Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

It comes on over there.

you

Lily, just confirming with staff, you guys are good if we start the meeting? Okay. Commissioners? All right, we're going to call this meeting to order. It's 4.01, so we'll get going. We will start with roll call.

Chair Willem? Here. Vice Chair Emanuel?

Here.

Commissioner Balkovec?

Here.

Commissioner Johnson?

Here.

Commissioner Miner?

Here.

Commissioner Ryan? Absent. Commissioner Winnem?

Here.

Thank you.

Thank you. Lily, would you like to introduce who's over there joining us today?

Absolutely. In the absence of our director, Pagan, I will do the honors. As far as staff, we have our administrative executive assistant over there, Jen Gannon. And then we have... Public Works Assistant Director Josh Anthony. Myself, Planning Manager. And then we have various staff out there. And we have Project Planner Danny Chester, who will be giving us a presentation in about a minute. And also online, we have our City Attorney, Mary Wagner.

Thank you. So just a reminder, commissioners and staff to speak into your mics as she's able to hear us over the phone line. Thank you. Item two, approval of minutes for the May 26th, 2026 meeting.

Do we have- Mr. Chairman, I'll move for approval of the minutes of May 26th.

Thank you, Greg.

And Madam Chairman, I was not at the meeting and have not had an opportunity to view the video, so I'll abstain.

Okay, and I was recused from the meeting. Just for notes. So do we have a second?

I will second.

Okay. Commissioner Willem, all in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Okay. Thank you. Item three, announcements. There are, go ahead, Lily. Okay. Thanks. And then we'll get to the public hearing of item 4A1, which is the amendment application AMD 2025-00266 and parcel map application PM-2025-00991 by EP2 Reading Oasis LLC. And we have presenting to us today, Danny, are you going to, thank you.

Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, everyone. Yes, so we're here to talk about the Oasis Commercial Center presented by yours truly. Oops. New device. You got a sneak preview there. Okay, so this project is located at various addresses, but essentially at the intersection of Oasis Road and Twinview Boulevard. The property is zoned RCSP. That's for Regional Commercial Specific Plan Overlay District. And that specific plan would be the Oasis Road specific plan. So it's regional commercial that's subject to that specific plan. And... The general plan designation is also regional commercial. So this is an amendment with a new parcel map. So the existing permit, use permit UP 2302, it was originally for Costco, and it was originally for over 300,000 square feet of building area, and it was over 30 acres in size, closer to like 36 acres in size. Some of the things it aimed to do was delete Twinview north of Oasis Road. So if you're looking in here, Up here, that's where TwinView exists now. And the idea was to cul-de-sac that and delete TwinView. I'm sorry, TwinView would connect kind of through here as it exists today. So that would have went right through the Costco. So that wouldn't have really worked out. So the entitlement sought to delete TwinView. that section of it at least. There's also an intermittent creek that runs right through here from the north going north-south. It would have filled that in, and they were going to take that creek, would have run here. They would have piped underground all the way over to Salt Creek, and then it would have drained that way. And then there was a bunch of other stuff. It was almost like a little waterworks project. They would have diverted water into the creek and then had to pump some of it back over to mitigate for environmental effects to the south. The project no longer seeks to do that. One of the biggest aspects of this that's going to come into the discussion here is that the original project was also divided into two phases. It was divided into phase 1A and 1B. Now, if that's confusing, that's understandable. Why isn't it phase 1 and phase 2? The environmental document for this project, the EIR, the Environmental Impact Report, it originally studied this parcel and the large parcel to the south of Oasis Road in one EIR. And the EIR identified this project as Phase 1, and the project to the south was Phase 2. When they started dividing Phase 1 into pieces, they subdivided into Phase 1A and Phase 1B. And so that's why we have that nomenclature. Just in case you're curious, it kind of baffled me when I first started working on this project. Phase two is not a part of this original entitlement, is not really in play. So we're just talking about phase 1A and 1B. So the difference between Phase 1A and 1B is that 1B would be triggered for any development that went over a certain amount of traffic or that generated over a certain amount of traffic. So there was like a threshold. So if you built that building and that building, let's say those two buildings, and it stayed under a certain amount of traffic generation, it wouldn't trip Phase 1B requirements. And so... Yeah, I'll get into more of how that relates to the current amendment. But phase 1B would have triggered, as you can see, a very large oasis road here. I keep feeling like my time is up. Am I already taking too long, Jen? What are those beeping noises? Oh, okay. Fair enough. That's good. Well, in that case, I guess it's okay. So we would have had an eight-lane overpass. Today it's two lanes. We'd have an eight-lane overpass, a five-lane northbound off-ramp down here, an 11-lane intersection at the main driveway and Oasis Core. That's an 11-lane, just a modest 11-lane intersection. And the deletion of Twinview here, would have required this Churn Creek Road connection with the project to mitigate some of the effects of not having that through way there. So that's kind of the summary of the existing permit, what was approved back in 2006. So now... We have a parcel map application and a use permit amendment application. So I'm just going to show you the parcel map really quick just to show you the change in scope here. You'll see what I'm talking about in a minute. So this whole thing is essentially that whole site are these boundaries here. And so now the parcel map would put these eight, we have eight parcels in here. one large parcel here, so a total of nine parcels. And then this shaded area is the existing Twin View Boulevard as it connects to the northern boundary here. This parcel map would dedicate right of way here for a relocation of Twin View Boulevard to align with Oasis Court down here at the bottom. And what the project would look like as proposed in the amendment, the project would go from this to this. So as you can see, that's our intermittent creek would remain, Twinview would come through connected Oasis Court and we'd have these various businesses and parcel A here would no longer be a part and would no longer be in the permit. So, and we'll talk more about this right now. So the applicant, which is Enact Partners, they seek permission to build an eight parcel, around 99,000 square foot building commercial center. And that's 99,000 square feet of building. The project site would go down to being under 15 acres. And it would include two hotels, three drive-through quick-serve restaurants, a convenience gas mart with ancillary car wash, a sit-down restaurant, a drive-through coffee kiosk, and two retail establishments. As I mentioned, it would relocate Twinview Boulevard. It would maintain that north-south connection there. And it would connect to Oasis Court with a four-way signalized intersection down here. So it would add a signalized intersection. And then also the existing twin view that kind of stubs out, I don't know if that's the right term to use, but that terminates here at Oasis Road, they'd put what we lovingly call a pork chop or a raised traffic triangle, however you want to say it. I think pork chop's a little more fun. And that pork chop is for, it forces traffic to do either a right in or a right out movement. but it would prevent left-turning movements northbound out of the Twinview Boulevard south there. This is not a touchscreen. Jen, is there a way to scroll down on my notes there? Thank you. Does this mouse up here help control that? Okay, like I mentioned, it would keep the intermittent creek less impactful to the environment. And the only work that would be done in this waterway would be a slight widening of this culvert up here for some roadway improvements. But other than that, this intermittent creek would remain and they're proposing a 50 foot buffer around it there, which is shown in the stripes, the blue stripes there. So again, we're seeing less impactful to the environment, just like a smaller scale project. And so with this, that whole phase B that had just a bunch of improvements that would be required, all those huge lanes, the overpass, a lot of environmental mitigations, that whole phase 1B that would be triggered by a traffic trip generation over a certain threshold, this project no longer crosses that threshold. So all of that phase 1B stuff essentially no longer applies. And... Therefore, the project no longer triggers the need for some of those mitigation measures and for the immediate extension of Churn Creek Road to the east there. Okay, so let's talk about the Oasis Road specific plan. So the project was originally approved prior to the adoption of the Oasis Road specific plan. Like right prior to it like it seems like I wasn't here But it seems like it was a race to where they're trying to get it approved before the Oasis Road specific plan would apply to it But now with this amendment the Oasis Road specific plan is in place. So the Oasis Road specific plan would now apply to the project Some of the requirements are the Oasis Road specific plan requires parking lot screening walls and On this exhibit, I've taken the liberty of putting some approximate locations of where these red lines would be screening walls. Some of them are drive-through screening walls that would be required anyway, but Right here, that's screening the parking. This one screens the parking. Those are standards that are specific to the Oasis Road specific plan, not necessarily standard city standards, stock city standards, if you will. So low parking lot screening walls to screen the parking lot from the public right-of-way would be required per the specific plan. Oops. as well as adherence to architectural design guidelines. So these pictures here on this slide are from chapter six of the specific plan, which speaks to design guidelines. So commercial development in the specific plan area, is to have things like articulated facades with insets, canopies, window recesses, and arches. I know I sound like I'm a smart architect, but I'm just reading the picture here. Window sizes and shapes are repeated for rhythm. So basically, it kind of looks good is the way I see it. It's more of just a layperson planner. It looks good. It's got stuff that sticks out. Architectural standards. And they're outlined in actual architectural language in the plan. So those would now apply. And so this amendment doesn't include, and you might have noticed in your packet, that the amendment doesn't include building elevations, but the conditions of approval do require that future building elevations be in substantial conformance with these guidelines. And when any of those buildings in the future would come in for plan check, staff would be comparing those building elevations to the requirements in the Oasis Road specific plan. and kicking back that application if they didn't look in substantial conformance with a specific plan. Some other requirements that would now apply, street landscaping, landscaped medians. So on Twinview Boulevard, there's a median that would be running through there. So that would have to be landscaped. Separated sidewalks with shade trees, larger setbacks, 30-foot setbacks. There are some... small exceptions to that in this specific plan. But generally speaking, 30-foot setbacks, big setbacks. And one of the parts that I just found kind of fun, the site's required to have a Redding welcome sign. I don't know if we've seen one of those for a while. So if you'll recall, there's one at the Jack in the Box at Cypress and Hilltop. There's that Welcome Redding sign. There's one at Buena Ventura and Eureka. And the other one is at North Market and Lake. I think those are the only three. There's only three I can remember. And so this would be a fourth one. And if you remember an existing fourth one, let me know in the comments. But yeah, so the project would need to put One of those in the specified location would be right here in the southwest corner of the site. So they'd build it and dedicate it to the city. So trees and landscaping. So this picture is from the staff report in 2006. It was the best I could find of any kind of tree exhibit that... that accompanied the project. And this is kind of, there's more to the east, but this is where the project site is. So you can see that intermittent creek. You can kind of see right there. And then here's existing Twinview coming through here. So medians, project frontages, and the site is to be treed per city and Oasis Road specific plan standards. We mentioned some of those before with the medians and separated sidewalk planters and all that. and just regular city standards, parking lot standards, landscaping standards. There is a mitigation measure in the EIR that was adopted with the original project that requires tree preservation and replacement. So all trees greater than six inches diameter at breast height west of the parking area adjacent to I-5, so essentially this area right here where the development was, is kind of going to stop here. So a lot of these trees right adjacent to the freeway, those are to be preserved. That mitigation measure still runs with the project and is still valid. There are two large trees in the northwest corner up here. that are to be preserved that were called out in the mitigation measure. And then the replacement of all other trees greater than six inches at diameter at breast height at various ratios depending on tree size would need to be installed. So for every qualifying tree that's removed, the developer or applicant could plant six oak tree seedlings. I don't remember offhand, but there's different ratios for 15-gallon trees and for 24-inch box trees that you could do less of those per tree removed. But essentially, the mitigation measures for all the tree removal from the original version of this project are still in play from the mitigation monitoring program. So as I've mentioned, an environmental impact report or EIR was originally prepared for the project. It was certified in 2005. The mitigation monitoring program was adopted with the project in 2006. And again, it is still the valid environmental document for this project. It hasn't expired. That's not how it works. I mean, the project is still entitled and this is still the environmental document that's running with the project. In the EIR, there were no special status plants that were identified. There were some aquatic features on site and really not many, but there were some little vernal pools. Again, that intermittent creek is not really going to be identified. filled in anymore. There were some wet swales here. So a few aquatic features. How to deal with those are in the mitigation monitoring program and still apply. They're still in the conditions of approval. Yeah, and so there's also in the mitigation monitoring program, there's protection for birds and bats. And the requirement for protocol level surveys for vernal pool fairy shrimp, again, associated with the vernal pools there. Army Corps... Permit like Section 404, your Section 401, your Fish and Wildlife 1603 streambed alteration agreement, all that stuff would apply for any kind of touching the wetlands, the culvert extension in the intermittent creek, and all that is still required for the permit. But because this amendment is less impactful on the environment, an addendum for the project was prepared, and that's attached to the staff report. So what the addendum did was took into consideration that the project will be keeping the intermittent creek, will be disturbing less land, Some of the other non-environmental factors that are kind of environmental, I guess, like keeping Twinview Boulevard connection and the traffic impacts and just generally no longer having Phase 1B in the project. All of that's discussed in the addendum and how and why certain mitigation measures might have been deleted or lessened. I mean, for example, if you're not deleting the creek, then you don't really have to worry about they're not being water going to the southern portion of the creek downstream because there will be water going down to it. So kind of basic stuff, kind of common sense, but it is necessary to document that and to attach that addendum to the EIR. But again, everything that still applies and everything's substantive that still applies, it has been left on the permit. As for public comments, generally speaking, not a lot of public comments. There are a few general inquiries about the project, which is typical, but not too much concern. There was one public request to extend the sewer off-site, which without the nexus and proportionality to do so, there's really no way the city could require them to extend the sewer off-site, again, without significant nexus and proportionality. Some of the questions, general questions, were about noticing. We notice all projects that go to a public hearing, especially including this one with a 300-foot minimum radius and a 10-day noticing period per the law, and that was done with this project. So in conclusion, we have an addendum to the EIR, which has been completed for the project. The appropriate mitigation measures remain incorporated into the project. And staff recommends determining that the findings are in evidence, adopting the addendum to the previously certified EIR for use permit 2302, and approving this application subject to the draft conditions of approval attached to the staff report. That concludes the presentation. I'm available for questions, and also the applicant and applicant's representatives are available if you'd like to ask questions of them, too. So with that, I'll hand it back to you, Chair. Thank you.

Thank you, Danny. I'm going to open it up to the commissioners with any questions. Commissioner Emanuel.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I mean, later in my presentation, I was going to give a little background on the Oasis Road specific plan. I could wait, but it does kind of dovetail into a little bit of information that Danny just gave you. So I can wait or I can just preface up depending on what the commission wants to hear.

Let's take a quick consensus. I'm for it. Anybody else would like to hear it? Yeah? Okay. Yes, please.

Because, you know, you just heard about all these wonderful things that the specific plan does, wider streets and such and such. I want to give you a sense. When this whole project was coming through, city determined this was the last major interchange. Yes, we had some stuff going on at Bonnevue, but we had huge control over what happens at Oasis Road. We had property owners who were very interested in developing or certainly getting entitlements in a specific plan, general plan accomplished. The impetus was to make sure that development in the Oasis Road area was truly different than you see in the other strip centers in Redding, that you had wider boulevards, that you had more meetings, that you had bigger setbacks, that, I hate to say it, that it was more like an oasis than you see in your typical strip commercial in town. That was the impetus of it. So that's why you have architectural design guidelines. That's why you have talk about water features. That's why you have talk in the plan about cohesion in a development. One thing about the original permit that made it a little easier is when Costco or Boxco as it turned into, first came in, it had a certain look. It had rock elements, wood elements, other things that were mimicked throughout the rest of that 300,000 square foot development. Of course, here, and I appreciate, you know, the position that the property owner's in right now, you know, we don't have that same kind of thing playing off, and we can talk a little bit more about that. But really, the impetus here was really to do something entirely different, and I think it's behooved the community Commission to keep that in mind as you look at conditions of approval for anything in this in this area. That would be my opinion The other thing I'd like to say and start before I ask specific questions or make comments to Danny's that you know Maybe you don't find this project difficult, but I do maybe because there's too much history here but you've taken a very large site and You've taken the square footage way down. That's all good. We're not dealing with a creek. But you had certain expectations, for instance, of property owners. I know to the north, probably, I don't know if Chuck Rhodes and his sister are here today, but they certainly have expectations of how this would develop. They've had the property for a good long time. This new development may have changed those expectations. You have all sorts of kind of gyrations going on here that are different. You've got 20-year-old conditions you're trying to massage to work into a new development. You've got a 20-year-old EIR that you've got to massage a little bit. I don't necessarily think it fits cleanly. I think it's a good EIR. It's a clean EIR. I don't have problems with its determinations, findings. But, you know, some things are not neat and clean, and I have some comments on that later. So I just think it's not as simple as a brand-new greenfield development, in my mind, where you're just going to extend Twinview up. There's a lot of history and trying to fold in the expectations of the specific plan. So I just wanted to keep that in mind. in the background mind for you. The other kind of thing that's a little bit different is, and I appreciate this, is the prohibition on any further development on parcel A, because as Danny talked about, if you had an entitlement for this 300,000 square foot expectation, then it would be Let's just say, maybe Russ remembers, I don't remember what the traffic thresholds would be for 1A, but let's just say they were 15% under in what they're showing today. If you didn't prohibit development in parcel A, well, I've still got another 30,000 trips that I could generate, so now I want entitlement next door. This cleans up that gap. Altogether, it takes this project down to one essentially piece of property between I-5 and the Intermittent Creek, and you don't have to worry about the rest. That will come later with a future entitlement. So I appreciate your work on that. The other thing I want to compliment staff on is thank you for the colorization that you did on the exhibits that you put up. It was very difficult for me, and probably not for Russ, but to look at the line work On that exhibit we were given, for instance, if you look at that interior driveway, essentially that serves most of the parcels, if you look closely, well, I can't tell really if I'm looking at sidewalks, landscaping, landscape and sidewalk, and if it's landscape and sidewalk, do I have two feet of landscape and if I have five feet of sidewalk, I don't have any way to scale it or anything else. So at least we have kind of a picture of what we're getting, but I'm still not clear on the widths. Can we do trees and some other things that we need to do? But thank you for including that and also showing the location of those large oak trees at the northwest corner that we didn't see before. Let's see. Oh, here's a question for you, Ann. On-site stormwater. So now we're getting to kind of Russ's things. You know, I am used to projects like the Costco development where you have a kind of a series of infiltration basins and those sorts of things. But here we make reference to infiltration gallery and bioretention cell. I'm not familiar with what those are. I didn't see them on the utility or drainage plan, but maybe I just didn't see. I don't know. I don't know how this works. I see the outfall of it all. I don't know how much is above ground, if everything is below ground, how infiltration works. If someone can give me a quick idea of what we're actually going to see on site. And I say that because often the infiltration bases do not support much vegetation. You really can't put trees in them because it's meant for the water to sink out. You really can't establish a lot of plant materials. So I'm not sure what we're really looking at.

Yeah, I'm happy to speak to that. Firstly, I did just want to clarify with one thing you said about the prohibition of development on parcel A. I just wanted to be clear that development on parcel A is not prohibited. It's just no longer a part of this permit. So it would need a separate permit, but the parcel could still be sold and developed, but it would have to do its own environmental and re-look at all that stuff to modern standards. So with this, so all this gray area here, That's all underground stormwater detention and all your MS4 stuff. So some of the stuff, the underground infiltration gallery stuff, that's all going to be under the parking lot, which is great because as a planner, you know, it doesn't mess with our landscaping. So that's great for that. And then they're doing like a detention basin somewhere down here. And then there's some, I know like the brand name for it, but. like they're called filteras. I don't know what the actual non-corporate industry term is, but they're basically, the way I think of it is, forget the crude analogy, but they're basically like cigarette filters in the storm drains. So like when all the tarry water goes in, it kind of like, there's like engineered soil and like a tree that's stuck in them that kind of acts like a filter. And then it comes out the other, like it comes out the other side of the basin in the storm drain a little cleaner. And so there's, they're proposing a bunch of those filtera units that, or generic equivalent into those or next to those storm drain outlets. So that's kind of where those are. Does that help orient you there or answer that question?

That does. So if I understand you correctly, the infiltration actually occurs under the parking lot within that.

That's my understanding is like a lot of it does. All that gray.

Yeah, and then you have the filtering system or whatever else. Okay. So it's a little different than we see at Costco and a lot of the developments we have so far. That's good. I appreciate that. I'm not going to make a lot of comments at this point, but I did notice on condition number nine on packet page three, references for police, NM13-4B. I don't see that in the packet, and I'm wondering if that's even... particularly relevant because a general plan, new general plan safety element calls for using crime prevention through environmental design process. They're probably similar, but just to let you know, I didn't find a copy up there. I really don't know what it is.

So hopefully, if that's going to have to stay, that you have that.

The last comment I'll make, and I'll have more later, is, you know, you're right, the design guidelines are, the design specs on this are pretty minimal. I was disappointed when I first saw it. I'll give a shout out to Dave Benda and the Record Searchlight for confirming what I had kind of assumed, that the folks who have the property, the applicant here, are not going to be developing the property. very difficult for them to come out with, you know, detailed architectural drawings or whatever. If really the point is, as I understand it, to market the property. So I appreciate that. We'll have to get those details from a subsequent owner when they come in. And obviously this project will likely be redesigned if someone else takes over, but we'll see. Maybe not. So with that, I've probably talked enough. I'll let someone else jump in.

Okay. Anybody else have any other comments? Commissioner Miner.

I did have a question. So when you talked about the Oasis Boulevard specific plan, It wasn't entirely clear to me whether you thought this did kind of meet the spirit of what we were trying to accomplish, even if the project substantially changed from the Costco or larger project several decades ago. Do you feel like this kind of meets the spirit and the theme of what the intention was around that?

I'll answer it this way. Range of uses are allowed in that sub-district of the specific plan. So that's perfectly fine. What I would be concerned about is not knowing the width of landscaping, not knowing the architecture and other things. Those all can be addressed. So yes, I think this body could make a determination that this project is consistent with the general plan as far as the layout here. And we'll deal with the future architectural details through conditioning. Sure. Okay.

Okay. I think I understand that. I did have a couple of questions for staff before we kick off the next phase, the public hearing. Danny had mentioned the trees being saved and I see the X's even in this screen in the top left. Those are the two large ones or the circles, the two large ones. being saved. But when it mentions, and it specifically stood out to me, when it mentions everything west of the parking lot, really what we're talking about is we're talking, there's so little room over there. Yeah, I wish I had a tree and site development overlay. But this space on the left side that little bit of green square is what we're talking about they're going to save every tree that's in there we're going to save and if it's not in there it's not going to be saved if it's not in there and it's not you mean Yeah, when I looked at the tree diagram, most of the trees were within that parking lot. So we're really talking about saving a very little bit of trees that are going to fall outside of between the interstate and the parking lot. I don't know what the actual dimensions are, but it's a little slice.

Well, unfortunately, I don't have the numbers, you know. That part of the analysis wasn't revised, and so that's why we left the existing mitigation measures the way they are instead of revising them specifically to the project. But if you'll look on here, I mean, that area I mean, clearly there's a lot of trees in here, but there is kind of a high concentration. I mean, it's not like it's nothing, but, I mean, you're correct. It's a little tiny sliver. Yeah, and hence the reason for replacing with three-to-one, a three-to-one ratio with seedlings and, you know, that whole scheme is to mitigate the loss of all those trees in there.

Okay. I think I understand that. Another question that came up in the presentation you did, Danny, was you had some very specific uses that, you know, it was a drive-through coffee, a sit-down restaurant. They were very specific. And is this project being entitled to that granular of uses in this case? So if we see, and I think we saw this with the Costco projects, you know, they've come back with different, they've changed and some of those changes, they changed the original thoughts that they wanted to have originally. Some of those changes we could accommodate and some required them to come back to the planning commission. So how specific are those requirements as far as use in this document?

Yeah, so if there was going to be a substantial change, I mean, if it was kind of like a smaller kind of like for like change, I imagine we could do something that's very inconsequential with the minor amendment by director. If there's kind of a semi more substantial change, but it doesn't seem to like generally change the amount of square footage and those uses are still allowed under the Oasis Road specific plan, we could take that to the Board of Administrative Review. And then if there was something that intensified this proposal, increasing the approved square footage, or a use that's substantially more intense than what's been proposed, then it would come back to this body. That's my understanding. I don't know if Director Toye, or sorry, if Director Toye wants to chime in on that.

Yeah, I would love to hear any more if there are comments, but my general concern is I don't like to set up, you know, if it is going to change, you know, as it's very likely to do, I don't like to, you know, make a plan for somebody having to come back, you know, time and time again. I'd rather have some more flexibility if we can than say, hey, it's this spot has to be a drive up coffee. And if it ends up being a drive-up sandwich shop, it would be really nice not to have it go through the whole rigmarole again. So that's the comment there. Any other commentary from Lily or Danny on that?

I would just speak to the fact that, you know, these things are not solidified and done is done and they got to build exactly what's here. Condition number one, as you see standard with these type of permits, allow for minor modifications by the Development Services Director and any substantial modifications will require either an amendment to the permit or approval of a new permit. And there's in between, right? So let's say the drive-through, one of the paths there becomes an office building, right? It's pretty small change. I mean, it's less intensive. Certainly. That's probably something that we can do by director. Yeah. But if it's, let's say, it's a larger sit-down restaurant versus a drive-through, it might require more parking. So that's where something would take the bar. And I'm just throwing out some examples, right?

Yeah, I certainly understand the higher intensity requiring the coming back or even maybe trading between some of the parcels or something, depending. But, okay, that's great. Thank you.

Yeah, and I think some of the flexibility you're talking about, I mean, I think the minor amendment by director, you guys don't usually see that as commissioners because it's like an administrative change. but like we're saying, like if it's kind of like a lateral move, like your example of a coffee kiosk to a little sandwich shop, I mean, I'm not going to declare up here for sure this is how it is, but I imagine looking at the Oasis Road specific plan, looking at the zoning code, that that would be the kind of change that we could do a minor amendment by director, which is actually really flexible. I mean, that's something we can turn around relatively quickly. I mean, a few days max to kind of take a look at it and turn it around in-house and just allow a revised site plan to be a part of the permit. So that process is actually pretty flexible. And you guys usually don't see that. So maybe, I mean, that's the beauty of how flexible it is. You don't even know it's happening.

Yeah.

Awesome. I appreciate that. There was this section that spoke, and I can pull it up. I didn't mark it, but the section that spoke about eminent domain, packet page 18, number 5. Is this, are we still in the Is that part of the, I guess, prior approval that's just kind of like following this? Because it doesn't appear to me that they needed to acquire property from other people to accomplish this.

So, yeah, it's a little bit of a catch-all, a little bit of kind of a disclaimer. It's in the permit. Technically, I would be so, so, so surprised if this was ever an issue. But technically, so... It's a little more complicated with the existing Twin View Boulevard moving over and relocating. It turns out that the existing Twin View Boulevard, the city actually owns the land that's under the easement for the right-of-way. So you can think of like the street and the public right-of-way as kind of like picture a map that has the city and all the streets is like a piece of masking tape. that's going between the parcels and that's our right-of-way. Well, if you abandon that easement, it's like you take the tape off and underneath the property lines often go to the middle under the tape. So that property reverts back to those owners that are on both sides. Sometimes you lift up the tape and it's its own parcel underneath. In this case, the city owns the land underneath that piece of tape that is the public right-of-way easement. But not only the city, Caltrans owns a little tiny sliver of Twinview as well. So technically there is another property owner that owns some of Twinview Boulevard underneath the easement. And in order to make this project work, they'd have to acquire that property. So I mean, that's one kind of example that I actually kind of just thought of just now to where I'm glad that catch-all's in there. Because technically, if Caltrans for some reason didn't want to, then you're getting more technicalities. I mean, could we use them and it don't in vain against the state? It's going down a rabbit hole. But the idea is, yeah, it's kind of a catch-all kind of protection there for the city.

Okay. I think that satisfies my questions for the moment.

Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else?

Commissioner Wooden?

Excuse me. So I think I just wanted to hear you confirm what I'm thinking here. Really what we're doing is we're de-entitling, unentitling a much larger project that was a big idea, was very realistic in the day. This was originally approved in the era of every city is going to have one or two interchanges with a big box anchored development, and that was happening. But that era has come and gone. And so partly we're cleaning that up a little bit at this point with this new entitlement next to the freeway with a very typical freeway type oriented development with a bunch of small parcels with typical freeway oriented uses and de-entitling that other big piece. It's still in the general plan. It's still in the specific plan, but that's a very high level parental document, but there will be no other entitlement sitting out there. Is that correct?

Essentially, yeah. I would phrase it slightly differently. I'd say It's funny you mentioned de-entitling because I thought of that too, so we're on the same wavelength here. That parcel A, that kind of larger eastern parcel, that part I would think of as being de-entitled, but this other part, it's just kind of... right-sizing the entitlement for current market conditions. Yeah, I'm comfortable with that.

Yeah, we're saying the same thing, and I was struggling with it. I had about three different ways to say it, and I picked one that's close, so thank you. The other question I have is in this general area, you know, again, back in the day and going back a decade or two ago, there were a lot of projects proposed. This was actually worked on back in, it's funny thinking back on it, but in Shasta County, we had over 15,000 homes in various stages of entitlement from, you know, from Happy Valley to Cottonwood all the way up to Shasta Lake City. And a lot of that has... run its course, other smaller projects have come along as it relates to residential. But out in this area, is it true that there are no other entitled projects currently today off to the east. We know that there are some projects that are not fully built out, but there's nothing hanging out there, right, from a cumulative perspective? Technically there is, but there's not a lot.

There's a lot in the pipeline that's seeking to be entitled.

That's all right. That's a separate question because that still has to come forward and go through the process again and stand on its own two feet. So I'm just thinking in terms of cumulative, you know, we're talking about a... a project approval right next to the freeway, and in my mind I'm thinking, is in fact it right-sized? Is it fitting in the context today? Does it preclude any, these are just things in my head, preclude anything? Are there other things waiting to say, whoops, you do this, something else happens? And it feels to me like, from my memory and my research, there's really not much else hanging out there right now that's approved.

Yeah, you're correct. And moving forward with all those things in the pipeline, your intuition is correct with the scope of the right-of-way improvements, especially with the freeway right there. I mean, this is kind of still on the edge. All it takes is one large subdivision, and now we need to do some more improvements to make that interchange off the freeway work. And that's gonna be a challenge moving forward. I think that has more to do with the future of the Oasis Road Specific Plan and the future of the funding mechanism of the North Reading Traffic Benefit District. But for this project, these proposed improvements are the right size for this project and they're the right size for what exists and what's entitled currently.

Very good. I have some, just some, hopefully some very quick bullet questions. So again, I want to hear it again. Staff is content that this project is consistent with the general plan and specific plan? Correct. Okay. And then we all, probably generally in agreement, even though that's not the discussion on the table, that the specific plan is right one of these days for a massive redo. The time has come and gone for what was proposed in that specific plan, in all likelihood.

Yeah, the specific plan, well, I mean, I'm just staff, I mean, but that could be a good idea.

Okay, that's all right. And then the proposed roadway infrastructure, a lot of work went into trying to get all this to fit in here, serve this project, meet the needs, mitigate the impacts, and still fit within a master plan in whatever we think it might be in the future. You know, is that true? So we've really set things in here that'll get us where we need to be without precluding the future growth, because there's still more future growth to come out here. Just quite frankly, we don't know what it is.

Yeah, that's correct. And I think with the relocation of Twinview Boulevard, it actually puts it... This plan actually moves the area more into conformance with what's currently in the 2023 general plan. So, I mean, I had this just in case. We can ignore the words, but that's that segment of Twinview, and that's from the general plan, kind of the vision for circulation. So this project is relocating Twinview to align with where the general plan ultimately envisions Twinview Boulevard. Yeah, I'd say this project is moving the city generally in the direction with maybe spurring some development in that area, realigning Twinview to be in conformance with the new general plan. So as far as those are concerned, I'd say yes, this achieves those goals. Very good.

Now I'll ask a question. a question for confirmation that has a lot of layers on it, but I think there's an easy answer, and that is as it relates to fire water. It's my understanding we're on the edge of the City of Reading service area. We have another governmental entity, Bella Vista Water District, not too far away, and we're on the edge of their service area. The conditions, the way I understand it, are written such that basically between the landowner, the city, the engineer when the day comes, agency to agency agreements that may or may not come together, but the, I guess I'll put it this way, the if-then statements are in the condition so that however that works out to meet the fire water, it's there. One scenario is investment is made in the city's infrastructure and it's one and done. Another scenario is inter-tie with Bella Vista, which may have other benefits. Another scenario is inter-tie with Bella Vista and actually have an agreement that fire only, not for drought conditions, you don't want to upset anybody, but for that extreme fire situation that they're able to be a partner in fire water. Is that kind of how that is set?

Yeah, with a slight correction, if I understood. Thank you, please, please. If I'm getting what you're putting down correctly, the Bella Vista would only, the intertie with Bella Vista would only be for emergency fire water pressure. It wouldn't be for any kind of, any other use than that. So there is an eight inch line.

I'm okay with that. Okay, yeah. I was presupposing other conversations that may occur. Yeah. And so that's fine. And then from a traffic impact standpoint, Mr. Anthony, this project is in both the citywide traffic impact fee program and the North Reading benefit zone. That still is alive and well, right? So this project pays twice?

As of right now, yes. Both the NRTBD and citywide TIF are in play.

Thank you. And so that helps with other off-site mitigation and that sort of thing. And then I think I only had one more question. Actually, I don't. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Johnson.

Well, the benefit of going near last is that you guys have talked about most of everything, which is great. I just have a couple of questions remaining when it pertains to screening. You used the word wall. Those aren't very attractive. We've had other projects that use green screens or landscape kind of screen, some of those things. Are we defining wall in kind of a flexible manner as long as it is screened? Does it include landscape or does it have to be like a mason wall?

So in this case with the Oasis Road specific plan it is a little more strict and it is it is a decorative wall. We're talking something like a split face with decorative cap. I've noticed in my experience landscaping for screening can work for a time but eventually it stops being screening and you know either gets shaved down to be this tall or it stops being watered. Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't. Berms we thought we've also seen berms kind of

go different directions. Well, it won't stop getting water because it's an LMD, right? So is it not? I also wanted to actually ask about the LMD. So with Churn Creek Crossing, is that an LMD as well? And the city maintains that parking lot and the landscaping in there?

I'm not familiar. Do we know? With Churn Creek Crossing.

Is that typical with these kind of commercial developments or Churn Creek where Save Mart is?

I think that is all owner.

That's all owner maintained? That's all owner, no LMD.

Yeah. Yeah, and in this case, too, with the LMD, the LMD, if the screening was on site, the LMD probably wouldn't maintain that. That would be HOA. Right. In this project's case. Okay. With where the screening would be. Right.

And, I mean, this feels like a really – in general just looked like to me like a smart way to move the project forward whether this property owner develops it or not and the building permit you know you make it shovel ready you move the parcels you do all the entitlement work that's necessary to kind of remove some of the risk and the red tape and then they're going to bring a building plan and a permit for you know the staff to review and THAT JUST SEEMS LIKE REALLY, YOU KNOW, THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN SITTING THERE FOR DECADES, YOU KNOW, UNDEVELOPED AND DONE ALL THESE STUDIES AND BIOLOGICAL SURVEYS AND EVERYTHING AND JUST SEEMS LIKE A REALLY GOOD WAY TO POTENTIALLY FIND A PATH FORWARD FOR IT TO BE OF USE TO THE RESIDENTS AND THE COMMUNITY WHETHER, YOU KNOW, TRAVERSING ON I-5 OR THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN GOLD HILLS OR NORTH OF THERE. I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT how future development might look if you've got, you have current applicants that are looking at developing further down OASIS or in that area that might have an impact in, you know, if this project sits for any length of time and gets approved as is today. HAVE YOU SEEN THOSE PROJECTS COLLABORATE OR SHARE SOME OF THOSE ADDITIONAL COSTS? HOW DOES THAT GET FIGURED OUT, I GUESS, WHEN IT COMES TO WHO'S GOING TO DO WHAT? THIS PROJECT OWNER IS GOING TO BE CONDITIONED TO DO THIS. THIS MANY LANES, THIS MUCH BOULEVARD, SIDEWALK CURB, GUTTER, ALL OF THAT IN FRONT OF THEIR PARCEL. A larger project creates more impacts that, like you were mentioning, would increase potentially the sizing or width or whatever might be off of the freeway there. How does that get done? Because approving it today doesn't mean someone's developing it today. So it could sit another five, ten years. Someone else can move forward faster on a project further downstream. So I guess I'm just curious how that might look.

Yeah, so my understanding is that, and I'm going to probably punt to Josh Anthony here in a second, but my understanding is that these improvements we're seeing now are considered interim. They're not like the ultimate. The ultimate is going to look more like what we saw in one of those first slides with the large interchange and all that. Yeah, maybe I should let Josh take over on that, but these are interim, and yes, you're right, it is a concern, it is sticky, and I'll let Josh speak to that.

Thank you, Danny. Obviously, as every project comes in along the Oasis corridor, they're going to have to perform a traffic study. We'll evaluate that traffic study in any, obviously, This project itself will unlock, I think unlock is maybe the wrong term, but provide some capacity back to Oasis Road. So these improvements in themselves should carry some of the current... projects that are in for entitlement are right now in the planning shop. But as we move forward, staff has realized that the Oasis Road specific plan and the NRTBD both need to be reevaluated by council to ultimately right size fit, again, those improvements. So our intention is that staff needs to bring that to the city council. and decide what needs to be done further. Obviously, we can get a little bit further along with some of the entitlements that we know are upcoming, but ultimately, long-range planning, which is the Oasis Road specific plan's goal, is it needs to be rethought and actually some form, I think, needs to change. Now, what that is, I don't know.

Well, that's really helpful. Educate me a little bit, because I can see where a developer might not develop this parcel, but two parcels down or wherever. Kind of like the neighborhood that went in there, it created impacts and they had to do their thing. Have you guys thought about, I don't know if this would even work, but we went over the CIP last meeting. HAVE YOU THOUGHT ABOUT CONSIDERING THOSE IMPROVEMENTS AT A WIDER SCALE AND CHARGING PRO RATA AN IMPACT FEE RELATED TO SO THAT THE WORK GETS DONE BY THE CITY BUT IT IS CHARGED TO THE DEVELOPER ACCORDING TO THEIR IMPACT?

We've thought of a lot of different strategies, how you would move forward. Obviously, we can present those strategies, right, to council, but staff, right, we can't change what we have. We have the NRTBD right now, and the Oasis Road specific plan, so we are you know, to follow those. So yes, there are thoughts of pro rata, right? People paying in. I mean, that is essentially what the NRTBD does. You know, you pay into it and then it, you know, gets funded by the city. And the public works department does the work then? Correct. Okay. Put out projects with the use of those funds that are collected as more developments come in in the NRTBD.

That makes sense. That makes sense. Okay.

Is that it right now? Okay. Commissioner Manuel has a few more.

Yeah, if I could just jump back in. Danny, can you confirm whether Caltrans has reviewed and okayed everything that we've looked at? I believe they probably have. And also, is this referred to Department of Fish and Wildlife, and have they expressed any concerns at all? I don't know if we've redone any biological look. It's been 20 years. I don't know if any new plants have migrated into the area. If we need a condition for another survey prior to construction actually occurring, you might want to address that.

Okay, yeah, so we entered into consultation with Caltrans. We actually had a few meetings with Caltrans and they were involved on a few cycles of the traffic study. So we actually did work with Caltrans, our traffic guys and Caltrans on this. And so, yes, we're interagency on board with this plan for this project. With regards to fish and wildlife, so typically for fish and wildlife, when a new project comes in, we will refer the biological study to them for what they call early consultation. And then they will see it again when that environmental document, the draft environmental document, is circulated before it's adopted. In this case, neither of those things were triggered. We already have an environmental document. And My understanding is with environmental law and court precedent, with this existing environmental document, even if there was a new species, that it wouldn't apply to this project that has an existing environmental document because that's just what the courts have found. That's my understanding.

Well, okay. I don't know if I would agree, but you might be right.

Well, I mean, if you think about it, it kind of makes sense because that means the minute, let's say, a new species makes the list, that means every project would have to stop and redo. Everything that's not constructed would have to stop and redo their environmental document. And so it does make sense to me that that would be the precedent that was set. And that's my understanding based on discussion with the senior planning staff.

Very good. Commissioner Balkovic, you have a quick...

I just got a couple of small questions. First, there's a reference to... Billing, wastewater treatment billing, difference between standard commercial and one that has food processing in it. And it was a proposed, it references a proposed ordinance. Has that gone into effect?

You're talking about the conditions from industrial waste?

Are you talking about in relation to their recommendation that you don't mix wastewater between like a retail establishment and a restaurant?

Yeah. Exactly.

Well, we... I don't know the reference to the proposed ordinance, but yes, the food... I don't want to say food handling because that's not the right term, but restaurants, things of that, they do pay a higher rate due to their intensity, right? Because they may use less water, but they actually have more sewage going down the drain. I believe that's the case already, so I don't know about a proposed ordinance.

Right, so there's some conditions in here from... from industrial waste. And so, yeah, that's basically separating those things out. Those are kind of requirements. Those are standard requirements anyways. These are the kind of things that sometimes other departments like to have in the conditions so that the applicant knows up front to prevent kind of like, I didn't know later when they come in. So it's kind of a heads up that those are the city's requirements, but it's a pretty standard thing.

Okay, thank you. I have another, one more question. Go for it. In the realignment of Twinview Boulevard with Oasis Road, is that intersection going to have standard stop signs or a stop light?

So the realigned Twinview and Oasis will have a four-way traffic signal, so it'll all be signalized.

It'll be a four-way. I don't know if they thought of it. It seems that the range now is a roundabout. Was a roundabout thought about for that location at all?

Yeah, so a roundabout, my understanding is that a roundabout would be preferred, but the traffic study said that a roundabout would not be required to make the traffic work with this development, that a four-way signalized intersection could do so. And it just so happens that a four-way signalized intersection is cheaper than a roundabout, so the applicant opted for the four-way intersection. Roundabouts take up a little bit more right-of-way, so you have to acquire more right-of-way In this case, I think they own all the right-of-way around there, but that's neither here nor there. But my understanding is that roundabouts are actually a little more expensive than signalized intersections. So since it wasn't required to make the traffic work, they opted to not do that.

Thank you. We're going to go back to Commissioner Johnson has another question.

I'm still on the LMD thing. Sorry. Do you guys know where the LMD is actually going to be? Is it just on the Oasis Road and on the highway, or is it going to be the entire project site? So the LMD would just be for all the public right-of-way stuff.

So essentially the medians and the separated sidewalk, the landscape between the curb and... Got it.

Okay, so it's not the entire... So they'll still handle their own with their CAM fees to their tenants. They're going to handle their own interior landscaping. Gotcha. Okay, thank you.

With three pages of questions, you guys did a great job asking them. I have a couple about access. If the project stalls after the partial map records, what access rights exist? Like, is there going to be something in place?

Yeah, so... I know it's a little, let's see, where are we? I have a just in case slide for that too.

And kind of to roll into that, like if there's cross access between them and for some reason it was fragmented ownership, like is there a guarantee if you could cover both of those?

Yeah, so the map would record, and this parcel configuration would become realized, right? And then you'd have this relocated twin view would be offered for dedication. Now, the thing is that prior to recordation of the map, we won't let the map record until the property owner acquires, remember I was talking about how the right-of-way underneath that piece of tape is actually... There's property that's owned by the city. So before this map can record, they have to own all the property. So they're going to have to acquire that little Caltrans triangle right there and all this city property. They're going to have to acquire that and then retain and or grant a right-of-way easement on top of it. So what they're going to do is they're going to lift up that right-of-way tape. They're going to see that the city-owned land is under it. They're going to acquire that. now it'll be under one ownership then they're going to put down a new piece of tape that still maintains the public right-of-way so twin view will stay the existing twin view will stay public right-of-way during the whole process so when the map records that twin view boulevard is still public right-of-way then this this relocated part sits an offer of dedication they can't pull They can't get a certificate of occupancy or a temporary certificate of occupancy on any of these numbered parcels, which is anything but this large one that's no longer a part. So all these numbered parcels wouldn't be able to get C of O until Twinview is constructed, the Oasis Road improvements are done, everything's done, zipped up, and the city actually accepts it. At that point, they'd be able to pull CFO. And at that point, they'd be allowed to apply for abandonment of that piece of tape over the existing Twinview. And then they could demolish it and do whatever they plan to do with their project because we'd already have that relocated Twinview. And that's kind of the reason I opted to separate out all of the roadway improvement conditions onto the map was to make sure that all that is clear and on the map, just in case for whatever reason the project itself with the use permanent amendment doesn't come to pass, if this map gets recorded, we're going to have that map sitting out there. And this way, having it all tied to the map makes it so that any development on those parcels, not just the proposed amended project, would have to apply to that scheme. Yeah, that scheme. Is that kind of complicated? Does that kind of answer the question?

Yes, thank you. OK, sure. Anybody else before I open public comment? Okay, thank you, Danny. We're going to open for public comment. It is a purple card that you can fill out in the back if you would like to speak, and we give our speakers three minutes. So I'm going to read. We have one up here for Mike Dormer. I see him in the audience talking, but Mike, you're up if you would like to speak. Okay.

I'd take that out of his time.

Yeah, can we start? Okay, and then Rhodes, you're up next.

Yeah, we roshamboed and I lost, so I'm up here first. My name is Mike Dormer with the firm of Sheridan Ops Sawyer, representing the developer. Good afternoon, members of the Planning Commission. I'm here really mostly just to address any questions that you may have, but I did want to address a couple of items that came up from various commissioners. There was a question on top of my list about infiltration galleries, infiltration basins, bioretention cells. Those are just fancy words. They're best management practices to deal with water quality. Okay, so we have to deal with water quality, and we have to deal with water quantity. And so these are items that deal with water quality. And for this project... Because I know there's been a lot of talk about Costco and what do the planters look like? Because they're using those planters as basically bioretention cells in infiltration galleries. We are not doing that. All of our bioretention cells are under the pavement. We do have a bioswale, but it runs along the west side of the property adjacent to the Caltrans right-of-way. That can be planted. And so the idea is we're trying to get the best of both worlds, where we've met all the state requirements for water quality. But we can get green in those planters, and we can make it look nice. Part of the problem with some of the BMPs is they're just ugly. We're trying to avoid that. So that's one thing I wanted to make sure that was clear. Let's see. You talked about trees. I think you took care of that. So the city land that is owned in fee title that is currently Twinview Boulevard, we understand that. We've been through this on a number of projects where there is an exchange in right-of-way. We are actually going to be offering more right-of-way than is being eliminated so it doesn't have to go through the public process of sale of public land. We've been through that a number of times and are prepared to do that as well on this one. There was a little question about what I call kitchen waste versus non-kitchen waste. We've got two projects we're working with that right now and I appreciate that level of detail. Am I okay?

You're good. You have 30 seconds. You're good.

So what we often do is we'll often provide two water meters to a site, one that would serve water for the kitchen waste, the kitchen area, and one for the non-kitchen area. That way the entire building is not subject to that higher rate. And it does pencil out, even though you're buying two meters, I've done the numbers a certain number of times, and it does work really well. So I'm pretty much done. If you have any questions, the project proponent, Michael Schumacher, and his representative, Jim Rochelle, are also in the audience if you have any questions for them.

Mike, I'm going to leave you up there for just a minute to make sure none of the commissioners would like to question you before we excuse you.

Anybody have a question for him?

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, our next speaker, Rhodes. I'm sure that's your last name, so if you want to tell us your first name for the record. You can when you get to the mic, thank you.

I'm Karen Rhodes. My husband is Chuck Rhodes. He said he wasn't cute enough, so he sent me up here. I appreciate whenever Kent said I was his sister, because I know you know better than that. Our property is adjacent, it's south, it's north of their property line of the town center. So where we are is our south line and we go up another 1,300 feet. To begin with, for the obvious reason, I'm 78, still work. Chuck's 80, still working. We've worked on this project for 51 years. So it's been when some of you were in diapers. But we are in favor of the Oasis Town Center project and will wish that you would expedite and approve the process as a presentation, the Oasis Town Center project and move it forward as fast as possible. is you can because it'll help us a whole lot. And we don't disapprove of anything. It looks beautiful as a community center, so we appreciate it. And thank you all very much. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, those are the only cards I have today for speakers, so I'm going to close the public comment, come back to commissioners for discussion. Anybody? A minor. Commissioner Minor. Yes.

I do have one other question. So this is on packet page 37. This is staff question. Conditions of approval 20. So it talks about a California qualified archaeologist and a Wintu tribe representative shall monitor any ground disturbing activity occurring within 100 feet of the boundary of the preservation area. Is that the creek, the preservation area? Or is this another, is this getting pulled from the prior approvals and just kind of stuck in there?

Yeah, so does this one work?

Okay.

The location is actually federally protected. What I can say is that, as it turns out, that wouldn't be an issue for the project as amended because the site is well enough away from the phase 1A, from this part of the project.

So that was going to be in parcel A. There was stuff that was a boundary area that is protected.

Correct.

So we're super far away. So this is not going to be relevant.

Yeah.

Maybe I can ask Mr. Manuel. Well, just in your planning experience and opinion, in the little bit of legal documentation that I've run into, when you start to leave stuff that doesn't apply and leave redundancies, it kind of makes it feel like it muddies the water. But in this case, is it clear enough? Should that be struck? In this case, or do we feel we're clear enough that it's well far away? I just like extra things. If they can be struck, feels like they should be struck, but maybe that's more work than it's worth.

We're kind of in a catch-22, as Danny said. Can't show you where it is, but you need to stay away from it. So the property owner ultimately would have access to those records. That said, it is far enough away. Some of the complications that I have, and I had a brief discussion with Danny on this project, is the way it's conditioned. A lot of the development conditions have to do with parcel A. The parcel A is not being developed. Correct me if I'm wrong, Dan. I think Danny's thoughts were that it puts the property owner on notice. If something doesn't happen on this project and it expires in three years, the map is still there. The entitlements go away if they have not been extended. But putting the conditions for development also on the parcel map ties it all together so future property owners know they're responsible for all of these things. It's a different approach than I have seen. I don't know if Russ has run across that anywhere else, if you have any concerns. But to answer your question, it's not a problem. In short.

In short. Well, I can chime in a little bit more, too. So actually, in this case, those conditions are on the amendment, not on the parcel map, if I'm not mistaken. And those conditions are actually in the mitigation monitoring program in the EIR. So while they might not apply exactly to this site, I mean, unless Ken has something extra to add to this, but to your initial concern of having conditions like that, somehow harm a project, I don't see how it could because it simply just wouldn't apply. So, I mean, you're correct. It's not ideal. It's not as clean. I mean, there was this permit went from more conditions to less conditions and kind of from, you know, we're right sizing the project. So there are a lot of changes and there was a timeline to get to a hearing and all that. So it's not 100 percent perfect. Not every little thing. I mean, Ken had a few other things that he didn't like about the conditions that were what some would call nitinoids, little things that are hanging out there that are not ideal, but it doesn't hurt the project. It's a benign thing to have in the permit, although it's not as clean as it could be, admittedly, so.

I also want to add to that. When you look at a CEQA document that's been adopted and when you have an amendment and you're looking at eliminating a condition, the question is, are we eliminating a condition that's been adopted as a mitigation measure? And in this case, I see that it is a mitigation measure. It's asterisked. So we have to be careful when we are eliminating that. Then that opens up CEQA. And that's not what we want to do. In this case, since it's not really impacting this project amendment, I would say that it's not a good idea to do that.

Thank you. Commissioner Miner, are you okay if we move on to Commissioner Emanuel has some questions? Okay. Your mic's not on.

I don't have questions, but Danny, I've got cleanups. I've got about 13 conditions that I have some concerns about that actually I will pass if you want to have those.

I think you've got one. Pass these down.

They come with a brief little explanation as well as in italics what I would like to considering adding. I figured you'd be better to read it than me just saying it and figuring it all out. So the first one I want to talk about is on packet page 18, number 4. And that has to do with final building elevations. We talked about that earlier. This project is going to morph. They haven't really shown us anything at this point in time. The condition right now doesn't go far enough in my perspective to meet the plan. I would like to modify it to say prior to issues of the building permit for the first building, an architectural design plan for the entire development shall be submitted for review and approval, I say by the planning commission, because this body is the one who's finding consistent with the general plan. If this body doesn't want the planning commission to do it, I'm trying to take it off the director because we're talking about something for the entire, all the parcels, that's why I have put it for the commission. The plan shall depict common building materials, facade treatments, or other elements intended to establish cohesiveness throughout development. Again, that is a requirement of the Oasis Road specific plan, cohesive, something to tie it together. We really haven't seen anything, can't expect it at this stage in the process. And then the final building elevations, essentially that goes on with the existing condition says. Condition 17B on page 20 had to do with tree preservation. And, of course, that's the two large trees, the 58-inch and the 24-inch or whatever it is up in the northwest corner. Of course, we have a different site plan now than whatever else. And it seemed to me, having dealt with trees a number of years, that just establishing a random 20-foot setback doesn't make a whole lot of sense. We've been trying to, I believe, get away from that and actually have an arborist. give us some innovative, necessary ways to do it. So I would propose, as you see here, to ensure long-term preservation of the 28-inch and 54-inch oak trees depicted on the Oasis Center preliminary utility plan or other exhibit. Certified arborists shall be retained to provide recommendations regarding development setbacks, construction techniques, and are other means for long-term protection of these trees. They say it needs to be sent to the Development Service Director for review and approval. I think that's the only way we can be sure that construction impacts, just besides staying 20 feet away, aren't impacting those trees if we truly want to try saving them. My next is 17D, and I guess I have to read these all out for the public so they know what we're doing. Tree replanting. 17D on page 20 talks about some tree plantings are to occur with the open space adjacent to Salt Creek. Well, it's a little bit problematic. Salt Creek is in that parcel A that's no longer going to be entitled, but it still can be held in ownership, but it could be sold separately. You know, if you wanted to clean it up, you could say if you plant oak seedlings, up to 50% of the oak seedlings may occur in the open space areas. It seems like there should be some metric rather than saying some. What's the point of saying some? I threw in 50%. You know, if they chose just working out numbers, if all those six inches and above that were allowed to be taken out and were planted three to one, we'd be talking about replanting 750 some odd seedlings. A lot likely to happen, but if it does happen, it's going to have to be happening probably along Salt Creek. Whether the soil there would allow that, I don't know. You've got that stone cap out there. But in any event, that seems to be problematic for me. It'll be interesting to see what you all think about it. Let's see. Condition 40, page 24. My question is fair share funding for the fire department ladder truck. That's what this addresses. Is that in addition to development impact fees? This may have been put together before we had impact fees for fire. And if so, I think we just ought to negate that because they're going to have to pay impact fees. I don't know the answer to that one. It just seemed odd. to a standalone, and I don't know what the nexus is.

I can speak to that if you want. Pardon me? I can speak to that if you want. Okay, sure. So my understanding is that that is in addition to development impact fees and has to do with the level of service the fire department has out there. It's a lower level of service, and my understanding is the response times aren't as quick as we'd like, and so this shopping center placing potential additional demand up there

that fair share payment towards the ladder truck is in addition to any other fees you know that's fine if that is a established process i was unaware that we were doing that once the fire impact fees happened but that's that's fine if it's that was from the eir yeah just that was then more that was more of a question if i may then very simply is is the math defined in the eir

Is the math defined? Yeah, how's the math done?

Yeah. I'm not familiar with.

Thank you.

Because, you know, I guess my question, this is kind of a holdover condition. That other project had far more impacts than this does. Probably spending more, but I guess I'll work, if this is a process that the city uses, I'm just unfamiliar with it, that's fine. Just a question. My next one had to do with condition 55 on page 26. Major entry drives at landscape medians.

You skipped the bus turnouts. Oh, the bus turnouts.

Oh, thank you. We're looking out for you.

Well, you need to because I crossed it out instead of the ladder truck.

It says you're going to do bus turnouts. I didn't see any. Do we really need that condition? The condition, petition 49, page 25, talks about bus turnouts and shelters and all that kind of stuff. I didn't see anything here showing they were gonna do that. It seems odd to have that condition if we're not even providing a turnout area.

Where's John when we need him?

So, I'm sorry, so what's the, I mean, it's true, I don't see any bus turnouts on here, but I mean, that would be something that they could figure out with improvement plans.

Well, one would, I guess I would have thought that Rabba would have had his eyes on this before and say, hey, that's on Route X. We've got this much square footage. We have planned or need to have planned at least a pullout.

Yeah, so Robba was on the routing. They've seen the plan and they didn't make that comment.

Okay. Well, if you're happy with it and we need to keep it, that's fine.

Well, I mean, it's simply that it's a mitigation measure. I mean, I'm just stating the facts. It's a mitigation measure and Robba was on the plan check and It's not an issue they had, and it seems like something that could be figured out. On plan check was the reasoning for kind of not going any deeper into it, but of course if there's something you'd like to do, it's up to you.

Condition 55 on page 26. Before us all and up there, we have that driveway that comes off Twinview. It sort of basically loops around. It has one of the required landscape meetings of 50 feet, 8 foot wide. That's just on the southerly one. And I don't know why we don't have them all the rest. I can appreciate not having them on the two outpads on the eastern side of Twinview Boulevard. But I would in my mind, consider all of those driveways to be major driveways because they serve the entire bulk of development. So I have proposed the three westerly drives accessing the public street shall include a minimum eight foot wide landscape meeting running minimum 50 feet, blah, blah, blah. But I have given an out from the driveway intersection with the street unless a lesser length is approved by development service director based on final plans for the development and trying to get in with the Oasis Road specific plan again is trying to keep a high landscaping standard. My next is condition 59 on page 26. which requires franchise doors to be modified to have a thematic architectural consistency of the ORSP. Not really that clean of a condition. I would suggest that it be modified as a franchise chain stores with prototypical structures shall be modified as may be required, that's new, to have thematic architectural consistency with the ORSP and approved architectural details in accordance with condition four of this permit. So that ties everything together. Next one, 60, page 28. We have this, we've been going on, I know I've talked to Jeremy numerous times about ground cover. You can see, you know, we all appreciate that we don't have as much water we're used to. The water efficient landscape ordinance pretty much gets away from turf. But we do see a lot of landscaping out there that basically looks like 80% rock or 50% rock. And at some point, we should have some expectations. I mean, I think the code suggests in certain parts, not in the Oasis Road specific plan, that ground cover has to be 100%. I don't think that's realistic. I've suggested some language that says ground cover shall, if I can get the right one, and plant material shall be designed to plan to achieve at least a 75% coverage three years from planting. That gives a metric for somebody to work for and for our landscaping technicians to look at to see if that coverage can be met with what they're proposing. On to 66. This is an easy one. It's just a cleanup. Page 29. There's a reference to the air quality element. We no longer have an air quality element to the general plan. That should read natural resources element. On page, or excuse me, item 68 on page 29, it talks about PM10. I know that's right out of the EIR document. But we also address these days PM 2.5. That's very clear in the general plan EIR as well. I believe that should be added to that condition. 71B on page 32. I'm not sure why. That deals with migratory birds. This particular condition, if you read it, talks about raptors. And I kept reading it all the way through to find it. It's titled Migratory Birds and Raptors. but I never found any migratory bird language in that condition, and it's also repeated in the parcel map conditions I'll show below. I don't know why, because there are migratory birds in this area, so I've suggested adding the standard conditions of approval that we always have to use for subdivision. I don't think I read it all, but it talks about dates when you can remove trees and not have to worry about nesting, so it would be in addition to the raptor nesting condition. Number 23, page 38. Again, this is just a cleanup. It refers to air quality element. It should be natural resources element. And 45B on page 44. Again, this is under parcel map. Again, it talks about raptors. It says it will talk about migratory, but it doesn't. I'm not sure. Why not? I can leave it up to you folks to see if you think migratory birds are covered by that condition. I don't see that they are. Maybe they don't need to be in context of the EIR. We have not been provided that EIR to look through, so I don't know.

I'm through. You're lucky. Chair, may I ask a question first?

Of course, yes, please.

So I'm wondering is these suggested modifications, is this the first time staff and applicant are hearing them?

Yes, it is. It just got concocted today.

And that's what I expect. That's appropriate. And then that immediately leads to my reaction is unless there's some reason why the applicant absolutely needs every one of these hashed out today, This is feeling like a date-certain, two-week continuance to me. And staff and applicant have a chance to work these things out, and it comes back to us next time with these things worked out. Because otherwise I can visualize a very difficult process going through each one of them. And I don't want to discount the thoughtfulness that you put into them because you scare me how smart you are. But I do think we... If there's not a reason why this has to be done today, I'd be happy to come back in two weeks knowing that staff and applicant have worked this out and have these things clarified for us. Alternatively, I have a combination of question marks, happy faces and sad faces. and we all probably have different question marks, happy faces and sad faces. So maybe the Chair wants to, since I'm being presumptuous, ask the applicant's representative how he feels about that.

Yes, I'm going to give Commissioner Johnson a chance to ask a question. I'm sorry.

Do we want to?

Can you turn your mic on?

Do we want to? I like that suggestion to get the applicant involved. Maybe afterward it might be helpful if we are going to do a continuance, if that is something this body wants to do, that we at least share our thoughts on these so that they can take them away before coming back.

I think we would have to because, like, He said we had some happy faces. I've crossed out two items that I think were removed just off a discussion. So, yes. Is there any other questions before I ask the applicant to come up and answer those questions for us? Okay. Mike, would you be willing to speak on top? Actually, that would be great. We could use a recess. Let's take, would five minutes be enough? Ten? Five. Let's take a five-minute recess.

Exactly. That's great. Five-minute recess. Good. Good call.

Although we, what? What'd you say?

Take that packet.

Okay, commissioners, can we get you back on the diocese? We're going to resume the meeting. Okay, so resuming at 547. And Mike, are you okay coming up and speaking for the owner? Do we have some other representative? Okay, come on up. We do not. I don't believe so. If we have our attorney on the line, they can, but we just have some questions for you.

Okay, so we're really down just to two items. Okay, so the first one, condition number four on page 18, we find it problematic how we are going to, and maybe Kent, you can explain, but if we have a gas station, Minimart comes in right off the bat, And we have that designed to the best of our ability to comply with the architectural design standards within the specific plan. And planning and building and everybody looks at that and says, yep, it meets that bar. Here's your permit. And they build it. That's great. What do we do? We don't even necessarily, what do we give you then for a hotel or what do we give you for a kiosk or for a QSR? I mean, how do we, don't we take them one building at a time and you're going to say that meets the bar and it's consistent with what we're looking for or it doesn't on a case-by-case basis?

Well, I think the point of the specific plan really is to not to do everything in development like this on a case-by-case basis. Set some expectation. Now, I'm not an architect. Right. I don't know. I'm sure there are developments all over the state that have to come in in similar situations and say, okay, what could I do? And here I guess I'm just talking off the top of my head. Could I have the bases of the building look similar? Do I have similar glazing? Do I have similar pop-outs? Maybe can I work on roof corners? Can I have something... that as I'm going through that identify, this is part of a cohesive development. That's really what the specific plan, I think, is trying to get at. If the commission may disagree, I think that's what's important to do, rather than just a hodgepodge of buildings out there in the development. So that's my answer.

So when we have the first... building designed. I mean, it seems to me that we're going to establish certain architectural components that we're going to want to carry through. We know what we're getting into, I guess is what I'm saying. We're going to establish columns. I'm not an architect either. But certain architectural components that we want to carry through this project. And staff is getting an opportunity to take a look and say, well, do they meet that bar or do they not meet that bar? obviously we don't want to come back to planning commission every time we build a building, but I mean, I just, you know, we just, to have the, an architectural plan for the entire thing seems a bit heavy with the very first building. That was, that's our comment on the very first one, okay?

Commissioner Johnson, do you want to speak real fast?

Yeah, I actually was along the same lines feeling this similarly. I I think I want to defer. I mean, you definitely have a ton more experience on this commission in this regard. But speaking from a property development vantage point, this is mostly an entitlement. It's building the bones and structure of what is to be built and that the future of what the market is going to demand in these spaces and what they might look like. It's going to come in a future building, you know, permit. And I would just, I guess it seems like a specific plan is more wider in scope than a master plan, which would zoom in a bit further and get a lot more specific, actually, in regards to those kinds of details like a PUD would or things like that, where you would want every single building kind of, because this is exactly what you're going to build. This is, you know, if it's a residential project, for instance, we've seen, you know, a lot of those as examples. This seems like it feels more consistent with a specific plan in regard to what they're asking for at this stage, because it still references the Oasis Road guidelines that are in here. So that, I felt similar, but I definitely am open to discussion about it with other commissioners if they disagree.

Okay, I guess, did you have something?

I think I had a comment that is, I'd be, I'd be more concerned if we had a shopping center or larger buildings and things massed together that was gonna have a very strong architectural element and then we wanted to make sure that the smaller elements or the outbuildings had a consistent theme. I'm not as convinced that a development such as this that strong architectural similarity is necessarily a good thing. You know, we can go to Palm Desert and we can see that sort of strong architectural theme through each one. I remember coming up on Churn Creek Marketplace that a strong architectural theme, really done quite nicely, held pretty well to it through most of it. all centered around the big building, and then everything else had to follow until the lawn came in and out. And by God, in and out has its own theme, except for maybe one or two little nods to the rest of the theme. And quite frankly, it's perfect. I might have a bias, I was involved. And I think it's just fine. So I don't see it as big of a concern. I'm not a fan of, at this point, putting more controls on this project. at the expense of the development services director doing their job, which is to slice and sort through these things at the time of development. And if at any point there's a strong enough disagreement at that point, then there's remedies. So that's just my take on this project. I wouldn't say that necessarily somewhere else because this is a bunch of little buildings. If I got to pick, I'd put in bigger trees. You know, that's where I'd put my emphasis. So just my two cents.

I suppose that if we do the first building, everybody's happy, and you go to do the second building, you know, and if we just can't get there with staff, as Russ mentions, we do have... other avenues. We can be right back here in front of you folks, for one thing.

Yeah, there's other examples even on that shopping street I'm referring to. If you look across the street, and this one has across the street stuff, The two outbuildings that are across the street from the main center are completely different. They're just like what those brands would typically do. The gas station looks like any other gas station that ARCO does, and I don't even think it has a, I'm playing my architecture term, I think one that I know, a nod to the center on the other side, and there isn't anybody that is concerned or that I'm aware of.

Any other response to that?

Well, so I wouldn't, and I don't know, if we're, the point of this is to give some direction to staff for redoing some of these things. I think we probably need to work on a consensus here.

And then I'll speak again and then I'll sit back. But the dilemma is that I think we're going to have to have this conversation on every one of these. And so, again, I'm back to my original concern. I'm not convinced. I can say, having been on the other side of this, podium so many times, always said the worst possible thing you can end up with is a commission trying to wordsmith on the fly. And it's hard enough when it's just one or two items, but when it's a page and a half of items, we have a very high likelihood of accidentally taking something that is a small issue and turning it into a problem. Actually, we only have one other item. Well, you only have one other, sir.

But I'm the important one.

There we go.

Okay, let's address your one other item.

The other item is item number 40 on page 24 having to do with the fire truck. You know, as we think about this, because Jim and I did have this conversation with staff during the preparation of these draft conditions, and This project is so much smaller than what was originally proposed. We're wondering if this is something that could be eliminated, and what would the ramifications of that be?

Okay, so that's a staff question. But let me just clarify, those are the two items that you had...

Yes.

Everything else you were in compliance with, and you were okay with that suggestion being made?

Yep.

Okay. Could staff answer that quickly for him?

Yeah, so with the firetruck, so that was a mitigation measure, so we would have to essentially... Just like with some of those other mitigation measures in the addendum, we would have to have some sort of basically a finding for why that's no longer applicable. So that would require taking this offline and looking deeper into that. But by the time we had discussed that, there wasn't enough time to really do that.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. And thank you, Mike, for coming back up for us.

So the follow-up question to that is it does talk about a fair share of funding. And I probably should know this, but how is that determined?

Nobody knows. Nobody knows.

Because it was a fair share on the much bigger project, which was like three or four times the size of this one.

Yeah, so with that, I was in discussion with the Deputy Fire Marshal, and I asked him, and I didn't receive a clear answer, so I'm not exactly sure how. that fair share is calculated and who it's between and all that, I would need to pursue that further.

I mean, asking the fire marshal if he wants a fire truck is asking me if I want a Steph Curry signed basketball. Yes.

Yeah, let me ask a very specific question about that that maybe you don't know, Danny, but... did the EIR at least have, that we're following under on this, have an actual percentage, say for the original bigger project, it's this percent of one truck as defined by the EIR. you know, okay, ladder truck, this percent of one ladder truck, which we know today, if you ask the fire marshal, is, I just heard them the other day, somewhere between a million and a half and two and a half million dollars, and I'm hoping that they were just expressing a level of frustration, and those are not actual numbers, but I would never be comfortable with this back then or today without some boundaries around it and some clarity.

Yeah, I could look into that again, but I want to say off the cuff, I don't think it specified percentage, but again, that'd be something that the staff could go back and research again.

And especially when it's way back when a conclusion was reached that this ladder truck is above and beyond what's already covered by other payments, and it's unique to this project, Not unique in the world of how this is done. I've seen this in other jurisdictions on other projects, but they were projects that were very, very different and bigger than this.

Okay. So direction is for staff to give us some clarification on... what parameters are actually in that specification for us. I would like to ask the fellow commissioners, knowing that the owner has just two issues, do we want to discuss just those two issues or go through them all?

Can I?

Do we have? I'm such a...

agreeable fellow that that I would go along with that okay even even though other things give me I have some other sad faces but I'll get over it in the spirit of concurrence definitely commissioner minor I have my sad faces in question marks yeah um as well but um to the developer is it

Back to Russ's question, is it a substantial deal to take a little bit of time to workshop some of this stuff with staff? I also, on staff side, we could go through and make a bunch of recommendations here, but staff hasn't been able to review. So we have the developers, one party, but we also have staff wanting to review and make sure that they feel comfortable with these changes as well, or make alternative recommendations. So we have two parties. and not just the developer. However, I understand that timelines are a really big deal. So I just wanted to directly ask that question and understand it. How would it impact you in the project to wait a few weeks?

Well, the other option is to make a motion that condition four remain the way it is and I think 40 we can probably work out. I'm not suggesting that, it sounds like we can't get rid of the condition, but we can sure dig into that share, that funding share, because it's very vague. But I'm wondering if a motion is made that leaves condition four just the way it is and see if there's a vote, see if there's enough votes to get it done tonight.

I go through though, and I look at like 49 with the bus turnouts. If we're not gonna have bus infrastructure up there, and I think I heard that that was mentioned, we should strike it, and that is less to encumber the property by. And then, you know, like ground coverage will be of live plant material, at least 75% coverage. Maybe you're already familiar with exactly how that would be accomplished, but... And this is more mine. I think Russ and I are on the same page. I really want to be able to think through stuff, and maybe that's my assuming. Somebody else would want to go through that process, but I'll let you answer the questions, and then we'll bring it back for discussion.

Well, if I might chime in for a second, too. Like with the bus turnouts, that's a mitigation measure as well, so we need to make findings that that's no longer needed for the EIR, so... It's not that all these are just simple conditions that we can just wave away. These are mitigation measures. So I think there needs to be some careful thought and consideration with just deleting them because we don't feel off the cuff that we need them anymore. They need to be in the addendum to the EIR. We're going to do that.

I would agree they need to be there, but maybe it can be clarified and still meet the EIR mitigation measure and say, well, it's a bus stop and it is here as opposed to a blank stop. you know, a blank check. I don't see that as a very big deal. I don't think that's a huge risk from a development or engineering or a cost standpoint. I realize it's a strange question if you haven't been there before, but quite frankly, when you get down to the design, you have to do one or two. You know, Mr. Dormer grumbles a little bit, and then he does the two or the one. So the risk is low, but there's an opportunity to clarify it and still meet your mitigation measure.

I mean, we have conditions on the back that need to be cleaned up as well that have been presented here today. So either we don't address those and have a motion or we do have to refer it back to staff to reevaluate and revise and give us it cleaned up. So that's where I see that we're at right now.

I haven't heard a reason to to rush this today if there's a reason I need to hear it because sometimes that's very very real I've been in your shoes and and by God there's a you know there's a there's a funding issue tomorrow that we're all waiting on or not us up here but someone else is and if that's not the case then I'm I'm I'm going to boldly make a motion to date certain. I'm not doing it yet, but I'm just right on the verge of a motion to date certain in two weeks.

We've been working on this long enough, been waiting on this long enough. I think that another couple of weeks probably isn't going to hurt us. So we could probably give staff time to, we could kind of work through this out. I think we would like to do it in two weeks though. So yeah, so if we could take it to the next, let's see, next meeting. About two weeks. It might be three weeks because it's the second meeting and second Tuesday.

And staff would need to respond if that is something that they feel like they could accomplish.

Yeah.

And also, we would still need to direct staff on these. and what we expect from this. So we have many things out here, but first Lily, if you could address if this could be accomplished by the next meeting, that it could be put on the agenda.

I just want to point out that there was a conflicting scheduling in this room. Right. So July 14th, which is our regularly scheduled planning commission, has been eliminated off our calendar. It's a special council meeting now. So we could either do two things, push it out to July 28th, which is our next regularly scheduled planning commission meeting, or we could have to... we'd have to work with Jen to find a special meeting date. But that date would be uncertain at this time. So we would have to re-advertise. But we can certainly get it done within, I would say, two to three weeks.

Okay. That answers that. So now it's back to the commission on how we would like to direct staff. Do we have recommendation, a motion, Commissioner Miner?

Oh, you had just mentioned, Ms. Stormer, you had just mentioned, you know, looking at two weeks. Is this, is that one month from, you know, essentially one month from now acceptable? Does it have a dramatic impact on the project? That's fine.

It probably gives staff a bit more time to and us to work things out and try and get it done right so we can kill it in a month. That would be fine. Okay.

And then what I would say, as far as directing staff, I think, you know, each of these comments is really good. If we... For me, the direction for staff is... work through each of the comment and work it through with the developer and if both parties come back and they feel aligned and I think that generally puts us in a good place. Obviously some of the consistency items are no brainers, but on the other areas where there's subjectivity, you know, as if they come back aligned, I think that is the win for everybody. So I would say that's the direction is work together, figure it out, come back and we'll see that consistency then.

Any other comments? I know that item under the use permit condition four, there was some discussion and disagreeance up here. So Do we want to leave it as is on this form? Do we want to discuss? Do we want to direct staff differently?

I'm willing to withdraw my recommendation on number four, given from what I've heard. Russ was a bit persuasive. I don't want to give him credit.

Don't overplay it. It's not the first time he and I have debated as gentlemen, so thank you so much.

So we have a commissioner willing to withdraw. Are we all in, do we need to make a vote on that? Can we get clarification?

And I'm not sure we have the authority to direct staff. We can give them recommendations.

Right.

And staff, but so.

Well, before I, does anybody, commissioners have any strong feelings on if we just remove the item four? Okay. That's great. Perfect. Okay. Now,

And I actually feel real comfortable. Looking at these, these are very much within the capability of Mr. Dormer and the people he represents and city staff to work out, come to probably 80% agreement, 90% concurrence, the likelihood that there's one of them that Mr. Dormer's standing back here at the next meeting saying, yeah, they've put something forward, but I really want one more time to take another run at that with y'all. And my belief is all the others were gonna say, okay, they worked it out, they thrashed it out, and we're gonna have concurrence. That'll be in the form of approval. I just predict that. It's usually very effective once folks go back and have to thrash it out a little bit. And so I would love to know what date our clerk would want a motion centered around to be date certain, because I wouldn't want this to be date uncertain.

Well, Commissioner Miner got that they were okay returning on July 28th, which is our next scheduled commission meeting. So I think that is the date we're looking at, unless I heard that wrong. But I would need a motion from the commissioners stating that we're continuing this with these items and what's been removed, if that's where we're headed.

I'll be happy to take a crack at it and move. Move to continue this item, date certain July 28, with a request for staff and the developer to work these out and bring back updated conditions for our consideration.

Okay, so we have a first and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay, thank you. Okay, we're moving on to item five, which is the public comment for non-agendaized matters within the city jurisdiction. We do not have any cards, so I will open and close the public comment. Six commissioner comments. Thank you.

I can't help it, but I've got one more.

Okay.

And it's really just something because it goes to something Mr. Miner said earlier about, you know, changes that occur and what triggers coming back again. And I think I'd be... less than true to myself to not make the statement that the language you keep seeing in these documents of minor changes are within the director's approval authority, substantial changes, it's interesting, that's a different word. So now I know that there's grand debates in City Hall and amongst their representatives, which what is, What is minor and what is substantial and why are they different? And are they one and the same? And what's the gray area in between? All that leads me to think that we should look harder at that language to capture the purpose of what we're doing and the purpose of the conditions. Because quite frankly, I've seen some Lego pieces moved on a project that to me are simply, there were a bunch of Lego pieces out there and one of them got moved, but that because of a lot of emphasis on the process and the procedure that ended up back in front of a commission, costing months and months and months, thousands and thousands of dollars and hours and hours and hours, every time. when I looked at those exact same things, and this is history, I won't name the examples, but I'm just, I'd love to have fewer of these in the future. I looked at them and I said, we're just moving a Lego piece, and if you rolled the clock back, none of this changes what we're doing. I don't care, in fact, on this project, I'm bold enough to say I don't care what the two hotels are next to the freeway, or they move back, and the other strip stuff is forward, I wouldn't need to make a decision again. but I guarantee you that's coming back to us. So I just throw that out as a comment. So just something to mull around, kind of thinking, and I ran the reporter out of the room, can you imagine the, you know, how much, what would we do with all the free time we had as staff, and developers and their engineers if we weren't coming back for things like that. So I'm done. Thank you. You were very polite.

Yes, and Commissioner McNeil has a comment.

He's going to rebut now. No, I'm not going to rebut that. I'm going to follow up briefly on something you mentioned earlier, and now that the reporter's not here, it's probably a good time to do it. No, just kidding. About the necessity or past-do-ness of amending this plan. This plan, I would wholeheartedly agree, this plan was developed based on the wishes of two primary property owners, Mr. Levinson and... Mr. Thomason, who did not particularly get along at the time. Between it, this plan would allow development of over 3 million square feet of commercial. This community does not need 3 million square feet of commercial. There are better ways to do things. I was hoping that maybe the applicant was still here that, you know, in a perfect world, the Thomasons and the new prop builder would get together and say, look, this makes no sense. we need to get together and present something to the city to amend it. I mean, look, I don't know if you were down to Merriam Park down in Chico, Southeast Chico, something like Merriam Park, a mix of uses and residential and offices, something, but not what we're looking at today.

Yeah, it was classic because you, my version of it, and it was so many layers on the onion, I was working for the firm representing Thomason, and... By God, he needed to win, and so he needed his million and a half score feet. This is grossly simplified. Levinson needed his million and a half score feet, and the compromise was approve three million, and may the best man win. So sort of that's what happened. And so it really, and it was an era where, you know, I've done a lot of consulting in time in Turlock, and they did build that much. I mean, there are places where things like this happened, but that's not the world we live in today. I think our last big box has been built in this town. I don't think there will be anymore.

Okay.

Mark his words.

Everybody's done. Meeting's adjourned before anyone else.

Before he says anything else.