Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I got it. Good evening. Welcome to the 11/05/2025 Planning Commission meeting. I'd like to get started by with the Pledge of Allegiance. So I'll let Commissioner Estavander lead us in the pledge.

We all please rise and face the flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one Thank

you, sir. So if we could if the secretary or the clerk could call roll please for

us. Chair Story.

Present.

Vice Chair Gutierrez. Commissioner Avalos Villalobos. Present. Commissioner Schneider? Commissioner Esfander? Present. Commissioner Thompson? Present. Commissioner Coral Junior?

Don't have a forum.

Here we do. We have four. Quorum's four, right?

Four.

Four. Yeah. We're good. Yeah. Very good. So we do have a quorum tonight for tonight's meeting. We'll move on to the next item on the agenda, which is oral communication from the audience on items that are not on the agenda. So this is only for items that are not included on the agenda for tonight. Is there anybody?

Yes, sir. There's one.

Okay.

Good evening members. I'm gonna read read off of here, just just so I could kind of make sure I get my point across, but Good evening members and members of the community and representative of the commission department and and commissioners. My name is Pedro Molina. I'm a local resident here. I I own the property across the street.

Thank you all for being here. I wanted to bring to your attention that there's been a long long standing issue with the property that that embodies embodies the very spirit of adaptive reuse that senate bill six is designed to encourage. This this this building that that was constructed in 1927, which is a flower shop, Maples, it's been there forever and always had a house in the back, has served as a cornerstone to this neighborhood for nearly a century. The rear unit, complete with the garage, has been been a share cherished home for generations. While the front the front space has been transitioned to a commercial use some time ago.

It was back in the fifties. At the core, it remains a mixed use gem. It's it's it's a mixed use property. It perfectly aligns with the state's push to preserve the the rep revelation. Such structures like they once once more housing.

Senate Bill six streamlines exact exactly these kinds of conversions allowing the the additions up to 15 units in a commercial in a in a commercial zone without the need for rezoning or full environmental impact review. Provided that the city's meeting housing goals, which we know Realtor is not meeting. So, this creates a clear obligation to approve eligible projects swiftly. Considered the Glendale situation. Just so Glendale, they initially resisted to similar situations with conversions, but then ultimately approved all to avoid substantial state penalties.

San Diego too has embraced the the bill approving dozens of duplexes and mixed use developments. Yet, we are here three years three years in a frustrating back and forth with the city on my property that sits across the street. All I want is then to acknowledge that it's a it's a it's a mixed mixed use or special or even to give me a special use permit or even a a zoning variance, which which which is a request. Well, other applicants, because I I get to see the the applicants, receive approvals with these, which which mines mines mines is clearly a mixed use. These inconsistencies not only undermines the trust, but also risks exposing the city to very very fines.

SB six was enacted to prevent. Tonight, I humbly urge and yes, I plead with the with the the commissioners and and and the city to just acknowledge that that this property is a mixed use property. And and and not not pushing back and saying it's not it's a it was it was converted into commercial when when clearly the property next door is a house. Even the properties around their their their houses. So

Just so you know that three minutes is up.

Oh, three minute oh, I thought it was five minutes.

No. It's actually three.

Three minutes? Okay. I was not notified. Okay. Well, all I'm asking is is for the the planning commission or or even the the the directors to acknowledge the property and just let let the city know that the city that that the property is a mixed use to get code enforcement off my back because they they did send me a letter just today from the the attorney's office saying that I haven't complied. But the reason I haven't complied is because the the zoning is incorrect. They're always they're saying it's a commercial when it has a house in the back. So that's it. Yeah. Thank you.

Thank you, mister Molina. We exist in not an item on the agenda. We're gonna go ahead and take turn to the staff and refer it over to them to be able to do that. Am I correct?

That's correct.

Okay. So thank you so much. Moving on, we've got the next time is the Planning Commission minutes, and we need to have approval of our September 17 meeting. So hopefully, everyone's had an

opportunity to read the 09/17/2025 Planning Commission meeting. Sorry. My bad.

Mister chair, I do wanna note for the record that commissioner Coral entered the

Got it.

Chambers at around 06:02.

Great. Thank you. So we have

a motion. And do we have a second for the minutes? Seconded? Okay. Motion by commissioner Estebaner, seconded by commissioner Thompson. Anyone opposed to the motion? Hearing none, then the motion's approved to approve the minutes. The next item is our public hearings. We'll move on to the first one there, which is conditional development permit number 20 direction and report on that. Go ahead.

Thank you, chair. The first public hearing item tonight will be addressed by Senator Oblis, senior planner. Okay.

Good evening, chair and commissioners. The item that I was to present tonight, a CDP twenty five zero zero zero one was pulled by the applicant and will be continued to a date certain, which is December 3.

Okay. Thank you very much. So I'll refer to the attorney. Do we need to open the public hearing and continue it? Or how do we handle that?

That's correct. You would open the public hearing Okay. Taking public comment. Okay. When that's done, the commission would move to continue to was it December 3? Okay.

That is correct.

Very good. So thank you so much. And so right now, we're gonna open the public hearing at this point. Anyone who wants to speak on this particular item, conditional development permit number 25001, please step to the podium, please. If not, we'll entertain a motion to whatever your commissioner's pleasure is.

Go ahead. The request is a motion to continue to December 3.

So move. Seconded.

Okay. Motion by Commissioner Estavander and seconded by Commissioner Thompson to continue conditional permit number 25001 to the 12/03/2025 Planning Commission meeting. Anyone opposed to that motion? Hearing none, the motion passes. So thank you. Let's move on to the second public hearing item regarding tentative parcel map number 20230004 and precise plan design number 2023Dash0031. Staff? It's all yours.

Thank you, chair. The second item tonight will be presented by, Jason Costa, associate planner. Good

evening, commissioners. Good evening. As, Daniel said, our our my project here is master case 2023Dash0046. It's a tentative parcel map number 2023Dash0004 with a precise plan of design number 2023Dash0031, and environmental assessment review, number 2023Dash0040. Our applicant this evening is mister Treanfel Bobadilla, and he is here this evening with his daughter, Eva.

What he's requesting is the approval to subdivide his parcel. His APN 0133Dash201Dash24 from north to south into two separate parcels that are roughly equivalent in size. On one of the parcels on the west parcel, he has an existing single family residence that he would keep, and he would build a new single family residence on the east parcel. We also request the planning commission to determine the projects exempt from CEQA pursuant to section fifteen three one five for minor land divisions and fifteen three zero three for new construction or conversion of small structures. This is at 605 East Edwanda.

It's there on the South Side of East Edwanda Avenue, just East of North Acacia. It is zoned r one b single family residential. The tentative parcel map here, the this is kind of a sideways the way it came out. To the left would be north. So there on the bottom of the page on the description, you'll see Parcel 2 above Parcel 1.

Parcel one is the location of the existing home and Parcel 2 above it is where they would build a second home. I got ahead of myself a bit, but, yeah, the existing parcel already has the home, and it would continue in that current use as residential. And then the proposal would be residential for the new home on the East parcel, which is Parcel 2. Both of these parcels meet all the minimum requirements for area width, depth, and dwelling signs for, the R 1 B zoning. Site plan and the detail of looking at the larger picture, the existing home is to the right.

Again, this is a little opposite. North is to the bottom of the page, facing East Attawanda. So the single family existing single family. And then on, to the left is the proposed residence. The smaller, diagram to the left, it shows you the full scale and depth of the properties there.

Sort of a floor plan and color elevations. This was public notice by being published in the San Bernardino Sun. Mailers were sent within a 660 foot radius of the location, and it was posted at the site and at city hall. It's recommended to the Planning Commission to adopt a resolution to approve tentative parcel map number 2023 Dash 0004, which would be TPM two zero eight seven seven for the map to permit the subdivision of parcel number 0133201204 into two parcels. And to approve precise plan as a design twenty twenty three dash zero zero three one for single family residence and garage on Parcel 2 of the same of the parcel map.

We also request a determination that tenant parcel map 2023Dash004, which should be TPM two zero eight seven seven, is exempt pursuant to section one five three fifteen minuteor land divisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, and precise plan of design twenty twenty three dash 31 is categorically exempt pursuant to section fifteen three zero three, new construction or conversion of small structures of the California Environmental Quality Act. I'm available for questions and Mr. Bobadilla his daughter are also here if you have questions for them.

Great. Thank you, Jason. Commission, do you have any questions of staff or any questions of the applicant before we open the public hearing? Okay. Commissioner Thompson, go ahead.

I'm familiar with the location and this house sits on the South side of Ednawanda facing north, the proposed house. The garage is to the east aspect of it. There is a street coming south that t intersects with Ednawanda there. Are you comfortable that there's sufficient setback on the residents, especially to the face of that two car garage, where anybody backing out of the garage and backing in the street is gonna be aware of traffic coming both east and west on Edawanda and southbound on that intersecting street. Are you comfortable with that?

Yes, sir. And I'd like to add that this whole project was reviewed by the engineering department, traffic engineering in particular, and they're good with it. Very well, Ben.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions by commissioners at this one? Any questions for the applicant? If not, we'll go ahead and open the public hearing at this time. Is there anyone that wishes to speak to the on this particular item?

Mr. Chair, before we proceed, I would have to ask does the applicant have a would like to make a presentation or?

Okay.

We're good. Alright. Thanks. Gotta ask. You're right. Any discussion by the commission on this particular item before we get a motion or anything? Mr.

Chair I'm sorry. Know if anyone would like to, member of the public would like to do a public comment on this yet.

Like I said if there's anyone that wants to speak on this particular item on ten day parcel map in the precise plan design for this one, please step forward to the podium and we will go ahead and

There are no speakers.

You do? No speakers? Okay. Very good. No one submitted anything to do that. Okay.

Move to close the public hearing.

One second.

Second? Okay. Motion by commissioner Estebaner, second by commissioner Thompson to close the public hearing. Any opposition to that motion? Hearing none, the motion passes. So what's the commission's pleasure on this particular item?

Move to adopt the resolution to approve tentative parcel map number 2023 Dash 0004, number 20877 to permit the subdivision of assessor's parcel number 0133 Dash 201 Dash 24 into two parcels and to adopt a resolution to approve precise plan of design number 2023Dash0031 for a single family residence in Garage Room Parcel 2 of tentative map parcel map number 2023 Dash 0004, tentative parcel map number 20877, and to determine that the ten day parcel map number 2023 Dash 0004, number 20877 is categorically exempt pursuant to section number one five three one five, minor land division of the California Environmental Quality Act and precise plan design number 2023Dash0031 is category exempt perception to number 15,303, new construction or conversion of a small structure of the California Environment Equality Act.

Is there a second to that motion?

I'll second.

Motion by Commissioner Esteban or seconded by Commissioner Thompson. Any discussion regarding the motion? Anyone opposed to the motion?

Mr. Chair if I may. I'm sorry to interrupt again. As far as as a matter of procedure for voting on motions it would be is anyone in favor and then anyone opposed. So we have to make sure that the commissioners voice their vote in favor.

Anyone all those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Hearing none motions approved.

Thank you.

Let's move on to the third item which is the specific plan amendment, the environmental assessment review, and the first amendment to the development agreement between City of Rialto and Lewis Hillwood development. This is staff's presentation.

Good evening, chair, commissioners. I'm Daniel Casey, principal planner, and I'll be making the presentation tonight on the third public hearing item. This project is entitled the Myra Way and Ayala Drive project. Applicant or joint applicants for the project are the City of Rialto and Lewis Hillwood Rialto company. Do have a presentation to share with you tonight on the first slide here, we'll just be going over project site.

You can see the project site on the map in the red boundary. This project site is comprised of portions of 11 parcels of land that total approximately 33 acres in size. The project site is located between Linden Avenue and Ayala Drive and approximately 415 feet north of Baseline Road. This project site is within the Renaissance specific plan. The property ownership is kind of mixed of of all those parcels, but the there are three property owners that consist of the City of Rialto, Lewis Hillwood Rialto Company LLC, and also the redevelopment agency, City of Rialto.

As you can see from the aerial image, the site is currently vacant, undeveloped. You have some vacant land to the North, a few smaller industrial developments also to the Northeast. On the East Side of Ayala, there's some smaller incubator type industrial developments. To the south of the site, you have a former car wash, a self storage facility, and also another smaller industrial building. And then to the west of the site you have some larger industrial warehouses.

On this next slide, I'm just going go into some of the background information as it relates to this site. On 03/26/2024, the City Council approved a purchase and sale agreement in cooperation with the Lewis Hillwood Rialto company to sell five parcels and portions of two parcels of land that are on the south side of the project site, that make up the south side of the project site. Those would be sold to Newland Real Estate Equities. I've indicated here on the map so you can see the red boundary again is the overall project site tonight, but the yellow boundary is the portion agreement is that those properties in that yellow boundary would be sold to Newland. Those properties in the yellow make up the entirety of planning Area 126 and 133 of the Renaissance specific plan.

So as a part of that purchase and sale agreement that was approved by the city council last year, the city agreed to one, amend the Renaissance specific plan. As a part of that amendment, it would include reconfiguring Miro Way so that it would extend where it currently ends at Linden Avenue and it would extend all the way now connecting to Ayala Drive. And then also as a part of that agreement, the specific plan would be amended to include changing of the land use designations of planning areas 123, 126 133. The agreement indicated that those would change to business center. Two of the planning areas will be business center.

I'll get into that in the next slide. One of the other planning areas will go a different designation as the project was processed. But I'll get into that on the next slides. Again, as a part of the purchase and sale agreement, the city also agreed to amend an existing development agreement between the city of Rialto and the Lewis Hillwood Rialto company that would eliminate provisions related to the construction of public park on planning areas 01/2026 and 133. And then third, the city agreed to as a part of the approved purchase and sale agreement to complete all necessary California Environmental Quality Act approvals related to the specific plan amendment and the development agreement amendment.

So on the next slide here, I'll just go over the details of the specific plan amendment. So again, as required by the purchase and sale agreement, the city began working in conjunction with Lewis Hillwood Rialto company on preparing an amended Renaissance specific plan. That document was prepared by Kimley Horn and Associates. As part of the specific plan amendment, Planning Area 123, which is currently designated as school, that's its current land use designation, though the site is not owned by the Rialto Unified School District nor are there any current plans to develop a school on that site. The plan would be to, as part of the amendment, to change that designation to general commercial with the residential overlay.

With that change, the site would then accommodate that particular planning area would accommodate a little over a 112,000 square feet of commercial uses or 164 dwelling units or some combination thereof. The next amendment would be changing the land use designation of Planning Area 126 and that is currently the green public park area on the existing land use map. And that would be changed to business center. That particular planning area would then accommodate up to 378,972 square feet of industrial uses. And then the next amendment would be to change Planning Area 133 from what it's currently at employment with a public park overlay to business center.

Planning Area 133 is just to the west adjacent to the west of Planning Area 126. It's kind of green with diagonal gray lines there. And with that change, it would accommodate up to 74,052 square feet of industrial uses. Then as I also mentioned, Miro Way will be reconfigured so that it extends from Linden to Isla Drive. So you can see on the two maps there at the bottom, the one on the left is what is the current land use map of the Renaissance specific plan.

So the blue designating the school, the green designating the park, and then you can kinda see where a road divided those two and then kind of curved northward. It did not continue west to Linden. The amendments I just described would now change the north area to that from blue to red, the commercial designation, and then the green and green with the diagonal lines to the pink business center. That's what you see on the proposed land use map. And then Miro Way would no longer curve northward.

It would now go westward and connect into the existing segment. And I will note that before the commission tonight, there's no proposed developments before you tonight. None of the actions here include any development. This amendment is to change the land use designations to accommodate future development. Okay.

Moving on. So in addition to the specific plan amendment as I mentioned, the purchase of sale agreement also required the city to amend the development agreement. On 12/13/2016, the city council had approved a development agreement with the Lewis Hillwood Rialto company as it pertains to properties within the Renaissance specific plan area. That existing agreement includes provisions for the construction and del development of the public park on planning areas 126 and 133. But with the proposed specific plan amendment that would remove that public park designation, it necessitates amending the development agreement to remove those provisions pertaining to a park construction on those sites.

So the specific amendments that would occur would be removing the definition of a public park in the agreement, modifying section five point three point one that removes language that requires the city to utilize funds that will still be collected but rather than having them have to go to construction of a public park on planning areas 126 and 130 the city will be able to use those funds for a park either elsewhere in the site or in the area, in the region or to upgrade any existing parks, any lawful use that the city sees that's needed with those funds that are still going to be collected. Then the other amendment would be to delete section eight of the development agreement entirely and that section defined basically the boundary, the characteristics, the cost, and the improvements that would be built on planning Area 126 and 133 as it pertained to a park. Since the park would no longer be constructed there, that section is no longer necessary. And the last amendment is just to remove all references to the public park that occurred throughout the development agreement. So that is the second item from the purchase and sale agreement.

And the third and last item from that was required from the purchase and sale agreement was the completion of the California Environmental Quality Act approvals. So the both the city and LHR engaged Kimley Horn and Associates to prepare subsequent environmental impact report to the Renaissance specific plan environmental impact report. And that subsequent environmental impact report analyzed the specific plan amendment that is before the commission tonight. So that change in land use designation going from the park and the schools designations to the business center and the commercial designations. But in addition to that, it did analyze a future development that again is not being considered.

There's no no entitlement development applications tonight, but did also analyze a future development on Planning Area 126 And 133 that would consist of two warehouse buildings, one being 53,000 square feet and the other 375,000 square feet. The environmental impact report determined that there would be a significant and unavoidable impact as it relates to greenhouse gas emissions. That subsequent EIR was circulated for public review from March 21 to May 5. There were three comment letters that were received during that timeframe. Responses were prepared to each of those commenters.

And then those responses were included in a final subsequent environmental impact report that was completed on August 2025. The environmental impact report before the commission tonight was completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the city council approved purchase and sale agreement. In in the resolution before the commission tonight in regard to the environmental impact report, there is a statement of overriding considerations within that that details the benefits of the project that outweigh those significant impacts that were identified in the environmental impact report. And so I will just go on to say that this project that's before the commission tonight, which again includes the specific plan amendment, the development agreement amendment, and the environmental impact report. These three items will require city council approval.

And so tonight, the commission's role is to provide a recommendation to the city council. And so based on staff's review and analysis of this project, staff recommends that the planning commission adopt the resolutions before you tonight, forwarding a recommendation to the city council to certify the subsequent environmental impact report and then approve the specific plan amendment and approve the first amendment to the development agreement between the city of Rialto and Lewis Hillwood Rialto company. I will also note that two comment letters were received this afternoon on this item. The first one that came in was from Mitchell Tsai on behalf behalf of the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters. I've provided each commissioner with a copy, and there's also copies up here for public review.

This letter expresses support for the project and encourages the planning commission to recommend approval of the project. The second letter that was submitted this afternoon is from the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice. Again, I also provided copies to each of the commissioners, and there are copies up here for the public to review. There are few items in this letter that I do wanna just address. In effectively the second paragraph.

It, discusses transparency as it relates to the public sale of the property. I do want to again stress that the city did follow all of the requirements as it relates to surplus land. That item went before the city council and a purchase and sale agreement was approved at a public hearing before the city council. There's also a statement in here requesting that a subsequent environmental impact report be prepared. Again, I just wanna acknowledge that that was prepared and that is before the commission tonight.

Then there was also a statement about the use of Ayala and baseline as truck routes for this project. Again, there's no development that is proposed or for consideration tonight. Any future development would require submittal of necessary development applications that would then have to come before the the planning commission for review and consideration. And I will note that Ayala Drive is not a truck route. Any future development would be prohibited from having its trucks utilize Ayala Drive.

And the site also I would note does not have connectivity or direct access to Baseline Road. And again, their trucks would not be using Baseline. Any future development from this project would be required to use MyRow Way to and from Alder Avenue. And then on the last page, the second page at the top, there was a statement about the CEQA documents and studies being outdated and that they don't reflect the current realities. I do wanna emphasize that these are brand new studies that were prepared specifically for this project.

And as I mentioned, the final environmental impact report before you tonight was dated August 2025. And so that concludes the staff presentation. I'm available if you have any questions. The applicant and their consultant team are also here if you have any questions.

Thank you, Daniel. Commission, questions for staff?

Yes. I have a couple. You're eliminating the public park designation on that property.

Yes.

Is this okay with the city?

The city council approved a purchase and sale agreement agreement to specifically remove the public park designation. I would just, again, stress that there are fees that are being collected actively to fund the development of that park. Those fees will still be collected. They'll be able to be used elsewhere. City will have more flexibility in locating a park where it feels it may need to be or, like I said, upgrading a park.

But but the funds will still go to parks?

Yes. Yes. The the there will still be those the

general fund?

The the the city will will bring in those monies that can be used for public park purposes. Okay.

Also, are we setting ourselves up for two more warehouses, one at 53,000 square foot and one at 375,000 square feet.

The EIR did analyze that development. We will see if an application comes forward to the commission. Yes. Ultimately, the designation would change to business center, which would accommodate the development of industrial warehouses. What will specifically be proposed remains to to be seen.

You realize my hanger was there for my hot rod stuff.

Okay. Okay. Just

just so you realize that, Daniel.

Right. Understood.

K. Any other questions?

The first one I have is regarding Myrtle Way, and it's intersecting with Ayala. I came down that way this evening on my way over here, and I was looking at the traffic flow as I came south. And there's several intersections that are controlled by signalization as you come southbound or whether you're going northbound. And I'm wondering if we put two warehouses, if we were, two warehouses should be constructed there of that size. How's that gonna impact in that Byron Way Intersection which is about midway between Baseline Road and what's the next one up Fitzgerald, I believe it is.

How are they gonna synchronize that And with two large warehouses like this, how's that traffic gonna feed into that? And confirm for me what the status is on Ayala there. Is it a truck route or not a truck route?

Okay. Bless you. Yep.

No problem. There too. Yes. We do.

To answer your last question, Ayala, between baseline and the 210 Freeway, is not a truck route. It's not a truck route. To answer your your second quest or your first question, as development as a development application comes forward, that will require the submittal of a traffic impact analysis to analyze the traffic specifically from this project, both the commercial side, the industrial side. And so should there be any necessary improvements to any roadways, those will be identified. And again, they'll be presented to the planning commission at the time those decisions are to be made.

Because again, there's no development project proposed tonight. Tonight is just changing the designations from one to the other. There will should there be a future development, they'll have to go through their own development application review process. And, again, I'll also note that, the intersection of Miro and Ayala, as as you mentioned, any truck traffic that would come from developments on the South side, right, the business center side where the warehouses would potentially be, they will not be allowed to even use that intersection. They'll all be prohibited from using that intersection.

Every truck would have to come and go from Alder Avenue down down Miro and turn into the site. It cannot continue east to that intersection of Miro and Ayala.

Does Miro Way intersect refresh my memory. Does it intersect with Locust? And is Locust not the route we were looking or that we're actually spending money on right now to get the trap truck traffic off of Ooyala and off of

Yeah. It also intersects with Locust. Yeah. I mean, trucks could potentially take other industrial collector streets to get up to the freeway, but they will not be able to go east from any of the project driveways to Ayala. Okay. Yep. And and at some point in the future, should a development application come forward, there would be a condition of approval on a conditional development permit application prohibiting any trucks from going to that intersection.

Trucks being what they are and truck drivers being such as they are. Point to point mentality. They wanna go from point to point. Mhmm. So what we do here in the planning process becomes an enforcement issue in the future.

And I wanna make sure that we keep that in mind as we look at what it's gonna take for us in the future to enforce that, whether it's with signage, whether it's with traffic enforcement, physical enforcement or otherwise. That that is a concern for me. Understood. I I one other unrelated concern, and that is this water extraction or cleansing plant that's over there at Linden, North of Byrroy Way on the East side of the street. You're familiar with them?

Mhmm. Yes. Okay.

These these proposed warehouses are possible warehouses. They're on the other side of the street on the South side?

Correct. Yeah. The water facility you're mentioning is on the North Side. The future warehouses will be located on the South side.

Then the property on the North Side of Merrell Way is open to acquisition once the street is in. Am I correct?

Yeah. There there it's the area immediately to the east of it is currently designated for residential uses.

Then we're going to have to, as we look at whatever one whatever anybody proposes to be in there, to make sure that it's compatible with that plant. Because the plant has caustic materials, acids if you will.

Yeah.

So we have to make sure that in the future, and I just wanna make that note now, that we take a look at what we're what we're doing here is we're we're laying the groundwork for something we have to deal with in the future. I don't wanna make sure that we're in a position where we can adequately address any concerns we might have now or at least get them on the record before we have to address them in the future.

Understood. Yes. That site is just outside of tonight's project site. You know, future development applications would have to be submitted for those areas immediately next to the water facility you're you're referring to. And at that time, that's when staff will will look at those, do that analysis. Okay. I got you.

Any other commission questions? I do. Sure. Thank you.

Is there any talk about where that future park could possibly put? Because I do know they're building all those homes right there in the Renaissance area, all the residential. And that's one thing builders do use in their sales is there's a projector park down the street, and I'm sure they're already using that. And I just always don't like to see when parks are being taken away. Is there a plan? And how long if there is a plan, if anything, what what is in place for that?

Sure. Got it. So the the residential development to the north as a part of the development agreement is required to install parks that will be serviced that neighborhood. So there will be parks installed in the neighborhood for those residents to use. In fact, some of them are already in the first phases. They're already constructed. And then of course, we have Jerry Eaves to the East site. There's no plan for a specific second public park location at this time. But again, as I mentioned that the $17,300,000 that would have funded the park that would have gone on this site will still be collected.

Any other questions?

If I can add to that. Recreational opportunity is part of the heartbeat of a community. It's what keeps the kids off the street, a very large part of that. And it will provide green space for the community itself. I wanna make sure that we as planners, we as a commission and you as planners, keep an eye toward maintaining a reasonable level or appropriation of green space land.

So that that the community continue to grow not only in terms of opportunities such as these folks out here, the people that would operate such businesses once they are come to fruition. But also that in the end, the community itself benefits the greatest from it as a whole. Thank you. Questions

from commission? Daniel, let me just ask this real quick. Is and it's just dangerous because I know some of this information is suffering sitting over there before. But in the general plan, there's a designated number or a goal of parkland per, let's say, thousand people. I can't even remember the exact number. But there's a percentage that we're supposed to have four people for our communities. How many ex parkland for so many people. And I'm gonna assume that it hasn't changed since I left. That isn't being met. We we it's not being met. We don't have a presentation. Am I correct?

I'd have to confirm that for you.

But the likelihood is not. Other than adding Joe Sampson Park recently in that number, there isn't. There hasn't been added the park. Obviously, in communities, like you're talking about the parks that are in the private communities to be able to do that. So and I understand this has been to the council and the direction for us to confirm it and forward on our recommendation. But some things I just want to note is that we're just make sure I'm getting this straight. We're going to remove a Parkland designation knowing that we don't meet the park criteria for our Parkland residents to be able to in the current general plan we've got. Which is fine. I mean, that's just noted by the commission to do that. That's the direction the council wants go.

And they want to look for a future site. At someplace else to do that, I'm perfectly fine. So the optics doesn't look like that we are unknowingly taking parkland off knowing that we don't meet the criteria per thousand for employment. That's fine. That's Okay. Then let me ask another question about the $17,000,000 I think that was collected through the Lewis Hillwood developed to do that. And that's still, as the commissioners have asked, is still going to be used for parks. But it doesn't mean it's going to be used to build a new park. Those funds can be used at Frisbee, at Joe Sampson, at Rialto to do improvements to existing park facilities to be able to do that. Am I correct?

Yeah. It will be at the discretion of the council. Okay. Could be another park site. My point was as long as it

doesn't move back into general.

Right. Right. And that's fine. So I just want to make sure it's yes, it is. It gets used for parks. But didn't want the perception being that is we're eliminating this site, then we're going to go and look for another one and use $17,000,000 to buy a park. That's not necessarily that's at the discretion of the council to be able to do that. Okay. All right. Just clarification with that. Any other questions or comments from the commission? Does the representative from New Land Development want to address the commission If they're here tonight?

I think perhaps Lewis Hill

would want to. Or Lewis? Okay.

Oh, I'll take those guys too. Yeah. That's fine.

So. Evening, chairman and members of the commission. My name is Glenn Crosby, representing, Lewis Hillwood Rialto. We've been working on this project, with the city for, gosh, probably two and a half years now, so it's been through a lot of, vetting. I do wanna point out Mr.

Casey did a real thorough job with his presentation and and everything is consistent with with our actions to date. I did wanna clarify a couple things and and hopefully help also answer a couple of your questions or maybe refine some of those answers, one of which is specific to the residential component. There is in that first phase already a one acre park with a pool and full facilities and also a small pocket park. In the next phase, we're also processing a larger two acre facility that will have, like, a five or 6,000 square foot clubhouse, another pool, open park space, dog dog park, and then there's yet another one that will be in the third phase. And those are all contemplated still in the development agreement.

So the development agreement was specific only to the public park component. And as Daniel mentioned, that was purely a land use designation. That, you know, we've been working on this project for twenty years going back to the beginning, but that, you know, designation is always predicated on, you know, the city's ability to purchase, develop, and pay for the operational costs, which, you know, obviously are are a challenge, particularly now. We're working with a number of cities are looking how to offload parks, unfortunately. But but that was in in land use designation only.

And the there's already been the $10,800,000 payment made, so that's not a future payment. That has already been made, in addition to another couple million, of the 6.5. The additional 6.5 has already been paid to date. So those funds are not future or or promised or they're already in in the city's coffers. So I just wanted to clarify that.

One other component, the MIRO extension, those plans were developed, back in about 2016, and that right away was previously dedicated to the city, all the way over to Ooyala. So it's not, it's mostly a, you know, a graphic clarification for the specific plan, but there's sewer, storm drain, and I'm sure as you you saw, earlier today or or when you drove by, the, curb cuts are already in place on Ayala for that ultimate

Yeah.

Alignment connection. So that's already dedicated through the city, and the plans have already been designed for that as well. So there just hasn't been adjacent development. Another quick item that came up was just in reference to the water plant. And just to clear clarify, there will be, you know, a buffer around that that plant, although it's a fairly clean operation.

Obviously, it's not the the most compatible use for residential when it gets built up there. So there's certainly gonna be a buffer that will take that into consideration, on the north side, of Miro at that time. And, of course, that's been, that's been around from the beginning. So no, no change there. And the other item that came up was with respect to the to the buyers, and the buyers were disclosed for those Lennar first phases that that this project was subject to rezone and was going through the process.

So that's that's on their disclosures for those purchasers. So it's not new information or surprise information that might might have affected that decision. So I just wanted to clarify a couple of those, things for you. I'm here. We have, our consultant team here as well that can help answer any other questions.

Thank you. Okay. Glenn how are you doing? Yeah it's been a long time. Yeah it has. You look you haven't changed. I've got less hair and a lot more stomach

so that's

Oh I definitely got

a lot stuff.

But does anyone have any questions mister? Yeah. Did. I have. Yeah. Well, I've gotten a lot bigger but any questions or stuff? I had one that and just to clarify the park component with this. And the the residential development that you've done up there is beautiful stuff. I mean, I've been through it and stuff. It looks great. And they've got one part of the things already there for recreational components for that. But I want to make sure we understand this. Those are for the residents that live there. I can't use it. Commissioners can't use it. Okay. I just wanna make sure that it's it's important for the residents that live there, but it's not a community park where other people can come in and be able to

do that. That's right. That's that's fair statement. That's private.

Yeah. And once again, I just wanna clarify that we appreciate all that that they put in for for the people that live there, but it doesn't substitute for the fact that for a community park that we've gotten to that. Yeah. It doesn't doesn't that's just wanna clarify that. So because once again and I'm okay as long as the council the direction we're going and we'll eventually get a recommendation and move forward and stuff like this, make them aware that we're taking it off and that's fine. They can find another spot for it to be able to do that and that's perfectly fine. But the money doesn't necessarily have to be used to put a community park in. And the parks that are being done there that are amazing that they've gotten the development there, none of us can use unless we live there. Okay. That's fine.

And then there was one last thing if I may that I've neglected to mention, again, the prior comment regarding the, intersection connection there, Mira and Ooyala. But, in the traffic analysis, there was a signal recommended to help manage that traffic there. I should sure you're aware of that. Alright.

Alright. Any other questions for mister Crosby?

Okay. Real quick. Go ahead.

It seems to me recently, and this may also be answered by Daniel, that there was some question brought before the council regarding the lighting district in that area over there. I just wanna be assured that Marrow Way will be lit for street lights the same as it's lit in any other aspect of the community, any other street to that same standard.

Yeah. Absolutely. And, and, again, those those plans were developed, but if there's anything that's been, you know, evolved, since then, that will be refined before, you know, those go out to formal bid. Absolutely.

Okay. I'm good with that.

Thank you. At this time, we'd like to open the public hearing. And so if anyone I know we have some people that filled out forms. We're, of course, going to go ahead and announce your names. You could come up to the podium and address for the three minutes. I appreciate it. Excuse

me? Three minutes?

Let's wait for the

Oh, okay. Yeah. We gotta wait. I I don't know what the order is and stuff like that. Yeah. So they're gonna read off if you filled out one of the forms, they're gonna read it, and you'll come on up to do that one at that time. Sorry.

Delshawn McGowan.

How you doing? Good evening. Evening. My name is Delsha McClellan, and I'm a member of the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters. We have just about 6,500 members that live, work, and recreate in the vicinity of this project.

The Western States Regional Council of Carpenters are in support of the excuse me, the specific plan amendment as well as the future of the project. The developer has committed to work with contractors that will hire locally and utilize apprentices from a state certified apprenticeship training program. I would like to express my support for the future project as we believe that it will benefit the environment and the local economy by practicing protocols that will protect workers health and safety and incorporate adequate environment mitigations. Also, a project like this could create community wealth for the city of Rialto as well as these projects are mortgage paying wages for your constituents. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Lindsay Munoz.

Hello. Hello. So my name is Lindsay Munoz. I am born and raised here in Rialto. I'm I've seen firsthand the transformation in Rialto into a warehouse and logistics hub. I'm also currently finishing my master's program in urban and regional planning from Cal Poly Pomona. And I'm here to talk about the specific plan amendment. So in simple language, what is being requested is to change the land that was designated for public park and school and employment use into business center. In other words, industrial and general commercial. I don't know why you do an EIR on two warehouse two warehouses without wanting to build two warehouses in the spot.

Subsequent EIR considered two industrial warehouses that range from 50,000 to 375,000 square feet. We currently have 10 vacant warehouses spanning just under 3,000,000 square feet. Is the complete is the goal complete industrial build out? The the economic promise of jobs, there's this economic promise of jobs yet the only jobs are really coming in are these construction jobs to build the thing. Not these are these places are vacant.

Also, the project will generate greenhouse greenhouse gas emissions up to approximately 7,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year. The threshold set by South Coast Air Quality Management District for all new development projects is 3,000 metric tons. This project will exceed this threshold by 4,000 metric tons, which will be caused more by more than half which will which more than half will be caused by vehicle traffic. We are following in the footsteps of Ontario, Bloomington, San Bernardino, and Fontana in their mass warehouse development, all of which were ranked as having the worst air quality across The US by the American Lung Association and IQAIR. I've looked at specific and general plans.

The specific plan, and I quote states, Renaissance will be focused on the community. Renaissance offers spaces open spaces encouraged to out to encourage the enjoy the enjoyment of the outdoors. In this manner, Renaissance will facilitate walk to work, shop opportunities, and engender a sense of community and identity, end quote. In the land use element of the general plan general plan goal 2.9 states, and I quote, president protect residential schools, parks, and other sensitive land uses from the impacts associated with an industrial and truck related land uses, as well as commercial and retail areas. Goal 2.35 is reduce air pollution emissions from both mobile and stationary sources in the city.

I implore you to consider who this development benefits, who it who it negatively impacts, and why would why would you want to approve a development that inherently goes against the vision, health and will of the Rialto people? Thank you.

Thank you.

Claudia Cuevas.

Her name is Claudia Cuevas. Testing.

Here we go.

Today she's here to speak for the community. Park. For the plan of of the park. She does not wish for you to change the use of the park to industrial. That change does not benefit the community.

She is tired that the industrial parks are coming to the city. Since 2016, we have the the park project. Why has the park not been Why is the school not? Why are we allowing the industrial development to take away from the parks? We are two blocks away from From our schools.

And we are tired of having the big trucks transport. Baseline they currently using baseline as a truck route. The trucks have almost caused a car an accident with one of her coworkers. Yes. And She doesn't see a future when there are industrial parks.

We are current. Oh, Avenue 98. To see the big rigs coming into the city. So please. More schools, more recreational areas.

This is our community. We do not want any more warehouses We do not want any more children coughing because of allergies. And we do not want the air contamination. Pepper. Last year on Pepper.

They approved another warehouse. She lives 12 blocks from that warehouse. It's terrible to see that building right next to her When it was also designated for her community. Thank

you. Chair, yes, if I may. The rule is three minutes. Sure. But I believe staff has given her four minutes. It's up to the chair's discretion to give him the translation to give her a little bit more time. Yeah. To continue the finish her statement to do the translation.

Sure let's finish. Let me finish.

She would like to she would like for you to acknowledge that as a Spanish speaker, she has six minutes. Yeah. She's here for her community.

Yeah. Let's if you can just let's if you can complete your statement, we'd really appreciate it and stuff, but we'll give you the time to do it. So thank you. Go ahead. No. You're fine.

Go ahead. Thank you. No.

Go ahead. I'm fine.

She's been videotaping and taking images. To send it to the group of mothers who could not be here tonight. Who work. And who wanted to be here to utilize their voice. But sometimes they're frustrated. Because they are not being heard by the community. She believes that we are all here as a community. And And this all affects us at this moment.

Thank you. You.

Anna Gonzales.

Please try to remember that we it's three to do that. We don't wanna keep extending it to be able to do it. So if you're gonna come with new information or new stuff that hasn't been already spoken to, feel free. Thank you.

Alright. Good evening, planning commissioners. My name's Anna Gonzales. I'm the executive director at the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, the one that sent you the letter earlier. And wanted to clarify some of the comments that were made in regards to the inadequacy of the CEQA analysis, what we were trying to clarify was regarding the traffic analysis that was not conducted with current conditions of the cumulative impacts that Rialto residents are currently facing.

That was not addressed in the CEQA document. Document. So that's those are the kind of reports that we were trying to say that were inadequate inadequately analyzed in the CEQA documents. I wanted to throw some stats at y'all. So currently, there are 42,000 truck trips a day coming to the city of Rialto.

This proposal will we all know there's a project coming. There are once you rezone today and the council passes it, they're gonna apply. We all know Lewis Holmes and Hillwood are in the business of of warehouse building now, so let's be real. This will add up to three to 500 truck trips a day already to those 42,000 truck trips. There are like somebody mentioned, 10 vacant warehouses and 207 existing warehouses in the city of Rialto with seven under sequel review at the moment.

That equals 60,000,000 square feet of warehousing right now in the city of Rialto. And mister Mike Story, you brought up a really good point that made me do some research. So according to to the state, residents in the state of California need one park per every 2,300 residents. That equals to 49 parks in the city of Rialto. And I believe we only have about 11 or 12.

We have a lot to meet in green spaces. And for for a growing population, Gen Z'ers, millennials who are more actively engaging in exercise and a lot of fitness activities, we need to give the community these types of of amenities. We are also here to advocate for the diversification of jobs in our communities to not throw our eggs in one basket into warehousing. We can build better projects that will bring better jobs so our community doesn't have to drive to the cities of LA and Orange County and other communities for good paying jobs so they can meet their mortgages. And in regards to the sale agreement, we did not find any records that this land was available to other folks that wanted to build other things such as housing, and that's that's a concern, and that's what we meant by transparency.

And so I guess we'll have to put pull a public records request to get those information. And with s b four fifteen, by the way, Rialto PD and other local municipalities are now not in the jurisdiction of siding trucks. It is now under CHP because of a b 98 and the fix it bill that just came through the governor's office which is SB four fifteen. So something to think think about. Thank you.

Thank you. Next.

Tatiana Reyes. Good evening. My name is Tatiana Reyes. I'm a resident of Rialto. I'm here to give you a different view. I'm a CHP mortgage specialist so I've been dealing with trucks and warehouse for over twelve years. So GPS for the truck drivers, they're not updated. So they are like two or three years back. So the truck route, they're not updated. So we will go anywhere and we will stop traffic, park whatever is available.

Any warehouse, they don't allow overnight for deliveries or pickup. So the truck drivers will go anywhere in the city where it's available to park and wait for their appointment. So, we are looking to have truck drivers everywhere. If you don't believe me, when you open the warehouse by the other side of the freeway, the 210, there is a truck stop. I pass by every day there.

Their capacity is at maximum capacity. If you go over that road, the next to the 210, you will see truck drivers everywhere. On the empty spots that are there, the empty lamp, they will go in there and park in there. Also, on Renaissance, because there is enough space behind all the stores, if you go anywhere at nine, you will see truck drivers parked in there. So these warehouses that you're building is creating a big problem.

And like Anna mentioned it, the police is not allowed to do inspections on them. You have to be a certificate by the CHP, which I am. I can do inspections on new trucks. But the Rialto will not be able to cite or inspect that these truck drivers are in maximum and running good. I don't know if you know, if you truck driver is driving by the school or anything, it take two football camps or fields to complete stop.

So imagine passing by everyone in Rialto and a kid crosses tree or whatever, it take two football fields for a twenty six fifty three feet truck to stop. So please take this in consideration. If you don't believe me, go. Go over, see behind a renaissance, and you will see truck parked everywhere just waiting for their pickup or delivery time. So this will be messy when all these warehouse that are closed right now open.

Thank you. Thank you. Eva Ochoa.

What was it?

Eva Ochoa.

Okay.

Next. Pedro Molina. Yes.

Okay. Thank you. I was gonna take off, but this this this this location is close to the heart. So it's a setup guys. So they got the property as a still, $19,000,000, which which is a still by the way. They already they didn't expect to make that much money from the houses over a billion dollars. Second, this is a memorial. This is art school. I don't know if you guys remember, my favorite movie. It's Top Gun.

He used to be he used to be a stunt like a airplane guy. This is this is a memorial. You guys are getting rid of a memorial if you guys approve to change the zone. Second, Sam Samiro sold the property to Rialto City back in the sixties. So this was supposed to be kept as a airport because they got a grant for $15,000,000 by the state, and it changed. But, of course, things change. This is this is not right to get rid of a a memorial park, which it should be a memorial. There's nothing dedicated to the to the pilots. There were so many pilots in that airport that were my friends. No longer they they they were older guys.

Now our city's starting to look like the logo. There's no there's no oranges. Pure buildings. Right in the back, which is sad to see, but, you know, things change. The location, if guys think of you guys gonna find another park that has history like that that area, you won't be able to find it. It's it's a it's an it's a airport that's been known for so many years and it'll be the perfect place to do a memorial for for art art school. He that was his memorial area. Second, it's it's really sad that that we don't really have any any locations that are are known, like like in history. Like everything is all like, hey, what is Rialto known for? Hey, they have a lot of warehouses and nothing.

So Top Gun being making a memorial park that that's known. Riverside has one, and he was he was always in in the Rialto Airport doing stunts. He unfortunately died and and that move was dedicated to him, but I just wanted to stay and and talk about that because it would be a bad idea to approve it. Be they should be donating the property to their property to the city of Rialto. You you they Rialto's gave them so many so much business, which is makes me really upset that that that that's happening, but that's it.

Just wanted to stay and talk about it because it was close to the heart and my kids go to the park. They enjoy that that that fourth of July event. I wish it it could expand, maybe become a like a memorial park where it could be dedicated to the pilots. Rialto is no longer gonna have a report. So maybe just make it like a memorial for the for the pilots there. It's a nice place to, you know, have a lot of trees and just a perfect park. I don't know. But other than that, that's it. I wanted to stay and talk about that because I I I warehouses are are really like like I don't know. You gotta go to Big Bear to to see trees.

Not not not submit buildings. So I live here, so so that's why, you know, it's it's I wanted to come and stay and and and talk about this. So thank you so much.

Thank you. That

was all.

That's all? Okay. Very good.

Hearing that we can go ahead and close the public hearing and before we have any discussion or should what would you recommend?

Mr. Chair, if I may, I would recommend that you give the applicant an opportunity to respond to any of the comments that have come up before closing the public hearing.

Very good. Or staff. Correct? Or staff? Or just the applicant?

Just the applicant. Okay. Once the public hearing is closed, if you have further factual questions

We can do that. Any for mister Crosby or anything? Need to address any of this stuff? So

Just very quickly, I I just wanted to stress that there was a, full traffic scoping done for this project and full traffic analysis subsequent to that scoping. So it's been through full updated analysis for there. It's not it's not based on the 2016 report that that was referenced. So the it's all current, and everything that was analyzed is in the current report, that's in front of you tonight. So I just wanted to to clarify that. Also, just for the gentleman that just left, we actually named the main street that goes into the Renaissance Marketplace Shoal Way.

Correct.

So that's I think that's pretty significant, and we've everything all the Lennar Streets, if you've been in there, are named after, they they have basically aeronautical references and stuff. So so just just wanted to point that out because I think that's I I think we have tried to be, true to that and keep some of that, carry on. And I think that's it. I think the I think you're aware of the other items. Again, I know that there's the perception that these were, you know, owned facilities by the school district or owned by the city of Fort Park, but they were they were truly just in land designation only.

So they were always predicated on those agencies' ability to acquire that and and build those facilities, those economics just aren't here today. So just wanted to clarify that last piece. If there are any other questions or clarifications available.

We're good. Thank you, Glenn. So now to close it or just can the commission ask questions as of how it's the

best approach? This commission if the commission has more questions for, like, clarification questions for staff Chris for staff. Yeah. Then I would ask the questions to staff and just keep it very limited Okay. To that.

Any questions for staff? Daniel, what's the this has been to the EDC, I'm assuming, at some point in time before the March 24 action to be able do it. It went to the EDC. And the council, the current council made that And they're aware that their recommendation of is as part of this is the removal of the park and and as part of this agreement to do that.

Yeah. I believe three of the current council members were on the council at the time that the purchase and sale agreement was approved. Right.

And and then the twenty fourth was the one that to move it move it forward. Right? Is that what we're we're talking about?

Mhmm.

What was the name of the park gonna be?

I'm not aware of a name for the park.

They never got to work.

They never?

I don't believe that. Okay. Yeah. I don't believe that's So

any other questions for staff? No. I'll entertain a motion to close the public the

closure. Okay.

Motion by Commissioner Estavander, seconded by Mr. Crowell. Commissioner Crowell. All those in favor of closing the public hearing signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Hearing none, public hearing is closed. Commission, what's your pleasure? Discussion?

Move to adopt the attached resolution exhibit G, h, and I, thereby forwarding to the city council a recommendation to certify the final subsequent environmental impact report assessment review number two zero two four dash zero zero two five, approve the Pacific Plan amendment number 2024Dash0005, and approve the first amendment to the development agreement between the City of Rialto and Lewis Hillwood Rialto Company LLC based on the findings therein.

Is there a second?

I second it.

A second. Okay.

We just go to the motion or there's no more discussion once the motion's been set, right? Council, I mean, sorry,

the commission would like to discuss, question hasn't been called yet. Okay.

So first, I just wanna thank everybody for coming and addressing and and with their positions and what's gonna do that. I just wanna make sure we hear it and everything, and we'll just move forward with a we have a motion and a second. So all those in favor of the motion and the second signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Hearing none, the motion carries five zero. Thank you so much for coming for the pub that public hearing. Thank you. Moving on the agenda, there's no action items are identified there. So we'll turn it over to miss Taylor, our community development director for any comments. Thank

you, chair and commission. Our next scheduled meeting is November

November 19. Nineteenth. Do not have any items.

Okay. So if that changes in the next few days, we will let you know, but, be looking at your email for a potential cancellation of the November 19 meeting. We do anticipate having the first meeting in December, which I believe

one of our

items was continued to that date. So at a minimum, you can expect a December 4 meeting.

Yes. So December the next meeting then?

Likely, yes. Like I said, if anything changes in the next few days, we'll let you know. But, just keep an eye on your email and, we'll get something out to you one way or another to

confirm. Okay. Move to adjourn. Except we have planning commission reports and comments. Does anyone have any comments or questions or they would like to address the staff or anything to do that? Of course, Terry does.

So I

was like

Throughout the evening, I've noticed people watch me with my cell phone. So to qualm any concerns, I'm not talking to anybody. Yeah. I'm controlling my hearing aids.

So

if you see me on it, and I'm getting new ones hopefully Friday, then I won't have to do this. But right now, they're controlled by this, and that's why I will occasionally pick it up and look at it to make sure that I'm hearing everything that's being said Okay. For both sides. Right. Because the acoustics in this room are terrible.

I'm sorry. Can't hear you. What did you say?

It's all

I said.

Okay. Fine. I'm sorry.

They're bad, but Yeah.

It was very good in 1960.

Yeah. Alright. What am I complaining about?

Exactly. Any other comments or

now for me.

I have a question. Yes. Mom doesn't speak English. So just for future, so that way that incident doesn't happen again. I was under the impression that it was also double the time when there's an interpreter. And it's going back and forth Spanish and English. So for my mom's sake if she ever wants to come and ask questions or comment, I want to know and for the record for anybody watching just to keep on the record what is the what is the rule for that? I was embarrassed honestly when she said you guys need to learn your jobs and know what my time is and I I want to know and the public to know and if anybody doesn't speak English, I need them to know what their rights are.

Commissioner, that's a very good question and we'll verify that rule. I don't know it offhand at the moment, but I will we'll look into it and let you know.

Thank you.

Any other comments or questions? Is there a motion to adjourn?

To adjourn.

Second? Second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Meeting's adjourned. Thank you.