Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the Redlands Planning Commission meeting for August 25th, 2026. We do have a quorum present. We're going to start off with item number one. Are there any public comments on items not on today's agenda? And I do have one speaker slip. So if we could welcome up Carl Overholt.

And then I did also like email a while ago, so I was told you got that already, but I can make this meeting. I know the last couple of minutes got canceled, so I can make this 1. so I, you don't have to read that 1, obviously out loud. So, 1st off good evening commissioners. My name is Carl overhauled. I have briefly emailed or talked with city council members. Denise Davis. Marissa Sato and Eddie Tejeda. I've also contacted both or I've been contacted by both assistant city managers, Kurt Wilson and Daniel Garcia about what I'm about to talk about. I was told they would get back to me, but I thought it'd be a good idea to express my concerns here as well. I am a Redlands resident. I just started my 24th year teaching for the Redlands Unified School District. I'm speaking tonight to address the city's approach to short-term rentals and to propose a practical common sense solution. Like many local families, my wife and I have felt the squeeze of rising living costs. With our daughter currently in college, rising home insurance and soaring utility bills, finances were already tight. Then during the recent budget cuts, my wife lost her job as a counselor with Redlands Unified School District. To create a little breathing room without taking on a second job on top of teaching, we looked into home sharing. We were hesitant at first, but after speaking with several Redlands homeowners who host, our minds were put at ease. We learned we could handpick, thoroughly vet every guest. The few guests we have hosted were quiet, respectful, and wonderful. The extra income made a world of difference for our family during the five or six weeks we were able to home share. Everything was going smoothly until an individual neighbor complaint brought city enforcement to our door. Right now, Redlands relies on a 30-day minimum rental definition to quietly prohibit short-term stays. Yet well over 100 short-term rentals operate across the city every day. Because there is no formal framework, the city relies on passive, complaint-driven enforcement. This creates a deeply uneven playing field. Honest, responsible homeowners are shut down simply because of who lives next door to them. While over 100 operate without issue, enforcement should be guided by objective city policy, not selective complaints. Rather than relying on an unworkable ban, I urge the Commission to establish a formal owner-occupied home-sharing ordinance. Permit short-term rental specifically when the primary homeowner remains on-site during stays. When a homeowner is present, the typical concerns disappear. There are no unmonitored parties, no parking takeovers, and no neighborhood disturbances. Meanwhile, it supports local families facing economic hardship and rising California living cost. It serves our city providing lodging for visitors to the University of Redlands, local hospitals, and local events. It generates municipal revenue by possibly even allowing Redlands to collect a transient occupancy tax, which other cities do. Please replace selective complaint-driven enforcement with a clear owner-occupied ordinance that protects neighborhoods, supports dedicated local residents, and benefits Redlands. Thank you for your time and service. And then I have just like a proposal with my name and some more information if you're interested. So, thank you.

Yes, she can pass it out to us. And I just want to say thank you for your comments. And although we're not prepared to necessarily discuss this with you today, we will speak with the director and figure out what our purview is and how we might proceed. But we do appreciate your comments. Thank you. Okay, moving on to item number two, presentations. We have none. Moving on to item number three, the consent calendar. Item A, meeting minutes of June 23rd, 2026. Item B, time extension for commission review and approval number 918. And item C, commission sign review number 500 for two CARMAC signs. Are there any public comments on the consent calendar or any public speaker? No, I don't have any public speakers. Is there anyone here to speak on the consent calendar? Seeing none, do we have any on Zoom? Commissioners, do you wish to pull anything from the consent calendar to discuss? Commissioner Sampson?

No, I was just going to move to approve.

Okay, go ahead.

I move we approve consent calendar.

Do we have a second? I'll second. Okay, and Ms. Colson, could you please take a roll call?

Mr. Dominguez?

Yes.

Vice Chair Elliot? Yes. Commissioner Gellenhammer?

Yes.

Commissioner Swish?

Yes.

Commissioner Smith?

Yes.

Commissioner Stanson?

Yes.

Chair Shaw?

Yes. Okay. It has been moved by Commissioner Stanson, seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez to approve the consent calendar. Motion passes. Thank you. Item number four, old business. We have none. Item number five, new business, 5A. Item 5A is a consideration of commission review and approval number 985 for a request to construct a medical office building with an outpatient surgery center and urgent care clinic, including new parking lots and related site improvements located at 1301 California Street by Kaiser Foundation Hospitals. Has any commissioner had any expertise communications with the applicant or others regarding this item? Seeing none. Staff presentation by Brian Foote. Mr. Foote.

Thank you, Chair. So this item is Commission Review and Approval Number 985. And this project site is located at 1301 California Street. This is just north of the Interstate 10 freeway and the off ramps at California Street, adjacent to what we refer to as the Donut Hole, the county unincorporated area. And there's a larger view of the area. As you can see, it's primarily industrial and character and north of Interstate 10. And the city's boundary is just to the southwest there. It's the red dashed line on the exhibit. General plan designation is light industrial. The zoning designation is concept plan one that's shown as CP-1 on the map, and that is within the larger East Valley corridor specific plan area. And the sub-district within concept plan one is what is called the medical facilities district, and this overlays the Kaiser property within that concept plan. There's some brief background on the property and the project. The city council approved plan development number six for the subject property in April of this year. And essentially that approved the zoning and the master plan of future development for the Kaiser property in particular. So that approved land use. And also program EIR was also adopted and certified by the city council at that time for the plan development number six. And then this is a little bit unique for the plan development and that subsequent entitlements development of individual buildings on the project site would require commission review and approval. So that's what brings us here today is commission review and approval number 985. And this is for phase one of the master plan for that Kaiser property. So the next few slides will show the four phases that were entitled under the zoning plan development number six. This is phase one before you today. And this is the medical office building and the highlighted area on the exhibit. And then the existing office building and almost all of the existing parking lot would remain as is. A little bit of changes around the edges on the north side and the westerly side. But for the most part, the existing office building and parking lot is going to remain as is. And a future phase two, time not determined right now, but a future phase two would be a new hospital facility and above ground parking structure. And those are indicated on the exhibits. And then a future phase three, again, the time not known precisely right now, would be a third medical office building as shown on the exhibits. and then a possible potential future phase forward would be an additional wing to the hospital building. So as I mentioned, today's review for phase one is commission review and approval, and this essentially means that the commission is looking in detail at the site plan for site plan approval, and that would include landscape plan approval as well as architectural design review. So what is not before you today is the land use that was previously approved for medical facilities under both the zoning and the plan development number six. And indirectly related will be an environmental determination. So keep in mind that a program EIR was previously adopted and certified for the overall project, the entire development of the campus. But this being one smaller component of the DAR, I'm going to have a couple of slides later asking you to make the appropriate environmental determination. So we'll go into that a little bit later. Now, the proposed project is a three-story medical office building, although it does have significant elements that include outpatient surgery, urgent care center, and various other clinics and modules, and I'll show that here in a couple of slides. Total square footage is 113,000, which include the related site improvements and parking lots, of course. And overall, this component is about 12 acres of the total site, which is about one third of the 36 acre property. So the different elements that will be included include outpatient and ambulatory treatment and procedures. So in other words, no overnight stays. The hours of operation wouldn't be expected to be Monday through Saturday, 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. only. There would also be other offices for primary care physicians and practices and then specialists. Also some imaging services and diagnostic imaging and a little bit over 200 employees maximum per shift. This is a conceptual floor plan. It's not a construction plan. So this shows the different types of uses on the different floors. This is the first floor, which includes the urgent care center and then some diagnostic imaging services and various offices and a laboratory and then operations support. The second floor includes clinics and treatment centers for infusions and chemotherapy. And then the third floor, as shown here, includes different surgery modules and procedural modules and then a recovery space and then more offices. Now this exhibit shows the existing site plan and the existing office building. The picture there in the upper left corner shows the existing office building. And then the proposed site plan would essentially build out the central portion, the southerly portion of the project site, and that's indicated on the exhibit. Right now, there's an existing driveway on California Street, which is the right side of this exhibit, or on the east side. And then the southerly driveway would be expanded and improved. This is the landscape plan. Again, the development essentially keeps the existing office building and parking lot in place for the most part. And then, as you can see, a fully landscaped site in conformance with the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. There is an exception being proposed for some tree diamonds in portions of the parking lots and that is because some portions of the parking lots would be a future phase. So, The tree diamonds are proposed rather than larger planters in some areas in between the double rows of parking. Then also as noted on the plan, on the southerly end near Lagonia Avenue would be some solar canopies installed over the parking. There's various pedestrian walkways and pedestrian spaces on the interior between the buildings and around the new medical office building as well. It's a little bit hard to see on this exhibit the level of detail, but the attached plans show some more detail. I would note at the southwesterly corner of the building is actually a loading zone, so it's fully enclosed and screened by a wall. It's noted as LZ on the exhibit. Moving on to the elevations and renderings, we have a full set of elevations and renderings. The entry court, or from the east, entering the site, this would be the front of the building as viewed from the California Street driveway. And then moving on to the southerly elevation, this is the view from the interior parking lot on the south portion of the site from the Lagonia Avenue side. Although this view does not include the carport or the solar canopy, so... The material and color sample board indicates that the primary wall materials would be what is referred to as EIFS, exterior finish insulation system. This is the primary exterior treatment, and then also substantial portions of glass, including transparent vision glass, and then spandrel glass, which is more opaque, has a backing on it. And then there's also portions with perforated metal panels and then curtain walls as well, which are shown on the lower portion of the materials and color sample. And we have the architect here in the audience, and we can pass around a sample. So you can have a close-up view of these if you wish. These are the elevations, again, showing the EIFS as one of the primary materials, and then the substantial glass portion on both the front entry as well as the other sides, east, west, and south sides. So this is the south side and then the west side. Again, this is a three-story building all around, and then the rooftop equipment would be screened as typically required. Okay, so the staff report goes into further analysis about the project's conformance with the plan development and the development standards. So the proposal is in essentially full conformance and consistency with the entitlement, the plan development number six. It does vary. It is a three-story building, not a four-story building as originally contemplated for the phase one, which is fine. It has a little bit smaller square footage, 113,000 square feet. So it's about, I believe it was 50,000 square feet less at 113 versus the original entitlement. The site plan is essentially the same as shown in the plan development. And there is sufficient parking currently, and there will be sufficient parking when it's fully built out. So this particular phase one has a requirement for 565 spaces and 638 would be provided. And then overall for the entire site, 1,165 would be the minimum required, and there are to provide 1,173. So in other words, this exceeds the requirement for medical offices at one space per 200 square feet. It's a little bit higher than that. The project is also consistent with the adopted and certified program EIR for the plan development. All of the applicable mitigation measures are included as conditions of approval on this particular permit, the Commission Review and Approval Number 985. There is no socioeconomic cost-benefit study for this particular project as the City Council previously Determined in April that the entire project was exempt from measure you and that was the determination made for the plan development And of course applies to this particular element of that plan development And there are three findings required for commission review and approval those are shown on the screen and Essentially, these pertain to site plan construction. Is the site appropriate size, shape, and so forth to accommodate the proposal, the physical development of the proposal? And all three findings can be made as proposed in the draft resolution attached to the staff report. Now, moving on to environmental review. As I mentioned, there was a program EIR previously certified and adopted for the plan development, which is the master plan for the future campus. All the mitigation measures are listed as conditions of approval, and staff is proposing that no further environmental review is necessary, and that's under section 15162 of the CEQA guidelines. And there are some important findings that need to be made for your determination that no further environmental review is necessary, and these four are listed on the screen. So this phase is within the scope of the program that was previously analyzed in the program EIR. And we believe that it is. It's matching identically to that project description in the program EIR. None of the conditions in Section 15162 requiring subsequent or supplemental EIR has occurred, and that pertains to circumstances such as a change to the project, which there has not been any, or a change to the environmental circumstances, which there have not been any, or any of the previously identified significant effects are more severe or cannot be mitigated beyond that which is already identified in the program EIR, and we don't believe any of that has occurred. There are no site-specific effects not examined previously in the program EIR, and the applicable mitigation measures are to be included as conditions of approval, which they are in the draft resolution. So staff is recommending that the commission find that no further environmental review is necessary under 15162. Uh, with that, that wraps up my presentation. Um, the recommendation is on the screen for the environmental determination as well as the, um, recommended approval for the commission review and approval. And the applicant is present with a consultant team to answer your questions. Thank you.

Before we move on to the applicant, are there any clarifying questions for staff at this point?

Yes. In table 1, it looks like there were some changes that were listed there. 1 of them was the landscaping development plan went from 34% to 23%. Is that temporary for phase 1? What was the reasoning behind that?

Well, it would be for the duration of phase one for that time period until future phases are developed. As to the details of reasoning, I'll have to defer to the applicant on that.

And also, it would be helpful once we have the applicant to understand kind of some of these changes, the reasoning behind the various changes on this.

Thank you. I do agree with the findings under 15162. When we had the EIR in front of us earlier this year, I did have some questions about mitigation enforcement, and specifically with conditions 38, 39, and 40. I'm just curious, like, how these will be tracked and implemented. This is the use of alternative fuels and construction equipment, use of electric and hybrid construction equipment, and then particularly number 40, limiting construction equipment idling. It says beyond regulation requirements, but we don't know what those requirements are, and it says that it varies with the amount of project idling occurring at the amount reduced. So I think, you know, somebody in the field, I don't know if they're going to know what those requirements are, how long they're allowed to idle, how we're tracking this, when we're tracking it. Does a city inspector go into the field to see what equipment's being used in the fuel type for those vehicles, or is that a plan that's submitted during plan check? I just want to understand, like, how do we track this?

In the past where there have been specific types of equipment specified, we've asked for a list of types of equipment, number of vehicles, those types of things that would be on site during the construction.

And then what about the vehicle idling? Like do we know what the limits are? Who knows what the limits are and how that's monitored?

I don't have an answer for that one, honestly.

Well, typically any special notes or conditions would be included on construction plans, and then either inspectors would need to verify or the planner would need to verify during construction.

Thank you.

So if the commission deems it necessary, those conditions for enforcement can be added into the project?

Certainly for clarification purposes, we can add some language. I would hesitate to introduce anything entirely new since they are mitigation measures. They're somewhat locked in place, but we can add some clarifying language regarding timing or responsibility and so forth.

Understood, just wanting to know the options moving forward. Okay, any other questions for staff at this time? Okay, would the applicant like to join us for your presentation? Welcome.

Thank you, commissioners.

My name is Deborah Wong. I'm with Kaiser Permanente. We came before you in February of this year for recommendation for our master plan entitlement and our program EIR. which you provided. We subsequently got our city council approval in April, and I had indicated that we'd be moving quickly. And so we were before you here in August with our phase one, which is the medical office building two slash ambulatory surgery center. It's a bit of a mouthful. We're very excited about bringing this project forward. It is truly a critical component of how we provide service for our members here in San Bernardino County. If you've been to our medical office building in Redlands, it is very busy. And I'm confident that on day one that this new project will only add to just the kind of the energy and the activity that's going to be going on in this campus. It's one of the critical parts of this project is the fact that it's not only your medical office building where you see your physicians and your specialty care physicians, but they will have B6 ORs. And it means that for surgeries that don't require hospital stay, so your more routine surgeries, members can come to this campus instead of going to Ontario or or Fontana Medical Centers or beyond. So I think I'm very confident on day one that we will be very busy and it's going to add certainly the campus but I think to the area as well. It's going to be a great addition to the area. I just wanted to thank staff for partnering with us. We've actually brought this project forth in 2022, took a bit of a pause during the master planning. We came back and this year has been very busy getting our entitlement approvals. This will, assuming you approve our CRA, this will culminate the entitlement for this project, for the master plan and for the phase one. And we are very busy actively working on our permit packages today and very excited about the project. And if you were to approve the project, you're going to see a lot of construction activity very soon. I have here our architect, our civil, our government relations, our traffic. We're all here. So hopefully we can answer your questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. So we will open it up for questions. Questions for staff at this time? Commissioner Swish, you want to start with your questions?

So back to the question regarding the reduction in landscaping, as we have discussed the CUQA, we already voted on that last time, but any potential impacts of things that have changed from the initial planning approval that we did last time to now with Phase 1 being slightly different? I'm curious to the reduction in height, just what decisions... into that, but the component regarding the reduction in landscaping overall, if you can speak to that. Good evening.

My name is Reid Samala. I'm an architect with Gresham Smith. We're the architect of record for this project.

Regarding the landscaping, we did remove the Allman driveway, which had associated landscaping.

I'm so sorry. Just for Zoom viewers, could you speak in the microphone?

Oh, sure. Thank you. When we removed the Allman driveway, that did remove some of the landscaping along the Allman driveway. Also, I think in the mastermind, we did not show the solar canopies that we're adding. There's some existing, and then we're adding some as part of this project. So the landscaping did get revised because of that. But those are the two main things. Is there anything else?

The only thing that we would add is that the sort of disturbed

disturbed land of phase one is slightly smaller now than it was and so that contributes to the number as well follow-up question so with the change between some landscaping and the additional solar canopies is the projected shade canopy for the project roughly similar or is there a change in the amount of shade that will be provided on the project I'm confident that it's roughly similar

Commissioner Stanton. So the canopies count for shade, and we lose trees because of the solar canopies. Is that correct?

Yes.

Okay.

Commissioner Gillenhammer. I did see on the slide, though, that there were trees next to the solar canopies. Is that correct? So it's side by side?

That's right, just at the sort of end of that parking island.

So those are parking spots under the solar canopies? That's right. Okay, excellent. Thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant? Commissioner Swish?

Just back to the question about the changes overall, the reduction of the story. Did that impact the total capacity, service capacity for the building? Removing that one story, can you tell us a little bit more on the plans for that?

Um, that was a decision that was made. Um, I mean, I think originally when we had proposed 165,000 square feet, there was some shelled space. And so depending on how the square footage is work underneath, sometimes you just have to build that fourth floor, even if it's not fully built out. I think with this iteration, um, obviously the shell space was removed, but Certainly it meets all of our service needs.

That's why it was right sized for that for that building That was my understanding was that it was just for the the current, you know right sizing the current needs now understanding that in the future there is a MOB 3 that could be planned that is planned for the site and so with knowing that Kaiser was confident in taking one floor off today knowing in the future they could still add additional medical office space on the site.

Male Speaker 1 So, just to confirm, in terms of your planned capacity for Phase 1, that was reduced, but with the stipulation that when you go to Phase 2 or Phase 3, you could potentially increase the capacity from the original plan for those phases?

Female Speaker 2 That's our intention. We entitled for the master plan 165,000 square feet. So, whatever the difference is, it was 30 or 40,000 square feet, we would transfer it to the phase, the third phase, which is MOB 3. So we would not want to lose out on that square footage. We would transfer it to that phase.

And a question just to staff. So we would be tracking that for the multiple phases of the project to make sure that it never gets to exceed as we add more than what was planned like in phase two or phase three?

Yes, absolutely. We'd be tracking square footage.

Commissioner Gerland-Hammer. I just have a question about like traffic study from California and Lagonia. Are those just like you know, right away just by looking or is there a light like intended? How does that look, you know, and then the ambulances that do come through or are there no ambulances coming through?

Well, for phase one, it's a medical office and ambulatory surgery center. So ambulances arrive if there's an emergency, just like any business really, right? And then they would be transferred to a medical center.

Or to an with an E. D. or where are they are coming in from? Is that California? Is that like, is there a designated area with, like, you know, signage and things like that? I think that's awful. Yeah.

That's right. So if you remember back to the site plan, that would be like the drive off of the bottom of the site plan that kind of goes up near that service yard area. There's a designated ambulance parking spot there. Yes.

Commissioner Sanchez.

So you, I don't really think you're going to have ambulances here until you get to the hospital phase. I mean, other than, than normal routine, whatever.

So that's correct. Yes.

So it'd be like phase four before we're going to start seeing ambulances, ambulance entrances and all that. Really?

Maybe phase two, the hospitals at phase two.

Oh, it's in phase two. Oh, it is part of phase two. Okay, now I'm confused. The hospital is what phase?

The hospital is phase two. That's the main hospital with the parking garage. There's a central utility plant. Phase three is medical office building number three. Phase four is the hospital addition. So it will be a new wing, but no parking. The parking comes with the initial hospital phase. And then the last phase is – no, that is the last phase. It's the hospital wing.

Okay, I got it. Thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant? Okay, I'll ask mine then. I'm just wondering if there's any sort of projected timeline you could share with us?

For the next phases? No, for this phase.

Yeah.

Well, we're actively getting our permit packages ready. We actually already have a grading permit at risk. I think we're tracking for beginning of next year for permit issuance.

That's right. We hope to submit for a building permit in October of this year. And then the contractors that we are partnering with estimate early next year for construction activities to start if we're approved.

Okay. And do you have a very rough estimate on completion for this phase?

It is, Jake, I don't want to misspeak.

Is it end of 29? Yeah.

It is sometime in the fourth quarter of 29.

Thank you very much. Any other questions for the applicants at this time? Seeing none, thank you so much. Okay, although this is not a public hearing, we will still take public comment. Do we have anyone here to speak on this item? Seeing none, do we have any on Zoom? Okay, we do have one comment that was emailed in. Mr. Foote, could you, is it regarding this one?

No, there are no written comments on this particular item.

okay oh you're right this is from the gentleman that already spoke perfect thank you okay I'll turn it over to the commissioners for deliberations and findings if you could please bring up the motion on the screen and I'd love to hear from you guys on what you think I think it's about time

I've waited for you to go to this phase since like 1989 when you bought the property. Maybe it was 1990. It was right in that area. So I'm looking forward to you moving forward on this as being as a Kaiser patient. So I don't want a good Ontario anymore. Thank you. Anyone else?

Commissioner Elliott.

Yeah, I just wanted to say thank you for bringing a nice project before us. I think I share a lot of the Commission sentiment that especially an urgent care facility for our city is something that's really needed. Yeah, because even east of us, I'm not sure where the next Kaiser Urgent Care is. So it really does fill a need. And you've presented it in a way that honors our city's design guidelines and standards. So just thank you for doing that. And I look forward to making a motion to approve your project.

Thank you.

This is why I go last they do all the hard work. Thank you very much for this project. I know lots of people that are I'm glad you're starting with the urgent care. So people are going to have somewhere closer to drive when it's something that's not non emergency. So that's really appreciated. I know it's going to take a it feels like it's going to take a really long time. But you know, 2029 for that big of a project, but that's, that's okay. So thank you for that. Anyone else? Okay, would someone like to make a motion?

Make a motion to adopt resolution number 1757 and approve commission review and approval number 985. Second.

Okay, it has been moved by Commissioner Swish and seconded by Commissioner Stanson to approve commission review and approval number 985. Ms. Colson, if you could please take a roll call vote.

Mr. Dominguez?

Yes.

Vice Chair Elliot? Yes. Commissioner Galenhammer? Yes. Commissioner Swish?

Yes.

Commissioner Smith?

Yes.

Commissioner Stanson?

Yes.

Chair Shaw? Yes. Okay, motion carries. Congratulations. Thank you. Moving on to item number six, announcements and commissioner comments. Commissioner Stanson?

I would like to move that we bring back the rental Airbnb policy to look at somewhere in a future meeting and discuss it.

You're making a motion? Yes. Okay, perfect. Do I have a second? And then we can discuss? Second. Second. Director, Mr. Foote, do you guys have anything to add or how would we go about?

You would request that that came back as an item for discussion and possible future action.

Perfect. I think we just did that. Is it okay the way that we made the motion, or would you like us to reword it?

I think that's probably fine, and we'll put it on a future agenda.

Thank you. Vice Chair Elliott.

Just to add to that, I don't know that we need to bring forward anything for us to make a decision right away, but it would be excellent to workshop what our current policies are, how code enforcement works, so that we have a better understanding of just what the context is before we move to the next step.

Discussion and direction to staff on how to move forward or not. Yeah.

And just like the verbiage home sharing, I just have never heard of that before, like for Airbnb and short-term rentals, but just all of the above, like as he had shared that in his proposed ordinance, but just all, I guess, definitions would be wonderful.

Understood. Thank you. No problem.

I think his point was, and it brought up a very good point, is the rules are different when the owner's in the home. For sure. Great.

I think we should look at it. Okay.

Any other questions or comments on our motion? Who seconded it? Okay. It has been moved by Commissioner Stanson, seconded by Commissioner Gillenhammer to direct staff to come back with some education and talking points and possibly further action on short-term rental policy. Ms. Golsan, could you please take a roll call vote?

Commissioner Dominguez? Yes. Commissioner, sorry, Vice Chair Elliott? Yes. Commissioner Gellenhammer? Yes. Commissioner Swish? Yes. Commissioner Smith? Yes. Commissioner Stanson? Yes. Chair Shaw? Yes.

Okay, motion carries. Thank you very much. Any other Commissioner comments on anything else? Okay, Director's Update. Item number seven, Director's Update.

There was a short request for an update on the mall project. So as of right now, they're still doing abatement within the building, removing asbestos and things, and working on some structural issues related to how they will handle CVS as they may move to demolish around the structure there. So timeline on demolition, I don't have a firm one as far as... Future project details, none have been provided to the city. There's no application for revisions and no site plan or no other details have been shared with the city at this point.

Okay. And I'm going to ask the question, if it's not appropriate, feel free to tell me so. But I know that Vantage One bought Look and then they own, they have two other projects going. Do we have any timeline of when, if those are moving forward? Yes.

The two projects, the former safety hall site that's now demolished over here, they do have plans and plan check for that site for the residential portion. Similarly, for the McCune site or the furniture store there, across from the mall, also across from the mall, there are plan checks in process for that site as well.

Okay. And any sort of timeline on what they plan to do with look?

No. No serious indication has been given to us as to their intent there.

Which is understandable. It just happened. I was just curious.

Commissioner Guggenhammer. May I ask just real quick, too, about the Vons Plaza? Oh, thank you.

We are regularly checking in with Vons, or the owners of that site, I should say, and have not been given any clear indication of who their tenant might be, although what we regularly have heard is they are in talks with the tenant, and we do not know who that is or what that is. Okay.

Thank you. Any other? Oh, Commissioner Gonzalez. Sorry. My gosh. I'm so sorry. The old Burlington building.

There have been various discussions about tenants there, although I don't have any plans in plan check or any confirmed details of anybody who's going in there.

Okay. Thank you.

I have a general question. I don't know if it's even appropriate for the staff, but do we have, what are plans for overhead electric in general in the city? Are there plans for mitigation, like disaster management mitigation, to underground electric poles or anything like that, especially with all the heat that we are seeing?

Overall, things are undergrounded as development occurs. Mr. Young, do you care to add to that?

THERE ARE DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR UNDERGROUNDING UTILITIES WHEN VACANT PROPERTIES DEVELOP. IF YOU WANT TO READ THE MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 1717, ZERO SOMETHING ZERO, ZERO SOMETHING ZERO, SECTION G, WHICH LISTS THE REQUIREMENTS FOR UNDERGROUNDING AND LISTS THE reasons to not do the undergrounding, but pay an in lieu fee, which then it's up to the city council to decide how that in lieu fee gets spent, or for developers to not have to pay the in lieu fee at all. All that's listed in the municipal code. Edison on their own is doing underground projects in high hazard areas. Last year, the year before, they did some up on Sunset where there was concerns. They're throughout the city hardening all their facilities to try to minimize the risks.

Thank you.

I have a related follow-on question that's project specific. I can't recall the name of the project, but it's at the southwest corner of San Bernardino Avenue and Wabash Avenue. It's one of their tract home developments. There's some power poles that are in the right-of-way, but the curb and gutter has largely been constructed I wanted to better understand a sense of timing. I understand it's probably Edison who has to relocate those poles, but is there any motivation from the city to help make that happen faster? And the reason I bring it up too is because the traffic control around that intersection leaves a little bit to be desired in terms of it kind of looks like you can turn right in the right turn lane there. The right turn lane is constructed and there's kind of like a token cone that's in the way, but you can tell that people have oopsied and tried to drive that way, but there's a pole in the road. So I guess to summarize, question on timing of the relocation of those poles, and is there anything that we could do to work with the contractor to maybe improve traffic control so no one's going to run into that pole?

I'll have an inspector go out, take a look at things, see if there's a way we can improve it. The contractors are in a difficult bind with Edison because Edison says, here's our timetable of when we're going to be doing things. Thank you. And so then you have developers who are, they've bonded for those, getting those improvements done. They want their bonds released. They want their project complete. There was one tract a few years ago where everything was done except for a single pole right at the entrance. And it's not the developer's fault that Edison is, working, you know, to get things done, just not at other people's timetables. So we do our best to try to coordinate with the developers, but still keep things safe. Thank you for bringing that up on the corner, and I'll have someone go out and take a look at it.

Just for a question, I just finally processed what you just said earlier. When a developer opts out of making the change but pays a fee instead? Is that what you said? Once we receive that fee, do we then underground it or work with Edison to underground it or they just pay the fee and the electric remains where it is?

When a developer pays an in lieu mitigation fee, there is no obligation on the part of the city to go out doing undergrounding out in front of that development. It's up to the council to aggregate those monies and then determine where they would like to do an undergrounding project. So the city does not take on the obligation to go underground in front of track number such and such if an in lieu fee is paid. Oftentimes the findings that are made to allow for payment of an in lieu fee instead of doing the undergrounding is wrong. Distance is only a certain amount. This development has never under grounded and this development is under grounded. And the people that are on Zoom, I'm waving my hands off to the side on either side. It's not a requirement that was placed upon other developments in the area. because of one they developed, and there's no real benefit by just undergrounding this little amount. But if a project typically doesn't get to pay a waiver, if everybody else has had to underground and then this is all that's left, you're not going to be approved for the waiver, and they get to do that.

follow up to that. So the in lieu fee, does that go into an appropriated fund that is dedicated for undergrounding in general or does it just go into the city general fund?

It does not go into the city's general fund. It goes into an account to be used for undergrounding and then it's up to the council. They get to vote on where it's going to be spent. None of the rest of us get to.

Thank you. This was very helpful.

Anyone else? Seeing none, do you have anything else to update us on?

I'll answer questions if you have them. I have no other updates.

Okay. Mr. Putt?

I believe we'll have a meeting on September 8th. Two items on consent, I believe they're time extensions, and then one other item for general plan conformity, and then the revised, somewhat revised, alcohol ordinance. Okay.

Thank you. With that, we will move on to item number eight, adjournment. We will adjourn to the next regular meeting date of September 8th, 2026.