Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

That one did. This is the police. Really? Did I just call the police? If the uh police come in, it was my fault. still getting trained on what button calls the police. Um the uh I should not be allowed to have that. Uh uh good afternoon. Uh I think it's time to call this to order. Um and uh with that, I am Russ Winnham and I will turn it over to our clerk to do a roll call. Chair Winnham here. Vice Chair Will here. Commissioner Balkovac here. Commissioner Godert absent. Commissioner Miner absent. Commissioner Nance here. Commissioner Ryan here. Thank you. Thank you. And I'll open by just reminding anyone in the audience that wishes to address the commission on an item on the agenda or a non-aggendaized item during that period of of time. There are blue speaker cards in the back. uh feel free to uh complete one as best you can. Hand it to one of these uh clerks up front here and then they will slip them to me when the time comes so that we can uh call you and have you come to the lect turn for um addressing the commission. Um the next item on the agenda is approval of minutes and we have two sets of minutes uh to consider. I'd like to break it into two separate pieces. The first one would be May 13, 2025. And I'm doing that because there are different groups of people that may participate um in the vote. So May 13, 2025. Um looks like everybody is here and Luke Miner or Michelle is gone. So I will just say let's look at the first

set which was May 13, 2025. Is there any discussion or a motion? Mr. Mr. Chairman, I'll move approval of the minutes of May 13th. I'll second. Is there any further discussion or comments? Seeing none, all in favor? I I I. Very good. Thank you. And then what I would like to do, assuming it's uh within within my appropriate authority, would be to request that the next item be moved to the next agenda because if we don't do that, we will only have three commissioners uh that participated that will be here. So hopefully next time for the minutes that are on June 10, we will have four commissioners and have an appropriate uh majority. So is that all right? We we'll go with a concurrence. I'm sure that's a concurrence item, right? Yes. I'm not sure, but I'm I'm making that statement. It it would be. I mean, this is not like an action in the sense that you're taking action on a project. So just continuing. Thank you very much. And before I go any further, I should actually turn to because we forget this oftent times. Um would staff uh introduce yourself so that we um uh for the audience knows who's here. Thank you. Um I'm Gretchen Sto. I'm the assistant city attorney. Thank you. Josh Anthony, assistant public works director. Jeremy Pagan, director of development services. Lily Toy, planning manager planning division. Very good. And we have our senior planner, David Schgo in the audience, who will be presenting on an item later today. Thank you. And the two people that really run the show down here, Jennifer Ganon, meeting clerk. Elizabeth Steedman, administrative assistant. Thank Thank you very much. So, are there any announcements that need to be made at this time? Item number three. Uh, none from staff at this time, chair.

Okay, moving on to item number four. uh planning commission items. Uh the first one is uh the consent calendar. We don't have consent items. So we'll move on to item 4B public hearings. In fact, 4B1, use permit application UP 2023 01684, Kasa Park Homes to expand a mobile home park. And I see Miss Toy moving up to the lect turn. And what I will do before we do that is disclose that I don't even know if it's the same owners at this point, but more than 10 years ago, I did some consulting work for a mobile home expansion at this exact same uh physical location and have done consulting work for both adjacent um developments that are either impacted or involved. But that was a long long time ago and uh certainly haven't been involved in anything in a long time. So I will remain in my chair. With that, I will turn it over to Miss Toy. Thank you very much, chair. Good afternoon, commissioners. This item before you is a use permit for an expansion of an existing mobile home park. Before I go into the project itself, I just want to say I don't give any credit to myself for uh processing this permit uh to get it to here. It was our assistant planner, Drew Morgan, that worked on this. um we let him go on vacation so I decided to step up and uh kind of take the limelight but I'm giving him credit for all the work. So with that uh this site is at 11037 Ericson Way. It is located just souththeast of the intersection of Lake and 273 Market Street and it's off of a small street just on the south side of Lake called Ericson Way. uh existing uh zoning is RM9 which is residential multiple family

nine units per acre and it is general planned residential 6 to 10 units per acre. So existing the site uh contains 16 1.5 acres 5 and a half of it is developed with mobile home. Uh the existing 47 units. Currently this was granted back in the 80s um in the county and uh so when it was annexed um it's uh remained as is pretty much since then. Um about 15 years ago new owner took over. He's been making some improvements to the site, repaving the driveways, things like that. And as um tenants have vacated, he's replaced uh the older units with newer units. And so today, what's before you is an expansion of uh an area to the north west where they are proposing to expand the facility by 24 units. So blue arrow shows the access point to the facility off Ericson Way. And this highlighted yellow area is the area of uh the additional units we'll consume. Looking at the site plan, we have 24 units highlighted in yellow. They're proposing a community area which is required by code for multiple uh family type developments. And there will be additional guest parking put in as part of this development which is required under our off- streetet parking standards and also RV parking area to the very northwest site of this additional area. What uh was came to light is that uh under our general plan policies, if we are to expand any type of multiple

family beyond 50 units, um fire was concern about an emergency access um to this development. And what is being required is an emergency access road to the to the west. And the parcel that you see um that's highlighted where this access road will connect to is um owned by Hilltop Springs, the residential living facility just located to the west. And it the access road will uh be paved um according to fire standards all weather surface which will connect to the Woodcliffe Drive and that is conditioned as part of the the uh permit as draft condition. Um the easement will be required to be obtained before a building permit or any grading permit is issued. The proposed density for this with the 24 additional units um is 7.6 units. So it's consistent with the 6 to 10 units per acre of the general plan site. Um the site does cons have some slopes constraint but that's not the part area that they are developing. um they're adding amenities as I have um pointed out. And so in conclusion, the proposal does um is in character with the community and respecting neighborhood and in character with promoting compatibility. With regards to SQUA, um we did have a bi biological uh report done. There's no special status plants identified. Um there's the conditions required for migratory B birds which is state um federal guidelines and so hence um there is a buffer around any nest or maternity colony required during in season and it

does uh fulfill the uh criteria for infill development under squa under 15332. So you'll find in your packet the findings are required for those the infill development uh criteria. So it's consistent with the city's general plan goals and policies and hence we recommend that the planning commission make the findings and approve the project subject to the conditions of approval presented to you. I am available to answer any questions at this time. Thank you Miss Toy. um questions or initial comments from commissioners. Can you you kind of said you skipped over it. I just want to hear you the new owners owned the property for 15 years. That's correct. Because when I went through there, it I think I counted three that looked updated in the current park. And that that may be the case. It just seems like more than three people in 15 years would have moved out of the park if he was updating those mobile homes. Yeah. I'm not, you know, um I did, we don't control any of that. However, I do want to state that um what I didn't go over and was probably in your staff report is that HCD, the state housing community development is charged with um the operation of it. Yeah. Of overlooking. So, yeah, they they go through the state for everything other than the land use entitlement. Right. That was just a comment that I observed when I went out there. And have they talked to the adjacent property owner, the Springs, and what's the likelihood that they would give access? Yes, they have. And we've gotten a email from Hilltop Springs owners and saying that they are open to offering easement to them. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions of staff before we go to public hearing?

Good. Okay. Thank you. What we will do next is um open the public hearing. Again, at this point, I have one blue speaker card. If someone else wishes to speak, we would ask you to complete a card and bring it up here to uh one of the clerks. And so, with the public hearing open, I will call upon Linda Cheetum uh to come up to either one of the lecterns, whatever you're most comfortable with, and address the commission. and you will be given 3 minutes to make your comments. Good evening. Um, I don't have a lot of questions because I I live in the the Woodcliffe Estates area and not in the mobile home park. I'm I'm sorry. Excuse me. Do me a favor. Get a little closer to the microphone. Thank you so much. Better. That's better. Okay. Thank you. and my little disclaimer about the hearings going. Thank you. Okay. So, I live like right behind the mobile home park just on um Woodcliffe. So, um my one of one of my concerns is that are you going to be opening up the end of Woodcliffe for traffic to come down there out of the mobile home park? because we were promised that that was going to be opened years ago and it's still closed off. So, we don't have anything but through pepper tree if we have an emergency in our neighborhood. So, that's one of my questions. Um, and I think I know now where they're going to be putting the new lots because that wasn't in the pamphlet. So, do you discuss that now or do you do that later? Um, yeah. What I'd like to do is get comments from uh public and then I'm

confident that we're going to be able to turn to staff and have them answer that question. I wrote it down and then if there's any other further clarifications needed, they will call you up. Is that all right with you? Thank you. Very good. Thank you very much. The the next card that I have is from Noah Starkson. So Noah Hello, my name is Noah Starkson. I live on um Woodcliffe Drive which is just south of this and our properties border on some of this. And I wanted to draw attention to some concerns I have and I think discrepancies because with what I just heard, 24 units being proposed, all of which on the northwest side, but this plan shows our highlighted 20, but we didn't talk at all about the four units on the south side, which would be directly adjacent to the properties of me and my neighbors. Um, that was a little concerning to not hear that addressed at all in this. That's where there's a large hill and grading needing to be done. The on this picture here, you see the line at the bottom is the property line. So, they will have to put a pretty steep embankment or retaining wall right up against property line and fences. Um, with that, I mean, there comes some um obvious concerns. I bought the house about about four years ago. Knowing we have this beautiful open space right behind us. Now seeing some development added, even if it's in that area puts it right up against is a little concerning, especially for our property values in the future. Um the one of the other

concerns in the um environmental impact or the I forgot what it was called, but as they looked at bats specifically and located like these three spots is where we decided to is where we were looking for bats. Everything none of them were on the south side. They were all on the north side. Um and I know for me personally, I can go out on my deck any night and hear and see bats any night I go out there. So, it felt like this plan may have been done or the responses and how the city's looking at planning for this doesn't reflect that southern portion that was in the plans that we see here. I'm not sure why it's not highlighted, but even if as I looked in as I counted as we're talking here, that's 20 up top, not the 24 that's being proposed here. Um, make sure I hit everything. Oh, and then I have some con the other concerns are just around the the oak trees especially. Um, and again, I'm not my concerns are not on the northern edition up there. It's all this southern section and those it's only four units being added, but the oak trees are going to have to get taken down there as well as a number of oak trees right up against it. If we're putting a retaining wall or a big embankment, that's going to affect those oak trees in a lot of ways. And um, so that was my other concern. Thank you. Yeah, thank thank you very much. Sorry about that. I always have to make notes or else it goes away. So, with that, I will uh see no other speaker cards, I'll close the public hearing. Uh bring it back for commissioners to ask questions of staff and and get clarifications first. Um I'll go ahead and hit the things that I wrote down that I heard. And the first one was uh

opening or vehicular access Woodcliffe to the south. Uh staff, are you able to bring up a um go back to one of the previous exhibits and address that question? No one [Music] takes So I I know you guys are analyzing, but I think simply put the question is was there consideration for requiring or providing access to Woodcliffe to the south? Um, does everybody know what spot we're looking at? Okay. Two roads. Two roads come together. The current future or current woodcliff called a call it a knuckle in the transportation world. Uh so the Springs facility is a multi-phased was a multi-phaseed project or is that still hasn't built their second phase. As part of that they have to construct their sewer line that goes down Woodcliffe and then connects to the sewer that is in current Woodcliffe Drive. It's part of the Pepper Tree subdivision. Uh when

doing that they were not conditioned to build the road. However, the city has we have uh put street st dollars to a project that is currently in the early design phases. So, the city will actually construct that road when the developer builds the sewer line. Um current time frame is not we don't you know it's under development but figure the next couple of years we should have that project delivered. So, so to clarify the what we see is part of a road easterly of the springs, correct? Would be extended southerntherly to tie into Woodcliffe. Correct. And the city has already obtained the necessary rideway in that area. Okay. Uh, anyone have any further questions on that item? So, not a requirement of this development, but the city's working on a project to do so. Yes. Thank you. And the access road would stay because you still need it. It doesn't connect to that's how you connect a woodcliffe. Correct. Okay. Correct. Very good. Thank you. And then the next one was addressing I think to break it up into separate questions um the number of units and are there did you inadvertently um omit the discussion of the four proposed units along the southerntherly side of the development? I did inadvertently and let me point to you up here where those units will be. Sorry. Right here. Yes. Thank you. Okay. So, I think that there's concurrence um with the commenter that that there was a that there was a whoops there by staff and that that there are four more units than what was origin presentation. Um, and then there was a comment about being able to hear bats and was that considered and I'm just wondering if that is addressed in that there are standard conditions of approval in all

likelihood coming that'll say you can only um remove trees in the non maternal etc season. I won't get my terms right. And if you don't do that, you have to send a biologist out there and verify that there are not any nesting bats before you remove oaks. That's great. That's all federally protected. And so it it is a standard condition. Um so if during bat nesting season, obviously, you know, they they they need to do surveys and things like that. And if they're are found, then they've got to follow protocol as to uh when they can construct and how they you know, maybe the bats and birds need to fledge before construction starts. Yeah. And as I recall, if it's before fledging, there are ways to scare them away, let them nest somewhere else, but once they've truly nested, then you work around them. That's correct. And you delay your construction or set buffer zones or things like that. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. So, are there any other questions from commissioners about the BAT question or comment from public? Okay. seen none. Um and then um oak tree removal along that um same side which um what I what I will comment on is I don't see and maybe it exists somewhere else a preliminary landscaping plan. Will will there be I guess my question is will there be some tree planting required along that side because the commenter talked about an embankment or a retaining wall. The preliminary design clearly shows an embankment. If if in my bif focals I counted contours maybe that's uh six feet um vertically and there'll be an embankment and will there have to be some tree planting along that side to offset the removal or is that not included? I am looking on page packet

page 35. I'm sorry. You say 35. 3 35. Thank you. And if we're looking at what they're calling the um C2.1, I am looking at the architecturual plan area two at the very bottom and proposed. You can see the depth of that grading is about 40 feet from the existing park road at the deepest and down to 33 farthest to the east. And I see proposed 15gallon trees in the front of the units, but none are proposed on the back. Probably because it's too steep. Typically, it's not recommended to plant trees in steep slopes. I see what you're getting at. There's a It might be circle note number nine typically pointing to four trees along the front of the units. And then would it be accurate to say I'm not of course we might have to cross reference to the tree survey, but um it's only showing one tree over existing tree over there in the corner. Um and the aerial suggests there's more trees. So So the mapping here does not show the trees that are getting removed. Is that just for accuracy? I'm not offering commentary yet. Yeah. From what I could tell, it looks like three to four existing trees that will be removed. Yeah. Okay. I'm seeing the same thing. Okay. So, at least I think it's clarified what's proposed at this point, what's in, what's out. Are there any further comments that'll clarify that before we go into further commission comments? Okay, with that I'll turn to commissioners. Thank you uh to the staff there. Any questions of staff or comments amongst ourselves? Please go ahead,

commissioner. Mine are just comments. Um so I know that in reading MPA is responsible for mobile homes parks, but other cities have taken that over. Has that ever been a consideration for you guys? Not that I'm aware of. I just because I'm not sure how much MPA really comes and does their job where I feel like the city taking ownership of that would do a better job. So that's comment one. And then I would just like to suggest for uh condition 18 where the common uh area that they do something more than just a fire pit that they could really use some sprucing up to that mobile home park. So, I would like to see something more extensive than some of the suggested items. Those are my comments. I'd like to add to that. I visited the park the other day and um I would concur that it it needs some upgrading and if they're going to expand into a recreation area that it needs to be more specific than than what we've got in front of us today. Yeah, that's on condition 18. Yes, Commissioner Nance. Commissioner Ryan, I have the same idea. Okay. That you did. So, I hit mine. Yeah, same. Uh, just a a question on the four houses or the proposed sites, excuse me, on the south side. Um the 15 foot setback I'm reading on that packet page 35. It is that setback is that for these new pads or is that for the the homes off of Woodcliff? Like what is that setback?

That is a required minimum setback that they're showing. Right. So Yep. And they are sending it back looks like almost twice as far. Okay. Gotcha. And then uh with these proposed sites on the south side um are there are they going to have to do they're going to have to dig plumbing, gas, right? Yes. All permanent utilities. And where does that tie into? Is it part is it on the street? Is it in the mobile home park or where does that where's all that trenching going to happen? Is it um that's not being provided in the details here, but logic has it that they're going to extend it through the existing Park Road on the north side. tie into that. Yeah. Okay. And then the uh the other question is that pond on the east side. I I I read the environmental report and it was mentioned that they I think malards like were resting in there, but there wasn't a lot of I mean environmental impact report you have a pond right there and there was they didn't really pond. Yes. Yeah. So just any I'm just curious why environ the envir environmental impact report was just for this site but then you have a water you have a water source there. They didn't really even talk about how that was going to be impacted. So right it's on a separate piece of property not even owned by the property owner. I understand that 100%. It's just but they c they cannot impact it. Um they can't they can't inspect it. They can't comment on it. Right. Any storm water has to stay on their site. Yeah. It cannot um drain into that pond. Is that recreational or like who owns that that water? It's private property. Yeah, it's it's been there for a long long time. I'm sure it has. Yeah. Okay. And then this road that has to this um uh what are we calling the road that's

going to be that's going to hit the Woodcliffe easement? Is that what we're calling it? Emergency access road. Emergency access road. Yeah. So that's just going to be just a paved road. Is there going to be a gate that controls that or are residents going to be able to use that to go in and out or how does that work? It's only for emergency purposes only. So, it's uh that they call it a NOX box where emergency vehicles have access with a remote and they can open that gate. Gotcha. Okay. Okay. That's that's all my questions. Thank you. Okay. Anything else before we uh circle back to I think we had two comments uh that were specific to uh considering maybe a condition modification. Yeah, but I would I think it'd be appropriate to say any any feedback on that from staff because staff worked with the applicant for quite some time to get to this point. Um yes, I just want to I'm looking at condition 18 right now. It's very open-ended. Um, it's not it's not requiring them to do anything one particular, but it looks like we could probably um ask for something more finite. Um, it says this area could include children's play area, swimming pool, and or community room, barbecue area with shade elements, turf play areas, or similar improvements. final plans to be reviewed and approved, but it's at the developer's final choice. It says, "Yeah, my preference just as one person would be um hearing comments from commissioners would be for staff to propose perhaps a way to modify that condition. It's um uh a little better

than us trying to do it from our uh from our rockers um to to give it a little more um specificity uh that will result in a little um you know a little higher likelihood of some quality. Well um you know this is just from my experience. We've uh approved some multiple family uh developments in, you know, the recent past. They've done things like a half basketball court and a small community room. Um that is I'm I'm thinking of Altruist Crossing, which is the one over on Browning. Um K2 built that. And um but I don't know if we want to go to that extent here. I I would recommend shade element because people want to go outside barbecue or a you know a play area something like that to that extent. All they're showing right now on the plan is a patio concrete patio. Yes, please commissioner. Exactly. That was my concern is it's all the way in the front of the the project and it's tiny. Um, I know when we did Lynen Apartments, they did a playground in the center of it. And I just I worry that that's going to be just an awning and maybe a barbecue for everyone to use there. And I would like to see something more than that. So, your suggestion, I I don't mind the shade, but if we could add like then turf. So, there's a turf area there. But going back to the drawings, uh, it it doesn't look like it's going to be much more than a little awning of shade. Yeah, we'll get a set of final plans. So, we

won't we won't look at building plans for this project. That'll happen through HCD, but public works, you will be looking at a set of grading plans, right? A final set of grading plans which will incorporate this element. So, The condition as written is pretty open-ended, which would allow us at the staff level to approve. But if this body wants something more specific, I would suggest that condition 18 uh we'd have to take away some of that open-endedness so that upon plan review when we review the final set of plans, we have something to judge it against. Yeah. Condition 18 ends with the owner's discretion. So, I would like to at least throw that back to uh city's discretion. Um, are you saying the last the developer's final choice and plans for comment shall be provided with final plan review? Yes. But that does that still give you It doesn't mean we have to accept it at plan review. It gives you a chance to Yeah. But it it does help staff um you know Lily can correct me if I'm wrong, but I mean generally the more open-ended a condition is, the the more flexibility we have during final plan review, but also that can be good and bad. Right. Right. So, if this body wants um something a little more ironclad and that condition to be a little more objective and straightforward, that would help us at plan review. Uh well, my suggestion is taking off the barbecue part that that it needs to be something more than just a community grill there. Yeah, that's my suggestion. So, I think perhaps I suggest uh the second to last sentence to replace it with Instead of saying this may include, we should say this should minimally shall minimally include um a turf area, shade element, and a barbecue area. I would love that. I'm not saying we should demand that of the developer. I'm

more just wanting to remove the that they could barbecue area stands by itself and then it says and shade. So, if we could just get rid of the the barbecue line that says barbecue area, just take that out, I'd be happy. Is that code? If I'm understanding you, Commissioner, it's because you're reading this and or right a community room and or a barbecue area with a shade element. That's how you're reading. The grammars grammar is tricky as we argue over commas or nots. Then at the very end it also says or similar improvements. Yes. Yeah. Just give me a minute. I'm I'm looking at the code section in particular. The reference zoning code. Uh let's see here. 183130C. Lily, do you know if that's is it is this specifically codified? Um or what does this body have the perview to change? It is it is codified. 18313 C. Just give us a second. Is it going on?

changes. I don't know why we crossing with the So, I'm uh just grabbing our zoning code here. Says common outdoor activity areas typically consist of landscape areas, walks, patios, swimming pools, barbecue areas, shade elements, playgrounds, turf, or other such improvements as are appropriate to enhance the outdoor environment of the development. Um, so that's that's what our code says. um the condition doesn't read exactly in that manner but it does offer some flexibility and mention some of those elements. So um I would say it's the purview of this body to if we want to make that condition more objective and clear and perhaps um narrower in scope that would be your prerogative. How much area is this? No I I can see it on the thing but what is that? How much space is that? square foot. The code code requires a minimum of 80 square feet. Um, so it's at minimum that, but likely I don't have a scale with me, but it's probably a little bit bigger. It's half half the size of a single wide mobile pretty much. Yeah. So, no swimming pool. No. Uh, yeah. It's keynote. Is it keynote 8? Is that right? Yes. Right. So, not to mention, but I suppose this body can assume it's at minimum what the code requires, 80 square feet, which isn't a whole lot. Um, so, so I did hear Commissioner Will Williams say that perhaps she might make a motion that just strikes barbecue area, which wouldn't prevent that from being included. No, not at But it prevents it from being just a barbecue as our grimarian in the group um from saying no, it's just a barbecue area. And I say that tongue and cheek because now you're over my head on Yeah. No, I I would be I would like to make a motion just to remove the

barbecue portion when Yeah. Okay. When we're ready. Okay. Yeah. So I I I think we're probably there. Just have a couple. Commissioner N. Yeah. Just a uh question. So, the RV parking, the five spaces, I think it's number five in this five. Um, so the recreational parking for recreational vehicles. Um, that's just unattended un people just park their RVs there. They're not the the owner's not renting out those spaces. There's not hookups there. Yes. It's only for parking. They don't have storage. And that's regulated. And that's correct. all that not rented to you and I if we have an RV and nowhere to park it. Yeah. And then um it just opinion from staff. So those just kind of going back to those four spaces on the south side just really been you know uh when I first looked at this when I got the packet it just it seems just really tied in there and I I did you know consider looking at the contour lines and all of that and I don't know that just like in your opinion because there's a lot of grading that's going to have to happen right on these people's property line and um you're kind of just they're kind of just stacking them in there on the north side seems like open space and they can do what they're asking to you, but to squeeze in these four spaces here that just seems really tight uh overall. So, what you know, you're in the business of, you know, looking at grading and moving earth and all that. Do you think it's even doable? I mean, it's tight. It is right there on the line. Yeah. Well, they would, you know, certainly the codes all and standards will all apply, right? So, they'll have to meet our grading ordinance um and do it properly. they'll have to meet our setbacks. Um, as Miss Toy described, they're meeting a general plan conformance and density. So, we're not allowing these units to exceed max

density for this zoning district, right? So, um, you know, yes, it it can be done. You know, uh, the engineer can it but it has they will have to follow the codes and standards per what I just outlined. So, um, we're not allowing, as far as I'm aware, any kind of, uh, variance to our codes, any sort of narrower setbacks, any sort of exceptions. They'll have to meet the the same development standards anyone else would in the city. So, if the property can fit it and they can meet all of our codes and standards, then uh, you know, we'd have this body would have to make a finding that would that allow us to deny those four units. And I not I'm not sure where that finding would come from here off the top of my head. Um just some initial thoughts in response to your your question, Commissioner Nance, but um when we do get final improvement plans, the public works team will review and make sure that the grading is to standard and meets codes and regulations, and we'll plan check it to setbacks and the like. So it'll meet all uh pertinent development regulations. Okay. Thank you. With that, I' I'd like to make one comment and then I was going to call for a motion. Um, and my comment is the thing that came through uh for me on this project is uh you know, East Coast development in the US, we had tiny homes and they meant a lot of different things. A lot of them were ADUs, a lot of them were converted basement, they were garages and backyards. we developed in California and we did away with all that with our our our big bigger bigger bigger our different zoning theories. Yet we filled the niche of providing what I would call old school tiny homes by having mobile home parks and trailer parks. And over several decades ago that fell out of favor for a lot of good reasons, but I would contend for a lot of um reasons that are not good for our

society. And so for years, my personal opinion is as we've been branding, not you don't hear as much about it now, but we did a few years ago, this this tiny home as a new thing. And I would look at everybody and say, "No, it isn't. That's a trailer park." And a trailer park is a wonderful niche housing solution. Comes with some challenges, especially for fire and law enforcement and social services. I'm not discounting that. But uh we need more options for housing that are affordable. And again, full disclosure, I put my way through college living in a trailer park. Um my first home out of out of college was a single wide mobile home because it was affordable for me and my family. It was a beautiful way to live. So I'm all in favor of it quite frankly. And with that said, I'm hoping Commissioner Will is ready to uh offer a motion that supports staff recommendation with striking two words out of condition 18. If that's what you said. So, I'll make a motion to approve use permit application UP 2022301684 by Casa Park Homes to expand existing 47 unit mobile home park by 24 units on property located at 11037 Ericson Way in an RM residential multiple family 9 unit per acre district with the condition 18 change to remove barbecue. And is there a second? I'll second the motion. We have a second. Any discussion or comments from staff before just to clarify that's just removing the the word barbecue or barbecue area with shade elements or or just to be specific area?

Just barbecue area. I would love the shade element but barbecue area. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions or comments before I call for a vote? Good. All in favor say I. I. I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you for everybody for your patience on that one as we worked through that item. the next item on the agenda and I will do the um uh blue card reminder for anybody that may wish to speak on the next item and uh the next item is 4B2 uh coming back again standard conditions of approval for the city of Reading and I believe we have uh Mr. Schlgel working his way up to the lect turn and I will turn it over to you sir. All right. Thank you, chair, commissioners, members of the public. My name is David Schlaggel, senior planner for the planning division and bringing back to you today the standard subdivision uh conditions of approval update after getting direction to bring it back to local developers for a workshop and some revisions. Uh just to reiterate, these are standard conditions that apply to all subdivisions in the city. uh just to make sure that they're meeting city standards, they're current with our general plan policies, current with state laws, uh federal laws, and the and the like. Um which pertain to the development of the subdivision. A little bit more background on that. You know, we could simply site our code, site all the laws and and have some developer or somebody who may not develop that often go searching for that. But back in 2010 or even prior, the development community was finding that not to be ideal. And so the effort was made to create these

standard conditions in one place. And it's not going to maybe encompass everything that a subdivision might have to deal with uh for development, but the idea is that we're providing more streamlining and efficiency by keeping these all in one place, making sure developers are aware of what's uh what they're signing up for before they get their project entitled. Um, and over as time passes, there's reasons to update these standards. And as I talked about last time, this uh, commission has the authority to make modifications under uh, the subdivision ordinance. And some of those reasons are listed here. You have new adopted standards by the city uh since 2010, changes to city ordinances, changes to state law and policies over time, the recently updated general plan 2045 EIR and all the policies in that general plan and mitigation measures in the EIR. And one thing that probably didn't mention last time, but uh we were have been made aware since adopting our general plan EIR is uh an option for SQA streamlining with an exemption under section 15183 which actually mandates that projects that are consistent with uh city general plan densities uh be looked at for this exemption essentially. And there's recent case law that uh directs cities and jurisdictions to do just that. making sure that if you have a newly adopted general plan EIR and the project's consistent and meets other qualifying factors u streamlining the project through not basically not doing the environmental review a second time um and making sure that there's no project specific effects which are peculiar to the project site or the project itself in doing so. Another uh criteria with using this uh streamlining exemption is making sure that environmental effects are limited to those that are identified in the initial study or other analysis. So every project that you're going to see come forward as a subdivision is going to

have some type of an initial study or other analysis whether it be there's something peculiar and we can't exempt it or whether we're staff saying we think we could support the exemption because it's consistent with the general planning IR and things like that. So I just want to point this process out. And one other key component of this is um the general plan EIR mitigation measures which we're recommending be incorporated into standard conditions. Um and then that if there's anything that can't be substantially mitigated um through the general plan AR they be mitigated through uniformly applied development policies or standards. And that's um obviously the more uh standard things you already see in our codes that that do just that. And the general plan EI talks about those things in its analysis um for the for the overall general plan for the city. Um and some of those things find their way before you today as these standard conditions are um being amend recommended for amendment as uh policies and mitigation measures surrounding these topics here. I talked on on this last time and I kind of want to go fast here because we already talked about some of these changes. If you want to stop me, slow me down, please do. Um, but yeah, just talking about conditions that have been incorporated new and added on to the previous standard conditions that we had adopted. Um, in relation to our general plan update that there's wildfire air quality standard, uh, mitigation measures, um, biological resource impacts that the m the general plan E discusses that we want to make more standard. We've been applying them to projects in as standard practice, but we figure we can find a way to make them actually standard. Um, and cultural and geological resources. Some laws have changed over time and and uh I'll touch on that in a little bit here. Um, so what we did was with your recommendations, we went back to uh local developers and consultants um with what we had drafted up and got a lot of

good positive feedback. Sorry, going through hazard hazard mater hazardous materials and noise as well. Let's not discount those. Um, and we had some recommendations and and and it was very productive and we uh very very glad we had this opportunity to do that. One of the first changes you see in the packet is condition number nine representing previously condition number nine and 13. We're recommending they be incorporated as one. Basically, there's a lot of redundancy between the two and um uh this makes it address all the concerns with essentially developing the site without fully having approved plans or an entitled project for for example. Uh we did get a recommendation to change some language just before this meeting and you see that under the the text there that says condition number nine and number 13 were combined. So we are recommending a change here uh for the record that uh the language where it says the developer must secure approval of subdivision improvement plans add partial or full before that. Um the recommendation was that it be uh the appropriate improvement plans and strike subdivision from the record. However, working with department of public works that didn't make sense for us. So um this is being recommended to you as a a minor change to improve this uh condition number nine. Uh condition 15 was amended for clarity. This deals with drainage infrastructure and a lot of different rules and regulations involving that but particularly city council policy 1806. We wanted to make sure it was clear how uh that policy was going to be applied to uh subdivisions in a standard way. Uh this is an easy ad um very good addition by the consultants to mention that water districts also care about irrigation water when it comes to subdivisions. As far as this uh public safety fire

condition, there's redundancy between 25 and 26 and we recommending that they be combined and working with the fire marshall did not want to lose the language regarding uh easements and service on for onlot hydrants or flag lots. So, uh this is the recommended version. Um reducing some conditions is is good and making uh sure they're uh not redundant between one another. This was uh very positive for us. Uh condition number 21 is just adding some flexibility there at the end. Um just in case there's scenario where the city's paying for some portion of a project, making you know having the old language didn't quite make sense. There might be some anomalies out there where this condition doesn't actually work. So we added some language for flexibility and um this was reduced condition number 31 was reduced to just essentially remove language that's in the code and the code's referenced there in chapter 1620. So we just removed a lot of the language that you can just go look up yourself and that was a good recommendation. Um here we have getting into the biological conditions um some good improvements to directly address what we're trying to do for projects that would would qualify um is just to simply identify minimization measures that have been identified in a study rel in relation to the project and incorporating that into the project as a standard practice. Um, we've also wanted to reformat um that section because there's a lot of subsections that deals with specific species or um features and in addition to that referencing aquatic resources appropriately and removing the scenario of a of a ratio that we um assume a resource agency would require of a project and just leaving it up to those resource agencies that have that authority.

And I should point out here that the exhibit A is accurate. However, the strike through version in your packet um doesn't reflect adequately that we're proposing to strike subsections A through D of uh former condition number 42. And that was because it was getting really into the weeds on what a a resource agency might require of a project and really just wanted to defer to those agencies and and making sure it's standard practice that the projects are in consultation with those agencies to do it the right way and get the proper permits. And this last one is has been reworked. Condition number 45 now has been split in two really because as we looked at it there's different laws that categorize cultural and tribal cultural resources in two different ways. Um public resources code section 211074 actually uh requires that consultation be done if tribal cultural resources identified by a tribe that has cultural affiliation to the site. And so that's also been incorporated into our general plan as a policy. Um, and so we thought rather than combining the scenario where there could be cultural resources that aren't tribal cultural resources and tribal monitors and things like that, we we split that off separately. And it doesn't have the full text here. So if you want me to uh reference that or read that, I can. But ultimately what the second uh condition that's recommended here does is identify the proper methods to deal with um findings unexpect unanticipated findings of a cultural resource separate from an actual bar human remains of some kind. And so we wanted to make sure that was following step by step what the law says and consistent with our general plan as well. And I think we hopefully have something that you could uh consider for

approval. Um just want to point out that what you're doing today in potentially approving uh standard sub conditions is not uh subject to squa can be seen with certainty that there's no possibility that updating these conditions would have a significant effect on the environment. In addition, any action taken to assure the maintenance and protection of the environment when applied to future projects is exempt from sequel under section 15308. And hopefully covered everything. If not, I'm here for questions. At this time, staff's going to recommend that after carrying out a public hearing, uh, this commission approve the proposed standard subvision conditions of approval update as revised and adopt the planning commission resolution. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions. Okay. Thank Thank you very much. Um, I'll go ahead and ask my couple questions first. Um, first thing is I I try to remember I have a note, but then I forgot. Just wanted to disclose I did have conversations very briefly with with uh Mr. Schlaggel about this a couple days ago, a very brief conversation in in preparation for this as well as a conversation with uh Mr. Dormer, a consultant with Sher Dun, sorry. But those are the only um outside of this um setting conversations I had. Um I did then the next thing I just wanted to be sure because we see that in in the example project we just approved that the conditions end up getting presented in a different format than it than they're presented to us in that they are a checklist or there's checkboxes because um that that makes it easier to digest as presented originally. I'm going to be the guy that will confess that I said, "Holy cow, the checkboxes are going away because they weren't presented last time." But now I see that or I believe that they're actually going to be added. And so there's a whole bunch of things here that will only be applicable if staff determines they're applicable. Is that correct?

Actually, no. For subdivisions, we do not uh so if we do bring back updates for use permit standard conditions, we would probably still have checklists. and our practice for subdivisions. It's not a checklist. However, I think the language um is pretty much as applicable. You know, for instance, if a project has an environmental study that says do X, our standard condition is really just saying that you're going to do that essentially. Okay. Thank you. And you anticipated why that makes my head hurt a little bit. And I see that you you did make some changes there that that clarifies that it's if something exists, then these things happen, whereas what we saw last time didn't necessarily say that. I think that was the the intent. So, okay, I'm I'm going to let that go then and move on to my next um um item, and that is just for the benefit of um all commissioners and public. What you said you pulled people together who participated in your um little ad hoc study group? Yeah, I mean we we didn't have a large workshop. Um Sheridan Labs Sawyer does a lot of subdivisions around the around here. Josh Johnson was there. Got comments from yourself. Uh Bruce Grove and Josh Miller wasn't able to attend but he is happy with the changes he he mentioned to me. So um you know if if if that's not enough certainly not sure what else we could have done but to get people there, but that was very productive for us. No, I appreciate that. I just think that it's good for everyone to know who who who was or wasn't. I was out of town and I uh uh probably caused a few eye rolls. I submitted written comments. Uh but I submitted them in three different formats to make it easy and that probably made it worse, but you guys have been very polite about that. Thank you. Um and then if I understood you correctly, there were two conditions, number nine and number 42 that you said what we have in the package is not what you're proposing today. Uh, nine should be correct. And I'm

talking about the strikethrough version. I just realized before this meeting that it still shows subsections A through D of 42 as not being struck. And okay, thank you. Because we see it in three different presentations, right, in the back and the striketh through version is not the one we should be looking at when we're making a decision on number nine. The final exhibit A is accurate for what we're recommending. Yeah, that that's that's good. I'm I'm going to be okay with that then. And then but was there an anomaly in number 42? Well, no. So for Yeah, that that is the anomaly is that subsections A through D and there's a last sentence in there that we reference those subsections about to be read recommending striking those. Um yeah. So I I think hear you saying that there there are I'll say anomalies in the striketh through version of the packet, but in the final black and white at the end it as we focus on that it's as staff is recommending. Correct. Okay, good. And I said that because sometimes rightfully so, you'll slip in a a revision at the last minute, but you're not doing that. Well, we are asking for one minor revision to condition number nine. Yeah, sorry. Okay, then I didn't I didn't ask my question very well then. So when I get to the black and white number nine, you're actually proposing something different. Yes. Sorry about that. And and so that that's probably important since and and we don't have a piece of paper on that. Is that correct? No, I can get you to the slide. Okay. Very very good. Thank you. You're seeing more and more of my neurosis of how I track things. Yeah. So just above the cutout for condition number nine, the language reads as we would propose it. Um so continuing the sentence where it says prior to the start of any clearing, grading or any construction activities, the developer must secure approval of partial or full subdivision improvement

plans that are consistent with the city's adopted construction standards, grading ordinance, and other applicable regulations for grading. Um yeah, we worked with the Department of Public Works to uh take the recommendation from the consultant to make something that would work for I think both parties. So So if I'm not saying this what's going to happen necessarily, but um presupposed commissioners, they haven't spoken yet, but that can be dealt with by um approving as presented with the change articulated by you in the presentation for number nine. Yeah, something like that is a way to wrap that up without having to worry about the wording beyond that. Okay. Okay. At least I understand where we are and um that's all that I have at this point. So um again at this asking for clarifications of staff stage before we open the public hearing. Anyone else have clarifications? Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. Much better this time. Really easier to read. Um, can you go back to the sequest slide for the the at the start of the presentation? Uh, yeah. Reading the section or so is this oh sorry that one the sequ go forward right there. Is this consistent with the new law that just took effect July 1st for SQA? And you know actually I haven't checked to see if this section has any amendments to it but in reading our the digest of what's coming. Yeah. Well, I know that the infill map isn't going to be produced by the state of California till 2027. So, until then, I understand it's the discrepancy of the developer and the city to get to those standards. So, I was just wondering if there would be guidelines for that until they get that map in place. I'm sure there will be guidelines. Um, one interesting thing is that the infill exemption that we normally use, I don't

see any changes to that. So, it's a kind of a separate infill section of SQL. Um, yeah. I mean, it's interesting. Yeah. Well, I just wonder it's gonna apply to very specific areas since we're redoing it. It looks like it's through 2045 if it needed to be addressed. It just seems like a pretty large change. I'm just asking because that's your expertise. I'm just asking if it would affect that. I don't know if staff has really any like u formulated comments on it other than we've looked at it and and I think a lot of the infill policies that are coming are consistent with the general plan. Okay. To that extent. That's good. Any other Commissioner Balovic? Oh god, please. So uh what was the what was the catalyst to even revamp this policy because it looks like 201 like what was the driving force who started the conversation why are we changing this so yeah like why did we have yeah why what's the I mean I would say it started as a recommendation from consultants on uh helping us complete our general plan EI and we were made aware of uh case law that said we shall actually look get exemptions um like this for projects consistent with the general plan ER and we realize that we're going to need to update our standards just to reflect policies that have been uh adopted in that new general plan. So so that opened the books, right? Yeah. So the ER opened the books and then the books are open like well let's change a couple more things. Uh yeah, I think yes, exactly. There's we started looking at other things that have been changed since that time that and which consultant was the one that what was the spark or the driving force? Are they part of the were they part of the re revision of this? We yeah we worked with place works uh out of Sacramento.

Um is that a city contracted consultant? They were contracted to do our general plan environmental impact report. We hired staff to do the work on the general plan itself. We hired a senior planner for a couple years and then we contracted out the squa portion to place works engineering. So the city still pays that consultant. No, no, that was just as part of the general plan effort, right? But I I think twice the answer is yes to his question. Did the city did they get paid? Yes. Did the city pay contract for place works to do the work as opposed to someone else? Yeah, we contracted with a planning firm, planning consultant, environmental consultant to do SQA and they they did the EIR portion of the general plan and they were paid for that work and that work's now completed. And then let me just so but part of that did they out of that work they said oh you need to update this this subdivision plan. Yeah. Kent Emanuel and one of the principles with Place Works were having a discussion as as that project came to a close and he said, "Hey, you know, now that you have a new general plan AIR, it really makes sense to go back and update your standard subdivision conditions of approval so the two match." Gotcha. Yeah. Okay, great. So, it was a recommendation, sure, from that consultant, but it's also good planning practice. Now, we have this nice new I mean, our our old general plan is was 20 to 25 years old. Yeah. So upon adoption of that document, it made sense to now go back and do some cleanup and that's what this is. Okay, great. And just to um piggyback on what the chair was asking like the participants of this workshop, can you just say it slower? You said Josh Johnson. Who was the other ones that were part of this? Uh have two folks from Sher Dun Dunlop Sawyer, Tim McLean, Mike Dormer. Um we had emails with Bruce Grove and Josh Miller. So okay, specific parts of this plan. I'm sorry. So, I'm just so I mean, just full transparency, you've got developers saying, "Hey, the books are open. Let's change this and change that." And it seems like it needed to be changed. It's just um I'm just a little concerned,

that's all that you've got developer, local developers like actually writing public policy that wouldn't care that way. Well, I mean, this is policy, right? Right. But but staff is recommending it because we agree that it is consistent with uh standards and laws. I I agree. I'm not I'm just saying it's just the, you know, Like I mean were there any commissioners other than the chair chair said he answered some questions regarding some of these things? No. In fact everybody you saw at the last time May 13th who came up and spoke um I think maybe one didn't speak. It was Bruce Grove. Sure. They were there and so it was working with them. Okay. And then and when you developed like when was the workshop? I would say it was probably three weeks after that plan of commission hearing. I don't have the exact date. Okay. And is that just common practice? Uh well in fact the the subdivision ordinance um directs staff to work with the development community on these standard conditions. Okay. So and do you do you work with the same developers or do you spread the wealth? Do you ask other developers to come in? I think it was a completely different contingent of developers when we did this in 2010. Okay. Yeah. Just trying to educate because I know people like pay attention to this stuff. I mean I think you wanted to say something. I thought commissioner I thought you were saying something making a comment or something like that. Okay. Just trying to understand the transparency of this. So making sure that you know Yeah. I mean we we sent it to some additional developers and consultants didn't hear anything. Okay. Also ask that the developers who were on the email chain share it. Um but beyond that that's that's the extent of the workshop. Okay. Okay. Great. And then um yeah I just had one on number 30. Can we go to that one real quick please? So it says uh in the event and I must go on to the checklist one right here. So it says in the event of any confusion, conflict, vagueness, typographical error, special circumstance for implementation of any standard or project specific condition is in

question. Development services director has the authority in accordance with that section to determine the appropriate remedy as necessary to ensure that the intent of the condition. So, can you just I mean, I've read it, but I just like to hear your explanation of that. Like confusion, conflict, vagueness. There's just a lot of power in that one box for like a giant plan. Yeah. I mean, I I I think that you could could find that over the years developers want to argue over um what something means, what something says, and we do our best to make sure that these standard conditions are uh from, you know, either the exact language of the code or interpreting in a way that makes it make sense um for somebody reading it. Uh other than that, if there's a discrepancy, it it does uh give difference to the director. So, is there any checks and balances with that? Are there any like like what does that look like? Yeah, I guess it would look like what this commission feels comfortable with that language saying um I mean does the city attorney review it? Is there you know it it's just very vague. I mean it's it it actually says vagueness in there. So it's just one person has like complete power to just make a decision based off of any of that. I'm sorry. That's how it works. I mean if I may I I can just I can let you know I this is basically every day of our our jobs, right? Where um these conditions we the standard conditions or project specific conditions. You always wish you could go back and write the condition a time or two, right? Because we write the condition as best as we can. But when we put pen to paper and a project applicant comes in and starts developing their grading plans, their site plans, their building plans, a lot of times we have to revisit that condition and we generally do have some debate on what did this condition actually mean and how is this supposed to be interpreted. So there has to be someone to make that

call. Now the code, the subdivision ordinance as well as our our zoning ordinance, if there's a disagreement and an interpretation of that code, there is checks and balance. There's also is the ability to appeal and bring it back to the board of administrative review or back to this body. And so as may maybe I'd like to think I have a lot of power, but generally I really don't. Um there's bodies above me where that appeal process can happen. So it's just meant to say, well, someone has to make the call, the first call if there's a disagreement later on after the project's entitled and now we're starting to put plans together. Someone's got to make the determination at staff level. Yeah. And I heard some I heard some comments from other commissioners. That's just how it's done. But have you ever seen litigation come out of that based off a decision that you've made or somebody else has made that then cost the city money because there is you know they don't they don't agree with it and there's a lot of money at stake here. I mean t in my time at the city I haven't I haven't seen that. Certainly it can happen. I mean certainly people will threat litigation. Um, sure. But but generally no, we revisit conditions upon I mean this happens all the time because it's easy for a condition of approval to go through and then when it actually comes down to developing plans and getting budgets and costs start coming into play, you're wrestling with trying to figure out what does that condition actually mean and what do I have to do to satisfy that condition. So that's just a daily interpretation we do every day. So I do feel more comfortable. I mean, I I appreciate the explanation instead of just assuming things. Um, but I I do like it that, you know, I guess this would go to the board of appeals. That's what you're talking about. And if if you weren't able to decide like you decide something and they're like, well, this doesn't work. So, the next step is the board of appeals. Is that Yeah, the zoning code. And if that was written in here, that might feel a little better like what's the remedy? It is standard too in the zoning code. Our zoning code under the administration chapter gives delineation of powers and talks about the director is sort of the first stop of making the call and then also spells out very clearly in our zoning code if the applicant does not agree they have the ability to then progress all the way to ultimately city council if they'd like to. Okay.

Um so maybe maybe even referencing that in here it's just maybe that feels a little better because that what you just talked about is somewhere else. And if I can further clarify that as well, um they can't file a lawsuit until they exhaust all of their administrative remedies first. Sure. So they have to go through that entire process before a lawsuit could be filed. Yeah. So even just referencing what you just said in this if I may attempt to clarify. Yeah. What this is one of those things that is true throughout this entire document. The majority of these items are a paraphrased version of what's already in the city ordinance. Sure. And so, um, I'd put it this way. This this condition could be struck in its entirety. I'm not proposing that. And the procedures that the director described would still apply. So, there's no there's no teeth nor there's a lot of teeth in this right here. There's giant teeth. And the process that he's already talking about is I like that. Let me let me back up. The law which is ordinance sure already says this is required and this is attempting to summarize it to give staff and developers a checklist on right. But everything they said all the other remedies are not in this right here. Like does that make sense? Like all the other process that you're talking about if there is a conflict it's not right here. It's not need to be there. No, there are there are dozens and No, I hundreds. I understand that, but it's just not I'm just reading what's on paper right here. And so you're not referring to the other the other ordinances, even if you reference that, which which was in fact one of my recommendations that they chose not to follow for good reason probably was was was don't say it if it's already somewhere else. Don't say it. Yeah. But but in this case, we have we have the most common things that come up that are conversation items day in day out on

projects and staff have attempted to say, "Okay, here's here's kind of a checklist." But I would also say this this particular item and the majority of these items don't compel anything beyond what's already in law with ordinance being city law. Yeah. So, if I could legislative condition 33 did say that um in terms of fees and there's a process for appeal for development impact fees and the uh consultants and development community said that's already in chapter 1620 that language is not necessary and recommended removing it and that's what we're recommending as on this slide here. So, um I guess you can go either way with it, but I'm just giving you some context of what was recommended by uh yeah, the workshop folks. Okay. I understand there's remedies that what you're talking about. It's just when I when I read that, it just seemed like a lot of power for one person and you know, we're built on checks and balances and you know, what are the remedies and and I'm hearing there are remedies and like that, but it's just not here. It's not even referenced, you know. So I'll I'll uh jump in real quick commissioners just to correct myself a little bit here. So we were looking up the ready municipal code 170480 and that is referenced there. You can see in conditions under condition 30 and um so just revisiting that I want to clarify in this case actually that's it's a verbatim language from that ready municipal code section. Okay. And then the appeal and this actually goes um says administrative determinations by the director shall be documented in writing so on and so forth and appealed actually to an appeals board um and so that's handled through this would be subdivision ordinance. So this might not actually go to bar or to PC but there's an appeals board the code requires us to establish. Um so that that is all codified in the municipal code. Sure. So we've it's always a balancing act. We've regurgitated some of the code and cited the code reference, but we didn't give

you all the RMC because that's elsewhere, right? So, it's it's a balancing act, but it is codified and is that reference section there 17, what is it? 4080 has further detail if that's helpful. Just adding that as some context. Okay. It's still it's still confusing. You could say it all day long and you're pointing all these different things. Yeah. I mean, I think I think the intent of that was to make it less confusing, but you know, um, yeah. I mean, I don't know. I'm just not comfortable with it. You can keep trying to explain it and I hear commentary over here. Um, you know, which is makes me uncomfortable because I'm just trying I'm just trying to get clarification about what's what I'm reading here. And you know, usually things are referenced to somewhere else and whatever. Um, so I mean, you just I I look at it through the lens of a developer from outside of Reading that's not part of, you know, the local community comes here and wants to build something and they look at this and they're like, you know, this is what they do and they go, "What is that?" And uh and at least they say, "Oh, that references at least there's a there's an appeal process. There's something that just allows allows us to, you know, continue what we're doing here, right?" That's all. Yeah. Yeah. And that's I mean it's in a box. It says it right there. You have all the power to do this. But it also references municipal code 170480. Yes. So that developer likely would have an attorney. Yes. And their attorney would go, I'm going to go look at that code, right? And then they read it and they tell tell the developer, actually, if you don't agree with Jeremy, you can go appeal this. You can do these other things, right? You know, I mean, that's sort of day in and day out. That's how it does work. Um, but I I hear you. I mean, we can't verbatim regurgitate all the code in the standard conditions. it would be, you know, thousands of pages long. Yeah. Um but I I for what it's worth, um I do feel comfortable that the condition references our specific municipal code and you go there and it's all spelled out in very very good

detail. Okay. For what it's worth. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I think we have not heard from um Commissioner Ryan. Did you have any comments that have not been I just wanted to say that the improvements on the cultural resources thing are awesome because it was crazy vague and I just I see it in other places uh where that is just all kinds of bad news and and this is much tighter and uh doesn't lead to all kinds of bad news. So anyway, I thought it was uh super well done. I went and looked at the resource code on that and the the one thing that was really helpful is it tightens down who gets to be a tribe. It isn't uh because the way it read before it was kind of like anyone could assert authority and hold the whole thing up. So uh m much better. I think everyone will live happily ever after. Awesome. I predict happily ever after. Very good. Thank you. Thank you. And circling back over here be because we still have a public hearing opportunity. Uh, Commissioner Balovic, Commissioner Willm. Okay, I'm good. Also, then what I'd like to do is thank staff and then I would like to open the public hearing. And I do not have any blue cards. If anyone wishes to speak, please speak now or forever. Uh, bring it back again. I'm not sure we have a hold your peace clause in this meeting. Uh, thank you. I now close the public hearing. With that, I will bring it back to commission for any other comments or are you ready to entertain a motion recognizing that it it staff's recommendation is everything we have in final black and white as amended by the screen on number nine. Is that correct? Did I get the number right this time? Thank you.

Any further comments? No, I will uh make with the change you should go first. But if you don't Well, I don't know. Is it any more I mean I I I guess I feel more comfortable after the explanation of that. Uh that was good facilitation. Thank you. So I I appreciate your patience. That's what we're here to do. Oh yeah. And we just want to make sure that we have good checks and balances. So my like I said my only concerns were where are you getting these developers from? Seemed like they have a lot of influence with policy and uh you know just make sure we spread the wealth and we include other developers instead of the ones that are you know Yeah. You know maybe spread that out or I don't know advertise it or just make it more fair. U because if I was a developer and I'm like well I'd like to say something. Yeah. I'd like to I'd like to have you know uh I'd like to be able to get in front of you and tell you what I think. Yeah. It just it becomes a little cloudy, a little murky. I'm just looking for more transparency, that's all. Yeah. No, I can appreciate that. Um, you know, we do talk to developers day in and out, day in and day out, out oftowners and folks that are here. You know, it's just part of our job. Um, and I will say in the five years of doing this here at the city that um, you know, like to to David's point, we did offer the extension to other folks. We, you know, we we know pretty much all the players in town. Some showed up, some didn't. Um, I've had workshops to talk through building codes. We have workshops all the time to talk through and get public input. And the reality is the developers are stakeholders in this process just like other property owners and other folks in the process too. Um, but as you know, and I know you've worked in municipal government, too. Uh, you can offer that up and generally not too many take you up on it, you know. So, we do our best outreach uh and and get that input. Um, and we'll continue. That's good to hear. That's all I'm asking for. We just spread the wealth. we just, you know, make sure everyone they choose to show up or not or whatever, at least everybody's kind of invited, you know, and yeah, we extended the umbrella and, um,

you know, I appreciate David's, you know, quick work to, uh, at the direction of this body put that workshop together, everyone that showed up to that public hearing was invited and then some. So, um, I think given the time constraints we had and trying to turn around quickly, we'd, uh, did about as good a job as we could have. So, I want to thank David for his time. That's great. And also the input of, um, the developers that invol were involved. I wasn't a part of the workshop myself, but I heard it was really constructive and appreciate everyone's time. So, yeah. Um, yeah. Okay, great. Thank you. So, with that, um, I will make a motion to approve subdivision application S- 2022-02416 and resoning application RZ-2024-0015. Oh, wait, that's not it. hand me yours. Hand me yours. What I normally do is say move staff recommendation with this modification. Okay. So, I I move to approve staff's recommendation with the addition that we didn't receive on item nine for approval. Thank you. Is there a second? I'd second. We have a second. and uh the piece we didn't receive but for for the notes we saw it on the board and it was explained orally. So we have we have a motion and second. Any further discussion before we call for a vote? All in favor say I. I. I. Any opposed? Thank you. Motion carries. Thank you very much. And really thank you very much to staff because that um this was one of those in all of your spare time um go back and do a whole lot of extra work and uh it's super appreciated in and being someone who gets to see under the under the hood a little bit of the extra work done. Thank you very much. Um and and I know you guys already got rid of Kent Manuel, but thank you. I I'll

pop in my note. Uh so those were the public um uh hearings. The next one is item number five, public comment, non-aggendaized items. And do we have anyone that wishes to speak on a non-aggendaized item? We have none. Moving on to number six, commissioner's comments. Any other commissioner's comments? Seeing none, director's report item number seven. Well, this is going to sound like an excuse, but I'm I'm fresh back from vacation and I'm still trying to get my head on straight. So, I don't have a report for you at this time. Perhaps you're sorely disappointed, but uh certainly if you have any questions, I'm available. Um and we'll be doing our recurring meetings here shortly with each of you to to catch up. I'm getting tapped on the shoulder by Miss Toy. Oh, well, I didn't know if that was my news to share, but Well, Commissioner Miner isn't here because he and his wife just had a baby. uh this morning. So, I offer my congratulations to him. And if he didn't want me to share that, I'll blame Lily. Uh but that concludes my comments. I'll have more for you next time. Okay, seeing nothing else, I'm going to move on to item eight and declare the meeting adjourned. Thank you everybody.