site sale of beer and wine Type 20 alcohol license for the Maverick convenience store, in conjunction with the determination of public convenience or necessity, and DPRs 22-00028 and 23-00021 for for review of the site plan and building elevations in phase one and two, and to facilitate the construction of the Paris Gateway Commerce Center on 20.28 acres in total, based on the findings contained in the resolution and subject to conditions of approval. And that concludes my presentation.

Thank you very much, sir. And would any other members of the staff like to clarify things? I think you should.

Chairman Hammond, I don't have a presentation today, but I'm here to field questions regarding engineering conditions, and the applicant could speak to any. So if you want to just treat it like any normal planning commission, just ask the questions, that's fine with me. Okay.

Before we get to the staff, could you clarify the engineering condition concerning the infrastructure so we're clear? I think I am, but I'm not sure everyone here is.

Okay, so for Ramona Expressway and Webster, I may, one moment for the exhibit.

Matthew, can you bring up the slides regarding, where it shows the engineering conditions, please?

Okay, so we could start here. So for Ramona Expressway, our conditions read prior to any occupancy for phase one or phase two, any building, This portion between Nevada and Webster has to be physically built out to ultimate conditions. That includes sidewalk, parkway landscaping, street lights, everything to ultimate conditions. And the other portion is Webster Avenue, which is on the east side there. I don't know if there's an exhibit for that.

Sorry, this is the only exhibit we have for this up here.

Okay, so Webster Avenue that runs along the east side north-south. THAT WOULD NEED TO BE BUILT OUT, PHYSICALLY BUILT OUT AS PART OF OUR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO, YOU KNOW, SIDEWALK, LANDSCAPE, STREET LIGHTS, ALL THAT. THE PORTION BETWEEN I-215 AND NEVADA, WE HAVE THE OPTION OF EITHER BUILDING, GIVING US, PROVIDING ANOTHER LANE, PHYSICALLY PROVIDING THAT OTHER LANE, OR TO PAY A $1 MILLION INLUE FEE There is restrictions for this segment with Caltrans. We do not own, City of Paris does not own that segment. So coordination with Caltrans, you know, for something that little could take three to five years. But Caltrans may come back and say, hey, look, we need a complete reconstruct of the interchange. And a reconstruct of the interchange takes 20 years. So to put that on a developer it's it's a tall task when they're you know trying to build some gets get some occupancy with their buildings and whatnot so that's the reason why we have the option and that option is the developer's decision which which route to go and you know they may find that route option one to build it is cheaper and more beneficial to them because they would not have to pay prevailing weights do so it's just that lengthy process so The developer could speak to that a little bit more, but that's why we provided those options so we could get the ball rolling with that $1 million potentially.

Thanks for explaining that, because I couldn't. Don't ask me to do it. The other thing, too, and this is before we get to questions. On Webster, even though it doesn't show there, you see right at the northern part, that's the emergency exit that would enter, so that's one of the driveways that would be. Okay. considered to be taken out on the northern part. I know it's not here, but, yeah, that's a little better. But as clear as you're going to get. But at least at the northerly part would be the emergency access for fire, drugs, or whatever there would need to be.

Until Phase 2 gets built. Yeah.

Yeah.

So there would be an emergency access running across the north end to get to Webster.

Okay. Okay. And that would be all the way through the proposed self-storage. So it would go all the way across. Okay. Yeah.

Basically from Nevada – All along the north end to get to Webster.

Okay, okay. I just want to clarify the general stuff before we got to the rest, okay? And any other city presentation? Unless I bring Mr. Brown up here. Okay, so EIRs and all that's been done, and it's been noted, and it's been publicized on the city website, okay? Okay, any, I'm gonna get the general stuff out, guys. Any questions now for our staff? Not discussion, but, hmm?

Oh, yeah, we wanna ask questions. I just, yeah.

Okay, okay, because there's a lot on that one. Okay, I thought you wanted to get that out of the way, not to make it lengthy. Okay, thank you. We'll bring up the applicant. At this time, And I know you had a presentation, so.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen on the commission. Michael Nagar. It's been a pleasure working with staff. It's been a pleasure working with the Planning Commission and also with the Ad Hoc Committee. I think we got a lot of good work done. I have lots I can present, but I don't have a formal presentation unless, of course, the Commission asks. I did want to mention a couple of things, though. In the beginning of this project, we were referring to it as Phase 1 and Phase 2 because there were two different applications. Two different ownership groups. But the project's not getting phased. It's going to be all done at one time. So I just wanted to make that clarity. And we've since started calling it Gateway 1 and Gateway 2, just so everybody knows. And I'm glad the city engineer, Brad Brophy, pointed out that... regardless of whether Gateway 1 goes forward or Gateway 2 goes forward, the ultimate improvements for Ramona Expressway between Webster and Nevada are getting done. Those will absolutely get done. And he, of course, explained very well the situation with Caltrans, We don't know what Caltrans will allow, and it'll probably take two or three years just to find out. But in this exercise, all of us, including the city, really found out some good news about this. The TUMF program that's administered by W.R. Cog has approximately $7.8 million dedicated and allocated for this interchange. And, of course, with the $1 million fee in lieu that it looks like we're going to pay, we're now up to about $9 million. And the city, I'm told, is going to start to commence working with Caltrans to start to design what the ultimate interchange would look like and, of course, hopefully take care of that pinch point which occurs over the railroad bridge, the left-turn lanes to go southbound on the I-215. That's all I have for right now, but My whole team here is here to answer any questions that you have. And again, it's been a pleasure.

Thank you very much. And at this time, do we have any questions? Not discussion. Questions or issues related to this? for either the applicant or the city.

I'm sure we do. No, I have a question for city staff. Matthew, for the project, it describes that there's going to be improvements along Ramona Expressway. The frontage of Ramona Expressway, does that include the sidewalk and the landscaping that you guys just mentioned right now?

That is correct, yes.

It's only going to be sidewalk, nothing to the street, no street improvements to that? No.

I'll let Brad.

So between... There would be street improvements. So widening and between Nevada to Webster, it would be widened basically for five lanes, but it would be striped in a way for three through lanes and one right turn pocket. So that's ultimate improvement. So the street would be widened to ultimate improvements.

Got you. And Brad, I have a question for you. During the last ad hoc, you mentioned that this project would generate about 20,000 vehicle trips daily. Is that still an accurate number?

Yeah, that's correct. I misspoke a little bit on that because there were some internal capture trips that were included with that 20K. So 15,000 new trips are generated with this project.

So 15,000 is the most accurate number?

15,000 is new trips generated that are from home to get to this area.

Okay, thank you. I think I have a question for Michael Brown. So in regards to the EIR, is that 15,000 vehicle trips, is that included in the EIR?

Yes.

Okay. All right. Perfect. Thank you. Yeah, I just wanted to clarify.

Don't go far, Mr. Brown.

I have a question for staff. I was reading in the staff report on page 31 on the letter of public convenience and necessity. It stated that ABC deems that this area should have a maximum of three alcohol licenses, but currently there are 12. Are we breaking any Is this just a guideline or is this something that we're maybe should be more concerned about? I saw that and I kind of was startled.

So the reason why it requires the PCN findings, the public necessity or convenience findings, is if you have oversaturation. I believe the staff report and the resolution also point out that the area of concentration is quite large and includes a lot of existing alcohol licenses that are further to the east on Ramona Expressway. So it looks like there's heavy concentration, but actually, Around the surrounding area there really isn't a high concentration. I wouldn't consider like a hike a super high concentration Not only that but Ramona Expressway is a major thoroughfare that you know services You know cities beyond Paris obviously of San Jacinto and Hammett the ultimate You know where Ramona Expressway ultimately And so there's a lot of traffic on that road. It's not like you have a neighborhood where there's a lot of liquor stores or something like that. This is a major thoroughfare. And this actual location is really super close to the freeway. It's really close to the on and off ramp. And so a lot of the traffic you're getting here is not just local traffic, but it's regional traffic. And so when you look at that public convenience or necessity, you really have to take that into account. Is it impacting a neighborhood? Is it impacting areas where there's lots of schools, parks, and things like that? Things where you can invite vagrancy and those kind of things. And that's why... the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, that's why they make the cities go through this process of reviewing the public convenience or necessity so that you can determine that we're not just allowing carte blanche liquor licenses just for the heck of it. It's for actual convenience. So if I'm stopping at Maverick to fuel up on my way home and I wanna grab a couple of drinks to enjoy when I get home, It's there for me to do that.

Okay, understood. Thank you. So to clarify, it is more of a guideline that with the PNC we're able to? Correct. Okay. Thank you. That makes sense.

Commissioner Menes, if I can just add to that. Planning also contacted the county sheriff department, and they had no objections or conditions to add to this project or request.

Got it.

Thank you.

That's it for me for the moment.

Hi, thank you. I wanted to ask about the money that was referred to as being allocated for this intersection. Is that money being used currently because there's work getting done there or is that allocated for the future development of it?

Sorry, just to clarify, it's about the $1 million in lieu fee option?

No, our applicant said that you had found out about the trial.

Oh, for the Tump funding. So it's available through a regional program that we could potentially get reimbursed for future construction of the ultimate improvements at that interchange. So that $7.5 million, at the day in the future when we actually start the construction of that interchange, the city can get reimbursed. or whoever builds it can get it reimbursed with that $7.5 million. Again, it's ultimate improvements for an interchange. You're looking at $30, $40, $50 million sometimes. So it's not everything, but it's a starting point, and it could get the ball rolling for design, all the preliminary engineering. So it's a starting point.

Okay. And then there's currently work getting done or having been done there recently. Does Caltrans collaborate at all with the city when they do developments like that? Because I saw them there.

Yeah, so Caltrans, the last two years, they've been doing work on the I-215 freeway all the way starting from, I think it's March Air Force Base, all the way to the south to, I think, McCall Road in Menifee. So it's a good 10, 15-mile stretch, and they've been doing work on every interchange on the ramps, doing signal timing adjustments. So it's a big collaborative project that they're working on. So that work, yeah, they have. COORDINATED WITH CITY STAFF, AND CITY STAFF HAS ACTUALLY INFORMED OUR SOCIAL MEDIA TEAM TO SEND OUT BLASTS ON INSTAGRAM AND FACEBOOK. SO THERE HAS BEEN A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT THERE. BUT IT'S A DIFFERENT STORY WHEN WE'RE TRYING TO WORK WITH CALTRANS ON A NEW DESIGN BECAUSE THERE ARE LAYERS AND PROCESSES THAT WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH, AND IT'S A TIMELY PROCESS.

Okay, so the work they're doing now is work that they feel is important. So that part was not collaborated with. If you're going to be working here already, can we?

Ultimate improvements, yeah. I mean, at that point, I see where you're getting at. At that point, funding comes into play, and it is their kind of in-house work that they're doing on their right-of-way.

Okay, so you're saying the $7.5 million is potential. It's not guaranteed, right?

It's in the books for reimbursement. It would be available for any type of improvements. It's pretty much guaranteed. Okay.

But even then, the $8.5 million would not...

It's a starting point for the full improvements, yeah. As the applicant mentioned, including with this interchange, west of the interchange, that bridge over the Metrolink station, that whole bridge would have to be reconstructed as well to widen to six, eight lanes, whatever they need. Right now it's only four, and that's a constricting point to getting through traffic through that interchange. So it's a...

It's a whole section. It's not just adding that lane.

Yeah, right. It would go all the way to the west side to, what's that road, Harville?

Mm-hmm, Harville.

It would probably go all the way to that stretch and cover that whole segment up to Nevada.

Okay, and there isn't a way to just do...

one section of it or do we know how much if that would be a potential that that's that's the question we would have to start that coordination with caltrans and that's why the one million would potentially give us a little more um If it was with our engineering department, we would be able to start that process with Caltrans. And maybe even Caltrans may say, hey, look, this one lane isn't sufficient. We need the full interchange reconstructed. So it starts the ball rolling on the full interchange improvements from the get-go.

Okay. All right. Hey, that's it for me for now.

It's also good to know that Caltron doesn't just take into effect this portion of the project along Ramona Expressway. It's on both sides of the freeway, north and south, so it's a whole gamut of... ownership all the way miles down the road. So it's just, so the million dollars is a portion of everything that's been adding up for years, I guess. Right.

Exactly. And with the big interchange improvements that will be needed at some point with the city County of Riverside is going to need to be involved. They own land to the West. So there's going to be a big collaborative effort that, you know, the 1 million plus the 7.5 million, it could get the ball rolling to get the design done.

So then the rest of it, the other portions from Nevada down east to Webster and along Webster, that has to all be done when the project is built. And that's not part of the million.

Correct. So that east of Nevada is City of Paris right-of-way. That has to be physically constructed per our conditions. And ultimate improvements, as I mentioned, sidewalk, landscape, parkway, curb and gutter, streetlights, new roadway pavement, all of it has to be included.

Is it possible that this is part of the city of Paris, but a portion of the western part of Nevada is not city of Paris? But some of it is, right?

Kind of a mix. The center line, it's kind of a gray area, but it's more or less at the center line of Nevada. That west of Nevada, that's where Caltrans jurisdiction is, and then east of Nevada is the city of Paris.

Is it possible that Caltrans can say we need additional lane beyond what is currently going to be provided?

Potentially. I mean, there's a lot of studies that go into it, potentially.

And then if that occurs, does Caltrans take an effect, take the winding of it? So do we have to come back and redo part of the design for the existing portion of it, perhaps, if that lane is going to occur?

Perhaps, but for cost efficiency, they would try to keep what's existing, but you never know. They may want some hook ramps, clover leaves. So at that point, you'd have some existing pavement that would be ripped out anyways.

And then I also noticed that in the elevation, the proposal says there is a trellis in there, but a lot of the drawings in the renderings and stuff, are not shown in the renderings for that trellis along the phase two area. I wish I'd have been able to see what that looks like in the renderings. And then there is some, I noticed that some of the landscaping is not updated. Some of the landscape still has five lanes, driveways along Ramona Expressway. So some of that's not fully redesigned at this point. But I do see that there's two sets of drawings from September 8th and then again from October. So it's hard to verify what we're reviewing, what's being approved at this point of time as well. And then, Matt, you had some finishes.

No. I was going to point out that, yeah, you're correct. The applicant did not update the landscape plan, just the site plan to show that the two driveways are gone. But what you'll have in lieu of those driveways, you'll actually have additional landscaping, and essentially it has to conform with all the rest of the landscaping So it'll be just a continuation of what you have on either side of the driveways. That landscaping will just continue over where those driveways were. So we're picking up landscaping by not having those driveways there.

By chance, do you know how much?

I don't know. We would have to measure out each driveway to see what we're gaining. It's a nominal amount, but it's not bad. You have finished materials for us Yes, we do have material with material boards are up here those haven't changed obviously the applicant has made no proposal to change materials or elevations Beyond what was have been discussed?

Can we go back to the circulation map, ingress and egress, please? I want to analyze it in a little bit more detail with the lanes and where they narrow down, where they expand, right turn lanes, left turn lanes in, out. So I see the driveway locations, but I want to see the lanes. Okay. Please, the ones that have... The box with the little hash, yes. Where the future enhancements will be. That one. So can we go over this in a little bit more detail, Matt or Brad? The changes or updates, because I think from... Nevada, there's already, like if you're getting off the freeway and trying to make a left into the development from Nevada, there's already an existing left turn lane that is not currently in use, or how is that gonna work?

Yeah, so obviously this is just a schematic, and it's zoomed out and a little pixelated, so it's tough to fully see, but the left turn pocket for eastbound would be there. What's shown in the hashed area here, There would be enough room to accommodate three through lanes, actually four through lanes if we wanted to. We're never going to have four through lanes at this point. So it's going to be three through lanes and then a right turn pocket a little bit outside of the three through lanes. So actually some safety measures with that buffer in between the Chevron area so you have a right turn pocket. So there's enough room for three through lanes, right turn pocket between Nevada to Webster. Yeah, Nevada to Webster. What's shown here on this exhibit is showing the widening for option one. If they were to widen between I-215 and Nevada for that extra space for the right turn pocket and to accommodate three through lanes. At this point, three through lanes is not feasible because of the current interchange configurations. So you'd basically be able, as you mentioned last time, either two right turn pockets or But again, Caltrans would have to approve the two right turn pockets. They may not accept it because of the space on the northbound on-ramps. It would have to be vetted out through Caltrans. Or at the very least, it would give that right turn pocket some extra space. But again, all that has to get vetted out through Caltrans. This is just a schematic what could potentially be done if option one were chosen.

Okay, so from Webster to Nevada, there's three through lanes. From Nevada on, going westbound, it goes down to two.

Currently, yeah.

Okay, and I mean, if they don't go with option one and they don't do the development, it will currently remain going from three all the way up to Nevada and then down to two.

Correct.

Or would the merging happen? No.

It would be a drop lane. So right after the intersection, you're going westbound, right after the intersection of Nevada, that through lane that you were in would turn into a drop right turn pocket. So everyone would be shifting over to the far left two lanes at some point if they want to make their way westbound.

Okay, and then when exiting, going, what is that? Southbound onto, right, to get back on the on-ramp, there's only two lanes, right? Like if I'm exiting the development to go to the freeway, there's only two lanes.

Coming from Nevada or coming from?

Yeah, heading south on Nevada to make that west right-hand turn.

Oh, so yeah, correct. It would be the two through lanes and then the right turn pocket. Oh, I see what you're saying. Currently, today, how it is out there? We had a Google Map exhibit. Yes. I know what you're talking about. Okay, there's two through lanes currently, and then there's a right turn pocket when you get closer to the on-ramp. But it's like super close. It's super close, right.

Yeah, and it's super short. There was a big rig there today when we were heading to Riverside, and there was a big rig in this.

And a little history with that, we did reach out to Caltrans. Engineering did reach out to Caltrans probably about eight years ago on this. At that time, they did not want to extend the right turn pocket because of the width of the roadway there. But that's another effort we could try to reach out with. But again, we could start that process. WHETHER IT'S OPTION ONE WITH THE DEVELOPER OR OPTION TWO WITH THE MONEY COMING IN TO START THAT PROCESS.

YEAH, JUMP IN.

IF WE GO WITH OPTION TWO, WILL THE CITY PROCEED WITH THE IMPROVEMENTS WITH CONTACTING CALTRANS IMMEDIATELY OR HOW WOULD THE PROCESS GO?

So the $1 million is split into four different phases for the $250,000. If I remember correctly, it's in the conditions, but $250,000 I think first comes with the grading permit. So let's say a few months down the road we get the $250,000. We could start that process right then and there with Caltrans. I mean, honestly, we could probably start it prior, but we'd wait until the project gets fully vetted and see what option is formally chosen. But, yeah, we could start that process ASAP because we know it is a major issue with the city currently. I think last meeting I mentioned that the traffic, for this segment is about 45,000 trips per day. And the four lane roadway, how it is today, per our general plan, that can only really accommodate 25,000 cars. So it's already failing at this point. And it's just gonna fail more. And not just with this project, but future projects outside of city limits as well. So we know it's a major concern.

Can I ask another? Is there any mitigation? additional mitigation measures that we can place. Can I explain why my question is my question? Or what my concern is? You know, we drive in Paris, we all live here. People heading eastbound, and if there's people exiting the development southbound making a right, that's gonna get backed up and you will never be able to stay on the lane. on the right-hand side to make it onto the freeway because, you know, we like to squeeze and reserve our spots. Is there anything else that we can do on that corner to ensure that it doesn't back up further back? I don't know if I'm explaining myself.

I think I follow you. So that segment that's hashed out in red there for the westbound traffic, let's say peak hour, it's backed up all the way to Nevada. those people exiting the shopping center from Nevada, they have nowhere to go, right?

Well, I mean, yeah, I'm going to be right there. I'll be like, oh, you're coming straight? I'm sorry. You have to wait for your green, and I'm here.

Yeah, I mean, honestly, because I'd imagine a good portion, if you're in the through lanes, you're trying either to get to the county of Riverside or go southbound on the I-215.

Yeah, or even northbound, because you have to cross over, and you have to try to stay on the right-hand lane to try to get on the freeway.

So, I mean, honestly... until the ultimate improvements are done.

So there's nothing that you can think of from an engineering standpoint?

I mean, to extend the right turn pocket, that would be ideal, all the way to Nevada. But again, at that point, when we reached out to Caltrans, they weren't acceptable to that due to spacing reasons at that point. So without it being widened, they weren't acceptable to that.

And that is completely out of our hands. So even if the developer was willing to extend that, right turn pocket, it would be out of our hands because we have to consult with Caltrans.

It all has to be vetted out through Caltrans.

Okay. Can we think of creative ways to make... I'm trying to think just of traffic, like trying to get creative ways so that traffic is... blowing because it's still going to be you say we're already now at capacity so adding and then we're adding people exiting southbound so okay that's it it's a tricky one it is okay thank you

I have a question about the condition of approval to prohibit drive-throughs on segments two and three. I understand why that condition of approval was placed, but I'm wondering what is holding the project to this? I guess I wanted to say Those parcels two and three were theoretically we could put a hotel here, but is that just theoretical or do we have any plans or anything more solid to kind of justify that.

Commissioner men as and rest of the Commission. I'm really hearing impaired, so sometimes I have to get close to the dais to hear that. I only really understood part of that. Would you repeat it a bit?

Totally, yes, absolutely. I was saying we have a theoretical hotel situation. I'm asking how much of that is in theory and how much of that is mapped out already or in the works?

That's a great question. And I'm glad you brought it up because it gives me the opportunity to let you know some history here. When we started applying for this project, we obviously had to apply with the Airport Land Use Commission. And they came back and gave us approval, but gave us absolute conditions that said no hotels here. And It turned out that later on, as I was starting to talk to council members and giving them a heads up on this project coming forward, they all expressed interest in wanting a hotel. And my answer was, well, ALUC said no. And they scratched their head saying, wait a minute, this zone allows for hotels. So we, staff, Mayor had Kenneth Fung, Patricia's office as well, inquire with ALUC and they confirmed, yes, a hotel can go there. we followed up with ALOOK and they sent us an apology letter. I actually have the apology letter ready to put up if you wanted to see it where they said, hey, Mike, sorry, we made a mistake. Had that not occurred, we would have had a hotel site here. Now as to it actually coming to fruition, I'm told that there's several hoteliers that want to go here. It's a very attractive site. It's right next to the freeway. It's where theoretically hotel operators want to go. We were willing here, as Matt indicated, to in good faith say, you know what, maybe most people would say please approve the conditional use permits and at least, hey, maybe we have two fast food pads if nothing works out. We're willing to say, you know what, we want your recommendation to the council to say you recommend that those two fast food pads not be approved and that a hotel goes there. And we're willing to make that commitment. I hope that addresses it.

I think that answers my question. Thank you.

Okay.

Okay. I have a few questions for staff, and I'm trying not to make this too painful. I appreciate the presentation. That's why I had the engineer talk, because I don't know that lingo. And personally, my questions are really geared at Nevada Webster. Because we know, having worked with LA, I know what Caltrans is like. So I'm not going to go into Caltrans. But initially, some of the issues were already resolved. That's why we had the ad hoc committee to iron out these things. That's why I'm not going to go into long duration, because that's why we have it. So some of the things to be ironed out can be questioned, brought up at that time. And maybe not everything can be answered, but at least we have it better clear than we did the last time. We were kind of like fish in the water, just trying to figure out where to go. So a lot of those issues I appreciate. I'm going to go be very specific on just a few items. Someone's going to be sort of... kind of nitpicky when it comes to the condition of approval. One of them is really bare. It's number 44A. We talk about parking stalls. I think we need to use the word ADA needs to be there somewhere because ADA is mandatory. So when we say parking stalls included, we should include language about because it has a general statement, number 35, but we really should talk about there will be ADA spaces. There's no way you can build this without those. So that's a minor deal, ADA spaces. Eventually, you kind of clarify the idea of phases. One, 10%, 22% for phase two. If it's all one, then we're talking maybe 30-some percent landscaping, which is more realistic. But I was kind of unclear about that, not including the city-owned portion. Now, to the engineer, I'm going to be a little while on this one. The city owns, I'm using the word owns, that area that we see darkened from Nevada on. So that encroachment would be on city land, land if they did landscaping sidewalks and all that that improvement would be on city properties and assuming the city's okay with it uh so that part would be is not part of the landscaping thing but that's part of the encroachment that would be on city thank goodness it's not state but that encroachment would be city so that's part of this agreement here um I'm going to go to an issue. We did get a drawing or a sketch about the trellis. And I'm not going to go into that, but it was shown there. And when I get to discussion, I'll discuss about that in terms of architecture and things. And I guess one of the things that I was looking at, I want to be absolutely clear about, When we talk about the infrastructure, we're talking about from Nevada to Webster, all of that, whether it's phase one, phase two, that needs to be up front. Now, as far as, and we're also talking about signalization at Nevada, because you absolutely have to have that. One possible thing is signalization would have to be to where, you know, that traffic, because it backs up from the freeway there, so signalization changes not only on the freeway, But there would probably be some easy solution. So things get faster. I mean, that's an engineering decision, but that makes it faster. Because if you don't have signalization that's changing at a certain time, what happens is trucks back up to Nevada, currently, even though it's not a street, all the way to Webster. Forget Nevada, they go all the way to Webster at 4.30 in the morning. So I've been the issue. When I went to get gas at Mr. on a Boston station on occasion, you have to wait there because everyone's turning right. That's one reason for the need for an intersection chain. So signalization may be an issue. You've got to have signalization at Nevada on both sides of the street. And I think my question would be for engineering on the south. If they're going into this from... going west you would turn in the left turn pocket to get into Nevada even though that's not part of this would that be part of the things that they would have to do or is that something the city would be in other words you're coming east you're going east and you want to turn left into there is there a signalization lane there to turn left I don't think I saw that on here it might show it but two lanes and then left turn lane

Yeah, so the schematic, if you don't mind, I'm going to answer some of these questions. Yeah, the schematic we were looking at earlier doesn't show that left turn pocket, but our condition requires a left turn pocket. And there is an existing signal at Nevada that was installed with the DECA project that's to the south. And there's another signal in between Nevada and Webster. So those signals are in place. Part of their widening will require those signals to be pushed back a little bit. So they will have some modifications with those signals to make it work. And that's part of the conditions. But yeah, we would have left turnpockets and everything phased correctly. And just so you're aware, it's not part of this project, but the city has a CIP project that's out to works right now where we are synchronizing all the signals on Ramona Expressway, 4th Street, Nuevo Road, and Ethanac Road, some of the main corridors. So Ramona Expressway being one of them, it's going to be handled as a city project. And ideally, we want all the signals synced up in the city. So we're just trying to start at that point.

Because that may be, and Mr. Brown said, a way to mitigate some of that traffic since we don't use LOS anymore. Well, good or bad. So to be able to go and to get in and out of the south side, the north side, you're going to have to have signalized. But to the point where they're actually moving traffic, we've seen that in a way where the raising canes is, if you don't have those signals going, Thanks to In-N-Out, you got a line.

Right, so the idea is to make it from one end of the city to another as fast as you can.

Okay, we won't talk about the palm trees here. But also too, and as I think of things, Well, I guess that was pretty much the main thing on there, was the signalization at that corner. Since we took out that middle driveway, it kind of pushes things to the east and pushes things to Nevada, so those become two major intersections and the one in between. So that gets you to the gas station, that gets you to the storage facility. That's the plan.

Yeah, the applicant, they did remove two driveways from their original application, one on Webster, one on Ramon Expressway. Okay.

and the engineering i think um we want to make it clear that there's no raised medians on webster because obviously trucks are winning they were coming out of webster need to turn left i'm not saying trucks vehicles coming out of webster need to go down webster which is not supposed to be a truck lane i take it yeah correct so we took that condition out there would be no curb median on webster avenue and

Along Webster Avenue all the way to the north, to the south, there is no curb median, so we're just trying to be consistent with the rest of Webster Avenue.

But there would be a left turn to get into the facility. If you're going west, you'd be able to go up Webster and then turn left into the facility.

Right, so if you're going northbound on Webster, that driveway 5 on the screen, that's going to be a full-access driveway, so you'd be able to make a left-in, left-out of that driveway. Driveway 6 is nonexistent anymore, and then driveway 2 is nonexistent, what's shown on your screen here.

Okay, okay, okay. Okay, for now, that's okay. That's it for me because I got some other changes, but I don't know if this is, I think that's more discussion period. Yeah, so I'll leave you alone for now. Anyone else? I'm sure our architect has questions.

I'm curious, where did the $1 million figure come from for the in lieu fee? Was that from the city recommendation?

It was a city recommendation. It came from our engineering department.

And is it specifically for this project, or is this a common occurrence, a common figure for projects of this magnitude?

I mean, this one's a little... It's a special circumstance because of the Caltrans coordination issue. Obviously we want all infrastructure to be built as part of a development, but as mentioned with the Caltrans coordinations, we don't know if it's going to be three, five, 20 years before we actually get it done. Uh, so that's why this option of in lieu fee is considered. And again, I mean, they could still choose option one where they build it. They may say, Hey, we could build this for 800 K because. They don't have to pay prevailing wage. If they find that way to steamroll through the Caltrans process, they may still end up building it. But this $1 million option does give us kind of a head start towards building the ultimate improvements. Maybe we could work with Caltrans to do an interim condition and then do an ultimate improvements after. It just gives us options.

Okay. Thank you.

But you're saying that they could theoretically, if they discover that they can bill it for $800,000, they can do so. Right. The design of it still has to be done beforehand.

Right. And they would have to be vetted out through Caltrans, the process. But again, theoretically, just throwing out a number, if they pencil it out to be $900,000 because they don't have to pay prevailing wage and

this then they can move forward with that option it just it gives us options but it but currently there is a design for that westerly portion there's a schematic no official design at this point yeah so I believe the reviewing the narrative portions of the applications one of the things I do the only thing I do see that's different is the 12,000 square feet building from the prior application that was two sit-down restaurants, and now it says 12,000 two commercial buildings. At any point, can they actually go back and say, no, we still want the two restaurants?

No, you can't do that.

Or there is no restaurants. These are total retail. These are office buildings. And that's it.

The question, if you don't mind repeating that, Commissioner Shively.

The prior application said two buildings sit down restaurants totaling 12,000 square feet. Now it says two commercial buildings totaling 12,000 square feet. I just want to verify if at any time those can go back to be restaurants. Or do they still have to remain retail or office space?

Staff put it in there that it said that those two restaurants, drive-thru restaurants, would not be allowed.

They're not drive-thru? They're drive-thru.

That's phase one. For phase one, but Commissioner, Vice Chair Shively, you're making reference to the multi-tenant building.

Yeah.

And phase two.

Phase two. Yeah, and in Gateway 2, Commissioner Shively, That whole section there is approximately, well, pretty accurately 12,000 square feet. I believe it was at the first ad hoc committee meeting or at the last commission, I think it was the ad hoc, where there was an ask, I believe, by Commissioner Jimenez if they can possibly be spread apart, have an eating area in between, a gathering area. And so we showed it that way. But they can also be put back together. That whole 12,000 square feet of building can be subdivided in many ways based on the uses. We're going to be marketing aggressively for medical, dental, restaurant, boutique market. We're not certain what will go there, but we need to keep all the options open.

Absolutely. And then the current six drive-thru restaurants, do you have potential tenants in there?

Yes, but the answer to that is yes. And we brought our development partner here tonight if you'd like to hear from them.

Is that a yes? Yeah, that would be beneficial. Great.

Yeah, just state your full name and spell your last name for us.

Alan Robertson, R-O-B-E-R-T-S-O-N. And just to clarify, we're looking at specifically the phase two on here is our portion.

Okay. Yeah, I mean, the city of Paris is actually lacking decent sit-down restaurants over fast food restaurants. Is there any potential drive-thrus are convenience, of course, but is there a potential that one of those drive-thrus could be sit-down instead?

For this particular site on the frontage, we're going to need to keep them most likely. We'll mark it to everybody, but most likely they're going to be drive-thru restaurants just because of the orientation near the freeway and kind of to get a sit-down restaurant is from a retail development standard, we typically would need a big major, a big shopping center that would attract those type of people to come and stay for a while, where this is more of a transit-type retail center, at least on the frontage.

Hopefully one of these days we might get some more sit-down restaurants.

So there were no discussions about maybe losing another drive-thru restaurant, one of the paths, turning that into one of the potential office buildings and leaving one of the sit-down restaurants as a sit-down restaurant? Was that a consideration?

Yes. For the two buildings in the back that you're discussing, we haven't found tenants for those yet. Typically, these tenants are going to need to see that we have an entitled project before they're going to want to move forward with us. So we'll be marketing to everybody there. As Mike mentioned, dental, retail, boutique market, restaurant. We would love to land a restaurant back there. I think it could work with the layout, and it's definitely something that we'll look to push for.

But I guess my concern is we lost two sit-downs for the potential hotel. If there's a hotel there, you're gonna have overnight residence. That would be a perfect location for a sit-down. Couldn't we turn, like Pad 4 is one of the largest, did we consider turning that into a potential office building and maintaining at least one of the sit-down restaurants?

Just the economics of our deal, the sit-down restaurants would drive this, and it's our ability to be able to develop it, essentially. So, again, we haven't tied any leases yet. If there is a sit-down restaurant that's willing to go there, we would definitely look at it. But our preference is to keep the drive-thrus available for leasing purposes up front.

Maybe I'm not explaining myself correctly. Maybe I'm not asking correctly. I think what I'm, I understand that the preference is to have retail in those larger pads or office buildings. So once we approve, and I guess this may be for a city, if we approve it as is, and for example, pad four is designated as a drive-thru, That will be used as a drive-thru and there's no potential for that to be an office building.

May I, Commissioner?

Yes, of course. Thank you.

The short answer is yes, it can be. It's a retail use. If somebody came in and wanted to lease pad four and put an urgent care there and the deal made sense, it absolutely could go there. It comes under the retail office matrix in the commercial zone. So the answer to that is yes. Maybe your staff could confirm that.

But it wouldn't be marketed that way because we're going to market the other two specifically. This one would be if it's approved as... Drive-thru, we would be marketing it towards drive-thru, correct?

It will be, the whole center will be marketed in many ways, in all of those ways under the retail uses. We, in general, would want to attract the highest and best use. So we're going to go aggressively after what Commissioner Menez had mentioned in the quality jobs. We heard you there. Um, and as it relates, uh, and primarily this sit down restaurants would go very well in, in the back end line of the 12,000 square feet. And I think I'm addressing what you said, but you let me know if there's a, one of the out pads that. an urgent care or a doctor's office or somebody wants to go through, those don't have to be fast food pads. But what we are doing ahead of time is approving them in the event that a fast food user wants to come. We're not coming back and saying, hey, we need to design the fast food lane and do the stacking and show where the window is and the order box and all of those other things. So I think we're being very fluid and not being constrained. Did I address your question?

You did, but now I have another question. So this design, I think you said that because of markability, like the pads being in the back for a sit-down, did we not consider moving them forward so they were along the street so that the bigger pads were forward and smaller ones in the back? I'm trying to think of marketability and especially if the hotel is going there.

Well, I'll answer it this way. At some point, you have to settle on a design that you feel that is marketable. And you try to bring in a mix of uses. And that's what you're seeing. Then further, when you take that design and you have this mix of uses, then you've got to cover drainage. You've got to make sure that not only can you drain the property, but that you can also clean the water. And so a lot of these things drive the way this is laid out. And so there's a lot that goes into it. And then, of course, you want to stay fluid. We don't want a situation, nor would I believe the city, that says you're stuck having to have this use. and then you're constrained if something better comes along.

So, Mr. Nagar, it's very safe to say there's most likely no hotel.

Please say that again.

It's most likely that it's quite possible that it's safe to say there's most likely no hotel on this piece.

No hotel. The hotel, not on Gateway 2. On Gateway One, yes, and what I've been told by our brokers and, frankly, Mayor Vargas, he's got some people lined up, and we're going to immediately start those discussions. Again, I wish it was part of this approval, but it cannot be. But, again, in good faith, we're willing to hold back those CUPs because we're going to go aggressively for a hotel on Gateway One.

and then for those four drive three restaurants you said you had tenants already um yeah there are prospective tenants and i wanted you to address them they're they're in negotiations now and i don't mind that you mention it you should let them know yeah we're in negotiations with blackrock coffee um chipotle and then burger king we also have electrify america which is a

EV charging company. So they'll take up a portion of the parking area for electric vehicles. And then the rest will kind of follow suit. After that, we'll be able to move forward with leases as soon as there's entitlements in place.

But using electrified America, that would most likely take place of the EV charging stations on their overall site, I'm assuming.

Correct. They take a section for their EV area.

And that portion being, yeah, that portion being that. The required amount of EV charging stations throughout the whole site is most likely going to be taken care of.

Right. With that, correct.

Appreciate that.

Thank you. Okay. I'm going to just make a few points, and then I'm going to move on to public comment. Unless they have some more questions, I might bring up some. I knew you would. I wish I had mine written down. Go ahead.

So I did want to ask engineering about just, I'm worried about that merging going from four lanes to three to two so quickly. Can we go back to the one with the, sorry.

Okay.

We're getting there. There. If there was a better way to do that, maybe even extending that Chevron so that we go down to two lanes before we get to Nevada. So that way we just continue as two lanes because now you're trying to merge from three lanes going to two lanes. So you're watching to your left to try to merge. At the same time, there's cars exiting here. So just a better design for that kind of blending. It's easier to blend. before Nevada. So by the time we get to Nevada, we're down to the two lanes that will continue through.

I think that's a very fair question, and we will design it per MUTC guidelines. As you mentioned, a 55-mile-per-hour road, you need more space to merge.

To merge, and then if you're watching cars coming this way and you're trying to watch the cars coming this way at the same time.

Right.

So, yeah.

So, yeah, we'll definitely design it per MUTCD standards, and if that merge has to happen east of Nevada to accommodate that merge, we'll make sure that the applicant throughout the design process shows that.

Okay. And how does that work going through that process or by their recommendations?

It gets vetted out through our office. So typically, you know, they pay plan check fees. So they do the design. We do the plan checks. And then whether it's civil, signing, striping, traffic signal plans, it all goes through our office and we make comments to their plans for them to accommodate. Okay.

So that's something that could be recommended when it comes to say, let's look at it this way and see, look at risk.

Yes, absolutely. And, you know, at a minimum, they would need to comply with MUTCD standards for a signing and striping. But if it's something that we want to look into where potentially this merge happens beforehand, we could, you know, make sure that happens.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay, I'm trying not to prolong the agony too much. One of the things, too, and I'm glad she asked that question, I think signalization at Nevada is going to be key because if that stops traffic, it's going to stop it all the way to Webster. And for those of us who live in Paris, we know this automatically. And so that's why whatever Caltrans decides to do, and we may be dead before that happens, but I know Caltrans, trust me. We don't want to, I'm not worried about from Nevada to there because that's another thing. But just getting to Nevada, that signalization on both sides is gonna be key, and that needs to move traffic if we approve it, move traffic to that intersection. So I think that's gonna be probably premier in this thing. I think two things I'm gonna bring up, and it's not so much a matter of discussion, it's a matter of being technical. And that's just my fault. I've been here 23 years. One of the things I'm looking at, two things. Number one, we're talking about a office building, medical office, and there are plenty of examples around. Menopee has, I hate to say Menopee, but they have an office building down there that's crowded all the time. So there's not a question about that. Anybody says that, you're out of your mind. You don't know what's going on on this side of the region. Yeah, it'd be crazy to think that's not gonna work. But retail, all they have is medical office. But when you talk about retail and other things, that takes on another dimension. But that would be that location which changes the VMTs. Because if you're going to have a lot of traffic going in there, that's going to have a lot more cars going in, a lot more things. That makes that intersection even more important. But we don't have a schematic. But I'm saying this. That would be a separate thing that would have to come before us. In other words, the design, we're not going to say yes, yes, yes. The design, the architectural structure, the landscaping, separate. It's like Raising Kings came in separate from In-N-Out, right? And I hate to use that example, but, you know. And the coffee place, separate from those two. So each one would have to be looked at separately, even though that wouldn't change this. The idea would be office, retail, or whatever. Medical, office, dental, whatever else things go in there. Also, too, the same thing with the hotel. And I think it's put into the condition of approval that it's not going to be drive-through, so we reduce it to four. But that design would still have to come before us. So those are things that are absolute with me. No administrative stuff. If there is, cross it out now. We have to see it. We have to see the design to make sure it's in. If we ever approve this, it would be along the lines with everything else. So that's something that needs to be written in, that if that is approved, we would look at the hotel separately, design, the structure, the height, the landscaping and all that, I see a nodding ahead. Same thing with medical office. Medical office is not necessarily one story. It might be two or three stories. You know, it might be a lot of things in ground floor restaurant. I don't know. I'm not in the business. You have an architect here. But the idea of going to retail, like she mentioned, restaurants might be next door. I don't know. I'm not an architect. But the idea is that office building would need to be looked at separately. So that would come before. The other would come before. And that's something, a consideration that could make this at all possible for me. Not just a blanket, yes, yes, yes. This is not really representative of what I'm looking at here. I'll get about the trellis later because that's minor stuff. But the idea, if you're going to have an office building, I don't know what height restrictions, I don't know what those kind of things would be if that were proposed. In your real estate proposal, it doesn't even show. It just says this could be the potential area for that. This could be a potential area for this, so we don't have any idea. So naturally, you'd have to have it go. Just like the blocks and things that you passed around here, Whether we go to El Dorado Stone, whether the paint colors, those kind of things, that just means it's 101, planning commission stuff. So that would be something that I'm asking developer and asking staff, if you're going to have conditions of approval, that would be something I think would have to be noted, that those two items would have to come before the commission. Because since there's no anything right now, anything could be retail, anything could be office, anything could be dental, what it would look like. So that to me is kind of basic for me. in terms of asking the developer at this point, and I'll get into discussion later, but that's something that I would really look at in terms of codifying it, I hate to use that word, into writing as a separate thing, if we were to approve this at all, okay? And I'm just bringing that forward to you as a developer.

If I can just get a little bit of clarity. I heard clearly and was nodding my head as to the hotel. Certainly, I believe that should come back to you for some sort of design review. Absolutely. When you spoke of office. I wasn't sure I heard clearly. I know that any office use will conform to the existing architecture, which is what the commission wants. Were you asking for something more?

No, it still goes through us, but since we don't have a proposal now, what it would look like is something that naturally would come through us, so that it makes sure, we're not saying we don't trust, but it would still come through us to look at the design, the colors, those kind of seams. Isn't that normal to have to go through this process? So if you have a building, is it one story? Is it two story? Is it three stories? Is the restaurant connected? What would it look like? That's basic to me.

It's just so I understand. If the elevation stays the same and it becomes an office use, Is it necessary to come back? If the elevation changes or there's some sort of different undulation or setback or what have you, then it could come back. Is that satisfactory?

Yeah. Well, what we're looking at now, it says Paddy Shack and Parrish Rock Post. That's not office building. So we're talking single story, we're talking two story, we're talking three story, we're talking restaurant combined. We don't have any definitions here. I have nothing in writing saying that. So we don't want to arbitrarily go, yes, yes, what will that look like? And that's a very, I mean, that's just basic architecture, 101. Here's a picture, three stories, here's what it would look like.

Okay, so again, if it's...

It's not going to look like this if it's an office, right?

Well, you have many office uses that are in what looks like a storefront. So in essence, you may have a dentist's office that that is operating there that looks no different than a restaurant used right next door. And that's what I just wanted to get clarity from.

If it's a medical office building, there are different types of medical office buildings. There's two or three stories. You ever been to Menifee and seen that one? Well, all this kidney analysis, there's dental, there's hospital, there's real estate. So I'm just saying what type if it's going to be somewhat and it might be somewhat different than this.

So that would be a substantial change and I would have to come back. OK, so but I'm just saying we're saying the same thing. Yeah. Yeah.

OK. We just want to see it. OK. If that's the case.

Got it. Thank you for clarity.

I think I'm through unless you guys have some more. I know she just stepped out. Yeah. Oh, well. I don't know if she has. Oh, well, we don't want to wait. She might come back. Anything else for those that are still here? Okay. And you were okay with the landscaping palette because you guys saw the landscaping palette. Okay. So for now, all the detailed stuff, the questions, we appreciate that. And if there are no more questions for the developer and or Mr. Evans or Mr. Brown, you've been quiet today. Do you want to come up? Okay. At this time, oh, well. Since she's not here, I'm going anyway. We want to open it up for public comment on this agenda item and on this agenda item only. Anyone, did we have any blue sheets?

Just one, okay. I do have one. Okay. Mark one, Alabasi Group.

Thank you, sir. Good evening. Marwan Alabasi. Mr. Chairman, commissioners, thank you. I'm glad to see the presentation. There's definitely been some improvements, but I really want to talk about what concerns me, being down the street from them and building a $100 million project down the street. is I don't really see much improvement. We only shifted the four-lane bottle to three lanes to two lanes, a couple hundred feet. Definitely doing the sidewalk and curb and gutter is a plus and positive thing, doing the improvements, but I keep hearing infrastructure by Brad. Does that include water, sewer, stone drain? Because nobody has mentioned that. I hope that includes it. And I'm surprised I don't see improvements like I was conditioned 20 years ago and like DECA was conditioned last year to do the back alleyway. That's a fire lane. That should be constructed along the Ferguson building. That should be part of the circulation. I don't know if the fire marshal have seen this because I was conditioned to do it, DECA was conditioned to do it. So I would appreciate if that's looked into. Definitely, I heard Brad said I think 50,000 vehicles right now. 45,000, we're adding 15, 20. Yeah, 15. You're forgetting my project. I'm adding a lot more vehicles that you approved and council just approved. Why are we keep adding all this traffic, but we're allowing this developer to take us to two lanes? Caltrans have a process. I used to work for Caltrans. They are miserable, unfortunately. We all could attest to that. But they have a new process now when Mr. Nagar was involved in helping with two projects. They call it QMAP. They'll expedite it. 60 to 90 days you'll get an answer from them. I really don't know why we can't start now because I heard Brad saying 10 to 20 years. That is really possible. Do we want to live another 10 to 20 years with this miserable traffic that I personally feel probably more than anybody in this room because I drive every day five to six, seven times there. Why are we being punished? Why can't we, you're a wonderful city, and I love developing here, and I'm sure that's why Mike and the others love to develop here. Work with the developer. Tell him we'll give you temporary occupancy till you finish. Let him get the permit. Let him do the design, because the 250,000 Brad is referring to, That's hardly enough to do engineering. I just signed a contract with the architect for over a million and a half dollars to do my engineering work on the hotel. It's very expensive. A million dollar won't get you anywhere. And you're taking it in four payments of $250,000. I think the choice should be yours. It should be the city's choice to decide what option. But there should be no option. It should be developed. Caltrans will allow you happily to add those lanes. It does not take 10 years. It does take time. Yes, they are miserable. Menifee, as miserable as they are, they allow me to go to Caltrans. A year and a half later, till now, I'm in temporary occupancy because Caltrans is miserable. So, you know, condition it to be constructed, but allow them to have occupancy without having it built. So I hope that's a very critical item. Four lanes, and that's the solution for Commissioner Jimenez. I hope she heard that.

Okay, thank you very much. Anyone else?

Thank you. We tried to wait.

Okay. Thank you very much. Now, I just wonder if there's any more public. Okay. Okay.

So to expand on what the public speaker just mentioned, Mr. Alabasi mentioned, our option number one does state just to let you know for that segment between I-215 and Nevada. If they were to construct it, I'm just trying to find the exact language we have. Can we get the presentation back up? Thanks. Our condition number 24C, engineering condition 24C on page eight of the phase one, I'M LOOKING AT THE PHASE TWO IMPROVEMENTS, BUT I THINK IT'S THE SAME ON THE PHASE ONE AS WELL. IT STATES IN THE EVENT THAT THE $1 MILLION CASH IN LIEU FEE IS NOT SELECTED, THE IMPROVEMENTS BETWEEN I-215 NORTHBOUND ON RAMP AND NEVADA AVENUE WILL NOT BE TIED TO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY DUE TO COORDINATION TIMING WITH CALTRANS. HOWEVER, THESE IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE INITIATED UPON PROJECT APPROVAL AND SECURED AND PURSUED TO ENSURE TIMELY COMPLETION. In essence, we're not holding up occupancy if they chose option number one. So I just wanted to make sure you guys were aware of that and expand on what the public speaker just mentioned.

Oh, I thought you had something to say, Patricia. Okay.

Thank you for that clarification because that's what I was going to read was that particular section.

But thank you. You're an engineer. It's better. Yeah, I'm sorry. Was there any other public comment? Okay, seeing none, we close the public comment portion and bring it to the commission for discussion. Oh, I'm sorry. Did the developer have a... No, no.

Not a rebuttal. Public comment's closed. I'm good. I'm here for questions and conversation.

Okay, thank you very much. It's been a while, so I forget. Yes, sir.

There's no more questions of the applicant now that the hearing is closed.

Right, right. This is just rebuttal if you had a question.

We always want to do that.

Okay, we close the public comment portion and bring it to the clinic commission for discussion, analysis.

RIGHT ON COURSE GUYS IN REGARDS TO THE PROJECT DESIGN AND THE PLAN OF IT I DO WANT TO THANK THE APPLICANT BECAUSE YOU I KNOW IT TOOK MONTHS AND MONTHS OF COORDINATION GOING BACK AND FORTH WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY STAFF OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR I THINK THIS IS DEFINITELY TOWARDS THE DIRECTION OF WHAT WE WERE LOOKING FOR AND TOWARDS THE COMMERCIAL I DO SEE HOW COHESIVE IT IS I LIKE HOW HOW WALKABLE IT IS THERE'S A LOT OF PATHS SO THAT THE PEDESTRIANS CAN GO FROM ONE PAD TO ANOTHER For example, if I want to grab dinner, I could grab dinner there, then walk to get a dessert or something at the same shopping center without having to drive somewhere else. So that's definitely something that we're looking for in the city. So I do want to thank the applicant for including all these details into this project. It does look beautiful. The landscaping is awesome. So I just wanted to point that out. I did have the concern of the Ramona Expressway lane west of Nevada. Just like Commissioner Jimenez stated, as it is now, it is an issue. The traffic does get backed up all the way up to the light of where Nevada is at. So I know with the inclusion of the 15,000 vehicle daily traffic, generation that this project is bringing. I know it is going to be a significant impact, but looking at the EIR, it says that it's going to be less than significant with what the studies claim. So I want to trust the process and I hope that with whatever direction we go with, we can get this fixed out because it is something that's going to be significant for sure, especially with the new projects that are coming on Ramona Expressway. This is going to be something that's going to be ongoing for sure. So I hope that this is something that can get worked out. And besides that, I have no further comments.

I have to agree with my fellow commissioner. I do think the commercial component is very attractive. I do like the landscaping. I love the walkway and the trellis. I think it is a beautiful plan. I think what I have trouble with is... It feels as if 10 years ago we were given this big pill to swallow, the project behind saying this will enable us to have this grand commercial location, and it just does not feel like we are living up to what we were promised, and it does not feel concrete. I'm not entirely sure that we are satisfying the conditions stated in the statement of overriding considerations. I know that one of the conditions says we are fulfilling necessary... commercial development that is needed in the community. The only concrete aspect of this plan is the gas station. That is the only entitled, or not entitled, but one that is solidly in the works, and I don't know if that is necessarily what the community needs. I don't believe so. Another issue, I don't know, I don't think we talked about is I know that the vehicle trips have been discussed. However, that gas station will be used for fueling trucks. And then an already over-encumbered roadway, it just seems like a very difficult location and a difficult situation to be putting ourselves in, especially considering... The fact that we have so many issues with getting this roadway fixed and completed, it just seems hard that we will be adding to the problem rather than doing all that we can to help alleviate it. I just have a lot of concerns about this project. I had a lot of hopes when I heard that it was going to be coming back after the continuation and I just feel very conflicted because I did not see a tangible enough amount of change to feel great about it.

Thank you, that's that's all that I have for right now Thank you, I do also want to echo what my fellow Commissioner said so I did I did see a A lot of improvement, I think, understanding of the issues. I do love, and I would like to put in there that we approve everything, even though I think the only things we're really approving right now are the Maverick and the self-storage. But everything else would be approved as it comes. I do like the merging of the two restaurants into a potential... hotel um i feel my concerns is emerging um and i i understand caltrans and i understand all those limitations i do understand that aspect of it trying to not be unrealistic and be like oh we can't build until that happens because then there's going to be things that never come within the rest of the city i think one of my biggest issues is why what you were saying about Commissioner Menez about the overriding of you know what we Yes, SOC. Just because I feel like we are being forced to choose, or our community is being forced to choose between a sit-down restaurant or business development. Having four drive-thru restaurants, and if you promote something as a drive-thru, you're going to get drive-thru clientele. That's just the way it is. If this is what's presented, that's what you imagine in your head. And I feel instead of having to sit down in restaurants with a potential hotel there and a Maverick, because you want to go have a quick snack, a quick breakfast, I feel like we're still limiting our city. I wish we would have even gone down to three, two drive-thrus at this location and really maximized the area, because if we had two sit-down restaurants, it's most likely we'll get a hotel. Then if we get a hotel, it's most likely we would get those two sit-downs and some kind of business park. I kind of would have preferred just to approve the Maverick and the self-storage and the development, the build out of the street. Even that would have been, I think, a little bit more palpable. Because these are things that are already there. We have people that want to come in, want to build. So I think even that would have been a little bit tangible. Because we know what's coming. We know what's going to go there. So I do like that the conditions were there to maintain the integrity of the architecture and elevations. We didn't bug Mr. Brown today because no matter what gets developed there, there's going to be additional traffic and those mitigation measures, like we wouldn't be able to get to a point where there's no impact. So I would have really liked to just see what's been proposed, self-storage, Maverick, or even less drive-thrus. We went from six to four, but now we have the option of either business or sit down. And I think We hear from our community that we have a lot of drive-thru restaurants in the city, and even the ones that were mentioned. Chipotle's not technically a drive-thru, but it's still fast food. The only place we have sit-down is down in the south part of the city. That's it. Sizzler. That's it. Denny's again south side of the city up north. We don't have a lot So those are my conflicts, but I really appreciate that the landscaping the elevations of changes I Just want to we're Marketing it in a way that is what it's meant to be for that area. Okay.

That's it for me. I kind of agree with Commissioner Jimenez about maybe this should have been phased a little bit differently in bringing the application towards to us. The storage area and Maverick gas station on one portion of it. Not much was said about the other gas station that's on the west side of the property. So that one, not much was said about that one. this go-around however, I really don't think the Although I would love to have the hotel I don't think it's very plausible here because it's would consider consists of a major redesign of the property Would require considerable more parking which may not be a which we may not have on this property because of the requirements of the hotel. I mean, if it's a nice Hyatt or Hilton hotel, I mean, to be worthwhile, I mean, we've seen the one that's down the street that's proposed. How much parking does that require? So one unit, you know, at least one. one space per door or key is required. And in order to get that, it would be a real major redesign of the phase two layout. I don't think it's there. They would probably have to get rid of one or two, potentially one of the drive-through restaurants to be able to acquire that. So I don't think it's, I don't think it's going to happen, but I wish it would. We do need... uh sit down restaurants in the city of paris especially for the north side of the city of paris because there there isn't any um around there are a couple one or two planned uh further west excuse me further east but none here uh we we lost those potential spots spaces um and i really hope that there's two 12,000 square foot total units would actually provide medical services or office spaces instead of smaller convenience store type scenario. I mean, if it does to be a residential unit, Grocery store, even though if it's small, that would be great for the north side of Paris. And, again, that's another redesign that has to occur. So I think... I'm not exactly sure if it's the right time for the project or not. I would like to hear what Commissioner Hammond has to say on this portion as well to see what his real thoughts are as well because he hasn't really expressed too much of his opinion yet.

Gee, I'm not that important. No, thank you. First, let me say thank you for the proposal. None of us have ever get all we want. Because if I did, they would probably hardly be very thinking through me. And in 23 years, I've seen everything. No one's been here longer than me. And I've seen every possible Cimito in 23 years. No one has. And I don't think in all of Southern California has been here longer than I have. So I've seen it all, guys. So I could critique a lot of things. But what I will say, I thank you for the design. I think one of the things that, I'm gonna tell you a few things in that prologue, that I'm sold on it, as I wasn't before. I would also, I should say, I would like to always see more design. I'd like to see 3D. I'd like to see those things. You have an architect. The thing that I don't mind is because you have to come back to two separate things. If there's a hotel, and a hotel was originally planned for this, So it's not out of anything that hotel. A hotel was planned for this area. So it's not something that's unusual. So it easily could be done here. I'd rather have a hotel than drive-thru. The other thing that's possible, instead of the fourth drive-thru, you can have a condition and say, well, this could be sit-down restaurant and or. So that gives an option. If you have something there, we're not holding you to it. It's better to have sit-down. If you have a hotel, you're going to have a sit-down. One of the reasons why you have drive-throughs as much as I dislike them is because it's Ramona Expressway. Because it's Ramona Expressway, people are going in, they're out, they're in, they're out, as we know, and you live over there, they're always in and out. And you can only have, I'm tired of Taco Bell, I'm sorry, Taco Bell. I'm tired of seeing these. And at Starbucks, I went over there on Ramona, but they still have three or four pads that are available. But the idea is it's drive-through because it's Ramona Expressway. And one of the problems is getting people to stop long enough to actually go and take the time. So that's why you have sit down, combination of the two. When first said six, I was like going to the roof. There's six sit down, come on. We need some healthy food, it's not gonna happen. But the idea is that it is an expressway, so you're gonna have stopping thing. I don't believe Mavericks is going to have diesel trucks. I think it's just regular vehicles. I doubt very seriously there's going to be any diesel trucks. That makes a big difference. But anyway, the solution, one of the solutions I'm looking at is that fourth sit-down restaurant that's closest to Nevada could be sit-down and or. So we're not holding it, but it should be marketed as such. That makes it easy for you to sell. So don't just say it's going to be a drive-thru and the residents get angry. Or it could be sit-down. So that's an easy solution. I just did you guys' job for you, okay? The other thing is... One of the things, too, is the office building. The reason I'm concerned is we don't really have office buildings. You're in the Southern Hotel. That's not an office building. Come on. I know, but there's no way. It was never designed for that. I remember it was a little disgusting back in the 80s, but I'm being nice. But suffice to say, office buildings, especially medical, people say no office. You will have people in medical office buildings. I'm just concerned whether it be two or three stories because I don't know if one story is going to be adequate. All the ones I've seen, you go to, I hate, as much as I hate to say Menifee, Menifee has, every parking space is full. Every one of them. And that's the only place in Menifee where you have offices. So why is that? Because it's a need. It's not just a doctor's office, a dental office, it's kidney dialysis, psychiatric, mental health, all those things we need in the city, and architects. could be in that building. So you have businesses, your business could be in there. So you think of it that way. And so that's why I'm saying I'm not that bothered since that would have to come through the commission. I'm assuming if we have the condition approval and not just administrative. So it's something we would need to see our ad hoc would look at. And so that to me is the only thing that really sells me in those two. Then we can get tough about design and look at the spaces where they're adequate because it depends on the size of the hotel. You're talking three stories, and you have to have so many spaces. Down the street isn't that much bigger, so this would be almost literally the same, because you're talking one building. So that gets to be another issue, but that's why it needs to be separate. And just like the offices, retail, medical, separate. That sells it for me, because I would not want to just give away the magic wand and it's okay. As to the gasoline stations, we could argue that one for a long time, but we're talking economics. I don't care for another car wash. I'm here to just tell you straight out, I do not care for another car wash. If you threw that out, I'd be really happy. But we've got a lot. We're talking about 29 in the city now? And more planned? Everybody has dirty cars? I mean, we used to have a really lot of dirty cars. But that's not front and center, but it's in the back. But still, if I could do away with that, I'd be happy. But that's not my decision. That's the economic. One thing I like about engineering, you can always work with engineering in terms of the real specifics about what happens in Nevada and whether or not the Caltrans think that's beyond us. Yeah, we don't deal with as a planning commission. I have dealt with them in the past, and I'm being nice, okay? But the idea is that it just depends on relationship with the city and that, and your county supervisor, your state representative, and the governor can make a call too, and end it all immediately if he wanted to. But the idea is that that's beyond us, in terms of what could happen there. But with the infrastructure, which includes utilities, it goes into line F, right? So it's going in the ground to go to the south side, right? That pipe goes to the south. It connects that way. So the other developer put that in so it would connect with that. So it's not just having the tension basin there. So the utilities are something that really was my number one thing. That needs to be done, and that's one of the things in the conditions of approval. Thank you, Mr. Engineering. If we haven't thought of something, I'm not a genius here. But I really don't have a problem as long as those two issues come before us in terms of hotel. And we have that maybe condition of approval if our commission agrees that it should be primarily a sit-down restaurant and or. So we're not tying you into something. You better get this one. There's some great sit-downs. I mean, just ask Temecula, right? So there are some great sit-down restaurants that will make a lot of money in this city because you don't have any on the north side. Down south, September's is killing it. And I live down there. I mean, I work down there. I mean, I work. I drive down there all the time. Shouldn't because I'm at Home Depot. But I'm down there all the time, and that thing is full. And Corky's is killing it. So don't tell me sit-down can't make it here. And there's nowhere near the traffic on Case Road down there than it is on Ramona. So I'm not buying that. We live here. It will make money. You've got to be out of your mind to put anything else but sit down over there. But right across from a hotel, so you've got some options. So that makes a hotel. And the office complex wants fast food. So if you have that, you want to be able to eat and go back to your office. I remember because I was in downtown L.A., I used to walk almost a mile to get to Chick-fil-A, and the line was around the block. because there's no place else. But we walk because it's good. So you want something that's close by within that area and sit down there would be something of a consideration for me. So those are my ideas. I don't think it's really outlandish. You would have to change a whole lot. I just think the only thing I would say that we need to have things come before the commission, those two entities, and if the wording is not there, it should be to the effect that they would. I'll leave engineering because I trust engineering basically with everything. I trust staff, but especially engineering. They're going to take care of it. You know the technical, I don't. Don't even ask me. I just look at the diagram and that's all I can say. That to me, the engineering thing, I agree. It is important, but we have to leave it to the experts because I'm sure they're not. But the idea is that Nevada also takes a slope up. And you live down there. You know it does. It slopes up. So that's really going to be a challenge for anybody because how do you deal with that slope? And then widening it... That's a challenge. Going from Nevada to the 215 on-ramp is not going to be easy, if Caltrans. But we only can serve from Nevada to Webster. That's my concern. And that's this project. So I think I've said it pretty much. It's not a question of trying to convince them. I'm just saying I don't have a problem as long as things come back to us. Then you can tear it apart, look at the stucco structure, the color, the paint, the architecture design. If it's two-story, three-story, what's about it? That's an ad hoc. So I don't really mind the price. That's the only reason that I don't have a problem is because those things would come to us separately. Because otherwise it would be difficult. It would be difficult. So I think I pretty much laid it out for me. If anyone else has anything else to add on. I did. Wasn't intending it, but that sells it for me. And I'm not an easy sell. Not easy at all. Because this is a gateway. I'm not even sure about the monument sign. It could be a little better than that. Come on. But it is the gateway to the city. It's a major port. So if we're being more tough, because this is the gateway. And because the first thing you see, you should not be weeds, like it used to be on the Wavell Road. You don't want to see weeds first. You want to see something really nice. This says Paris Gateway. I mean, it really says Paris Gateway. And this is something that should stand out. And I don't have a real problem with it. The lighting and all that stuff is all in there. The engineering did a great job in spelling out and making changes. So I'm good with that. And one thing I think we duly noted that if those things occur, we don't necessarily have to add any additional mitigating that we would have to do EIR if any of those changes, Mr. Brown, came to affect what we need to do any future things if we added those things to it. In other words, if we added a hotel, if we added a... I'm just saying if there would need to be anything because I don't know. He's the expert.

So, Chairman, if the applicant is able to come up with a hotel for the project, then and my understanding is that it would come back to you and that would be subject to CEQA review. It would be in the form. If the city, first of all, approves the project as proposed tonight and certifies the EIR, that, of course, happens with the city council. But if those actions occur and then at a future date the applicant is able to come up with a hotel and then comes up with the plans, that would then be subject to CEQA review, and that would be in the form of either an addendum or a supplement, most likely one of those two, to the certified EIR. It would not be a new standalone environmental document. It would be something that works from the EIR that the city certifies.

Okay.

Okay. Thank you. Just needed some clarification.

I did want to add that I thank you, Vice Chair Shively, for reminding me because I had on my notes to talk about the second fueling station because I drive by that. I drove by there four times today. And it's not a big lot, like it looks big on paper, but when you are driving by it, it's very narrow. It's not very long. And to have two fueling stations that close together is I don't think the best use for the Gateway.

I believe there's 12 fueling stations existing or planned from Paris to the Gateway.

Yeah, there is. And, you know, I'm not a developer, not an architect, but that fueling station would have been a great place to have a restaurant and then maximize the parking between the two. But I'm glad you brought that up because I had it on my notes, but I got carried away with all other conversations. But when we drive through that, it is not a big space. You see this and you imagine you're going to have four... drive-thrus. You're going to have two pads. You're going to have potentially a hotel and a self-storage and two gas stations. It seems like it would be a very vast lot, and it really isn't when you drive by it. Trying to picture all of that there. Does it feel...

It's definitely not as large as Maverick, but... Patricia, I... need to clarify, or Matt, I need to clarify. Several times there was a statement that there's only four drive-throughs. Is there four or are there six?

So originally the application, the project came in with six drive-throughs, two in phase one and four in phase two. However, since the applicant went back to address the planning commissioner's concerns and present the project to the ad hoc committee, he has agreed to a condition of approval restricting the development in paths two and three in phase one. from being developed with drive-through businesses to allow for a future hotel. The approval before you today is to allow for conditional use permit to approve four drive-throughs in Phase 2. Okay.

In Phase 2?

In Phase 2.

none in phase one but remember what the applicant said is that there's not really any phases it's just they're being referred to as phase one and phase two but the project's not actually being phased property ownership yeah that's what it's more like component one component two but there's no sequential development so if if we approve this here there's a lot of uh typos that need to be changed in the document that says six

Well, the description includes six because that's how the project was noticed and that's how the project was initially presented to us. The action before you today includes four because that's what the applicant has agreed to and that's how it's conditioned for.

It's conditioned for four, but the recommended conditions of approval says six. Can that be revised?

Which condition of approval is that?

Could we get the presentation?

Thank you. The project description at the very beginning of, that is the, it's because that's how the project was noticed because that's how the project was initially presented to planning.

It's page 34 of 155 of the entire package.

Right, and that's because we're describing the initial application. That's how the project was presented. That's how the project was noticed. We can't change it. The conditions of approval, however, indicate four, and also the requested action includes four drive-throughs. If you like, we can make that change, that correction, if that makes you more comfortable.

Yeah, it would make me feel more comfortable, more fuzzy.

Yeah, we made clear.

Okay.

I'm sorry, is there any other discussion? I don't wanna cut anybody.

No, I did wanna ask my fellow commissioners, because Vice Chair Shively and I brought up the concern with two gas stations so close together, and I don't know if that was something that anyone else had thought about, or was concerned about, not thought about, just been concerned about.

Yes, I would definitely say that that's a concern of mine, especially considering the state number of overriding considerations says that this would be addressing a need. It does not feel as if two extra gas stations in an already small lot is truly addressing a need of the community. It seems like that's something we have an overabundance of.

I say to the city attorney, Would we, if we open it back up for public comment just on that item about the two gas stations, can we just have the developer comment on that?

I don't recommend reopening the public hearing at this point.

Just for him. To comment on that issue about two gas stations.

I don't recommend it. I think you've already closed the public hearing. You've already heard what he has to say with the first time. It's your discretion, of course, but you've started to express your opinions and you're in deliberation, so. to go back and reopen at this point. I don't want to reopen that hole back and forth again like we had last time.

Well, it's not going to be like that. Yeah.

It's not technically in order, but it's your discretion.

Okay. The only thing I would hope moving forward is that Mr. Nagar does prove me wrong, and I'll be glad that to be proven wrong, that for somehow, some way, a hotel gets developed on the site. It's an invitation, Nagar.

We can't. They don't want to open it. They don't want to reopen it. That much we should do.

Yeah, the public hearing is closed. He has not reopened the public hearing. No, no, excuse me. You're not permitted to speak right now. You're not in order right now.

Any other discussion?

You can reopen it if you want, but he's not permitted to speak unless you reopen it.

Yeah, that's what I mean. I'm trying to get a consensus. That's the main thing. Okay. Okay. Got to be plurality.

I don't think it fully needs to be discussed. It could be deliberated between us, I think, if you want to. But if you feel the need.

I guess my question is, are we privy to say, like, the CUPs are presented as is? Are we... I guess, able to make recommendations or changes. I guess my main one is that CUP to have two gas stations instead of having the two where we'd be able to make a recommendation where there's just one instead of two. And what could the recommendation be that it's Maverick since they already have submitted elevations and submitted all these things? Is that something that as a planning commission If we were to approve this to say we move this on with the recommendation that the CUP for the gas stations, fuel stations, I'm sorry, should only be one for the existing, one that has already been submitted or described.

Absolutely. That can be part of your recommendation.

Okay.

So we would just, you would vote on the resolution with a modification that one of the two gas stations is removed and it's the one that's not Maverick. And you would articulate why you would be recommending that. And we can make those changes in the resolution that goes to council.

Okay, so we wouldn't have to delay this and go back to ad hoc and do all that. We could just, if we vote on this and approve this, just with those modifications or those adjustments explaining why and then moving that on to council in that way.

Right. The motion would be to approve the resolution, but with a modification that, you know, changes will be made to reflect removal of one gas station, and you would articulate the findings for why that is. It's based on traffic concerns, site circulation concerns, and then staff can prepare that resolution for council, if that's how you want to do it, or it could be brought back to commission.

Okay, because either way, council will still have the final say with this project.

Right, because it's all just a recommendation to council, so you can recommend whatever you want to council.

Either way, it's a recommendation. Okay, perfect.

Either way, it's a recommendation. Okay, thank you. Or you could send it back and have it come back to commission if you prefer that.

Okay, perfect. Thank you.

Could you put up the whole site plan map so we can look and see which parts that we're talking about?

Now, if we do go forward with recommending only one gas station, will they be held to that? Or is it just a recommendation? But say city council then decides, yes, we will follow through with this recommendation, then it would be solid that there will be only one gas station in this project. There's no way to say, actually, we were just going to do two anyways. Thank you, Matthew.

I think that's a good picture.

Correct. Because the approvals that you'd be giving would exclude a gas station on that site. There would be no approval given for a second gas station.

Because it's a COP. Okay.

P and a DPR, I believe.

Okay.

Okay.

I think I'm having a hard time because this feels like we are debating, I feel like this is a very early stage of a project. I don't know, I can't see exactly what I am voting on. I can't, I don't see, I'm concerned because we're still piece-parting this project and I'm having a very hard time visualizing what it's going to be. after those recommendations are taken into account or are not taken into account. And as I said earlier, I do have some issues with trusting, you know, word of mouth or trusting, you know, we're going to advertise it this way, but there's nothing to be seen. We're not, I'm having a very difficult time because this all feels very, very conceptual beyond what we typically would have in front of us.

I understand why you're feeling like that, but I think with this type of project, it is not uncommon because whoever is coming to any of the other areas, they can potentially get maybe a little bit bigger, right? Like if one of the drive-thrus want to be a little bit bigger or... something wants to change, because they're all going to have to come back to us, we are going to still have to approve each of those additional ones individually. So this is not necessarily what it's going to look like, but they are adding that protection for the architecture, that, and it still has to come back to us. So, like, right now the only things approved are those two.

Okay, and then so despite voting on the COPs and then possibly if those COPs do get approved, what would typically be, I don't know if by right is the right term, so when instead of them being able to say, okay, well, this COP was approved, we'll just build this jack-in-the-box there. Regardless, even though that COP would theoretically be granted, they would still be conditioned to bring it back to the Planning Commission.

For clarification, so if the applicant develops a site as shown on the plans, he is required to record CCNRs so that the future builders adhere to the conceptual architecture that's shown on the plans. those projects will not come back to you. The condition, if you decide to move forward, the condition currently reads that those developments will be approved administratively. Other than a hotel or a medical office building that is different than what's proposed, completely different than what's proposed here, they would come back to you for review and consideration, and they will also be subject to CEQA. But anything else that you see on the site plan now, or the conceptual building elevations, they will be approved administratively. but they will be held accountable to comply with the conceptual design per the CCNRs. Okay, thank you. That does clarify for me.

Because that's what I was talking about. Those two would have to come separately, back with design and structure. So there's no, the rest of it. Now, the only question is, and I can't see it on this map, but it's near Nevada where that second gas station, where that one we were talking about, because it's a convenience store attached. So that would have to be something that would be not a part of this. Would that be correct?

I believe currently there's only one liquor license.

Yes, attached to Maverick, yes.

But you're limiting one of the stations, so you'd have to say that particular parcel would be the one in Nevada, not on the corner of Webster, right? Yes. You're talking about the middle one.

Staff, so if this were to get approved, then we did change the CUP conditions to only the removing the gas station that is not Maverick. And I know there was concern with so many drive-thrus, and we potentially made a recommendation to also change one of the drive-thrus to a sit-down restaurant or to something else. there would have to be kind of a redesign for those spaces. Would that come back to us or would that be done administratively? Would that be done with the council?

You could add a condition of approval, which we can add to what Chair Hammond has already indicated.

For those extra changes?

Yes, for those two other changes in addition to the hotel and any future medical office building. to require a development plan review or any other entitlements subject to planning commission consideration. So it comes back to you.

Okay. Without really holding up the process. I mean, it wouldn't hold up the process. It would come back to us at that time. But everything else that was approved, as is, we could recommend to the council. And if they move forward with our recommendations, those extra ones, changes would happen. be a condition of approval to come back to us. Yes, you would need to add that condition of approval on top of the condition of approval to only for those four things. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. It doesn't show the whole, let's go back to the picture that shows the whole entire complex. I think you had it there. Just so we have clarity. We're getting there.

Okay. This one also shows the entire site, but I also can pull up the landscape plan if you'd like.

No, I think it's really location of the gas station. So the first one is on the Webster. The other one you're talking about is near Nevada. So is that the one you're talking about? And second. So you're talking about the secondary one that's by Nevada. Oh, that's Maverick. So you're talking about the one on the corner? Yes. Oh, the corner is a different one?

The corner is a different one. Oh, okay. Okay. Okay.

Okay. So you're talking about the one on the corner then? Yes. Okay. So that would not be a part of this, in essence? That would have to come back separately? Yes. If that's the commission's desire?

If that's how council approves it, then we recommend a yes.

But I'm saying we would have to recommend that that would not be a part of this. You say there shouldn't be two. It depends on how you guys want it. Once it be a gas station, a secondary one, that would have to be taken off.

No, what she's saying is we could do a conditions of approval. It still will be part of this. A conditions of approval just will be to remove that as a fueling station and then require another condition of approval that when it is going to get developed, it comes back to us, that section. It will still be a part of the main approval section.

But it wouldn't be a gas station. You'd have to come back with something else. Yes. Okay. I'm just not sure how to word that.

Yes. So two conditions. Okay. Now, does each one of those potential changes, if we make them like one less drive-through, does that one, do both of those need to have individual conditions to change and then additional conditions for each of those to come back? Or can we just say these changes are all under one CUP? Yes. I don't know if I made sense, because it didn't make sense in my head. Could you repeat the question? So right now, the only ones that are required to come, or not required, would be coming back to us are the hotel and the medical office, if that is what was to be built there. If we had conditions, or we had CUPs, we changed the CUPs where the second fueling station is, is recommended that it's not a fueling station. And we go down to three drive-throughs instead of two. Do each of those two extra modifications require their own CUP for them to come back to us individually, or can one capture the hotel, medical office, if that's what it is, fueling station redesign, and potential removal of the redevelopment of the drive-thru?

So right now, the one conditional use permit... So let me rephrase that. So the drive-throughs, the gas stations, the alcohol sales are under the umbrella of one CEP. So you may want to add a condition of approval, including for conditional use permits in phase two to prohibit the gas station in phase two and two of the drive-throughs. And any future development, we'll have to come back to the Planning Commission for consideration.

Okay, so we'll be, we could put it so that one conditional, additional conditional use permit.

For phase two.

For phase two, or gateway two, as they're. Yes.

Paris Gateway 2.

It could capture both of them at the same time. Right. Perfect.

Thank you. Yeah, we don't have a conditional use permit for each individual use. We have one conditional use permit that covers all of them.

So this would take that out of that original one, create its own, and with that additional step.

Well, it will exclude the gas station and two drive-thrus in Phase 2. Okay. And that's why you need to include in the conditional approval.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. Is that clear? Yes, it makes sense.

Okay. Thanks, guys. Yeah, I know. Okay. Any other discussion? Okay. Before I get to the, any, I'm not going to read that whole beginning again, then we'd be here all night. Okay. Sufficient to say, and you're going to need help from you guys. Wow. Yeah. In essence, let's just go through some of the amendments before we start talking about motions that have been discussed because I didn't get them all down, so I might miss a few. And I think the engineering pretty much stands by itself, but then we can ask the developer if the $1 million is something that they... But that's a last resort. Right now, the trellis and vines would be one of those things. I don't think that's included. So some kind of covering over the trellis, which is probably the easiest thing here because it's wide open on that... thing is just straight up. So if there's some kind of covering on the trellis that was there would probably be beneficial to me. We went through a series of things, and I'm going to try to be as much as I can. Also, the changes in this one include, and I think it's spelled out in the condition of approval, that we're going from six to four. So we're approving four, well, actually three sit-down restaurants, and a potential fourth one would have to be a condition of approval. can be a sit-down and or restaurant. So that would be a fourth, another condition of approval. So instead of four sit-downs, you'd be talking about three sit-downs and three drive-thru restaurants and one potential additional sit-down and or, whatever that wording might be.

Just for clarification, Commissioner Jimenez indicated that she is recommending... the removal of two of the drive-thru restaurants in phase two.

I did, but I'm open to hearing what my fellow commissioners have to say.

Okay. We went from six to four, and so what we were talking about was another potential sit-down out of those four.

Are you saying sit-down by accident? You're meaning drive-thru?

Sit down and or.

Because right now there's four and they're all on phase two. Three drive-thru and one sit-down.

So we've gone from six to four to three drive-thru and one potential, another sit-down.

Adding a sit-down or removing? You're saying, what are you saying about a sit-down?

You're moving a drive-thru to a sit-down.

So turning that fourth drive-thru into a sit-down? Yes. Is that what the proposal is or is it just removing it?

That's what they were talking about.

Yes, but I don't know what my fellow commissioners felt of removing one or... It is a throwaway. It is a super busy throwaway, but I'm open to hearing what you all have to say.

I'm open to removing the drive-thru restaurant, one.

I'm open to removing one, too, especially considering they said that they are in communication with three drive-thru retailers.

So removing it entirely as opposed to replacing it with a sit-down?

Replacing it with a sit-down.

Replacing it with a sit-down.

Yes. Okay. Where was I?

And there was also a recommendation for removal of the gas station at the corner of Western.

Yeah, I haven't got there yet. I should get consensus on that one. Okay. The other. Okay, go ahead.

And there was one more thing that was mentioned as changes but we didn't really get to see was the redesign of the trash enclosures, but we had also talked about locations working with staff on locations and elevations of the trash enclosures for the locations. I know it was mentioned at the beginning and then there was no mention of the trash enclosures for the rest of the presentations.

Yeah, it's actually a condition of approval.

Yes.

If you look through the condition of approval, it says that we will require elevations for every trash enclosure and that they conform to meeting the architectural styles for each building associated with each trash enclosure.

Yeah, but for Madhawk, we had also talked about the location of them.

Okay.

So working with staff on the location of, because some of them were in front, like that was the first thing you saw from the street. So I think we had also, I think Commissioner Lopez, we had also talked about the location of the trash enclosures, not just the elevations.

Yeah, that's a good point. There are some shown on the site plan that are adjacent to Ramona Expressway. Yeah.

Oh, okay.

Oh, just one more clarification on the conditional use permits, because I think that got kind of glossed over just a bit. So I just want to go over those real quick. One conditional use permit is for the self-storage facility. One conditional use permit is for alcohol sales at the Maverick. And then the third conditional use permit is only applied to what we call the second phase or the eastern portion, and that's the drive-thrus. The gas station itself on that corner does not require a conditional use permit. That is a permitted use permit. in the commercial zone of the Paris Valley Commerce Center specific plan. I know there's a little bit of confusion over that. The only way that there would be a conditional use associated with that gas station is if they wanted to sell alcohol. And because we don't have an end user there, we don't have developed floor plans, we told the applicant that we couldn't provide them with a CUP at this time for alcohol sales there because we just don't know who the end user is. We don't know how they're going to set up their store. So that third CUP is just for the drive-throughs.

Oh, because on...

In phase two.

Okay, in the main one, and I know there was edits that were made there, number three states in the cover letter, conditional use permits to allow a self-storage facility, six drive-thru fast food restaurants, two two-vehicle fuel stations, and the off-sell of beer and wine.

Correct. Again, we're talking about project description versus what we recommended. because the applicant wanted to have alcohol sales for those fuel stations. The fuel stations by themselves don't require a conditional use permit. Alcohol sales, which is typically associated with fueling stations, you go into the C-store, you grab beer or wine or whatever, We recommended only one, and that was in the original recommendation. So again, I know the project description doesn't really match what the ultimate recommendation of approval is, but the recommendation of approval is one CUP for alcohol sales associated with Maverick only.

The request also reads... CUP 24-05142 for two vehicle fuel stations, the off sale of beer and wine. So that also implies that that CUP would cover both fuel stations. Correct.

That's what they asked for. So our recommendation was only the CUP apply to the Maverick. And if you look at the conditions of approval, the CUP associated with beer and wine sales is only for the Maverick, not the other gas station. Again, I know that the applicant originally would like to have had one because it would have just been easier for them to market it. But the problem is that... we need to look at a lot more detail for issuing those CUPs, like internally. So they would have had to have had an end user in mind who knew where their coolers were going to be, who knew where they were going to be displaying the beer and wine, just like the Maverick provided with you. So you have that floor plan for Maverick. You have all of the information regarding the CUP You have the public necessity and convenience for the Maverick only so that other CUP does not apply to the other gas station. The only thing that is covering that gas station is the DPR for phase two, if that makes sense. So there is no CUP associated with the second gas station as conditioned.

Okay, I understand, but that's not the way it reads.

I understand.

Can we clarify that?

We understand. We know it's a little convoluted because, again, it's the applicant. It's what they asked for originally versus what we recommend. And so, again, there's no CUP associated with that second gas station, only at the DPR for Phase 2.

Commissioner Jimenez, you're absolutely correct. Everything in the report and the resolutions indicate that the vehicle fuel stations require a conditional use permit. We will bring back a resolution cleaning up that information as a consent item. So it will not be a public hearing. It will be a consent item.

Okay.

So we would have to clean it up because it... What you could do is just vote tonight on what you'd like to see in the reso, and then we can bring back a cleaned up reso for adoption at the next meeting without a further public hearing. Okay. Just as a consent item. Because there's numerous things we have to clean up. We have that cleanup. We have the phase one, phase two cleanup.

Yes.

We have the changes that would be needed based on what you're recommending, if there's going to be removal of certain things. So there's a lot of changes that would need to be made. It would take time.

Okay.

And rather than trying to do it after the fact and submit it to council, it might be better if we clean it up and bring it back to the commission for adoption as a non-public hearing item, and then it goes to council. Okay, perfect. So the commission has a chance to take a look at the revised, and if anything doesn't look right, let us know. Otherwise, if it looks good, then we move it to council.

Okay, thank you.

Anything else? No. Okay. I don't have anything else to add. If I did, it just left my mind. So anyway, at this point, I'm going to read what the recommendation is. It's one of the few times I'm going to read it because we have a lot of changes, so I'm going to have to read it, unfortunately. And what is what before us? So it says adopt resolution, and obviously we're going to make changes. 25-24 recommending that the city council certify first and foremost the final environmental impact report. adopt the mitigation and monitoring and reporting program, findings of fact, and statement of overriding considerations, and approval SPA 22-05280, financing TPM 22-05279, TPM 38576. We keep saying phase one, so we may have to... Anyway, for, quote, phase one and financing TPM 24-05150, TPM 3985, for... quote unquote, will change phase two. CUP 22 for the 05295 for the self-storage facility. CUP 24-05141 for the three drive-thru restaurants in phase, no, without takeout phase. CUP 24-05142 for the one vehicle fuel station. The off sale of beer and wine type 20 alcohol license at the Maverick convenience store in conjunction with the determination of public convenience and necessity. And DPR 22-00028 and 23-0021 for review of the site plan and building elevations in phase one and phase two. Okay. Facility construction of the Paris Gateway Commercial Center on 20.2 acres. based on the findings contained in the resolution and subject conditions of approval and amendments as so stated or may need to be restated. So do we need to go through the amendments that we stated or would somebody like to state all the amendments? Other than me.

I think for clarity we should.

Oh, I thought you were going to say it.

I can try here. If I miss something, please let me know. Removal of the drive-through, one drive-through business in phase two, what we were calling phase two at this time, and replacement with a sit-down restaurant. Required development plan review that comes back to the planning commission for the future hotel and possibly a medical office building. Mm-hmm. And a separate environmental review for compliance with CEQA. For the gas station, prohibit the gas station in phase two.

Mm-hmm.

Under site plan requirements, parking stalls also add that parking stalls for passenger vehicles and accessible parking stalls shall be striped in accordance with the zoning code and the California building code.

And ADA.

Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. We do have a condition for the trellis covering, and I'm trying to find it.

But the trash enclosures, we had also talked about location, so we do have it.

So condition 42, to add work with staff on the location of the trash enclosures. And where is, Matthew, where is the condition for the drive-thru, for the trellis? I know we have it in here.

I didn't see it.

It was just below the one for the trash enclosures. So if you can find the trash enclosure, I think you said it was 42, so it might be 43. Thank you.

So we do have a condition for the trellis in Phase 2, and it reads a trellis structure as shown on the approved plan shall be constructed from Ramona Expressway to Buildings 2 and 3.

With some kind of covering. That could be an administrative thing. Yeah, the covering of some kind.

Oh, the cover for the trash enclosure?

No, for the trellis. It's wide open. So we'll leave that administratively.

So 42A already includes a trellis over the trash enclosure.

But over the trellis itself. If you look at the picture.

He's talking about the walkway in between. That leads up to buildings two and three.

And that is condition 43.

There's just wooden slots across the top.

I believe what Chair Hammond wants is some sort of covering over that actual trellis walkway. So I believe he mentioned vines, but...

It could be. I mean, it doesn't matter. Just the covering.

The revised condition 43 to state that that trellis will have a cover.

Yeah, that's it. Administratively.

Commissioner Hammond, are you trying to say a solid covering?

Doesn't matter. I'll leave that to staff. It gets hot out here, guys.

We will make sure to add that on there.

Yeah.

I think you did pretty good. And that's all I have.

Oh, you did.

I do want to, this was not mentioned by the Planning Commission, but I do want to add a condition of approval under landscaping requiring that landscaping shall be extended across the driveways proposed to be removed along Ramona Expressway and Webster Avenue. And that's all I have.

Oh, do we have pavement stone on the entryways engineering? Pave stone of some kind? Because I don't, if I missed it, I'm sorry.

He's talking about enhanced pavement at the driveways?

All of them, yeah.

Yeah. There should be, I believe there's a standard condition for that.

I don't remember seeing, if it's there...

It's not part of engineering conditions of approval usually. Correct. It would be a planning condition. Yeah, that's a planning, yeah. Or planning condition, right. Yeah, engineers don't care about that fancy stuff like we do.

We do, I know, we do.

Right to the business with the roadway. Yes, exactly.

So would you guys... We have that condition in 46C. Okay. There's a condition that states, or 46E, enhanced pavement. Decorative pavement treatments shall be used for the commercial driveway entrances. So what does...

Yeah, as you can see on the site plan, it does include those enhanced paved entrances for most of the driveways, but we can require for all of them.

It's hard to see. I've got good eyesight. Okay. I think that was pretty good. Unless our attorney has anything else?

Just to reiterate, the Phase 1 versus Phase 2, clarifying that, and the conditional use permit cleanup, and mentioning that the prohibited gas station in Phase 2 a DPR would be required with Planning Commission approval for any future development on that site. And it would not be an admin DPR, but rather a Planning Commission DPR for the medical office building and the hotel.

And where would the medical office building be?

It would be one of the ones in Phase 2.

So those Phase 2 retail buildings, because... currently we have a condition of approval number seven that refers to all commercial buildings in the phase two area being an admin DPR. So we would modify that to clarify that if we're referring to, you know, the hotel pad or those two retail building pads, that that would be a planning commission DPR, not admin DPR.

And I think that's the key thing, it'd be planning commission. Not that we don't trust the staff, but we want to see it.

And then so the motion would be to recommend approval to the council with those changes and for staff to prepare that resolution and bring that back at a future meeting, the next meeting if possible, as a consent item for consideration and adoption.

Okay. Thank you guys for clarifying that because I had...

I'm not good at writing sometimes.

Okay, I think we, oh, are we okay, Sylvia? Because that's a lot. Okay, I don't know how you do it. This is all up here. That's no good. Okay. Okay, so we have the requested resolution. I read it, but I think we have that clarification. And I'm not going to read that over again.

We would just need someone to make the motion.

I think we pretty much got it on record. With all those changes, do we have a motion? It's been moved by Commissioner Lopez.

I didn't sign in, so I'll second. How did you vote?

Okay, it's been moved by Commissioner Lopez and seconded by Vice Chair Shively.

Commissioner Menes?

Yes.

Commissioner Lopez?

Yes.

Commissioner Jimenez? Yes. Vice Chair Shively?

Yes.

Chair Hammond?

Yes.

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

Thank you very much. You did very well. I appreciate it. Thank you all for your patience out there too. We appreciate it.

We got through that.

Okay. We move to Oh well, public comment. Anyone who wishes to address the planning commission regarding items not on the agenda may do so at this time. And you can walk up to the podium and wait for chairperson to recognize you. Speaking clearly, we can skip that. But at this time, we open a public comment and anyone in the public who is wishing to address the planning commission could come forward now to the podium. As they say, speak now or forever hold your peace.

Yeah. I'm sorry.

I thought Michael Brown was going to come. It'll be the day we... We see city staff talk. We're really in trouble, right? Okay, we close the public comment portion. And, well, you know, we went to item seven, business items. I don't know if we have business items. Okay. And item eight, commission updates and announcements.

I just want to say that I hope everybody had a good Thanksgiving. Hopefully you guys had some time off, a couple days off from work, and you got to spend time with your family. We have a couple events coming up. I know we have the Christmas tree lighting. and the Christmas parade. I won't be able to attend the Christmas tree lighting, but definitely I'll be at the parade. It's super exciting just seeing everybody come out for the holidays. So I know we're wrapping up the year. We've been super busy the past couple months. So I'm just super excited to see what comes Starting off the 2026. Yeah, I just wish everybody happy holidays. And I know it's cold nowadays, so hopefully everybody stays warm and stays safe.

I don't have anything to announce, but I did just want to say I hope everybody had a happy and safe Thanksgiving. I hope you ate lots of mashed potatoes and stuffing. And have a safe rest of the holidays. One more planning commission meeting to end the year out. So looking forward to that. That'll be cool. Yeah, that's all.

I would like to echo what my fellow commissioners are saying, hoping everybody had a safe and wonderful Thanksgiving surrounded by loved ones and that this holiday season continues to bring that into your life where you're surrounded by loved ones. people that you love and care about and are able to enjoy the moments. I do want to give a huge shout-out. You all know band season is over. Our city bands did phenomenal. They placed really high in each of their categories, so a beautiful job for our local marching bands and field shows. I did want to give an extra huge shout-out to my daughter and the percussion at Rancho Verde because they took sweepstakes at the Arcadia Percussion Drum Off. She's one of the drum captains. Or she's the drum captain and one of the section leads. There's two for percussion. And they will be at the parade. So come out and check them out. Come out and check us out because we have so much fun walking and saying hi to all the residents. I will be at the tree lighting ceremony. Look forward to all the performances from the local youth groups and schools. It's a beautiful event. If you haven't been, please come. consider attending, even if your child's not performing. It really, I feel like that is the official kickoff for the holiday season in the city. Once that happens, you know, it's holiday season. And then Saturday is the Winter Wonderland. Then the 13th is the parade. So we have a lot of things happening in our city, beautiful things. We're driving around this weekend and just in all of how much our city has grown and changed even within the last year and a half and all the beautiful development. So huge shout out to our staff for putting up with us this whole year. And we still have one more meeting to end the year, but thank you for being so patient, being so open and really listening to us and, and really creating a meaningful partnership that has really changed the way our city looks and the way it feels. I want to say for a lot of us, because we, community input is is real and and when we speak we really bring from the community perspective and and you all listen are also part of the community because you drive around you shop you eat local so you are also fully integrated as part of the community so thank you I definitely want to uh wish everybody I hope everybody had a great Thanksgiving and I'm uh

I'm still stuffed. My wife has done a great task in fixing what the leftover is. So, you know, enchiladas, turkey enchiladas, turkey noodle soup, and all kinds of good stuff.

They're gone.

Praise her for that. So she's always been doing good at that. Just listening to this tonight, I'm actually scared to bring projects to the planning commissioner in the future because it just seems cutthroat sometimes, but it's just very thorough. So that's, and I don't think the council would want us any other way to, you know, even though we might beat up on them, it's a thorough process for us, so.

Quickly, I have to state, first of all, I do hope everyone had a wonderful Thanksgiving. Because they had to be in my house, I had to clean up. And they took all the food with them. So I said, you're going to come to the house and you're going to take all the food home with you. So thanks a lot. What are you going to do? It must have been good. Well, yes. Yeah, okay. Two things real quick. One thing, we do have the Christmas tree lighting. If you haven't been to it, there's going to be a lot of people there, guys. So you have seats that are up in the first two rows. So really, I think I did a solo act last time, but we'd like to see all the commissioners if you can. And they will probably drag you up on the stage. I guarantee they're going to drag you. They drag me. I try to say, no, no. And they say, you're coming up there. That's all there is to it. Do you want to stay in the commission? Okay. So it's really nice. And you have youth singing and youth dancing and all that. So it's fun. It's going to be cold, but it's fun. And also the Christmas parade. Hopefully we get a car that's not going to leave us two blocks. The guy's two blocks ahead of us. What is the... What is the point? He drives way up there. We're just walking. We couldn't even keep up with him. He's like, hello, hello. But we like walking. We don't want to be sitting in the car. We like walking. We want to see eye to eye with people. And people really like that. So appreciate it. Let me finally say this. And I wasn't paid to say this. But I want to say first, thank you. And I can't say thank you enough for Sylvia. Sylvia, I consider her a friend. Don't get any ideas. But I've known her a long time, and she really, really is very helpful, very thorough, very professional. And she helps me a lot. I bug her to death. But I says, don't text me. You call me. And that means you have to mean something. Just call me. And she does. So I can't say enough about Sylvia, who puts up with me, which means anything. But thank you, Sylvia. Great work. Great job. And, you know, I mean, you just, you do a lot of work. They put it on you, but you're a city employee. What can I say? And to the staff, you know, especially, I can't say enough about Brad and especially Patricia. And they're just not staff to me. They're almost like basically friends and family to me. So I don't treat them like, well, if you did, you'd be doing it. But they put up with me a lot. And their attitude and their demeanor. And I call Patricia, blah, blah, blah, blah. Okay, Brad, you know, I leave him alone. But great job. We appreciate it. And most of these can't say that about staff. Some of them hate their staff. But we really appreciate the staff, and especially our attorney, who's finally learning. I said, these guys are crazy, right? But we're very thorough commission. I can't say enough about our commissioners. We are very thorough. Some people say, you're too bad. We're going to stay thorough. We're up here to do a job. And just because you like it, 200 people say they like it. I don't care. We're going to be thorough and be fair. So we're going to, quote, beat up on a few people, but that's not the point. It's just to be thorough. So I will ask questions. We will do those things. And we really appreciate our staff. We should say that when we say Thanksgiving, we think we have a staff we can work with. And we will submit stuff, but we're not submitting stuff to the council that's junk. We're going to thoroughly do it.

They can do what they want. But we're going to thoroughly go through it.

We're going to thoroughly go through every single thing. That's our role. And that's what we're going to do. So we appreciate that. And we appreciate your respect. And everyone who shows up to also, too, we have a League of California Cities is in Anaheim. They should be in Riverside. But they go to Anaheim, so we're working to get that reservations. If you can go, let her know quickly because those rooms are going to go fast in Southern California. It jams up. And I'm not going to be good this time. I'm going to be bad when I go there. Yeah, no, I'm kidding. I drive them crazy. What? Where are you from? Paris. Okay, France. Oh, I thought it was Paris. No, it's Paris Fred. But no, I really appreciate it. And so if you have a chance and can do it, and she's got the stuff, just let her know and make it. And so reservation's got to be done pretty much this month, or you're going to be driving on the 91 to get there. So you don't want to do that, or do you? So we appreciate it, and I turn it over to our planning manager updates and announcements.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the kind words. You guys have done a great job throughout the year. Our projects wouldn't be what they are without your feedback and your comments and making sure that they do make a difference in our community here. I do want to remind you about the, and you just mentioned it, the 2026 Planning Commissioners Academy. It's going to be on March 11th through the 13th in Anaheim. It's very close to us, but like you mentioned, we got to register early on if you don't want to be driving on the 91. For the upcoming meeting, our last meeting of 2025 on December 17th, we have only one item. and that's the harvest landing project. It's a major project for the city and we feel it's necessary to have all the attention that we can. We will be providing the plans early on to give you plenty of opportunity to go through the project. The rest of the components of the project will be available as usual the Friday before the hearing. That's the only item I have to report. The events coming up, as you all mentioned, this coming weekend, or starting Friday, we have the tree lighting ceremony. On Saturday, we have the Winter Wonderland, and then we have the parade on December 13th. So we hope to see you all there. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

We appreciate, we even appreciate Mr. Evans who puts up with us now. He's probably used to us by now. Yeah. So we have a city, a lot of things going on, a lot of things upcoming. We're seeing a lot of EMWD stuff on the ground. But there are a lot of improvements and they're happening over a period of time. So we do appreciate that it's happening in the city. It's a lot of positive things going on. It's just didn't always get reported on. So we appreciate it. We'll see you in the 70s. We need those stuff early because this is a major project, guys. I mean, when I say major, Probably the biggest project in the history of the city parish is this one because it's in the biggest location. So we're really going to want that stuff in advance. Yeah, we're getting bombarded with emails, I know. I got like 150 of them. But that's okay. We have an interested public. But anyway, with that, we say without any further ado, we will say adjournment. Again, we can pick a person. I can move. You can move. Anyone. Anyone. It doesn't matter. We all are gentle unless someone wants to stay here. Okay. And thank you, Sylvie, for the heat that we had this time because we didn't have to freeze up here, so we did have heat. I appreciate it. Thank you. Good night.