Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

testing. I was just I don't know how

I don't think I've ever sat in this chair. You want to switch? No, I can handle it. Good afternoon. Uh, I'm Russ Wam, chairman of the City Read and Planning Commission. Uh, welcome to our planning commission meeting here on this date. Um, I believe we have uh all the staff and commissioners that are going to be in attendance. So, with that, I will turn it over to our clerks uh to do a roll call. Chair Winnham here. Vice Chair Will present. Commissioner Balovc absent. Commissioner God absent. Commissioner Miner here. Commissioner Nance here. Commissioner Ryan absent.

Thank you very much. Seeing that we have a quorum, we will proceed. Um, what I would like to do is turn to Director Pagan and ask him to just introduce city staff that are sitting over there at that uh particular uh area.

Sure. Thank you, Chair. Um, tonight uh this afternoon we have planning manager Lily Toy, myself Jeremy Pagan, director of development services, we have assistant public works director Josh Anthony, and city attorney Christian Curtis. Thank you very much. So [clears throat] just a couple introductory comments uh before we get started just so you guys are are ready in the audience. Um there are little speaker cards should you choose to if you want to speak. Looks like they come in three different colors looking down here at the uh desk. Doesn't matter what color it is. Uh it can be as simple as you say East Side Road or you can say anything. You don't have to worry about the exact agenda item. Just make it clear what you're to speak on. It is helpful if you uh have your name uh clearly uh printed uh because I'm going to butcher it at some point and then our um clerks have to figure out how to type up uh minutes later. So, thank you very much and we appreciate you coming out today. A huge um commitment on your part.

[clears throat]

Uh the other thing is watch your cell phones because we've got a big room. Um feel free to put them on vibrate or silent um at this time. And then uh the other thing as we get into it, I might as well continue down my comments right now instead of before we get to the public hearing. What as as a practice what's going to happen is and I'll go over this again when we get to that point because I know we have a lot of people that want to speak and want to participate. If you glance way over there to there's two speaker spots. There's a low spot if that works with you with a microphone and a chair. There's a higher spot on a podium um with a with a microphone. It's super critical and hopefully I'm doing a good job of it right now. It's super critical that you're you put your face on that microphone. Uh the microphones are not very good and neither is my hearing. And so just really we want to hear everybody and so we just ask you to uh enunciate be really clear and to the point introduce yourself uh whatever would be helpful for us to understand um context for your concern uh which might include where you live how this impacts you that sort of thing. Uh the other piece to it is once the time comes I'm going to try to get ahead of the curve and call one person up and also say who's on deck using the baseball term and then what's the next one in the hole. I'll say number two and number three because I'll forget that part and there's a couple chairs over there. you're welcome to and you're encouraged to work your way that way if you know your name is coming up because your time and and I mean this very respectfully. Um it is hard as an audience member to make it to the end of one of these meetings. Uh we we get paid zero for doing this but we're committed to staying here to the end of this meeting but I know it's harder for you guys. And so to the extent we're able to move people through efficiently and the next person to speak is already waiting there. And if you need to sit, there's a chair there. There's a couple of chairs um uh available to you. And if you need

some other accommodation, you let us know and we'll make sure you have that accommodation uh to make sure that you can speak. So all of those were out of order comments. I'm waiting. I'm not getting glared at by the city attorney yet. Um [clears throat] yet it'll happen, won't it? So, with that, what I'd like to do is actually move on to item number two, which is approval of minutes. And we have minutes from October 28, 2025, and we have minutes from December 9, 2025. Uh, I'd be happy to um entertain a motion or any discussion separately or together. I move

I move to approve October 28th, 25 minutes. And I'm gonna recuse from the December 9th. And you'll recuse from the 29th. Okay. So So we have a motion to approve for the October 28th. Is there a second or any other discussion, clarifications? I will second. Very good. Uh call for the vote on October 28. All in favor? I I I.

Looks like we have four yeses. And then with the recusal on the December 9, my assumption is we just skip that item and we kick it down the road to the next meeting because we do not have a quo. Okay. Okay. Very good. So that one will that one will wait. No harm, no foul. Um I will turn to staff. Are there any announcements that need to be made before we move into the planning commission items? No announcements, chair.

Very good. Thank you. So, planning commission items, consent calendar, we don't have any. Uh, the next item is public hearing and it's public hearing 4B1, general plan amendment and reszone for property down on East Side Road. I think you guys are all, I always say, as articulated in the staff report and the agenda. Um, and again, let me just give you just a little sense for the flow because there may be some of you that this is your first time attending a meeting like this. What'll happen in general and we'll be flexible if if if adjustments are needed, but what'll happen is staff will give a presentation um that explains the reason uh we're being asked to take an action and they will then also tell us what their recommendation is which is also articulated in the report in front of us which we all got on Friday by the way. Um so we'll have a report from staff. Next, we will have commissioners. If we want any clarification from staff, we will have an exchange with them, just making sure we understand what they're proposing and why and any questions we have. Then we will open a public hearing and that public hearing will stay open as long as it needs to be. Everyone will be given three minutes. There'll be a a clock and um my voice can carry and I'm going to start talking at right about three minutes encouraging someone to finish and sit down. And that's out of respect to everybody. I know that that can be really really hard to deal with, but we're going to ask you to do that and then we'll move on to the next person. We will work through. The next thing that tends to happen is uh audience members in something like this like to ask staff and ask commissioners questions from their lectern and we are not going to answer. We are here to listen and learn. We may answer and we will discuss it after the close of the

public hearing. But while you're giving if if you're intending to to stand at the lect turn and and demand answers to certain things, it's going to be really awkward. I'm just freakishly honest because we're going to sit here and we're going to look at you and the attorney's going to say, "No, no, no. You're not supposed to answer questions." He's impressed that I've learned all this. Um, and so again, I know that that's hard. Um, but that's that's kind of the way it goes. We listen. We take notes. I personally am going to attempt to capture each topical area that someone expresses as a concern so that we can keep track of it after the public hearing is closed and then we will bring it back for more discussion and then typically we head to a vote. So, that's the flow. Do I have the flow correct, attorney? Not too bad, huh? So, with that, what I would like to do is um is then say uh let's see. I'm going to turn it over to staff at this time to Director Peagan and uh Manager Toy.

Thank you, Chair Winnham. Um, [clears throat] at the top of our presentation, I just like to bring attention to the fact that you have a few minor revisions to some of the attachments to our staff packet. So, you'll see the draft resolution, the draft addendum to the mitigated neck deck, and the draft addendum to the EIR. Um, those are also available in the back and our binder, as well as we have numerous copies for any members of the public that would like to see that. Um, or we can make copies uh for the public if you so choose. And I've asked uh city attorney Curtis to just offer some opening remarks about um why these uh revisions are made to these documents and also just sort of set the stage uh for the the opening of our presentation. So I'm going to turn it over to city attorney Curtis.

Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. Um so I asked staff to to go ahead and make some revisions to uh some of the documents that you asked uh approved today and in particular removing reference to the jail facility. Um, some of this was covered in the report, but I do think that the the way the information u was laid out is potentially confusing. So, I just want to make sure that I I cover this um correctly with the the commission. Um, any any structure or any project that the county might undertake on this land, and the county does have a lease um and potentially might be acquiring ownership o of the property into the future. anything they do there is going to be um exempt from the the city's zoning ordinances. Um and it also will not have to comply with the city's general plan. So just as a matter of law um nothing um that the the county might be doing there in terms of any of the these uh projects would be impacted by a zoning decision or a general plan amendment decision that you would make today. Couple of nuances on that. One is if they did rent out the property uh if they were to subleasase somehow uh for some private purpose, you know, just to a commercial business doing something completely unrelated, um uh that might that that commercial business that was uh subleasasing might have to comply with city zoning laws. Um uh alternatively um [cough and clears throat] uh there is one step in the process that I want you to be aware of where before the the county were to undertake any project on this location, they would have to submit the details to this this commission in order for you to draft a report as to whether or not that project was consistent with the city's general plan. Um however, that report isformational only. um uh the the case law is clear that that doesn't actually impact the county's ability to go forward. It would be purely advisory. Um so uh to the extent that the decisions

that you're making today would um are um uh impacting the the uh general plan designation and the zoning designation of of this property, the legal significance really has to do not so much with what the county might do on the property, but what what might happen in the future. Um, and that's really a much more broad level conversation um, as to whether you think this is the appropriate general plan designation, appropriate designation, um, what you think would be appropriate in terms of restrictions on this property going forward. And I don't want to give a false impression that this is a prerequisite for the the jail or that really this would have any impact um on on any uh uh potential process, you know, alternative custody program, jail, anything that the county might build on that that land um as part of its operations. Um so I did ask that that get removed from the resolution um from some of the other documents just to try and make that as clear as possible. And I really wanted to make sure that the the commission understood that um before you got into the item um and be able to answer any questions that you might have on that front. C

can I ask a question please because you you gave a lot of information. So um so there is a lease agreement correct? Correct. And so who owns the land right now? The city owns the land and the county has possession of the land um as the leie. Okay. And so you're referring to uh the details of the lease agreement. Uh like what? So you said there's case law.

Oh yeah. I I'm sorry. Um the lease agreement is not what impacts the application of the zoning law. Um the this is just a categorical immunity under state law where anytime the city um builds something in the unincorporated area, it's immune from the county's zoning laws. And the the reverse is true. the the county is simply immune from the city's zoning laws. Um uh actually one of the cases early on uh about the general plan consistency actually involved the city of Reading with the city was building in the unincorporated area of the county. Um [clears throat] but um this is this is something that existed um frankly for a very long time under um uh California law just as a constitutional matter and then the state legislature codified it. I want to say in the 40s or 50s but don't quote me on that.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah, I think if I can have a followup to that when when you made the statement [clears throat] that um that that that there will be one future my version on what I heard you say, one future action of this commission in the future and that will be to receive a report from the county where they assert and describe how they're what they're doing is consistent with the city's general plan. Is that what I heard you say? No. Um Okay. Slightly different. I'm sorry.

Thank you. Um the um before there there is a statute that requires that before the county were to undertake um any construction within the city limits, it would have to submit its plans for that construction to the planning commission in order for you to issue a report and it's discretionary. You don't actually have to issue the report. Um but you would have 40 days to issue a report on how that project is or isn't consistent with the general plan. That report, however, is onlyformational. It's there's similar statutes. For example, when state agencies acquire offices inside of the city, they have to provide notice um to the city. It doesn't allow the city to do anything to stop it from happening, but just as sort of a a way of um uh letting the city know what's going on and possibly have room for conversations um uh uh you know, between appropriate officials.

So, so these Sorry, but this project is still going to be using city water and city power. Uh and city utilities. Sorry. Would are you referring to whatever the county might do on the Yeah. Right. And and I just want to separate that from the action that you would have. Okay. I'm just asking for, you know, so

um I um candidly I'm not certain um I I don't recall um whether that there was anything um negotiated to that effect or not or whether that might be in the the plans in the future. Um it would be not uncommon when the the um uh the county sets up an operation um within the city limits to to use local utilities as opposed to something else. Um but I'm not certain in this case. Yeah. And that that's to be determined. We haven't seen development proposals drawings. There's been no uh permits issued and or applied for at this juncture. So it's to be determined. So to be determined on utilities and like uh thorough affairs and city-owned

Yeah. And my understanding is that project I think just recently came under contract for design phase. Okay. So we're we're a ways out from understanding those details. Okay. Thank you. Go ahead, Commissioner. So thank you for this. I think this probably was triggered maybe by my email earlier, but you kept using the word discretionary. So, can you explain to us how this would not be a discretionary decision based on SQUA? Yeah. Well, um let me let me back up a little bit. Um if we're talking about the the general plan amendment and the um

uh the the zoning change, that is a discretionary action. Okay? I would just recommend that you look at that in terms of what that is, which is a change to what would be allowed on the property and not in terms of the proposed use, which will be unaffected by um uh whether or not you change the the the the zoning designation. Um the legal effect here down the road really is going to be what some private owner might be able to do if if and when um you know this any facility that is built now might close. If we're talking I don't know how many decades in the future um or if the project were never to get off the ground and ultimately end up in private hands. That's really where this is going to have significance. So, um, that the the distinction I'm trying to draw here is that the the zoning change and the general plan amendment change aren't going to impact whether or not what the county wants to do is going to go forward. Um, because it's just not going to have any legal effect on them. It's going to be what what that does for any private owners um if and when this land uh enters into private ownership. This is a good sort of logical moment when it's leaving city control just to revisit zoning. But at the end of the day, um you know, really you have the discretion as to um what recommendation you want to make to city council as to what general plan designation would be appropriate here, what zoning designation would be appropriate here, and that's really going to operate independent of what the county might do because it's not going to have any effect on their ability to do that.

I have a follow-up question. So the the the terms of this lease agreement between the city of Reading and the city and the county of Shasta. Um does that Shasta County does that [clears throat] extend to uh private entities, subcontractors who they sublet to or is it just stop at the Chasta County? Um, so the you're quizzing me on details of something I haven't read in a while, but I believe that the um the document, so the the document, as I recall, is limited to specific uses. Um, Shasta County, um, as the lei um, as I recall, has to have approval from the city before it's able to enter into any sub or subleasase. Um, so, um, and then it that that would likely be restricted to whatever uses, um, uh, are in the the the L the license or lease, um, currently or what might be negotiated at that time. Um, uh, in terms of how that might relates to zoning, I mean, that would really be if the city and the county were to negotiate something to allow the, um, uh, the, um, the county to put some sort of private operation on there, not not something related to their operations. Um the context I'm aware of are where um you know if for example the the county just wanted to rent it out um to a commercial business to use the property for um I think it's currently heavy industrial. So you know something that would be allowed there. Um would that be affected by the the potential change to public facility. Um but I I will say that's getting a little speculative because I don't believe any of that is currently allowed uh under the the the lease. I think that would all be a separate negotiation.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions before they move on to the rest of their report? Very good. Thank you. I'll turn it back to Director Peagan. Okay. Um uh thank you, city Attorney Curtis. With that, I'm going to pass it off to planning manager Lily Toy, who'll be offering a brief presentation to to summarize some background and give some context regarding the proposed uh reszone and general plan amendments. So, take it away, Lily. Thanks. Thank you, Director Pagan. Commissioners, good afternoon. So before us is a project for that's located on the southern limit of the city.

Excuse me, Miss Toy. Remember our conversation yesterday? We're both losing our hearing or sorry I am. So can you get just a little closer to the microphone? A little bit closer. Yes. Thank you. Thank you so much. Let me pull this. We literally had a conversation about this yesterday. Joking making fun of each other, I think. Go ahead. [laughter]

All right. So better. All right. So property is addressed at 7251 East Side Road. It's approximately 91.3 acres. Adjacent uses [snorts] are the uh waste water treatment plant. To the north, Haven Humane Society. Also to the north as [clears throat] well. To the south we have residential and to the southeast we have industrial and commercial. Across 273 we have mobile home parks, industrial, commercial, and then just further south of ACID is industrial and commercial. So let's uh get into a little bit of history as far as properties owned by the city. Uh the city occupied um actually purchased uh in early 60s the wastewater treatment plant and then in ' 66 uh we constructed the wastewater treatment plant out there and then later in the late60s we acquired the subject property. Uh this was done for future possible expansion. Um also to create a buffer for odor and then um over the years we have not developed that property expanded on it. We have leased it for grazing um in the 80s this was annexed this whole entire area was annexed into the city. So it was developed in the county back in the day. Then in September 25 last year, council entered into a lease agreement. As we go into what is uh pre uh 2000 general plan, I wanted to bring up a little bit of history what this was general planned as in this area. It was actually GI general industrial and then um the sewer uh ponds of treatment plant

was actually residential. And then um when we redid that in 2000 and existing today, we uh redesated that to heavy industrial to be consistent along East Side Road. And on the subject property, we had anticipated maybe putting a park. So we did uh general plan that uh that eastern corner there as park. And then there's a sliver of repairarian that we retained as open space uh greenway in our general plan. And what is being proposed is public facility institutional um for the portion that is park and hi. Let's go into a little bit of zoning. As far as existing zoning, the site is HI with PF and OS. The proposed zoning is proposed at just reszoning the portion that's hi to public facility. We're not touching uh the OS at all in the zoning or general plan. So just looking at kind of what the land uses are proposed or [clears throat] allowed in the public facility. I want to talk about what is allowed in the industrial. So, as noted by our city attorney, the county if these properties are county owned, it is preempted from local zoning and general plan. However, let's say this uh project doesn't materialize. Well, I want to talk about currently HI would does allow for some public and semi-public type uses pretty limited. We allow for um some public safety facilities, colleges and trade schools. However, we also allow some pretty intense uses in industrial district. We

allow for vehicle equipment sales and services. Uh heavy uh vehicle repair would consist of body painting, body repair, things like that. And then we allow heavy and general industrial and salvage wrecking. Um heavy industrial would consist of um manufacturing, textile, things like that. And also allowed as a heavy use in this hi is also mining and cing under use permit. So currently today um pretty intensive uses are allowed [clears throat] if reszoned to public facility we have array of public and semi-public uses that would be permitted. Um, just to pull a few out, we would allow parks and recreation, community support services, public and private schools. And so, um, by reszoning this, it really limits, uh, the ability for, uh, potential uses such as the heavy industrial uses that I just discussed. So, is this the right thing to do? you know, before you, you have the issue of should you make a recommendation to council for approval of this general plan amendment and resoning. From a standpoint of a professional planner, there's there's reasons why you should and um because just like I discussed, you know, there is land uses that are permitted right now that are highly intensive that is not conducive to uh being adjacent to residential. um by reszoning this and general plan amendment to public facilities, it would be more conducive. Um would it be the best? Probably not. But uh public facilities is throughout the city um found adjacent to single family. Um I want to point out the existing juvenile facility up on Radio Lane. You have that facility that's right across the street

from single family. So um I'm just pointing that as an example. So as a professional planner, this is um done regularly to do this. Um so our recommendation to you is that you open up the public hearing taking comments. Um we have received uh numerous comments as you have uh been attached to your staff report um and recommend to council the following adopt agenda to the 25GP final EIR and the mitigated nick deck for the zoning map. Then uh in in addition adopt the resolution amending general plan and adopt the ordinance amending the zoning map. So that concludes my presentation and what I'll leave up is the proposed general plan and proposed zoning.

I am available to answer any questions. Thank you Miss Toy. Any questions of staff additional questions?

Thank you very much for the presentation. I'm going to try to I'll probably um show my lack of knowledge by some of these questions, but I'm going to try to ask a couple squa questions. Um in in the SQA process that we just did, adopting the new general plan, how does SQUA look at this zoning going from HI to public facility? Does SQUA in general and I know I'm not talking about a future possible use but in general does SQUA accommodate that transition or say okay yes this is a lower intensity SQA use so therefore um it would be included within the SQA process that we already did.

Um yeah I can take a stab at that. I mean, I would I would turn your attention to the agenda to the environmental impact report. So, just as you described, um, we're essentially asserting that this land use is less intensive, the public facilities, than heavy industrial. And so, from a SQA standpoint, it's not likely to cause substantial effects that weren't already considered in the environmental impact report. In fact, it's it's assumed based on that land use table that Miss Toy just described that it would be less intensive and less impactful. So we're not that's why we're allowed to do this or we're proposing the agenda to the EIR. So it was considered during the general plan development as HI. So this agenda would then formalize it as a PF district.

So in theory from a zoning law SQA standpoint, we're moving to a lower intensity zoning. So it's accommodated within the SQUA process that we already have done from a city perspective, not the you future possible use. Yeah. I the way that I would put it is that anytime you're taking an action and this this would be another, you know, discretionary action that you're taking, SQA requires you to look at the environmental impacts of what that action would be. And to the extent that you've already studied more intensive impacts um at this location, they're okay with you dialing it back.

Yeah. Now, you're still making that finding in the addendum or recommending that the council make the finding in the addendum, you know, based on that logic. Um, but generally speaking, yes, that that logic is sound. So, if we turn this around and we say, hey, we're going to take a public facility, um, and I think maybe we're talking about some of this with the riverfront plan, a public facility, and we're going to reszone it as heavy industrial. SQL would look at it and say, "Hey, you probably haven't done all the work to make sure that we're mitigating the impacts. We need to do I don't know if that would be a mitigated

Yeah, you [clears throat] probably you might you might end up with an addendum. You might end up with an um initial study. You could have a negative declaration. you know, each time you go through it, what is the specific project in front of you and take a look at what the potential environmental impacts are that and then that sort of guides you as to what your document looks like. Okay. And that would get into the more specific what is the actual use being proposed, not just what's the zoning that's going to change, but what's the use? Well, and that's going to depend a bit as to whether or not you are um it's not uncommon to have projects where you have both a reszone and a use permit application in front of you at the same time and you actually do have a specific project. Right.

Right. And the approval that you're giving is for that project.

This is more akin to um what is the impact of a reszone um in the abstract. Right. If there were no I mean let's say that this were just entirely in private ownership and there were no proposed um uh um [clears throat] projects in front of you. You'd have to be analyzing the action of the reszone and the change in the general plan designation from the standpoint of of what does that mean in the abstract and then that is your environment that is what got your environmental analysis for what that action is. The same way that for the general plan, you're studying the possible uses. You don't actually know at the time you adopt the general plan what uses are going to pop up at different locations. That more intensive environmental review becomes part of individual projects. So, um you know, in this case, it's not going to be one that the city has control over uh or that the city um conducts. um you know, if the whatever the county decides to do on the land, they're going to have to do their own environmental review and it's going to have to be specific to whatever it is they're they're doing. In this case, um you know, we're really talking about a general change in the designation um that is relevant to um what might happen in the future, which we just don't know. Um so we analyze it through the same lens that we would

when adopting a general plan, when making a general zoning change, etc. Can you talk just for a moment and I know this is speculative because it isn't going to be the city of Reading um working on the a future SQA for this property but can you talk for a moment about what that process may look like as far as and if it's too in the weeds you can say so but as far as timing and we're talking generalized terms as far as timing public involvement um you know the general ederal guidelines that SQA is going to put on a project whatever is going to be proposed.

Yeah. Uh yes. Um just very broadly um uh before the county would um undertake any project here they are going to have to go through environmental review. Now the scope of that environmental review is going to depend upon what the project is right. I mean, constructing a full jail would be very different than maybe a very small alternative custody program and that would likely end up in the SQL land. Correct. Full full-blown environmental review. Yeah. Yeah. It I mean this is environmental review but correct the level

the level of study depends upon the potential impacts. So there are times when you do an initial study and you don't really need more than the initial study. There are times that you do an initial study, you find out that you need some mitigation to keep the impacts less than significant and then you have an initial study with a mitigated negative declaration. Um there are times when there will be no way to mitigate the impacts and that's when you go to what we call environmental impact report um also EIR and that really is the most intensive level of of SQA. I don't want to say um what level the county may or may not end up at because I really don't know what the environmental analysis will look like. I also don't know what their project might look like. Correct. They're going to have to go through that and they're going to have to go through that in a public process um before they undertake anything on the site. If it was to be a full-blown EIR, um that as I understand it, that could be a couple year process with many occasions for the public to kind of weigh for the public to weigh in. I think it's I don't know if there's like a schedule time, but it's three or six occasions for the public to actually show up and have their voices heard, discuss the ER. It's a it's a very intensive process with a lot of public involvement. Is that I understand that right?

Yeah. I I forget the full number of of public hearings involved but um it is a public process. It does intend to be um pretty intense and I would say um the the length of time for preparation of an EI can vary but two years would not be uncommon.

Okay. I think that satisfies my questions for this exact moment. Just just to go [clears throat] on record, I think what he was referring to, at least the SQA that I was referring to is the 15162 about what would trigger an EIR and I kind of feel like since we've already the city already did a lease agreement with the county, they put the cart before the horse. So, how does that impact us as planning commission? Uh at this point I don't know that it really does. Um you know uh to the extent um there's always a little bit of a question as to when in a project you end up doing your full environmental analysis because you have to have enough detail about your project to be able to have a meaningful review but you also don't want to put it off such that you're segmenting your project. Um in terms of the lease decision um that's not something that would be before this commission and frankly that's that's already done. um you know that is in effect. So really what your environmental analysis is at this point is for what the action you would be taking um which is looking at the the the reszone and the general plan amendment. So again fundamentally the question here is is what do you think is the appropriate general plan designation? What do you think is the appropriate zoning? Um and then um in the theoretical uses that might happen there in the future and that might be impacted by those um designations, you know, what what if any environmental impacts would need to be looked at,

right? So we're kind of setting a pathway for another agency. what which is it's a hard position to be in and it's walking a fine line with I think the squa

the one thing that I would be careful about there is that um I really don't know that you're setting any pathway for the county because it's really not going to impact what they can or can't do. Um so um the the primary impact here really is going to be on private owners at some point in the theoretical future. So, um, you know, we don't we don't know exactly what might happen to this land later on. It is generally good practice to make sure that you keep your, um, your your zoning designation sort of what you would want them to be, um, regardless of who actually owns it. Um, but, um, uh, at the end of the day, this really isn't going to have this is not in any way going to restrict anything that the county might do on the property. [clears throat] Take it away.

Yeah, I have something. So, is this thing work? Can you hear me? So, uh, so sir, I'm just So, in our the packet that, uh, you know, we got over the weekend to, uh, to review prior to this, there's a copy of the the lease agreement between, uh, city of reading and, uh, Shasta County. And it says, I mean, it seems like we're dancing around what they want to do with it, but this is the lease agreement between both of these, you know, cities. But it says consisting of approximately 90 acres of undeveloped land premises for the purpose of developing and expanding custody operations defined herein to include but not limited to expanding the alternative custody program and construction of a new jail in Shasta County. So I I keep hearing this like what what they might do with it or or whatever. And then this was dated I mean I don't know when it was signed but in here it says August 1st, 2024. So, um, so somebody in the city decided to enter an agreement with Shasta County. What can you kind of can you walk us through how that was?

Oh, uh, so that was something that was negotiated between the the city. Uh, that was an agreement that was negotiated between the city council and the board of supervisors. Um, so there were a series of meetings um by both bodies. Um uh there was some back and forth and ultimately the two bodies did uh vote to approve um that lease agreement. Okay. So that Okay. So this is not we keep I keep hearing like what they might do with it but this is what they are going to do with it

because we so so back then so August 1st 2024 the council knew that they were basically giving up this land that could the county could do whatever they want with it. Um, yes, within the terms of that lease. Understood. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for the clarification.

Okay. Seeing no other questions at this time. Um, I I I didn't count, but I do have a a nice stack of um speaker cards. I give our clerk's high marks that there are three different colors, maybe four. I'm not sure how that happened. We usually debate about what color they are. And and so I have the cards and what I'd like to do is uh as we o in a moment I'm gonna open that public hearing. What I I'd like to ask, of course I don't really have the ability to control this, but you're you're eating into your time and our time. Um I understand the desire to clap. Clap fast. Um if if you're going to clap, clap fast. I don't have any desire to say please stop clapping. Um, I love clapping. I love cheering. I love uh encouragement and support. But I'll bet you the message gets across just as quickly in 5 seconds as it does in 30 seconds. And and and what I've seen in most public hearings like this, and it's a really unfortunate thing, people took time out, and I'm doing it right now. I'm taking your time. Sorry. They they take time out of their schedule. they come here, but but but partway through the public hearing, the the members that intend to speak get so exhausted that they get up and leave. And so you're actually getting in the way of people's ability to speak if you go beyond your three minutes and if you clap too long or you take too long to get up there. Wow, that came out harsh. That was just very pragmatic just having watched this and having been on both sides. So with that, hopefully that was encouraging and instructional. I'm going to move on and I'm going to say we're going to open the public hearing and and I'm going to ask I have Linda uh Hampton Hampton, Carolyn Hixon, and Dustin Hixon. So, if the second two names would move over into the uh on deck and in the hole using baseball terms. Um, and this is just the exact order. I didn't shuffle

them just as I think they came in and they were handed to me. So, please step right on up there. If you're Linda, step up to whichever microphone you would like. state your name and uh our clerk will start the clock and you should have a clock that you can see in front of you and there will be a little timer that will go off at 30 seconds to go I think. There we go. Thank you. Please.

My name is Linda Hman. I am a resident of the residential neighborhood that will be directly impacted by the sheriff's alternative custo custody program, mental health facility, and new jail. Um, I brought a map. Um, I didn't know I could go up there and just point to it. [clears throat] This I proposed. Oops. This is the map that's up there. This is the yellow is all residential and businesses. And this pink is my house. We have lived in that. We've have lived at that house for 47 years. Wow.

We have always had a field beside us because we were told, and this goes back to, you know, when these um designations were made back in the 70s, I suppose, that it was a buffer zone for the sewer treatment plant and nothing would ever be built there. We've lived there for 47 years. It's been a field where we've watched the animals and we've we right now have cattle grazing over there. It's a beautiful spot. Um we raised our children there. Um and here are some of the reasons we are opposed to this project. um because we know that the c um that the county has plans to build the alternative care facility, mental health facility, and a new jail there. We have uh an increase for potential crime is quite likely in our neighborhood. We all rely on private wells for water and pollution is a concern. Emergency access to and from our neighborhood will be impeded as there is only one road into our neighborhood and that being River Ranch Road. Both in and out of the neighborhood you have from uh 273 you have to cross the railroad tracks either on the north or the south and that's already a concern for if the neighborhood should have to be evacuated. There's not another way out. Uh increased traffic on our already deteriorating roads is likely. Groundwater drainage in our area is critical. And the field lays full of large water puddles in the winter months

and in the spring hatches a significant number of frogs which we en enjoy. increased noise and light pollution for all day and all night if there's a jail that goes in. Loss of wildlife to their habitat in the field and our loss of enjoying their viewing. We typically view foxes, turkeys and deer. And regardless of the zoning classification, cattle graze in the field also. Thank you, Linda. It was a shock to us that this facility is that for me? Yeah, I'm sorry. 3 minutes goes really fast. You became the unfortunate one that shows everyone how fast 3 minutes goes. But yes, three three minutes are up.

You're up. Oh, okay. But thank you very much, [applause]

Caroline. That is me. Wonderful. Thank you.

Hi. Thank you so much. Uh Russ particular. I want to give you a big shout out. Thank you so much for feeling us w feel feeling having us feel welcomed. This is our first time and I think you've done a great job introducing and walking us through this program. So I appreciate that. Um I'm going to go off what I wrote here because I want to respond to what uh Mr. Curtis brought up for you guys um and kind of changed maybe some of our understanding on what this board can and cannot do. Um we understand that this is the county and that your current resoning isn't going to change what the county is going to do. You're going to hear a lot of reasons why this development shouldn't happen in this location. I want to be clear, a lot of residents support the idea of this facility. It's needed, but this location, next to the neighborhood, next to the river, affecting the ecosystems is not the spot. But you guys are the city. That's the county. But I want to talk to you about optics. As a local government, you're very aware of what optics are and how they change things. To give you some background, residents um in this neighborhood were given a very weak attempt at notification back in October. Residents were not informed until October that this was in the works that started in January 14th, 2024, 2025. Someone will give you that date. They weren't notified until October. And out of the 95 residents, 10 10 were given a notification. So that's why we stand before you now. Although you are not going to change the county, you can choose to stand with these residents in support of not putting this here. If you want to reszone later for these great and wonderful parks and recreations that Mr. Curtis, excuse me, Miss Toy brought up, great and dandy. But approving this resoning in this situation under these circumstances attached to this lease

sends a message [clears throat] that you agree with what the county is doing. As Mr. Nance already brought up, the county's made up their mind. That's what they want to do. They've made it clear. Someone in the city agreed to it. But you have an option. you have the choice and the availability to at least stand up and support these community members who don't agree with this, who don't want this in their neighborhood. So, it's about optics, I think, for you guys at this point. This board has a very strong voice and you can choose the side with the people. Thank you so much.

Thank you VERY MUCH. AND I have uh Dustin. And then following Dustin will be Kimberly Matson. And then after that will be what looks like probably Katrina Balman. That's going to be close. And I'm I'm not very good at pronouncing names, so I apologize for that. But Dustin, please. Hello. Good evening. I'm here today to oppose the resoning of 7251 East Side Road and its development for the use in the alternative uh custody program and future jail site. This property, as you can see on these maps, is nestled between the Sacramento River and an established rural neighborhood. The proposed projects would jeopardize wildlife and botanical habitat, water quality, scenic viewshed, and the safety and security of the adjacent residents and surrounding community members. The site is compos composed of uh riparian and wetland habitat that provides refuge to water foul, deer, turkeys, river otter, and a known nesting pair of bald eagles and various pairs of osprey. Uh these riparian habitats are critical in maintaining ecosystem function and supporting dio biodiversity in Northern California. as well. Riverfront property and habitat along the Sacramento River is a limited resource that we should not take for granted. Here in the north state, we are lucky to enjoy this river that runs right through our towns and the city of Reading is incredibly fortunate to even possess this piece of land with so much intrinsic and economic value. This highly val valuable public land should be used appropriately with respect to the environment and to the enjoyment of the public rather than the current plan that would give the incarcerated a million-dollar view. But beyond my concern for the relevant environmental factors at this location, I am concerned about how the city and

county have been paving their plan forward up to this point. I'm concerned that residents were not consulted with prior to the lease even being signed. I'm concerned that only approximately 10 out of 95 households in the neighborhood even received a letter regarding this hearing. I'm concerned that the Shasta County Board of Supervisors pressured the city of Reading into moving the lease forward by voting to delay a routine city special election in a move that even Supervisor Long referred to as extortion. [clears throat] I'm concerned that many folks I've heard from uh say there's nothing they can do or that it's out of their hands. Well, there is something we can do. Each and every official has the ability to oppose this plan at whichever step they are responsible for approving or recommending. And today we are here discussing the resoning of the property. I would like to take note that while presenting this item of resoning to the planning commission is under the lease, approving or recommending of the resoning is not and therefore the reasonzoning can be denied and this is not a done deal as some officials have led us to believe. In conclusion, I'd like to encourage you to please join residents, community members, and business owners in support of halting all resoning, planning, development, and construction of any correctional or rehabilitation related facilities at 7251 East Side Road. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, sir. [applause] So, I have Kim Kimberly Molson, I think it is. Could be Matson. Molson. No, thank you. And then I probably uh well I already butchered it once. I'm gonna say Balman because I can pronounce that I think. And then after that will be Chris Begley or Begley.

Hi, my name is Kimberly Molson and I do live in the neighborhood. Um my concern is the um multiple concerns. We've already discussed the traffic impact, railroad crossings, uh the light and noise pollution, increased foot traffic possibly into our small neighborhood. Uh currently we have a very low chlorine rate in our neighborhood and that could this could definitely cause an increase because of the day use and of the people that are going to be using this facility. Uh possible groundwater uh pollution because there was a um a large uh garden area that they proposed to put into this. Also uh the impact to wildlife. We have nesting bald eagles, ospreys, migrating birds, the salmon habitat, and other fish species that are in our area, let alone the deer, the fox, the raccoons, the coyotes, and the migrating birds that come through our neighborhood. Our community has been in the area since the 1960s, and currently it's in transition. There are young families moving into our neighborhood now with young children and having a jail right next to their uh their home is going to be a problem with uh possible property um safety and the safety of our our our actual residents in the neighborhood. Um and we've already had a possible uh property value decrease in our area. Also, I uh contacted a couple of real estate uh agents and asked if I wanted to sell my home and a lot of the neighborhood um a lot of our residents have considered moving out of the area because of this proposed uh facility. Um they said that it would be very difficult to sell our property with the proposed because we would have to tell the um the possible people that were going to be buying the facility or our our homes that this was going to happen. So, um, the possibility of selling our

properties, which a lot of these people have lived in for years and have large equity built up, they're not going to be able to get what they expected out of their properties. So, I I thank you for the opportunity to talk to you and um hopefully you'll vote against this. Thank you. [applause] I'll go with the Balman because I can pronounce that. Then Chris Begley, followed by Teresa Ward. My name is Katrina Bowman. Katrina, I'm 90% sure.

I I live on um the Terrace Street. Uh I'm from Southern California and I moved up here in 2021. um my to seek a nice tranquil area that's felt safe with a lot of green space around it. And this proposed um project is causing me a lot of anxiety. Uh a lot of people have already mentioned some of the things concerns that I have. uh the wellwater, the safety of the neighborhood, the property value, the noise. I like to sit in my backyard in the summertime and watch the see the stars and and I think I feel like this proposed project would destroy that tranquility that I have. Um including the ex extra traffic. Um, I we like to have here the the train go by. That's really nice off in the distance. But if you have all these other and and you have a two-lane road going down what kind of what what is that going to all the construction going on, the construction noise, the dust, the pollution. Yeah, the I said possible wellwater contamination. Um, what is having 1,200 people in a big facility like this going to do to possibly the river? I have a lot of concerns about the nature and everything. So, obviously, I'm not a very good public speaker

and this is causing me a lot of anxiety. So, thank you. Thank you very much. [applause] And uh you you did just fine, Katrina. Thank you. Better public speaker than you think. So we have Chris and then Teresa. And after that is Chris Ward.

Hi, good afternoon. My name is Christine Begley. I was born in Reading. I was born in Shasta Regional Medical right on Radio Lane across from Juvenile Hall. I was raised here. I've spent 36 years in my home and it was a blessing from God that I we were able to acquire this place on the river. I scraped every penny together every month to make my payment. And now with this monstrosity, I'm sorry to say, going in um my house is now I know my house now is probably worth about a million dollars. I'm on the river. A house couple doors down sold for a million. A gentleman here tried to sell his house and he had to the realtor told him he had to deduct 20 to 30% off his sale price. If I sold my house for a million, I'd have to deduct two to $300,000 off of my home, which was my retirement. And I was going to pass this home down to my kids. My kids have no interest in it. Now, if this thing goes through, I am um I'm going to tell you on a personal level that I was raised very, very poor. I had to fight and scrimp and save for every penny I ever had. Uh I had to work seven days a week to go to college, put myself through school. I was a school teacher here in town for 36 years, athletic director, head of the department. I'm a I mean, I'm pretty well-driven female. And uh my husband and I worked very very hard to get our home exactly the way we want it to be. We had um 20 swans on the on the river this this last year. We had 30 pelicans. We have deer in our backyard every night. I have cameras all over. We get to see the wildlife. We've had fox. We've had great big deers that actually were budding each other's head in my

backyard. I get up in the middle of the night and I could sit there and I could watch these three bucks hit each other in the head. It was amazing. If this project goes in, it's going to destroy all that. You know, we have a habitat where these geese go and these pelicans and these swans and that's their home. If you tear all that out and put a big great big wall up, which is what they're trying they're talking about doing, we will have nothing there. And our groundwater, every one of us is on a well, it will be affected. We will have nasty groundwater. We'll have noise pollution, water pollution. And it's not a place, as you well know, being in California, a felony is now a misdemeanor. So, we're going to have people that are felons that are going to be going down there with ankle bracelets on. And you all know that they cut those off and they they go wherever they want to go. It happens all the time. I don't want Shasta County that I love to become another polluted city in the state of California.

Thank you, Christine. [applause] So, I have Teresa, then Chris Ward, and then Seth Mana. Magga. Ah, I don't know how to pronounce that. I don't know if that's an N or an H. Hi, my name is Teresa [clears throat] Ward and I want to thank you for giving us this time to speak about our homes. Can may I ask you to get just a little closer to the microphone for me? Thank you. Okay, is that better? Thank you.

Uh this the letter that we received was out of one of the 10 claimed that this was a campus. This is not a campus. This is not a school. These are our homes, our families, our children, our safety. It's a quiet neighborhood. And why anyone would decide to put this facility, which we dearly need, in a residential area is beyond belief. We have worked hard to keep our neighborhood where it is. You know, if would any one of you want this in your backyard? You probably wouldn't, but you're going to put it in ours. Why did you think we wouldn't put up a fight? This is not a campus. These are people who have broken the law. And yes, they do need a place to go, but it is not where it's located. Listen to your heart. These people have worked hard for their homes. The real estate person that I talked to has said that your home, our home, has already lost between 30 and $50,000. Maybe that's not a lot to you, but it is to me. I'm 74 years old. I am still working full-time. My son and I are taking care of my husband who has dementia. Don't do this to us. Put this where it belongs. Thank you.

Thank you. [applause] I HAVE CHRIS WARD. Seth chooses not to speak. Okay, you're a spokesperson. There we go. Okay, so Chris Chris has been moved to the side as a non-speaker. Then I have Seth, Carla Reed, and Steve Reid.

And we'll give an extra minute because you've got an extra helper. Oh, thank you so much. That's there's a chair chair uh chair prerogative, please. All right. Um, good afternoon. My name is Seth McGa and I live in the neighborhood directly adjacent to the proposed uh, resoning area. My wife and children and I have lived there for 9 years. Uh, we homeschool our children, which means our home, our property, and our neighborhood function as a daily learning environment where our kids walk, explore, and spend time throughout the day. That makes uh, land use decisions next to our neighborhood especially consequential to us. not just in the abstract, but in how the space is actually used. I understand the need for correctional uh facilities and and for treatment, and I'm not opposed to them in principle, but I am strongly opposed to placing a facility that includes re routine releases directly next to an established residential neighborhood. This is a public safety and planning issue, not a fear-based one. Facilities [clears throat] like this create predictable release points and releasing individuals onto a frontage road beside family neighborhoods is is a design decision that increases risk risk unnecessarily. Public safety planning has to account for the worstc case scenarios not just the best case intentions. Um zoning exists to prevent incompatible land uses and this type of this type of facility is considered appropriate here. It sets a precedent that undermines the integrity of residential zoning citywide. We're not saying no to the facility. We're saying not here. There are many appropriate locations that could be considered. areas with buffers, transportation access, and existing infrastructure

that protect both the dignity and those of being served and the safety of the families who live nearby. I respectfully ask that you pause this resoning and consider the locations with with all this community input. And did you want to say something? I think the kids that live here should be safe and not and not in danger. All right. Thank you. [applause]

Thank you. So I have uh Carla Reed, Steve Reid, and Sherry Strippling.

Thank you for allowing me to speak. I hope that you have read the sub submitted letters of concern and come to this meeting with an open mind and are willing to consider the valid reasons why the property at East Side Road is not the correct location for the Shasta County campus that the sheriff is proposing. Softening what it is called does not change the reality of what it really is. a 1,200 plus jail, a 100 bed male community re-entry program, which any felon in the prison who has 32 months less less on their felony sentence is eligible to come here to a semi-secure facility and an alternate custody program with convicted inmates coming and going at their free will with access to the surrounding area. Part of this property is zone parks. The agenda packet on page 23 states that the agreement with the county only requires the resoning to be presented to the planning commission. The agreement does not obligate the planning commission to recommend the city council approve this request. How can property that is presently zoned parks which is next to the Sacramento River be equivalent to institutional? This is not a minor change. On page 22, there is a list of possible uses. Who even thinks that tobacco product manufacturing, textile mills, chemical manufacturing would want to build at this location? Mining and quarrying would pollute the river. Under these examples is stretching the possibilities. There is already a recycling yard that could be used for salvage and wrecking that sits empty at the north end of East Side Road. This field is a diverse wildlife habitat teaming with animals, birds, and a bald eagle pair. To our dismay, we discovered that someone removed the eagle's nest with only a few sticks left on the

ground. To not do an environmental study before the resoning is wrong. Once it is reszoned, the plans will be set in motion and there will be no going back and repairing any damage that is done. There is a real concern as the 96 homes that are directly south of the proposed development depend on wells that are shallow. I just had to replace my leechfield on top of the ground with a three-foot high concrete wall covering my whole front yard. The 600-gallon pump tank that I had to install and my septic tank had to be encased in concrete to the top of the ground. I am only h five houses away from the border. Just south of this field, salmon spawning habitat was recently restored. The runoff from animal waste, agriculture chemicals, parking lots, and buildings will pollute the river and could possibly damage the habitat. The Sacramento River is a vital tourist designation for fishing. The reality of this being built next to our nice, quiet, safe rural neighborhood has already caused emotional harm. This complex will completely change the dynamic of the area. Children wait for their school buses on our streets and play in their yards. It will be just a matter of time before one of them will be harmed. They will be not safe if criminals are next door and have access to them. This is not a community center being built. The fact is if this resoning is proved the county can do whatever they want.

Thank you. [applause]

Steve Reed, Sherry Strippling. Sherry was going to pass. Okay. So, I have Steve Reed, then Chris uh Enriquez, I think it says, and then after that is an Andrea uh WT. It's going to be close, I think. Please proceed.

Well, am I glad not to be sitting anymore. uh commissioners and staff and uh ladies and gentlemen uh the fact is if this resoning is approved the county can do whatever they want. They will not be there are many older neighbors there in our neighborhood and they would be able to finish their lives in safety and financial security if this if this doesn't pass. This will be taken away from them if it does pass. There was no prior notice, outreach or intentions explained to our neighborhood or surrounding area where we have never been part of this plan and only after we found out about it in October [snorts] did the county want to talk to us. This will be our next door neighbor this year. There is only one road from East Side Road to enter and exit for the 96 homes. There are two exits over the railroad tracks from East Side Road to get on to Highway 273 with neither having traffic controls. Accidents happen frequently. There is a train spur that stops all the traffic going south on East Side Road a considerable amount of time. East Side Road is only two lanes and in constant need of repair from the industrial traffic that it already has. A jail is an operation 24 hours a day. Visiting starts at 7:30 in the morning and goes till 10 at night. Week day weekends it's 12:30 to 4. The light pollution will hide the stars in the night sky. A jail run by an outside agency leaves no sense of safety. Sheriff personnel cannot stop the flow of drugs and contraband into

the current jail and the expectations of a private company are even less. Who would be responsible for police emergencies? It is the city property. So would Reddian police respond? There is already a problem that we're having with agencies denying jurisdiction for abandoned cars left along East Side Road. Um I come from Stockton, California some 40 years ago. It was a lot like reading. You know what it's like now? Got bars on the windows. They got bars on the windows. You're afraid to walk down the street. And you start cutting up green belt. That's what you're going to have. So, I I really would encourage you to think hard and long about making this change. Thank you.

Thank you. [applause] I have Chris, Andrea, and then a Mark feedback.

Good evening. My name is Christopher Enriquez. I live on Riverrest Drive just south of the uh proposed zone here. I'm opposed to the resoning amendment and resoning application approval for the following reasons. These reasons are quoted from your 2045 general plan. Community development and design element goal number nine states preserve the existing community character and fabric and promote the development of livable and cohesive districts. Policy 9B states, establish standards for infill projects in existing residential neighborhoods that respect existing neighborhood scale and character. Threshold of significance. Appendix G of the SQA guidelines states, "Except as provided in public resource code section 211099, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adverse adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects result in cumulative impacts with respect to the aesthetics. We know what the future project is going to be. Biolog biological resources developed within or near habitat for special status wildlife species could result in adverse impacts to these species. potential impact related to individual species include a special status birds, a bald eagle or actually a pair of the biological resource assessment for the Windham Lane subdivision that was completed in March 2023 by Galloway Enterprises. On page nine, the map shows bald eagle presence and habitat at the project project site here. Utility service systems policy PF1C states when reviewing applications for

land use designation changes, which is what we're doing here today, the city may require a thorough analysis of the impacts of the pro proposed changes on the city's infrastructure system and require mitigation as appropriate. If you look at your lease agreement, you will see in there that the city's sewer, water, and electrical system is part of the lease. The appropriate mitigation is to deny the resoning general plan amendment. This location is not appropriate next to an established neighborhood, nor is it in compliance with your own city's general plan goals and policies. To add, we heard in the presentation that uh public facilities was an easier uh designation than heavy industrial. Well, I don't think public facilities was planning on or we're looking at 300 plus daily individuals in the uh ACP program plus the 1,200 and even more than that. So, the population is going to grow exponentially. Thank you. Thank you, [applause] Andrea. then Mark and then I have Melissa Hunt.

Thank you very much for this opportunity. I'm Andrea. We met I live on Rivercrest Drive with my husband. We've lived there for 52 years and we are among the new kids on the block. We are aware that there are about a dozen of us who've lived in the area and passed our property on to the next generation. In some cases, successive generations live on the same property. Over the years, we have had many occasions to oppose land use adjacent to our homes that we found undesirable. And I want you to know tonight that we have effectively successfully fought those land uses and have moved on and stayed right in our homes. This particular land use I am given to understand has no opportunity for creating buffer zones around it that because it's a public facility run by the county they can pretty much do whatever they want. You've already heard the objections to this facility. I share those objections with my neighbors. and we would like to see it go somewhere else because the county seems intent on it. It falls to you to make a recommendation and we hope that you will consider our

perspectives. Thank you very much. Thank you. [applause] We have Mark Feedback, Melissa Hunt, and [clears throat] then Adam Sergerson. That's going to be close.

Hi, I'm Mark Feedback. I live in the area or in the neighborhood as well on River Crest Drive. And uh I'll be honest with you, I'm all in for safe community, but importing inmates and their families uh just makes problems worse for our community as well as the entire Shasta County. Through the MCP and the ACP, you're going to be bringing a lot of people that we don't want in our in our county. I've heard members up here say that this is a less impact, excuse me, [clears throat] less impactful than the way it's currently zoned. I don't think anything could be more impactful than a 1,200 inmate jail here. I mean, we're talking our entire community, the the whole Shasta County. What could impact us more than that? It just blows me away. I also understand that the county would not hold a special election unless the city signed this lease. I believe that is extortion. I understand the lease for 30 years for $0. Man, I also understand the property will sell for $1 at any point after the one years one year after that the uh they've they've got the the uh program up and operating. Is this carrying out the the fidiciary responsibilities of our public officials? I don't I don't think it is. I also understand that there's probably some Brown Act violations, holding secret meetings, uh failing to gendize properly, held meetings, uh holding meetings in non-public forum. I think all this has taken place and I do believe that you guys could uh probably fix this. The fastest way to rectify

these poor business decisions is to deny the reasonzoning. So, THANK YOU [applause] Melissa Hunt and then Adam Sergusen. And after Adam, we're going to take a 5minut break because we're we're going to reach my capacity pretty soon. We're going to be 1 and a half hours in. So we'll take a 5m minute break after two more speakers. Please take it away, Melissa. Before my three minutes start, may I have a clarification? Are you Cuz you do not have a quorum today. Are you voting on anything today? No. Thank you for the clarification. We did get it confirmed. We do have a quorum. The four the four counts.

Okay. Thank you. Appreciate that.

Okay. Melissa Hunt. Um, former mayor and city council member of Anderson. I've been there for 18 years until last year. I just retired. Actually, it's 24 now, not 25. Um, just became aware of this um this project. First of all, let me start out by saying I absolutely love my sheriff. I love my sheriff and I will apply to be the president of the fan club for my sheriff. And this this project something to the effect of started when he was in Anderson. Totally respect that. Needed so needed. So needed. But um totally know this area. Born and raised Born at Mercy where who was Shasta Regional. I was born at Mercy. And um this area has been quiet and I've had I've I've gone to a wedding in there. I've done um I'm a real estate agent as well and I've sold houses in there. Um, I have other friends that I've known for quite a while that lived back there and um, it's quiet and it's safe. I had a boyfriend in high school that lived back there and tal went around the the neighborhood quite often. Um, but it is not a place to for this project to go in. Um, as a common sense [clears throat] thinker, my first thought is why was it even approved in the way of the a building something that's going to have so many people um with only two outlets out of the area, especially with wildfires so in our heads, you know, campfire only got out one direction and um these guys, if you think about everybody going down River Ranch Road and then breaking off and you got UPS one direction and Haven Humane the other direction and these people that are in this bu this neighborhood. Um it would be pretty it would be okay. They could

do it. Um but you add a whole another facility that's going to bring I don't know what kind of population. That's a scary thought process for me to accept. Um I would also speak to you. I was an elected official. It's my job to represent the people. You guys are kind of pulled into this. I I understand that, but you're still here to represent the people and these people are not being heard. Um we there's questions about the timeline as to when they were notified of this project. They have not had enough of the time frame to speak out to study. Um and that's why they're they're stressed and they need to be heard. and I would really appreciate it if you guys would hear them this evening. Um, I want to make sure I've got all my notes. Um, the wastewater treatment buffer plant, what gave what have they used on the buffer or the wastewater treatment plant to make it stop smelling? Why is it all of a sudden they don't need a buffer plant? Just an idea. Thank you. [applause] So we have Adam and then after that we will take a fiveminute recess. Thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening. I'm not here to debate the necessity of these programs. As a person of faith and conviction, I believe in the second chances and allowing people the opportunity to make changes in their lives. I'm here today because like most of you, I want to see Reading actually follow the plan that took so much time and consideration to create. I'm talking about the 2045 general plan. Right now, there is a massive gap between what that plan says on paper and what the county is proposing to do to our riverfront and our neighborhood.

Just a few months ago, on August 28th, 2025, a report came out of this building saying the goal of the city manager and city council for this le lease agreement was to help us feel safe where we live, work, and play. But let's be honest about the reality. We are talking about putting a,200 bed jail right next to a residential neighborhood. We're talking about an alternative custody program for people on probation right next to where our children play. Right now, I can confidently let my kids go down the street to play with friends without reservation. And I know they'll be safe. However, if you allow this to be built here, we will no longer trust our streets again. The river should be preserved for our families and residents to enjoy, not given away for a jail to block some of the most beautiful views of our area. How are we supposed to feel safe where we live and play when the 100 bed male community re-entry program will house violent offenders? A program that allowed 13 people to escape just last year. The escapees included inmates with serious criminal records ranging from secondderee attempted murder, robbery, and assault with a firearm. That isn't a public safety investment. That's a public safety threat. The areas around our current facilities are already struggling with crime. Bringing a 12,200 bed jail to a residential area won't fix that. It brings the problem to us. This resoning doesn't fit. The general plan says the Sacramento River is the reading's greatest asset. It talks about protecting the views, the trails, and the character of our neighborhoods. But look at the rules in goal CDD8h. It says new buildings should preserve the livability of the established neighborhood. Does a massive jail complex with razor wire and blank concrete walls preserve a neighborhood? No. Does it complement the surrounding

homes? No. Is it the attractive well-designed building promised the riverfront specific plan? Not even close. You can't tell us in August that you want us to feel safe in our own backyards and then in January reszone the riverfront to put a massive jail complex there. You can't have it both ways. Reszoning this land for correctional use isn't just a bad fit. It is in a direct conflict of the 2045 general plan. If we don't protect this riverfront property now, we will lose it forever. I'm asking you to stick to the current plan. Reject this resoning. Let's keep the riverfront a place where we can actually live, work, and play without looking over our shoulders. Thank you, ADAM. [applause] SO, I'll uh I'll close the public hearing, take a fiveminute recess, and we'll be right back in five minutes. Thank you. Restrooms are outside, but don't get in my way. [laughter] [clears throat]

Uh, good evening everybody. I'd like to ask you to move back to your seats so we can get going again.

That's where you find out where you have any real authority. [laughter] Uh, good evening. I'd like to have everybody move back to their seats, please.

Apologize for that because it's nice to have the opportunity to visit. [snorts] So, I'm going to call the meeting back uh in session and reopen the public hearing. And um the next three cards I have Patrick Jones, Tammy Parker, and I believe it's a Carmen Ran probably. [clears throat]

Good morning or good evening, commissioners. Patrick Jones, former mayor of city of Reading, former chairman of the Shast County Board of Supervisors, 2023. Um, I'm here specifically to talk about the construction of the jail. Uh, the plan, the Shast County Board of Supervisors, both in 2022 and in 2023, recommended the jail to be built downtown on property that the county owns. That is the location of the old courthouse. Soon that building will be demolished and a parking lot will be put up. You do have another opportunity to put a jail in a place where people are not going to oppose it. Like in this position, in this particular location right now, we already have a jail. We have the public defender. We have probation. We have all the attorneys. We have a brand new $180 million courthouse that needs to be close to the jail. It should be built exactly where the old jail is. And the majority of the board has already decided that in the past. There's been some new board members, some new decisions, and some new pressure applied to have a different location. But this is exactly the problem that's going to be created. There is no good place for a jail. So, put it where it's least offensive, which is downtown Reading, where we already have the presence of a jail. And there's no place cheaper to do it than downtown Reading because the county already owns the property. They have the utilities. It's better there than any place else. and all the utilities and the community is aware of the jail in that location on East Side Road. Putting a jail there is the wrong decision and it'll be wrong for a long time. I urge you today to not support this reszone. Thank you. [applause] Thank you, Patrick. I have Tammy Parker. Then I have Carmen, I think it says. And then Aaron Murray.

Hi. Good afternoon everyone. Uh I'm Tammy Parker and I live on Riverrest Drive. Um the business and infrastructure concerns, environmental issues, questions of the financial integrity of this land deal are all top priorities of course, but you've heard and read about all of those over and over, so I'm not going to elaborate on that. I would, however, like to share a little information about the beautiful neighborhood that is literally on the other side of the fence from this proposed project. I've lived in the River Ranch neighborhood for only a few years. I wanted to be there to be close to my daughter and her husband and their two beautiful little boys. Those boys are the fourth generation to live in their home that was built by their great-grandfather. As I'm getting to know my neighborhood, it's a safe and serene place filled with so much history. Everyone knows everyone, and there are many senior citizens that have raised their families over the decades. As that generation fades away, new families are moving in. um people with dreams of raising their kids in a place with safe spaces to explore nature and have the freedom to be innocent children. Our neighbors have held a Fourth of July parade for almost 20 years. It stars all the neighborhood kids and pets proudly dressed and decorated for the holiday. A correctional institution just steps away from our peaceful, safe little world would absolutely destroy what we've all worked so hard to build and provide for our families. I wholeheartedly agree that public safety and the services this project would provide are vital to our community, but the property on East Side Road is not the correct choice in any way. The property in question is a wildlife habitat and sits on the majestic Sacramento River. Who could possibly think a correctional facility is the best use of that beautiful property? Shasta County is filled with vast open spaces that would be much more appropriate. Please explore other options. Please seriously consider all of our concerns before making any zoning

changes and recommendations. How would you vote if this were your home and your family? Thank you for your time. [applause] Thank you, Tammy. Carmen Ran. Moving on, um Aaron Murray, Scott Weman, and then Stephen Con. Are you Aaron? I am Scott.

You're Scott. Okay, that's what I thought as I was watching the timing. Okay, very good. Take it away, Scott. Okay. Please do not make an approval of the proposed general plan amendment. That's what we're asking here tonight. You can see this is going to be a legal mess. There is obviously some strong arming of that special election or there'd be no lease. There's probably been some Brown Act violations in this whole proposed project. And to sit here and think this won't be a reading problem coming back to you guys is very naive because I know they're being koi about what's not going there or what is going there. They want to put the jail down there with some felons walking out of that place. But they're not going to live in Anderson. They're going to live in Reading. The city of Anderson doesn't tolerate this type of behavior that we let go on in Reading with homeless people and drug use in the streets. So whatever 500 people at the ACP then we're going to put a 1,200 bed jail when we already have a 400 one are just going to bring people from the state here and they're going to live in reading and they'll probably be at those hotels getting subsidies with their families and it's sad but if you're going to have this facility in Shasta County it should be nowhere near residential neighborhood and I don't know how it got to this point and that's all going to come I hear special election squid proquo brown act $1 for beautiful city property that's on the river. I also find it very disheartening that we people in city of reading act like we don't know what's going to go down there and I think it's an absolute slap in the face to compare the juvenile detention center down on Brea with children that the county runs with probation in the sheriff's

department. That is totally different than a day plan where we have felons that are adults that are barely supervised that can walk off. You've heard about this these type of projects in other places in the state. We're going to have some private company go in there. Please get out in front of this and don't settle the county and the city of Reading. Please do not make an approval of the proposed general plan amendment. I don't need to sit here and talk about the riperian habitat we can see. There are so many things that the city of Reading could do with this property, especially along the lines of parks. You already have the Capa property on the other side of this River Ranch neighborhood. Eventually, we want to make that a park that goes across because they've already graded all the they've made a channel for all the salmon to come up right there and across the way is that geodistic dome. So, please do not approve of this and have an open mind and maybe make this a park space that we can tie in across the river over there. The city of Reading has been building up all this time because there's another capusta property south of this River Ranch neighborhood that'd be perfect for parks that is also city of Reading property. Thank you. Do not approve it.

Thank you. [applause] I have Steve Con, Victor Milhouse, and Shane Buril.

Good evening. I guess you're a board. Uh staff and community members. Um, first of all, I'm going to speak to why and what decision you guys are making, and that's the reasoning situation. The other situation and objections as far as um what facilities built there, it was my impression as you spoke that you don't have any power over that. So, I am in favor of it. I mean, I'll say that. I know I'm a minority here, probably the only one. But, um, as far as the reasoning, you're taking it from heavy industrial to, uh, public facilities, I I'm all for not making it public, uh, making it heavy industrial anymore. The list of things that could occur there are a little scary. And if I was uh uh if I lived in I do live adjacent to the property, but I would be I am worried about that and that they down the road if it did end up going private at some point in time that that could happen or the sewer treatment plant could expand into that property which was the original intent of that property. Um the plant even as it exists can put out a lot of odors and be pretty offensive and uh if it were to be expanded and run closer to the property line. I think that uh it could be a real problem. So uh I don't know why you wouldn't want to zone it away from being uh heavy industrial. There's no advantage to keeping it as that. And then the other issue is a separate issue alto together. Uh the other thing I'd like to urge people to do is to communicate with the sheriff and to the county. Uh there won't be any access in any of the proposed plans off of off of River Branch Road. All of the access for the proposal is coming off of East Side Road. Um,

also

also the uh proposal could be arranged in a way to create a buffer zone from the property areas of either the maybe the farm or uh trees or an orchard or whatever and have all of the constructed facilities way to the north near the sewer treatment plant. So, I think it could be built with very little impact to the neighborhoods. And uh [laughter] I can see how polite the people are. But at any rate, um it uh I think it could be done very well if they were willing to discuss it with the sheriff and the county. So, u we'll see how it goes.

Right. Thank you. Next I have uh Victor and then I had uh Shane Buril and then a John Mock. Hi, I'm Victor Melhouse. I live at 18891 Loscatoos Drive and on the corner is Rio Rancho and we're 250 ft from the proposed development and uh and resoning. Uh we just moved up here three years ago and we love where we're at. It's a very nice neighborhood. It's um quiet, very peaceful. We love the big area where there's cows grazing right now. It's great. Um we're not for this development. First of all, there's a devaluation of our property. Then traffic concerns, safety. So, I'm pretty much saying ditto that everybody else has said. And uh I think if you use your own conscience instead of believing what Sheriff Johnson's trying to shove down your face, maybe you'll wake up and not resone this to your prison. Thank you. Thank you. [applause] Shane Burrell, John

Shane. So anyways, uh the only pro guy who's selling this property to the county. So that's just something to know. So there will be a full EIR and there already is SQA violations and you guys have probably been served that stuff today. Um it's not suitable for the surrounding area. It's a full wetlands if you walk that area, which somebody probably should do before they think about something like this and walk our neighborhood. But that whole area is about a third full-time year- round pond with cattails this big. So, I couldn't build anything there and nor should anybody else with documented thermal pools. There's zero infrastructure there. But if you go over to the courthouse, the old courthouse are tearing down. There's full infrastructure and you'd have to take the inmates and walk them across the street or have a tunnel. So, there saves you three or four billion dollars right there. So, it doesn't make a bit of sense. The substation for the boats makes absolutely no sense there. They should be at the boat launches to protect our fisherman's pickups that come from all over the world to fly fish here. So that's where the substation for the sheriff should be because that makes total sense to protect everybody. The railroad tracks take priority. So there's absolutely no way there's egress in and out of that place. And Calrans has never been talked to about this. The Calrans person said millions and millions of dollars and no way no one even not an answer yet. Nobody wants a prison in Reading. Not just in our neighborhood. We have so much trash already and so many people under the bridge. There's 100 to 150 people right now by the casino. You notice they're not in Anderson. They're [clears throat] that way. So you get all those people, the 400 to 600 people that are going to come and go on their own. They're going to be in Reading. So you guys got to think about that. In a prison, do you guys want Susanville? It is a total crap hole. So do we need to turn reading worse or better? All of this is done sneaky back door. No one's been told anything. There's just

we didn't never got informed till it was too late. So this been a last minute deal. So anyways, oh it's not a jail. That's a mini prison. We all know that. So you got to think about that. So we have if you don't build it and you guys deny it, you have no infrastructure to spend the money on. there's no lawsuits, CALR problems, the wetlands, because there will be a fully LI and it'll cost a lot of money and you guys already own that spot. So, it makes no sense not to put it in there and make it happen. And you could keep the old jail for the bad guys and that for the inbetweeners and then put your spot there. Thank you. [applause] Thank you, Shane. John Mock, Michael Richard or Reichard per potentially. And then uh I have a probably a Benson Kmpto. Listen, this is goes back to my childhood. I can't pronounce names. It's not you guys. Please. Good evening. My name is John Mock. I live at 1 19090 Shadow Lane. I'm a member of the River Ranch Property Owners Association [clears throat] and we are very concerned as you can tell about this proposed 1,200 bed jail or whatever it is they want to put in 300 ft from our subdivision. And please understand it's it's not just the 1,200 inmates that will be brought up here into our community. It'll be their friends, their relatives, and their business associates. We This This will endanger our neighborhood. There's no two ways about it. We will have to harden our security. And that means we'll have to put in security

cameras and fences and bars on our windows and doors. Our insurance companies when they find out our homeowners insurance will increase while our property values plummet. Who is going to compensate us for our losses? See the sheriff's over there. You guys going to be able to protect us? Really? I'm sure you'll try. This location is a beautiful location that overlooks majestic Mount Chasta. It's worth something. I It's beyond me why we would sell it for a dollar. I I just can't wrap my mind around that. And yes, there's kind of gosh, there's all the environmental issues, the wetlands, the fish and wildlife. Uh Angie was telling me the other day, it looks like the uh Eagles are putting in a room addition on their nest. I don't know, but there there's a lot of concerns here and and we depend on you folks to to help us. We really need your help. We want this doesn't belong in our We don't want to look like Oakland. If we absolutely must have this facility, maybe it'd be better to put over a place like by pick and pull or biking or somewhere not in a residential neighborhood. I would like to thank all of you for your attention and I would appreciate if you do everything you could to help us in this matter. And thank you, Miss Toy, for contacting me.

Thank you. [applause] So, I have Michael up next, then Benson, and then there's a Judy Decker Inaway.

Hey, good evening. Uh, first off, just to probably make this job a little easier for everybody, the city and county offering a dollar for the property. I'm pretty sure I can come up with $95 for my friends out here and buy it for a little bit more than a dollar. And then to the elected officials that are for all this, don't forget that you are elected officials and this will represent you when the time comes around. We won't forget. Everybody's pretty much covered everything that we need to know know here. So I my speech is just going to be a reminder to everybody. Little uh class act here about implicit bias. Implicit bias refers to unconscious attitudes, stereotypes, and judgments about different groups of people that affect our understanding, actions, and decisions without our conscious awareness when conflicting with our stated values. These biases are learned from our experiences, culture, and upbringing, operating automatically and influencing behavior in areas like hiring, healthcare, the legal system, the judicial system, even when we believe they are being fair to us. Our bias with our city and and commissioners is part of a bandwagon effect. The bandwagon effect is a tendency to do what everyone else is doing. This creates a kind of group think where people run with the first idea that's put on the table instead of exploring a variety of options. The bandwagon effect illustrates how we like to make decisions based on what feels good or is best for them, even if they're doing poor alternatives. Bias blind spot. If you begin to feel that you've mastered your bias, keep in mind that you're mostly experiencing bias blind spot, and I believe that's what we're experiencing. Thank you. [applause]

Thank you, Michael. Next, I had Benson and then Judy and then I have a Victor Inaway. That's a Canamoto. Oh, thank you. That's exactly what it says. Thank you.

Yeah. Thank you for letting us all express our opinions here tonight. Uh I assume that this is all up in the air yet. And I would say with the exception of one person, everybody in this room is against this. So it seems like a no-brainer on your vote. I Everybody's opposed to this. But uh before you do make your decision, I would like to invite all of you to come to our neighborhood and see the area that they're talking about because you've heard about all the wonderful things, but I was wondering if any of you have actually been down to our neighborhood, and I kind of doubt it. So, I don't know how you can make a decision on this without actually going into the proposed site and seeing what it's like. Uh, unless this is already a done deal between the city and the county, and I I hope it isn't, and hope we're not wasting our time here tonight. Uh, all the other things I wanted to say have been pretty well covered. So, uh, I think the alternate site idea has great merit. Uh, from what I understand, there's several areas that have complete buffers, non-residential areas, and and even the old jail would be a great site. Save the city a lot of money and the county. So, I don't know who's for this. And in my experience, uh, I was told always to follow the money. So, I'm thinking there's somebody in the city or county that indirectly or directly will be profiting in some way.

And if we need to hire a forensic uh uh uh auditor or something, that's a possibility, too. Uh it it's just mindboggling that you would want to do this. It's uh beyond my comprehension actually. U as was stated before I don't think you would want this three houses away from your home and that's what it would do to me. So thank you and please consider all of the options and voices you've heard tonight. Thank you. Thank you. [applause] Have Judy Victor and then Sarah Little. And even though I failed on Kamamoto, did I get Inaway right?

Yes, you did. Good job. I had a great friend that had that last name. So, that's the only reason I knew.

Okay. So basically it's been covered quite a bit all the different points that um needed to be made and have been made. But I will say I strongly oppose the resoning because of the environmental impact on the river, the wetlands and the wildlife. And surely you must know the river is one of reading's main assets and it should be protected. Other reasons have been covered. traffic congestion, poor roads, safety of children, and the lack of communication by the county and the city. So, I'm just saying please don't reszone.

Thank [applause] you. Have Victor, then Sarah, and then a first name only, a an Andrea perhaps. That's what it says. [clears throat]

Thank you for allowing us to come up and speak and thank you for not butchering my name. [laughter] Um, everything that I wrote [clears throat] down on my little script here has been said and repeated over and over again. I just want to emphasize that all you folks need to come and visit our little neighborhood to see how quiet it is, see the kids playing freely in the streets. There's very little crime that happens in our neighborhood. Um, once this so-called jail goes in, that all goes out the door. It's It's just going to be horrendous to have this type of a facility in our neighborhood. All the other jails and prisons that I know of in the state do not have a residential area within spitting distance of people's houses. This is absolutely ridiculous. And I don't know how you can sleep at night with that on your conscience. You all have families. You all have children. Would you want this in your backyard that you can throw a rock at? I don't think so. We don't want it. I hope you don't want it either. Thank you. [applause] Sarah, Andrea, and then uh oh, this is a this is a four-word. Rebecca Leon de Guera. I probably did pretty good on that.

Please. So, is Sarah Sarah Little perhaps not here? I'll move that over. So, Andrea, please.

Good evening. My name's Andrea Mccclure and I agree with all the people who are at jeopardy of losing everything they love including the environmental aspect of this whole thing. So I too oppose the idea of putting the prison where they the jail where they want to. I'd [clears throat] like to say a couple years ago I was at a community gathering in which Sheriff Johnson spoke and at that time he was telling us all the reasons why the facility should be placed on county property at the old dump which is south of 44 and east of old old airport road or airport road. And I'm wondering where that idea went to. And I would like to say that that idea, he sold it to us. It was a good place to be. It has open egress back and forth to the city on Highway 44. You can get in and out of that area in more than one spot. um the 1200 bed uh facility that is going to be that is proposed is a little bit different than saying Miss Lily that the juvenile hall facility is in a neighborhood. It's there's no way you can compare the 1200 bed facility [clears throat] to the 90 bed juvenile facility. There's no reason why this jail should be um built where you are proposing. And I just would like maybe you to consider um Sheriff Johnson's original idea of placing it east of the city in a good location where people can get to easily and and it's not going to impact all the things that all the people have talked about tonight. Thank you.

Thank you. [applause] Well, thank you. I have Rebecca and then I have uh David Ledger and after that Andrea Feedback. You did pretty well with my name. I was very close on that last. [laughter] Thank you.

Um good evening everyone. My name is Rebecca Lron de Gavara and I am the conservation co-chair for the Chasta Birding Society formerly known as WinU Audabon. And um I was definitely not surprised in hearing the questions the SQA questions that the commissioners had because um we think this is this proposal is a perfect example of peacemealing squa long long-standing squa case law has prohibited this type of peace meal approach to squa review. The peacemealing, the term peacemealing means the city is addressing SQA taking only one decision hurdle at a time rather than considering the whole of the project. The proposed SEA squa agenda do not even mention wildlife or important riperian habitat found in this location which everyone has talked about. It was said by the city officials back in September that the city-owned property is not located in an area of concern and the sale would have no s significant effect on the environment. Uh we as a 50-year um organization of the Ottabon National Ottabon Society here in Shasta County for 50 years. We can definitely say we couldn't disagree more with that statement. Um, it is a vibrant vibrant birding hotspot which you can even look up in the Cornell UN University's EIRD app. There's been 136 species spotted to date which I attached the link to that hotspot. So you could see a full list of the species um in the letter that we sent the commissioners and those include like everyone has said bald eagles, osprey, belted kingishers and on and on and and everyone's inviting you guys um to go to the neighborhood and if you ever want a birding tour over there, just let me know and we would be glad to organize

one because it is definitely a hot spot, one that people travel hundreds of miles to see. So, we see that the general plan amendment and resone sets the stage for the county's intentions for the site. Since the city knows the county is acquiring the site to build the major public facility, the programmatic squa implications of that facility must be considered now. Therefore, we respectfully request that you deny the GPA and the reasonzoning tonight. Thank you. THANK YOU. [applause] I HAVE DAVID LEDGER, Andrea Feedback, and then uh I think it says Low Arenal. We're going with that. I know that's close. Hi, David.

Yes. Um good evening, commissioners. Um appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today and the work that you do and the time you have to put in. Um I'm representing today uh Shasta chapter of California Native Plant Society and the Chasta Group of Sierra Club. And I um have kind of changed a lot of what I'm going to say. I always do that. But um I don't know if this is really a legally noticed meeting because a important part of it the city attorney changed at the last minute. I just found out about when I walked in the door. This project was about I went home actually. That's why I left here. And I got the report that the city Barry Tipping gave the city of Reading in September and it talks about how we're going to have a lease on the property and then they're going to be able to buy it for their the sheriff's uh facilities for his jail and the other facilities that are going to go with it. Now, that this the city attorney or maybe it was planning, but I'm sure he gave them directions. From what I read out there, he took all of that out of there because what I think he realized today what peacemealing is and that's what Rebecca talked about. And peacemealing means you put a project through piece by piece, but you never present the whole project. And that's what the city's doing here, right from what they did at the beginning when they had this um which was on I think improper grounds with this lease and to use the um section 15312 although it's already passed surplus government sales. There is an exception that yes, you can invoid avoid an environmental review and have an exempt sale if there are no um important habitat for wildlife and there are there. So that part is really um was done wrongly. And then how this project's going through now is you're peacemealing it. I don't mean you as

commissioners because this was a part that the council did and then what the planning department and the city attorney are giving you. Uh the most disturbing part is that he took out the jail part because he doesn't want to make it a specific project because that way they're not peacemealing it through. Um if you don't have a jail going in it's just like we don't know what's going to happen. County can do whatever they want. So, um, and I've I've sent a written letter in, so it might be a little more, um, readable than my my spoken words, but, um, I think that this has been peacemeal through and it's not allowed by SQA. Thank you. [applause] Thank you, David, Andrea, and then low. And then after that is a Len uh, Bunyard.

Thank you. It's Audra. Ah, [laughter] but perfect. I said, I bet that's me. Thank you. Appreciate that. Appreciate your patience.

Thank you for letting me speak today. Thank you for the questions that you posed during the presentation. Those brought out a lot of things. I did not intend to speak, but I think it's relevant to point out that we wouldn't be asking for resoning for the county if the county didn't have plans down the road to do something different. County doesn't need this resoning. It's obvious to me that the county has intentions of pulling this out to a private party, which will relinquish the county from protecting the neighborhoods from doing the proper patrols because it will no longer be their project. So without this reasonzoning, the private party down the road couldn't put this in place. the county has the lease or past that point. The county can do whatever they intend to do. So, they'll go ahead and do it and pass this off to a private party. The questions posed today brought that fact out. You asked those questions and it brought out the answer to what the intent is. We wouldn't need to be here today if that were not the intent. Consider that please in in your recommendations for this. It's not a good thing. It doesn't feel Someone mentioned earlier optics doesn't feel like the optics are up front here. Please consider it. Thank you.

Thank you, AUDREY. [applause] I have Low, then I have Lynn Buniard, and then I have Ashley. I'm just gonna go with Ashley on the next one after that. So, do we do we have a um uh that'd be how commissioner how you would pronounce that? Low could be a Lori. It's on a pink card. I speak more like a lori. Okay. Okay.

Okay. Nope. Thank you. That's understandable. And then I have a Len Bunyard. Oh, Lyn's over there. Thank you, sir. And you pick a microphone. [clears throat] For all of you that are here, I stand against the new prison system to where it's at. That's a beautiful piece of property down there, and it shouldn't be delegated to prison usage. there should be another usage for it. I haven't heard any alternative places that the prison should be built, but out by the trout farm would be a great place in my estimation. And that's basically all I have to say for it. I'm just against the uh usage of that beautiful piece of property. That's probably one of the best pieces of property in the state of California. Uh it sits by the river. It's absolutely gorgeous place down there. Uh I've been down there when they've been preparing the field for hay and I've been down there when they've been cutting the hay and I've been there after they've cut the hay and it's just an outstanding piece of property and I've never heard anybody down there complain about the dust and the dirt and the smell about the uh uh growings on that's uh with it. But I'm definitely against the uh prison being built here. Thank you. [applause]

So I have Ashley, then after that I have a Donald Miller, and then I have a Jenny. Hi, I am Ashley Wayman and I am the one who started all of this and got the neighborhood to fight this and have gotten everyone here. Um, there are some things that I wanted to let you know that haven't been spoken. I wasn't going to speak tonight. Um, we have Shasta Land Trust complete. Uh, we are meeting with them on Wednesday. they are interested in acquiring this piece of property and purchasing it as forever green space. We meet with them at 3:00 on Wednesday. Um, we have retained legal counsel. You should have received our legal counsel officially served you about an hour before the meeting started. And so we just want to let you know that we are very serious about opposing this. We hope it starts with you. We know there is a lot of corruption behind this. We have a very good attorney. We have a lot of money behind this. And we are not stopping. We will continue to go and find all the election fraud, all the backdoor deals, and we will not stop until this is not approved. This is not going to be good for the city of Reading or the county of Shasta. As of right now, you own a beautiful piece of property to the south of us with three ponds. It is an off leash dog park that the city of Reading owns. They have acquired the property even further south to that as well. When we put in the salmon restoration project, you could make the park that is supposed to be the jail into another green space and

connect it so that it goes through our neighborhood into this other open space. That would be a very good use of space. As far as the sewer smell and then putting the two sewer further, that was never an option. And we fought you about the smell about six, seven years ago and you stopped spreading the on the fields. And as far as any heavy industry, we fought every single zoning that you've brought to us. And we have won. And we have gotten lawyers. And we have fought a railroad tie building business that was going to make creo seat. We have fought SBI on their biomass plant. We have fought over and over and over again to save our serenity and our peace. And we will do it again. and we will not stop. So we hope that you do something today and say no so that the city of Reading or the county of Shasta will listen to the people at some point. [applause] I have a uh Donald Miller and then a Jenny. And then after that, I have a Troy and a Michael. And you know who you are. So Oh, that's right. Donald is not here. Thank you, Commissioner. She's always keeping an eye on me. I have a Jenny Good evening, commissioners. I would love to walk up here and support this project as it was proposed to be a rehabilitation center for non-violent criminals and I'm all for that. Unfortunately, the county has questions to atone for. The community has questions and those questions need to be answered. I paid attention the entire time and I have no idea what the scope of this project is. First off, what is the full scope of the project? This has

not been made public to any of us. As a result, the community does have the ability to go or the village does not have the ability to go against or for a project they don't know what it is. Second, the community was not given proper notice to give input or do research. This is the point of the public meeting in the first place so that we know how we're using public funds and we have and we have the ability to speak on that. Next, has the county explained why this site was picked over other sites? What other sites have been looked at? Why was this one chosen? Are there better sites available we don't know about? Have other sites been looked at? What was the reasoning for this site to be chosen? Lastly, instead of ramming the project through, it is important to hear the concerns of the community. Will the project work with the land or against it? I hear common themes. Air, light, water pollution. What kinds of population will use the facility? How will this affect the habitat for wildlife? Concerns I've seen before when Patrick Jones rammed his gun range through and look how that one turned out. The county needs to answer concerns. Work with the community or abandon the idea. Not because it isn't needed, but because it was improperly pushed on residents without proper notice or input. Please vote to take no action or watch this project fail the way so many the way so many county projects have. [clears throat] Thank you, Jenny. What I like is you're working your way up there. Uh Troy Bartalomi. Did I get it right?

Pretty close. Troy Bart.

I'm very close. That was the best I could do. Um what I would like to do is the audience can see we've got two speakers. If you recognize him, they're both from the county. Um they're both uh involved in the project from the county perspective. and I'd like to exercise my prerogative and take the time to let the two of them take a little more time. Um, but I will only do so as long as we give them the time. Meaning, if you're disruptive, I'm going to cut them off. Um, and only give them as much time as you had. So, that's the only only mean thing I'm going to do. So, let's listen to them and hear what they have to say. So, I would like to I would like to uh let's set a fivem minute clock for Troy. Thank you. I was getting a glare from the clerks here. I got to have a number. And so, let's go with a five minute. And then, of course, uh these gentlemen know that there's other opportunities for questions should they be called up again. Is that all right?

Sure. Three was good, but three is three is fine also, Troy.

Fine. [laughter] I'll see what I can do. Men, I'm uh Troy Bartle. I'm the director of public works for the county of Shasta. And there have been a tremendous points brought up today. All good points, all valid points. I appreciate the opportunity to speak because I understand this is a zone amendment and the project is somewhat independent of what's going on here, but you've allowed some leeway to speak about the project. And the project, which is basically the elephant in the room, is some sort of correctional facility or work release facility or something of that nature that's going to be proposed to be built down there off the East Side Road. Now, people are saying they don't know what it is. That hasn't they haven't been notified. Um, it's been a big surprise. Uh, we don't even know what it is. I can tell you the stage that we are at right now. Right now we have hired a outside firm and architect to start through the EIR process. They are in the conceptual stage right now as we speak trying to determine what facilities are even going to go here, what will work here. Now through that EIR process, there are certain milestones that have to be have to be met. So we are right now in the project definition stage which is currently going to probably take through maybe done in March. Once we reach that uh some kind of scope of a project have an idea a concept then we have to do a notice of preparation. You should expect to see that around April to May some point in time. It will be a notice of preparation and that will be a public meeting where everybody can come and and what you do at that notice of preparation is you give your input as to you want to make sure things are studied. I heard birds, I heard traffic, I heard uh uh water, sewer, all these things, groundwater, these are all

important concepts and they all need to be covered in the EIR. And should you feel something needs to be covered and studied in that EIR then that is the time that those preparation you can say hey these things need to be studied they need to be looked at. Then after that then we have to go through the special studies preparation where all the subject matter experts have to go through do their studies make their determinations and see what impacts they are can they be mitigated and through this process also there'll be site alternative studies done maybe this is not the best site there might be other sites but there will be site alternative studies done that doesn't mean because this lease is here that this will be the site it's a very promising site but doesn't mean that necessarily going to happen then we're figuring around October to February, we hope to have a draft impact report ready with that timeline. Then once the draft's done and gone through revisions and such, we're hoping of April of 27, that will be the draft will have to be released for 60 days for a public comment period. That'll be another time where the public has time to come in and comment. and frequently after those comments are made and such, then you go back and then those have to be addressed. And so that's another adds another part to the timeline. Then hopefully if all went well, maybe by December of 27, there might be a finalized EIR for review and then possibly at that point in time then they could even start a final design of the site. So, just to let you know, yes, there's plans to maybe do uh well, there's plans possibly to do some type of sheriff's facility down there, some alternative custody facility. And I think the sheriff can speak better to me as than I can as to what those potential uses are. But these concerns and these things, they all have to be addressed through this EI process and it is in the conceptual stage. So, these concerns, they're all valid concerns are great concerns. I empathize with you, but

there will be a time over the next two years to make sure you have your input and your input is t is heard. So, hi sir, can you just state your name again, please? Troy Bartle. And are you standing there as a representative of the county of Sha? Yes, I'm the director of public works. I represent the county. Okay. And you're not standing there as a member of the public right now? No. Okay. Can I ask you some questions? Yes. So, how long have you been assigned to this project? I'm sorry. How long have you been working on this project?

Oh, shoot. I believe the idea came maybe I'm I'm going from memory here maybe four or five months ago to have an idea that um it was a concept and I was asked what would we need to do to bring this about and I said well first thing you need to do is you know we need to you know find a site and once you have a site do site selection then we need to as early on as possible engage the EIR process they're asking me to cuz I'm the one that kind of has the expertise how to get something like this uh done and through this whole process the IR process is a chicken in the egg. It's like you can't define your project too much otherwise you got to head you got your horse ahead of the game that you have you can't have these predetermined ideas as what exactly it's all going to be but yet you have to have a good enough concept to have something to use as your example for your uh impacts. So, but probably about, you know, four, five, six months ago, the concept came and then I think we hired an architect back in, oh shoot, I think we finally hired an architect,

was it November 18th, we hired an architect to bring on board to help uh start the EIR process. Okay. So this um so the lease agreement so the city of reading leased uh the county of Shasta uh this land this 90 acres uh and what I have here is it's dated August 1st 2024. Okay. So so as you stand there does does it feel like that's county property now? like you're you're the like that's your that's your property and you're going to start the process of you know architectural designs and I understand the process but as you stand there right now are you considering that like your your land

um from a lease standpoint as we go through the process yes it'll be treated as if uh you know as if we're the owner but we are we are leasing the land okay yes thank you very much yeah and I and you know I understand you're you're laying out like next steps these processes hurdles and things like that. Okay. All right. Thank you, sir. Very good. [snorts] I'm comfortable with anyone else um from the commission here. Questions right now of Troy while he's up there and then we'll have Sheriff Johnson up there and then it'd be good for you guys to stay nearby in the event there's other questions as we work our way forward. Anything? Nope. Okay. We'll ask Sheriff Johnson to come up next. Thank you, Troy.

Hey, 47 seconds. Yeah. Yeah, but I gave you five minutes. Otherwise, you would have you wouldn't have made it.

Thank you, commission, staff, members of the audience. So, I want to um there there's so much information here, uh both good and some misinformation and assumptions being made, but I'm not up here to try to refute all that. What I'd like to do is lay some foundation on how we got here. We got here because uh this is a project that I am pursuing. I um if you want to know when I started kind of along that lines uh Mr. Nance, probably about 3 to four years ago when I started conceptualizing uh a Shasta County need. So, it wasn't until I became sheriff and actually started um running the jail and was responsible for the jail that I found out really the true need is we need more beds and more space to house some of the worst of the worst here in the county. We do not like the revolving door and turning people out, especially releasing felons that should not be released. So, uh, quickly it became apparent that, um, we were not in the market to or could afford or any funding source for a new jail. When we started looking at that, uh, was a different board then and we started looking at the footprint that we have next to the jail or where the courthouse was going to be torn down. And the fact of the matter is that put us into the 300 million plus uh, bracket to build a new jail, which the county doesn't have. and we have no means for that. There's no federal or state money being released to build correctional facilities at this time. So that is really uh wasn't an option and that board at the time I came up with um kind of a version of of what what's before us today to go out to and the lady up here I'm sorry ma'am I forgot your name spoke about the site out on old Oregon Trail which was the old transfer site which was a proposal of mine that we build a new jail there and

do an alternative custody program there that was struck down by the prior board uh for various reasons and that pro that hope of that kind of went away over time. I've got a new board. Um uh I still have the same overcrowding problem at my jail. I still have the lack of accountability that's going on for in custodies, especially the nonviolent low-level offender doesn't I don't have room for them at the jail and they don't get held accountable and there's a lack of vocational training. There's a lack of education, there's a lack of drug treatment, mental health. All those things are so spread out within this county that we are uh losing the opportunity to help the people that need it and get and quit that revolving door that goes on at the jail. That's how this project was born. So, um I went I approached there. There's also been uh folks I know a lot of you have some conspiracy theories or or thoughts of ill intentions, but I can tell you I have not personally experienced that or know of that in getting to this point. I had a board of supervisors that I approached with my idea. I said, "This is what I'd like to do." They were generally supportive of that and they said, "We'll see where it goes." I approached my own uh CEO of the county, David Rickard, and I asked him to show me the surplus lands that the county has so I can look to for a large enough piece of surplus land where I could put this project on that the county owns. There was a couple of uh of lands put forward by them. Uh the most desirable was out on Clear Creek that was struck down because of waffle lines and other um uh hurdles where we couldn't build out there. My next step was I came to the city of Reading and met with Barry Tippen, the city manager. I asked him

the same question. Can you tell me surplus lands that the city of Reading owns and possibly here's my project? Here's what I want to do. He proposed at least two, maybe three, I think. uh uh different properties that we looked at. I liked this one the best. Obviously, that uh may have not may or may not be the best choice. Um so, we began to talk about me putting this project on this piece of land. And that began the progress of to where we are today. Now, when um people are talking about not getting notified or not being aware of this, it was no secret uh deal. I came and spoke before the uh the city uh uh council in open session. I spoke at the board of supervisors on at least two, maybe three occasions in open session. I proposed to Rotary clubs, service clubs, anybody who wanted to know and asked me about the project. I've been forthright in coming and and putting that out there. Some of the misinformation that I would like to relay to you, but I was told that you you folks didn't want to speak with me to speak to a lawyer instead was like for instance there there's no sheriff's boating safety substation going in there. There's we're not going to use that access road on River River Ranch. We're not importing 1,200 people into a new jail. That jail was is proposed as 1,200 bed with a 50 60 70y year outlook because of population growth and for the reason of going into EIR. We want to show a greater impact than we're probably actually going to do because we want the EIR to be very uh scrutin laden where they look at everything and if we build smaller than what was proposed we shouldn't get ourselves in trouble. So, those are some of the things that we're

involved in. I'll stop Russ. I know there's there's there's a lot there's a lot I can get in. I I welcome the opportunity to come and talk to any of you to come to whether it's a town hall meeting or neighborhood meeting and give you any more information that you want because I'd rather you go forward with facts than assumptions and misinformation. You have a lot of the information correct, folks, but there's plenty of information that is not.

Thank you, sir. I um I appreciate that and [clears throat] I think I'd like you you two gentlemen to stay by just on the on the chance that as we then um at this point I'm actually going to close the public hearing and then uh but that doesn't preclude us as we ask questions of staff of also asking one of you perhaps to come back up if we have a specific question. That's why I say stand by just in case there's there's a question. Um it seems to me like before we move into this next phase, it'd be good because it's been a good long period at this point perhaps to have um Attorney Curtis. Um remind us again what what what we have before us and why I saw a hand motion. Did I

Jennifer, you have a question for the chair. You know, thank thank you very much. I appreciate that. T it takes an army to keep me in in uh check here. Um we we've gone through all of the cards. Is there anyone else who uh intended to speak? Maybe maybe we forgot to call upon you. I see either someone getting up to leave or moving forward. So I'm going to take that as a as a no. So now I will confirm the public hearing is closed. Thank you, Jennifer.

Yeah. So um just briefly, Mr. Chair, what you have in front of you is um both a general proposed general plan amendment and a reszone um that would change the property from heavy industrial to public in facility in terms of its designation. Um I I think the reason you're asking me as opposed to planning is because of the uh comments I had previously as to the legal effect. Um just again to to remind the commission um uh and and the public as well um this actually is not a legal requirement for anything that the uh county might do on that property. Um county is categorically exempt from the these zoning laws. Um county projects don't have to comply with um city general plan. Um the only effect is um it might change what you put in your report um when you do ultimately um a release report about general plan consistency but that has no legal effect one way or another as to what happens um with the project that that that would beformational only. Um so that really from the legal standpoint the significance of this is going to be what happens to the property um either after this project wraps up or if this project um weren't to proceed and there were you know it was somehow transferred into to private ownership or um uh uh otherwise got leased to to private parties for private purposes as opposed to some sort of uh public purpose.

Thank you. [clears throat] So what I'd like to do is turn to uh fellow commissioners and do you have questions? items you'd like to have clarified. Um perhaps questions and then we could uh begin to offer opinions or however you'd like to proceed.

Um I do have a question for our city attorney. Big night for you. Thank you for being here. Um I taking a look over the lease. It looks like what we're what we're really the the thing the item in question is section 10. This is packet page 42 where there's a reasonzoning obligation. I don't see a general plan amendment obligation and there is that and and there isn't and I will say there is no obligation to reszone. Um well I correct but even the general plan amendment isn't even a part of the lease. That was just us trying to be clean and tidy consistent.

Yeah. I the I I believe that planning must have determined that um a general plan amendment would be needed um for the the reszone. The only obligation in the contract is to put that in front of you for your consideration. So maybe maybe the requirement to bring this for a reason triggered a general plan amendment. That loosely correct. Yeah. When when planning manager Toy and I discussed um we were we were informed that the bringing an application for a reszone was required by the contract but in order to make the general plan zoning diagram consistent uh it's typical to do the general plan amendment too so the two maps uh are in line with each other.

Okay. Um, so I guess question for the attorney. If this board were to deny if it if the board approves the reszone, it goes to city council. Mhm. A great another great opportunity for the public to have comment. If it denies, it appears to if the board denies it, it appears to me that we fulfilled the obligations of the contract.

Yeah. That's correct. I I would I would say I think the obligations of the contract have already been fulfilled just by have there being a presentation here. Um and I wouldn't um I will say I routinely recommend that if any when contracts like this come up, if there's any request for anything along those items, we do not commit to any particular action by a legislative body. Um you know, I I advise consistently against contracting for a legislative action, which is why it would only be consideration at most. Could I clarify for the record though? Um, yeah, denial here would actually be a recommendation for the city council to just it's a nuance, but um, city attorney Curtis, regardless, this goes to city council based on this body's recommendation.

That's not what the lease obligation says. The lease obligation says it only has to go to planning commission, not city council. So, that's correct. Um, the discretion on whether this should go to city council. Correct.

Yeah. So, um I I think Director Pagan's just talking about your normal processes in terms of if there's a recommendation. Um that recommendation usually being passed on to the city council for action. Um I will say, you know, procedurally I've been sort of puzzling a little bit about if you did uh recommend denial or you um uh or if you were to deadlock and you were to forward with no recommendation. Um you know, city council um I think they need to have the opportunity to act. Um, but there's I've got to figure out whether or not that would have to be a full public hearing or if the council wanted to simply dispose of the matter and be done. Um, if there would be a shorter process for that and I don't have an answer on that. I've been trying to figure it out.

This is this is what I'm trying to drive through here. I think the question the thing for me, yeah, I don't I don't see a reason for this to go to city council if it has a denial here. um we've already fulfilled the obligations the lease. However, I would like the public to have the opportunity to make the comments in the case to city council. In this case, I think that the city council is actually while they have already obligated themselves to the lease, there is a lot more they are the ones that um sign the lease and um this board has no authority or sway on what happens with the project itself. Um while maybe city council has no legal authority to change what they've done um that's they certainly have a lot more authority to us. So regardless of what happens I would like to see this go to city council um one way or another. And I'm I'm concerned that if we just go a no vote, and I'm not saying that's the way I would go, but I'm concerned that if we don't go no vote, then that process may be limited.

And um I'm sorry. Um I I don't have the answer procedurally as to what would the next step be. Um I I'd need to look into that a little bit more. Um, I did just want to address a little bit in terms of the questions about what was in the the the the term that was in the lease agreement. Um, um, I I would really recommend that for this commission's purposes, don't worry about meeting any obligation in the lease agreement. You really are here to exercise your own judgment and to make an independent recommendation as to what you think is best in terms of the designation of the this property. So, um I would just recommend don't worry about anything on the the the lease side. Um really it's what do you think is best?

Uh I have a I have a question for you. [clears throat and cough] So, because you you guys you mentioned um the normal procedure, you know, if this was a normal if this was a subdivision, you know, we would we would, you know, we we've gone through a lot of those, but uh but this seem this lease agreement that the city of Reading signed with Shasta kind of supersedes all of that. Uh so,

I mean, I don't my my I mean, we can vote, but it it doesn't affect what they do on that property. Is that correct? Well, I will say um it wouldn't matter regardless of whether this was on city land or whether this is something the county u acquired from private land or whether the county used eminent domain somewhere. The um none of that would be impacted by the city zoning or the city general plan. So, Right. Right. But it just seems like the the procedure was it would just kind of slingshot it around a lot of

Yeah. And I would say in terms of the procedure, um uh I don't think this actually changes any of your normal procedures. The only requirement that was in there was that an application be put in front of this commission. Um that was done in line with your normal procedures that you know the process for for submitting the application was followed and I think you're still going to be following your normal processes from this step out as to what is done with that application.

Okay. Is there is there you know this is a kind of a big question. There's lots of municipal codes, but does council have to like when they when they lease out land that the city owns, it's not they don't own it, they own it, they own this land. Um, do they have to like notify people or was there like a staff report on this contract that the city signed? Because now it's contractual law. That's where we're at. Yeah. Um so um I I want to answer but I also do want to just bring it back to the the the matter that's actually in front of the commission. Um yes there are um public processes that have to be followed and were followed in this case. Um the sheriff had mentioned presenting to city council.

I know the sheriff he he was looking for acreage but did the city so if I may.

Yes sir. Um the um uh I believe this was on the agenda four or five times um uh with the city council. Um there were a few for the negotiations in public or in close session. Um the item itself came on I think twice in open session um for for consideration [clears throat] by the the city council for approval. Um there um yeah there are staff reports I believe there are staff reports in connection with those items. So yes, there are steps that were taken um uh in certain processes that that do get followed. Some of those would be internal and specific to the city. Some of those may be processes that are uh under state law. Okay. And then um can I ask the sheriff a question? Is he on?

Tried to get him to stay up there, but he snuck to the back. Thank you, Sheriff. Uh, and understanding you're, you know, you have an incredible, uh, scope of responsibility trying to, to find, uh, facilities to, you know, to accomplish your mission. Um, and, you know, the city of Reading, you know, it seems like they gave up this this land to the county for the purposes of a of a custodial facility. I mean, it's in writing. So, there's no I keep hearing this like, well, they might do that. It's in writing. This is it's clearly that. Um, but in this, it has, you know, section 2 2.2 says the county may terminate this lease without cause on 30 days written notice to the city. County's right to terminate this terminate this lease may be exercised by the county executive officer. So, you do have an opportunity. Do you I mean, were were you re did you know that you have an opportunity to terminate the lease? Um, I don't, but the county does.

Okay. Um, exercised by the county executive officer. So, if the county were to terminate the lease, is that does that go back to the board of supervisors or how does that work? I I don't have that answer. Perhaps Bryce does. Thank you, sir. [clears throat] Since we don't have a card, uh, not everyone knows who you are. So, please identify who you are and who you work for.

Happy to. Bryce Richie, senior administrative analyst for the county administrative office. U, my areas of responsibility are broad, but generally land use and leases. So, I was part of drafting the lease, at least the groundwork for it. The authority to approve it obviously resides with uh the board because of the term of the lease. If we were to terminate, the reason that's in there is because as we go through the EIR process, if we determine that this isn't the right site for the project or the cost would be prohibitive, um that gives us the ability to terminate and then the lease would just return to the ownership of the city.

Yeah. It's just interesting how you you enter to at least you don't even know if the land's suitable. Like why why not why not do the study ahead of time? I MEAN THAT THAT listen that's your own procedure. I'm just I'm I'm making a comment. Mr. Chair, we're we're starting to get pretty off topic at this point. I I don't think so, city attorney. I I think that this I'm just ask I just want a clarifying question that that's all I want.

So So the lease is a vehicle. It doesn't obligate either party necessarily long term. It's a 30-year term, but that gives us the ability to go through the full EIR process. Um and there are other milestones in the lease that we have to accomplish before ownership would be transferred. Okay. Um and so the the lease is the vehicle to allow us on the site to be able to do those uh to do the studies to have our staff on site. Also is I would say uh more robust than like a space use agreement or a holdarmless um agreement. Um, so that's that's that was the direction of the board and uh the county executive staff and so that's the direction we went. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. You're welcome.

Go ahead, Commissioner. If we were to make a motion, regardless of what the vote outcome is, we can still recommend it go to city council as an agenda item with our recommendation and what we voted on tonight. Yes. So that's what I would say. I just I just wanted to add um was talking with Miss Toy. I mean it is codified in our code that it's a legislative action the reszone and so as our understanding is it it must go to the city council. This is a recommending body. It's a legislative action in our code. It says the city council is the decision maker and this body is a recommending body.

But we can add it. Sorry. But we could also add it as our motion. Sure. as a point of clarification. I don't think that hurts, but I just want to I want to rest assured here that this this does have to go to city council per our municipal code. Yeah. And that's how I understood it too, but just to cover what Commissioner Miner was asking. They have a chance. No, I guess there's a few more nuances than that in it, but I'm good. I'm good on that point.

Okay. Thank you. Yeah, if I may. Um, just a couple of things. I I feel like we these are big picture. There's lots of I think you said nuances there when I was trying to hear you there. Um we have um we we have a recommendation from staff to recommend approval of what's in front of us and move it forward to the council. Simply put, that's option one. That's a recommendation from staff. Option two would be a motion to deny and that could be considered. So deny the staff recommendation and we've heard a little bit of banter, but it's it's pretty likely it's going to be in in front of council in one form or another as it works its way along.

Yeah. And and just to Director Pagan's point, I think the motion would actually be to recommend the city.

You're right. As soon as you lean forward, I knew I' I'd use the wrong words. It's it's recommendation because that's all we're doing is making recommendations as opposed to other items. Number three, and I'm not recommending anything at this point, but number three is we feel like we need more information or there's more research needed and we'd want to be very specific, and that is a motion to continue the item, come back and do this again when we're ready to make a decision. And again, I'm not recommending that, but that's an option and comes up sometimes. And number four, which is also not uh perfect, but it'd be a motion to simply move it forward to council without a recommendation from the c from the commission. And that's not perfect either, but it but it um it you know moves it forward which knowing it's going there anyway knowing that we were not a party to the agreement. Um the the other the only u comment that I would make I have a whole page of notes. The only good silver lining in this thing, and that's a that's a stretch, so give me a little grace here, is that almost every single item, and I've got a full page of bullets of items people brought up, they are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act, and the county has no choice but to go through that process. And by their own admission, they've already hired an environmental impact report um consultant. And I know that to be true. Um, but where I I run into a problem is the wellestablished best practice is when you have a project in mind, you bundle up your actions and your decisions together as you move them forward so that it's not peacemail or presupposed or that sort of thing. And I realize that's not completely accurate either, but but the best practice having operated in the area of land planning and project approvals for over 40 years

now is you consider the whole of the project. And um so it is troubling to me that we're being asked to um some would say that some some planners would say we're being asked to just change the color on the map. It's a different alpha and it's a different color. And assuming a jail were never built, it would just be a different color and it may very well be a lesser intensity as opposed to, you know, an aggregate operation, which would be a mine. Uh, but it's really best if it's all bundled together. So, those are those are my my thoughts um at this point just just as I look at it. And I want to thank everybody for speaking because pretty soon we're probably going to come to a motion. Um, I want to also say that I know personally and I know my colleagues well enough even though we didn't talk beforehand, but I can tell you and I'm sure they would nod their head. They're they did a lot of research before they ended up up here today. Um, and a lot of analysis and visiting the site and being aware of what's out there. So, I just want you to know that that did occur. So, with that, I will stop my little mini which turned in a little speech. Sorry about that. and say [clears throat] is anybody did anybody other questions or

can can the rest of us comment? Oh, 100%. Okay. So, yeah, 100%. I wasn't cutting anything off at that point.

Okay. Okay. Thank you, sir. Appreciate that. So, I would say if this uh you know, if this ends up before city council, maybe they can vote on a municipal code uh to regulate themselves so they can't do this again. Uh because they it's definitely uh troubling that uh now this thing has to be, you know, possibly litigated. And that's just going to cost a, you know, a lot of money, uh, because it's contractual law now. And, uh, and that just opens up all sorts of other, you know, uh, legal challenges. Um, regarding a jail, um, and you can probably ask the sheriff about this, but, you know, the ETH amendment, that's cruel and unusual punishment. And basically, it's a constitutional amendment that prevents cruel and unusual punishment. Title 15 and the eth amendment, they basically regulate jails. And if you have 1,200 beds, that equals uh uh adequate space, which means uh basically jails can either go vertical or they go further out in acreage. So when I hear about smaller, you know, uh footprints and things like that, um just, you know, 8th amendment and title 15, uh and it's really to protect inmates and listen, I'm all about re rehabilitation. Please know that. That is my heart and things like that. Um but those 90 acres could easily be gobbled up just by complying with eight the eth amendment and title 15 regulations. 1,200 beds that's a lot of people um that are going to be working in and out of that facility. And then I wonder uh when this was uh when they were developing this contract uh you know if they talked about like you know medical um you know services for the uh you know the the the people that are being housed there. Are they are they using our local hospitals? Are they going to build a medical facility? Is it going to impact uh level of services that it's already hard here in Reading? Um and all of those type of things. Um that being that close to the river, is it in the flood zone, you know, and again protecting inmates, you know, uh you know, you're you've got people locked in boxes and is it a flood zone, you know, if you ever had that 50 or

100year flood, um that just seems pretty uh pretty troubling and things like that. Is it a high-risisk fire zone? I'm not sure. But these are the things that normally come out when you're doing these projects and all of that just seems to be ignored. And so that's just sort of my comments when it comes to this. Thank you. [applause]

I'll make a comment. Comments or motion? Yeah. Well, I wanted to echo what Russ said. I did visit the neighborhood. I wanted to see where the site was. I have a business close to there. Um, I want to reiterate, we're not the body that approved the jail nor the contract. That was Friday was the first time I was able to read through the contract when we got our packet. Um, I just feel like we have no legal effect. Yes.

On our decision. So, I would be u no recommendation to the city who got us into this contract and kick it back to city council is where I'm going. Um, that's that's where I'm sitting at. So, I don't that I don't know if that could be a motion, but that would be my motion. Well, I suggested it could be. Have you made a motion or you just talking at this point? Well, that's my statement, but that would be my motion if I were to make Okay. When Okay. Yeah. Commissioner Miner has it.

Yeah. I I'll say I I'm trying to wear a couple different hats. One is the hat of a planning commissioner that's simply looking at is the use of the land going to be consistent to how it might be used. And if the tenant is the county, it's public facilities. That's a no-brainer. That's not a question. It's not going to be used as heavy industrial. It's going to be used as a public facilities. And when I, you know, put on my simple try to be a simple guy, put on my simple hat, that's the right answer. I wish that I I'm I'm remissed to see all of the process that's taking to get us here. And I and I'm excited also to see as uh the chair mentioned all of the concerns addressed in the U public comment periods that the squa and the the AEIR allow. I think that is actually the correct spot for this sort of assembly. um you know this is the correct spot but also that's a spot where changes very very practical changes like the size um in the might determine that the size of a jail would not be appropriate to have 1,200 beds it can only be 400 and and then they determine that the site is not appropriate to have the whole scope um that they want and they have to go somewhere else and that is a pro a part of that process that would highly encourage you to be there. I think with my when I put back on my simple hat, the tenant is the county at this point. The current owner is the city at this point. This is a public facility. And

while so I probably going to stick with my simple hat of saying you know the owner and the tenant are public so we should zone it public facility and then let the rest of the process work it out and hopefully these concerns are heavily addressed in the squa and er process. Thank you commissioner. I'll look back this way one more time. Any other thoughts or analysis or is someone ready to make a motion? I can't make a motion.

Please, I'm ready. So, at this point, um, when I go through it and I gave my I gave my spiel, but, um, I would make a motion to accept staff recommendation on this item and to and and encourage the public to be heavily involved at both the city council and at all of the SQA hearings so that we make sure that this process, which is going to happen regardless of what happens, here, but that this process gets the full scrutiny it deserves and um that the concerns are adequately addressed in the correct place. C

can I ask uh city staff to just uh restate what their position is before we vote on that or uh that motion? Yeah, because it's been a couple hours since they Yeah. Okay. Certainly. I'm just pulling up the agenda. I mean we would staff's recommendation is that uh you would adopt the addendum to the general plan final EIR um that you would adopt a resolution amending the general plan from hi to parks and adopt an ordinance amending the zoning map from hi to public facilities just as outlined in your staff packet or to clarify that we would recommend approval yeah that the council do that and so that

recommend to the city council that the following that's right so that's the motion that Mr. Miner has made. Okay. Yes. So any discussion? Is there a second? Okay, it dies for lack of a second. I'm going to say any further discussion or is there an alternative motion or a new motion?

Putting my planning commission hat on. I'm still stuck at just so you know where I disagree with you. I do feel like this is peace milling and segmentation and it it to me it feels like it should facilitate a squa before it even came to us. So that's where I'm uncomfortable following Commissioner Miner's motion. I would go back to my motion that we give a no. What was it? No. Well, I we had not shared these notes, but I said my number four was a motion to move the item forward to council with no with no recommendation from I saw that as an option.

And Mr. Chair, if I may, um uh that has been the process when there's been a deadlock and I would note because there are only four commissioners here. um you need a unanimous vote and that might be appropriate um if you're able to unanimously agree to forward it on because you're not able to reach agreement on recommendation otherwise. Okay. I think I'm going to need to have you need in you ramp you ramped into that thought.

Yeah, I I'm sorry. Um uh given that Commissioner Miner's motion failed, it sounds like the commission would likely be deadlocked on a um any actual recommendation that would go to council because there's only four of you and the decision has to be unanimous. In those situations, proposal number four of forwarding with it with no recommendation is the usual process that we use. So I and that's I think you I heard you say that if if we're successful at getting a first and a second Yes. and we do not have unanimous then we have no action. Then we have no action the meeting comes to a close

and it goes on to council. Uh typically what we've done is recommend that the council forward it with all comments and and all the information. Um so that it goes forward with no recommendation. It's so the commission is moving it to council with no recommendation via motion with the understanding that there was a deadlock on the recommendation and that's the reason for the no recommendation. I track what you're saying but I think it could be done this other way also. [laughter]

If if if it got a unanimous vote. If it didn't then well then it's problematic. We're we're back to what you were saying. So, so is there we're we're back to is is there an a new motion? You're looking at me. I'm looking at you

because you want me to do it opposite what he's saying. So, I'll make the recommendation that we pass it along to city council with no recommendation because we can't come to a unanimous decision. And I'm going to second that just so that we can continue the discussion here before we vote. Um realizing that I think the practical effect is is the same as what what you were saying uh uh Mr. Curtis. Um and and I and I second that simply because and I'm I'm going to I'm going to go simple like my good friend uh Mr. Miner. Um the council has already asserted that they are in charge of what's happening. We are in the most awkward, unusual uh figurehead role here. That um that I understand how it got here. It wasn't through any malice. It wasn't through any ill intent. It's just one of the corks. Sometimes the legal processes don't quite line up and there's carts and horses and weird things happen. And so, um, in my mind, the C, we don't even have the benefit of all of the council's discussion because a fair amount was done in close section session. Some of it was done in open session. And so, we don't even know everything that went into the decision. And um I am as as an engineer and a and a and a sometimes pretend planner, I do like the idea of processes working themselves out and that vehicle already exists no matter what we do. So that is my reason for seconding your motion, which really the way I word it is, you know, we're we're we're taking no action or and we're just letting it move forward to council at where it's going anyway.

So that was my second. So any further discussion on that? Yeah, I think the most important key thing here is maximal transparency and opportunity for community involvement, which this certainly has it baked in. So are we just going to vote on the motion or are we going to vote on everything right now? Well, we would vote on the motion. Do do you need the motion repeated? Uh, no. Which is common. Make sure we're all on the same page. Yeah. I I would just like to propose a motion, too. I mean, if we're sending Are we Is that motion you're considering sending this to council with recommendations?

Yeah. To clarify, it would it would send it to council with no recommendation. No. No recommendation to approve or deny. We have no legal authority. We have no legal authority. Anyway, this is one of the I think silly comes to mind. Um that again through no fault of anybody's. It's just where you end up when multiple government processes try to line up. I mean I I would So there is a process where there'd be a substitute motion or amendment to motion. There are I I would turn to the attorney if we got to that, but I I won't call a vote until you're comfortable whether you want to do an alternative motion.

Yeah. I well, if we're I mean, I would like to have a motion that city the recommended city council that they approach the county and uh ask them to um terminate the lease. And I I WOULD [cheering] and and I would ask that that that motion, that recommendation uh that they do in public forum and not behind closed doors. Yeah. [applause] Okay. Just ju just so we unpack this one step at a time. That that's an alternative motion. Yeah. Um and now now I'd like to hear your input before we ask for a second.

I I would have to advise that those are completely outside of the jurisdiction of the planning commission. What but they're recommendations. It's just the recommendations. And the the planning commission's um authority is to recommend on planning decisions. um you're you're talking about trying to decide what what land um or what the city does as owner of its property and that's just that's not something within the the commission's jurisdiction whatsoever. Well, that's troubling, sir. I I appreciate I mean that's a legal opinion. I I respect your I respect your uh your opinion on that, sir. Thank you.

So So with that, do you want to keep keep that motion as stated and then I will ask for a second? See if there is one. Well, can we getation because what you're saying will go on record to city council. Correct. I mean, they will get record of what commissioner Nance has proposed. I mean, the they will have the statements that are made here, right? Um, but that doesn't be part of the motion per se because legally he's saying we can't. But your statement will still go to city council. Yeah, I I would Yeah, [clears throat] I think that's you're not going to strike my recommendation, sir. Right. No, no. The the but the motion that we need is to advance the item that's in front of the commission.

Sure. And um the the the sort of alternate discussion the you that's part of the records of this proceeding. That's something the council will be aware of. Um but that's it's not going to properly move the item forward um to to the council stage. Okay. I mean, this was in my packet that I had this weekend, so I I mean, I'm it was put in front of me, so I'm just it's the information that I have. Thank you.

So So again, we have whether our attorney agrees it's a appropriate motion or not, I don't want to address yet. We have a motion. Is there a second hearing? No second. Then we set that aside and we're back to the motion that's on the table. and the table or the motion that's on the table is something along the line of um uh you know mo uh where was it? Okay, motion here I I typed it out in advance. Um a motion to move the item forward to council without a recommendation from the commission. And there was a motion made. There was a second. I will pause again. Anyone else want to propose an amendment or an alternative motion? Just giving plenty of time. Seeing none, I'm going to uh call for a roll call vote. I didn't warn you about that, did I?

Keep me on my toes. Yeah. Are we ready for it? I'm ready. Yes, ma'am. Chair Winnham. Uh, yes. Vice Chair Will. Yes. Uh, Commissioner Miner, yes. Commissioner Nance, no. Okay. Thank you. So, the motion does not pass. City attorney, do I need to state the individuals that are absent today? Um, I think you can just reflect that in the the the minutes. Thank you.

So, if my understanding then is our next option is is there another motion that maybe would get the unanimous approval because absent what I heard, I think it took him three times to get it across to me, but it takes all of us to agree on a motion. um or or again, as weird as it is, it's sliding to council anyway. Um so, and and frankly, I would have to look at whether it would come to council anyway or if it would come back to this commission when you have more members available. Oh, well, that felt like a threat. I'm I'm teasing him. Don't don't

It's just very confusing, you know. It's It It just It's just clunky. It just it's just confusing. So, it is a a viable option. Again, I'm just trying to options and the option is we have no other motion and we adjourn the meeting. Yeah. And we will then review um I think the answer may be that it has to come back to the planning commission when you have more members present. Um uh if there is no motion to move it on to council. So, can I ask you a question? So the so the the yes can you just explain what the yes modes yes votes mean and what the no votes mean?

So the yes vote on that motion would be to move this to council. No recommendation on approval um but having the council take up this matter um uh with their own notice public hearing and and proceed that way. Okay. It really would be the exact same thing as if we voted yes. The only or voted to recommend or if we voted don't do it. All of those scenarios, it slides to council in all likelihood and they have a public hearing and they do their thing. Yes.

And they and they vote on a zoning change and a general plan amendment in alignment with I I mean they they they vote on it. Yes or no? the the the difference would be um uh if there was a recommendation for approval um there would be the endorsement of this body um going forward to council before they conduct the public hearing. Um with the motion that was made um it would be with no recommendation um uh uh uh frankly one one way or another um because of the the limited number of of members present.

Yeah. Thank you. And for those that maybe haven't seen that before, that's happened before. That's not something it's not like we're plowing new ground here. um there's been deadlocks before and then it moves forward um or insufficient votes. So at this point, does anyone want to make another motion? Okay. So, I'm going to try to capture this and say absent a motion, then um we will um we will close this item and we will leave it in the hands of the esteemed staff to package up the nuances of this and however it goes forward to council for their decision to uh act on the reszone and general plan. Well, I I will just note without a motion to move it to council, we do need to review whether we'll need to come back at the next um planning commission meeting.

Oh, sorry. And can I [clears throat] can I also Sorry. Thank you for reminding me again. May I also make a comment, please? Chair, if I look back at the lease agreement, uh the lease does not obligate at this point, city staff could just drop the item in in my understanding of the lease agreement. They could just say, "We went as far as we needed to based on the obligation of the lease. We're going to drop it and we miss out on a chance to get this in front of city council." That is a viable option, is it not? Uh um it what I would need

I'm not saying that you would do that. I'm just saying that is an option on the table for staff to consider. So withdrawal of the request is an option. Um the question I would have and that I would need to look at is whether that could be done by staff or whether that would need to be for council to decide whether or not to withdraw and then of course if they decide not to withdraw then it comes back here before it then goes to council again. Um so just just to be aware we'd have to look at that authority question.

My concern on ending with just closing the item and if we end that way then that's okay. That's the process working it out though is that there is a possibility like I brought up earlier that SNAPS looks at it and says we've concluded you know everything that we need to do. Let me read it. Within 180 days of execution of the lease, the city shall at its own cost present to the city's planning commission an item to reszone the premises to public facility zone district for administrative planning and data purposes. including the city zoning map may be consistent with the county post project use of premises does not require any further action as I read it as it states it could just stop here. So I would much rather see this go and and then we lose an opportunity for the public comment. we lose an opportunity for the people who signed the document to get a chance to litigate it in public once again with a lot more publicity. So I I'd much rather eliminate that possibility and have this go to council today.

I even through a no recommendation I think is an appropriate method of that. Yeah, I I think you brought up very good point. And I think I would the only clarification I would make is contract you're 100% right the way we read it procedure and process-wise we appear to have a little bit of ambiguity as to what may or may not happen but I do agree completely I not I'm not sure that we're going to get clarity on that item in this moment that's not going to come. So we could ensure that it goes to city council or we could

I was about I was about to support that exact statement. the um and and that is I I agree with what I believe you are suggesting is that maybe assuming it's allowed we try that motion that we had out here once before we try it again. Um if Commissioner Nance because our it sounds like our choices are on the table at the moment is this meeting comes to an end and this hand comes back to us again and we have a repeat with more commissioners. Alternatively, we take the motion that says, "Hey, no, we we want this to move to them with no recommendation." And then it it reasonably, barring any other legal ease that comes out, guarantees it ends up as a notice meeting in front of the council and and there's an opportunity, as Commissioner Miner said, for this to be heard. Is that what I heard you say? C.

Can I add one more thing? with a new um with a new city manager that's going to come in and at some point and he if I was in that shoes I'd be like hey I don't want to why am I putting myself back into this hot mess. So my again my concern is that the direction from staff would be hey we did our job. We could we did we fulfilled the obligation of the lease. Now it's in city now it's in county control. We're going to step away and we're going to get out of the limelight. If we want maximal public comment opportunity we advance this to city council today. Otherwise we don't we don't know what will happen. So, so can I ask a question? So, a yes vote that changes the zoning, does it not?

Yes. No, it does not. Um, it would it would give the it would put the matter in the hands of the city council and the city council would not have a recommendation um uh from the planning commission to approve it. The zoning would nothing the commission does today would be final on the zoning um one way or another. So, the yes vote would only send it to council. Um, and it would send it without the endorsement of changing the zoning, meaning a yes vote on the previous motion. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. Not a yes to It's just confusing. It shouldn't It shouldn't like a yes means no. Yeah. I

You know, and it's just I Whoever did this I mean it's it's just not right. It's not right for us to read it. And oh no, my apologies if I get more confusing as the day wears on. Um, you usually do, but uh, yeah. Well, it sound I mean, I'm just saying we're trying to dance with things that have already been done and there's contractual law here and things like that. So, I mean, it seems like a courtroom would be better for this to to unwind it. So, I'm just it's just it's hard it's hard it's hard to like vote on this.

Yes means no. And it just it doesn't it doesn't make any sense. it doesn't feel right. Um it's confusing. It shouldn't be like this. And all the other projects that you put in front of us have not been like this. And so if [clears throat] it's if it's peacemeal or whatever we're talking about, it's just um it doesn't feel it doesn't feel normal. So

So then is it or is it your belief that it should be back in front of council and to use Mr. Miner's term to be litigated again? I mean that that's is that is that h how do we how do we get there? What what is a solution um alternative? Um I think we have an al an option that's been proposed that gets it back in front of council for it to be considered. And really they're just considering the zoning and general plan. They could at any time they want choose to reconsider their contract. That's a whole different ballgame.

But the other side of that, a yes vote, you know, if it's ever litigated means that this commission was in favor of it. We pushed it forward. No, no, sir. How does it only takes 51% when you're in litigation? Yes means Okay. Well, they they pushed it forward, so they agree with it. But our vote isn't yes to changing the zoning. Our yes is to send it to city council. No recommendation, meaning we are not changing zoning. We're just putting it back into their If I could try one more time to try to not be confusing. Um, if you were sending it with a recommendation of denial,

my my answer is no. I already voted. I'm done. So, stop trying to convince me otherwise. Okay, good. Okay. Just just to be clear that that communication was what I thought it was. I'm going to make a motion again that we move the item forward to council without a recommendation from the commission. And I ask, is there a second? That was my motion. That was your motion before. So, do you second it again? And I call for a vote. All in favor? Yes. I All opposed? No. Okay, good. And thank you. That wasn't to call you out. That was just to make sure there was absolute clarity where we where we landed.

I don't mind being called out. I know you don't. So um then uh is there any other motion that we anyone wants to consider?

Where you at?

So without hearing none, I'm going to close that item. Bring it up. And the next item on the agenda is public comment. Now, there's a public comment period now. And if anyone wants to speak on non agendaized item, and that's a legal issue. So, if there's some other item uh that you want to address the commission on that is not on the agenda, meaning not the item we just spoke about, then uh let us know and uh get a a speaker card up here and we will give you an opportunity to speak. Seeing none, we will move on to commissioners comments. Is there any other comments from the commissioners?

I would just like to thank everybody for coming out tonight and uh you know this is your government and so um it's your money that funds this and just know that uh that I realize that. So thank you for coming out tonight [applause] pandering. Um okay now uh director's report. Anything from the director? Nothing this evening for you, Commissioner. Thank you. And then with that, we will go to adjourn. That was a hard one.