Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

you

Hi, Mary. Can you hear me?

I can. Hi.

Director Pagan, are we okay to start, or you want a few more minutes?

No, we're good. Okay. We're good to go, thank you.

Okay, you're welcome. All right, well, hello, everyone. I'm going to call this meeting of Tuesday, May 26th to order, and we will start with roll call.

Chair Willem? Here. Vice Chair Manuel? Absent. Commissioner Balkovec?

Here.

Commissioner Johnson?

Here.

Commissioner Miner?

Here.

Commissioner Ryan? Here. Commissioner Wynnum? Here. Thank you.

Okay, and before we go any further, just wanted to note that Commissioner Minor needs to excuse himself at 6 o'clock p.m., so he'll be heading out at that time. Do we want to introduce... You'll be talking fast. Do we want to introduce staff over there, Director Pagan?

Sure. Are we going to be taking? Let's see. So for our item, we have Christian Martinison, associate planner with our planning division. We have Jennifer Gannon and Michelle Yang up here helping clerk our meeting. The usual suspects up here, Lily Toy, our planning manager, myself, Jeremy Pagan, director of development services, and Josh Anthony, assistant director of public works. We have various other staff in the audience, but I won't go through the whole list. Otherwise, I'd be talking for a while. Great. But, yeah, good to be here. Thanks.

Thank you. And then we'll move on to Item 2, Approval of Minutes for May 12th.

I'll move for approval.

Okay. Greg, we'll move. Do we have a second?

Second.

Commissioner Wenham seconds. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Aye. Okay, thank you. Three announcements. Do we have any announcements from the commissioners? Any announcements from?

None, none from me.

Okay. And then we're going to move on to item four. which is the use permit applications UP 2026-00181 by Jim Huber to allow outside storage of construction materials, tools, vehicles, and equipment in a floodplain on property located at 5115 East Side Road in an HC commercial district. I, at this point, am going to turn the meeting. Before we get started, should we announce that we have an attorney on the line?

Oh, do we?

Yeah, I was just going to beat me to it. I was just going to. She's not here with us. She's here virtually. OK, but Mary Wagner with our outside counsel contract attorney is on the call. And I think we've sorted out our technology. So just a friendly reminder to speak into your microphone and speak clearly so that our outside counsel can hear us. Thank you, Jennifer. Appreciate it.

Thank you. I'm going to turn the meeting over to Commissioner Winnem. I'm going to recuse myself from this item due to the proximity of a business that I own next to it. So I will head out but be back for the next item.

Very good. Thank you. We will sit here awkwardly. Yes, until I run. While you exit.

jeopardy music.

I know. That's the awkward thing. I've had to do that a few times. It just feels like a long walk. Okay. Thank you very much. We'll move on to item number four, public hearings. Item 4A1, use permit 202600181 by Jim Huber. And I'll turn it over to staff for a presentation.

Thank you, Commissioner. So the subject property is located at 5115 East Side Road on approximately half an acre of land about 100 feet from North Bonnevue Road. And it's located also within the HC Heavy Commercial District. Surrounding uses include undeveloped commercial property to the north, single family dwellings within an existing storage yard to the south, single family dwelling within an HC district to the west, and single-family dwellings within an RS2 residential single-family district to the east. Issues at this location include the Montgomery-Watson 100-year floodplain and the need for a buffer yard screening between the residential district and the heavy commercial district. The site plan provided by the applicant shows the project site where outdoor storage is proposed, consisting of construction materials, tools, vehicles, and equipment. The site plan also shows where access is provided through an existing and approved outdoor storage lot to the south right here, and then also previously unused access easement to the east would be abandoned right here. And site plan also shows the location of the proposed buffer yard to the east, which you'll see at the northeast corner of the site plan. Within the HC district, outdoor storage is permitted, subject to approval of a site development permit by the Board of Administrative Review. However, To the property's location within the flood fringe, a use permit is necessary. The flood study for the project prepared by Pacific Hydrologic Incorporated shows the property at an elevation of 482 feet. The flood study also shows the Montgomery-Watson 100-year floodplain at an elevation of 483.7 feet. And in orange, you'll see the extent of the floodplain inundation area. The study ultimately finds that if the entire parcel were elevated above the floodplain, there would be no increase in peak water surface elevation. This flood study was also reviewed by the city's hydrologists and staff concurs that the use will have no measurable impact and will not increase flood levels. With respect to buffer yard standards between residential and commercial districts, a minimum buffer yard width of 20 feet is required also a minimum wall height of six feet. However, current floodplain ordinance prohibits walls or fences within a floodplain with the exception of along street arterials. In this particular case, a solid screen wall was constructed in the 90s along the north and east property lines prior to the city's adoption of current floodplain standards in 2002 that prohibit such walls. The current wall, provides solid screening between the residential and commercial district, meets the six-foot height requirement, and maintaining an existing wall versus new construction would not conflict with the current floodplain requirements. Also, the property is bordered to the south by an existing previously approved storage yard that has been conditioned to maintain a combination of solid block walls, landscape, and chain link with slat-gated access. Additionally, no changes would be needed with respect to the floodplain requirements as the flood study finds that raising the entire parcel above the floodplain would have no impact. For environmental determination, staff finds the project is categorically exempt under section 15332, infill development projects of the California Environmental Quality Act. This type of exemption generally applies to projects that are consistent with the city's general plan and zoning, less than five acres and surrounded by urban uses, not affected by significant environmental issues, and can be served by all necessary utilities. And to date, staff has not received any public comments. Necessary findings for approval of the project are attached with the staff report, as are the draft conditions of approval recommended by staff. And in conclusion, staff finds the project is appropriately located given the uses allowed within the heavy commercial district and the surrounding outdoor storage yard that limits access and visibility for alternative development. Additionally, the provided flood study demonstrates no increase in peak water surface elevation. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the use permit to allow outdoor storage within a regulated 100-year floodplain subject to the draft conditions of approval. That concludes this presentation. Thank you.

Thank you very much. At this time, are there any questions of staff or clarifications that we want to ask before we have a public hearing? Please take your microphone there. There you go, sir.

Thank you for the presentation. Just a couple of questions. I was curious about just in the floodplain and within your conditions of approval, is there any exclusions for what can be stored there, hazardous materials, toxic chemicals, things like that? I can imagine that would be... One of the concerns in a flood event that could wash downstream or be, you know, problematic when you've got a storage yard potentially right now, it just kind of describes construction tools and like equipment and vehicles and things like that. I don't know how much deeper it gets into what it's actually storing.

Thank you for the question. Condition number three addresses this. It's more of a prescriptive way of addressing it. What it states in condition three is that storage of materials that in time of flooding are buoyant or explosive or injurious to human, animal, or plant life are prohibited. So hopefully that addresses the question.

That's great. Yeah, and then as far as any other regulatory body, because for us, a use permit, the regulatory body is essentially for enforcement is just our code enforcement. AGENCY, IS THAT RIGHT? ARE THERE ANY OTHERS THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH A USE PERMIT LIKE THIS WHEN IT COMES TO MATERIALS IN A FLOOD PLANE, FOR INSTANCE, ANY STATE PERMITTING THAT'S INVOLVED?

If the project provided a certain amount of impervious surfacing, in this case if it went over 2,500 square feet of impervious surface of the project, that would require further oversight by staff in reviewing that request. So far what's been demonstrated by the applicant in meeting the conditions of approval, they will be able to, the applicant will be able to keep it within the 2,500 square foot threshold.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if they exceed that threshold, would that trigger in potential municipal stormwater requirements, treatment requirements for stormwater runoff from the site? Is that what you're getting at?

Yes, that would be likely the time where improvement plans would be required and public works staff would be reviewing it to ensure that it's compliant.

Does that sufficiently answer your question, Commissioner?

Yes, thank you. I had one question, and maybe it's just confirming that It appears that the way the engineer did the analysis was they just said, let's do almost kind of a stress test. Let's assume, worst case, this site was filled. and demonstrate that there's no impact on the adjacent floodplain, and therefore there's no reason to do any more detailed actual conditions analysis. Is that your understanding also? Because they're not proposing to fill it, yet they analyzed it as if they were. It's kind of like a worst case. My structural friend over here would say, well, sometimes you just do it the easy way, and if it works, then you don't fine-tune it any further. Is that your understanding also?

Yes, that is my understanding.

Okay, very good. That was my only question. Any other questions of staff? Okay, very good. Then what we will do at this time is we will open the public hearing, seeing that we have no comment cards. And I was just, I saw that look in your eyes. And if anyone chooses to speak, since we didn't announce that to begin with, there are little purple cards. It's a small crowd. If someone wants to speak, just come right up to one of the clerks. We'll take care of you. Seeing nobody moving, I'm closing the public hearing. And now I'll bring it back to commissioners for any other discussion or motion. You're still on mute, sir.

I'd move approval of U.P. 2026-00181 based upon the proposal as submitted by the city.

I'd second that motion. Very good. We have a first and a second. Any other discussion?

Just the comment to say that it looks like this is a good use, and obviously the infill is good. I'm glad that we were able to do the analysis to make sure that it complies with the floodplain, so it seems like a good project.

Very good. Thank you. Any other comments before I call for a vote? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No, the motion carries unanimously. With that, I think our next item, we get to bring Leslie back. Anybody keep track of where she went? That's right, there you go. That's your job is to find her, thank you. There she is. And I will turn the meeting back over to Leslie in 10 seconds. Two pens, did I steal your pen? I've got two pens.

Thank you, Commissioner Wenham. So item five for Commissioner's consideration is going to be presented by Mr. Anthony, the Capital Improvement Plan 2025 update for fiscal year 2025-2026 through fiscal year 2030 through 2031, prepared by the City of Reading to assist with the multi-year scheduling of public improvement for the city to conform with the general plan. And at that, I'll turn it over to you, Mr. Anthony. Thank you.

Okay. This clock over here with three minutes is really, that's intense, Luke. I don't know if I'm going to be able to do it in three minutes, but I'm going to try, Luke. So, I mean, commissioner minor. All right. Thank you, commission members, staff, and members of the public for allowing me to bring the capital improvement plan to this presentation, capital improvement plan presentation to this meeting today. We have our table of contents of what we're going to cover, and we're going to get right into it. So what is a CAP and why bring it to CAP? I mean, why bring it to PC?

Man, I'm all over the place.

The CAP is really, and it's an exciting document for the city. It shows the progress of the city and the upcoming new infrastructure projects, as well as upgrades to the existing infrastructure we already have. In short, though, it's a summary of all of the city's capital improvement plans covering all of the departments that would have a capital improvement project. However, this is not a budget document. It is a metric, rather, to gauge the amount of budget that's necessary to maintain or improve the infrastructure for the city. As a metric, it's utilized for good planning and gives divisions targets to reach their individual needs, as well as identifying funding strategies that they may go after that would ultimately be included in a city budget. This five year program of projects that is adopted annually by city council as required by government code 66002, or the mitigation fee act, it's required for us due to the fact that currently the city has an adopted development impact fee program. That's one of the reasons why we do it. Additionally, why bring it to city council? Gosh, sorry guys. I'm reading my notes that say city council for some reason. Why bring it to Planning Commission? Well one, it's the law. So government code section 65103C requires that a city make findings that the CAP is consistent with the city's most current general plan. And your role as Planning Commission today is to make those findings and give comments to this document. Additionally, it's also just good business sense, as former director Chuck Auckland would say. As some of you know who were on the commission for the last journal plan update, that took a lot of time and effort and public and commission involvement. And that document that was finalized is the vision of where Reading needs to go in the future. If that document is the future, then the CAP can be characterized as the roadmap of projects that will help get us there. Funding for the CIP comes from, well, as you can see, the vast majority of projects within the CIP come from utility rates and competitive grant programs, but there are 48 total different funding sources that make up the $751 million, so that's three-quarters of a billion worth of projects. There are a total of 10 major funding categories, one of which is anticipated grants. And I wanted to focus on this one for you guys because it plays a two-part role for us. And some of you guys I've probably caught on. Through this, through all these different funding sources, departments actively seek competitive grants to fund their projects. The other major category The other major definition of this funding source would also be used to categorize unmet needs. So we didn't have necessarily a specific unmet needs funding source category. So unidentified grants or anticipated grants is the one we chose to use because a lot of departments will end up seeking grants. Others will also have to seek other funding sources to complete their capital improvement program. So we broke this up this year into two different stages, one is which project changes between the CIPs, so from last year to this year, and then we'll talk about the changes from two weeks ago to now today. So we'll cover both. So the first one is the annual completed projects. The city completes a variety of projects throughout the year. They're added new. Some are moved out into future years. So what we've done here is just provided a little bit of. some of the projects that each department as they've gone through their update this year have either completed or have gotten rid of as there may not be a need anymore or they have moved them out into the future because current growth or other factors are not allowing them or the need isn't there for the improvement airports was specific to that they had a Laundry list of projects they decided that a lot of those projects are gonna fall without outside the five-year horizon So they either move them to the out years Which is section D of our document or they deleted them in their entirety because they may Decide at a future time that a different project is more warranted based on the need so you can go through and kind of see that roughly each department completes one to two projects per year with streets and water completing much more, but that is definitely due to, you can see the size of each one of those capital impact fee program. Now streets is 193 million and water I believe was about 130. So the larger departments, they pump out a lot of projects per year, so they tend to complete more than some of the other departments. Second one, as I alluded to, is the changes between drafts that we made to better align this document with the future we see and what we need. One of the general plan, one of the direct changes that we made was that the general plan goals and policies were further evaluated so that the proper goals were associated with projects. And this was due, one, to, that's actually an email from Commissioner Emanuel that pointed out that FIRE had no goals listed, so we included their goals now.

And you'll see that change in the red line.

Additionally, airports moved seven of their projects to the future section and consolidated two of their projects into one project since it made the most sense to do that at the same time. The future section, as you guys have maybe found as you've researched a document, is section D. That aligns future projects as well as unmet needs. So either unfunded, you'll find the city's backlog of pavement maintenance is in that category. And so we felt that that was important to show as well that there's much more work that we can do, but we, as many jurisdictions throughout the entire state and the United States, are limited on our funding of what we can do. Community Services, they completed a project. Streets moved a project out into the future. Commissioner Johnson's comments, that was the Buena Ventura Bridge. They got moved out into a future section instead of at the end of the five years. And six Reading Fire Department projects were added into the current five-year horizon. We also renamed funding sources that were utilizing impact fee to be more consistent with terminology. Parks had some, they were using a different terminology, so parks impact fee seemed appropriate. Fire as well, we just renamed those to be consistent. Then identified numerous projects across multiple departments, again, to meet with the general government code 66-002. And we updated project budgets that have current estimates. So these are projects in your one to two years of the general plan, which are more concrete. They've had an engineer actually provide an estimate. Years three through five are a little more planning level, order of magnitude numbers. So you can see, you know, they're a little more refined in years one and two. And then we just redistributed the budget to years in which the project was anticipated to go to construction, and we found a little snafu in our formulas that it was just picking up the first year of funding, not the first year of funding of construction.

So you'll see that on your list of projects is now more accurate to the year that they'll go to construction.

And then what I'm calling ancillary changes is a lot of the budget update figures, those got updated in this process, and then the total CIP values were updated as well. So within the CIP, there are nine City of Reading divisions. As you can see in this document, only eight have projects. RPD does not have any projects, as they informed us, which makes up a total of 189 capital investments. But as Reading continues to grow, you'll see that the airport is anticipating growth as services expand. However, their funding strategy entails many anticipated grants, with the majority being FFA, or excuse me, FAA, and those will not be sought after until the growth occurs. For the rest, as you can see, a good amount of those investments are to the city's utility division as infrastructure continues to age and must be upgraded with changing regulations required by state and federal governments. As you'll know tonight, as part of your role as planning commissioner is confirming that the CAP is in conformance, is this vital step that we're trying to perform. As such, you'll find a list of sample projects and their corresponding general plan goal or policy that the capital investment is meeting. However, there are projects that cover multiple general plan goals and only one may be listed. As an example, the California Street Bikeway project that was completed this fiscal year and was included in last year's capital improvement plan could be attributable to meeting seven different general plan goals. Now, this is an extreme as most projects tend to only meet one goal or there's a small list of projects that meet multiple goals. But as you can see, streets tends to meet the T elements, so that's your transportation elements within the general plan. All public facilities, fire, wastewater, water, RU, are all meeting their public facilities goals in the general plan, and parks meets the recreational goals. So with that conclusion, as presented to you within the capital improvement plan, staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that the City of Reading 2526 to 203031 capital improvement plan is consistent with the general plan. In our next steps with Planning Commission's recommendation and your comments, the Capital Improvement Plan will be brought to a public hearing at City Council and recommended for adoption by resolution. Upon a second reading, the Council shall resolve and adopt that the City of Redding's Capital Improvement Plan of 2526 to 203031 is adopted. It is anticipated that staff will bring to Council actually next month, as long as we can make that target. With that, that's my presentation, and I feel free for questions.

Thank you, and I will open it up to the commissioners for questions. I know we have some, so who wants to start? Nobody? Commissioner Johnson?

Yeah, I'll say, thank you for, I know that we punted this to this meeting. You guys, you know, wanted to move it out, and we were able to add some comments before, you know, and I appreciate you guys bringing some clarity and recategorizing, updating the, you know, that was some of the main concern is like, it seems like these are all kind of prioritized at very similar levels. You were able to break those out a little better and also update the budget numbers to be consistent with current costs as best you can. I think it brings more clarity, so that's very helpful. I have some comments later, probably not directly related to this vote, that it's more procedural about the CIP process in the future. So I'll just defer to that time. But for now, I do appreciate what you guys did to update this.

Thank you. Anybody else? Mr. Wenham, do you know?

Yes, if I may. It would be accurate to say this is a mixture of projects that have been defined as capital projects that come to bear from multiple ways, with one of them being nexus studies for development impact fees. And a NEXUS study is the foundational item that leads to adoption of development impact fees, which then leads to the need for a CIP, but not the other way around. Do I have that correct?

Yeah.

Okay, good. Correct. And so would it also be fair to say that you do have a couple of things in here that you're planning ahead for because you're working on a CIP update exercise, excuse me, a development impact fee update exercise. And in the back of your mind or the mind of all the department heads, they've done some adjustments here in anticipation of that new development impact fee program and making sure that we're smushing towards anticipated consistency. How's that for my version? That is eloquently put. You don't get to use smushing very often. And then one item of, just in terms of projects that are in here, well, let me pause for a moment. I don't, I guess since our action is specific only to consistency with the general plan, how do we decide as a city what basic tools and supplies in a department get capitalized in a plan like this versus not. And that may not be an easy answer, we need to punt that down the road. And I also want to be clear, that's not going to get in the way of my ability to vote yes for consistency. But I do see things like replacement of a fire truck in here. And I see a replacement of a forklift at the airport. and things like that. So how is it that those come to be considered capital? So I'll bring my question down to something very specific since we're asked to do a general, I mean a capital improvement program consistency. How do we decide those are capital? Or even down to hoses in the fire department are capital in the context of this as opposed to not in other departments or other items? Maybe it's magic.

Yeah, no, no. I think each department looks at their assets differently. From a streets point of view, obviously, my asset is very easy to see, right? It's out there on the roadway. Water's not so easy to see, but you know it's there because you turn your faucet on. For some, like the fire department, the airport, like you've noticed, these are assets that they see should be or need to be replaced. They're obviously very high value assets. When you look at a fire truck, I don't know about the forklift per se, $80,000. $80,000. So, you know, I would, you know, you could consider that a less expensive, consider you could buy an F-350 for that value.

Well, they probably have fuel trucks at the airport that cost that much. Right. We'll talk consistency later. Sorry, I'll stay on track.

Right. But, yeah, so as we've gone through our process and talked to those various departments, These are assets that they feel rise to what would be a capital investment. So we've tried to define those in that retrospect. What is a real capital investment? What does that mean? And I think it means a lot different to the various departments. And ultimately, our goal will be with the next study that you discussed that we're going through right now would be to have our council define what is capital investment. I think that's our biggest goal or need from them is to decide what is those capital investment. So we are, you know, maybe putting the cart before the horse with this capital improvement plan. But if the council chooses those are not, then upon our next capital improvement, we will. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT UPDATE NEXT YEAR, THOSE WILL BE REMOVED. I THINK THAT'S THE PROCESS THAT WE'RE KIND OF WORKING THROUGH RIGHT NOW, BEING THAT BOTH THE UPDATE FOR THIS PLAN AND THE NEXUS STUDY UPDATE FOR DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES ARE RUNNING CONCURRENT.

Very good, I think that's slightly better. You probably regret your cart before the horse. I think you're running them in parallel, which is fine. Okay, I'm content. I'll have some other comments under commissioner comments about consistency issues that are not related to our action item. Our action item is general plan consistency and I have no concerns with that. I could have just said that, huh?

I have a question kind of piggybacking off of Russ. With the impact fees, assumptions were corrected. Was that because of the inconsistent with the nexus studies or the available balances?

It was inconsistent with the next study. So specifically like wastewater, you know, they have projects that they had always anticipated, you know, through their wastewater master plan update as utilizing a portion of, and that was, their lists were brought to the development impact fee stakeholder group and was discussed, you know, that we did at great length. So that was one of the things, again, as this process, as these processes are paralleling each other, You have staff members that are, you know, getting deeper into this, understanding what the government code requires. So we wanted to make sure that projects like that were included if they're True Blue development-driven project, like some of their wastewater and water and even some of the streets ones.

Okay. And also, thank you for making it more consistent with the general plan, but I'm wondering if there were any projects that were previously on it that were pulled because they weren't in alignment with our general plan.

Yeah, that's a good question. I don't believe, and I can look to Brendan, as we went through, yeah, we didn't pull any that were specific, like we're missing a general plan goal, and we went, whoops. They were all needs-driven or, yeah, we're not gonna do that project anymore or complete it. So we didn't find any. It begs the question if there was one that we just didn't know.

And then do you know what percentage of the capital improvement plan is already funded?

If you look at Section D, I believe it's somewhere right in the neighborhood of 500 million. We kind of break that apart. I'll see if I can find the packet page.

So 502 million, so packet page two. 233.

Yep, I'm in the red line one. So the red line copy is 233. So $502 million are funded. We've identified a grant or we're utilizing utility rates or gas tax to fund those. And then the other $248 million is currently unfunded.

Okay, Commissioner Johnson has a question.

Go ahead. That's not including the future projects though, right? That's everything outside of that category? Correct.

That's just within the five-year horizon.

Okay, gotcha. Yes.

All right. Okay, those are all my questions for now. So unless anybody else has anything before we move on to public comment? Okay, thank you. At this time, I'm going to open it for public comment and seeing that we have none. But if anybody would like to, are they purple out there? The purple cards can be filled out and nobody's getting up. So I'm going to close public comment and come back to commissioners for comments.

I'm ready to make a motion if you're ready, Chair.

Yes, I'm ready.

I move staff's recommendation.

Okay, Russ has moved it. Do we have a second?

I second that motion.

Josh, any other comments before we take a vote?

Russ, we will get to hear the rest of your thoughts later, or? Yeah, I'm honored that you're the only one that was really wondering, so thank you. Yes, I have more thoughts. Okay, if we close it and I don't get to hear the thoughts, then that would really leave me on edge. No other discussion.

Yeah, he has time.

Yeah, I think what would be helpful for staff is under Commissioner's comments here later in the agenda to hear some thoughts more generally as they pertain to development of the capital improvement plan. So that would be my recommendation.

Are you okay?

Okay, let's take a vote. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay, motion carries. Thank you, Mr. Anthony.

Thank you, guys. Thank you, Anthony.

Okay. We're going to move on to public comment for non-agenda matters within the city's jurisdiction. And we don't have any cards for that either, so I'm going to open the public comment and close the public comment. And now we're on to Commissioner comments.

Russ, give it to us.

So, Russ, I think you're up.

I think Commissioner Johnson had some thoughts also for this time. So, What I had to do, which is hard the way my little head works, is wrap my head around this action here, which is general plan consistency. No problem. I love it. I have no issues. I do have some serious reservations about how these plans are developed and the information that's in here. It ranges from... and you follow this train of thought, it ranges from the police department who has some very expensive tools that they don't capitalize in a document like this, yet they get maintained, replaced, serviced, upgraded, et cetera, without being in a plan like this. And then you have hoses in the fire department in a list like this. I can't possibly reconcile that. And then you have a forklift at the airport, but I don't see, I don't know what the great big yellow piece of equipment at the transportation station must cost now, but I'm gonna venture a guess their biggest yellow piece of equipment out there must be several hundred thousand dollars, and it's not in clear. And then, again, you're right, but I'm going to mess with you, Mr. Anthony, is that you said, well, streets, it's already covered in the streets. But you have a bunch of yellow equipment, just like these other folks. And the Parks Department has a bunch of John Deere tractors or whatever they drive. So there's just tremendous inconsistency. And that just drives me nuts. And then I get over it. Usually the trick is just listen to me and say, yes, I heard you. And then I get over it. I feel better. But I think we have an opportunity to clean that up. And I kind of wonder if some of the departments have, some have done this and some haven't, but some departments have a practice, an evolved practice of if you get it elevated, into here, if you get it elevated into the development impact fee program, then I have another revenue stream by charging developers. And then in other areas, they don't do that. And I'm not here to argue the relative merits of that because they're all needs. There isn't anything in here that isn't a need. But again, the last example would be to have in a plan like this a replacement of a fire truck at a million and a half bucks that we've decided to consider it capital when things that are exactly like that in the city we have not decided to call them capital is very problematic for my head. It makes it vibrate. And so I'm just going to leave it with that and just say I'd love to see that being something that as we move forward, we bring more consistency, and not for the purpose of reducing fees. That's a whole different discussion. Not for the purpose of how we charge folks or what our rates are, but just for consistency through this document and in how we keep track of these things. So that will say thank you. you know, just if you listen very well, and I got it off my chest for today, it's likely to come back. So I'll let that go now. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Wynnum?

Do you feel better, Mr. Minor? Thank you.

Commissioner Johnson, do you want to say something?

Yes. So... The way Commissioner Wenham started out his comment, which was that he was interested in how the document was produced or how it comes together is actually kind of a great jumping off point for me because I similarly I was asking myself this, and probably not to the same vibrance of how things ring in your head, but when an advisory body doesn't get to give advice, we're on the back end just kind of stamping something, and we aren't on the front end of it. I just ask myself, well, is there an opportunity there for collaboration, not for power or so that we have some sort of authority we shouldn't have, but in a process of something so big, 700 plus million dollars of investment in our community, we are a low body advisory, but connected to the people. Could we have, is there an opportunity in the future to have this body and the public more engaged in the process that could kind of bring together planning, public works, energy, economic development especially, things of that nature that kind of pull this together. Other cities, as I researched, Menlo Park, Sacramento, San Jose, They actually take a, of course you do the legal thing where you got to find it consistent with the general plan. So they ultimately end up there. That's just like where we are today. But they actually start the process. They've developed together a five-year kind of priority, capital priorities framework that is more of a policy document, not a budgetary document. And that could be really interesting to build out. I think it might be nice to see if, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER WEBB OR THE CITY MANAGER OR THE COUNCIL, CITY COUNCIL WOULD BE INTERESTED IN HAVING TRULY SOME, YOU KNOW, A DOCUMENT BROUGHT TO THEM LIKE, HEY, HERE'S ACTUALLY A WORK PRODUCT THAT, YOU KNOW, ISN'T JUST, AND THIS IS, I WAS TALKING TO DIRECTOR PAGAN TODAY AND, YOU KNOW, STAFF HAS, YOU KNOW, ALL THE DIRECTORS HAVE A PRETTY GOOD PULSE ON you know, things related to the Nexus study and investments that are needed and equipment that's, you know, that's wearing down that we need to replace. But maybe not always the same pulse on what's happening with economic development or the pathways to where growth is happening or, you know, because we're working so hard all day. So how do you know what's being kind of thought of or planned or, you know, where the opportunities might lie? But, you know, I THINK THAT IT COULD BE AN INTERESTING OPPORTUNITY TO BRING THOSE THINGS TO THE SURFACE AND WOULD THAT HELP INFORM THE PRIORITY LIST OR WHEN THINGS MIGHT GET INVESTED IN BEYOND JUST THE DISREPAIR OF TOOLS. SO I GUESS IN SPECIFICS I WOULD LOVE TO MEET WITH MAYBE DO A LITTLE STUDY ON THAT OVER THE NEXT FEW MONTHS. IT WOULD BE FUN TO PULL TOGETHER HOW ARE SOME OTHER CITIES DOING THIS IF THEY'RE DOING IT IN REVERSE WHERE IT'S A MORE COLLABORATIVE PROCESS. be a framework we might be able to adopt if that was of interest of the city council or anyone else. But that would help me because I feel like we're an advisory body, not really providing any advice here. We're kind of just like, well, yeah, I guess these all kind of work, you know, it's consistent with the general plan. But I feel like it's not just us, but I mean, even providing, you know, where the public can get more involved or some of these like players that are significant in our community, whether it's the chamber or the EDC or other members of various, you know, Shasta Board of Realtors, or you've got various other, you know, community players and stakeholders that could really, if they looked at this and we started, you know, sandboxing it, it could be really interesting if anything else would come to the surface as a priority that might, it might even flag some things that are like, oh, you didn't know about that. That was like a stuff that, that might be happening or going on or plans in the future. So anyway, that's my rambling. My only comment there, I think it would be fun. I'll pull together some of that stuff and maybe get together with some of you guys offline.

Thank you.

I'll just add a little dovetail to that. Both your guys' comments, great comments. Really appreciate that feedback. I kind of teased you guys with it last time. So, yes, it's like, Josh, have you been, I mean, excuse me, Commissioner Johnson, have you been looking over my desk? Like, what's on my desk right now? So I'm currently, you know, at the behest of City Manager Tarbo and Assistant City Manager Webb. We're going to be going out to RFP for the next CIP. We'll incorporate, you know, hearing your comments, community, you know, this board's involvement in the process I think would be great. I think that's something we should do as a city to get this document to be the community document we want. Obviously there's, there's a lot of push pull of priorities of everybody, right? When we get that together, but that'll be right. Staff's job, your guys' job with us to kind of help hone in where does, where did all these projects fit, right? Where do the wants fit with the actual needs based on, you know, data and things of that nature. So we're actually putting the right projects in here. So, So that is great. I'm glad to hear this. I'm glad to hear that there's a wanted involvement from you guys because I will be tapping you guys and asking for your guys' feedback with that. So look for that to come. That is my get this thing done and then start drafting an RFP, looking at what other cities have done as well. So I appreciate that, and I think it's going to go great into next year so we can actually have a document more like that.

Thank you. And I do think that's great. I think it'll help all advisory boards, the more consistency and if we knew how this document was to come to, how it came to be to us. So thank you for that. Are there any other, yeah?

Oh, I forgot.

You're not on mute.

I had another item on the first topic. in the context of efficiency. I don't know how many floodplain items come before this board each year. Lily would probably know, one a year maybe, one or two a year. And how many in the last five years or 10 years, you've been doing this a long time, Lily, you have a lot of pedigree in this area as I recall, has a commission denied? Right. And so it's a principle that I learned in one of my very first leadership classes a million years ago. And that is, if you keep as the boss, keep getting presented things for your signature and you approve every one of them, then you should not be involved. That's a perfect indication that it should be delegated. So a challenge. I did not do any research into the ordinance or anything. But we have these floods. There's real serious flood situations that need some heavy duty and public review and scrutiny and votes. but there's others that are true just formalities, which you already have some of them, where there's flood certs are unilaterally done. It just feels like there's things like this where your engineering department concurs with the engineering analysis that there's a zero change to the floodplain, and we ought to be able to come up with a way to modify the ordinances to where that is a director approval. And put us out of business because there must be, I know for a fact by the time it goes all the way through the clerk and the noticing and the hand delivering, thank you, Jeremy, usually drop it on my doorstep on Fridays, and the people here, the hundreds and hundreds of hours that go into processing these things when maybe we can get it down to only 100. So that's an aspirational idea there.

I really do appreciate that, Chairman. Chairperson, what I would like to consider in all of this is that our floodplain regulations is all part of our CRS program, which is a community rating system. It's very similar to how our fire department is rated, our building code and stuff is rated, right? So we get a score of, right now our current rating is seven. So that means our residents who buy flood insurance gets a 15% discount. So our charge here is because we've committed to this program, and we have an ordinance that meets the federal FEMA standards, is that any change would have to be considered what those implications are. So I will look into that and see how we can reduce the bureaucracy as I hear it. through some of the processes that may be unnecessary. So if we can do something less than something before the Planning Commission, we can take a look at that and make sure that we're still consistent with federal and state standards.

Very good. We're on the same page. It may be that to get that checkmark with FEMA... you've got to have a higher level process, but maybe that higher level process is bar as opposed to here, because even that, I know having represented developers, it's a much lighter lift for staff, engineers, developers, everybody at a bar public hearing as opposed to a Planning Commission public hearing. So I'm happy. I promise not to bring up another item today. Thank you.

I guess the question would be, would FEMA consider a lower level body a relaxing of the standard or not? And if they didn't consider it a relaxing of the standard, we could maintain our rating. So it's a good comment. We'll look into it. Very good. Thank you.

Any other commissioner comments? Do we have any comments from Director Pagan?

No, other than you might notice on the agenda, I took myself off the agenda. You did. You know, and the intention of that, just for the future, is I feel like we're all communicating pretty regularly and trying to keep you apprised of what's going on in the department. And I generally felt like I would get myself in a bit of hot water with the Brown Act if I started, you know, just going on and on about something that wasn't adequately agendized. So I've removed director's report just for those reasons and also trying to maintain consistent communication with you all just on a regular basis versus just at planning commissions. So I'll have time maybe under announcements. There's another portion of the agenda where I can give you guys some announcements or information. But for the foreseeable future, I went ahead and removed the director's report in favor of just regular communication with you all outside of this meeting. So nothing further from me.

Glad you stated that, so now we know, and you'll jump in when you need to.

I'll jump in when I need to, yeah. Okay.

All right. Well, with that, the meeting's adjourned.