Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon. I have 4 pm, so we will go ahead and uh get started. We'll start with having the clerk call roll. Chair Winnham here. Vice Chair Will absent. Commissioner Balovc here. Commissioner Miner here. Commissioner Godert here. Commissioner Nance here. Commissioner Ryan here. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And then what I would like to do next, we're going to go on to approval of minutes. And it wasn't this particular city attorney representative, but another one schooled me a little while back on on um that uh the importance of if even if you're not here for a meeting to participate in approval of the minutes and I feel that I just want to make sure since last meeting was a um or even last couple of them, there were some big items. I do make sure even if I'm not here that I watch them on YouTube and then compare that to the U notes. So, I just thought I'd pass that along and then move on to approval of minutes. Any uh discussion, input, or motion. I'll move for approval of the minutes as submitted. We have a motion.

Second. We have a second. All in favor? I I

passes unanimous. Uh announcements. I would just announce uh for any uh audience members that wish to speak on an agenda item or a nonaggendaized item. Yes, we do have that on the agenda. Uh please uh find a little purple card in the back of the room. Put your name on there and what item you wish to speak to. You can just keep it plain language. Hand it to one of our clerks up here and it'll find its way uh up to us. When we do get to the public comment period, there will be a timer that will be set for 3 minutes. You will get a about a 30- secondond warning. Um, just to keep things moving along. And with that, I will move on to planning commission items. Consent calendar. We do not have any. Uh item 4B, public hearings, and 4B1 is a use permit 2025 01347 by Faith Works Community Coalition as articulated in the agenda. With that, I will turn it over to staff to give a report. Thank you, chair. Good afternoon, everybody. [snorts] All right. So, this is a use permit application that came in um to the city a couple months ago. Um the address is at 8:15 825 Park View Avenue and 2025 Leland Avenue. That's right across the street over here from us. As you can see, there's City Hall right there on the [clears throat] up there on the board. Um the zoning designation for this project is mixed use design review overlay neighborhood commercial. Uh the general plan designation is neighborhood commercial.

Little bit of background with this project. This is a grant-f funed project and the city has provided a loan to the builder to assist with the development of the property. This project is proposed to be mixed use which means residential and commercial uses are combined on the property. This project proposes two buildings. One which will have 14 units with all units qualifying as affordable and two units to be utilized for transitional housing with office space. The other building is proposed as a community room and As you can see, the project proposal pushes the buildings closer to the street here. This is the site plan. Um, [clears throat] uh, they got the parking lot in the back. Uh, this type of building placement is to help create a more pedestrian friendly environment along Park View Avenue. And this application is also requesting that the planning commission considers allowing the project to utilize nine on street parking spaces to meet the commercial parking requirement. Parking ordinance chapter 184130 L2 has a unique section which section for projects in the Parkview Avenue mixeduse corridor which states parking on street may be granted with a reasonable distance to serve the needs of the project. Um, a note I would like to make, um, is that in the staff report packet draft conditions of approval, uh, condition number 18 should be removed from the conditions if the applicant is granted approval. Uh, in discussions with RU since this packet was printed, I was informed there could be a potential undergrounding project along Leland Avenue in the future. So the elevations uh an architectural review committee met to review this

proposed development along Parkview Avenue frontage and the consistency with Parkview Avenue revitalization plan and design guidelines. Uh the design of the building displays varying height to avoid a boxy appearance. Um the short portion of the building uh to the right there is at a similar uh height to the single family house next door and it was drafted in this fashion so the neighboring home wouldn't be dominated by a two-story structure. Uh building elevations show the building consisting of painted fiber cement panels and painted metal. This is the back of the structure. Um there is an alley to the south. So this is what you would be seeing from the alley essentially. Um the architectural review committee approved the elevations on October 21st, 2025 uh with the condition that two trees were added to the project frontage along Park View Avenue. We got that done real fast. I think it was about two weeks we had the meeting. [clears throat] Uh general plan consistency and neighborhood compatibility. Uh the general plan and zoning ordinance fully support mixed use along Park View Avenue. Mixeduse projects are required to be heard by the planning commission. So here we are. The residential portion of the mixeduse development is to be consistent with those uses in the RM district. The office and commercial land uses are to be consistent with the uses in the office and commercial districts in the zoning ordinance. This project is proposing a relatively high density of 30 units per acre. And while there is no specific threshold for density for the mixeduse area along Parkview Avenue, it is beneficial that the project offers higher residential densities than the city's core on an appropriate infill site that is close to public services and transportation. While there's quite a bit of m mixed uses along the Parkview Avenue, this project land uses are compatible with

the land uses along Park View Avenue. Moving along to landscaping and trees. Uh so there are six trees on site. Two trees will remain and four will be removed as you can see here on the board up here. Um project proposes to plant eight trees on site and condition to plant an additional two trees along Park View Avenue. Additional trees are welcome if they fit and these details are reviewed at the building permit plan check. And this is the planting plan that was provided to the city for the environmental staff finds a project is categorically exempt under SQL guidelines section 15332 for infill development projects. This type of exemp exemption generally applies to projects that are surrounded by urban land uses served by utilities consistent with the general plan and zoning and not affected by significant environmental issues. So to conclude, the project is well supported by the general plan revital the general plan revitalization plan and action plan policies related to Parkview Avenue and by zoning. The park view design review committee has reviewed the project and confirm that the applicable design criteria has been met and staff's recommendation to the planning commission is to approve this mixeduse development project with a del delet deletion of condition number 18 and with the authorization to utilize on street parking and confirm the project is categorically exempt in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Morgan. So, questions of staff from commissioners,

please.

Yeah, I can't imagine that we're too overparked over there already, but just for kicks and giggles, if we were to So, we're going to say that they they have those nine off street or on street parking spots. somebody else comes along and they want to build next door or nearby. Do we have a way a metric to set aside those parking and say, "Hey, we know that there are nine that are reserved for this project, so you're going to have to get your parking somewhere else." Or could we have projects kind of double dipping for the same on street parking? Um does that does that make sense?

Yeah, it makes sense. Um [clears throat] there's a similar project um approved down the road on Park View Avenue for K2. Um there's no as I'm just remembering trying to remember. I don't think there's any designated parking on the curb or anything like that for them to signify that. Um so I wouldn't imagine and these aren't these aren't designated. They're going to look like normal or are they going to be painted and designated for the building? Right. Yeah. No, they're they will not be designated. So, anybody in theory, anyone can park there. We're just saying, hey, we're going to credit these parking spots to the project so that it qualifies.

Correct. Do we have an idea of the area, how parked the area is? Is it Are we using all our on street parking? Now, I do know that we have a public parking lot across the road, so maybe that plays into it a little bit, but

yeah, our parking supply out on Park View is actually relatively good. There's plenty of room um even on the residential side, but of course, as K2 does, you know, they park across on the north side of Park View next to the ball fields down there. So this side of the curb line, the north side of the curb line is also available should those residents and then there's a crosswalk, you know, immediately adjacent at the uh at the market that would allow people to cross safely. So there's ample parking we feel on Park View instead of encroaching into the neighborhood further if needed. Okay. Thank you.

So if I may, I think I hear you saying that there's there's not a math or an accounting problem. It's a or or system. It's a visual system and eventually we could have a whole bunch of these approved and then the next one says, "Sorry, you need to park your own project because there isn't any on street parking left." I mean, that'd be a good problem to have. I'm not saying there's problem. I'm just trying to be clear that's how we do it. Yes. If the if there was further uh redevelopment of the single family homes as you move on Leland to the south,

yes, there could become a point where one project does now there isn't ample street parking for everyone. So they would have to then mitigate but as of right now this project there's ample so there's no further mitigation for Yeah. Thank you. Please,

in regard to um deleting condition 18, is the REU undergrounding project adjacent to the this application? Is it scheduled and funded? Is it a for sure thing? No, it is not. So are we missing an opportunity here to underground that section of utilities if REU does not come through?

So for this project um when it came in we're looking RU is looking for safety clearances. Um so that's for if electrical power lines there safety clearances and um so that condition got in there because maybe it was a little close. Um but after discussing with REU after this packet got printed out um it was determined that it does not encroach in any safety clearances for those and um it would be a burden on the project to require them to underground this. Okay. I don't recall this coming up at the committee meeting.

No. And um was the the K2 project has similar setbacks from the sidewalk. Were they required to underground their utilities? The K2 project goes all the way up to the to the um sidewalk. I believe it's a little closer than this. These setbacks here are um I believe it's about 11 1/2 ft the awning on um Lanning Avenue or sorry, Leland Avenue. It's about 11 and 1/2 ft from the awning and then 14 feet to the building. Okay. The setback. So, the setbacks are quite a bit further back.

Um, I can't recall off the top of my head how much of Parkview Avenue is already underground. The utilities are underground under this side of the street by city hall certainly, but I'm wondering if there is a we have required other development to underground. I believe most of Parkview Avenue is underground, but the the streets that uh intersect with it, there's quite a few that do not have uh under underground. So the ones that would be running north and south. Yes. Okay. But Park View itself is under mostly underground, I believe. So yes.

Okay. Thank you. So we'd like to follow up on that. when the next project comes along anywhere in the city and it's a financial burden, are we going to do this again? So, I can jump in and [laughter] help there too because intentionally ask a question there's no answer to because there's quite quite an inconsistency here on some projects.

Yeah. So, staff has been considering electric undergrounding for some time now. We've had a number of projects that have come in in the last year or two where we wrestle with this. So, our general plan language actually says encourage development to underground. It doesn't say shall um reu service policy actually doesn't require it either per se. Uh it requires on the customer side of the meter for them to pay for materials and conduits and conductors and that kind of thing. Uh but actually RU funds a lot of the electrical infrastructure that goes for development as well. And so, um I say that because every project's unique and different. We've also had some projects where the utility is coll-located with other utilities. So we have comms and we have internet and phone and sometimes we have PGE located on our our poles as well or and so the question then becomes can we are you can certainly jump in an underground but the other utilities can't or or not without exorbitant cost to the developer. So without spending too much time talking about it, it's something that we're actually working on as we speak to bring to this body and to city council to lay out how should we be addressing this moving forward with development projects because so often we do get push back from developers that say, "Hey, this is going to kill the project or this is going to add a significant amount of cost." And we have general plan language that allows us to encourage it but not require it. And then we don't have language on the RA side necessarily to say thou shalt do it either. And so it becomes a constant sort of debate when we condition projects and oftent times it's one of those first conditions to fall because we don't have the legal basis necessarily to say you have to do it. Um and and so we've compromised on some projects. We've required a under undergrounding of conduit and stubbing out conduit to 200 feet on either side of the property line for future undergrounding. We'd like to bring it back to this body in the future um to discuss the idea of undergrounding districts. The city has done

undergrounding districts in the past as you'll recall on Hilltop. I want to say maybe even Park View was an undergrounding district long ago and far away. Maybe even Cypress Avenue. So, um, we want to bring that as a larger topic of discussion, but no doubt on this project for the reasons that uh, Drew mentioned as well as the reasons I'm giving you now. It's hard for us to stay firm on that condition, although it is the prerogative of this body um, if the to to require that condition if you'd like. Um, but that's how we're treating undergrounding today with my hope is in 2026 we can get better direction from this body and from council on how to proceed moving forward. If we wanted to hard and fast requirement, we'd likely have to move towards some kind of undergrounding district throughout the city. And I would say notably, it's because of the collocation of utilities. That's probably the biggest issue we run into is REU would be happy to underground those those those utilities are at low cost to the developer, but the other utilities aren't obligated to. So that's probably the the biggest issue we run into regularly. So sorry kind of a lot, but undergrounding is a a topic that we're trying to tackle and figure out a consistent approach moving forward. So hopefully that's helpful.

It is very helpful. I appreciate that. Is is the undergrounding requirement along frontages um listed as a line item in any of the standard conditions of approval documents? I don't I'm looking at Lily. I don't believe so.

Okay. And then I I think our general plan language says encourage undergrounding to the extent feasible or something to that effect. And so it leaves staff with well our general plan guidance says we should look to do this if we can. U but as we all know it's um in the realm of feasibility that's a pretty that's a pretty general term and it's sort of hard. It's it's pretty easy to go there in terms of going well this is going to cost x amount of dollars. It makes it infeasible. So um it's something we wrestle with pretty regularly in terms of how can we condition it. No I appreciate that. I was actually on call this morning in a different jurisdiction and it was a simple what we thought was a pretty simple little thing and it was a $1 million issue and so I I know how quickly it adds up and it's not getting cheaper.

Yeah, we also wrestle with the utility. Um, you know, overhead lines are generally easier to maintain. Oftent times they have better reliability. You're not underground. You're not dealing with underground water intrusion and other maintenance issues. And so you really have to actually take a step back and ask yourself, well, why does our general plan say that in the first place? And and largely it's probably aesthetics. It's probably just good development, orderly development. Um, if you ask the utility guys, they would actually say overhead lines are better in a lot of respects because they're cheaper, easier to maintain. When you're in the built environment, overhead lines and wildfire isn't a huge concern because you have a lot of non-combustible development and pavement. You're not in the WOOI. Um certainly if we were talking about the wildland urban interface or somewhere out in transmission line area where there's lots of vegetation of course undergrounding is is valuable from a wildfire mitigation standpoint. But when you're talking here in the urban footprint there it's less about that and and frankly I think our general plan more speaks to the aesthetics of just having our town look orderly and look good and take those poles down.

Very good. Thank you. We're going to take you that long speech out of your time. But no, I'm kidding you. It was that was that was super helpful. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, Mr. Morgan, I did have one question. At some point when you were talking about the two additional trees added by the design review, I thought I heard you say something like if they fit and maybe I just heard that almost stopped you at that moment, but I just wanted to make sure. Is there clarity? Are we requiring the two trees that the design review recommended which are not shown on the exhibits perhaps or is it a if they fit? So they're required to plant eight trees. Thank you.

So six they're showing on their plan and then two that are required from the architectural review meeting that we had. [clears throat] If they can fit more on top of that, which I don't know. It's very very very tight sight site property, then as a planner, I'm never going to say no to more trees. Okay. Very good. That that helped clarify. Thank you. I don't I don't have any other questions of staff. Does anyone else have questions of staff? We do down here. Thank you.

I'm going back to parking. Okay. So, I'm looking at the back. Looks like there are 16 spots, 14 housing people are going to work here. Do we have any idea how many people work in this place? And can we fit all the people who work there and live there without being all on the street, too? So, how it's broken down is um the site itself should have 14 at least 14 spots on the property and then all of the commercial or the office use all of that is going to be on the street. Um so, I don't know exactly how many employees they're going to have. Okay.

Um so, but we calculated based on square footage of the building. Okay. the end. So I could see a scenario similar to the K2 development where primarily employees are parking in public parking on street whether that be immediately in on the frontage or on Park View. Yeah, somewhere on Park View on the north side closer to city hall. And you know, I didn't even look that's not metered, right? No, it's just regular parking. Yep. public parking as if it was your right in front of your house. Yeah, neighborhood type parking. Thank you.

Okay, another in regard to um the parking, I think it's worth noting that one of the um parts of this project is a community room where they could have community meetings or more activity than just staff and residents. So I imagine then you're going to have people participating in that taking up seat more street parking or parking in the public lot. But it's not just staff and res they can park across the street. Yeah, they they can park in our line if that's what I mean.

Yes. Correct. It's a public you don't know who's parked there now. So yeah, exactly. That's public parking. They can park there all day, all night. It's not, you know, unless you're doing nefarious activities, you know, would we have they're trying to cut back, right? So, but yes. Yes, there's ample because of because of the location of the project, right? They benefit from the city's city hall's parking lot as well. Very good. Okay. With that, I'll say thank you, Mr. Morgan, and I will move to open the public hearing. And I have one um I don't know whether it's this is a dark blue or a purple. I don't know. It's kind of kind of changing on me here.

Yeah,

we'll go with Periwinkle today. We have an architect in the room. So that was for his benefit. I think the um so the one card I I can't quite read it. I believe it says Carol Salman's and you're welcome to come up to the lectern either one of them and and speak and offer any comments. Did you have comments you'd like to make to the commission questions? Well, here's what we'll do then. Go ahead and go over there to the microphone if you don't mind. You can pick either one. You can take the low seat if she Yes, she's turned that on. Um, I will tell you we're not in a position, we're in a position right now to take input. We'll write down your questions, but we probably won't answer them until we close the public hearing.

But please,

so um, this says that there's going to be a commercial building. I'm curious as to what what you know what's going to be involved in this commercial building along with this twostory and mixed use offices, homes up above. Um, and we're concerned about the parking. My mom, who owns the property on the other side of Leland Avenue, um, you know, and it's all rental, um, you know, property that, you know, that's it's there's nothing going to stop all of this these new people coming in to to, you know, park across the street when, you know, all of her renters have been there for some time. And this is, you know, space that t they take up. Five to six vehicles will fill that space, you know, and we're concerned about, like I said, the parking that's that's a lot bringing in a lot of vehicles. And, you know, who's to say that, you know, if they find open space across the street that people won't just use that and then and then it's and our renters are are out their parking spaces. So these are these are concerns, you know, of hers and mine. Um anyway, we we'd kind of like to know what what all um is going to be proposed for this this commercial building. Um you know, uh she's kind of we've worked hard to kind of clean things up over there. As many of you may know, for a lot of years, that was, you know, not really a good situation right there. And so, um, you know, mainly myself have come in and we've gotten, you know, better renters and cleaning things up and, uh, you know, we're just concerned

about, you know, what's coming in and what all is going to be involved in this and and how it's going to affect, you know, our renters across the street. Okay. I if I may just even though I said no question at this point just to clarify your your comment there your or your mom's uh rental property. Yes. Do you have off- streetet parking meaning your own parking lot or are they only on street? It's only on street. Okay. Thank you. That helps. Yes. And how many units? Uh there's four. Okay. Thank you. That helped also. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you. Then did we get

I know it turns out the timer wasn't working. So I was counting on you to be counting and uh and then I did see one other person walk up to you, but he didn't leave a card. Huh?

It's for the general comment period. Okay. Thank you very much. Wanted to make sure that didn't get missed. Then with that, I have no other uh speaker request cards. We're going to close the public hearing, bring them back to commission and staff. And what I heard from that was two really two two major topics. One is um wanting a better explanation or more explanation of what would be in the commercial building, what what's what's going to be in it, how will it operate, that sort of thing. And then the other one concerned about uh parking on Leland Avenue. Um, and I can I I tend to be rather direct. And so I'm going to give you a simple answer of what we would what if we ask staff what it is. What it's going to become is first come, first serve. And anybody that has parking out there in front of their apartment complex now or in front of their single family homes down the road or out on Park View right now, they have first come, first serve. And whoever gets there first next is all it's going to be. There is no regulation beyond that. Would that be a fair statement? And I'm saying that's wrong. I just like to be very clear. [laughter]

I can tell that. We'll pause for a moment.

Yeah. Push the mechanical button. That's what uh Commissioner Godard had to do. There we go. Um, I mean, in a normal situation where it's strictly residential, yes, I would I would say that would be appropriate, right? It's always first come, first serve, right? So, when you're mixed with apartment complexes, single family residences. However, with the caveat that there is mixed use development that could be used here, uh there is an opportunity um either during the um because I believe this is just going to be a shell building and then a use will come in at some point that is currently unknown. Oh, no.

Uh it's known right now that faith works we'll be using it for offices. Um the applicant's representative is here and and my planners might know more specifics on number of staff or what that might look like but Faith Works does intend to use the commercial space for their own offices. Do you guys understand how many folks will be working there? Any have any sense of that? No. So we just as as Drew mentioned uh yeah if we can invite five.

So they have five staff uh on site and it's not going to be rented out. you know, this is not a commercial tenant space that'll go out to a coffee shop or to a restaurant. It's intended to be used by Faith Works for their office staff. And so I'm seeing it's five people and that's what we know today.

So with it, it would be a less intensive use say as like the little market over here. Um obviously first come first serve would be recommended. However, if this body would like to look at doing time and time limited parking uh during that during business hours so that as Faith Works has clients that come in and out that may have our you know a few hour meeting we could do some 2hour free parking. So it's just a two-hour zone and those twoour zones per our or our reading municipal code do expire. I forget if it's five o'clock or six o'clock, but that at some point in the day, those would just become open and they would be open on the weekends for residents of the of the rental property to use. That is an option this body could consider if they wanted to provide parking for the business, however, not limit that there's a car parked there all day in front of the rental properties.

Now, I'd ask for clarification on that. I know like typically parking restriction is a council authority but you're suggesting this body has authority to regulate the public rightway. Correct. That would be it would have to be taken to council part of the parking map approval. So we could make a recommendation. Correct. Okay. Yeah. But would that not be as a condition of this project? It would be a separate recommendation to council. Separate. I believe it would be separate. Yes.

Yeah. seems like it would have to be a separate and I want to be clear. I like I like I like clarity probably to a fault, but I um but I'm also not personally inclined to go that route. I would personally rather say, well, this is what I I I know you well enough to know this is what you do day in day out is deal with these issues and as it matures in the event there is an issue these sorts of things that that's in your toolkit to address as you do all around especially in these specific plan areas in the mixed use areas and that sort of thing. The other thing I would say unfortunately and fortunately and especially in a mixeduse environment, there's more winners and losers when it comes to parking. If we all lived in single family suburbia, it's pretty rare that there's parking wars, but it does happen. But in a mixeduse environment, it is far more common. and and that's that's foundational to those kinds of areas that that's that is what happens. I remember living in a city and I got my seven block walk in every morning um to get to the office and seven blocks to get back.

I think one other point I would make too is um you know especially with the upcoming building code updates, the very real reality we're facing with on-site parking is electric vehicle charging. um it's a significant cost to development and the newest code update is going to actually require um charging receptacles at each space for a multif family or mixeduse development. So um I think it's it's a word of caution and also something good for us to understand in terms of our code does allow flexibility. We understand in a mixeduse environment that you know we want to be a little more creative with parking. We do have one parking space per unit plus an additional two on-site spaces for a total of 16. Is that right? So, we do have a little bit of coverage. Um, if we were to, you know, compel or condition applicants to have more on-site parking into the future, it's just a sort of a word of caution. something we're dealing with already now because I think it's 40 to 50% is the required amount of EV parking stalls and in some projects that can add hundreds of thousands of dollars of cost just in EV parking especially with like a a mixeduse or a multif family development that has 20 30 40 units of housing. So it's a balance and that's it's somewhat why our code allow although our code couldn't have foreseen this 20 25 years ago um it is flexibility built into the code and it's important for for this reason too. EV charging is a big topic. Yeah, agreed. Mr. Miner.

Yeah, I was just going to add a a little bit of context in addition to what's been said. For one, looking at the breakdown of the apartment units, uh we have seven one-bedroom and seven studios. So, these are not two-bedroom, these are not a lot of it's not a lot of people necessarily. It's probably one person. There may be an extra person, you know, here and there. Um, in addition, the office space is 1500 square feet. I I would say that five would be the max that I'd want to hang out in there on a regular basis. You know, you you could probably verify. Um, but [clears throat] there and then we're also talking about day use versus night use. I think I would be more concerned about night use um as far as parking capacity with people who are going to be there, you know, staying there all night overnight. That's when the neighborhood's going to be heavily parked when we're talking about some daytime use and we have gigantic free parking lot across the way. Just doesn't concern me um in this case. So, wanted to add a couple comments. Um, even though I did start the parking question, um, it I'm not concerned about this area being overparked right now.

Thank you. Other questions of staff?

Okay, that's why there turn mine on and leave it on all the time. I know. Weird. I was doing it on the screen, but then it died. Um, okay. So, I was curious because I'm not a professional in parking. But if you have a rental like that and there is no like driveway or other kind of parking only on the street, there's no way for them to like designate that as their parking spot. Kind of like someone can't come to your house and park in your driveway because it's your driveway hooked to your house. If you just have street parking and the building just faces the street, there's no other choices. They can't designate those for the rentals. They're just it's just kind of first come first serve.

Yeah. Yeah, that's correct. Yeah. It's first come, first serve. And you know, unlike I know Russ and I have experienced, right, and and many of you, right, in bigger cities. Oh, yeah. Obviously. Yeah. There's there is usually in those environments you'll see permit parking, residential permit parking, right? That kind of reserves that make sure there's enough capacity for the residents. The city of Reading does not have an ordinance to that effect for residential permit parking there. So they don't have the ability to like designate those for their rentals across the street. No. Okay. Unfortunately, it's public, right? It's public property. It has to be

Just wanted to make sure that wasn't available. And these, you know, these likely these units likely predate the zoning code, which does require off- streetet parking for residential uses, but that's for new construction. Sure. So, I don't know the date here, but likely grandfathered in. So, they don't require off- streetet parking, right? I just wondered if it since it wasn't a it wasn't an option, did do could they can they carve out their little spot? But sorry, that's what I was going to ask. Uh, so there's no parking zones in Reading. Yeah, we don't I not that I'm aware that we have an ordinance that effect. I could double check, but I've never ran across any kind of residential permit parking anywhere in the city, even in downtown.

Yeah, I mean it I guess as the city continues to grow, maybe that goes on the radar because at some point I mean tra I mean people that do live there, I mean those zones do help people with the ability to be able to park that that rely on street parking. So, right. I think yes. Correct. I think we've we we we do not have that ordinance because the city's density has never become so dense. Yeah. But yes, as we grow, those would be considerations I think that need to be looked at as we densify if that so becomes the trend.

It will it will likely become more of an issue too because you see even state regulations for ADU construction, for example, don't require parking on site. So more state housing laws come down and continue to push the parking demand to the street. So as we see more laws in effect pushing that demand onto the street, I'm sure we'll have to adjust and make some changes as as that happens too. We see that happening today. Yeah, absolutely. Question. Do you know of any You're on any any communities of our size that have uh such zones like that?

Um not off the top of my head that I could speak to. I'd have to look that up. Do you know of any communities larger than ours that have those? Um yeah, I mean the big metropolitan areas, I mean San Diego, Los Angeles, right? A lot of those Sacramento, they all they all So if we if we thought about doing that, we'd have some models that we could look at over time. Oh. Oh, yes. Absolutely. Yep. Yep. There's some probably good ordinances and uh and code out there that we could mimic if that came to be. Thank you.

Everybody leave your microphones on. Don't touch any buttons.

Don't touch anything. the um uh okay, I think we've wound down our questions and as we transition towards uh concerning a motion, I want to say even though I asked the hard questions, it really is just an interest in very specific clarity. Um, I, you know, I I honestly believe that one of the, um, things that happens when you have a really good mixeduse thing that you've set in place is that you do have more winners and losers on project by project basis and the whole area kind of organically has to shift and um, that that is is difficult, but it's it's for the better good of all. So, thank you. So, with that, I'd be happy to entertain a motion. I think staff had recommended approval of their recommendation with the removal of condition 18.

Is there a motion? Oh, we have another question instead. Um, Drew, did the applicant object to the undergrounding of the utilities? Was it a deal killer or was that just something that REU said, "Yeah, you don't really need to do that."

So, when I sent over the conditions, typically that's one of the common objections that we get in it. Um, so yes, once once the applicant objected or the representative objected, I went and double checked with REU, made sure there was no safety issues here with clearances and um, so yeah, that was that was our main concern. I was about to do it myself. There you go. I'd like to make a motion that the commission approved the project um staff recommendation that we confirm the project is categorically exempt in accordance with SQUA and we approve the use permit application and and have determined that all necessary findings for approval are in evidence. and also removing condition 18. Thank you.

Is there a second? I'll second the motion. We have a second. Any other discussion? All in favor? I. Anyone opposed?

Any abstensions? Very good. I couldn't hear you talk, so that's why I had to. [laughter] So, with that, I'll say it passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Um, moving on to the next item, which is item number five, public comment for non-aggendaized items. [sighs] Um, non non-aggendaized items. And so these are items that we cannot take action upon here. Uh, they're information only and uh, ideally items that were not already on the agenda. So, with that, I have two speaker cards and our uh esteemed and amazing clerk who normally is dealing with microphones is going to be doing a timer on her phone for three minutes. And well, I don't know. I just want to know what's [laughter] how you were going to do this. Um, with that, just the way she handed me the cards, the first one is Chris Begley and then after that is Mr. David Ledger. I don't have a Chris Begley's.

So, that one I'm going to set back there and I'm going to say David Ledger. And I think the chair has a discretion that since it's David, I'm giving you four minutes. Go ahead. [laughter] Yes. Sorry, I I didn't we didn't pre-plan that, but I microphone [laughter] This is a This is a rough day. I know. [laughter] It's like it worked fine before and then it stopped.

There we go. Okay. Um I was at a meeting a few weeks back with some residents of uh the Sunset Terrace uh area and talking about um Jenny Creek Trail and concerns about that. And I wanted to make something clear that um I might have had the impression that planning was holding something back from me or Lily Toy was but she sent um I'd sent out two other uh pas departments and I never got anything back but Lily got everything I wanted back except for one item but everything that she could give me. So, I just didn't and planning usually is really good about getting stuff to me. So, I didn't want to, you know, put any any any bad vibes on um Lily. And so, I really appreciated that. She talked to me after the meeting. Um I also wanted to say something about um I've commented about this often about biological surveys and they're done outside the time that plants are blooming. And so, I I apologize that I haven't got a full list, but I will get that to you. But I went over a couple like the Zeno project which was approved. I looked at that and there were two biological surveys done. One was really bad and I think planning rejected it but it was done in August. No, it was done in October. And then um Galloway did one I believe it was Galloway going by memory here. They did it in October. Another October. So that's a time when you're going to find dead grass and you can identify rare plants and SQL requires you do it um during the blooming period so that the botist can identify the plant and um I went to the uh Phoenix Academy near College View and Chasta View and they did a field survey and that area probably had some some good plants there. I don't know if any were rare or not because I haven't been out there and surveyed it, but they did it in December

15th and so all you're going to identify is weeds and so I mean an occasional plant like if there's [snorts] a shrub or a tree you can identify it out of season and then um there was one on Windham Lane which I doubt if there were any rare plants on there and they but they only visited it once and they're supposed to go three times or so you know they say dur several times during the blooming period. and they did it on uh March 16th, so that was good. They got it in the springtime, but it was early spring. For instance, there's uh Sulphur Creek Boddia, which is a rarest plant in Reading, and it only grows in Reading. And um that will bloom, I've done surveys on it for about eight years, and it'll bloom, sometimes it'll start as early as miday, sometimes it won't start till mid June, and sometimes it'll be blooming even in July, but not very far into July. Depends on the heat. So, it's really important that they survey more than just one time. And especially if they go in the fall, in my opinion, they're hoping not to find anything. Even though there could be nothing there to find, uh they're not going to find it in the fall in October. Anyway, thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Ledger. [clears throat] With that, I will then move over to the next item on the agenda, which is commissioner's comments. Are there any uh particular comments? And I think the one that I will throw out is

and this is out of out of respect to Mr. Ledger's comments. Um we know that we know that he's there's a reason I knew I know his name. it's because he's around a lot and he and he makes uh um you know the very common assertions. It really would seem like it'd be helpful at some point and I'm not setting a direct expectation but at some point some clarification uh because Mr. Ledger made a statement and again this is [clears throat] not to answer it here today the attorney will start glaring at me is um he said squa requires and I'm not sure that all SQA experts would agree with that statement and I'm not here to discuss that or get feedback on that today necessarily but you know what SQA really does require I also know SQA does not require perfection that's a wellestablished you know legal preced idence. I know there's several several things um the so at some point it would be good to have some of these things a little tighter and I know that that's something that is already hot on staff's mind as you try to figure out and how to balance combination of studies done uh when in some cases just when it's expedient to do so in the development continuum uh towards you know towards approval knowing that in theory there's a there's a absolute binary checkpoint that occurs before the greenies are touched um and that is that there's surveys done to make sure that um you know confirmed that they really weren't there. The opinion that they weren't going to find them is actually confirmed. So with that I'll I'll leave it at that and just say someday it'd be nice to have a little bit of information about that and get some clarity on it. Yeah, I appreciate that and I'm comfortable giving you a little little

bit of response um even though you didn't ask for it, but I um you know [laughter] just because we are thinking about it um and have even had some discussion with some of the commissioners on this topic and um you know Mr. Ledger brought this up at uh the previous item with the peaks. We actually do have a biologic the biologist did a response on that project and we could it was in the staff packet for that project. So, we could dig that up and provide it to the commission. But also, we have a few ideas we're kicking around. Um, you know, I think we've been doing it this way at the city for I don't want to say decades, but it might be that long um or quite a long time. And I I feel pretty confident um that in terms of honoring SQA, we are doing that. It's conditioned with the project. I think Mr. Ledger's concern, as he outlined at the last meeting, was um the public input process is lost in the shuffle there. So you have a botnist or a biologist that goes out and does the uh the survey at the appropriate time, but then that there's no opportunity for public input or public scrutiny. So um we have some ideas we're also considering for that too. So I'd like to consult with our city attorney's office and staff and then it's still on my list to bring it back to this body as aformational item um to let you know sort of what we're thinking and then depending on what what this body thinks it would probably be pertinent to bring it to council. I don't know if it'd be a policy level kind of call or as a lead agency. How are we going to be handling SQL? Ultimately, the lead agency is the council and so it would probably behoove us to get some of their input if this body feels we should change the way we're we're handling this uh particular protocol level surveys in SQA. So, I intend to have a larger discussion with this body in the coming months. We like I said, we're already kicking around some ideas. So I would just say stay tuned and we'll of course involve David in those conversations and probably even have him come down to the office and uh you know talk through some of the ideas we're considering at this juncture. So that's where we're at right now.

Thank you. I appreciate that very much. Any other comments from commissioners? With that we'll go to item number seven, director's report.

Um yeah, not not too much. I would just give a small brief update on the riverfront plan. So just keep your eyes peeled for January time frame where we we'll be looking at moving towards the notice of prep and initiating SQA and then that will be coming before this body um likely February, March into the spring. So I'll keep it super high level. Um but just wanted to give you a heads up on that. And other than that um that's all I really had uh for tonight. Um that plan's coming forth and we have a few things on the agenda for January, February. So we'll be in communication to make sure we have quorum but uh we'll have a busy start to the calendar year in 2026. Thank you. And the last item is adjournment and the meeting is adjourned.