Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome everyone, good afternoon, and welcome to the Redlands Planning Commission for January 13th, 2026. We do have a quorum present. Our first item of business is to introduce Chris Boatman, the Assistant City Manager, seated in the Director's position for the time being. Welcome, Chris.

Thank you, everybody. We're starting our recruitment right now, so hopefully this is just no more than a few months, but I'm always here and happy to help, so I'm looking forward to the next few months.

We will take you as long as we can get you. Okay, next we will introduce our new planning commissioners. We have Miss Rosa Dominguez, Miss Alicia Gillenhammer and Mr. Kawashwesh. And I'm going to give each commissioner just a quick opportunity to introduce themselves and we'll start with Rosa. Green light.

Yes, my name is Rosa Dominguez, and I've lived here in the city of Redlands, beautiful Redlands, since 2003, and I'm looking forward to working with everyone here on the commission.

Thank you. Commissioner Gillenhammer.

Thank you. I am Alicia Gillenhammer. I grew up in Redlands, so just very excited just to serve in this capacity in our community. I have two littles at home, two and six, so I very much like to spend time walking to Gerrard's every other day.

So it's wonderful.

Thank you. And Commissioner Schweish.

Thank you, Chair Shah. My name is Kawa Shwesh. I live here in Redlands, in South Redlands. I have three little kids who attend Montessori in Redlands. They are 12, 10, and 6, and we've been living here for four years, and I'm looking forward to serve at this capacity.

Thank you. Welcome again to all our new commissioners. I understand that you've had a thorough orientation with staff, which is great. I wanted to take a few minutes to share how our meetings run from the commission's perspective. I think it's a helpful reminder for commissioners as well as beneficial for the public that we serve to better understand the flow of our meetings. So everything that we do here is rooted in respect for the public, for commissioners, for our applicants, for everyone that we're serving here, especially the people participating and watching our meetings. So why the Brown Act is or the city doesn't formally adopt Robert's Rules of Order. It has long been the tool of the commission. as a tool to run orderly efficient meetings. So as chair, I will be managing the flow of discussion. At times, I will call on commissioners in order of which you push the green button and let me know that you want to speak. And there are times, especially in more complex projects, we'll just go down the line and ask everyone for their opinion. This helps create a balanced discussion and allows all the perspectives considered as part of our deliberation. Please always use your microphone when you wish to speak and wait to be recognized by name before commenting. After staff presents their report, which comes first, that is when commissioners may ask questions of staff. These questions should be really for clarity or additional information and not yet for deliberation. If you asked a great question of staff prior to the meeting, I really encourage you to ask it again here. So sharing that information with the public really benefits the community that we serve. So, although we come here fully prepared, and we've asked a lot of questions, they might that they clearly don't know that what we've asked and discussed with staff ahead of time. So I encourage you to share that. After staff questions, if the applicant is present commissioners will have the opportunity to ask questions of the applicant at that time. Next, we will open it up for public comment at that time. We listen and then once public comment is closed, we can return to staff or the applicant if new questions have arose from those comments. If it is a public hearing item, we will then close the hearing and move into commissioner deliberation during deliberation. I encourage you to share your thoughts and opinions as they relate to our purview and whenever possible tie your comments directly to the required findings. When I reference our purview, I mean, evaluating projects strictly within the responsibilities of this commission. We all bring personal and per. I can talk, I promise, um, personal and professional perspectives that are really valid. We come up with really valid comments and questions, but if they fall outside of the role of this commission, then we set them aside. It's important that the public sees that we are evaluating projects based on our responsibilities here at the commission and not our individual careers or personal viewpoints. This comes up a lot for me personally, as it relates to real estate. Um. I get all kinds of ideas and comments and I'm like, oh, this is exciting. Um, but it's not really something that that is meant for this meeting. Each project is unique. Some are straightforward. Others are more complex. Our responsibility is to thoughtfully evaluate each project based on the applicable findings and facts provide clear, constructive feedback and suggestions and when appropriate make recommendations to city council. I appreciate everyone's commitment to professionalism, and I just, you know, for me, my orientation was amazing, and I loved everything that staff was able to provide. But I also sat with some of the commissioners and leaders that were here that provided a different perspective, and that was really helpful to me. So hopefully it's helpful to you. And with that said, we will move on to tonight's agenda. So next... Are there any public comments on matters not on today's agenda? Seeing none, we will move on to item number 2 nominations for vice chair of the planning commission. Okay, we currently have three new commissioners out of seven of us, and this is their first meeting. Um, it does not seem fair or responsible to ask them to vote on the leadership of the commission before they've had the opportunity to observe how the commission operates and works together. I believe it's in the best interest of the commission to allow some time for all members, particularly our new commissioners to gain that context before selecting leadership. For that reason, I believe it's most appropriate to bring this item back at the end of the 3rd meeting of the year. Because our schedules vary, we don't always know if we're going to have meetings as scheduled. I'm not proposing a specific date, but it is my intention to have it to be at the end of the agenda of the 3rd meeting. For the record, I have discussed this approach with City, with staff, and they have verified with the attorney that this is an allowable course of action. With that said, I'm going to make a motion and I move that we continue the Vice Chair election item to a later date and I will open it up for discussion.

I think we should move forward.

Commissioner Stanson.

I think we should move forward like we always have been in the past, is elect a vice chair.

Thank you. Anyone else?

I appreciate taking the time so that those of us who have the obligation to participate in the vote can make an informed decision.

Thank you. Any other comments? Commissioner Smith.

I can support it being done on meeting three.

Seeing no other green lights, I will go ahead and call for a vote. All those in favor? Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. We will move on to item number three, presentations, which we have now. Oh, you're right. Thank you, Commissioner Stanson. I apologize. I did not ask for a second on that vote. I'm going to recall the entire... I already made my motion. It still stands. Do I have a second?

I'll second.

I'm going to call for the vote again. My apologies again. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Moving on to item number four, the consent calendar. Item A, Commission Sign Review number 496. Item B, extension of time for CRA number 921. Item C, meeting minutes of December 9th, 2025. Are there any questions about the consent calendar? Seeing none, do we have a motion to approve the consent calendar?

I move we approve the consent calendar.

I'll second. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Item number five, old business. We have none. Moving on to item number six, new business, 6A. Item 6A is a request to consider conditional use permit number 1216 to establish a banquet hall and event rental space in a multi-tenant commercial building located at 2083 Orange Tree Lane. And I will now open the public hearing for this item. Has any commissioner had any expertise communications with the applicant regarding this item? Seeing none, staff presentation by Nelson Escada. Mr. Escada.

Thank you chairs and members of the commission. All right. So the applicant requests to establish and operate a banquet hall within an existing 1,545 square foot commercial suite located at 2083 Orange Tree Lane within an existing shopping plaza. The highlighted area in yellow is the location of the tenant space in which the proposed used is to take place. There's a front elevation. This is the suite or the unit itself. Now, the subject site has a general plan land use designation of commercial where a complementary mix of commercial uses, including services, service businesses are encouraged. The proposed used is consistent with the intent and designation. Within the surrounding uses. Yeah. The proposed site is located also within the East Valley corridor specific plan, particularly the general commercial district banquet halls and other assembly services are allowed subject to approval of a conditional use. The overall interior layout includes 1 primary assembly room where majority majority of the patrons will be a back room used for staff and storage to bathrooms and a kitchenette. There is no tenant improvements required or proposed for the suite as the prior tenants who are operating a similar use already went through an assembly tenant improvement. Occupancy of the unit is 82 people. Here are interior photos. This is the main hall and then the back room. Now, the operation plan is as follows. The facility will operate from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Thursday and 5 p.m. to midnight on Fridays and Sundays. There are two main types of events hosted on site. First is small events, typically corporate or office events such as trainings, et cetera. These would typically run with a smaller number of guests. The next event type is the afternoon weekend events. These will host events such as weddings, quinceañeras, birthday parties, et cetera. The applicant intends to put a number of measures to mitigate any potential issues with neighboring land uses. They include security and managerial staff to manage noise levels, occupancy limits, onsite loitering, pre and post unit cleaning. Additionally, responsible beverage service certified mobile bartenders will be used for alcohol services. Lastly, the events will go from 5 PM to midnight, ending relatively earlier than other assembly and alcohol based businesses. The parking analysis conducted by staff is as follows. The business plaza shared by mixed retail service and restaurant were entitled originally for 101 shared parking stalls. The project would occupy what was originally entitled as 2 restaurants, each providing 10 spaces for total 20 spaces. The proposal requires 39 spaces with this in mind. Staff noted that proposal would operate at off hours compared to surrounding businesses with the busiest rental periods. The afternoon slash nighttime rentals on weekends would have minimal overlap with surrounding businesses. The following graph will show this. So this graph shows. Afternoon weekend hours would occur mostly events specifically would occur mostly after the other businesses have already closed. Additionally, as for the day days open, the medical suite is closed Sunday and Saturday while the restaurant is closed Sunday. Both of these conditions should generally parking for the proposed afternoon rental rentals, which will likely bring in the largest amount of people. Findings for the conditions permit are generally related to site sustainability for the proposed use. And regarding zoning general plan designation and the surrounding area, the project was determined to meet all these findings and the justification for each is contained within the resolution. The proposal qualifies for an exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to 15301, which applies to operational repair permitting or minor alterations of existing facilities. Staff recommends that the planning commission adopt resolution number 1731 and approve conditional use permit number 1216 based on the analysis and findings in the staff report and subject to the attached conditions of approval. If deemed appropriate, the recommended motion is available on screen. That concludes the presentation, and staff and the applicant are available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any questions for staff at this time?

Commissioner Elliott. Just more of a curiosity for myself. So the prior tenant had a similar use. Was that use also subject to a CUP?

No, so the use before was, um, it was a children's, uh, birthday party event space. Um, and that didn't have alcohol had, you know, less parking. So, um, that 1 was not required to have a, but they did have to get a tenant improvement permit. Um, that was done and that that was done prior to this. I think that was done in 2023. So that was fairly recent that that tenant improvement.

So, is it the alcohol license that's driving the for this use?

Not specifically. There is no ABC or alcohol license that's required because it is a caterer that's going to be providing the alcohol. There is no on-site dedicated bar staff or essentially bar service.

I think the issue is that banquet halls are specifically called out as a conditionally permitted use in the EVCG.

Yeah, understood. I was just trying to tease out the difference between birthday parties and banquet halls and functionally how they're different. And if there was a prior CUP, if those conditions were factored into this one, and it was going to further question understood.

Yeah. Yeah. Maybe, um. I'm speculating a little bit, but kids' play areas or something to that effect, maybe is it a specific use that was called out before versus this, which is a conditional use? Do you know the distinction?

Well, this one was a...

So that one was still approved flat out by... Right. Yeah. What was it classified? I guess the question is, what was the previous use classified as? Do you know? I think it was... I guess the answer is we'd have to research it.

Just trying to draw any connections to the prior use to this one, but this is fine. Thank you.

Any more questions for staff?

I'd just like to clarify that there are conditions that specifically say that this business is not going to be issued an ABC license. It would only be caterers that have their own ABC license that come in from time to time. So there's no potential for this use as a banquet hall to evolve into something bigger like a bar or anything like that.

Thank you. Commissioner Stanson.

Does that mean they would have to come back if they wanted to get an ABC license there?

That is correct. They would need to come back with a separate application, specifically with a request for an ABC license, which is not what's before you tonight.

Remind me in the conditions, thank you for providing the hours. Are there hours of operation tied to a condition?

There's not right now, but we can certainly add one expressly in the conditions.

Oh, no, I was actually going to make sure that they weren't because there are a lot of like, I think of real estate automatically where there's many times during the week in the evenings where we would rent space. So I would hate to see them restrict themselves to that in case they needed to provide that service for someone. So they're not perfect. Awesome. Thank you. Any other questions? Commissioner Stanton.

Is there occupancy limits?

Right now, the condition under building and safety establishes an occupancy limit of 82.

Any other questions? Great. Is the applicant here with the presentation or only to answer questions? Okay. Thank you. Do the commissioners have any questions for the applicant? Okay. Seeing none, we will open it up to public comment. Are there any speaker? I have no speaker slips for this item. Is there anyone in the audience here to speak on this item? Seeing none, do we have any on Zoom? Oh, I'm sorry, you have to get up. I apologize. No, I'm going to assume probably not. Okay, did we receive any written comments on this item?

We have not received any written comments.

Okay, I will now close the public hearing for this item and turn it over to the commissioners for deliberations and findings. The motion is on the screen. Does anyone have any comments they'd like to share? Okay, I will just say that I... I think it's a great project and this is one of those ones we talked about that's pretty straightforward. If anyone would like to make a motion, go right ahead.

Commissioner Stanson. I move that the Planning Commission adopt resolution number 1731 and approve conditional use permit number 1216 based on the findings contained in the staff report and subject to the attached conditions of approval.

Do we have a second?

I second.

Okay. Okay. It has been motioned by Commissioner Stanton and seconded by Commissioner Schweish to approve conditional use permit number 1216. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Congratulations. Moving on to item number 6B. Item 6B is a request to consider conditional use permit number 1217 to establish a personal fitness studio within two suites located at 308 West State Street. And I will now open the public hearing for this item. Has any commissioner had any expert take communications with the applicant on this item? Seeing none, staff presentation by Jasmine Serato. Ms. Serato.

Thank you, Chair and members of the Commission. So it's Conditional Use Permit Number 1217. The applicant is requesting to establish a personal fitness studio within 2 existing suites approximately 1,600 square feet each at 308 West state street and suites to a, and to be the highlighted area in red is the location of the tenant spaces in which the proposed use would take place. The subject site has a general plan land use designation of transit village, which designates areas for transit oriented development. And the proposed personal fitness studio is consistent with the intent of this designation and with the surrounding land uses. The project site is located within the village general district of the transit villages specific plan, which allows for personal fitness studios to be established with the approval of a conditional use permit. The proposal does not include any new construction or tenant improvement plans and sweet to a approximately 1,040 square feet of existing space will be designated workout area with 13 to 14 Pilates performers and 1 bar tower attached to the wall. The remaining space within the suite will continue to consist of an entry reception area restroom and a utility closet. And sweet to be approximately 840 square feet will be a designated workout area with 10 bar towers attached to the walls and approximately 140 square feet will be designated for a private training room with one Pilates reformer and one bar tower. The remaining space within this suite will consist of an entry reception area, an office, a bathroom and a utility closet. I mentioned the bar towers and reformers. Seen here, you can see the Pilates equipment. At the bottom, you have the reformers, the bar towers are in the middle, and then there are accessories used along with Pilates. All of these equipments produce minimal noise. Music, when used, will be played at soft background levels, so it won't be a disturbance to the neighboring properties. They propose to operate on an appointment basis to focus on small group Pilates and functional training classes of about 8 to 12 participants. Each class is 50 minutes duration and is anticipated to operate within the time frames listed here. The applicant expects to have five to seven employees consisting of certified Pilates instructors and part-time support staff who will operate based on their staggered class times, which results in about one to two staff members being available at a time. Other services do include private and semi-private training as well. The existing site was developed with 37 parking spaces for the shared retail center and 13 spaces off site along West state street under the previous C3 zoning standards, which were stricter in terms of parking requirements than currently. however additionally they also qualify for assembly bill 2097 which prohibits public agencies from requiring parking for any development projects within a half mile of public transit this is located 945 feet from the redlands downtown metrolink station therefore the project is exempt from parking requirements and no additional parking is required but again they do meet the parking requirements Here we have the north elevation where we can see the front of both subject suites, two A's on the ground floor and then two B's on the second floor. Here are the findings for a conditional use permit, which are generally related to site suitability. These address whether the proposed use complies with the zoning and general plan designation, while also finding it corresponds with the surrounding land uses and would not be detrimental to public health and safety. The justification for each of these findings is further explained within the resolution provided within the staff report. The proposed project may be exempt from environmental review pursuant to section 15301 for existing facilities of the California environmental quality act guidelines. This exemption applies to the operation repair permitting or minor alterations of existing facilities. A request such as that of a personal fitness studio within 2 existing commercial suites is consistent with the exemption criteria. Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt resolution number 1733, approving CEP number 1217 based on the analysis and findings in the staff report and subject to the attached conditions of approval. If deemed appropriate, the following motion is provided on screen. That concludes staff presentation. We are available for questions and so is the applicant.

Thank you. Are there any questions for staff at this time? Seeing none, is the applicant here with the presentation or just ask questions? Okay. Does any commissioner have any questions for the applicant at this time?

Okay.

Seeing none, we will move on to public comment. I have no speaker slips. Is anyone in the audience here to speak on this item? Seeing none, any comments on Zoom? Okay. Did we receive any written comments?

There are no written comments.

Thank you. I will now close the public hearing for this item and turn it over to the commissioners for deliberations and findings. Motion is on the screen. Does anyone have any comments? Another straightforward one. Okay. Commissioner Smith.

It's pretty straightforward. I move that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution Number 1733, approving Conditional Use Permit Number 1217, based on the findings contained in the staff report and subject to the attached conditions of approval. Second.

Oh, okay. Commissioner Stanton? It has been moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Stanton to approve conditional use permit number 1217. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Congratulations. Moving on to item number 6C. Item 6C is a request for approval of a revision to commission review and approval number 974. for an approved mixed-use development project on a vacant site located at the northeast corner of West Stewart Avenue and Eureka Street. Has any commissioner had any ex parte communications with the applicant on this item? Seeing none. Staff presentation by Kevin Beery. Mr. Beery, oh, sorry. Kevin Beery is now Mr. Foote. Staff pres...

Thank you. Kevin Berry gets to be on jury duty today, so I'll be handling the presentation.

Oh, fun. Jury duty or planning commission. Okay, Mr. Foote, go ahead.

All right. This is an application for a formal revision to an approved project. The existing entitlement is Commission Review and Approval Number 974. And this project site is located at the northeast corner of West Stewart Avenue and Eureka Street. So this is downtown just north of the train station. And this is a view of the existing project site. It's currently vacant for the most part. I believe it's entirely vacant at this point. Previously it had been developed with residential uses, a number of single family homes that have been removed in recent years. As you can see on the aerial, the train station and the downtown parking station is across the street to the south. And then the packing house district shopping center directly across Eureka Street to the west. And then some commercial businesses and a handful of residences to the north and to the east. The existing general plan designation is Transit Village, so this site is square in the middle of the village center district. So this is the highest intensity of use, land use district in the immediate proximity to the train station in the middle of downtown. And the village center district is indicated in the dark green on the map. This is... The proposed revised site plan and landscaping plan, it's virtually identical to the approved site plan. I selected the color version of the landscape plan because it's a little bit easier to see the building footprints and then the surrounding improvements on this particular exhibit. So what we're looking at is Stuart Avenue on the bottom, which is to the immediate south of the project site. And then Eureka Street is on the left-hand side of the site, which would be west. so the actual area of proposed change would be the north easterly quadrant of the site plan so the entire site fronts on stewart avenue on the bottom on the south and then eureka street on the west and then a small area of frontage on the top of this exhibit which is high avenue and ruby street so the The project boundaries, the perimeter, is not changing. What's changing is a small amount of the floor plan on the third and fourth floors, and then a little bit of the building design, the architecture, which we'll show exhibits here in just a moment. But this particular revision is to add an additional 24 units, dwelling units, apartments, to add those to the previously approved projects. So the new total is $106,000. 106 units now is the new total. And then a small addition of a fourth floor, a fourth level. Again, it's only on the northeasterly corner of the project site, which is more towards the rear of the project site. So we'll show that here in just a minute. What this exhibit is showing is, again, the area of revision. The buildings would add a fourth floor to accommodate the additional dwelling units, apartments, again, on the easterly, northeasterly quadrant of the site, which would be towards the rear, as viewed from Stewart Avenue or Eureka Street. In addition, the parking spaces would be increased by a total of 10. So the approved project had 51 spaces and the revision would have 61 spaces. And all of those would be reserved for residents within the development. There's a slight revision on the ground floor, which is showing here a portion of the parking garage and then some dwelling units on the interior on the ground floor. It's a relatively minor change on the ground floor. Now, these elevations show the sides proposed to be revised, which would be the north elevation, so that's facing Ruiz Street and High Avenue on the north side. And then also the easterly side would be facing, I believe it's 3rd Street to the east, which has a row of some single-family homes on that street frontage, and then the buildings would back up to the rear of those lots. And again, this is changing from three stories on the approved project to four stories, just only on these two sides at the rear of the project site. There is a small change to the architectural materials. Instead of all wood or fiberboard siding, there is a portion that is to be plaster or stucco now. But for the most part, the... approved materials and colors are not substantially changing. The change from what I understand is happening only on the two sides that will be four stories high. And then no changes to the remainder of the project. No other changes to the approved landscape plan. No substantial changes to the lighting plan. So overall, staff believes this is consistent with the general plan and certainly the zoning designation is Transit Village. And... We are recommending that all of the findings can be made again for approval. These are some perspective renderings showing the massing and the distribution of the buildings on the site. Again, we believe it's substantially in conformance with the approved project. Staff has done a detailed analysis of all the applicable development standards in the transit villages District with the village center districts the proposal complies with all of the objective Development standards as well as the objective architectural design guidelines In addition the additional the addition of 24 additional units will also Add to some affordable dwelling units in the as listed in the inclusionary housing plan that's included with the packet And like the original project, this revision is exempt from Measure U. And therefore, there's no additional studies that are required in terms of traffic analysis or socioeconomic cost-benefit analysis. The Council previously determined the project was exempt from Measure U. there are three findings that must be made for commission review and approval these three findings essentially pertain to site development and site construction so the land use is permitted use so these three findings are discussing the construction of the proposed improvements and the suitability of the site for the proposed development and staff believes that all three of these findings can be made Number one, the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use and all the required improvements in yards and other development standards. Two, the site is situated and arranged so that adequate vehicular access can be provided by the street grid. And three, the conditions of approval are sufficient to protect public health and safety and welfare. And the detailed responses to those are provided in the resolution. This project remains exempt from environmental review under Section 15332 of the CEQA guidelines. There's five criteria listed, and the proposed project continues to meet all five criteria for exemption. There's no substantial evidence of any potentially significant impacts or effects on the environment that would preclude the use of the exemption. And staff recommends approval of the revision, and the applicant is also present to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you.

Does anyone have any questions for staff at this time? Commissioner Stanson?

Mr. Foote, could you kind of explain to me exactly what these modifications are? Because I'm a little bit confused. I understand one of the buildings gets a fourth floor. Was it originally, the project was three stories, and now it's going to four stories on... One building or more than one building? I'm just, I've been looking at the plan, so I'm kind of confused on exactly what.

Why don't you bring the graphic back up where you shaded in the increase?

Let's see. This one? I believe it's more than one building. We can ask the applicant for clarification, but it's essentially the addition of 24 more apartments. So the original approval had 82 units, and the new total would be 106, and that's driving the addition of a fourth floor. Several of those units will be in the new fourth floor, again, at just the rear corner of the project site, and an addition of 10 additional parking spaces also.

Okay, I guess I'd like to get from the applicant a little bit more information

understanding on the revisions that were made in the rest of the buildings we'll bring them up soon any other questions for staff at this time seeing none could the applicant please join us well hello i haven't seen you in a bit Sorry, for everyone, will you introduce yourself? We all know who you are, but not everyone does.

Talking about a project for Balboa Properties. And Brendan's also here with me. And Kevin was our planner, unfortunately sat here today. So I knew we were going to be on the agenda. I saw when it came out, but I wasn't clear on it. what we needed to prepare or anything like that, so I'll try to answer your question. So on the, what you're seeing there in the light blue tone over top of it, and you could see it even more clearly on the elevations, so those buildings that are essentially eastern facing, that's four stories now. And what, it used to be three, and it used to be more discreet. Right now they're kind of linked more together, and that was done prior to when we did our original approval and design took quite a while by the time it got done and all the variations and things that happened uh the costs were really Prohibitive to kind of do such an articulated plan across the entire property. So the decision was made to keep the Main Street artery Elevation so Stewart and Eureka Exactly the same. Absolutely. Nothing has changed Okay, and then the other two areas we had to make some adjustments on the parking garage on the first floor on the east side it used to have a turn in it which again extra expense for very little benefit and So that was straightened out. And then the building on the back, which also has parking underneath, we looked at that also adding a fourth floor, but I'm pretty sure that where we landed is that that's not what was submitted. So when I say I wasn't 100% prepared for today, it's because I think it's only on the right-hand side, so.

I believe that's the case. Yeah, it's just the right thing. Yeah. So basically, it's the right buildings. Yeah. And then the facade was originally matching the perimeter buildings where you saw more articulated surfaces. The new facade is all interior, but basically they, they created. the cost savings by moving the more articulated services, by retaining the more ornate articulated services on the exterior.

And simplifying the interior to keep the cost down. I understand. I think it's a nice project.

I understand. And I want to answer all your questions and be as clear as possible. It's just, again, I...

I was just a little confused on how, I mean, I understood the one building and added another floor, but all the other stuff you were doing there wasn't quite understanding exactly what you changed.

Yeah, there was a lot of minor adjustments that kind of helped save some money and then connecting some pieces that were discrete buildings now. So where there were three, now there's two. So just eliminating like two facades saves a lot of money and then going up. The 4th floor on the 1 side gave us more rental income. So just. That's what we're willing to do. I think it's still. A gamble in the market where the 1st, people trying to build this kind of denser housing downtown. There's no real comps on what this really works. No, but it's a good place for it and the concept of what they're trying to sell, downtown living and all that.

I mean, you're downtown, the parking structure across the street, train station right there. I walk to so much. Restaurants everywhere, yeah. I mean, it'd be kind of a cool place if I was younger to live.

Yeah, yeah. I think it will be successful. I mean, we're counting on it, so tell everybody. Thank you. It'll be successful.

And if I may, just especially for the new commissioners to provide some context, the applicant did contact us about this several months ago. Just relatively speaking, this is a pretty high-quality exterior that we're seeing on this project. Most multifamilies we've seen recently don't have anywhere near the level of articulation in the surfaces and the high-quality material you see on the exteriors. So we are very much still in support of this project. It's going to be a very nice addition to the downtown, we feel.

I have a general question to the staff. In situations where the height of a building is increasing or a request is being made and it affects other residential or commercial properties that have solar, for example, and it's going to impact their solar output, how is that typically handled?

He asked for title 24. There's no evaluation on how the height of a structure affects the surrounding area. This has their setback requirements. So that more pertains from a visual or aesthetic standpoint. Our solar requirements are based off of title 24, and they more pertain to encouraging the addition of energy saving components to structures like this. But there is not an analysis that's performed on how it might shade areas. Now I will tell you, this is adjacent to two big arterials. There's no commercial developments or any type of projects that are immediately adjacent. So there's no projects adjacent to this would be affected by the four stories. But in general, to answer your question, there's no formal analysis that's done.

Thank you. I was just quickly looking, and there does seem to appear that towards the northeastern side, that there are facilities that have solar panels. So that's why I posed the question. I see.

Do you want to add anything to that?

No. Are there questions for ownership?

Yes. Commissioner Gillenhammer. Okay. It's mixed-use, correct, this development? So there will be retail, or is it only just retail?

It's mixed-use.

It is mixed-use, okay.

So on the corner on the first floor in the buildings that we're not touching during this revision, there will be commercial space. Okay. I think it's like 7,000 or 8,000 square feet of first-floor commercial space. So they'll have right where you're walking, you'll be able to look into storefronts, and they could be for shopping or they could be services. Okay. Yeah.

And then parking with that just be on the street.

There will be some on street parking.

Okay.

And then we were encouraging all of our vendors, whoever becomes our tenant to inform all their customers. You know, there's free parking right across the street. That's a. know essentially a four-story parking garage that is uh really the i think the use rate of that has really gone up uh more recently but i think people are it's been my experience that it seems like people are understanding more of like the park once kind of concept for downtown redlands which was not something people were accustomed to i think it took a little while And I think the Redlands market that Arteko did is really the driving force because that was so popular at the beginning that there was a lot of scrambling around for people to understand where to park. And I think that's kind of solved itself. That's my feeling.

And then lastly, is there EV charging stations for the residents?

Tenants. Tenants will have charging stations. Excellent. And then, of course, the parking garage across the street provides public parking that has different levels of charging, including a Tesla up on the roof. Tesla stuff. Yeah.

It's very helpful when you forget to put your car in.

Yeah.

Commissioner Stanson.

Do you have any users for the retail space? Do you know whether you're going to go restaurants or any idea what?

I think they'll be popular because, I mean, we don't have anybody signed up yet, so I can say that. But I do think one of the things that we heard from other properties we own downtown is just, hey, you know, everything is wonderful. We love Redlands and all that. I think we have mostly... companies and things that are very familiar with it. I don't think we've gotten the level of interest from, like, Orange County or other locations, but I think that will change when they start seeing that there's, you know, 100 units here. It could be, like, 150 people that might want to grab something to eat without really going far away or, you know, pick up some additional whatever. I think that there's a definite, there will be a high level of interest, yeah.

Okay, I have a couple. On the height, what was the original height in terms of feet, and what is it now?

Brian might be able to tell you on that thing. I don't recall off the top of my head, but I know that it's not as tall as the parking garage. So you have the parking garage across the street. That's four stories. That's like a four-story commercial height. So this is four stories, but it's based on residential on the back, so it's shorter than that. Yeah, and then, as you said, the proper setbacks have been accommodated for, and we have had some articulation on the side facing the backyards of the people on 3rd Street with material changes, as well as we will be planting some trees that will provide shade and just break up a wall that's a little longer than we had originally intended.

Thank you. These are usually the post-meeting questions that we get from people, so that's really good perspective that it's less in height than the parking structure.

It is. And then one thing that we had mentioned to Kevin Beery and where I still intend to do was I'll reach out to all the owners on 3rd Street because I met with them previously, and there are a couple houses on Ruiz that remain that are adjacent to our project. After all this is taken care of at the city level, in case they weren't able to attend here tonight, I'll answer questions for them because we're neighbors with them and we want to make sure they understand what's happening. I think I've answered similar questions from them previously, but now we know exactly what we're doing.

Thank you. You guys have always done a good job of listening and doing what you can to accommodate the public, so we appreciate that.

Commissioner Elliott. It's not so much a question, but when we get to deliberations, I'd like to discuss the elevations and then possibly invite the applicant back up.

Okay. Okay.

Understood.

All right. Thank you.

Yep. Okay. Any other further questions for staff at this time? Seeing none, this is not a public hearing, but I will entertain public comments. I do have one speaker slip from Don Grenda and a handout. he has provided, if you could take one down, pass around. Thank you. Welcome.

Hello. My name's Don Grenda. I'm a former commissioner of the Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission and the Planning Commission. I'm the vice president of the Redlands Conservancy, and I run an archeological consulting firm based here in Redlands, statistical research. I've conducted most of the archeological projects conducted in downtown Redlands over the past 25 years, and these are shown, at least the major ones, are shown on the first figure I've got. Those are the surrounding archeological projects. The red box is the current project area. The parcel under consideration sits in once what was referred to as Sonora Town. This was the Mexican and Mexican-American community that occupied the area starting around 1900 and remains there today in the Ruiz Street areas. The community was split by the freeway around 1960, but a small portion of the population is still there. The second figure shows that the area was in Orange Grove in 1938. That's the Sanborn map. It was basically open space. And then you can see in the following, the third figure, the community was built by 1959. So those houses went in sometime in the late 40s, I suspect. Previous archeological projects surrounding the current project area indicate that subsurface features, which are shown in figure four, your fourth figure, which is this part, this shows you where Starbucks currently sits. shows that the area will likely have a number of archaeological features related to Sonoratown when they do ground disturbing activities. So I'm just recommending that you add a condition of archaeological monitoring for this project. I think it would demonstrate a concern for the local affected community. The developer in the general area here has been fantastic with community outreach and doing a lot of outreach to the the Mexican and Mexican-American communities in the past. And we've done a lot of presentations to the Historical Society. I did an Esri forum meeting and talking about both Chinatown and Sonoratown. And this is just kind of a continuation of the downtown Redlands archaeological project. It'll extend over to the mall, all these large projects where there's going to be a lot of archaeology found in all of these locations. This one was missed because Environmental Review didn't pick it up. It should have. And it wasn't subject to CEQA because it's an infill under five acres. But there's archaeology there, and the archaeological sites around it demonstrate that. So happy to answer any questions if anybody has any.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Mr. Foote, because this is a change to a project, could you please remind us if any archaeologists Archaeology monitoring was in the first one. If not, why not? And if you've discussed it with the applicant, please.

Well, originally it was screened for potential exemption from environmental review as allowed by the California Environmental Quality Act. And at that time, We did not have any information or evidence of any high likelihood of potential uncovering or discovery of archeological or other resources on the project site. Incidentally, we did receive one written comment via email from resident Kurt Heidelberg with essentially the same comments as what we just heard from the speaker. I did forward the email to the applicant for consideration. I don't know if the applicant has any comments regarding that.

So, to answer your question, I mean, if the commission has specific concerns about this issue, we can, you can ask us to further look into it and study it basically on an exemption. We refer to. We refer to local, state, and federal lists of resources, and as Mr. Foote stated, when the original analysis was done, there was no evidence at that point of it. But if the Commission, and obviously Mr. Grant is a practitioner, and I definitely Wouldn't, you know, pretend to know more than he does about the subject matter. But if the commission would like us to look into it, we can do a further analysis on that. Or, you know, of course, if the applicant is willing to go and add that as a condition at this point in time, you know, that's something that they can do on their own accord. But I'd have to defer to the applicant on that.

Okay. So I would like the applicant to join us again. And just kind of the basis for this conversation. So the the community this developer and the Commission has always taken our archaeological Resources very seriously. So I just would like to kind of explore this before we throw a condition on you See what you think and then let's have a discussion on how we might Address us We relied on the city the real city made it very clear.

It wasn't required and This also wasn't supposed to have a public comment period, yet we have one. And the person who chose to comment is somebody who could financially gain from us being required to do this. I don't appreciate that.

Understood.

Okay.

Thank you for your comment.

Any other questions? But on the other hand, the area has had significant archaeological finds across the street, and Dangerman has spent a lot of money on his projects. you know, and looking for cultural resources. And I, just because the city forgot it, this doesn't mean that we should not protect our cultural resources and that we should, I don't think it's a very big ask to have some monitoring and to, for the, I mean, to protect the resources of the Hispanic community.

I'm gonna pause just for one second.

All I'm saying is that. I get it, but they made a mistake, I think. You don't want to hold any responsibility for what was done up to this point. Is that what I hear?

I just want to clarify, it's not that a mistake was made. We referred to our normal lists and resources when we did the initial application. We did not find it listed on any of the resources we would normally refer to as per protocol when we do an exemption. When an amendment is filed, it does provide an opportunity, again, for the Commission to go and ask these types of questions. If there's evidence you feel necessitates us to look into something to that effect, we can certainly, we can do that and bring more information back to you. Obviously, we can only refer to the original analysis we conducted at this point at this meeting. We don't have the ability to conduct additional analysis at this meeting, but that's not to say there is any additional impetus for a condition to that effect but we would have to we would have to research it so all i can tell you at this point is that we you know per the staff report we refer to the typical list we look at we did not find a reference to any type of uh any type of uh triggers that would require further sequa but again it's your purview to ask us to look into something um more if you'd like us to

Understood Thank you commissioner Elliot. I'd like to get clarity if we're asking the applicant to provide construction monitoring, or if it's something like a full phase 2 archaeological assessment on the site, which is, you know. Much more comprehensive and a totally different order of magnitude.

We'd have to look into. I mean, we'll have to look into the information we have available in our books right now. And if I would say, if it doesn't, if it, if it confirms what we originally looked into, that it's not listed on a historic resource, then we should follow precedent. That would be my recommendation. But, um. That's about the best of the direction I can give you at this time. I would say if it turns out to be no additional compelling information to lead to that, then I would recommend precedent be kept. I'll also say, too, it is an approved project, so the applicant always has the ability just to build what's already been approved.

That's exactly right.

I think Commissioner Elliott has one more question.

Is there a standard condition of approval applied to grading plans for reporting of Discoveries and has that been applied to this project?

In my all I'm gonna reference this right now, but typically monitoring is not required unless there's a Yeah, there's an impetus for it.

We don't know that Yeah, not necessarily but reporting of an inadvertent discovery so the construction crew were to find something in their activities that they would be required to report it to the city and

If it's something like a more contemporary resource, like a bottle or something recent, no. There's always something in state code regarding inadvertent discovery of unknown burial sites, like Native American burial sites. That's just state law. That would trigger a notification. But as far as standard archaeological construction monitoring on every single project or grading project, no, there's nothing in law requiring that.

Right. Okay. I understand state law, but I was asking if we have a a condition locally that we apply to just all grading plans in general for site disturbance.

No, not that I'm worried about in the code.

Okay. Okay. We're going to go to commissioner switch and then commissioner Dominguez.

I believe in light of new evidence, it might be worthwhile to at least do an investigation. Just ask the staff to do a little bit more evaluation. And we can have more information at that point to understand whether we are asking for what we are asking for. Because I think at this point, assuming that we're asking for something specific of the planner without understanding what is it that we're asking for would be And not worthwhile.

Thank you. Yes, I was going to say that in light of what just came up, I think, in order for us to give a better to get a better understanding, I think we would prefer for the city to go ahead and do some more research on this to have a better understanding.

Just going one alternative going off commissioner Elliot's question line of questioning. I just looked through the conditions. I didn't see a specific condition to notifying staff. If an artifacts found, would it would the commission be comfortable in moving forward if we were to add a condition to that effect?

So, I mean, I think for the purpose of right now, we're not deliberating. We were, we're having a discussion, but if you could take a minute, especially for the benefit of the new commissioners and kind of explain. So, when we have public comment come up, we definitely. Listen, we consider it, but at the same time, staff has a process that they go through that they've been trained on and they have measures that need to be met. So. why we're trying to balance listening to the public and addressing their concerns. It's really also important that we respect the process that staff goes through and the things that they have looked into. So could you restate that again as far as why you're saying there was no evidence to require this in the first place so we can kind of understand the job that you've done already?

Brian, you want to take since the first co-ed explaining the exemption analysis?

Well, we staff do a brief analysis, a screening, if you will. It's not a full written initial study, but it's a screening analysis. the project for potential exemptions if there's an appropriate exemption in this case 15332 for infill we look at the applicable criteria and then we look for anything else that might preclude us from using that exemption so for instance in terms of historical resources or archaeological resources there's the state list of course we have our local list of historical resources and this particular property did not come up on any local or state list as a historical or archaeologically sensitive site. So we heard the public speaker. The public speaker brought some information that's fairly detailed. And in terms of a full environmental analysis on let's say another type of project, we could potentially discuss different levels of monitoring. There's if the baseline is sort of inadvertent discovery, if something is uncovered that's potentially sensitive, then the city would be notified and then at that point the developer would be responsible for bringing out an archeological monitor to assess whatever the discovery is at that time. There's additional more intensive layers of mitigation. There's active monitoring for 100% of the time. Generally, we don't jump to active monitoring unless there's some information or evidence of a high or moderate likelihood of something being discovered. A good example is tribal cultural resources. We're not talking about that in this case. This is just generic archaeological, non-tribal kinds of cultural resources that may or may not be there. It's sort of I don't want to say speculative, but the information presented is hinting that there might be something there. It doesn't give us an indication of what the likelihood is, just that there might be something there. In these types of cases where we don't know for sure something is likely to be there, the sort of middle ground is sort of inadvertent discovery language. If something is uncovered, then the city is notified, and then an archaeologist or appropriate expert is brought out at that time to assess if there's a discovery made.

Okay. Can I ask you a question? You guys have always done a phenomenal job taking care of our city and our – really everything with great care, would you be open to a condition that says, hey, you're going to let us know if you find something, inadvertent discovery of something significant? However, that's defined between you and staff?

Yeah, of course. We're not looking to denigrate the history of anything, especially the Mexican and Sonoran community. Absolutely not. But at the same time, I'd also just reference to the commission that We were told that this was a non-agendized item that required no public comment. We almost didn't come. So I mean, what the heck? And then, so I would check with your legal people if you're allowed to do that.

So my script tells me I am, we'll have to defer to, but as for respect for the public, when allowed, I believe it's my purview, but I'm not sure. I always try to make sure that people get a chance to talk.

So, yeah, I understand. We have somebody that we have to deal with, right? This was assigned to somebody. Yes. Or the person we communicate with. They told us. This is a no public comment thing, which is why I've gone to the effort to kind of set up to try to set up something with all the neighbors after this is done, because I didn't expect there to be public comment. I understand. And then you received a report. It wasn't shared with us. I mean, it's just unfair, right? It's just. It's like a sneak attack.

I hear you. We hear you.

Yeah, I absolutely do not find that acceptable.

Does anyone have any questions for the applicant? Deliberations we will have amongst ourselves in a moment. Does anyone have any further questions for the applicant?

I just want to clarify that we did not receive a report. We received comments. Is that correct? Okay, so there was no formal report that we received. Correct.

Thank you.

Oh, sorry. Don't go away.

I'm sorry, Commissioner Elliott. I want to lighten the mood a little bit, talk about elevations, if you please. So I wanted to ask about the window treatments on the north and east elevations. Now that we're changing the material to stucco, it just stands out to me as a little more plain. And I think I was perhaps distracted from how windows were treated when we had the faux wood paneling on those sides.

There was more articulation because the paneling has... you know, was going to make shallow shadow lines and things like that. Whereas this will have a more uniform appearance overall. But there are still some recesses and there are some changes of materiality where we have added back some of that material just to kind of break up the facade. Plus the one thing that's not being shown in that elevation, but you can see it on the landscape plan would be that there will be trees all along there. So it's not like know it's a tilt up over off of California that has a palm tree that blocks nothing it will be well there'll be a whole bunch of foliage so well it it looks a little more monotone you know monotonous in this kind of an elevation where it just looks like punctures It won't read like that in person and because there are some planes there that are set back from each other. There'll be shadows and things.

Perfect. Thank you. I was going to ask about, like. In sets of the windows and also acknowledging if it's on the north side, they may not be that very much, but also appreciate the commentary on the landscaping. So I imagine if it's anything parking garage, we won't see much of the elevation to begin with.

No, there. I think you look at the projects we've done around town. It's. One thing we get complaints from our tenants that we have too much landscaping. So I think we can expect the same thing here. It'll be like a park with some buildings in it.

Yeah. All right. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Shaw, I just want to add one piece of information I was given to you by the applicant. The grading permit's already been issued and some of the work's already commenced. So I just want to note that as well for the project that's already been approved.

Thank you. Commissioner Smith.

ACM Bowman, write what you were just saying, just so I'm clear. This is an approved project, and as long as we weren't talking about a reservation, they can move forward.

Yeah, that's correct. Yeah, the revision does, as we've discussed, allow the commission to weigh in on the revision, and it does allow you to take in public comment. And we can certainly research information like what we're discussing, but the project is approved. And it's very possible that we may arrive at the exact same conclusion as we did before. In fact, it's very likely, unless a mistake was made. But there's no evidence that a mistake was made. So I would just reiterate it is an approved project, yes. Appreciate it.

Last call for any questions for staff. Seeing none. And we already opened public comment. I have no more speaker slips. Are there any more speakers here on this item? Seeing none, since I already opened public comment, I'm also going to ask for Zoom. Do we have any? Okay. And do we receive any written comments?

Just the one email that I mentioned earlier and no additional comments.

Thank you. Okay. This is not a public hearing, but I'm going to now turn it over to the commissioners for discussion and deliberation. Who would like to go first? Commissioner Smith.

I got to agree with the applicant. This is an approved project. We were moving forward. They revised something that's in the sky and not in the ground. It'd be different if we were looking to dig in, you know, dig out a, you know, a two-story underground park construction. We were going to tap into something different. This is not that. So I'm all for moving forward with this project without any concerns of the email that we received.

Commissioner Swish.

I think this is a great project for the city, consistent with our general plan, and would really liven up the area. Regarding this issue with the excavation that we have been discussing, It sounds like the applicant is willing to at least have a condition or if they do find something while they continue to proceed to agree to let us know. Given the fact that there is no strong evidence otherwise and that the permit is issued and work is in progress, I feel that's a good compromise.

Okay, Commissioner Elliott.

Thank you.

I'll be giving my support to the project for me, the findings of how this project achieves those findings hasn't changed. I am personally pleased to see the addition of the density to the project, because the city has worked hard for a very long time to bring this type of project to fruition. And it is fulfilling the plans that this community has made together, including past versions of our downtown specific plan. Um. Recognizing that this project is already underway. Um, I am sympathetic for the predicament that the applicant is in with this coming to everyone's attention at a late hour. Um. I would give support to the condition to notify the city of any findings. I do feel that that is a fair compromise given circumstances.

Commissioner Stanson.

And I agree with you. I think we just put that one condition in that they were notified that that would be fine. I think it's a fine project. I'm looking forward to seeing it get to completion and you getting it built. I just want to make sure that we're not leaving anything. If we find something that's of heritage that we, you know, that it's turned over the city, beyond that, I don't want to see your project slowed down in any way, shape, or form. I know how detrimental that can be, so. Thank you.

Okay. I just want to share a few things that I also am very much in support of the project. I'm really glad that you added the density. We all know how much housing we need for all types in this city. I really appreciate how everyone in this community respects cultural resources. And quite honestly, I think if you would have found something significant, you would have told us anyway, even if it wasn't. And you've done a great job of caring for our community. Whoever makes the motion, if you do decide I'm in support of the project as is or with the condition, either way, whoever makes the motion, I would encourage you to use. terminology where it's significant findings as determined between staff and the applicant. So it's not like they have to come to us if they find a squirt bottle, you know, like literal squirt. Remember we used to drink that soda that doesn't exist, but that's not a cultural resource, right? So it's defined as, as major. Does that work for you guys, staff?

Yes, we'll work with them on a condition that reflects that.

Okay. If you could bring the, um, are there any further comments in the, Recommendation up on the screen and it is open. To make Commissioner Elliott.

I moved to adopt resolution number 1730, approving revisions to Commission review and approval number 974 and the associated inclusionary housing plan, adding a condition of approval to be agreed upon by applicant and city staff requiring notification to the city of inadvertent cultural resource discoveries.

Do I have a second?

Second.

It has been moved by Commissioner Elliott and seconded by Commissioner Stanson to approve revision number one for commission review and approval number 974 as amended. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Okay. Moving on to item 6D. Item 6D is a consideration of of a recommendation to the City Council regarding a proposed specific plan amendment, zone change, commission review and approval, lot merger, and two conditional use permits for a proposed new shopping center project on the vacant 8.5-acre site located at the northeast corner of West Lagonia Avenue and Tennessee Street. I will now open the public hearing for this item. Has any commissioner had any expertise communications with the applicant on this item? Seeing none, staff presentation by Sean Riley. Mr. Riley.

Thank you, Chair and members of the Commission. as you mentioned the proposal in front of you today includes several applications for entitlements to construct an approximately 71 000 square foot commercial center with six buildings the center will include a grocery store anchor tenant a drive-through building and four multi-tenant buildings as you can see in this image the project's located north of lugonia avenue and east of tennessee street or more generally north of the home depot and east of state route 210. Site's currently vacant and has no previous development history. Historic aerials show the site was previously used for agriculture, which ended in the early 80s. Recently, two residential projects have been approved abutting the project. Actually, one's a residential project, one's a mixed-use project. But the Lugoni Village project is located to the east. That includes 541 residential units, and the Tennessee Village project is located to the north. That includes 460 residential units and about 18,000 square feet of commercial space. Again, that's to the north. The site has a commercial general plan designation. The proposed commercial center with the drive through is consistent with the general plan land use designation. Projects located in the special development district at the East Valley corridor specific plan. The applicant is proposing a specific plan amendment to remove the site from the East Valley corridor specific plan and to designate the site as general commercial. Within the general commercial district, there's a wide variety of commercial uses that are allowed there both conditional and non and by right within this district drive throughs and alcohol licenses as you'll see in a moment require a conditional use permit. So the site plan, as I mentioned, it's approximately 71,000 square feet of commercial space. The buildings are generally spaced around the perimeter of the site with the main parking area located in the center. There are 5 access points to the project. The 2 main entrances are on the center of each of the front edges. So, in the center of laconia Avenue there across from home Depot, and in the center of the site there, where it says Tennessee on the Western portion of the site, secondary accesses are in the Northwest corner and the South East corner. There's also a fifth entrance, I should mention, that comes from the Tennessee Village portion project to the north. They have their commercial portion of their site is directly to the north of the drive-through here in this image, Pad 1. And there's a 30-foot drive aisle that allows entrance into this site or to and from these two sites. This is a summary of the development standards for the project. The project will meet or exceed all development standards for the C3 zoning district in terms of setbacks, floor area, height, and landscaping. The project requires one parking space for every 200 square feet of building area. And based on that standard, it requires 357 spaces. They do provide 357 spaces. They would be allowed to do 83 compact spaces. However, they are only providing 11. So most of their spaces are standard spaces. and like i said it complies with all of the drive aisle standards and dimensions for parking spaces are all met the project is required to improve and widen the adjacent roadways along the project frontages to their full widths the project will build an additional northbound lane on tennessee street and will build an additional westbound lane on the gonia avenue As required by measure, you a traffic study was prepared by qualified consultant and reviewed by city staff or land use engineering division. And based on the traffic study, the applicant is required to make some additional improvements, which are included as conditions of approval. Uh, those include what you see here on the slide and so that's at the intersection of West Lugonia Avenue at the Home Depot parking lot. The timing of the signal will need to be changed to bring that to a level of C service. And at West Lugonia and Texas street, they will need to restripe within the existing right of way to accommodate a left turn lane. This is the project's landscaping plan. There's no minimum overall landscape requirement in the C3 zoning districts. In total approximately 17% of the site is landscaped. Projects within the C3 zoning district are required to landscape 7% of the parking area. This project landscapes 9% of the project parking area, which exceeds the minimum requirement. The landscaping plan consists of 239 trees and a wide variety of shrub mixes that will be planted throughout the site. Nine different species of trees are proposed, with the majority being Australian willow, strawberry trees, and Brisbane box. Approximately 79% of the trees are evergreen, which exceeds the 50% requirement. The project features a prominent landscape plaza at the corner there of Lagonia and Tennessee. This area provides outdoor seating, landscaping, and pedestrian pathways into the site. This slide shows the proposed architecture of the major market tenant. The architectural elevations for the project utilize a contemporary style with a variety of materials. Buildings within the project are generally consistent with the city's architectural design guidelines. They provide vertical and horizontal projections, short tower elements, and again, variety of materials. Architectural treatments are provided on all sides. This slide shows portions of the pad buildings and demonstrates the typical architecture of the other buildings within the site. Again, here you can see the types of materials and colors that are proposed as well as the vertical and horizontal projections and the varied, the awnings and varied materials. The proposed drive-through restaurant, as I mentioned, does require a conditional use permit. The building is proposed to be 3,900 square feet with two drive-through lanes. No tenant has been identified by the applicant at this time. The project is located on Lugonia Avenue, which is designated as a major arterial roadway, and Tennessee Street, which is a minor arterial. These meet our roadway classification requirements for locating a drive-through. Each drive-through is required to provide space for six vehicles to queue in their line. The project provides at least space for 15, again, meeting the requirement. In addition, drive-through aisles are required to be screened from the view of the public with the use of walls and or landscaping. The project does both. It incorporates landscaping and a wall to screen vehicles in the drive-through lanes. The C3 district does not limit operational hours. The applicants suggested are proposing hours of 5 AM to 11 PM is what they anticipate for the drive through with and it's expected to employ 10 to 20 employees with 4 to 6 employees per shift. This slide shows the architecture of the drive-through. It's the policy of the City to require higher quality architectural treatments on drive-throughs. As proposed, the drive-through building incorporates a contemporary architectural style like what is proposed throughout the rest of the project. The billing does include a varied roofline, large windows, metal awnings, and varied materials. However, the drive-through does not include enhancements such as a portico or accent panels or any trellis features, landscape trellis features, and things like that. So the Planning Commission may wish to add a condition for the applicant to include those things prior to issuance of a building permit. The applicant's also requesting a conditional use permit for the grocery tenant to have alcohol sales. They're looking to get a Type 21 off-sale general ABC license from the state, which allows beer, wine, and distilled spirits. The store is located within census tract 80.01, which is not considered an area of undue concentration in terms of ABC licenses, therefore there are no findings of public convenience or necessity that are necessary. The store expects to operate from 6 a.m. to 12 a.m. with alcohol sales during all open hours. The applicant has stated that the display area is expected to be about 1,000 square feet, with some displays spaced throughout the site. We don't have the actual floor plan at this time. But the alcohol sales are intended to be incidental to the grocery store's larger operations, and it's likely that most customers would come in and buy their groceries and pick up alcohol incidentally with their other shopping. There are three findings for a commission review and approval that need to be made. They relate to how the use and development relates to the surrounding neighborhood, how the project relates to adjacent streets and highways, and that the project being built is planned and conditioned in a manner that protects public health, safety, and welfare. How the project meets these findings is included in the resolution in detail, and staff believes that these findings for commission review and approval can be made. And as you've seen with the other projects today, there are also findings for the conditional use permit. These findings are related to location and land use plans of the city, public health, safety, and welfare, and that they are going to comply with the regulations and development standards of the city. Again, staff believes that the project meets all of these findings, and that's detailed in the resolution. The project includes a lot merger for a well site. There's a small well site in the center of the project that will be merged with the larger portion of the project. Within the C3 zoning district, there are not standards for lot width, lot depth, lot size. And so this merger will comply with the development standards that are there. There is a condition of approval that's been added to the project requiring the recordation of the lot merger prior to building permit issuance. Socioeconomic cost-benefit study was prepared according to Measure U. The cost-benefit ratio is 7.65, with annual revenues anticipated to be approximately 362,000 in annual costs. Excuse me, that's the revenue. And with costs of approximately 47,000, and there is a positive balance of approximately 315,000. The city retained an environmental consultant to analyze the project and prepare an MND in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The ISMND was made available for public review for 30 days. No comments were made or received during the public comment review period. A mitigated negative declaration included mitigation measures that pertain to biological resources, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, transportation and tribal cultural resources. And with the recommended mitigation, all things can be mitigated to a level that is less than significant. And all of these mitigation measures are included as conditions of approval. Staff is recommending approval of of the project or recommending that the planning commission recommend approval to the city council for this project. And if the planning commission agrees, the motion is here on on the screen, I will add that the applicant is here for questions. I'm that concludes the presentation. I'll add that the applicant is here to answer questions and we also have our environmental consultants here as well.

Thank you. Mr. questions for staff. Commissioner Elliott.

Can we explore real quick, go back to maybe the site planning? You can walk us through the pedestrian circulation plan for the project. Something that I'm picking up on, I think it was maybe pad three shops three, excuse me. And really that sweeping right exit. from the project, and I'm trying to determine where is the sidewalk crossing this driveway? Is it at that widest point? My concern is that we're having pedestrians, notably the 500 residential units next door who may be walking to this facility, having to cross such a wide driveway, and with that sweeping turn, it just encourages higher speed traffic. I don't know if that's designed specifically for trucks, but what might, you know, In deliberations and as we talk to the applicant, it's something that I want to focus on, but if I'm interpreting this incorrectly, I'd like to understand that now.

I do believe the shape of the exit is for trucks, and that is you see the pedestrian pathway in and out there, and then as the pedestrians would come from the project to the east, they would be crossing there at likely the widest point, as you've suggested.

My other question comment for staff, no doubt that this project will likely have a positive cost benefit outcome for the city, but I still have. Concerns over our model that model doesn't take into account. Our costs today to provide city services, nor does it account for some of our new tax revenues that are. And so I don't have a strong understanding of. How much of a benefit is this project going to bring to us using that older model?

So that is the established model. I think you brought this concern up previously to us. Yeah, this is our established model, similar to what we've discussed in the past. It is on our list to go and update the model this year. It hasn't been done yet, so this is the information, yeah, that the Planning Commission has available to them right now.

Understanding that those costs, the model is dated, is staff's degree of confidence in The degree of cost benefit for the city, like, is that we feel strongly that it's a 7 factor cost benefit.

I'll chime in it. The model we use is almost certainly underestimating the revenues city receives. Keep in mind is it measure T as an additional 1% local sales tax was almost doubles the local sales tax revenue. So, um, it's, I'm fairly confident the model, it does need to be updated, but it's, it's very likely underestimating the revenues to the city.

That's all my questions for staff. Thank you. Commissioner Gillenhammer. I'm sorry. I'm just unpacking this with the site plan. My concern actually is with that traffic circulation in Pad 1. That is a drive-through, and it seems like when I was reading over the staff report that there are no, like it doesn't see, maybe there would be signage on Tennessee Street, but I did not see that called out since the drive-through exit is right at the, At Tennessee, and there's no light there. So my concern actually is for, I guess, like, higher impact of, like, turning right or going north on Tennessee. But, I mean, our cars allowed to actually go south on Tennessee and what kind of signage. You know, just for public safety, you know, for being able to look into that a little bit more. I just didn't know if I can raise that concern.

You can. That sets not a right in, right out. They would be able to turn south on Tennessee at that point. And as far as signage goes, that may be a question for either our traffic consultant or Mr. Don Young behind me here as to what might be used or be beneficial there.

Okay, thank you. Questions for staff at this time? Okay, Mr. Riley, could you go back? You had mentioned some conditions that the Commission might want to add. Could you please explain those in more detail? I'm also curious as to why they didn't make the conditions.

So this is the drive-through. These are the elevations for the drive-through. These are not bad compared to what we have had before and that we've had to work through with applicants before. This does not include some things that we often get. So we often get these landscape trellises or porter crochets or those types of things with these projects. So with this, we're bringing it and bringing it forward. And if it's the desire of the Planning Commission to add those things, they certainly have that ability.

Okay, so you're talking about architectural? Yes. Okay. So with the drive-through, Where are, so the pedestrian, the main pedestrian walkway to the restaurant is not near the drive-thru, correct? And what about when the car, so here's my concern. We have a lot of places in town where people have to walk through the drive-thru to get to the restaurant, which is incredibly dangerous for, you know, teenagers who have their headphones and don't look at anything. So I'm just curious as to the safety of that.

So here you can see the the pad one and where the drive lanes are to the north and where the parking field is that is for that if you're parking in to the east of pad one you would be able to walk either using the ada path of travel to the main entry

Okay, perfect. And how would you suggest, so landscape is not my background. So if another commissioner has some suggestion, I agree with you that there needs to be some improvements in pad one. I wouldn't know how to work them. So if anyone else has suggestions or if staff has some suggestions, I would like to hear it.

Portico shades are one that's very common to see. And so it's a regular request of the commission or has been in historically.

Okay, that concludes my questions for staff. Commissioner Stanson.

Is pad one, is a pad that's going to come back to us for design down the road, or is that what they're actually going to build?

This is the conceptual architecture for Pad 1. If it changes significantly where there's some specific tenant that has some wildly different architecture, that would return for a revision of the CUP, so we would review the architecture again at that time.

So in terms of what you have before you today, you're being asked to approve the architectural design. This is the architectural design that will be built if you approve this. Okay.

And I agree that some of the buildings, I mean, they're nice-looking buildings, but they really need to add some landscaping to them. We definitely need some climbing vines. We need to do something to kind of make them look a little bit better because they're a little bit on the plain side, but otherwise they're nice-looking buildings.

Any other questions? I do believe that we have some traffic questions from Commissioner Gillenhammer. Did you say our traffic consultant is with us?

Yes. And you're going back to the question she's already asked? Returning to the question that she's previously asked? Is that where you're going? She has new questions.

No, to the previous.

To the question, sure. So I don't know if, Dawn, if you'd like to take a stab at that.

I'll take a brief answer. Yes, vehicles will be able to turn left out of that intersection just as they do out of other commercial intersections. That section of street is striped that it's up to the driver to make the left turn if they believe it's appropriate to do so. Just as when you come out of your driveway at home, you can make a left turn or right turn and it's safe to do so. So.

Do we anticipate that creating operational problems for the drive-through? It looks like there's very limited space there for a car, multiple cars. So if we have one car trying to turn left and you have people who have gotten their food and they're trying to leave, I can just see that this is going to not be a very pleasant experience for the user. Short story, could we make this a right out from the drive-through?

I think I'd like the applicant to address that, but we often have other locations in town and it works out. It's maybe problematic for the moment that I'm trying to get out of my drive-through. There's a coffee shop downtown where in the mornings getting out can be a bit of a problem, but overall it works out, and I believe at this location it would also. But as far as if you're wanting to change the site design, we can let the applicant address that.

I'm just asking out loud, is there an opportunity for a light on Tennessee?

At that location, no. Typically, to put in a traffic signal, it has to meet the needs for a traffic warrant, and there won't be enough people coming out of this location to warrant a traffic signal.

Commissioner Schweitz.

Commissioner Elliott brought up the walkability to the center from the residential neighborhoods, and there's a decent number of residential units both on the east and the south of the development. How can that be addressed safely from both directions? Because I'm seeing here from the north side, in terms of access, we can't see anything. on the plans, and I don't know that there is something clear regarding that from the south side as well.

I'm not certain I understand exactly, but one solution that I think could happen for people coming from the east side would be to place a walkway or that walkway that we see there for ADA access on the eastern side of the project rather than up adjacent to the building. And then from the north side, those folks are gonna come likely through the access that's there in the parking area, not from the exterior of the project.

Mr. Foote?

And may I add, just typically the walkways, the sidewalks are concrete, and that may be a different material and be clearly differentiated from, say, asphalt or something else. The walkway would be clearly differentiated and obvious to both pedestrians and motorists.

Great. Applicant, yes, if you could please join us and do introduce yourselves.

Yes, of course. Thank you for having me this evening, Commissioners. My name is Ray K. Akin. I'm with Regency Centers. We are the owners and operators of shopping centers across the country. We're publicly listed on NASDAQ, and we pride ourselves on developing Class A shopping centers that we own, operate, and own in perpetuity. We're not in the build-to-sell business. We're in the build-and-be-in-your-community business. So we try to do the right thing by our designs. the one thing that came to my mind on shops three and i'm kind of looking to staff to tell me is i appreciated your concern commissioner elliott on shops three and the connectivity point is there an opportunity for us to potentially pull the pedestrian connection point where they cross up a little further as opposed to down at the bottom portion there where it's the widest portion Understanding your concern, the flip side, it was exactly what you thought it was. We need the width to allow for the WB67 trucks for loading for the grocery store, which is why we needed that cut to be a little bit deeper. So I'm not sure if that's an option for us to just pull it up a little bit so it's at the shorter point versus the widest point.

I would think that, yes, that's not a problem. I don't see that being a problem to do.

Would that perhaps help address some of your concerns there?

Absolutely. Whatever we can do to shorten the distance, that pedestrians have to be in the drive lane. Agreed.

Couldn't we push? I'm sorry. I don't mean it and then just in terms of your questions It's extremely important to us to make sure that we maintained excellent pedestrian connectivity. We want to be Placemaking for for the residents we have close to a thousand Units that are going to be coming online hopefully in the near future And with that said we wanted to ensure that we create a lot of different pockets and so we were very thoughtful and we want to be thoughtful about the connectivity and also making sure that there's Opportunities for just sitting and enjoyment throughout the shopping center. So I just wanted to reiterate that

Commissioner Stanson.

Maybe to take care of the concerns, if instead of having just a straight sidewalk, if we did something a little bit more meandering that kind of came up into the landscaping and came across the driveway at a different point. And I mean, I don't know if something like that would help take care of the problem and the concerns.

I think that's effectively what he's asking for is the sidewalk would curve into the north at the bottom right-hand side of this image and then cut to the left a little further inside the project, and then it's going to wind its way back out to the street to the frontage along Lugonia.

Okay. So why the applicants up here right now? We're talking about Pad 3 and the connectivity. Any other questions or comments on that piece of it? Okay. So let's move on to the architectural design of, was it Pad 1?

That's correct.

On Pad 1, are you open to a condition to add that, I can never say that, port-a-couche word? Port-a-couche.

That one took me out. We are a bit sensitive on cost on this pad. We want to be thoughtful to the design, and we wanted to elevate the experience that Sean shared on the design. But these are elements that a lot of restaurants and users of drive-throughs are going to be concerned on cost constraints. So I would appreciate if we didn't condition it, and we can certainly have those conversations with the prospective tenants. We have a tremendous amount of interest from amazing restaurant uses and various uses across the merchandising mix. But I'm just trying to be thoughtful of it, and I'm happy to address it with them and inquire as to whether they'd be open to it. A lot of these tenants want to make sure that they're incorporating design elements that feed into what the community wants to be doing. I guess that would be my response.

Okay. So we will definitely take that into consideration, but also understanding that we're also pretty particular about design in the city. But we'll talk about it, and then obviously you'll be here to figure out how we –

land on that any other uh yes commissioner situation then commissioner oh i didn't realize my my light was on but uh i did want to ask the staff if that is a condition that we had um requested in the past for others to have the the product sharing on the drive-throughs that's something that's been requested in the past

I understand your concerns on the Porte Cachet and pricing and all that, but what about some more landscaping enhancements around that building and some of the other ones are just a little bit on the lacking side?

If I may, you're referring, so the elevations that we're showing you, they just show strictly the architectural elevations. Some things that you may be asking for and you may not be saying, and if I'm speaking, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but sometimes there are landscape trellises that are planted up adjacent to the building where they show some growth along the side or vines or something. Is that the type of thing that you're asking for?

Just something that breaks it up a little bit more. That's, I mean, it's just...

it's a lot of a lot of a lot of walls and you know nothing there so i'd like to just see a little bit more on a couple of them you know around the landscaping areas just add a little bit i can certainly appreciate it and and as mr riley noted the plans that have been presented are purely for architectural purposes We do a diligent job of ensuring that we landscape really well. Our sensitivities about putting landscaping right against the wall is it actually creates a little bit of an operational challenge, where now you could potentially be exposing yourself to more rodents, and you want to try to avoid that. So what we try to do is actually emphasize on the landscaping around the perimeter of the building, so you're not going to necessarily have the elevations of the building where they're not being broken up by greenery. The intent is absolutely to ensure that we have ample, if not lush, greenery. One of my favorite shopping centers in the market is that Sprout Center. And so our intent is to try to make it as green and lush as possible. What I'd love to do is actually incorporate into the – this is a SketchUp 3D model. And what we could try to do is actually have our landscape architect actually incorporate the actual landscaping that's going to be on there to give you a better visualization of what this would look like.

Comments on that particular commissioner is the question. So the tenants would be able to have, like, I guess, like, a say on the exterior of the buildings.

They would not on are the shop buildings, but on the drive through potentially. Yes.

Okay. But again, they would be responsible for, like. I mean, does that tenant come back to the city? Or is it the developer?

So we would obviously work with the I'm sorry. Did you want to know I'm sorry because I was mr. Young had a question for me, so I apologize We would work with a tenant and so we have a proposed design that we want to move forward with as staff noted in the event that these the tenant does not like the design that we've contemplated and want to move to make it a You know

kind of move away from deviate from that design and that style and they would have to be come come to staff that's correct and kind of bring this back in front of you guys sorry if i misspoke but i'll just clarify so in the event they when they get a tenant and that particular tenant has a particular brand or corporate image or anything significantly changing the architecture then there's a good possibility that's going to be coming back to the planning commission

Including, like, so I guess trellis, that's landscaping, or is that architecture?

It would be in the landscaping. We would see it on their elevations when they submit it. It is, right. Okay.

So, Commissioner Gillenhammer, for clarity, if we approve it as is and we don't put that condition in there, then this is the minimum that they have to do, but they don't have to do anything else unless it's conditioned in there. Unless they're asking to do something. But if they're not and they just want to build it as is, then they can do that.

Thank you.

If I can just clarify, so something like a minor addition, like a trellis feature for landscaping, or addition of a trellis over the drive-thru, that would be relatively minor, and that would be something we could handle in plan check at staff level. The revision and process I'm referring to is something more significant, like completely different architecture on the building.

Commissioner Schweitz.

Would it be possible to go over the plaza area, just explain to us what it would look like, because I don't think we have renderings of that, right? We do not.

The intent was really to create multiple areas of common area seeding. So while you don't necessarily see it in the image specifically, there's going to be multiple locations throughout these kind of meandering pathways that are going to be consistent of, again, lush landscaping, DG paths, and then seeding throughout. What you see there is two exclusive patios contemplated for the southern side of Shops 1, along with an exclusive patio for a restaurant tenant on the western end cap of Shops 2. And then those spaces outside of that dark kind of brown color would all be common area walkways, pathways, again, adding to the pedestrian experience for those that are walking, along with some common area seating.

Thank you.

Commissioner Elliott. I do really appreciate the common seating concept and creating places for people to sit. And that was criticism or critique that I've had of other projects in the vicinity, knowing that we have all these units coming online and people don't have a place that they could walk to and sit and enjoy outside. That said, I'm a little concerned about its placement next to this busy intersection of Tennessee and Lagonia. And I'm wondering how enjoyable it is going to be to sit there, just understanding how just noisy and busy that is. And so I'd ask that maybe consider Some type of Birmingham or additional landscape at that corner to help buffer noise from the intersection. I'm not sure what we can do there, but I feel like we're putting kind of folks and maybe 1 of the more unpleasant parts of the site right at the corner there.

Yeah, I can appreciate that, Commissioner. You know, it's the front door to the shopping center, so we want to make sure it's beautiful and you want them to see it. So I'm almost between a rock and a hard place with that. But it's a good point. I'm happy to go back and talk to our landscape architect to contemplate it. I'm just dancing between the two sides of that.

No, understood. It is challenging, and we would rather see this on the site than not. But we also want to make sure if you're going to build it that people want to use it.

Yeah. I would add to that just also because it's that busy intersection. If there are families sitting and kids are running around just to make sure that we discourage that from being a place where kids can run into the street. So to take that into consideration.

We do have detailed landscape plans, so we can certainly evaluate that and make sure that there's some kind of bushiness or something to make sure that we keep a barrier between them.

Any other questions on this particular issue? okay so if we could move on and talk about the concern about the traffic with the drive-through i don't know if you want to um bring up your traffic consultant or if you want it but as mr young says i have a little differing opinion of him about that morning coffee shop if i were to say we got anything wrong on this commission the past five years that's it like um you can't it's Pedestrians walk by and when you're exiting that that particular project, you cannot see them. You cannot see who's coming in. You cannot see who's coming out. So you better be going a half a mile an hour or something is going to happen at that point there. So these are serious concerns with the, I'm going to let commissioner Elliot explain it because she's much more articulate with that than I am. But can you please explain your concern on the, which, where are we talking about? Just having a coffee shop, but next to the parking structure. Starbucks with the drive-thru. Yep. That's the one. Commissioner Elliott. Sorry, so we're talking about the exit of Pad 1? We're talking about the point you brought up about, yes.

Right, okay. So, yeah, it looks like there's possibly room for one vehicle to queue at the exit if they're leaving Pad 1 and then they leave. They want to exit onto Tennessee. And if that driver's making a left and it's going to take a little while, I could just see that causing a problem for the operator of Pad 1 and that they're not moving vehicles through. But then we also do have the pedestrian walkway right in front of the drive-through where vehicles are queuing. People might be impatient. Understanding we're asking you for enhanced landscaping right there, which may affect visibility. I think what the Commission might be asking is, is there a way to reimagine the functioning of Pad 1 for a little bit more seamless and conflict-free operation? I'm not sure. And, like, if we perhaps spun it around and so that we have vehicles exiting onto Tennessee kind of in that northern, northwest portion like where the trucks are possibly entering and exiting. I'm not sure.

I see what you're saying. So in that, we looked at this a million ways just to figure out what the best thing to do here. Flipping it would require that your drive-through is now sitting on the interior side of the shopping center and that's just going to take away from just kind of the experience, right? We want to keep it kind of safe and keep the drive aisle on the outside. I would say in an alternative, you know, the minimum required stacking for any drive-through is six vehicles. So even the benefit is that obviously we're doing a really good job of building in 15-car stacking. which allows more time to make sure that they're up at the top getting their stuff and whatnot. I can understand the concern. I do wonder if there's a way to solve some of this with some potential signage. Is there a way for me to put some kind of a yield sign or something within our site so that those people that are coming out, somebody would have to yield to that person that's coming out to ensure that they can safely exit out of it? Perhaps that's a way that could solve it, if you guys would be amenable to that. Or staff, I mean, I don't know if you guys think that might be a...

It's not just the drive-thru, you know, cars that are exiting. It's who are patrons of, you know, Whole Foods, for example. I just saw the sign on the renderings. But, you know, whoever is coming in to shop, they may leave that way as well. So they're going to be coming right straight into the drive-thru. you know, lane patrons who are leaving the drive-through, it's just going to cause, you know, more traffic.

I would defer to whatever the traffic studies indicated on this one. For us as the developer, it is important to have both the option to make the left or the right, so I defer to whatever the traffic study and the traffic engineer to comment on that.

Please. Do we have the traffic consultants here?

We do.

Educate us. And please introduce yourself.

Hello. Good evening, Chair and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Rawad Hani. I'm a licensed civil and traffic engineer. And I have worked with the city, with Sean and Don, and basically the environmental consultant, Chambers Group, on this project. I understand there are basically concerns with respect to the pedestrian aspects and the exit over here. I think there are a few things to kind of point over here. Number one, the fact that this site has four exits is a good aspect to the site because it spreads traffic out rather than having it concentrated at one location, so spreading it out. I'm talking initially from a traffic perspective, and then I'll go to the pedestrian perspective. So from a traffic perspective, having four access points kind of spreads traffic. So if you're coming from the east, You don't have to go to the intersection of Lagonia and Tennessee to make a right and then get to the side. So that helps. Same thing if you're coming from the other directions. Now, from a pedestrian perspective, I understand there are concerns at the driveways, which is basically the case in various sites. So there are various aspects that we can address, that we can basically address, or various ways we can address this issue over here. One aspect is having high visibility crosswalks and that could be basically in a way to kind of have it stand out, have the crosswalk stand out. It could be kind of a red colored crosswalk, brick crosswalk, kind of painted in thermoplastic paint. All of these are kind of measures in order to kind of make the pedestrian crosswalk more prominent. The other one is instead of having it, as was mentioned earlier, at the wider point, push it back a bit to some extent, to the extent possible, whereby still you don't get into issues of having sight distance from the structures that are there. So that has to be balanced in terms of how much it could be pushed back. Putting signage, signage could be kind of in the... On the sides, basically, sometimes basically in some areas, if it's really high traffic, you can even put flashers in the sense whenever a truck is coming out, it flashes. So basically pedestrians who are walking there basically get kind of notified that there is a truck that is coming out. So all of these are treatments that can be done at that location. Another treatment is having the crosswalk at that location to be not at the same level as the driveway. So the driveway will be basically kind of sloping down the driveway, the crosswalk, ensuring that the crosswalk is at the straighter section of it so that vehicles, again, has better chance of seeing kind of pedestrians who are out there. And really it comes down to kind of enhancing sight distance, enhancing the visibility of of the drivers of trucks in this particular case and obviously vehicles to the pedestrians who are basically crossing on that sidewalk.

So specific to Pad 1 in regards to traffic, what would you consider the most reasonable treatment to kind of solve the congestion problem that the two commissioners were talking about with the drive-thru? Would it be signage? Would it be right Turn only exit. What do you think? Or maybe you have a fresh idea. What would be the most reasonable solution to that concern?

So I think one thing I should say before starting to go into that discussion is that the site plan itself, obviously over here, it kind of deceives a bit in terms of how many cars can fit in between the window. and basically the exit from the overall area. I don't have kind of a measurement exactly of how many cars can be stacked over there, but just judging by that car in front of the driveway, I'm assuming about four vehicles between the window and the stop bar on the driveway. So I think there are various elements to be considered over here. In terms of vehicles that are turning left at this location, in terms of modeling and whatnot, the vehicles that are turning left are much less than the vehicles that are turning right. This is number one. Number two, and we have numbers for these in the study. Number two, there is basically a two-way left turn lane in that location, my understanding, that can be utilized in order to kind of enhance the turning left from the site itself going south. So these are kind of aspects that are already existing over there. Now, in terms of design aspects, In terms of reducing the amount of time, having a signal over there, unfortunately, is not warranted because the volumes that are turning left, we have basically about seven to 10 vehicles turning left versus 40 plus vehicles who are turning right at that particular location. So it doesn't warrant having a signal. So it has to be kind of a stop controlled intersection. Now, would there be kind of scenarios where the a quick service restaurant is kind of really moving fast and there is so much traffic coming up on coming north that it might create the scenario. Yes. But is it how likely is it? It's not it's not a daily occurrence. It could be basically in a situation whereby there is kind of some event that is taking place and traffic is queuing up. But right now, And into the future, the traffic going up on going northbound is not basically doesn't warrant having kind of that type of control in order to stop it. So the traffic coming from the site would be able to exit unimpeded.

Okay. So do you think a yield sign would be a reasonable accommodation that would be more reasonable than traffic light or a right turn?

Yes, absolutely.

Okay. May I clarify, because I saw that there will be a widening of Tennessee? Yes.

Is that correct? Yes, I think as part of the project, I think the city is conditioning the project to provide right-of-way on both Tennessee and Ligonia on the side of the project in order to kind of accommodate future widening, yes.

Okay, and then when you exit on Tennessee, it's just one lane, correct? It's not just like it doesn't fork out where you can have like a left, like I can put my blinker on going left by myself in a lane and then...

The site plan right now, I think the one that we're seeing right now, it's one lane, yes. It's one lane. Exiting as one lane, yes.

Okay.

Exiting from the driveway.

Would there be an opportunity for two?

I'm assuming it has to go back to the drawing board, but there could be kind of opportunities to provide a left turn lane, should basically that become an issue, because I see over there, there is a landscaped area, so that will basically impact probably that landscaped area, but that's something that can be considered if there is kind of, if that becomes a situation whereby you have lots of traffic within the site, queuing up within the site, that could be a consideration in order to add a left turn lane. from a uh from from a traffic perspective kind of our goal in most cases is to look at it from the city street so from the cities obviously number one is safety we want to make sure basically that whatever is happening over here doesn't kind of be in danger basically neither basically pedestrians and bicyclists who are more vulnerable users and number two basically people in their cars And then the second thing from an operations perspective, we typically look at it from the perspective of the city streets. Will this project kind of create issues that spill back onto the city streets? And in this case, we can say no, because they provided enough stacking, there is kind of enough space to get to the drive-through. Again, if there is issues basically internal to the site that can create congestion within the site, In all honesty, it's less of a concern for us from a city perspective because this is kind of like you guys have to figure out your issue within your site. But I appreciate these concerns, but everything right now is on the drawing board that, okay, if that's going to be an issue, how can we resolve it at this stage?

I would like to ask if that's possible because in the new queue, a left turn lane.

Yes, yes. Just by looking at it over here and looking again at the landscape area, it's basically possible to take 11 feet in order to kind of accommodate another basically left or 10 feet to accommodate a left turn lane.

Commissioner Gillenhammer, we'll ask Mr. Young, who is in charge of that, for his feedback on that particular thing in just a moment. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Dominguez, let's hear from you, and then we'll go to Mr. Young on his feedback.

So you were talking about the yellow lights. Is that also another option? Would that work?

You mean flashing?

Flashing lights, yes.

Yeah, I mean, typically we see these at, like, high-traffic driveways. Like, there's quite a bit of pedestrians going on a driveway whenever there is kind of a vehicle that is sensed. coming in, it flashes so that pedestrians can, some of them they have sound even, but I think sound becomes annoying, especially if you have residents nearby because it's really higher decibels on the sounds. But kind of like some sort of flashers could be kind of a solution that we've seen in kind of more urban locations, I would say. Over here, it could be kind of a consideration, but I think a more, I mean, I personally like to have incremental measures rather than kind of going all the way to kind of like what could be the ultimate solution. An incremental measure would be to kind of start with proper design of the crosswalk, making sure that it's high visibility, making sure there is no obstructions, the visibility is good for the drivers. So that's basically the measure number one. Number two, second level, if basically we still have issues, When it comes to kind of crossings and kind of, you know, okay, well, there are many pedestrians who are crossing there or reporting that there is kind of close calls over there, then that becomes kind of the second stage per se. So these are kind of like incremental measures that could be taken as we move forward.

Thank you. Commissioner Elliott. I do appreciate the incremental approach, but the Planning Commission gets one opportunity, so... I think we'll probably want to go beyond just what that first increment might be. You did mention the flashers, and I hadn't considered flashers that were initiated by vehicles, but if we think that the frequency is going to be too much, could it be a pedestrian-activated flasher? So when a pedestrian is preparing to cross the drive aisle, they can just activate the flasher to let automobiles know that they'll be in the intersection.

It becomes kind of more like what you have at signals. I mean, I haven't seen it much in terms of design that way, but it could be designed that way. But it becomes kind of like a traffic control measure that really has some strings attached to it. Like, why are you controlling it? And again, we go back to the warrant side of things, warrant analysis and whatnot.

I'm not suggesting a signal, but like our mid-block crossings that we already have in town, we do have pedestrian-activated flashers to just let vehicles know that there's a pedestrian in the crosswalk. But it's not a controlled...

Correct. Here's basically the other side of it. So once you put any type of traffic control for like where pedestrians activate the flashers, you want to make sure that the visibility of these flashers to vehicles, they are visible, right? So number one, when you put a flasher for pedestrians to cross, the pedestrian will push it and cross. So they assume that the vehicle will stop. Now, for the vehicle, in order to basically stop, they need to be properly able to see these flashers. So, for example, at your traffic, at the mid-block crossings, at the traffic signals, they need to have, for example, two indications, always basically in case one fails, there's another that works. They need to be mounted at a certain distance. They need to be mounted at a certain distance. So it becomes kind of really a big, big deal. It's not like just, okay, well, we put one pole in front of it or one pole at a lower height on the sides of the property and that works. It creates a bit of complications per se in terms of like designing it, warranting it, because again, when the worst thing, if the worst scenario happens, then whoever basically designed that flasher needs to be able to defend it. And unless it is basically designed according to certain codes, to certain standards, it is really not defensible, per se. That's the concern that you have over there. But again, I think in terms of people crossing versus uh versus the number of vehicles over here again the numbers are relatively manageable without having even kind of the flashers that i talked about this is why i said incremental approach because right now the project will start there is no development yet to the east now in the future there will be kind of just a thousand units that will come in And there will be kind of more pedestrians kind of moving in and so on and so forth. So this is why I think this is why I mentioned the incremental approach. And that, again, becomes as the area gets more urbanized, per se.

Commissioner Elliott, I did just discuss an alternative with the applicant that might address a lot of the Commission's concern and avoid more significant design alternatives, and that's flipping the kitchen area to the other side of the building. It would reduce the queuing in the front slightly, but it would transfer those couple extra cars to the backside and give a lot more opportunity for traffic to clear and vehicles to exit. Something to consider for the Commission.

Sure. And then going back to shops three, and so having walked us through what some of the different levers are that we can pull, it sounds like moving the crosswalk out of really the public right-of-way and onto the project property to the more narrow neck of the driveway is really the safest option. Because if you have someone, a pedestrian who's crossing the crosswalk where it is now or on the, you know, where it is now, and they're kind of on like the end of the curve and you have a driver come out who's looking to the left because they want to go right and merge into traffic. They're not looking for a pedestrian who's kind of hiding around the corner there. So whatever we can do to move people out of the kind of that blind zone that people are going to have when they're making a right turn. So I know it's a little, it's not as common, right, to move it onto the private property, but I think we could meander it across and bring it back down. Sure, okay, thank you.

I'm sorry, just because of our Zoom users, could you come to the microphone? Thank you.

I really appreciated that discussion with Mr. Boatman because right now our window is obviously sitting up quite proud towards that point where it becomes a congestion. So what we can do is contemplate pulling it back maybe 15 feet or something along those lines to ensure that we allow for a little bit more stacking. Again, we have ample stacking available in our drive-through in relation to what the code requires so long as staff is supportive of the idea too. I'm just throwing an idea out there. But if we pull it back, it at least allows us to have little bit more stacking to make it a little bit more of a safer experience I personally would strongly I would love to go with that option if that's

I was wondering if there was analysis about the percentage of vehicles that would be exiting to the street and the percentage of vehicles that would be going back into the rest of the development and the parking lot, and how that might help with the solution. So for example, if most vehicles are going to be exiting, If there can be two exits one after going through the drive-through that goes straight into the street So it's not those vehicles are not gonna go through across a pedestrian crosswalk so those can go straight to the street and it will reduce the number of vehicles that are actually going to go there the other thing that might affect the decision is as Commissioner Elliott earlier said if we flip it and and have cars coming from the east and then exiting in the west. If the majority of the traffic is going to be that way, then you only have a few vehicles that exit to the street and come back into the parking lot. So have you looked at the percentage of vehicles that are going to go either way?

No.

So there are two, I think, aspects to the question. There is a design aspect, which basically the applicant will address in terms of flipping things around. But from a traffic perspective, yes, we did look at kind of percentages that are going kind of to turn left from the side, percentages that are going to turn right. At this particular location, close to pad one, a majority of traffic is assumed to kind of turn right at that location. but there is still a certain percentage that is going to turn left. There is also a certain percentage that will probably go through the property. Like if you're, instead of going through two intersections, like say, for example, you're going to the east, instead of going through this intersection and then the second intersection in front of Home Depot, you'll probably go through the site and then just exit using one intersection. So these dynamics were taken into consideration. Now, in terms of like changing the design of the site, we're not the designers, so I'll basically defer it to the applicant in in order to kind of speak about that.

Just to the first question, I believe you suggested flipping it so that it's on the interior side of the shopping center, having the drive aisle. Did I understand that correctly?

So the first one was keeping it the same, but having two exits, potentially an exit if you're moving the kitchen further to the back, one exit that would go straight to the street, right? So those cars are not going to keep going straight into the parking lot. And then another pathway where they will go straight to the parking lot with that would address if what we understand from the traffic analysis that the majority of the cars are going to be exiting to the street, then that would reduce the number of cars that the pedestrian that would go over the pedestrian crossings. So that was the first option to consider. The other one is if we flip it completely. Where then the window will be to the north and the traffic would be going from east to west and all vehicles would exit into the street. Then only a few vehicles that intend to go back to the shopping center would have to come back through one of the other exits or entrances.

Forgive me, I had a little bit of a hard time following that.

So I would just say on that, and I'm sure Mr. Young might have some more code specifics to say, but I think creating two driveway aprons in such close proximity to each other could create a Mr. Young, do you want to weigh in on the proximity of driveways to each other in a commercial center? I could be completely wrong.

No, you can't. We wouldn't want another driveway coming out of that site. I'm not not immediately proximate with the proximity to the adjacent driveways that are there. You wouldn't want another driveway that's going to create more conflict than what you're having. What with this design right now, as cars are trying to get out of the drive through. If there's a line of cars trying to get out of the site because they've been over shopping at the major market and trying to get out, then they just won't be able to pull out. It will become an operational problem for that particular site, and the property owner will be talking to his tenant if and when the tenant does complain. The, it doesn't create a safe. I mean, the issue of safety of the onsite pedestrian access from the major market out to Tennessee. That's been addressed. You can put in different color concrete, that sort of thing. There is a shopping center. I know down in Corona that has just a pedestrian sensor. that just puts up little flashers. Is it necessary at this location? My personal opinion is no, it is not. That you're not going to have a significant amount of pedestrian traffic walking over to Tennessee to walk up Tennessee to then walk back into the housing development that's built to the north because they're going to have the onsite access. You see the one little driveway that's right there.

going to take the shortest route which is through that little driveway so um yeah that's a really good point mr young is we forget to it was something that was discussed heavily we had to go and get our grocer's approval with the idea of it but we are providing a direct connection into that 460 unit project directly to the north without ever getting out onto tennessee street So you can avoid all the the vehicular traffic of those. I appreciate you mentioned.

I forgot Now thanks for bringing our attention back to that and I can see where it's drawn in whether it be a drive Isle is there going to be defined pedestrian walkway to connect the two?

projects it will be a vehicular connection and

Okay, so then it doesn't really help us with solving the pedestrian problem with people walking on Tennessee, or are we just saying people are going to walk in the drive aisle between the two projects?

I can't say what they would or would not do, but our hope was to create a vehicular connection directly into that project to ensure that we're eliminating that traffic of people pulling out into Tennessee and right back into that project.

Sure, and so where I think I'm trying to lead you is can we add sidewalk to that drive aisle on one side so that if it sounds, what Mr. Young was alluding to is that why would people walk on the sidewalk if they can just walk in from their project to the north? And that's fine. I just want to make sure we give them a place to walk that's not in the drive aisle.

Pad one or pad three?

I'm talking about that northern driveway where you see the two little And they're saying that's going to be driving only non-pedestrian entrance into that northern project. But the comment was made, why would people walk on Tennessee if they can walk project to project on the interior? And I'm perfectly content with that so long as we actually have a pedestrian path.

But wouldn't the property owner, if they're going to have a driveway there, have a sidewalk that would be going along there?

That's my question because I don't see one on the plan.

Well, but that's not their property. So, I mean, how do you?

But getting onto their property, so you just walk into the parking lot and there's no defined pedestrian path into the center.

Right now it's dirt, correct? It's just a parcel, a vacated parcel right now, just dirt? Correct. Okay, at this point. So it's just tree-lined, is that correct?

There's nothing there.

The north? It would just be tree-lined here?

There's a landscape planner between the two projects, the projects we're looking at here now and the approved project to the north.

So can we put a striping in for a pedestrian pathway or something? I mean, so it goes from the sidewalk into some kind of a path that goes into the grocery store or something that's delineated?

Yeah, I don't think we're asking for hard infrastructure per se, but whether it's differentiated surface or some kind of paint striping.

Okay.

Similar how you have you know pad one connected to the trash enclosure or pad one connecting to major market just some kind of defined pedestrian path that would Indicate where pedestrians where automobiles can expect pedestrians to be in almost like a handicapped path of travel exactly If you guys are okay with that, I'm okay with that if that helps us resolve our vehicular concerns on pad one two and

We always like to check with you first before we put conditions on you and make sure you're okay with the solution. I appreciate that.

I'm fully open to a striping plan that would provide for an appropriate pedestrian connectivity.

Okay, so we're going to let them confer for a second. We'll see.

Do you know if the planter along the northerly perimeter is five feet wide along the drive aisle, the northerly planter?

Planner along the north side of the project right there where that entry is is 5 feet wide. It's 10 feet wide from where you see that little kind of dashed line on this landscape plan that runs north and south there through the drive aisle. Um, that it transitions to a 10 foot wide planner around the side and back of the project. But where you're looking there at that entry is 5 feet wide. And what Mr foot was just mentioning is that. There may be an opportunity to put in some striping there. It would be preferred to keep the striping not running parallel with the drive aisle. To do that, it may require removal of the landscaping or that five-foot landscaping planter there. If the commission's okay with that, that might be something that we could condition. But the applicant would need to be okay with that, and the commission would need to condition that.

What I was suggesting was having a raised sidewalk there instead of a planter. That's what I was saying. then that would be the safest path. I would recommend that over walking in the middle of the parking lot. They could follow the right-of-way up, take it over, and then access. Because I believe we're over landscaped, right? And there's no code requirement, to my knowledge, for a perimeter planner in that dry vial location, so... I think that would take care of a lot of our concerns.

Okay. I believe so. Because, I mean, that was the whole concern is that development, it's so convenient. No one's going to get in their car and drive, well, maybe some people, but they're not going to get in their car just to drive, you know, 40 feet across. So if we can do that, that would also allow them to cross into that sidewalk and then they can cross into any of the shops at any point in the parking lot.

Sounds like we probably have a reasonable solution. Does that work for you? I mean, obviously, they're going to work on the wording and all that, but the raised sidewalk piece.

I think so. You still have a raised area for the planter anyway, so it would just be replacing that landscape section with sidewalk.

confirm if we're looking at that dry vial from head on, the top one that connects into Tennessee Village to our north. We're talking about the stretch from where the right side of that dry vial to effectively where the grocery store is. That stretch will get eliminated as landscape and we'll just do a raised sidewalk walkway and then have some kind of a striping directly across. I'm happy to accommodate that.

Is there a sidewalk now alongside the building?

Yes. Where the parking lot is on that... There is, right, Sean? West side. So it connects right to the... Yes. Yeah, there is a sidewalk alongside.

So it would connect right to that sidewalk, so that would be safe.

Yeah, that's a good idea.

Okay.

I think we have a solution.

Commissioner Gillenhammer, did you still want Mr. Young's feedback on the left-hand turn access on Tennessee? Mr. Young, could you provide your feedback on Whether or not it's feasible, or if even if it's applicable to this project, as far as making that left hand on Tennessee habits little what's the actual term for the little divot to put a car to the left.

To make sure I understand your question, you're asking whether a left, basically the exiting of the site is a two lanes, a left turn and a right turn, just to allow for the queuing of the, what's the peak hour, seven vehicles an hour? Ultimately, that's one every 10 minutes, one every nine minutes vehicle to be able to make that left turn exit. You would end up losing some landscaping that a trash enclosure right there.

Mr developer to the South. Yes, that is a trash closure. Yes.

So that's the, I mean, that would require some redesign in that area that the developer would need to agree to and plan and the planning staff would need to concur with. I don't believe this necessary, but once again, the. I don't believe that it's necessary. I'm here to give my professional opinion. Oh, that's what we asked for. I do not believe that it is necessary to do so. Just as a point of information, the coffee shop I was referring to earlier was not the one that you were talking about.

Ah, okay. Good to know.

You just made him smile.

No. It's my goal every meeting, by the way.

I think this design is adequate. particularly with the concerns that you have for pedestrian access and even the vehicle storage. By shifting the pickup window further to the north, that allows for some more vehicles to become less impatient. And with traffic, the concept is if people find something truly irritating... They're going to figure out a different way to do it. Instead of using the drive-thru, they're going to come park, and then they can leave the site in whatever direction they want.

And I'll just say that we have other instances in the city where there's an exit on a drive-thru that queues right next to a drive aisle. Case in point is like LA Fitness, for example, with Starbucks. So if it does become a problem, obviously it's going to queue back towards the restaurant. And as Mr. Young said, it'll probably just be an issue where the management of the center would have to get involved and try to work through some alternatives.

Thank you.

Does that answer your questions?

Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Young. All right. I think that unless anyone has new concerns, that addresses the ones that we discussed. Is there any further questions for staff or the applicant? Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So when we get to deliberations, we will reorganize all of that. We will... There's no more questions. So we're going to move on to public comment. I have no speaker slips. Are there any... Comments from anyone that would like to speak?

No? Okay.

Any on Zoom? Did we receive any written comments?

We've not received any written comments.

Okay. I will now close the public hearing for this item and turn it over to the commissioners for deliberations. Let's try and organize. Let's start with Pad 3. So pad three was...

So for pad three, the commission's recommendation is that we move the driveway pedestrian crossing internal to the site.

Are you getting all this so we can just say as amended? Perfect. Okay.

One thing, sorry.

Oh, no, yes, Commissioner Schwartz.

One thing, I was looking at the more detailed plan, and it looks like there is seating that is between the building and where the sidewalk is.

On Pad 3?

On Pad 3, yes.

Where to go? We're talking about down here.

Are we talking about the south sidewalk or the west sidewalk? The south. The south, okay. The seating is on the west.

Okay. Okay. Moving on to Had 1, do we need to include in the condition when we're moving the driveway back, flipping the kitchen or is that not necessary? Is that automatically going to happen when you move it back? Excuse me, rephrase it again your suggestion that everyone seems how about. I'm going to restate it. Could you please articulate your suggestion?

We would add a condition that we would invert the building orientation so that the window is towards the northerly corner of that building instead of the southerly.

Right, to slide that service window to the north.

Because that could basically invert the kitchen so it's on the other backside.

Do I need to reopen the public hearing to hear from the applicant?

Only if you would like to. Well, the applicant only wants to move it back 15 feet.

He wants to speak, but I do need to reopen it. I'm going to reopen the public hearing. You can join us.

Sorry.

I would appreciate if we could contemplate shifting the pickup window back 15 to 20 feet.

Versus flipping the orientation? Does that work?

Yeah, that gives you a car. Yes, that works. It gives you an additional vehicle.

It's just dead real estate.

Okay. It's fine. Yep. 20 feet would be one car.

Okay. Thank you. I'm going to reclose the public hearing. We'll get through this, guys. Okay, so...

So the condition would be to move the drive-through window 20 feet to the north on pad 3. Excuse me, pad 1 on that picture.

Okay. And actually, you know what? I should have been asking staff this because you've been making the notes, so you probably have it. Could you state the condition that we would add for the sidewalk?

Across the northern portion?

Correct.

Okay.

It would just be to add a sidewalk in place of the landscaping along the northern perimeter of their project. We would craft that more cleverly as a condition, but that's what it would be for.

Okay. And then are we asking for a condition about the seating area, or we're just asking the applicant to be conscious of that and work with staff? Does anyone need to add a condition? So there was, it was minor concern, but it was about the seating area over by the market. I don't see a need for a condition. We're asking you to be conscientious of that. We understand you have, unless someone feels like they need to add a condition, you're more than welcome to, but we are asking that you consider that. Any conditions there? I think we're on the same page and we're ready. Yeah.

Well, let me make sure that we've gone through everything we've talked about. I thought that we heard for trellis or landscaping with the drive-through, the sidewalks on the Shops 3 entering internal to the project, the sidewalk along the north, and then slide the window back on the drive-through.

Yes, and staff to work with the applicant on trellis or landscape, whatever. We're leaving that up for you to work with the applicant on, yes. I like the or. That gives some flexibility. Okay. Are we clear on everything else? All right. Let's bring the motion up, please. Okay. Deliberation. Does anyone have any more comments to make? And if not, you're welcome to make a motion if you'd like. Commissioner Stanton.

I move the Planning Commission adopt resolution number 1732, recommended at the City Council. Adopt a mitigated negative decoration and mitigated monitoring and reporting program for the proposed project. B, approve a Sino-economic cost-benefit study prepared for the project. C, approve amendment number 55 to specific plan number 40. D, approve zone change number 482. E, approve commission review and approval number 976. F, approve conditional use permit number 1207 and 1208. And approve lot merger number 13.

And add... Just as amended, it's fine.

Staff has recommendations to add.

Correct, as amended by the commission.

As amended by the commission.

Second. Second. Okay. It has been moved by Commissioner Stanson and seconded by Commissioner Gillenhammer to approve the project entitlements and...

Recommend approval to council.

Yes. Okay. It's not what it says. But yes, I know. I'm just teasing you. And recommend to city council approval for the project. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Congratulations and thank you very much for working with us. Moving on to item number seven, announcements and commissioner comments. The commissioners are currently on this list, the new ones, but I moved you guys up to the front because it felt much more appropriate to ask you to introduce yourselves when we were giving your name, so we don't need to do that part. Does anyone have any comments you need to share? Any absences that you need to record? Okay. I don't think we're having a meeting on the 27th, but if we do, I won't be here. All right, number eight, director's update. Mr., it says Boatman or Foote, who's doing it?

Actually, can I ask a quick question? Sure. So how do we know if we're not having a meeting?

They're about to tell us.

Oh, okay, thank you.

It doesn't mean it can't change, so we always adjourn it to the next meeting just in case. But for the most part, it goes the way that they let us know it's going to go.

We'll get an email.

Yes. All right, who's doing the update?

I will. That's correct. We're not planning on having a meeting on January 27th. We are planning to have a meeting on February 10th, I believe it is, and that will, I believe, include the Kaiser Hospital Medical Center project that will be coming forward for a hearing, including an EIR, Environmental Impact Report, and then a couple other minor items as well.

Commissioner Elliott? I have not checked the city website on this project. Um, will we be getting the packet maybe a little early for that one? Just understanding it's going to be a lot to review.

We certainly try, I can't promise that we'll get it out Tuesday or Wednesday. If we can, we will obviously doesn't always happen that way. The. Draft environmental impact report is on the city's website planning division website specifically under the environmental review page. So. Certainly that's available right now. I know for the packet, we will be preparing the final EIR, which includes the public comments and responses to comments. So that's not on the website right now, but certainly the big document, the draft environmental impact report with all the environmental analysis, that is available on our website right now. So if you are so inclined, you are certainly welcome to start perusing that document.

We'll make every effort to get to you early, though. We'll make a concerted effort.

It doesn't sound like we have time, but I would like to know, is this a project that would meet the criteria for a major project presentation before we vote, like we've done in the past?

Not at this time.

What is the criteria for that, or do we just not have time?

Well, it's ultimately up to the applicant to ask for a major project presentation. We don't require it. We don't tell applicants they have to do it. We mention it, and it's their option. So it's up to the applicant, ultimately. And at this point, we're teeing everything up for the hearing on February 10th for that particular project.

Okay, and then can I ask, we know the ownership of the mall has changed. Do we know if the current owner is moving forward with the approved plans, or do we expect to see some sort of revision in the future?

They're looking at the project currently, and they do intend to revise it. And they will be undergoing intense planning for the next month or so, and they will approach us as soon as they have something put together, and we'll definitely keep you all updated. Okay. Yeah, the demolition of the pergola was done on Monday. There was fencing that started to go up today around the rest of the mall. We expect them to start major demolition of the rest of the facility in early February, and it will likely last three to four months. And we are working with them also on an agreement that will secure the public parking in place as is through demolition and until construction of the overall site begins.

Thank you for the update. Any questions for the director? Mr. Flip. Okay, item number nine. Well, actually, before we get to adjournment, I just want to say great job tonight. This is exactly how we need to be evaluating projects and asking tough questions and getting to a good place. So thank you very much. Now, item number nine, we will adjourn to the next regular meeting of January 27th, 2026.