Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

the I hear the room beginning to hush a little bit. So, I'll welcome everybody to the uh planning commission meeting for the city reading, October 28, 2025. Uh, I will start by asking uh for a roll call. Chair Winnham here. Vice Chair Will here. Commissioner Bal Kovac here. Commissioner Godurch present. Commissioner Miner present. And Commissioner Nance absent. Commissioner Ryan present. Thank you.

Thank you very much. The next item on the agenda is uh approval of minutes. And I'm guessing the minutes didn't quite get prepared in time because it says there are not any from the last meeting yet. No problem. So that we will move on from. Um then we have um any other announcements be before I turn that over to Director Peagan. I will remind um everybody there are if you uh choose to speak on one of the items on the agenda

or on a non-aggendaized item uh when that time comes there are purple cards in the back of the room or on the table in the back. Uh the best approach is to fill that out. Um even if you just plain language put down which project you want to speak to and then hand it to uh one of the staff members that are right up here up front. Um, the other thing will be to uh just be respectful of cell phones and and noise and that sort of thing. I'd ask you to do that just so that things move along efficiently for no other reason than that. As uh these guys will attest to every meeting that I'm in, I tend to say, please put your face into the microphone because um I just can't quite hear otherwise. And with that, I would like to turn it over to uh Director Peagan to see if he has any uh announcements as well as test his memory and and see if you can introduce city staff that are in the room that he only half the time I remember to ask him to do that.

Sure. Um yeah, no announcements from staff at this time. I'm not going to We have quite a few city staff here um today uh in various uh roles and expertise. So, I'm going to hit the highlights and not mention everyone, but uh Miss Lily Toy is our planning manager to my left. I'm Jeremy Pagan, director of development services. We have Josh Anthony, our assistant public works director. Christian Curtis, our city attorney. Elizabeth Steedman and Jen Ganon are helping us clerk the meeting up here in front and David Schlaggel will be our senior planner presenting the main item for the Peaks project. And then a number of other staff. We have Michael Webb with our public works team. We have housing here. We have uh police and fire staff here to answer questions the commission or the public may have regarding the Peaks project. So again, uh, thanks to the staff that are here, but there are too many of them for me to, uh, name at this time. So that's all I have.

Very good. Thank you very much. So then the, um, uh, item number four on the agenda, uh, consent calendar. We do not have any items there. The next item is a public hearing and it's item 4B1, general plan amendment application and a reszone application as articulated in the agenda. With that, I will turn it over to staff.

Thank you, chair. This item before you is a general plan amendment and resoning for a piece of property owned by the city. And at this time, we are asking that the commission continue this item to a date certain January 13, 2026 to allow staff time to adequately [clears throat] notice this project. Um, after this was advertised in the paper, there were a few things missing that did not meet the requirement. Um, so we are pushing that out till January. Um, that sounds good. And as I understand it then you're you're asking for a motion to um continue it to date certain as you articulated.

And Mr. Chair, as this item was on the agenda and the public did have notice, I would recommend giving them an opportunity to comment. Um, anyone that wants to save their their comments to January 13th, they're welcome to do that or um, they can give their comments now if they've gone through the trouble of coming out here. Very good. Thank you, sir. So, with that, we will um um open the public hearing for anyone that wishes to speak on this item. Seeing no comment cards, we will close the public hearing. And with that, I'll say, does commission have any questions of staff or do they want to make a motion to continue this as recommended by staff? I'll make a motion to continue it to January 13th meeting as recommended by staff.

I'll second the motion. Any other discussion? No. All in favor? I. Anyone opposed?

Okay. Passes unanimously. Um as a transition into the next item [clears throat] which will be tenative map application as articulated in the agenda for the project called the peaks. Um, what I will be doing at this point is the chair after I uh ex explain myself a little bit, I will be turning the the gavvel, which really is just our knuckles up here over to vice chair Willum because I will be recusing myself and leaving the room and I will watch all this on YouTube uh from the comfort of my uh living room. Um well as a and the reason is that the firm that I work for and myself have been heavily involved in providing consulting services for the peaks. Uh we were part of the team selected by the city to um prepare this project to this point and beyond. And we began providing those services in early 2024 were selected in late 2023 if I have my dates correct. And while as a civil engineer there's very clear legal precedence to stay in the room recuse stay in the room answer technical questions only taking no position pro or con but technical questions I think this one is best for me to turn it over to my fellow commissioners and leave the room so that there's no um no appearance of influence and the other thing that I will say is that the uh services we have been providing so this will probably be the longest disclosure you'll ever get just because of the sensitivity of this project. Services we've been providing with the firm that I work for, GHD, include civil engineering, the the California Environmental Quality Act analysis and documentation package, technical environmental studies, planning and designing design alternatives analysis, and coordination with the city's other consultants um and with city staff and and some external

agency people. Um the good news is I can comfortably say myself nor anyone in my firm uh have we ever advocated for or against the project which is a really important item when you have a conflict like this and I think that uh city staff and the other consultant teams will say yes I wore them out reminding them in meetings that I'm not advocating for or against. I'm here to do technical work um which we have done. The other thing is that I'm required to do is is give you as best I can from my memory an overview and then this will be the last but then I will leave um to to give you an overview of the people and firms that I have talked to by way of disclosure and it's a big list the consult consultants and agencies include um and I'm going to give you a little bit alphabet soup now it's SHN BLM at the federal agency NP plan geot tiara mapping um Sheridan Sawyer Galloway Enterprises RL Hastings, Illenworth and Rodkin, Wrs, Midpacific Engineering, Widnet Technologies, WAPA, Blue Famingo Marketing, Bowlan Associates, Historic Resource Associates. Those were the consultants and um agencies that I I found in my notes as I gave it a quick skim before this meeting. Um also have met with um directly and indirectly with multiple city departments and staff. I did call Vice Chair Willm probably a week ago said I'm going to do this to you. Uh so be prepared and uh strictly u kept my comments to describing my conflict as I've done at this point. No advocating for or against. And I also ran into from memory one resident that lives nearby uh which is a pretty small number considering I've lived in this town forever and it was a gentleman by the name of Robert Nixon who lives nearby. ran into him in a different context and

we had a brief conversation and um and we went on our ways. So with that I will bring my disclosures to an end and turn the meeting over to the vice chair and I will leave the room. Okay. Thanks Russ. [clears throat]

Yeah, you can run. [clears throat] Okay, with Russ leaving the room, I'm moving on to agenda item 4B2, a tenative subdivision map application S-2025-0000 613 by the city of Reading to approve the development of a residential subdivision subdivision consisting of 122 single family lots on 114 acre parcel located at 850 Courtz Hill Road in an RS-2.5 residential single family district. And I believe Mr. Sliggel is going to be presenting to us. So you

now am I on? There we go. Uh thank you for that introduction uh chair, commissioner, members of the public. Uh Peaks is a subdivision in the Courtzill uh area by the city of Reading as the applicant. See if my clicker works here. Go. So, this slide is just showing you the location of the site. It's 114 acres. It's up in the northwest quadrant of the city. Um, wonder if I can get my notes page up here on the screen. [cough] Have to turn the monitor on there. Uh so in terms of what's there in the in the vicinity of the project, you have a lot of vacant land to the west uh managed by BLM. A little bit further closer to KZwick Dam, it's going to be Bureau of Reclamation. To the north, obviously on the uh boundaries of the city is going to be uh county rural residential property. There's a lot of uh rural rural lots developed with single family residences in those areas. Um to the east we have developed subdivisions the River Ridge Terrace, Riveridge Park and to the south uh there's a little bit more vacant land but beyond that Stanford Hills and Land Park. Uh the the site itself's undeveloped with the exception of some WA western area uh western area power administration uh power lines um that run north south on the property as well as city sewer trunk lines that run kind of on the east side, southeast side to the north. uh property itself is a lot of slope terrain, some hills. It's called the peaks because there's some uh areas where this the land is peaked a little bit higher. Um some oak woodlands, uh foothill pines mixed and some grasslands. Uh kind of a description of the vegetation. You'll see a little bit

of foothill riparian in those uh green wet areas. Um the seasonal drainages. is an existing detention area here for the subdivision to the east. And a lot of those green areas bit mark tributaries to Carter Creek essentially. And that's just showing you the sewer uh infrastructure that goes across the property. Uh also u want to point out the general plan policy that areas over 20% slope are not considered developable land uh for the purpose of calculating density. And as you'll see in future slides, the proposed map sets aside only a portion of this site for residential development. It's about 65 acres and 20% of that is encumbered by the 20% slope. So you only really have 45 acres that uh are calculated for the density. At 2 and a half units per acre, it gets you to around 120 units, which is what the project proposes. Keep on switching back between [laughter] clicker and the pointer. Uh here's just an aerial image showing you kind of a view to the northwest uh from the existing subdivision to the property and uh just kind of the terrain you're looking at there. Uh there are some access roads um that follow essentially follow the maintenance lines of the WA power lines or sewer lines. Um this is actually a view kind of northeast, but the property is a little bit further beyond um where the development will occur kind of up on that ridge. Um so the the area below you're seeing the most prominent area to the front is actually not the project site. So the general plan is residential two dwelling to three and a half dwelling units per acre and some greenway. And this area uh in the vicinity and actually outside of the city incorporated boundary has been designated as a primary growth area by the general plan for two different general plan cycles.

And the zoning is uh single family two and a half units per acre. A little bit of background uh some timeline. The city actually acquired the property as part of a delin delinquency tax sale. It was the city of Reading Development Agency that um was a function of the state that was disbanded back in 2011. The car fire devastation occurred in 2018 and thereafter some funds were made available for areas that had disasters declared uh to rebuild infrastructure and long-term home recovery in those areas. And so the city went after that money and was awarded u grant funds to do this project among others. Um, and so back in 2023, they put out an RFP for consultant services to complete this subdivision. And um, the money is basically going to go to the design of the subdivision, the environmental clearances, and ultimate construction of the subdivision for homes to be sold. Um, a contingent part of that funding source is that 51% of the homes are eligible to home buyers that are income eligible qualifying, and there's certain criteria you have to meet. uh to be able to uh be a part of that program uh you would actually have to put some money down and and meet certain criteria for income that is about essentially 80% of the area meeting income for households of different sizes um and also be able to qualify for first mortgage with a lender. This is just giving you kind of an idea of uh who that would serve. the city comes in in this program as a silent second loan um to buy down the purchase price of a home. Right now, these these households, they don't have enough money to buy a single family home. The the program allows people like that to be able to purchase that home and and keep their uh mortgage to a certain reasonable percentage of payments. And what you see if you do the numbers is

full-time single person working with a couple kids or maybe a single mom um or two full-time workers at minimum wage. they're working 40 hours a week, they'd be able to take advantage of this program, give or take some some dollars there. But, and getting back to the map, so with our consultants, uh, K2, GHD, and other subconultants, uh, the site went through rigorous environmental review and and looked at the constraints. You're looking at storm water um, treatment, storm water, uh, drainage orientation, and obviously the power lines. And this is kind of the uh layout of the subdivision. Uh it's designed around the terrain, designed around environmentally sensitive resources. Um obviously can't build in the WA power lines. It is in the very high fire hazard severity zone. So the project uh takes that into consideration in its design as well. We'll get into that later. And I want to point out a error in the staff report. It's really just a discrepancy of two two lots that you know the city will actually retain parcel A and parcel B about 24 and 22 acres some odd. Um there's no intent for the city to develop those lots at this time. There's there's not really a lot of value to develop them, but because they're in a single family zone, my staff report says those are two additional lots. Um it's really 120 home sites that are planned for this project and that's what's been uh studied in the environmental documents and everything like that. So, I just want to point that out. Um, we did a lot of early public uh consultation for uh seeking comments as it being a city project. Wanted to understand people's concerns and we did get a lot of them. I hope that this staff report, this presentation is responsive to most of them uh throughout as I go. I'm not going to go one by one right now at this point, but um obviously the car fire evacuation um the chaos in that was a big source of the

comments we got. Traffic impacts overall Courtz Hill area, biological resource impacts and the adequacy of the surveys that were done. Um whether affordable housing will bring uh negative things to the area and uh just the location of lots themselves adjacent to existing residences. Um, I'll probably just touch on these later as I highlight them some of these following slides. First and foremost, uh, we got a lot of comments about access. Uh, subdivisions are only required to have two points of access. I shouldn't say only, they are required to have two points of access um, for fire egress, but also considering circulation through um, through any type of subdivision if there are over a certain number of units. This project exceeds that number. And so you have uh Steamboat Street and Keel Court Street to the east getting you ultimately out to Courtzell Road which is a through road network uh for any type of egress and fire access. And then you have a new road A which would get you to oops get you to Buenova Boulevard through BLM property there and all the way out to another connecting resource uh connecting road system. Um, essentially there's some other ex access that I'm going to highlight throughout this um, presentation, but uh, you have access roads that might already be serving in emergency scenarios. Maybe maybe it's uh, fire um, response vehicles. Um, I don't think they actually want people using it for egress, but they they are there for those purposes sometimes too. Um the project itself has that access and also tries to be sensitive to the neighboring road network by having some traffic calming features throughout and where they connect to the existing neighborhood. Um and the road a treatment is kind of a additional enhanced feature to

incentivize um use of that road and and also ultimately the entry to the subdivision. We'll get more into that too. And this is just showing you those access points meeting the minimum criteria. We did get a lot of comments about um existing subdivisions. There was a CalFire report on subdivisions throughout the city that basically said there's some subdivisions out there that don't have the secondary access that's needed today. And that's true. There's we call it legal non-conforming in the planning world. Um their recommendation is that those subdivisions have secondary access. want to make it clear that this project isn't required to solve those problems for uh those existing subdivisions. Um and those are just recommendations by CalFire. However, it's important to point out that this project actually does solve that secondary access problem for an existing neighborhood. Riveridge Terrace to the east will now have an additional secondary access through this project. So, I want to point that out and maybe even go a little bit further to down south where um land I'm sorry, Stanford Hills and Land Park subdivisions only have that green primary access route. It's not necessarily a secondary way out, but it is an improved new access point that is protected from fire, wildland fuels, and things like that. So we see those things um as we consulted with fire and police staff as improvements uh to the area circulation circulation for the peaks itself. Uh just kind of expanding out showing you the the multiple ways of of road networks in the area that this project is um able to utilize. An additional feature of this project is the uh emergency vehicle maintenance access trails that will also double as bicycle and pedestrian access trails that the fire marshall um is is pleased to have as part of the project. It ultimately gets emergency vehicles to

these wildland fuel vegetation areas so that they can fight fires. Um and I just want to highlight those features. There's one from the east to the west from road A over to Keel Court. And with asphalt paving, it kind of looks something like you see in that picture, one going north south through the Wapa easement. In addition to that, the subdivision includes landscape common area common areas uh with the uh preliminary landscape land use plan. types of landscaping treatment would be included with the subdivision uh per that plan and all common areas and street frontages would be enhanced with landscaping in accordance to this plan. Ultimately there's a plant pallet that's sensitive to uh I guess fireresistant plant types is is what's incorporated in there and you can see the future park site um that's also included in this subdivision. In addition to that, there are architectural design guidelines for your consideration um incorporated into the tenative map essentially to achieve a higher standard in design in the homes. uh contemporary yet timeless uh design with homes that would utilize fire resistant uh say fires safe construction, fire resistant fencing, um having more articulated facades, paying attention to material quality, and really designing front porches um that that are oriented to the public realm. And just kind of to highlight the fire resilient construction. Um, this project's located in the very high fire hazard very own zone. So it would have to meet certain codes. Um, and one of those new codes is the 5 foot ember resist resistant zone, the non-combustible zone. Zone zero as it's called. The image I think in the middle kind of highlights what that that ends up looking like is you kind of fire

harden the home uh with a five-ft buffer of non-combustible materials. And uh as far as incorporating that into the project, the draft conditions of approval make sure that no fence and decks of any type are built adjacent to homes or open spaces that would be combustible. Beyond that, we also have standard subdivision conditions of approval that require uh vegetation management around residences in uh very high fire hazard severity zones. This exhibit kind of shows you the initial treatment and long-term maintenance goal of these zones within the zone one 100 feet of any building envelope. You'd have pretty much any tree not large not larger than six inches in diameter. And even though some of those trees cleared and thinned, uh trees would be limbmed up so that vegetation on the ground can't capture or can't uh ignite and catch the tree on fire. and that that would be at a 50% um amount of treatment in the zone 2 an additional 100 feet. Uh that is all maintained on a ongoing basis as part of a landscape maintenance district um throughout the life of the project. That LMD will also be assessed to property owners to pay for u landscape maintenance uh in the common areas. uh the enhanced land landscape treatment at Bentur Boulevard boulevard is shown there, but there's also a public park storm water treatment system, storm drain storm drain systems that would all be managed and paid for by fees assessed to the LMD. uh mentioned a park site under the California Quimby Act and the city subdivision ordinance. A development of this size must either set aside and dedicate parkland or pay inlue fees for the development of parks in the community and that must be reviewed by the community service advisory commission SEESAC. Um and it was

reviewed and their recommendations are incorporated in the conditions of approval for the project including uh grading rough grading the site and making sure that the the formation of LMD happens and and captures the fees for the maintenance of these things. Just want to back up a little bit and talk about the California Environmental Quality Act and and what different paths a project can take. Um, you know, there's an exemption as a first step. You look at projects and whether they could be categorical or statutoily exempt. A categor categories that the legislature laid out, if it qualifies or or meets those categories, or if there's specific u project uh descriptions in the legislation that the project falls under, you can be categorically or statutoily exempt. Um, if not, you're what you do what's called an initial study and you determine uh whether there are mitigation measures to take or or not and you essentially determine what the level of impact from the project is. If it's less than significant or less than significant with some mitigation measures incorporated, then you're not doing the next step which is an EIR. EIR uh ultimately encompasses all those things through an initial study but determines potentially there are some things that we can avoid some significant impacts that must be um that can't be mitigated for and if that's the case there's a statement of overriding considerations that a jurisdiction can make uh to approve a project and that's what happened with our general plan EIR uh the general plan ER looked at all development plan for in the city um and has various things that mitigation measures that would happen on a project by project bas basis but also um some mitigation measures incorporated into um

future projects that we would apply and and also some statement of overriding considerations where impacts can't be mitigated for. So while we went through that process, um we were informed by a consultant that there's this an exemption that we actually have to consider when we have a general plan EIR that's been certified. Uh it was ruled that if the projects consistent with the general jurisdiction's general plan, cities and counties must review projects for this exemption. It's called a streamlining exemption. And that's where we started with this project. And what it does is try to make sure that further environmental review that's already been done under the general plan ER doesn't have to happen. Um, in order to do that, this section lays out how you do it through an initial study or other analysis. Um, and we would support an initial study or other analysis with environmental studies. Um, and ultimately the public agency shall limit its analysis to only those significant effects that have not been identified and analyzed under under the E that are peculiar to the project or potentially significant off-site or cumulative impacts. Um, so I just wanted to go over this section because we it's a it's a new exemption for the city. The general plan AR was adopted last year and um under this case law we are actually required to review the project for this exemption to see if it it whether there's anything peculiar to the site um and when there are impacts that must be mitigated for that section also lays out that you can mit if you can mitigate them through uniformly applied development policies or standards you do not have to do further environmental you. And so with a slew of consultants, we

had uh consultants and peer review done with place works. Ultimately a checklist which is the similar to an initial study process was prepared and the the checklist ultimately determines that the general plan EIR uh with in in conjunction with the standard subdivision conditions of approval and recommendations through those standard subdivision conditions of approval by biologists or experts incorporated into the project the project would be exempt from SQA. Um, also the project's design incorporates some factors that avoids and minimizes impacts. Just kind of wanted to go over the the secret checklist process before we get into the weeds on some of these things. Um, so one of those things uh we evaluated for this project to determine whether it is inconsistent with the general plan ER findings is a traffic impact study. And uh so ultimately the the conclusion of that study, if I just jump jump right to it, is that the project would not increase vehic vehicle miles traveled beyond a threshold of significance. Uh would not impact a transportationbased policy or program. Uh would not increase transportation based hazards based on any road design. Would not create inadequate emergency access. And would not create a cumulative transportation impact that the general plan didn't uh evaluate. Beyond that, beyond SQUA, we also have general plan policies and construction standards that address level of service and road capacity. And the traffic study found that those thresholds aren't being exceeded either. Uh the traffic study also accounts for 20-year projection and accounts for all the subdivisions in the area um that that are planned for. And so all of the subdivisions that we've been seeing be developed or having been applied for are included in that traffic analysis for the Courtzill area.

Okay. So no no significant thresholds are are exceeded. Um there's no conflict with the general plan policies or transportation programs. All these findings were made by the traffic impact study. But what it does do is recommend some things that the project incorporate. So I just wanted to highlight those things here. Um under the general plan impact uh section ultimately through the standard subdivision conditions of approval implementing general plan mitigation measure uh for one particular thing which I'll get to in a minute. The project is is consistent with the general plan ER. Um we would have to make some safety improvements or we are incorporating into the project some safety improvements at Keslick Dam and Courtzole Road for warning signs for the intersection and maintaining vision triangles at road A and Buur Boulevard intersection. Um there's some other policy recommendations that the traffic impact study makes and the city's incorporating those into the project as well. So, as far as emergency fire escape goes, um as part of the early public outreach, obviously we got a lot of comments and um for anyone that lived here during the car fire, there's some level of PTSD I think we all lived with, but nobody knows that better than the people in Courtzill who who lived and and experienced it. Um so we wanted to be really sensitive to that um and understand exactly how we should analyze uh the project's impacts on the courts area for emergency fire escape. Uh it's kind of a new field for SQA where we have to determine whether the project would substantially interfere with an adopted emergency response plan. And so in our search we found a California attorney general guidance document that directed us how to do this this type of study and how to do this type of analysis. Ultimately, the analysis would uh look at transportation impacts under

uh the scenarios we we lay out for under a fire evacuation and inform the decision- making of the experts of the emergency response responders who uh operate our emergency operations plan and operate evacuations to their decision about whether it substantially interferes with an EOP. And so this this uh evacuation assessment first one we've done as a city but we we took it seriously and we uh looked at two scenarios that you could describe as worst case scenario happening again um where basically there's one fire moving rapidly from the east to the west I'm sorry from the west to the east or from the north to the south and in under that worst case scenario everybody's home everybody's taking two vehicles they're all got trailers they're they're going down Courts Hill or they're going out Kesw Dam Road. However way they're trying to get out in as rapidly as possible. Um beyond that there, you know, there's no traffic control that could happen under normal circumstances. You know, just a normal light cycle and and and congestion happening down the hill. Um, [clears throat] I feel like I'm forgetting some other factors that that played a role in the assessment, but ultimately getting you to the conclusion that the project itself would add six minutes uh under scenario A to the Iron Mountain Road uh intersection. Essentially, that's how much longer it would take for the last car to get out of the subdivision. And five minutes to to Benton Lane down Courtzill Road under scenario A. uh from the north south uh orientation from uh the east west. Let's see if I have that right. Yep. Uh scenario B is more of like how the the car fire footprint happened. Uh about 6.9 minutes to 7 minutes to to Benton Lane um and 4.6 minutes for the last car to get out. Um, and I [clears throat]

just want to kind of back up a little bit and talk about uh a starting point. What that evacuation assessment also acknowledges is that the car fire was an unprecedented fire at the time. Uh, it was a result of a convergence of factors that um, you know, probably couldn't have been predicted, but in hindsight, we see a lot of the reasons why it happened. Uh, it was a tail end of a long long years mega drought in heavily vegetated areas that had not been maintained. Um and we have a greater understanding of how fire behavior is going to operate in our current in our climate. Um at the same time, people did not think that it was some people didn't think it was going to jump the river. And so there was definitely a worst case scenario panic that happened in terms of the evacuation. And um there's a lot of things that played a role in in why that evacuation happened in the timing that it did. But at the end of the day, everybody was evacuated. uh down this hill. And this is what Courts Hill Road looked like the day before. There were actually there were actually uh equipment blocking this road for the first 10 to 15 minutes that had to be cleared by city staff um to clear this road up. There was a road widening project happening uh and and there was a blockage. So that can cause some congestion. Uh, and so another thing that this Yeah, just this is just kind of showing you the before and after of the widening project. Uh, obviously Courtzville Road was narrow before. I'll show you a picture in a minute, I guess, but the idea here is that there's better infrastructure to support egress on Quartzill and there's a general plan mitigation measure. This is what I was uh saying I was going to talk about uh for wildfire that that blockage was unacceptable

during an egress situation. And to mitigate that, all projects are required to have a traffic control plan that makes sure that there's no blockages of any roadways when there's road construction or subdivision being built. That there's going to be a plan in place for emergency evacuation through that construction. And that's incorporated in the project as a standard subdivision condition of approval. It applies to all projects in the very high fire hazards severity area going forward. Um, another concept that the evacuation analysis did was identify what's called I I guess uh levels of threat or safety zones, hot zones. And one thing that the fire uh team we were working with considers is if you're getting to a certain uh level of infrastructure on a road where there's not a lot of wildland fuels on either side, you're actually in a safe location. And that's kind of another concept that was uh explored in this evacuation assessment. This map might not be uh to a tea, but what you can see is that as development gets built along Courts Hill Road and improvements are made, widening the roadway, adding non uh combustible vegetation or at least um irrigated vegetation that is slower to combust, you're providing a safer level of threat or a safer level of egress through those areas. and and kind of a picture of Courtz Hill Road before and after demonstrates that pretty well. There's a lot of other things that happened that we learned uh after the car fire. the evacuation uh assessment touches on that, but I think this is more along the lines of what went into the decision that uh these projects on Court Hill aren't actually impairing emergency operations as uh because we have new software that is a lot better than what we had before that triggers phased evacuations. We wouldn't have everybody go at once. We would have

orderly evacuation triggered by texts. Uh we have formal integration of traffic control practices. the police would be out at certain intersections within 10 minutes opening it up and you wouldn't be stuck at a light or stuck in traffic. Um, we have limits to road construction projects when there's closures. I talked about that mitigation measure. Um, we have expanded communication systems. We all we also have cameras. Uh, we didn't have cameras before uh at least congregated on watchd duty app. So, a lot of the the I guess what I what I would say is the the evacuation orders would be a lot better informed and a lot earlier. Um there's also um in our emergency operations plan and community wildfire protection plan, there's additional training, public outreach. The community wildfire protection plan identifies priority areas for fire prevention and fuel treatment. And so, you know, with the information presented to the decision makers under the attorney general guidance, it was determined that this project would not interfere with uh emergency operations plans going forward. In fact, uh I think you would hear from fire and police that we're in a better place today than we were back then. Uh including with the project itself because it introduces uh non-combustible material, introduces new infrastructure and circulation. um those vegetation management zones, less fuel to burn. Um you know, it it's ultimately an improvement to the area as far as that goes. Um the biological review for the project also got into the aquatic resource impacts on the site like we normally do for subdivision. And as I'm reading aquatic resources, I'm realizing I need some myself. Excuse me. about 1.34 acres, some of which are about 1.2 aren't aren't considered

jurisdictional. And this exhibit just kind of shows you how the project avoids those areas of impact, minimizes those areas of impact. The red lines, I don't know if you can see them very well. But uh down here, some areas of taper by the grading and right here, the road narrows up. So, we reduce the impact on that that crossing. And ultimately under our standard subdivision conditions of approval under our general plan EIR these uh issues are addressed by getting the permits avoiding impacts which is this project has done and uh including any project specific mitigation measures in this case uh getting the permits themselves from the agencies like fish and wildlife and army corps of engineers is u considered to be the mitigation they have mitigation measures built into their permits. Uh the biological resources survey identified u numerous species sensitive species on site. Um and consistent with the sub standard subdivision conditions of approval. All of these species will be surveyed for prior to construction. Um typically you will see migratory birds anytime there's trees, bats anytime there's snags in trees. Um this site has some wetland area. ial western spadefoot toad will be surveyed for prior to construction. We went through a process of identifying uh some milkweed plants on site which uh crotches bumblebee and bumblebees love and and the monarch butterfly loves and so surveys will be actually a survey was done for the crotches bumblebee and it was negative. Um and we're working under the standard sub and conditions of approval. Uh the biologist recommends that we cons continue to work with fish and wildlife to make sure that enough surveys are done for that endangered species. The monarch butterfly is not listed, but there are recommendations in

this project to if it does get listed, uh study that as well. As far as special status plants, um you know, a lot of these plants are going to exist in kind of the wetter areas of the project site. marginal habitat exists for the project and in some cases if we're avoiding those impact areas we might not do additional studies however we are for the uh the four listed there the sulfur creek broada red bluff dwarf rush maverick clover and henderson bent grass will all be uh surveyed prior to construction in bloom season and that's incorporated into the project um standard conditions of approval as a recommendation by the b biologist for the project getting Back to the general plan EIR. There are some mitigation measures that do apply to the project. I'm just going to go over them kind of briefly because these are considered standard practice essentially for subdivisions nowadays. They're incorporated into our standard subdivision conditions of approval. Air quality best available management practices, standard mitigation measures. Um, if you're exceeding certain thresholds that is prescribed in our general plan ER, you're going to be incorporating those. We call them SAMs and BAMs. U as far as noise goes, there's some uh an understanding by our general plan that through the full buildout of the general plan, there might be some construction impacts from noise and vibration, even uh potentially traffic. So, um if you're going to have certain equipment on site, there's mitigation measures for that as well. um paleontolog paleontological resources. Sorry about that. um are also uh addressed in our general plan planning e might be that we don't know where all these resources are and so with the full build build out of our general plan we probably have to mitigate for impacts to those things and by doing additional uh surveys during grading if we discover anything that's

the mitigation measure for that and I already talked about the wildfire mitigation measure for uh traffic control plans for any construction that might obstruct uh roadways Yeah. So any project specific impacts not mitigated by the general plan are less than significant through this project's incorporation of city development standards and standard subdivision conditions of approval apply to the project. Um the the checklist is pretty extensive if you had a chance to read it, went through and didn't find anything peculiar to the project or its site. And the subdivisions being consistent with our general plan and not resulting in any new significant impacts that weren't evaluated, we feel that the checklist um findings allow us to use that section 15183 exemption I mentioned before. probably a lot more to get into, probably a lot more uh comments and questions from you. So, I'll I'll leave it at that. U the proposal is consistent with the general plan goals and policies and city's general plans. Staff's going to recommend that uh planning commission determine the necessary findings of approval R and evidence. Find the project exempt from SQA under section 15183 and approve the tenative map. And plenty of folks here from staff to answer your questions and I'll be here to answer your questions as well.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Sigel. I'll open it up to the commissioners. Is there any questions for him Michelle?

So, all of the improvements are internal to the project, correct? Uh there are some off-site improvements as far as the the traffic uh recommendations I mentioned before for signage for right but and and I guess you could say all of road A going across BLM land to Ventura as an off-site improvement as well. Okay. Is there any widening of further widening of Courtz Hill Road associated with this project? Not associated with this project. Okay. Did the fire department review the evacuation modeling? Yes. Did they signed off on that? Yes. Okay. So that for a simultaneous evacuation where everybody's going at peak loads, they're good with it.

Yes. Okay. Um can you clarify how the the reporting requirements for the landscape maintenance district? Um so annually they're supposed to mitigate zone one and zone two for fuel reduction, but what is the reporting requirement if any and what's the enforcement mechanism? the recording requirement. Is that what you reporting? They have to advise public works or fire department that they have completed their annual mitigation. Oh, sorry. I should have mentioned that. This is actually maintenance done by the city develop I'm sorry, community services department. Okay. And we assess a fee to the property to to pay for that.

Okay. So, they're not you're not creating a job for them. No, they're paying for it, but the city is actually responsible. Okay. Very good. Um, in regard to the affordable housing, what is the term? What's the term of the affordability restrictions? It would follow the mortgage. Um, but somebody from housing might be able to answer that better. I think there's a a point in time where our portion of the loan um is were able to be paid off and out and and get out of the the financing of it. Okay. Not sure what that timeline is. Is there any monitoring procedure to ensure like long-term compliance? [snorts] Long-term compliance with paying for the mortgage,

the affordability like if some it's they're supposed to there's an income requirement and all of that. So, if you have your first-time home buyer purchase a home and then they sell the home, is the new buyer subject to the down payment and affordability and income? Yeah, it's a good question. I I don't think so, but I would leave that to housing staff to answer. Okay.

So, and I I believe we may have some housing staff that might be able to speak to it. Typically, when there is an affordable housing project, there are um uh deed restrictions that are placed essentially um on the property itself. Um there may be mechanisms um and certain situations where something may be paid in full and then no longer subject to those. There also may be situations where there are ones that are uh uh sort of encumbered long term and that depends upon the particular funding source etc. Um I would note that might also be getting a little bit outside of the planning commission role as opposed to the housing department. Okay. Would you like uh Mark Chris to come up and provide some specifics? Commissioner God. Sure.

[snorts] Hello. Um, Mr. Curtis was correct that the deed restrictions will be tied to the property. So, they will run with the land for [clears throat] the duration. So, does it, you know, does this the affordable housing downtown has a 55-year term? So, is it this similar to that? Yes, it is. I don't know the exact term but um I I would say it'd be 55 years minimum. Okay. All right. Anything else to Thanks Mark. Yes. Okay.

And then finally um are part you put up your um map of the slope 20% slope. Are A and are parcels A and B developable at all? Uh I think parcel B has a portion that's more developable than parcel A. Parcel A has a lot of environmentally sensitive resources on site. It's probably most appropriate as open space and the general plan or I'm sorry, the the zoning uh could potentially be applied to it later on as part of the um any map, but ultimately if there's some lots to be squeezed out of and the city wants to sell, I think that would have to be all done through the normal process.

Okay. Um so it would become surplus. It is surplus property at this time. Considered surplus property at this time. It's owned by the city without many any type. Okay. So, if it had to be if it the city decided to sell it, it would have to be offered to affordable housing developers first. Correct. I believe that if in terms of the surplus property laws, I think you're right with that. Yeah. Uh yeah, I think you're referring to the surplus lands act. Um there's actually a a suite of potential um purchasers that has to be offered to um affordable housing developers is one of them, right? Okay. Did the city just think about ma since you said there's a portion of parcel B that can be um did you guys just think about making it open space?

Uh I think that'd be a decision that planning staff wouldn't make um you know as far as uh locking it for no future development. That wasn't never really explored I guess not from planning perspective I guess. Okay. So there's not any immediate plans to develop it, but it the potential does exist. It would be land that the city owns that Yeah, I guess disposing of it how they how the city would want to do that. Have to go through the normal planning process for sure. Are the income eligible homes, they'll be sold at market value, correct? Yeah. The loan that the city provides is buying down the purchase price.

Okay. So they're not going to be marked down the um market rate buyers not going to be paying more than an income eligible buyer. People will want to know that because they want to preserve their equity and Yeah. I'm pretty sure the sales price will be the same. Okay. Or similar. So it's just you're you're um the city's housing is making up the gap financing. Yep. Okay. Um [snorts] and so the city's putting in all the infrastructure. What is the plan for the buildout? Are you partner? Do you have a partner a development partner or how are you going to just sell individual lots to builders? What's the plan going forward?

My understanding is that the lots would be prepped to be built upon and sold to potentially a developer who would build the homes to the requirements of the subdivision. Um and then once they're sold, that's when the gap financing comes back into play. Okay. And so whether it's one or three developers for instance, everyone will be subject subject to the design guidelines. Yeah. Okay. Very good. Thank you, Commissioner Ryan.

I was curious, one of the comments we received was about road C um about carrying that through and um I believe it was a lady uh she had asked if there was any consideration of that being done. I didn't really see anything in this that said it had been addressed.

Uh thank you for that question actually. So road C, the comment came here and originally the city was exploring road D which goes up this uh easement here. There's actually number of easements that go up to Courtzill Road here out in the county. Uh that was explored. Um [clears throat] we were directed by city manager's office to look at that. Uh ultimately among all the challenges um to to the sight lines at Courtzill Road to the connection uh the the amount of grading that would have taken to get that road to level off for those sight lines. Um those all kind of were part of the discussion, but the project doesn't need a a third or fourth access. Um so it wasn't really um ultimately decided to go that route, I guess. Does it need it based on the rules or

It doesn't need it based on the require Yeah. the requirements of uh state law or our subdivision requirements. Um the fire marshall having access through that existing easement was critical for for him and and it is intact for for emergency egress or emergency uh response there. So could people act can people use that in emergency or is this just fire? I I think the fire department would have to answer that question. Um it's not ideal egress but they would use whatever means I believe. Okay. For that purpose. Thank you. Anybody else? Luke. Okay. Michelle,

you mentioned um that there are maybe more biological studies required by the Department of Fish and Wildlife as part of this ongoing process. Um, is that the response to the public comment that the survey was not done at the blooming period when potentially suitable habitat may have been identified for Henderson's bent grass, Maverick clover, red bluff dwarf rush, and sulfur creek bodea? That was everything on your list.

And according to this person, the survey was done in a time when you wouldn't even been able to ascertain if that's habitat. So will future is there a potential for a future um assessment?

Well, we are committing to in bloom season surveys of all those species first and foremost, but I think there's a a mischaracterization of what the environmental study has to do and what it did, which is determine whether there's suitable habitat for those species and where. Um, not identify every single plant on site throughout all seasons. That's not ever been a requirement under sequest. The [clears throat] biologist did say that while there's marginal habitat for those species, it should be studied for in bloom in bloom season uh to see, you know, whether the product would impact it and then how to mitigate it for is also built into our recommendation which under the standard subdivision conditions of approval. We incorporate those recommendations from biologists into our projects.

Thank you. Yeah. Commissioner Miner, do you have any questions?

Yeah, I do. I do have one question um but before the public comment period this might be a question for you Mark Christ so we'll see but I get I don't exactly understand how so somebody buys the property and then they want to turn around and sell it um does the the mortgage stay with the property and how are they going to advertise the property as it just feels like it could get really clunky for the city to stay involved with these properties for, you know, 50 years in event of a sale. Um, you we could be going through a dozen buyers over a 50-year period and managing that.

I I'll defer to housing, but there there are multiple funding sources and multiple programs. Some programs do involve um essentially the the property being encumbered um even after the owner has um changed. Um, other programs involve uh essentially the loan funds uh the amount that was loaned in full being recouped uh and therefore put back into a revolving fund so it can be used uh for loans to other locations and I don't I don't know the specifics on this particular one.

Any more to add Mark or is that housing staff any more to add detail-wise? Yeah, we have a number of affordable housing projects already that are um restricted from deed restrictions and it's uh it's not very common but um real estate agents do market them to um income eligible buyers and it's um part of their normal duties in the housing division to um assess that they are eligible buyers. And then does the mortgage transfer? Um it basically would transfer to the new owner or

they would need to qualify um in their own right. So we would assess their eligibility and then they take the mortgage that the city of Reading holds. The second mortgage goes with the house and the new buyer. Typically the buyer would pay off the mortgage and would relend it back to the to the new new purchaser. Okay. But we stay involved. We do. Yes. 50 for a long time. Yeah. Um I think that is my only question right now. Thank you.

I have a couple of questions. Um so this W ter report that we just got as we sat down. I was trying to hustle through it. Can you tell me you kind of touched on scenario A and B? I'm assuming it came from this report. How did the fire department work with them? Did the city work with them? Did they actually go on site? like how is that decided?

Yeah, actually all of the above. But um we we informed the scenarios by working with fire. In fact, the Wr of their way to contact fire and police and and get what we wanted a scenario to they wanted those scenario to look like. Um and it was basically we landed on worst case scenario, which we can handle worst case scenario if we know that it's not going to happen because of other factors. And that's kind of what um ultimately has concluded. Thank you. And like I said, I didn't get a chance to read through the whole thing, so I might have more questions.

It was online with the justa checklist, but not printed in the packet, so I apologize for that. But um so in looking at the tenative subdivision map, some of the maps look like there would be two roundabouts and some didn't actually call it out. Can you clarify on that and where they might be? Uh, you know, I I think as far as road design goes, um, you could say that some of this is preliminary, but um, road roundabouts that I'm aware are are planned for currently are here, here, and there. So, three total. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you. And then in our packet, there was some discussion because this is already part of the general plan that if this project wasn't approved, the alternative is the city could sell the land and then a potential another developer could come in and they don't have to go through quite the process that the city has to go through. Could you touch on that a little bit?

Uh, I would think any any person who buys the property to develop it for subdivision consistent with the general plan of zoning would have to go through the same or similar process. But yeah, ultimately that's what this land set aside for. Uh the city, you know, probably wouldn't want to keep it as a liability or I'm not sure exactly what the intent would be for the city, but um any type of of land owned by the city can be designated as surplus and and built upon after it's sold.

Thank you. Okay, before I move on to public comment, any other questions? Okay, thank you. Okay. So, we're going to open the public comment. Uh, if you filled out a purple card, it's up here with me. If you haven't, they're in the back and you can give them to Jennifer up here in the front and she'll give them to me. Um, there will be a timer up here for three minutes. And so, we will start with Cheryl Bullock. And up next is Richard Bullock. So, you can be on standby, Richard. Thank you, planning commission and planners for this time. Um, one of the things I'm really concerned about are the existing subdivisions at the end of Bueno Ventura Land Park and Stanford Hills. um their ability to evacuate to get through all this new um development that's going in on the hill, not just the peaks, but all the other subdivisions that have been approved is greatly limited. Um, the other thing is what I see here is what I'm going to call stacked subdivisions, which appears to be that an existing neighborhood suddenly has another neighborhood attached to it. And we know from the roads, um, I believe it's B and C that extends southward that there are plans for another subdivision. Um, this is of great concern. I don't think this is safe. Um, we went through the evacuation and the fire and I can tell you that those numbers scenario um, A and B [sighs and gasps] that's that's almost laughable. Um,

those times [applause] those that eats into her time. So, let's try to keep it down. Those times to get from the peaks to Benton or Iron Mountain Road, they're about one minute longer than what it takes us to drive right now. And you're talking about adding um another thousand um another um well probably with all the development. Yeah. Another thousand vehicles with the peaks. Um, you know, you're talking about 250 vehicles probably. Um, the these are low to moderate income housing. Some people will have multi-generations living in those homes. That's just normal for California right now. So, there will be more than two cars for some of those homes. Um, it's just not feasible to get everybody out. I can tell you that. when when all these houses are added and there's a fire. Um trying to use a tiered method of evacuation where you evacuate subdivisions at various times. If there's a fire close by, people aren't going to wait in their home for their turn to be evacuated. They're going to go ahead and evacuate. So, um I find a lot of these reports totally unrealistic. Thank you.

Thank you. [applause] OKAY, RICHARD BULLOCK AND then Duncan Thomas is on deck. [clears throat]

Thank you. My name is Richard Bulock. I live at 1308 Sper Drive down at the bottom there by Keel Court. By my count, approximately 78 to 80 of the new proposed homes in the Peaks Division back up to open space. So, this is a design question because that's an excellent design. It maintains the area's natural character and provides homeowners with a scenic buffer. However, the current plan removes that same consideration for our section of the neighborhood along Spiner. The [clears throat] design shows a new house is placed directly behind our property fence, which is just 6 feet from our swimming pool. Immediately beyond your fence is a steep 12-oot bank that drops away from our yard. It's not suitable for construction, but it does grow grass weeds up to four feet tall. If that slope becomes part of someone else's backyard, I won't be able to maintain it. And without regular weed abatement, it'll quickly become a fire hazard. Beyond that bank lies about a 35 to 40 foot wide seasonal runoff area. During moderate or heavy rains, this area carries two to four inches deep of water that drains to the catch basin and the culvert leading under Spker Drive toward the Sacramento River. That ground stays wet and soggy well into June. And in prior years, the city itself installed uh straw waddles and bales to prevent erosion. This natural corridor also supports wildlife uh pathways such as turkeys, deer, quail, foxes, and bobcats, but it's also used informally by neighbors as a footpath connecting Sper Drive and the gravel extension of Keel Court. At the city information meeting about the Peaks project, I asked whether this area could remain a designated open space. The response I received was, "Who's going to take care of it?" Well, the simple answer is that it's the

same people who've been maintaining it for the past 18 years, the homeowners along Sper Drive and Keel Court who have voluntarily cleared weeds up to 100 ft back each summer for fire safety. The city owns the property now, but the upkeep has always been done by residents. Therefore, I respectfully ask that the proposed construction on lots 77 and 78 be reconsidered or removed, allowing this area to remain an open space, just as a majority of the homes in the new development have behind them. Preserving this buffer will protect the vital drainage and wildlife border corridor, maintain safety and design consistency across the neighborhood. Thank you.

Thank you. [applause]

Duncan Thomas, you're up. And after him will be Sarah Thomas. I'd just like to say that Calire, they did a study and they said the egress was inadequate after the car fire and points were brought to the grand jury. They found they agreed and further work should be done. And since then, all I've seen is a shell game for egress. The pinch point is Quartz Hill Road. And Quartz Hill Road is filling up with new subdivisions. So, it's not just the peaks. There's multiple subdivisions going in and we don't have any additional egress. And the other thing that I find concerning is the area that the city wants to develop is considered noninsurable. We're on the California fair plan on spre. You cannot get regular insurance. Who's going to help those folks that are supposedly uh going to have a lower income home? Are they going to be able to afford to even insure these homes? [applause]

Thank you, Sarah Thomas. And then Char Charlie Fitch. Hi, my name is Sarah Thomas and really I hope that the planning commission votes to not approve the subdivision. But thank you. But it just seems like uh momentum and inertia is it's going to get pushed through. And my comment is based on that. If if it is uh going to go through, I'm I would um support the planning commission's approval of the plan on the condition that a second egress is added by extending that road. I'm the one who wrote you that email. Um it's the road that ends up in a little bulb extended to Courtz Hill Road. Um, as it is, the Peaks only has one egress. He's you guys are talking about there's three or four egresses. So, it's only one. The Peaks only has one egress of its own, and that's that road A where it says new access. That's it's it's only egress out. Everything else is doubling up with existing road uh subdivisions. So, um, this act the plan doesn't actually meet current CalFire regulations which recommend new subdivisions located in a very high fire hazard zone have two entrances and exits. So, I urge you to um have the city extend that one of those bullouts up to Courtz Hill Road and then that way

it will have two of its own egresses and meet the current CalFire recommendations. And um so uh that that's all I have to say. Thank you.

Thanks, Sarah. [applause] Charlie Fix and then Sujet. Good evening. Uh my my name is Charlie Fitch. I'm a professional forester with 30 plus years of professional experience. working with the Forest Service both in field and management. I'm also a resident of Land Park and have been I'm probably my wife and I are the oldest uh longest term residents in the subdivision. Been there. We bought bought a lot when we when it first opened. I find your present design creates a significant fire hazard not only for the new residents but also for the immediate three subdivisions around them. By incorporating the two power line corridors within the subdivision, you are creating a significant fuel hazard. I do understand that you do intend to do some minor mitigation of those fuels within the power line corridors, but what was described to me previously is woefully inadequate to be labeled reasonable protection. It's inadequate to be labeled reasonable protection. With an even normal wind event, any fire starting near or within the subdivision is not likely to be controlled during high fire danger without significant damages. You have at least two major factors against control attempts. First is the restricted access to the two power line corridors and second is the power lines themselves. Our wildline firefighting

efforts today heavily use aircraft. aircraft will not be available to use either in those corridors or adjacent to them. Remember that those those are intersection there are intersection power lines both north and south of the subdivision which will generally restrict aircraft use around the edges of the subdivision or or within the subdivision. You should be mandating complete elimination of hazardous fuels within the two power line corridors, not just partial reductions. I counted at about 50 lots previously that still have an exterior wildland fuel exposure to their loft. Only a few of those lots own the land out from their residences to be able to legally create enough protection for themselves. Frequently those enlarged lots include land area that falls within an adjacent lots needed protection area leaving the decision up to the neighbor that uh putting those lots or what to do with those lots. [snorts] Second item I would like to say is uh I was I was within the the land park subdivision when the fire hit and we we had to stay in there for a while. uh until the the fire the tornado passed across Bueno Ventura. It took me between two and one half and three hours, not minutes, hours to go from Bueno Ventura to Lake to Lake and Market. Two and a half hours. That's how bad it was.

Thank you. We have to move on. [applause] Sue Jeet and then Kathleen Young, you're on deck.

Hi, my name is Suji and I'm one of the resident of the River Ridge Drive for the last 20 years. I have a question. um those lots that's out there will be developed where there'll be a point that someone can buy just the lot and build it themselves later. Is is that allowed or will just the builder or contractor do you want to answer or you can't answer? [clears throat] If I understand the question you're asking, a developer could build on the lots. I'm sorry. Actually, I don't understand.

My question is uh once those lots get subdivided, then the builder might take it and build it and sell it. Can someone just buy the lot and build it later if they choose to? Will it be available for sale? Just the lot itself. The city is going to offer these lots for sale. They are for somebody to build a home on. Okay, that that was that all I need to know. Thank you. Thank you. Kathleen Young, you're up. And then there is um right there. You can go to the bottom. You don't have to go up the stairs.

There's a bottom or she can hand you a mic. And then David Ledger, you're at her.

I don't see him though. Do you see David? Okay. Okay. Um, I received a letter last year that showed the streets and lots and I was concerned about Quartz Hill evacuation at that time and the added stress on my street which is Spre. Um, but at least they had a street connecting to Courtzs Hill. this time this year, I received an u um a letter that um that um I'm sorry um that only showed the parcel, not what was not the lots and the streets that how they were going to develop it. I had to go online to find that. Um, and they've eliminated the street that goes to connects to Courtzs Hill. My concern is the evacuation, which took me over a an hour to get down Quartz Hill. I was stuck at the entrance to at White Sales and Courts Hill. I sat there for a long time and I was I knew what was coming. I had seen the fire cuz uh

oh her mic is we can't hear anymore. Can you pause the timer for a second? Okay, Elizabeth, I think we're good to start it. Okay. Um I'm sorry. Um I don't know where I was. [laughter]

Um, oh, it took me an hour to get over an hour to get down there and it was slow going and I knew the fire was coming and I was terrified the whole time because I had seen online on television. Yeah, if it's okay with you, we'll have David Ledger come up while she changed the batteries and then we'll come back to you. Okay, David.

Are you good with that?

Um, good afternoon, planning commissioners. I I just received the um I just read over the city's comments to my comments and I'd send in mine late so I'm not complaining to David for I appreciate him having them ready for me. Um I want to respond to some one of the comments that was made that SQA does not require all taxa all species of plants to be identified. Now, I quoted throughout my letter of comment directly from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Protocols, which are supposed to be followed in SQA surveys. And um it says, "Conduct biological surveys um traversing the entire project area to ensure thorough covering documenting all t plant tax observed." And they only identified 68 plants. And I know a lot of you out there, everybody knows how toident identify a cottonwood tree. There's a cottonwood tree. They did an ID. There were two types of willows. Uh there was button willow which is throughout the project. So it was a really substandard uh biological review. And they also the timing the city put down in their comments. This is common for this for um biological reviews not to be you know done during the blooming period. That might be true in Shasta County because I've seen it in the county Shasta County planning and reading planning, but it is required to be done during the blooming period. And um when you do it outside of it, as the uh consultant admitted that because it was outside of the blooming period, we may not have identified all of the plants. And then the city's response is something could be a survey can be done later. The problem is later you're taking out the opportunity for the public to comment on those surveys and you're approving it before everything's been done. And I see this

time and again uh the uh Patrick Jones gun ranch out in Millville Plains. He did it in January and February and then he did at the very end of May. So he avoided and he admitted in his thing is that all the plants were brown. I couldn't identify them. And that was one of the reasons that Chasta County lost in court. and a letter I wrote specifically is addressing that issue was cited in the judge's decision. Um so the timing of the visits were done outside of the period that the plants be blooming so you could identify them and also crotches bumblebee needs those blooming plants to be able to um to get the food and the pollen the pollen and the nectar. So that's really important. Um it's just that it just wasn't done right. I'm not so much opposed to the project, although fire issues I know are a [clears throat] real pro could be a problem, but um I just don't think this should be accepted. If you go over my my comments, there's many issues that they didn't cover that are required by CDFW protocols. Thank you.

Thank you. And we did get your letter, David. [applause] Are we good to go to back to Kathleen or do you want me to go one more?

Okay. So, Melvin Nordstrom, you're up next. Well, as you may have noticed, there is a theme here tonight. One, we know from real world scenario that our egress is inadequate. It was inadequate for the people who are already here. You have another subdivision being built right now on Quartz Hill at the top of Quartz Hill, not counting this one. All they did was slightly widen one little tiny piece of Quartz Hill Road. A lot of it is still narrow two-lane road, especially through the curves. And the downhill section isn't exactly three lanes wide. you could maybe fit three cars in it now, which means all that's been done is we brought it up to the adequacy of the people already living in the area. You've already put yourself behind by approving a subdivision on Quartz Hill that's going to add cars that is being built right now. So, you're proposing and your fire fire assessment is laughable. It truly is because I was one of the last people to leave. I was the last person to get there. I was gone when the fire burned down our neighborhood, which is that nice little section right there with those houses outside of the dense population. Okay. I was sitting next to a fire captain as the city of Reading started to evacuate. Two of their fire engines had to pull out. The Bledso's place was already burning. The fire was whipping over Quartz Hill. And you still had

civilians sitting there at the top of Quartz Hill. They had to start dropping water and retardant. Well, it was retardant, not water. Sorry. Literally on the edge of the road. We're sitting there and amber and wood and burning materials are falling on people's cars. When I finally decided to leave, when the city of Reading started to evacuate their own people and started basically playing rear guard for the civilians on Courtz Hill, I decided, well, probably time for me to get because there's nothing for me to do here. You know, I didn't time it, but I know it was over an hour just to get from the top of the hill to the bottom of the hill. So when you only have four real egresses from that area and that is across KZwick Dam which can't be widened going north on Quartz Hill which was cut off and of course the dam was cut off too and then it cut off uh Quartz Hill I mean Kzwick going to Lake Boulevard that got cut off. So the only thing we had was down the hill and down the hill even when they took out the fire lane for people to get up because you got to remember they got to get fire engines up that hill and they had to get rid of that because we just couldn't get people out of there. People didn't want to go. Um people couldn't go. They were parked like a parking lot.

Thank you. Thank you. [applause] Are we ready? Okay, we're gonna go back to you, Kathleen, and you can pick up where you left off. After Kathleen, Larry Hartman.

Thank you. That's okay. Um I had um like I said I received the second notice and with no courts access except that uh in the transportation report it said 15% of traffic going would be going from the subdivision would be going to V bua Ventura and 85% of the project was going on spre9 9 more trips per day on Spre. Um, I know that what I'm saying won't make a difference in approving this subdivision, but as far as the subdivision goes, um, there are several concerns that I have. uh not only the traffic on Spre which you are not putting any damping on the speeding and it has sped since um the car fire and they built out Americana drive and people have been speeding on Spre. But you don't plan to do anything about that until two or three years later and I have a big problem with that. I live across from Steamboat Street. I'm sorry, First Cabin Court and just up from Steamboat. So, I will get most of the speeders all coming up from Keel Court. They said that um there is no direct access to Quartz Hill, so they will be coming on Spre. Um uh they said, "Okay, as far as the turn lane goes, you're not adding another turn lane on White Sails Drive off of

Quartz Hill." Why? I don't know. because there's one at River Ridge which is east of us but they said that 55% will use that one and 30% will use White Sales Drive and that is that is not human nature. You know, get real. They're going to use White Sails Drive and there is no left turn lane on Courts Hill. And um as far as the seasonal creek goes, when it rains hard, I'm in the upper part of Spker and I look out and that creek is 30 to 40 feet wide and 78 feet deep and it's roaring. You can hear it from my backyard. and you plan to add over 600 subdivision, you know, new home lots in subdivisions, but I don't see where that's all been to existing ones. How

Thank you. Your time's up, Kathleen. Okay. [applause] Larry Hartman, followed by Diana Hartman.

[snorts]

Hello, my name's Larry Hartman. I live at the northeast corner of the proposed project on northwest corner. And for you people that don't know it, traffic was backed all the way to KZwick Dam Road. By luck of God, the fire NATO turned at Courtzill Road and burnt back into itself. If it wouldn't have turned, where would Lake Boulevard be today? There is no outlets for this subdivision other than what we already have and we is already overloaded with cars. So I say leave that as a wildlife area because I've lived there 43 years and I've watched subdivision after subdivision push the wildlife out. Now, if you notice, every week there's a deer ran over on Courtz Hill Road. So, we need a green belt for the deer. And I say that's a good area cuz if you really looked at the map and seen the network of power lines down here in the bottom and going north, you'll see that this is an unreality. Thank you.

[applause] Thank you, Diana Hartman, followed by 10 Bulman.

I was going to start this off different today, but I am still trying to wrap my head around the city going into the mortgage business. Don't you guys have enough problems? [applause]

Show of hands. How many of you have read the traffic impact study? Nobody's read it.

135 pages. In summary, not what you said. It does not include the 178 new homes that are already in progress that have already been approved. So the numbers, the calculations are based on 122 homes for the Peaks project alone. That is that is not an accurate traffic study. That that is a travesty and that's going to put these people at risk. It is your duty to take care of our citizens. It really upsets me that that lady said that she knows that what she says here today isn't going to matter. That's sad. That is really sad. That's on you guys. [applause] Think about it. Thank [applause] you, Tim Bowman. followed by Jack Baker. Hello. Um I live in uh the Land Park subdivision. Been there since 2005. Um these similar studies were all done when that development was made both in Land Park and Stanford Hills. And the egress at that time also included a bridge that was in your master plan. It since disappeared for many years. Now it's back. Um back then it was worth I think your guys' estimate was $10 million to build it. Now that is back in the plan for 150 million. Um, when I left Land Park, I drove through the tornado.

It's real. We need more egress. I don't mind the subdivisions. I don't mind the growth. We need it in this town, right? We need it. We need We need all of it. But you guys need to look at going from the end of Buenovventura south like down to Harlem. There's already a bike trail there. You guys are adding all this extra load to something we couldn't get out before. [applause] Jack Baker followed by Noel Vanaki. Jack, are you here?

Jack Baker. [cough] We just have one.

Ready? Yes. Go for it. Okay. Ladies, gentlemen, my name is Jack Baker. I'm the developer of Stanford Hills and Land Park subdivisions. They were approved in 1995. I want you to remember that was 30 years ago. Jack, can you move the f microphone to you a little bit better? Okay. Better. Thank you. Yep. Thank you. Do I start again? We go ahead. We heard you're the developer.

Okay. My name is Jack Baker. I'm the developer of Land Park in Stanford Hills subdivision and it was Stanford Hills was approved in 1995 the tenative map 30 years ago. So I've been around there a long time. I know the history. [clears throat] Kate and I live through the car fire. In fact, she was picked up by a helicopter and [clears throat] carried out of there. And she was picked up about a quarter mile from where Jeremy Stoke uh lost his life. That would not have happened had reading fulfilled its commitment to FEMA. FEMA study which was done in 2014 and 2015 mandated that the city of Reading construct defensible space at the property line between the city of Reading and the wildfire area. Had that been done, Jeremy Stokes would still be here and a lot of those homes would be here today. When our tenative maps were approved, we were required to construct Buentura from Kzwick Dam Boulevard down to the south end of our property. And that was to be the north end of the Buouy Ventura bridge, which has been shown on the general plan since the early n 80s about 84 I think. So I said fine, we're going to have a it was a collector of much higher standard road than we would need for the subdivision, but that was going to serve the area. We're going to have a bridge. We're going to be able to get people in and out. In fact, each one of our lots that we sold there made a contribution to the infrastructure bridge basically of 1,250 bucks at the time, which was to be held in trust by the city and then spent on the bridge. None of that happened. The city has done

nothing that they committed to do. I've done everything that I committed to do. A just another reigging on the city of Reading's part. So, as a result of that, I um filed suit against the city of Reading over the car fire. And since then, about 700 people have joined me. We expect our day in court in the fall of 2026. So, it's eventually going to come around. Uh the city, oh, this is the city is good. The city says, "Well, we can't build a new bridge. It's too expensive. It might cost 120 million bucks." So, with that, I built a bridge or two. I'm a contractor. So, I went back and took a look at that. And I find that the uh bridge here, the Court Street Bridge goes across the Sacramento River, was built in 1996 at a cost of under 7 million. You take the state's own factors for inflation, that same bridge today would cost 21 to 23 million bucks. So what we need is a way out to the south. We don't need more houses. I mean, don't give us more houses and more traffic and tell us we're better off.

Thank you. [applause] OKAY,

your time is up. We're going to My closing statement is let's use some common sense. Build the bridge and then the subdivision.

Noel [applause] Vaniky followed by Jim Milestone. Is there a Noel? Might be. And Oh, there we go. [snorts] Just real quick, correct pronunciation is null vans like um I never do anything like this, but this is causing me to stand up here today and uh I'm a numbers guy, so I'm going to give you some numbers. Right now we have Vista three and four on Courtser Road building phase one 40 homes and then phase two 30 homes. So that's 70 right there. Then we have 122 homes being built in this proposed project. So the numbers are this. We always use a family of four. I'm a numbers guy. That's 768 people in these two projects. Then we use two cars for the homes, even though there's more than that. There's three, there's four, there's broken down cars. So that equals 368 cars just for these two projects alone. Uh, I walk the neighborhood. I live there. I walk it all the time. I just walked it today.

[snorts and clears throat]

One of your exits, Steamboat Street, is a one-lane road. There is no way to make it a two-lane to get out of this project. There's cattails there and water that settles there. You're going to have to build a bridge to get out of this project to get through Steamboat. And it's a onelane road. There's four houses there that will be impacted. Kill is the same thing. You're taking a five lane road to go into this project. It's a oneway only out to I we walked that. I can't figure out how you're going to do a tonlay road there. I just can't figure it out. We live in a beautiful area. My understanding is that this is just a courtesy for us to come up here tonight that you've already approved this project. Okay. Also, I'm a money guy. Where is the city of Reading? What bank are you going to use for a 55year mortgage at 6.17% which is the rate right now? Okay. The homes that were built after the car fire were $450,000. Get you in their homes. Okay. $450,000 over 55 years at 6.17%. that lowincome mother with two kids that works in the hospital or is a teacher which I am an ex-teacher my wife is still a teacher will pay over a million dollar for that home after 55 years far more than a million dollars at 6.17% the city of readings you're going to use five-star bank you're going to use tri counties you're going to use JP Morgan because city of reading doesn't have the

money to finance these homes at all. Your budget is $5 million short. So, what's the financial benefit for the city of Reading? Thank you. Okay, you bet. Thank you. ALSO, [applause]

Jim Milestone, followed by Connor Brown, I think it says. Good evening. Uh my name is Jim Milestone. I live on uh River Ridge off of Courtzill Road and I live through the car fire. I've been a resident on River Ridge for uh over 25 years. Uh I take students from universities out to Buenav Ventura to the Jeremy Stokes Memorial and talk about the fire tornado that hit there. And when I heard about the city's proposal to bring in a u 120 home subdivision into this area, ground zero of this fire tornado that was just incredible was um was just I couldn't believe it. Um historically, uh fires re severe fires returned to the same topography regardless of the the housing development. And you can look at um Santa Rosa, California, where there was a fire 196364. That fire just a few years ago came back and it burned in exactly the same way, except for there's a lot more houses there today than there were back in the early 1960s. My grandmother lived in in Santa Rosa. Her house was narrowly missed [clears throat] um on that fire, and her house still stands today because the fire did exactly the same thing. the the topography of this basin um between Stanford Hills and Quartzel Road is perfect scenario and there's probably been a fire tornado there in the past um before uh recorded history and it'll happen again and even if it's 50 years from now it this was a this was a hellish place to be when that fire

occurred. the the presentation you heard today about um new software, about uh new warning systems, about all these different things that that uh have technologically evolved. The car fire was chaos in Reading in Chasta County. It was utter chaos. Um there was no strategic um effort to stop this fire. It it you couldn't stop this fire. It was uh 45 mph winds, burning embers falling out of the sky. My house was covered in uh burnt fences and shingles and embers, but fortunately I kept clean gutters and I was able to our house was spared. But our neighbors houses burnt down. We lost uh over like 30 to 40 houses in that subdivision in River Ridge. And I it was it was just a miserable experience. And to think that that years from now people are going to have a similar fire because we the Sacramento River Canyon runs right down below this area. The tributary canyons come in. This is a a perfect space to leave as natural open space. There's coyotes, there's black bear, there's mountain lion, there's bobcats, and I've seen all of those there in this in this area. Um, so I I just encourage the planning commission to listen to what the people said tonight and and pay attention to it because uh this project is just a bad idea from the very beginning even though you got free money to be able to spend on this design.

Thank you to move on. Um it's a bad idea. Thank you. Thanks Connor [applause]

Connor Brown followed by Donna Scott. Hello and good evening. Uh my name is Connor Brown. Uh I was born and raised in the River Ridge subdivision just off screen there. And uh my family still owns a property there as well as across the street on Courtz Hill. Um, I'd just like to start off by asking proposing a question. Do any of you live in this area or have friends or family that live there? We don't interact. So, okay.

I mean, this is public comment time. We will comment after.

So, Sure. Sure. So, I just like to pose that because if you did and knowing myself and all of the others who came up and presented their stories this evening of what they've experienced living there, you might consider this project a bit differently. Everything sounds well and good with these nice well-crafted slides and quickly cited codes and everything like that, but the reality as has been shown and proven I would say by many of these people who came before me is a whole different story. the the time to evacuate extremely inaccurate. I don't need to go back over that. And why, you know, these are trained professionals here who have ran the scenario. These are not these are civilians. These are humans who in a time of crisis, we're going to be human. We're going to freak out. There's fear. These there's anxiety. It's not orderly. It's chaos. So, that's extremely inaccurate. Um the proposed egress absolutely insufficient. I'm basically here just to emphasize what was already said. We have these current roads that are already in place. You can't call through another subdivision and another egress, another way out where there's already these homes here. Um the proposed plan for the bridge is not something that I would love. Um however, I do think that our town needs to continue growing. I'm a father myself. I was raised here. I'd love to raise my family here. So that's very important. If we can make this area better, if we can grow our town, absolutely. We just need to take a better look at what's happening here. That is what I would urge the committee. Please reconsider what is happening here for the health and safety of our town and our community moving forward. Very, very huge. I will just briefly touch on my story, my experience of the car fire. We had many great um examples and stories that came up so far. I was there when they first opened up the Quartz Hill. Luckily, we were driving to the

Kzwick Dam to evaluate, to try to speak with the firefighters and see any progress. We saw the fire hop the river. So, we got out of there fast. We were right there when they opened up Courts Hill with this new expansion. And all of those who already told their stories how long it took them to get behind us on this currently expanded road. It just doesn't make sense. In reality, it doesn't add up. You can do you can do numbers. You can do all these slides, but reality is a different story. It doesn't add up. Thank you. Please reconsider this game. [applause]

Thank you. Donna Scott, you're up. And then I'm going to take a stab at this last one. Kiruba, you are on deck. Good evening. I am Donna Scott. I live at the base of Courts Hill on Snow Lane, which as you know was in the car fire footprint. During that fire, over 1 acre of our 1 and a half acre lot burned along with many acres of other lands in our area. The fire came within 12 ft of our house. Our house was saved because firefighters were stationed on Courtzill. Not on Courtzill, sorry, on Snow Lane. They were stationed in my yard to create a fire break so the fire wouldn't spread further. [snorts] When we moved to Reading 28 years ago, we were told that a bridge was going to be built connecting Buenav Venturv, which would mitigate future congestion as well as fire safety. I saw it on maps. I still see it on maps, but it's been ignored since then. Since we moved here, River Ridge, Bair subdivisions, and many others have been built. River Park Highland has been built out and now many other developments are planned for that area.

[clears throat]

All those houses, cars, boats, trailers would need to exit by two roads. As you've already heard, Courtz Hill Kzwick Jam. No matter how much hardcape you require on those houses, they still need to leave in the same way. And nothing has been done to change that. I see that as a problem. Has the built bridge been built? No. During the car fire evacuation, cars were backed up bumper tobumper with Quartz Hill being the main point of egress. And now the city plans to build more houses in the car fire footprint without significantly addressing the evacuation. Courtzill and Kzwick Dam Road have proven not to be adequate. They are two lanes. They do not carry the amount of traffic that was during the car fire or would be in the future. This is folly. Some of the money from your grant, 20 million I believe should have been dedicated to building a bridge to improve egress and to save lives. If the city wants to build, if the city wants to build more construction and more houses in that area, then build the bridge first. Don't make this into another paradise. Don't put my family, my property, my house, or that of the other people and our community in further danger. Thank you.

Thank you, Donna. [applause] I'm gonna have you state your name when you come up for me because I

Hi, my name is Daris. No, it looks a lot more intimidating than it [laughter] really is. Um, thank you, planning commission. This is my first time ever talking um at any city. Uh, so I'm actually a new resident and I um and I'm sorry to hear all the sad stories about carfire. I completely missed it, but I've heard about it since day one of arriving here. Um, and you know, it seems like the summary of concerns here sort of outweigh mine, but I think this is also important to point out. As you know, it seems like the fire being the number one concern that all of my fellow citizens have have voiced. I would argue the second thing that was brought up was environment and I think I sent the letter to um Mr. Schneaggel, but I think I need to send it to the planning commissioners, too. The third and I I would consider this an important topic for reading is that um I'm a new father. I have a 2-year-old and I hear some babies in the crowd and I know most of us have had kids. Um, you know, and I want to share the statistics that Reading has actually had a 3.5% increase in sex offenders. Um, and uh, you know, while the the n the state statistics is actually negative 12%. So I just want to urge the planning commission to think about this because what I didn't see in these rapid developments is a or even in the presentation today is the police department working with these developments and making sure that these um lowincome/affordable housing would be like would be pre like would stay away from potential offenders/criminals. It is not to point out that you know low income necessarily means more criminals and more more sex offenders but the very nature of the fact that we're increasing uh the number of houses in such a rapid short time span. I think that's my main concern is that is there a way for the city uh especially because the project seems to be partly sort of driven by the city of Reading with their mortgage plan that is there a guarantee that we can get as citizens that we would have safe um you know safe people getting into these houses. I know that the the the prototypical people that were presented

were, you know, a single teacher with two kids uh and and and you know, two individuals with low incomes that are working really hard and upstanding citizens. I would love to support that and absolutely would be behind that. What I don't want is this project to be used by people that would make this community less less safe. Uh so I I don't know if the city has thought about this and has a plan about it. I know this is just a comment section, but I would love to see if there's a safety plan that's also presented along with these developments. That's it. Thank you for your Thank you. [applause]

Okay, I have went through all of the public comment cards that I have in front of me. So, seeing that there's no more, I'm going to close the public comment and turn it back over to the commissioners

and city staff if they want to address anything. And madam chair, if I may, just um as you start deliberating, I know there had been a number of questions from the commission about the um financing mechanisms um and uh obviously there's some curiosity about the that as a background element, but I do just want to remind the commission um that that's not really going to be a relevant factor for planning purposes and actually state law does prohibit you um from discriminating against any housing project based on financing uh lowinccome status um uh th those sorts of factors. Thank you. So, I think our attorney is saying stay on track with the actual development. We can't get into the finance part. Um, so did you want to talk? I did want to address that. We have not made up our decision up here. We're hearing it like you. We're citizens. We're not City of Reading. So, we are um considering all aspects. And as far as any of us living in the subdivision, that would actually be a conflict of interest. So, we would have to remove ourselves from this agenda item. Um, Mr. Baker, your letter did make it to the commissioners. So, we do get the letters that are submitted and we have reviewed them all. Um, there were a couple that came in last minute that we were trying to read quickly as time went on. So, with that said, does any of my fellow commissioners have any further questions for planning? Greg.

Uh, yes. Um, put your microphone to your mouth. Is it on? Yeah, but move it closer.

Okay. Yeah, closer. Okay. Yes. I I just want everybody to know I lived through the car fire too, only in a different area off uh off point of Ventura. We got evacuated. Took us about 2 and 1/2 hours to go about two and a half miles. And uh I I know the anxiety that goes with it. Although we didn't lose any family or any structures. But I had a couple of questions. one, uh, we have a a a I visited the area this this past week and I noticed across the road that we have new construction going on there. How many units are being constructed in that in that development right now? And then additionally, what additional developments do you see on the horizon on the other side of the road to the south? That's my first question. So I believe you're referring uh commissioner to the vistas which I'm looking here is 65 units of uh single family construction. Um recently before this body came two other projects that was Brentwood Village and the cottages at Bair. Um do we have those numbers here? We do. Uh 60 single family residences for Brentwood. The cottages at Bair was 55 single family residences. Um, so all told, as far as those that are approved and under construction, you're at about just under 200 180 single family residences.

Thank you.

Uh, which I might add to to some comments that we did receive. When a traffic impact analysis is done for this project, it does have to incorporate and include future development. So, usually that's accounted for in a cumulative impact type analysis and it's done generally based on zoning or approved tenative maps. So when we look into the future and study traffic, we are required to consider both approved maps and or residentially zoned parcels or any type of zoning that will generate traffic just as a an add-on. Thank you. Uh my next question is [clears throat] it would appear to me that that we're that this site does need a third eress and it would appear that we somewhere around lots 116 or 117 would be the best shot to head to the north northern part of the area. um was that area considered in development of this plan?

So, so technically speaking, um it it does not in fact need additional egress um based on the code. I and I also want to say too that um my own in-laws lost their house in the car fire. Uh my my parents were evacuated out of you know, Lake Reading. My own house had a grass fire brush up against it last year. My neighbor was out there with a hose trying to knock it down. So, I've been a longtime Reading resident. I understand where everyone's coming from tonight. So, take my comments as just facts that I'm trying to present to you. Um, the fire code does not require additional access for this neighborhood. The fire code requires two means of access for subdivisions of technically 30 homes or more. Um you can um if but when you're sprinklered when your homes are sprinklered the fire code in fact allows you to have one means of access if you have sprinklered homes. Here in reading we require additionally we actually require two means of access. So we're more stringent than the state fire code in that regard. But just to to address your question, it may feel like to a lot of us based on our past experience and trauma uh of which I share in that um that it needs additional access. But by the code, by the regulations, which is all we really have to go off today, whether it's the city of Reading developing this project or a private developer developing this project, it does in fact just need two means of access. Um and so the second part of your question, was it explored? It was explored. Um, we had multiple community uh events over the past year, year and a half and we committed to the public that we would explore the feasibility of a secondary or or I guess tertiary access point. I think both off of David, correct me if I'm wrong, the the roundabout there that he mentioned on 116 117 as well as maybe down there at lots 5051 52. Is that right?

Yeah, that's right. I think the most most feasible one would be uh road D which uh you see stopping at lot 52 but it would extend northward.

So the that we we did spend money to explore feasibility to understand construction costs. Um the reality is if this was a private [clears throat] developer we actually would be on shaky ground to require them to build access based on constitutional. We have to show nexus and proportionality when we require a developer to build something. So let's pretend for a moment this isn't the city of reading and it's a developer in town wanting to build this. They we would say we'd like you to build another access to Quartz Hill. They would say, "Show me why. Show me in the code why I have to build that road." And if we could not prove with the code and with the law, we would be on shaky ground in terms of they could sue us and say there's not nexus in proportionality for you to make me spend millions of dollars to build the road. So I'm going to challenge that. So just because we're the city, we don't hold ourselves to any other different standard, but we did in fact explore it. I don't know how much money we spent, but our public works transportation team could could probably speak to it. We we did some initial feasibility. David addressed uh sighteline issues, grading issues, um probably some other technical details some of our folks would be happy to give to you. Ultimately realizing it wouldn't be uh feasible for the project. It'd be cost prohibitive and ultimately it's not required by the code. And so that's why you don't see it before you today in this proposal. And I guess my last question is u there was one of the uh speakers mentioned uh uh the bridge that was originally in the plan and then another speaker brought up the fact that you could access another uh exit point by going down to the river trail. Has the city explored any options in that regard? I

I don't have information on that, but I'm going to look to my colleagues here to see if they have any additional information. want to take a stab. I'm gonna invite Michael Webb, our public works director, up to uh answer that question. Thanks, Michael. [snorts] [clears throat] Good evening, commissioners. Can can you please repeat that, Mr. Balovic? I'm sorry, couldn't hear you.

Could you could you please repeat the question? Oh, has the city has since the city's not going to be constructing a bridge, had they considered extending roads down to like the hardland trail and come up around the river that way. It was pointed out by a couple of our speakers

for for this particular project here. As Director Pagan laid out earlier, based on [clears throat] the feedback that the city had received at the public outreach events we'd held, um the primary concern we'd heard from residents again was a new connection to Courtz Hill Road. And so that was really where we spent the the most of our effort was looking at the feasibility of that. Um we didn't spend a lot of time looking at a connection down to the south. Um, for the reasons that Director Pagan laid out, technically this subdivision as laid out meets the current regulations and requirements. Okay. The reason I brought that up was it would it would appear to me that an access to another area to the south might help alleviate some of the pressure on Courtz Hill.

That's the reason I bring that up.

Yeah, that that's a very good point. And in fact, that's a number of reasons why that the city feels that the project here before you is a good project because it does provide connectivity between existing subdivisions. And that's something that we strive for as we lay subdivisions out. Um, obviously the subdivision to the east um was always intended to connect to something to the west. That's why we have those substrates. And when we condition projects in coordination with Director Pagan's team, we look at all the traffic circulation within the individual subdivisions and the local streets. And when we hit thresholds to where we get to the capacity of that roadway, that's where we would look at providing alternative connections to the arterials, which in this case would be Quartz Hill Road, or depending on if something was built um south of this, maybe in the future that could be a possibility to connect to the south down to Harlem.

Thank you. You're welcome. Commissioner Ryan, you you might be the same guy again. I'm curious what would precipitate the the actually an extension to the bridge to a bridge because everything funneling onto I mean we've all driven Courtzel Road, we've all driven Kzwick Dam Road and those are not, you know, high-speed exit lanes. sending it to another place and skipping uh Harland like rolling it out through Buentura across a bridge. What would make us have to do that as a city?

So, so great question and I [snorts] um I'll I'll take the opportunity to discuss the two traffic studies that the the team put together for this project because I I think there may be a smidge of confusion based on some of the questions that the public's asking. um our consultant and our our team prepared a traffic impact study which doesn't spend a lot of effort looking at emergency evacuation that was a completely different study and I believe um Commissioner William if I pardon me if I that's okay yes I referred to it we just received it

that's correct so there were two two independent studies if you will that that really are tied at the hip impact study really looks at the non-emergency type daily traffic um impacts of any project. We use standard engineering principles, standard guidance. We look at the number of lots, the type of uh residences that are going to be built. We look at the um the data providing information on how many vehicles each home um has and we generate trips and then we distribute those trips where we feel makes the most sense based on our experience. And when we do that, then we look at the capacity of not only the intersections that we anticipate those uh trips hitting, also the infrastructure that they drive along. So in this case, this project actually again in the traffic impact study analyzed nine intersections. Uh Lake Boulevard and Kzwick, Kzwick and Courts, Buventura and the new connection, um a number down Quartz Hill and Benton and Market. And we looked at all of those intersections from multiple scenarios. We looked at a scenario that we would call existing, which is what's out there right now today. [clears throat] Then we look at what we would call our existing plus or excuse me, our baseline, which is what is there today plus any approved projects that this commission has allowed to move forward. Then we look at the baseline plus project, right? which would be an indicator for does any particular project throw a section of roadway or a intersection or some aspect of public infrastructure over the acceptable limit. Then we take those same three scenarios and we forecast them out to determine if there's a a future impact caused by the project. And that's really what the traffic study does for this project as well as for any

project. And for this particular project based on the traffic data that was collected pretty recent and using the standard traffic engineering principles there there are very few if any traffic mitigations required. Um I believe Mr. Schlaggel laid out that a few of the intersections will be getting additional signage. Um, and there's [snorts] a few recommendations I believe at the Buena of Ventur and Road A intersection for making sure that site lines are maintained, [clears throat] excuse me, and you know, new uh real estate signs and other things are not put in a way to block lines of sights for motorists. So, from a, if you will, a daytoday traffic perspective, the project checks out. Then given the sensitivity of the project to what staff has shared, the city decided that we need to look at emergency evacuation, right? Because that is a different element than your everyday traffic. And um we worked with our consultants to prepare that. And I think it is very important to recognize that in the discipline of traffic engineering, evacuation assessments or studies really is an emerging field. There is no standard for what that looks like, what we should do um and what that report ultimately looks like. And again, I think Mr. Schlaggel laid out that we had worked with the attorney general's office, excuse [clears throat] me, to identify a few things that we should do. And so again, what we did is we worked with our emergency personnel, fire and police to develop some criteria for well, where is a safe zone for someone to get to within this area? Right? Because I think that's one of the main questions when we're looking at emergency evacuation. Does someone here need to get all the way to uh Market

Street or to Benton or to 299 if they go down KZwick Road? like truly where is that safe spot where if someone can get there, they're safe. And so we worked with fire personnel to determine that based on a number of factors that I'm I'm sure they could detail for you. Then we looked at standard engineering traffic principles based on the number of [snorts] homes that are out there, the average number of vehicles that are there, and a bunch of other boring engineering stuff to determine that if we were um were in an event again that was just a a mass evacuation on a Saturday night when everybody was home, how much additional time, not not total time, additional time would it take for the last vehicle to get out. And what that study showed is that by adding this project in combination with the others that have already been approved, we were somewhere in the neighborhood of just under five minutes [clears throat] to just about six minutes depending on what scenario we looked at additional time for the last car to get out. So those are the the two different studies from a traffic perspective. The other thing that the emergency evacuation study looked at, excuse [clears throat] me, was what would the city do different now today than they did before. One of the big things that we found was that Courtzill Road, as a number of our folks have mentioned, was under construction. Um, so going down the hill and we have since learned from there in in our projects, both um what I would call capital public works projects. So the projects that my team puts out on the streets and roads and culverts as well as projects that are undertooken undertaken excuse me by our developers. We need to make sure

that in those projects the specifications and the permits that there is a emergency traffic control plan that if needed city staff can call that contractor and we can make sure that the road is opened up immediately and or that equipment isn't staged within the roadway to prohibit or prevent people from getting in and out. So that's one of the things that we've undertaken since then to make sure that we don't get in a situation where folks need to get out and the road is considerably narrowed up. So I hope that answers some of your questions. It it does kind of but I mean I'm thinking I'm not an engineer and I don't do traffic studies but I have driven there during a commute time like especially [clears throat] evening

and I'm pretty sure the morning looks just like the night except going the other way. And if you put all those people in there at 5, 5:15, 5:30, you know, ride in that zone and then yell fire, uh, it seems like that doesn't I don't see that being a 5 to six minute extra thing. I mean, it it takes a long time to get get up the hill. I I'm sorry all the nice people who live there, but I've driven up there and I thought this would make me nuts. Uh, fair. I mean,

which is why I'm not recusing myself because I'm thinking, okay, this is a this is an issue. But if if you could go out a whole different direction, you know, like across the bridge, I don't think we really got there. I I I get what you're saying, but if they could go out a completely different way, all the people who work at the hospital, for instance, if you work at the hospital, everybody's got to go down uh down Court Street there. There's no way around that. You're not going out Keswok Dam and making the loop. How many people really work in Shasta Lake, right? They're all going out onto onto Market Street or they're they're going out Court Street. So, you have this massive crush going out, massive crush going in. And that's not even an emergency. That's just living your life. So right now, Courtzill Road, [applause] Courtzill Road has about 3,800 vehicles on it per day, average daily traffic.

And the the classification for Courtzill Road is a minor arterial. And when you look at other minor arterials around town, most of our minor arterials are handling traffic in the 7,000 to 10,000 ADTS per day. You look at ranchos, you look at hilltops, you look at the other roads that are similar geometrics. And when I say geometrics, I mean both roadway widths, but also the alignment of the curvature, so the horizontal curves as well as the vertical curves. And so when we look at the capacity of Courtzill Road, both from an emergency evacuation standpoint as well as an everyday use standpoint, from a traffic perspective, there's a lot of headway or a lot of capacity there in both situations. There's there's a lot of capacity

available or it's at a lot of capacity a lot of capacity available. Okay.

And what would happen to your your original question when would the city require the bridge to be built? It would be when that traffic study showed that Courtzill Road was at its capacity. And we wouldn't necessarily say you need to build this bridge. To Mr. Uh to Director Pagan's point, we would likely condition a project to find a way to mitigate that. There could be other options as opposed to building a bridge that may be more cost effective. I believe some of the public commenters have suggested things like connecting down to Harlem, potentially widening Courts Hill. Those would all be things that I would expect a developer and his or her engineering team to investigate. But again, we wouldn't do that until we were at the capacity limit for Courtzillo Road. From a traffic perspective and from a the numbers perspective to Director Pagan's point, we're just not there.

And and I I say that with all due respect, my folks live in Lake Reading, so I'm very familiar with with the area. Well, we we don't do traffic studies, so I figure it it's kind of helpful, so I didn't mean to. And I think our perspective was recognizing the sensitivity of it and making sure that we were analyzing it and doing everything we could. Let me just add another comment to that. That was great. Thank you, Michael. Um, from a planning perspective, we need to remember that our general plan as a goal says that we'll have a level of service of C in our city. I think a lot of us, myself included, would love to drive on streets with unimpeded traffic flow,

never wait more than one time at a light, right? We we like living here because the traffic is not like LA or Sacramento. But what this body needs to determine tonight is conformance with our general plan. [snorts] Our general plan says as a goal, we're looking for level C traffic. And that's going to be what Director Webb just described. And when he says we have room for 10,000 trips a day, that might sound like a lot to a lot of folks. It sounds like a lot to me. I'm not a traffic engineer, but we have traffic engineers that work at the city to make that assessment. Does this project mean we're going to be in conformance with the general plan? Yes or no? So, that's one point I wanted to make. Um, two is is buo and the extension. There's a big difference, as director web described, between average daily traffic and evacuation. Evacuation traffic is an emerging field. It's new. People are still trying to figure it out. Um there's recent legislation and laws around this in the state of California. Um we are embarking on a citywide evacuation study right now as we speak. The law has required us to do so. There's an RFP out. We've selected a consultant and we're embarking on a citywide evacuation study to look at evacuation routes throughout the city. Buena Ventura could make that list. Quartz Hill might make that list in terms of minor collectors, arterials, and whatnot. So to your question, Commissioner Ryan, the results of that study will be a planning horizon of I don't know how long at this point, probably 20, 30, 50 years, and we'll be following a document like that to inform future bodies like this and future councils of when from a citywide perspective based on an evacuation scenario, something like that capital project would have to be built. I'm I'm guessing we're decades away from that uh from a traffic standpoint and from an evacuation standpoint. And the cost has to be borne by somebody. So when we talk about traffic and level C traffic, if everyone in this room wants level A traffic, which I would love, I would love level A traffic, too, that the cost will be borne by us as citizens. You're talking more lane miles, more maintenance for the director for for

Michael's team. We can't even maintain the roads we have now, let alone roads with more lane miles and width to to get better traffic flows. So it comes at a huge cost as well. Um, which is why our level of C, you know, level service C is is so significant and why we want to make sure projects are meeting it, but we don't need to hold projects to the standard of exceeding that because that cost gets borne by the developer and ultimately our taxpayers. Um, so I just wanted to add a couple clarifying points there. I appreciate it. Thank you.

Mr. Webb, can you stay up there? Commissioner Godart has some questions for you. Director Pagan um pointed out that the traffic study would have included all approved um subdivisions whether they're built out or not. Can you tell me if the evacuation modeling by WTR also took that approach? Yes.

Okay. And so the report, the evacuation modeling says you can expect an added evacuation time of roughly five or six minutes. But my question is what is the total evacuation time? Is that did they model that? I mean are they could it is it going to be two hours plus six minutes? That's a [clears throat] great question. That's a lot harder to model if you can imagine. And so that's why the study really focused on the additional time because there there are so many factors that would have to be you know assumed that the data becomes very questionable. So real world just proved that's exactly what it is.

And is that evacuation that added five or six minutes is [clears throat] that just for the residents of the subject development or is that the whole neighborhood built out or not? It's the whole general area up there. land park to Stanford Hills, the new proposed subdivision subdivision to the right as well to the east, excuse me. Okay. Thank you.

And I would add we we did that evacuation study for a SQA analysis uh based on attorney general guidance. Um and so and David can correct me if I'm wrong, but I mean that the idea is you're evaluating the impacts of that project, which is why we're looking at incremental changes, right? Additional time required, not necessarily to your point, Commissioner God, total time. So we're looking at project specific impacts. So, from today's baseline, how much worse would it get? Good point. Thank you. Commissioner Ryan has one more question.

Sorry, I had one more thing on my note and I forgot. Um, so when I drove up there, the thing that really makes this uh uh unique for me is the fact that it's down in kind of a bowl. Um, is any of that a factor in this? I don't know if you're the Does anybody deal with that? If this was a big flat place, I realize you'd have still the same roads, you still have the same number of houses, you'd still have all that kind of stuff, but from a fire behavior standpoint, um, uh, Mr. Milestone's comment, I I've seen that a lot in, uh, my job. You know, you see these fires and and the big teams roll in on the Forest Service property and they all go, "Oh, yeah. It's the same as the such and such fire. It's in the exact same spot." So, we know what we're going to do and how we're going to do it because we already did this once.

It It is. Does this matter that it's in this this draw? It's considered. Yeah. I mean, SQUA makes it so that we have to evaluate does the project exacerbate wildfire risks and part of that is based on topography.

So, when our fire marshall and our our guys in the fire department look at what the project is, they're certainly looking at topography, surrounding areas, prevailing winds, where fuels are, all that comes into play with their analysis. I am not in the fire department, as you know. So, if you want more specifics, I'd invite one of our um our fire marshall up if you'd like to get into the specifics in that, but they definitely take it into account when they're making a qualitative assessment of are we making things worse and how are we going to fight this fire. In fact, it's probably why we incorporated um as Mr. Schlaggel said, we have bike ped paths that are paved so that our firefighters can get back in there and and fight fire. It probably also came into play when we're talking about vegetation management zones and fuels management. And so I'm gonna stop spitballing and uh if you want specifics, I'll invite the experts, but it does come into play.

Okay. Because I I was kind of curious about that. Does how much that changes things and if that's if that was all considered. Would you like to hear specifically from a fire I have one more question for Mr. Web. Sorry. Before [laughter] you go and then we'll invite the fire marshall up. So in this report that we just got today, the Wr. It says that the conservative number of vehicles is 225. And assuming there's 120 new houses in that subdivision, that's not even accounting two cars per, it doesn't seem like a conservative number to me.

So, a great question. So, census track data indicates that there's 1.84 vehicles per home there average in this area. And if we're truly talking about wake everybody up at two o'clock in the morning on a Saturday and say get out now, right, assuming that people are going to go out and hook up their boat, put everything in it and leave isn't really a fair assumption. And so, but it does say in this report that the majority of these residents from the car fire pulled their horses and boats trailers when leaving.

And so, in [snorts] the report, how they accounted for that was they used the 45 foot headway. And so when they talk about the headway speed, I believe it was about 3 seconds I believe. I'd have to open up the report. When they do all the math, what they're looking at is a average of 1.84 vehicles per household and an average vehicle length of 45 ft. So what that means is from front of one vehicle to the front of the next because there's going to be very close gaps in that scenario. They're assuming [clears throat] 10 miles per hour, which seems very reasonable. An average length of a vehicle to incorporate potentially pulling a horse trailer, boat, or RV, and an average of 1.84 vehicles leaving each home. Seems very appropriate to to model that scenario. I'm sure there would be some homes that would take two, if not three vehicles. I'm sure there would be some homes that would take one, maybe two. But in when you're analyzing something of this size, 1.84 84 as an average based on the census track data. Sub does seem to make a lot of sense.

I mean, I get that it's average. It just doesn't seem like it says conservative number. I just don't agree with that. But thank you. We'll have the fire marshall come up. Sure. Thank you. You're on. Commissioner Ryan, I kind of asked him ask him again. Would you like her to repeat her question or you got it? Well, let's repeat. Okay. Well, I I just was curious because this is in a a pretty steep area and fire and wind and you know all those things those are all flat fire on flat ground and fire in a canyon are different.

Correct. So is uh fuel modeling um vertical uh rise of the fuel. All of that is um one of the things that we required in here was 200 feet of defensible space. your zone A and zone B. They're on the plans that is specific to lower the size of fuels coming into that project. And then we asked for the trail system so that I can get wildland rigs into the defensible space to also help have fire engine defense space. We also put fire hydrants at the end of every culde-sac in here so I have direct access to water to shuttle water to those units uh as needed. And that's how we viewed the wildland side of that. Um when you come to the fire code, we look at it as a non-biased look. It is does it meet the standard of what the fire code says it does. Um in some areas it exceeds it with some building construction standards that go above and beyond as that is part of the guideline of development. Um, so we're pretty happy that this is a really nice looking model for what a community in a severe high threat should look like construction feature-wise and design. Um the other thing we hear about not just you know in this but all the time is that if if we put housing where it was uh open space with potentially lots of you know brush and all that that it actually makes it safer for the surrounding neighborhood. But homes are super flammable. So maybe you could

Well, they're flammable but they're not as flammable of as a pine tree that's been in drought for eight years.

Okay. uh and that's diseased. It's a different fuel model and you're talking about a different type of fire. You're talking about wildland turning into a confilration. And so when you have house after house going off, the uh the the amount of heat generated is significant, but it takes a long time for a house to get to that level. It's not like it's a pine tree like that. A house doesn't do that. Um they you everybody has seen house fires as they progress. It takes time. So, when you have a housing development like this where you have 200 feet of defensible space, then you have to go through the houses to get through an entire neighborhood before you hit the housing development to the east. That's a lot of time to get there. Uh we're not talking about a tornado. We're talking about normal fire behavior of how fire progresses. And then you're talking about we have access to water supply at the end of each of those so we can help with the defensible space of this community which also protects the community to the east. Um nobody can defend against a tornado of fire. It's just not possible. It doesn't happen.

Sure. That makes sense. Um how about under the power lines? Is that housing developments are built near power lines all the time? this. No, I mean I know that but I'm I'm talking about uh the maintenance under those. Can anybody speak to that? Is that somebody about maintenance under power? Yeah, the the utilities are are char shape though with fuels management. I my understanding is that that it is. Yes. Thank you. I didn't look. Well, the last time I was demon it's just a big dirt road. So, there wasn't a lot of rush that I saw when I drove down last. Um, and just while we're on the topic of firing back, I just wanted to give two more comments for the commission's consideration and for the public. Um, I think it's it's really important.

The subdivisions that are lining Quartz Hill today uh met code when they were constructed [cough] and like I said uh previously, the city of Reading for a long time has required two means of access for 50 more 50 or more units. Um, and so from folks we've heard from tonight, my own parents when they were evacuated, everyone here tonight got out alive, right? And the point I'm making there is the code the code cares about preservation of life. It it it that's what it's for, right? It's and it's the secondary access. While albeit it wasn't as fast as we all wanted, it did work, right? Except for we had a few losses of life, of course, Jeremy Stoke. I mean, notwithstanding, but it did work. if we wanted to be able to evacuate out of every subdivision within five minutes, we'd have LA freeways running all through city of Reading, right, to to handle the volume. So, the code is is not really considering um fear or panic or trauma, which are all very real. Um what it's considering is was life preserved? Did you get out in time to save your to save your life? Uh and secondly, I would add we just we cannot eliminate risk from the built environment. Um for instance, earthquakes, your homes are not designed to withstand a a magnitude 10 earthquake. Uh in fact, the building code says it's a probability of 2% in 50 years that that house will get impacted by earthquake that damages it or destroys it. Uh we don't design for a a flood uh that's going to come once every thousand years. We design for floods that come once every hundred years. And so natural hazards are everywhere and we need to account for them and design for them. But the codes do have thresholds, right? Otherwise, if we eliminated all risk, it would be impossible. So I think it's important for this commission when you're making your findings or when you're looking at the findings you have to make to approve and consider whether or not this project uh protects health,

safety, and welfare for our public, the the threshold is established by the code in that manner. So just food for thought. I just wanted to put it out for out there for you, Commissioner Miner. Yeah, thank you um staff for putting this together and the public for being here. It is very helpful. Um a couple couple quick questions. Somebody mentioned that during the car fire the Kzwick to Lake Boulevard exit got was closed with Can you can somebody clarify that for me? I I hadn't heard that before or got or got closed as a result of fire.

I cannot speak to that. I'm looking at our fire department andor I see the gentleman who um who stated it. Um can fire make a comment about that? You come up to the lect room, please. Thank you. [clears throat]

Lake and Kzwick was open during the car fire. It was some some questions on the lake that road. We can't take public comment anymore. So, thank you for answering the question. Lake and KZwick by Dollar General, right? That's what we're talking about. Do you want to clarify? Well, I'm talking about I guess I'm talking about the full path from Courtz Hill to Kzwick over to Lake that

was open for during that evacuation dropped on the corner of Courtz Hill and Kzwick which impeded egress that night. Not sure exactly on the timeline of that but definitively Kzwick and Lake was open. I was driving engine five that night. Okay. I was there. So we maybe so at some point in the night we maybe had some impeding traffic that would have restricted the flow. Yeah, we had uh it was either sheriff's or RPD waving people through on that on that inter Okay. I think that was my only question that you might need to be We have one more question before you leave from Commissioner Godart.

Is it possible that the um dirt road underneath the power lines it appears from the map that it connects with Courtz Hill. Could that be used for emergency egress? Jumping on that. I think we're getting Director Webb back up. [clears throat]

Yes, that was something that we coordinated with with Jay and his staff on. And um ultimately where we landed, which made the most sense was that those roads are there available and accessible for emergency operations. The city has an easement for a number of them as um Mr. Schlaggel and Director Pagan laid out earlier because we have a a wastewater line through there. Um so we we are out there to maintain our facility. Um the project is right now um building um a portion of those um roadways will be paved for hiking and and walking trails. So in [snorts] the event of an emergency, the emergency personnel will be able to use that as a point of egress for them.

Okay. But it wouldn't be for the neighbors to exit out that way. Yeah, that that would not be the intent. Okay, back to Commissioner Miner. He had some more questions. You can hang up if you want, but you don't have to. Um, somebody did ask the question about or mention that Steamboat was a one uh one-way road. Is that is that going to remain a one-way road through this steamboat? And then maybe Keel Court there was some section that draws down to one way. I don't believe that those are one-way roadways today. They're all two-way local roadways and in subdivisions. I I suspect

even if it gets necked down a little bit, it's still a two-way. Yes, because I do it does look like it ne the steamboat specifically kind of necks down around that drainage. Right.

Um, as we're laying out subdivisions and talking about the geometrics and widths for those streets, as we've heard a number of our comm community members talk to, we do like to keep the speeds along those streets, right, as comfortable as possible for our kids and family members, right? So, we generally do not build our local streets to be very wide, which would encourage folks to drive faster. So, it may look very narrow, but it it really is intended for two-way traffic, just like any typical local roadway street.

Thank you. Um, and then I I just wanted to talk about this development as a whole in the city. Um, doing the project, I'm understanding, and hopefully somebody can help me clarify that there is not a profit motive or really even a profit opportunity in this development. This is a grant-f funed project. this cost savings if any will be passed on to home buyers. But could you somebody just kind of speak to that a little bit? I don't want there to be any conflation that there is there is or could be a profit motive here.

Yeah, I mean this is this is a unique project. Um generally the city isn't in the business of being a developer. It's not something the city wants to do. Um but this is in the car fire recovery or the car fire footprint which was a requirement I believe for this grant. Um, and so when the city was uh afforded the opportunity to apply for this grant and got it, uh, really what the city's aims, it's, you're correct, it's not a profit motive. It's how do we get housing for people in our community? Um, that's the role of the housing division in our community. We have a statewide housing shortage. I think we all have experience with that with friends and family that can't find an affordable place to live. And so the whole goal is to provide uh housing for the community at a an income eligible rate really. Um, so, um, I will also add that this has been going on for several years and we had prior city councils that put us down this pathway in terms of, um, applying for the grants and then making the decision to, uh, pursue design and get us to this point. So, it's been a it's been a community effort and a city councilled effort for for some years. So, I'm looking at my city attorney to make sure I didn't say anything wrong. But, um, but if you go back to 2022, 2023, maybe even earlier, it it took us about four, three, four, five years to get to this point. And, and yes, the motivation is not to make money. The motivation is to provide housing for our community.

So, we're passing on the we're passing on the benefit of the grant to the individuals who are buying. That's the mortgage component. Yeah. You're you're getting everything pad ready with no dollars spent by the city other than grant funds. Yeah.

So we have $22 million to I mean we've spent uh million plus dollars probably just getting to this point. All these drawings, these powerpoints, these studies, environmental SQA, it takes a lot of money. So we've spent millions of dollars just to get it to this point, get it uh approved if this body approves it. And then uh to build the infrastructure, the utilities, the roads, everything else is all again funded by the grant. And so the cost savings comes at the end when you sell those homes. Uh the developer who sells those homes did not have to pay for any of this. And so the cost savings comes from that.

Um speaking of that question that ties into one of my other questions. Uh so several people mentioned that this the structure of selling these homes. I'm under um as a regular old individual building. If I wanted to build a house as you know for myself, could I go buy a house in this subdivision or does it have to be it has to be a developer who's going to build multiple or many homes in it? These are not individual lots for sale to people who might build one for themselves someday. Or is it more developer? My understanding [clears throat] is is that once all the improvements are made and we actually have the 120 buildable lots that the housing department will look at what the market looks like at that time and they will determine how many lots to let loose for sale. So we could see

so the structure is open. It could go either way to one large developer or to I think me if I wanted to build my own house there. Yeah. And I'm I'm going to look at my city attorney here. I'm imagining we're going to have to have council weigh in on how these lots are to be conveyed in the future would be my guess. Well, there's two things. Oh, he's he's muted. Jenna, yeah, his microphone's on, but no sound. Can you hear me now? We probably need to hear him. [laughter] Can you hear me? No, I can, but I don't think they can. She'll work on your volume. Oh, that's that's mine, Jen. That's my mic and mine. Can you hear me now?

Okay. Um, well, so two things. Um, I don't have the information as to whether any plans were made, but you know, at this stage in a planning process that the the steps that are going to be taken might not be decided, right? Ian might be the same if it was a private developer. Um, in terms of how they were ultimately going to um, sell off and develop the lots. Um, the subdivision map could, you know, conceptually end up uh, in the hands of a different private developer if we were in that that stage. I don't have the information as to where um the intent had been to go on this. Um but I would also note that we're getting a bit a field of yes the the planning considerations when we get into that. Um okay back to possible planning consideration questions.

Uh the city is proposing I think I saw two things 120 or 122 lots. When we look at this um this entire parcel or this entire area of land we're talking about, if somebody if a private developer wanted to come in and develop it, could their density be could they do much more dense? Are we at max density? Um it seems like there's a there's space there. somebody could come in and do, you know, substantially more with some of the bonuses available by the state of California and various other things than this is proposing right now.

Yeah, there certainly are density bonuses that somebody could tap into to go beyond the RS 2.5. Usually that's more for multifamily. Uh this particular site has a lot of constraints, so it's hard to imagine a lot more homes being built. In addition to that, the property itself only has 220 sewer household equivalents, we should say, um, in the area. So, sewer capacity would be a problem for anything beyond that as well. So, we're we're building at or near max density or talking about at or near max density reasonable. I don't think we fully assess parcel A and B for max density. We we assess the portion that's dedicated for homes.

Okay. um if we looked at I mean it'd be a simple slope equation um that we could look at and it probably wouldn't be it probably wouldn't be more than 100 homes like the sewer uh capacity limitation be right around there I would think additional from what we see so in theory you number like by the end of but in theory we could do if we talked about A and B there could be more up to 100 more homes that could go there our general plan would technically allow for our general be amended if you go anything beyond the 2.5. So, uh the remaining 50 acres or so.

If if none of that was uncovered by 20%, you're talking about 120 homes like the remaining sewer capacity. So, it couldn't go beyond that, but there's plenty of 20% slope that would reduce that number significantly. And and to your point, conceivably, I mean, with with private development, you're going to try and be as efficient with the land as possible because there is a there is a motive to make money, right? The city here is I think it's a stipulation of the grant, 120 homes. Is that right? Um, so the city the city hit the 120 mark, not based on eking out every last bit of density, but it's a requirement of the grant.

Okay, that that's helpful. Um, and then back to our city attorney, what as a commission, what grounds do we have to deny a project? I'm under the impression that if we see that it meets code and our it complies with our general plan, we really don't have a lot of grounds to deny it. Um, could you speak to that?

Yeah, I I would refer you back to the findings that you have to make um as part of any approval process. And really it's a question of whether or not you can make those findings. Um or um if you were to want to deny a project for a reason that's not in those findings, then you're running into trouble. Um if you have a finding there that you don't think that you can make um because of the facts that are presented at the hearing, then that's where you would be looking at denial is appropriate. So specifically those findings are that the product is statutoily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Uh the ne necessary findings for approval are in evidence and um subject to the draft.

Yeah. Subject to the draft of you want to look at packet page 15. 15. That's where the findings are expressly um stated and that's both your environmental findings and then your tenative map findings. Okay. And to tag off what um city attorney Curtis was saying, uh for purposes of framing up the discussion, if this body sees a finding that you're wrestling with making, it would be good to discuss that particular finding and then why and then work through that.

Yeah. And and I think what you're getting at, Commissioner Miner, is really the difference between um the commission's role sitting here now, which is quasi judicial when you're applying the laws and you're determining uh whether or not this project fits within the legal requirements um versus um when you're advising on changing codes. Um uh you know, really there's an obligation for you to um apply those fairly and the laws fairly and impartially to the project that's in front of you. um uh you don't get to make up the rules for each individual project, right? Um but you also have a separate role in other times when you're advising on uh potential changes to the zoning code, general plan, etc.

Yeah, I think there's a little bit of a we we have to be apply the same logic to different different things otherwise we get in a hairy positions. Um, last thing, planning commission is the LA, this is my last question and comment at this time. Planning commission is the last word on this unless it is appealed. Is that correct? Yeah.

And that appeal process is, you know, the n the neighborhood and the neighbors could, you know, band together and go through that appeal process. The next step would be going to the city council. Was there consideration with bringing this to city council due to the sensitivity or um we just you know I know this is standard we're following standard oper operating procedure and that would have been well outside of it. So yeah are are you talking about going to the city council in the first instance instead of starting with the planning commission? Well, not necessarily, but um you know, planning commission and then city council as a a secondary like are we really sure we want to do this?

Yeah. Um I don't believe that we have provision in our code for that. My last jurisdiction had a what they call direct review that was written into the code or in certain instances planning commission could be skipped and it could go directly to the ultimate appallet authority. I don't believe we have anything in our code to that effect. I'm looking over at our No, we were just confirring and don't believe so. No. Yeah. So we we do need to follow the the codes as written. I don't think in this case the appeal process is the correct way to do that if it goes that way. Okay. I have asked all my questions. Anybody else before I say my spiel? Okay. Oh, okay. Commissioner Godart.

Director Pagan, tell me why this is a better project because it's the city of Reading is developing it. What uh what um enhanced elements is the city adding that would not be required of a third part if this the property was sold to a developer? Sure. I mean um and I'm going to look to our planners over here to help me out too because there's there's a lot of those highlighted in your staff report. Um I think it's good for the public to hear.

I'll I'll try to rattle off a few off the top of my head and I'm going to have maybe you guys bail me out. But um I think one is is density. I mean, we are at maybe approaching a max density, but we all we aren't motivated by max density. So, um if a private developer came along 5 10 years from now, um this neighborhood could be looking at a development that has 50 more homes instead of what's there. Um so, the city's not looking to maximize efficient use of the land. We're looking to provide a housing that's affordable to our community. It's a supposed to be a model fire resilient uh community. So when you heard our fire marshall talk about access, um he was able to come in and say, "Hey, I want these bike ped paths located strategically so I can get in there and I can fight fire better." When you look at fire hardened um materials and construction, we're enhancing those pieces as well. Um there's architectural design guidelines which isn't a requirement of a developer. a developer could come in and um if it's not a planned development overlay, uh there really is very little control we have over on the finished look and appearances of single family construction. And so the city's looking out, I think, for the community in that way and trying to make it look appealing and have good architecture and good design. Those are the things that come to mind. Um David, you want to jump in? Is there some other I know there's others?

Uh yeah, I mean certainly we have policies for dedicating trails but not paving them and improving upon them. Uh the community services department looks at a long range plan for trail connectivity on this side of the city and this goes a long way to deliver on that with a very real built trail. Um the general area doesn't have adequate parks. It's been identified as needing a park and the previous park site for River Ridge Terrace is not suitable. So this this development provides a location that's up on a hill with nice views and um would deliver a decent park site for the area. Um the architectural guidelines is kind of a big one because we couldn't really require higher standards. We don't have objective design standards for res subdivisions and so the city's delivering on on that by trying to make sure these homes look better and interact better with the public realm and and uh also the the fire safe construction. I think the goal of that is to deliver as a fires safe community where it could be maintained that way and that I think goes a long way with uh insurance rates for the area too. Would the would a third party developer be required to provide the connection to Buenav Ventura?

Um I believe so. Yes, we're at over 50 homes if I'm not misspeaking. But um and these are sprinkled. Oh yes. Yeah. And and uh the new building code coming out in a couple months actually has even further enhanced requirements for um fire hardened construction. So, a few years from now when construction, if approved, when construction goes with these homes, you'll have even additional requirements on our home building as well for fire hardening. Okay. Thank you.

Anybody else? Okay. Well, I just want to say that I wrote a list of every speaker that came up there and I do think our commissioners up here heard you. They've asked the questions that came from them. Another one that wasn't addressed was the there that she mentioned there is a stream that's seasonal. How did we evaluate that? Is it seasonal? I don't see it anywhere on here where it went.

I could probably go to the aquatic [snorts] resources impact, but I think the features on site are upper tributary to the Carter Creek. So, you see more creek features around year round further downstream. Um, but yeah, the site is designed around a lot of the uh perennial or ephemeral stream drainages on on site. You can kind of see them in the exhibit on screen. I can also show you the aquatic resources exhibit if you'd like. Okay. Um, but that was taken into consideration with the Yes,

with FEMA. Okay. Um, I think that was the only one that I did not mark off. I don't know if I can ask this question. So, you I'm asking our attorney, but what about it being non-insurable? Uh, from the fire zone. I I do know for myself living in a high fire zone, finding insurance is close to impossible.

So, can I ask that question or is it out of our realm? So, I I do think that sort of falls outside of your realm um in in terms of whether you want to be um in that I think that's really going to the economic viability of the the project and whether or not construction will actually occur and whether will actually be people moving in in the future as opposed to um uh the the planning factors that are really there for your consideration at this point.

I that's what I was wondering if it was taken into consideration if that was addressed with the city. I mean, it's certainly come up in discussions. I mean, because ultimately, um, certainly the city doesn't want to have a fully built infrastructure subdivision and then have the lots not pencil. Um, so it's it's certainly been a part of discussions, although it's it feels largely outside of our control um, these days with our city. Much of our city is in the very high fire severity zone, as many of you probably know. Um, luckily we, you know, just as a little tidbit, we do have a really good building division and planning division. we actually get graded and get scored by the insurance uh industry and so we have fairly good ratings in terms of our codes and enforcement of them. So it helps control insurance rates somewhat uh maybe not a huge amount but largely it's sort of outside of our control um and I would agree with of course our city attorney on outside of the purview of this decision.

Thank you. Um [clears throat] let's see. I think that I marked everything off there that I wrote down. So, if there's no other comments by commissioners, I'll consider a motion.

Yeah, I I can make a comment. Jeremy, you and I have talked about or director Pagan, apologies, but you and I have talked about, you know, my general um qualms about the city of Reading doing development projects. And I think it's worth, you know, just putting putting on record, I would much rather see this project or future projects come from the private sector regardless of the, you know, I know that that comes with some risk to the the area and possible increased density, but um I think that there was 14 people that shared against the project and there was really two that were possibly pro the project but with modifications. Um so just from a high high level I like um I I don't know that this is the doing this type of should I should I shut up on this Mr. Attorney? I I just I just don't know that I love the the city of Reading being a developer. But I can move on from that comment if I should. Okay, I'll move on from that comment. In this case, I actually do think that this development as proposed is going to um largely improve uh the the fire risk for the area. I think it is worth noting as director Pagan mentioned that um we did make it out. Um, I was a I was a resident. I lived in a one entrance neighborhood on the other side of the river. The fire burned into my home, so or into my my yard. Um, so it is a a high concern for me and certainly for the community. In this case, I actually think we are probably making it better. So

with that, I um want to make a motion to accept staff recommendation on this project as I think challenging and and tenuous that is. And that said, I some of those questions um ultimately the city council is the one that may weigh in on this project. If the public and the people and you in the room decide that you want to come together and appeal the project to the city council, there's a really clear way um to do that. And I don't know that that would be a bad step in this case. So for this at this point, I I would make a motion to accept staff recommendation on the project.

Do I have a second? I'll second the motion, but I would like further discussion before I do that. Sure.

And it's on one area. One of the comments was a gentleman who was disappointed that he would be losing his viewshed. And there's several lots there. It's probably 112, 78, 77, 73, and 72. And I'm sympathetic to that. I'm not sure that my fellow um commissioners would agree to delete those lots from the um map. I'm open to that. But in lie of that, I would like to suggest and um the commission has done this in the past on other projects that at least those lots would um be conditioned to be singlestory homes so that someone wouldn't build a two-story home and be looking down in someone's yard of them all in the pool which is just six fence off six feet off the fence. So I I actually would support you on uh taking those out on that edge.

That that makes a lot of sense. Quick well yeah quick clarifier. I believe this grant was 120 required 120 homes and we would be dropping well below that threshold. We'd have that for elsewhere. I'm looking

I'm looking out but I we have to have 120 uh homes. So if if we're to delete pads someone yell if I'm wrong but I I'm seeing everyone stare at me and saying I'm right. So, um, we and and you know, we could get into specifics with the commission if you'd like. I mean, there was a lot of a lot of thought put into this layout, a lot of competing regulatory requirements, avoiding ephemeral streams, buildable lots without slope, etc. So, um, there was other iterations. Uh, we could have folks speak to that, but we would have to make up for that loss. We cannot have, uh, a subdivision with less than 120 lots pursuant to the grant. How many are there now? Was it

120? And I believe you listed off four lots. 78, 77, 73, 72. 112 up at Steamboat because it looks to me like there's a lot next to it. I missed. Okay. 72. Or was that I should put my glasses on. But I I don't think 112 touches another house. But there's a lot behind it though. I don't know what that would be. Okay. But right now it maybe it doesn't. But at least 78, 77, 73, and 72 would be conditioned to accommodate single level homes. Would the commission entertain director Webb to provide a comment in this regard? Sure. Thanks. We have done that in the past. [clears throat]

Thank you, Director Pagan. Um, so in response to that comment, we have met um with a few of the property owners in particular regarding those lots and their concern of of being built right behind their backyard. and our consultant and us are looking at all the options for those particular lots to make sure that we preserve that. Understanding that the property directly to the west or behind the lots on Spre are sitting below considerably the terrain above them. And so we are looking at options to make sure we preserve some of that privacy and some of that feel that's there today. We we don't have the specifics laid out, but that is something that we're looking at. Could we add it to the conditions? Yeah. I can't make that recommendation. Okay.

Is the Is there any major objection to keeping that single family homes? Some of the designs were single family home, I believe. Single level. Sorry. Single story. Thank you. It's late. Um well, I would say those are fairly small lots uh comparatively. So limited to limited [clears throat] to single story um certainly limits your square footage of construction which can affect economics and perform and whatnot. Um, I suppose we can condition it that way. I'm I don't I'm looking at my planners here to see if there's a how we would go about what mechanism we'd go about ensuring that it's, you know, uh, placed on the as a on the deed or something, but I think it have to be recorded on the face of the map.

Yeah, we could figure out the details. U, but I think it's looking at my city attorney. I think it's doable. Um, but there are those concerns in ter they are small lots already. Um, so I I don't know the details on limiting it to a single story, what that would mean for the square footage. Uh, but Director Webb, so if you're what what options do you have if not limiting the height to preserve the privacy of the people on the other side of the fence?

We could place restrictions to where the pro the new property owner could not build within so many feet of the fence line or construct other structures. Um, so we would look at those options. We'd make sure that they understand that they're on the, you know, they're responsible for the maintenance in that area. Um, it may be challenging to limit some of those homes to single stories given the buildable square footage of the flat lot up there. Um, so in order to hit the square footages that we're looking at, those those may need to be two stories. We would have to look into that, but generally we would be restricting more [snorts] than likely building up against the property line down below. That would be one of the things we would consider

which we would do, you know, already with just zoning code setbacks requirements. Um, and I'm assuming when when we looked at preliminary design, we were sort of just accounting for standard zoning code in terms of looking at buildability of lots, but 73 and 72 and 78 are are very small as proposed. Yeah. 78 and 73 look like they back right up to somebody else's um place. 77 looks like it's got some room. 72 is kind of offset. 71 looks like it backs up to nothing. But 78 and 73 look look like the the folks that are really going to be

Yeah. And I I certainly understand the concern um from our community member. Um but it would be it would not be any different than other you know when there this subdivision came in and it backs up. we generally have, you know, that's what our setbacks are for, you know, so we do have our 10 15 foot um setbacks in the zoning code. Certainly, they'll have to abide by a minimum setback. The only way to really otherwise guarantee it is, you know, open space and or other easements

to to prohibit building. Otherwise, just kind of have to play by the same rules as everyone else in the city, which is our standard setbacks for zoning. So, we have a second with discussion that was not to her satisfaction. So, she's re-evaluating. Someone else can make the second, too.

Okay. So, we still have Commissioner Miner's first and we're looking for a second. [snorts] So, if we don't get a second, city attorney, what shall I do? Uh, the motion would fail without a second and then uh uh the the commission can make any alternative motions.

Okay. So, last chance. So, you had other map designs that [snorts] could be made available that might preserve the 78 and 77 and you know, you could get rid of four lots and find and find them elsewhere. Well, would you do that? I mean, certainly. I mean, it's been through a lot of iterations. We've been in design on this project for better part of a year. Um, so I don't I'm not intimately familiar with the other lot layouts admittedly, Commissioner Godard, at this moment. Um,

okay, Jeremy, I'm not going to belabor it. So, I'm going to trust that public works is going to do its best to accommodate the um other the existing homes that butt up to these. And then I will just go ahead and um second Luke's motion. Okay. So, we have a first and a second. All in favor? I oppose. Yeah, I'm gonna abstain, too. I'm going to oppose. You said too much stuff. So So,

so we need to make findings. Oh, well, let's see. So, we had abstain two aband. So that would be a do you have to state the reason that you're abstaining? Well, as a body um if the is that if if as a body you oppose the project then we need to make findings as to why. Yeah. So I'll let you start first or if you don't want mind I'll start first. Go ahead.

So I abstain just my concern is not lots 78 and 73. I really would love to see road D go all the way out to Buvententure or to Quartz Hill. [snorts] Um, so with reading the report we just got today, it was hard for me to agree with those findings on the evacuation route and the time limit that was given to us. [snorts] So I'm going to pass it over to So the Oh, turn your mic on one. I'll just ask a clarify. Well,

my finding would be I it's not in the staff report because we just got the Well, I'd like to make it Can I make a point of clarification just for the public? Um, that evacuation study was circulated. It was put online and just for you and you know, I'm not being contentious here. I just want to make sure they understand because that's Yes. So, this evacuation study was provided in the packet through a web link and some of our commissioners didn't see that, didn't click it. That's why she's saying um she got it today. So, but it was it was published and it was online and it's been completed for some time now. Okay. The clarifying question I'd ask though is for the purpose of findings, the evacuation time, okay,

the evacuation time and the the egress are two different issues. Um they're related, of course. I think for me, I would just like to make an alternate motion. So, if there was but being the chair I have to wait for a second. So, um if we had an alternate motion with an option for I because with this new subdivision and how crowded it was to evacuate with the car fire, I just would feel more comfortable accepting this with road D extending out to Courtz Hill.

So, that's my alternative motion. I would second that. Those are the findings. So, just to be clear, the motion is to deny the application. [clears throat] No, it's just an alternative motion. What? Which is I'm sorry. Well, because it didn't pass. But I'm saying I would be willing to make an alternate motion to keep the project going. I don't necessarily think it's I think it's a great project. Let me I think it meets the standards. I just would feel more comfortable approving the project if road D extended out to court.

So a quick clarifier question to follow up on that then. Um that would be a de facto deny today. Correct. because we we can you cannot we cannot approve it with something that is that large and you know unstudied or slash unplanned for in the plan. So just want to make sure you know what that would mean, right? Yeah. It's a deacto denial today. Is there a reason you don't care about that you're not looking at C

C? Well, it could be either, but I think David mentioned that they researched. Well, it was D and J, right? The two that would extend out that you researched, but you said it would be more feasible. The roads aren't up there. And I thought it was C. So, like cut out and go up. No. Oh, road D. It was the one you mentioned, right? Can't approve, right? So, we can't we can't we can't because we'd have to we'd have to restyudy it. We'd have to renotice deny it forward.

But if it but if it is a denial then I'm looking at my city attorney though. We'd still be back where we were which is we need a finding. And so that's why I was getting into the specifics um Commissioner Willm in terms of um is it a denial based on SQA analysis and that we didn't establish enough uh proof uh to show that evacuation routes are not um impacted or or is it a code issue which I think is harder to make because it meets code of two egress. It's definitely not a code issue. So then I think you're leaning towards a SQA argument, right?

Um which would mean we factually disagree um with the evacuation study that was done, [clears throat] which um I'm not sure how we would I'm going to have to lean on my city attorney some, but um and then we'd have to find which finding it it would necessarily lean on or we could entertain more discussion about the evacuation study. And just to be clear, the result of that would potentially be a different environmental document, not necessarily a change in the project. [clears throat] Okay. Thank you. And so I'm going to pass it over to the other two to have discussion. Greg,

well, for me, I think I I I think another evacuation route is warranted. I just that that's just the way I feel about it. I think it needs to be done based upon previous history. And I also think the city, not related to this particular issue, the city needs to take some serious look at another access down towards the river or a bridge. It needs to happen. [snorts]

I hear you. We We would have to be able to justify it. It goes back to um we're in a unique position here because the city is the developer. Um if this was a third party developer, we'd the same rules and standards apply either way. Um, but a third party developer being denied an application, we'd have to have a very clear nexus to require them to spend the money and do the road. That's that's what I'm and I'm I'm just giving you sort of the the letter of the law and and our city attorney can opine and help me and I don't know Christian if there's anything to add, but um we [clears throat] are in a different position as a city because we can condition ourselves to do whatever we say, right? Um, and so that's that's rather unique. But if this was a third party developer and we were saying, "No, we want the road," they would likely come back and challenge us on that through some kind of suit and say, "We'll prove it. Why do I have to put this in?" So, well, that's the nuance.

Yeah. And and just to clarify Director Pacin's comment, the the city council is in a unique position and that would have the ability to make modifications to the project based on it being the project sponsor. Um but um the planning commission's role is really to be reviewing um uh uh the application and whether or not it's meeting the requirements of the subdivision uh uh code and I'm I'm just doing a little bit of research procedurally as we're sitting here. [clears throat] Okay. Should I do a motion again and see can am I allowed to do that city attorney? Okay. So, Commissioner Miner, you still have your motion.

I believe it failed. Do you want to restate it and see if we have another vote now that we know we can't do amendments? Is can you say say again what you're asking? Are you hoping to have amendments in it? Because it would be better. I'm hoping for another motion and we'll call to see if the motion passes where we're at now with everything that's been explained to us. Are you asking for a motion to reconsider? Mhm. Uh so, um I believe that usually procedurally that that needs to be made by one of the members who either abstained or voted no. So that's me. [laughter] So I'm asking for a reconsidered motion.

Yeah, you you can move to reconsider the prior motion and then Okay. Okay, there'll be procedurally there will be two votes. Okay, the first vote is to whether or not to reconsider the prior motion and the second vote is the original motion. Okay, so I move to reconsider the motion. So I'll second that. Thank you. All in favor? I I I Okay, so that's unanimous. And now we're going to reconsider the first motion that was given by Commissioner Miner and seconded by Commissioner Godard. So I'm going to take another All in favor I I I I

I Okay, so it unanimously passes. Okay. All right. Now I got to clean up my paperwork and go. I believe we open it up for any non-aggenda items if there's any public comments. Thank you. I buried mine. You have to submit a card, but it's for a non-aggenda item. So if it's already on there.

Okay, seeing none, I'm going to close the public comment for non-aggenda items and go to commissioner comments. any Okay, Michelle.

It seems like our biological reports are frequently questioned and not always by the same people, right? So, walk me through do we ever do technical challenges on those? I mean, how do you determine the accuracy of these or or do you just solely rely on the person preparing the report? And it does seem like a lot of these studies do not take place during the seasons when flowers are blooming and these um different species may be you might be seeing them.

Um oh, like an in Yeah, we could I'll look to David here. Um, but we also could maybe bring back be bring back anformational item for the for the planning commission to talk through in a hearing or a public meeting. um and to go through I I think when I've talked with Miss Toy about this in the past that the city's done it this way for some time right decades because of just the the logistics of timing with development projects and then you're essentially waiting to provide SQA clearance for a whole year let's say if the timing doesn't work out to do your surveys which is why I think on our standard subdivision conditions of approval we do protocol level surveys it's just later and so what I heard um what I heard uh David say was that He didn't like that because the public didn't have a chance to provide comment at that point. But it doesn't mean, and you guys jump in if I start messing this up, it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Our standard conditions say, "No, you're going to go survey for those species when the time is right, but this process is over, so there's no more public engagement." I think that's the crux of his argument. Is what would you guys say? I mean, I think he's probably in at the heart of it asking for a higher standard from the city to require all projects to do in bloom surveys for every potential plant that could exist on a property. Um, obviously that's an option that the city could take, but it would be

Wait, could you could you say that again? You said that really fast. Sorry, I talked to you, but I can't listen fast. I think it's because I was

My apologies. Uh I think at the heart of what he's asking I mean other than just requiring a higher standard of all types of biological reports in his eyes is that we do in season in bloom season surveys for every potential plant that could exist on a property and that's not necessarily what's required under SQA. Um it it is a way to make a sequent document more foolproof from challenge I guess you could say. Um but ultimately we're informing a decision using substantial evidence whether or not the project impacts a resource and to what extent. Um like I was saying we could we could adopt higher standards as a city for and and you know develop protocol that by all biologists have to follow and what that would mean for inloom uh in season uh surveys is projects would slow down and we'd be in a rock and a hard place for permit streamlining too. So it's it's just there's an art to it and there's a a political will. I would think there would be

for the surveys that are to be delayed because you like this one for example, is there a monitoring protocol so that doesn't fall through the cracks that some a staff member doesn't miss. Oh, we forgot to do but then it's too late. Is there a protocol?

Yes. Every step of the way with whether it's improvement plans or recording of the map, we're making sure every conditions are being followed. Um, and some of those are triggered by grading. Some of those are triggered by final construction. Um, in this case, every survey that's being recommended by biologists is being done in bloom season um or outside of nesting habitat for birds and things like that. So, I mean, it's a it's a question you always ask um for SQA about when to do what survey, but it really depends on the project and what's there and what the biologists are saying is is, you know, a risk and whether to study it more.

But what I'm hearing you say too is it's as the lead agency, I mean, we have we have latitude to to do it to a higher standard, I suppose, if our planning commission and ultimately our council wanted to impose that on development, right? So, I think we we could raise the bar. It would it would probably take some policymaking decisions from this body and ultimately council um because I imagine we'd have some developers of course saying well now I got to wait a whole year just to even get my approval. Um and as you know we already faced quite a bit of scrutiny in this line of work. Um but it could be done could be done although it sounds like um is this how the the county did it as well? uh the county used case by case uh decisions informed by biologists. So, you know, it's it's really a matter of project to project what's happening on site and what you know what the concern is of impacts.

So, what I'm hearing from director Pagan is that Michelle could request it to come back to this board if she wanted to request higher standards. Yeah, I I think so. I owe um you all also I need to discuss with city manager Bade in terms of the otherformational item that was requested last time too regarding uh gosh it's been such a long night I can't even recall right now but there's another thing I owe you um as well so so yeah that could be done so I would leave that to you if you want to request that I I would actually suggest usually with um boards what we do is we ask for there's consensus so there's enough interest more broadly for that to come back rather than just one member I mean she would have to request it First, I was just saying he was stating that. So, I

Oh, well, you you could certainly at this point uh if there's consensus um ask for that to come back. [snorts] I would just be curious is what it might look like if we tightened it up and maybe exceeded SQA a little. Just what it would look like. I mean, that is a reoccurring criticism. It and it is a concern to me that yeah, are we just kind of given a pass on this? Yeah, I I definitely don't think we're given a pass, but I mean certainly we could be more we could ask for more. Uh would you would you like to discuss that with me later one-on-one first to kind of flesh it out some and then bring it back? Sure.

Okay. If if I could just go through an exercise of timeline for all these various species. Um you know that hibernacula period of time we have to require a survey before certain period of time. The crotch's bumblebee is a new one, sensitive habitat that actually they want uh studies to be done at every stage of life basically. And so lining all those studies up and then being cleared to develop is I I would think is very difficult with all the the species that could be present on a site. Some sites might be more acceptable. Well, obviously infill uh exemptions are easier to do, but on these other sites, it's I don't think it's going to be perfect for every every location. You know what I mean?

It would be interesting to know what the actual delay would be because some of that stuff overlaps. Some of the pristine habitat, some of the blooming, some of it overlaps, but some of the studies, like we did a survey for crashes bumblebee on the peaks and um were cleared in discussions with fish and wildlife for potentially up to two years. Then they discovered a crotch's bumblebee 15 miles away and now we're only cleared for the winter. We got to do another survey. Um things like that happen with different species where it's just I don't know how you know it'd be very difficult to clear a site for construction doing every survey before sequ documents uh approved. Jeremy, did you I'm going on to you for I was going to say

director's report, but you had anything else to say? No, nothing more. I was just going to add that um you know we really appreciate having David on board. He's been with us now has it been a year yet? Almost and he brings a lot of great expertise and SQA Knowledge is one of them. So I think he and I could get together more on that and maybe even get together with Commissioner God and have a sort of just an inerson chat and then maybe take it from there. Um and no, but Lily was kind enough to remind me I owe you anformational item. I think it was Jenny Creek last time we talked about on what? I'm sorry. The Jenny Creek trail project. So Lily is helping me at this late hour. I only had two hours of sleep last night. So my my daughter came home from San Francisco at 4 in the morning and I was worried about her. So I just sat on the couch till 4 in the morning. But anyway,

that's my jumbled brain. So anyway, I don't have anything further for you. It's been a long night. I just appreciate the commission's uh work tonight and I know it was a difficult item and we had a lot of good public engagement. So thank you. Yes. Thank you. Okay, with that we are ajourned. Thanks Mr. W.