Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

e e e e

e e e e

e e e e

good evening uh commission meeting of January 22nd will come to order all rise for the Pledge of Allegiance I pledge allegiance to the of the United States of America and to the Republic for it stands one nation God indivisible with liy and justice for all secretary will call Ro please commissioner Tolson here commissioner Kennedy here commissioner rice here vice chairperson mayor here chairperson man here uh before we proceed down the agenda we're going to make a couple quick changes first um some of you may or may not know but our mayor Fred Thomas passed away so we're going to start our meeting with a moment of silence and friend's behalf thank you one and all appreciate it uh the second item that we're going to be changing is item 12a three the North Canyon project also dealing with the annexation the city is going to request that that be pulled to a date certain of April 9th so we will not be hearing anything on that today however under public comments if you wish to speak tonight you are more than welcome if you want to delay your

public comments until the April 9th meeting you're free to do that as well it's certainly your Choice all we ask is that if you do have a statement to make under public comment fill out one of the green cards and we will call you up um you can speak tonight and again on April 9th whatever is your pleasure is prely up to you but it was a last minute decision that the city is going to request that it be pulled to a date certain of April 9th so sorry that we did not have that information earlier so if you wish to stay you are more than welcome if you don't want to say anything under public comments you can certainly leave without a problem and to follow up with that chairman man the um we may actually open that public hearing item they could speak under the agenda item okay and you may wish if you choose is to push that item to the first item move 1283 to the first um item heard tonight to accelerate that process if the commission desires okay so again just you can either speak on it we will call it but we will not be hearing it other than public comment or you can wait to make your public comment on the 9th if you're available or you can certainly make them today they'll be on the record and we'll have them for the April 9th meeting so again sorry for the inconvenience of having you come out here but we will not be making a decision on that annexation I.E the north northern North Canyons Northern Canyons project I'm sorry there were just too many issues that at hand with the city my understanding is that they weren't prepared to present tonight 6:30 yeah April 9 should be a Wednesday Planning Commission meeting 6:30 back here okay moving

on uh if we do do we will move it up to item number um 12 it'll be the first one on 12 12 uh yes we could probably take care of that motion now if the agenda wants to be um relocated for the majority of the commission do we want to do it before election of officers they just open up 12 now is what you I I would do it after election of officers and approval minutes be the first item got it okay so with that our first item of business is the election of officers uh you have the script correct yes uh good evening this is the time and place set for the nomination of election of the Planning Commission chairperson and vice chairperson for 2025 the SEI valy Municipal Code provides that prior to any vote of the office of chairperson of the deputy director city planner myself may take all nominations for the office of chairperson all nominations must receive a second anyone receiving a nomination may vote for themselves the floor is now open for nominations for the office of chairperson I would like to nominate uh commissioner klingman for uh the position of chairperson second Chrisman sorry I'm reading the wrong we miss I'm reading the wrong script I'm sorry okay for point of clarification that would be Vice chair mayor Chris Chrisman sorry I'm reading my notes we're not adding a new person onto the I'm reading off the project on the Das yes sorry okay you're taking notes of this okay and we had a second uh all second oh sorry we have two seconds I he a third second by um Kennedy pick

one any other nominations Carl you want to be chair check it okay so um for procedural purposes now poll the Planning Commission on the motion to Nom to uh accept commissioner Chrisman as the um New chairperson for 2025 please go ahead and vote motion passes unanimously congratulations chair Chrisman congratulations then before we uh relocate our seats U let's go ahead and take the um nomination for vice chairperson in the same manner okay I'll make a motion to um appoint uh commissioner Kennedy as Vice chair second my microphone was already on I beat you to it okay second my man okay any other uh nominations still your chance okay hearing none um let's go ahead and uh take a a vote on that motion passes unanimously okay congratulations now the um new chairperson and vice chairperson can take their spots in the uh maybe proper seats maybe maybe warming up okay fine

so just moment we'll rearrange the name plates so we all know who we're speaking to e may I make a motion may I have a motion for approval of the agenda a motion to approve the agenda uh actually you know what hang on a minute as I give you my notes let's move up item 12 A3 to uh as soon as we get through the approval of the minutes and the agenda so we can open up the public comment section of that as was discussed okay um are you making a motion amend it yes to move uh 12 uh 1283 to item six seven to the first public hearing so it should be

11a oh 11a yes right at the beginning of 12 got it second I have a motion made by commissioner man and second by commissioner tulson call for vote oh oh just go with consensus okay unless there's any objections the agenda stands approved as amended amended may have a motion for approval of the minutes move to approve the minut on December 4th 2024 SEC a motion was made by commissioner rice and was uh with with a second by commissioner tulson unless there is any objections the minutes are approved the secretary the secretary will read the Declaration of conflict are there you're you're going to read it first this is my first time it's not actually if any member of the Planning Commission may have a conflict of interest or any reason why that member must abstain from consideration of any matter on this agenda he or she should so declare at this time are there of conflict hearing none move on right this is the time allotted for public statements or comments on all items other than public hearing items is there anyone in anyone in the chamber wishing to be heard yeah go ahead if you can uh if you can come up state your name and your residence okay you'll have that

opportunity shortly thank you thank you is there anybody else who wishes to be heard is there any correspondence from the deputy director city planner yes chairperson Chrisman and members of the Planning Commission we received several supplementals uh one supplemental on item 12 A1 a second supplemental on 12 A1 a supplemental on 12 A2 and a supplemental on 12 A3 and a supplemental on 13 A1 regarding the four hearings tonight and those have all been provided to you at at the dis and also available to the public there's no consent today okay um so we're going to go to the public hearing yeah we'll go to 12 A3 12 A3 oh okay thank you okay do I read the whole yes now we're on to the public hearing pd- s-1 054 NX 007 NX 2024

00001 GPA 0073 Zs 0613 Zs 2024 00005 and TT 5658a svgv Partners LLC to consider an annexation n ex77 General plan Amendment GPA 73 zone change Zs 0613 plan development permit PDS 1054 and tentative map TT 5658a to Annex and sub subdivide an approximately uh one 16032 acre of site for a 207 unit residential development considered considering what 157 single family residences 50 multifam units and open space located between the northern Terminus of First Street and the intersection arer Road and Falcon Street and annexation of County Island properties n ax 2024 00001 Associated pre- zonings Zs 2024 00005 and intend to adopt the environmental impact report and mitigation monitoring and Reporting program for the project are there any experte Communications to report since we're not going to do an oral report on this matter uh can I open it for public hearing actually I'll just say a couple words in May I have an oral report on this matter by staff uh yes chairman Chrisman and members of the Planning Commission uh staff is recommending a continuous to a date certain for this project uh staff has identified some issues that warrant a continuance of this matter and we're

recommending a date certain to April 9th 2025 to address those concerns and the applicant has been aware of this request um we would also um like uh commissioner man said earlier if any members of the public wish to speak tonight on this item we have their speaker cards and we will call out those names you have the opportunity to speak tonight particularly if you may not be available April 9th um but you could State your um concerns or your comments so um if uh concurrence by the commission that'd be my suggested action we will open the public testimony uh portion of the hearing would how applicant's not going to speak right are there question I'm sorry I'm I'm trying to kind of get to the to the point where we have is there anyone in the chamber wishing to be heard on this matter and I can read the cards uh Emily Walker David moso evening commission and good evening City staff David moso 44 year resident SEI Valley district one uh I'm initially against uh full annexation of all the island communities I just would like to bring forth some questions or Andor concerns um I'd like to inquire are there development projects slated for

all of these islands that would be listed uh in this annexation uh and it's my understanding annexation cannot be forced it must uh require consent and if forcing annexation can be done to Encompass all the island communities within SEI Valley's sphere of influence please provide the California law and the section specific if you don't mind is there any reason annexation can't be addressed at the time of each uh and or any development project within each single annexation or is there reason that it must be done and encompassed entirely how does the tax revenue change if an island Community is annexed and how that uh affects the tax revenue to the city and does the the annexation count as homes being added uh under the California requirements or state requirements so in other words if these are existing homes Within These annexed Islands by annexing them does that count as you added homes when we really didn't add homes they were already existing but they were within our community and is there any concerns with any of the island communities drinking water that is of of any specific attention here uh and is it not meeting criteria is that one of the reasons maybe that we're looking at some of the annexations and is there any disadvantages to the annexations if they're sought at the time of any future developments in other words we know the project North Ranch is is an active one that's looking to move forward within I guess an Annex Community or wish to be Annex Community if that only annexation for that one sector is annexed and we can do the others later is there any

disadvantage to that to the city cost Financial you know development or whatnot thank you thank you next speaker is uh Jan Leah maybe I'm pronouncing it wrong good evening um I just wanted to express I know all of you are elected officials and represent the city of SEI Valley but unfortunately it doesn't represent the people who are actually going to be affected by this which is we're all part of Ventura County and you would be annexing us we didn't request the annexation a developer did and I would just like to express that I hope that in making a decision that the you would put consideration to how we feel about being annexed I know there's people that are going to speak either tonight or later on why they do not approve but it's in essence we're being and we're not being represented even though we have a voice in government and should we're not getting that voice because all we can do is come here but there's been no Vote or no no nothing has been done to see if us we who are being affected really want this annexation and there are a lot of things that it will change and people moved into that area of the city yet we abide

by your laws and anything that we have to but they moved there for a certain reason they purchased properties in those are our areas because they weren't part of the city and not part of the city laws and a lot of them have to do with animals and so forth but I would hope that somehow we would be pulled or looked at and seeing what our consideration is and I would wonder why it wasn't if we didn't ask for it why it would be forced upon us thank you yeah thank you our next speaker is Jamie dag can you please come up and state your name and residence city of residence jamy d d a g that's how I read it next one is David Dave Dave Hardy speak did M oh yeah you did I'm sorry um Mary Mary erel is also in opposition and she doesn't want to speak as well Matt bankr Matt bankrupt Jody boft I'm guessing they're together um bony Canfield she does not want to speak but is in opposition Mike Jones is in opposition and doesn't want to speak Constantino clario is in opposition and doesn't want to speak Cecilia Jones is in opposition and

doesn't want to speak uh ver orth um Vern orth okay Sheila Joshua Galvin be Beatrice gorin Garen sorry gutay I live in see me Valley here um we live in um Big Sky Canyon Sky country and so just um the issue is that Falcon is going to be more of a thoroughfare that's going to be opening up all the way to First Street so we're just very concerned of the traffic uh that's going to be impacting in that area since right now it's a very quiet area uh also we are interested to find out if uh the bus is going to be going through that street we prefer that no we don't we don't have that because it's going to bring again we're already leading with a lot of crime in the area um of SEI Valley recently we got robbed um not too long ago so we um are very concerned about uh the increased traffic that's going to be generated and just the movement in the area right now it's totally quiet there's nobody there could the street does not go through so we'd like to get some answers uh in more detail of how the impact of traffic is going to affect the area we also think that um because people may use that area to go all the way through through uh uh uh through First Street they might come through our street which is um right adjacent to Falcon uh which is Milestone so we think that people coming through a injure through uh Lost Canyons are going to be caking our street so that's going to be a generation of increased traffic and so what plans do you have so that that does not happen are there Street

bumps will you put gates up what is it what are you going to be doing so that it doesn't disturb our quality of life okay thank you thank you next speaker is I'm I'm gonna butcher this arpad gutsy same I'm I'm her husband so uh first of all I want to let you know how sad we are that Fred passed away that was very very sad um on the other side um I'm curious as to why the development that is being planned back there is being Comm commingled with the annexation of the Islands to me those are two separate issues they need to be separated uh I'm hearing different things but um that's what I'd like to understand is why that's being done thank you thank you I'm going to try and call those people again or was is there anybody body else who wishes to speak with that um I would close the public comments right now you don't want to close if there's no further question we will close the public Madam chair I I think the correct motion would be to continue the public hearing to April 9th 2025 the hearing will remain open until that time and you can gather additional evidence at that point okay yes and I just if I could say a couple items to respond so um thank you for everyone coming out to

speak tonight um these comments and questions are very helpful and in light of the um item being uh continued we are going to prepare a written response to these comments and provide that at the next meeting in the interim if any of you would like to reach out to myself or the planning department to get some try to get some answers before that our doors are open you could contact myself or Elizabeth directly to follow up on those questions to get a sooner response and it might um provide some additional information that you could work with in the interum so we are available for that so I'm I'm putting that out there thank thank you Sean um may I have the motion to continue the hearing on to a April 8th 9th 2025 a motion to continue the hearing on item 12 A3 to date certain of April 9th 2025 may I have the second second with motion made by chairperson man and second by uh commissioner Le oh you're not a chairperson anymore no I'm using commissioner I upgraded you and second by commissioner Lee um what did I do call for vote consensus oh with with a consensus that's how we're going to do with a consensus we're going to continue the hearing um to April 9th 20 25 on item 123 okay my next public do we just continue with a

regular I'm going more prepared the next this is the time and place set for a public hearing on the consideration of cup s 2023 00004 and a mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring and Reporting uh program thereof are there any experte communication to report may we have an oral report on this matter by staff yes ch person Chrisman this is the continued public hearing to um consider a new 66,000 square foot um industrial building and manufacturing business in our West End area at 615 West Los Angeles avenet was continued back from August for uh comments received and um staff is uh recommending uh recommended approval we provided a couple supplemental reports on this matter and to present the project as associate planner Alex clingman good evening planning Commissioners the applicant Walter pulawa with pack group request approval of a conditional use permit to construct a 664 31t industrial tilt up building for warehousing and manufacturing of Bakery ingredients on a 7.67 acre vacant site and the adoption of a mitigated negative declaration due to a lack of Quorum at the August 7th Planning Commission meeting it was cancelled and the

planning excuse me the public hearing for the project was continued to the following meeting on August 21st however to allow staff more time to address the environmental concerns and comments received the hearing was continued and re noticed ahead of tonight's meeting the project is located at 615 West Los Angeles Avenue and is surrounded by a railroad and vacant land to the North West Los Angeles Avenue and City facilities to the South alos Creek and a recently approved Industrial Development to the west and vacant land for Industrial Development to the east the proposed building will include an approximately 38,500 ft² warehouse space a 21,000 ft² manufacturing area and a 6,600 ft office and mezzanine the facility will be staffed with 46 office and Warehouse employees and there will be a total of 91 parking spaces for both public and employee use located on the West and East sides of the building two new driveways will be constructed from West Los Angeles to access the parking areas and the four loading docks on each side of the building construction of the project will require approximately 30,000 cubic yards of excavation and 19,000 cubic yards of fill project improvements will remain at least 100 ft away from the top of the bank of Alamos Creek to the West the top of the bank is shown here in green and the 100t buffer is outlined in blue the project will provide approximately 61,800 Square ft of landscaping which complies with the West End specific plan

requirement of 15% five Coast Live Oaks and two Peruvian pepper trees will be removed from the site to accommodate the proposed project to mitigate the loss of these trees the applicant is required to plant replacement trees on site or pay into the city's tree mitigation fund oak trees will need to be mitigated at a ratio of 3:1 to comply with the West End specific plan a 77 ft long and 15 ft High concrete tilt up wall will also be provided on the west side of the building to screen the loading docks from view on West Los Angeles Avenue the loading docks located on the east side of the building will be screened by the building wall and Landscaping a landscape buffer area will screen the South and West portions of the building along West Los Angeles Avenue through the use of trees shrubs and ground cover and the East portion of the site will be screened by a landscaped firm as shown here on the slide the proposed building will be 44 ft and 3 in in height which complies with the 48t maximum height Allowed by the West End specific plan the exterior of the building will consist of concrete tilt up walls in varying Shades of Gray with copper colored tile and corrugated metal siding accents and building entries will be emphasized with bronze aluminum Framing and windows will be dual glazed with a green tint metal awnings will be provided over windows and loading docks and all roof mounted equipment will be completely screened by an 8ft high parapet wall lastly retaining walls ranging from 1T to 6 and 1/2 ft in height will be

constructed along the South and West edges of the parking area and building Landscaping will be provided in front of the walls to soften their appearance as shown on this table and detailed on page six of the staff report the proposed structure meets the height setbacks Landscaping off street parking and load requirements of the development code and the West End specific plan an initial study was prepared for the project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality act based on the conclusions of the initial study it was determined that the project would not have any potential significant environmental impacts with the incorporation of 17 mitigation measures which are provided as exhibit d of the report therefore a mitigated negative Declaration was prepared for the project and was available for a 30-day public review period from July 8th through August 7th following this review period a total of 11 comment letters were received primarily related to the biology and air quality sections of the ism and the comment letters are included in exhibit seven of the report in response to the comment letters received the applicants Consultants reviewed the project and the Environmental Studies and provided a comprehensive response to comments also included in exhibit 7 the city's consultant and City staff also reviewed these responses and concurred with the conclusion that no avoidable significant effects have been identified and no new m ation measures or project revisions are required to

reduce potential impacts of the project minor revisions were made to the Project's conditions ISM and and mitigation measures for clarity and were provided in exhibit 5 staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider a resolution approving the proposed conditional use permit and the Project's mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring and Reporting program also a late letter was received from Mitchell MSI law firm and the comments received were determined to not affect the adequacy of the ism andd in responses to these comments were provided to you as a second supplemental report and this concludes staff's presentation and we're available for any questions any questions of staff yes thank you commissioner cling I mean sorry uh Miss klingman um do we know um the projected hours of operation or should we just wait for the applicant to answer that question the applicant can speak on that okay and then another question just because I'm ignorant of this um do you know what a incidental take permit is it has to do if they find a crotch is Bumblebee or one of those other things I looked it up but I still didn't understand what it was it it's basically an authorization from the fish and wildlife uh Department of Fish and Wildlife to take that species basically to um is it to relocate it or take it yeah to take it okay if they may require relocation they may require mation decide what to do with it they provide so it's separate permit

sufficient Wildlife will provide at that time okay all right thank you any other questions of Staff heing none we will open the public testimony portion of the hearing thank you would the applicant like to present the project can you please state your name my name is Brian Paquin I'm with PK architecture with the architect for the project and we're here with also our Consultants we have environmental Consultants landscape architect civil engineer and us if you guys have any questions about the project this is Walt Pula wa he is the client and uh he might have a few words about the operation because you just had ask some questions about the hours of operation I Walt post to waight with Pat group uh president for North America to answer your question regarding our operating hours intended operating hours for the office space will only be one shift probably 7:00 a.m. to about 5: or 6 p.m. manufacturing which will be a much lighter employee workload might go to the second or third shift but that would not be at least for the first two to three years if we get the business to where we want want to yes we would have a second Poss a third shift but it would be very light it' be very low number of employees working those shifts I respond okay so if you had a third shift let's say you super successful okay you have a third shift and you're saying your third shift would be really light in other words is what you're telling me yes both the second and third would be light all all

shipping would have to be done during during regular business hours okay that's kind of where I was going with this whole thing anyway so yeah I would not I wouldn't expect it to impact traffic at all okay all right thank you oh I had one other question that can I ask well is he gonna present the project or are are you gonna present your project where um well I I think Alexandra presented it pretty well I there's not a whole lot to add to to it um but we are here to answer any questions I have Leon Newman the landscape architect if you want to talk about Oak Tre landscape and such we have the environmental Consultants that dealt with some of the environmental questions and responded back fairly rigorously on that um we have our civil engineer if you had any questions about the grade in grades um storm water anything like that but I think Alexander did a pretty good job of presenting the project so um if there's any questions you have about the elevations um but I I think she talked about the materials that we were using um she addressed the height of the building that were within the um requirements of the city um we screened all the trucking um we I think we have Quality Landscaping around the project we had to deal with the railroad behind this was a fairly complicated project from a planning point of view to deal with and we're grateful for the planning department to help us get through this and be here today so we thank you for hearing this now um so but if you have any questions we have a whole bunch of people here that can answer anything that uh you need to ask thank you are there any questions for the applicant chair person can ask one and one more question okay um I noticed uh in our um letters that you had a number of letters from like the Santa Monica Mountains conservancy and mountains Recreation and conservancy and they referenced a a certain amount of open space but yet this project as it's presented to us has

more open space than what they're referencing did you change the amount of open space um since those letters or they referencing a different amount than what you have and it and they keep referencing one amount and your amount is seems to be but two acres more than what they reference I I I mean we our plans haven't changed okay I mean those letters came along after pretty much most of the project was fairly welldeveloped and the the planning department had reviewed the project thoroughly so nothing's changed there is a fair a large open space kind of almost like a semi- Wetlands on the one it's a big difference and it seemed kind of strange to me are all it's all been calculated by our civil engineer and I think the numbers are all accurate so okay um thank you that's all I had anybody else yeah can can I get a um maybe from Mr postwe the just the nature of the business and who your customers are and sure service we're a food ingredient manufacturer uh we're owned by a company it's global company based in Turkey but we run the North American Division right now we're headquartered in Pasadena we use third parties to do our manufacturing right now so what what Co C- packing or to toll processing we're trying to get that under all all our one roof and that's what this facility is for basically the manufacturing will be dry blending of Bakery ingredients so we sell ingredients that go into industrial baking Dave's Killer Bread some of the consumer products you'll see on the store shelves here any of your major stores Outlets um and that's what we would be manufacturing so it's large and industrial manufacturing for dry blending um what is the timeline for your project for development and as fast as we can move it forward uh we're growing at a pretty good clip right now and we'd like to get into this facility as quickly as you can we'll need to hire

anywhere from 10 to probably 25 people initially just to open the doors and we're looking forward to that thank you a little bit um as far as timeline probably looking at um 3 months or so for construction docks 3 to four months for construction drawings four months probably for plan check and then it's probably a 9 to 10 month build for construction so that roughly would be the time frame thank you anybody else has questions is there any is there anyone in the chamber wishing to be heard on this matter oh I have thank you thank you thank you uh Pedro Tuscano hello good evening Commissioners uh let me open up my notes thank you very much for please state your name and your city of residence yes ped Toscano uh I'm a member of the western states Regional Council of Carpenters I live locally uh near the the area of this construction project and I recreate around it too um there's a campsite right around the the ways there and I put my family up on my uh camper truck when they come into town so um I believe I will be impacted by the environmental impacts of the project this City should require the project to be built with con contractors that will hire locally pay prevailing wage and utilize apprentices from a certified apprenticeship program with that I want I would like to point out that Simi Valley uh most of us have our kids you

know that go to from uh to the high school there they just implemented anou with the Carpenters to implement their our curriculum there they have a CTE program construction training of education and none of these kids have ever worked locally they all work far because developers bring their own construction from elsewhere Workforce requirements reduce construction related environmental impacts while benefiting local economy and Workforce Development in a recent 2020 report titled putting California on the High Roads a jobs climate action for 20130 the California Workforce Development board concluded that investments in growing diversifying upscaling California's Workforce can positively affect Returns on climate mitigation efforts the South Coast Air Quality Management District recently found that local higher requirements can result in air pollution reductions recently the state of California reiterated its commitment towards encouraging Workforce Development and housing affordability through the affordable housing High Roads job act of 202 to otherwise known as assembly Bill 2011 which requires project to pay workers a prevaling wage and hire from State Certified apprenticeship programs for projects meeting C certain sitting affordability and development standards thank you again for your time thank you yeah next speaker is Chase forato good evening planning Commissioners my name is Chase and I represent safer the supporters the WAN for environmental responsibility and its members living working and recreating in and around the city of SEI Valley safer has reviewed the SEI pack project and believed that it is improper to proceed

with a mitigated negative decoration we respectfully urge the city not to adopt the M&D and to instead prepare an environmental impact Report with the limited time I had this evening I would like to highlight a couple reasons why first seet prohibits the use of an M andd if there is substantial evidence of a fair argument that the project may have an adverse effect on biological resources such as special status species Wildlife movement and habitat loss safer retained expert e colleges Dr Sean Smallwood during a site visit performed by his associate numerous Wildlife species were identified on or around the project site including several special status species these findings reinforce his conclusions that the project will adversely impact how Wildlife currently move throughout and inhabit the project site these findings also complement the biological resource reports prepared for this project which not only also identified special status species on or near the project site but also identified a federally endangered species theise Bell's Viro near the site as Dr Smallwood notes however the M&D fails to adequately assess these concerns or provide efficient mitigation measures to reduce the Project's impacts to a level below significant thresholds additionally secet prohibits the use of an MMD if there is substantial evidence of a fair argument that the project may have an adverse effect on air quality safer retained Dr Clark of kin Associates to review the project and concluding that not only are some conclusions reached in the M&D not supported by substantial evidence but that the project May violate the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District's guidelines related to odor impacts and nuisance as long as As a result of the Project's operations additionally given the recent news about valley fever and the high occurrence of cases in the region the M&D must provide more adequate safeguards to protect those out or near the project site during construction for the forgoing reason saf or respect we request the Planning Commission not approve the M&D and prepare a more adequate adequate

analysis of the Project's impacts in an eir thank you thank you is there anybody else who wishes to be heard are there any comments from staff regarding statements made during the public hearing yes I'll start uh backwards I'll start with air quality um comments raised on air quality regarding odor impacts um we did have an air quality report prepared for the project and um we did analyze odors for the project and it was determined that dry blending ingredients with no type of heating or cooking or organic solvents would result in little to none odor generation odor generation's unlikely for this type of project the building's also designed with ventilation systems that have to be approved by the city and the ventur County Air Pollution Control District they also did um provide comments on the initial study in M&D and didn't determine any odor impacts for that regarding valley fever um standard construction practices and control measures are required under rule 55 to minim minimize the risks of valy fever um health risks to construction workers and exposure to Value fever are not effects that are considered squa issues rather they're related to work safety so they were not analyzed in the environmental impact um analysis regarding the um biological issues raised the least Bells viira was um studied in the biology report for the project and it was determined that they would have um they would not be present at this project site however there were mitigation measures Incorporated that if

by chance any of them were um they there would have to be pre-construction surveys to occur uh to to determine that um if anything was found construction would have to Halt um and be reported to the US um fish and wildlife Service as well um there's also mitigation that requires the project to remain at least 100 ft away from that Almo Creek buffer um and that would apply to that section I believe that addresses all of the the concerns thank you maybe one more comment from staff Wildlife movement was also brought up in the comments and we just want to show one slide with regard to that more yeah so the the W the main Wildlife Corridor here is Alamos Creek um and the 100 ft buffer you can see is the blue line and you can see the different fueld mods around the proposed building and the field mod that the fire department requires does not extend into the almus Creek area as such the the main Wildlife Corridor that the the habitat that Wildlife uses to move from north to south will not be Ed thank you thank you would the applicant like to respond to any of the comments regarding statements made during the public hearing we have our environmental consultant here to address these concerns as well thank you hi I'm I'm Amber Heredia I'm with s Miss and we prepared the biological

report I just wanted to clarify Alexander already explained um answered the questions but I just wanted to explain a little bit more um we did all of the required surveys which um we did a focus survey for California KN catchers we did special sets plant surveys um and we did a focus survey for crotches bumblebee um the area along the creek is the habitat that if if it were more welldeveloped it would be potential habitat for lease Bells Viro um but it's it's not it doesn't have much understory habitat it has some of the um rip pairing habitat features but it's not enough to be occupied by leas bells varo that could change over time um when we were out doing the survey for crotches Bumblebee the biologist um is very well qualified to also do bird surveys and he heard a leb's videoo um on the other side of the railroad tracks which is a much bigger well-developed raring forest and so he recorded it and reported it um as we're required to by our permits into the California natural diversity database um there is a requirement to do a pre-construction nesting bird survey um so before construction starts there would be a nesting bird survey to make sure there's no um nesting birds of any kind common or special status that would be impacted by vegetation clearing and if at that time there were a leas Bells Viro along the creek and then there would be a protective buffer placed around that Nest so that it wouldn't be affected by the construction activities and the habitat would not be taken because it's it's in the Creek area that is not going to be impacted by the project um he also brought up the the wildlife Corridor and um as staff explained um the the creek is going to remain um so that Corridor will still be open it is a constrained like kind of

narrow linkage for wildlife but that's just sort of the nature of it's already in a fragmented area and the habitat's going to remain there even after the project um we also in some of our responses um showed where the lighting would be um and that the vegetation would screen some of the lighting from from the development um so that should help reduce the indirect impacts on the creek I than that's everything that he mentioned were there any other questions about the biology no thank you all right I I do have question that is not but hi my name is uh Tim Rosenstein uh I wrote the air quality uh report for the project um and uh I just want to say that the um our response to comments is you know pretty comprehensive and I would just refer you to that um the the basic thing is the um comment letter doesn't provide any substantial evidence of a of a fair argument uh like nothing in the letter Rises to the to the threshold of substantial evidence it's all just uh you know conjecture and uh um uh statements without supporting facts um valley fever uh the project is required to uh follow rule 55 uh which is um uh taking care of uh dust being dust being tracked out of the site uh watering down uh Disturbed sites uh covering up uh stored soil things like that those are literally the measures that the uh air pollution control control distri district um says you should Implement to

control valley fever um and just to add to something that wasn't uh in the uh uh response to comments letter uh I I didn't realize at the time rule 55 the air pollution control control District's guidelines um have two different sections about uh uh controlling dust and uh and I mentioned this in the letter rule 55 came after those guidelines so rule 55 um takes the previous recommendations and the guidelines and and puts it all in one document so that is that is the one and only thing that the Air Pollution Control District recommends that you do for valley fever is Implement rule 55 um uh and then the the probably the biggest uh issue is there are no sensitive receptors within a distance of the facility that would be impacted by any any sort of construction um uh emissions uh the near sensor receptors are more than half a mile away um and uh simply uh um you are not going to get a significant impact when you're following all the rules with diesel particulate or dust or anything like that um and then uh uh and then anything having to do with operations that's all a matter of Regulatory Compliance that's uh taken care of by the building code is taken care of by state law um there's uh uh and again this is all to say that there's no substantial uh evidence that there would be any significant impact um and so our response is basically basically just to explain what control measures are out

there and what the reg regulatory environment is because it it really takes care of it yeah yeah just if you could kind clarify I wasn't going to bring it up but since you're up here uh on the uh it said the uh Cal e uh version that you guys were using was outdated and there was some discussion about whether uh those levels changed in in in that that Version Control can you kind of clarify that yeah um at the time the uh 2022 version of Cali mod was uh new um it was uh kind of a beta version that had been out for you know not very long um and uh in no jurisdictions um we're requesting the use of it yet we we contacted the air pollution control control district and asked them uh should we be using the 2022 version and they said we don't use it we don't recommend um you know projects that lead Agency for use it because it has bugs in it uh so we stuck with the 2020 version and um there's no there's no refinements to the 2022 version that makes it significantly more accurate really uh mostly what happens with the 2022 version is there I mean there are some refinements in that vein but mostly it's just an update of all the data that the program pulls from and so actually you'll see um if you because I've run a 2020 and subsequently a 2022 uh Cali mod on the same project you'll actually see the 2022 output is usually lower like most everything is usually lower uh particulate matter tends to be about the same as the

previous but everything's lower because um it's pulling from uh updated uh uh vehicle emissions profiles um it's pulling from updated um uh energy energy uh providers they're how they're producing their energy you know they're getting away from fossil fuels and doing more wind energy and things like that so um so on a just on a is it adequate uh matter yes the the air District who is the authority on what what makes a good you know air quality review uh in in the district said use 2020 um so it is adequate for squa and then just uh simply uh logistically there's nothing built into the 2020 version that would make when you run them back toback that would make it Superior in any way it's it's not it's it's updated but it's not it's not a better it's not a it's easier to use I like it better but it's not from a secret perspective there's you know very little difference thank you yep thank you are there any other questions for the applicant I have a question for the applicant I'm sorry I'm making you walk walk in your steps you have a question for me or for w i I have a question one question it are there any plans uh to to hire local um labor force more than likely would hire local cons contractors that's the you know we don't really have control over the labor and how it's used um different contractors operate

different ways but it'll be a Commercial contractor that's able to build a building of this sort we don't know which one yet um but it would more than likely be a local one thank you thank you so I mean I I don't think I should name a few right now now but I we have a few that we mentioned but yeah they're all local they're all in the ventur County area um Thousand Oaks So yeah thank you more questions for the applicant thank you thank you guys so much thank you if there's no further questions we will close the public testimony portion of the hearing are there any comments or questions from members of the Planning Commission sure I can I can do that um there you know at first when I looked at this I got a really really confused because um a number of different things just kind of jumped out at me and I was really confused and but then we got a chance to look at it again um and uh you know I get all these letter there were so many letters and about air quality and biological resources and this bird and that bird and anyway so um and anyway and then the the numbers didn't match up and you know the number of Acres um didn't match up and then I had to look at it on a map and I had to drive out there and look at it and and then I realized that actually that Alamos Creek actually was not cut off you know no matter what it looks like you know here or the maps that were provided by some of the people who wrote who sent things in their Maps were Incorrect and that really kind of changed things so um and the fact that there are other animal Pathways just above it and below it that kind of helped too um which are not on your maps by the way um sorry anyway um the air

quality uh information which blew my exploded my brain but um yeah I'm I'm satisfied with that information after going through as as much as I can and I'm satisfied with the biological information I think the applicant did a a stellar job explaining um and responding to um the criticism from those different organizations um I'm happy with the parking I think the parking meets uh the requirements of it um um I think that the city's done its due diligence uh when it comes to this I like the fact that there's four-sided architecture um on this building I like the colors um the Landscaping is good I like I'm I'm really happy especially at the moment um with a fuel modification Zone um that there's you know that you know especially in this that zone right there which is a high fire danger zone that uh that fuel modification Zone it has to be at least 100 feet away from the building that's Fant that's good okay and I don't know there's something else in here somewhere but um anyway but I I think overall this is a good project I had issues at first but I found answers in there and I think that that's because of the applicant and the applicants uh staff and I mean six trees that the applicant is removing and that's $153,500 that they're going to have to either upssize the other trees they have on site or they're going to give to the city's fund to replace somewhere else in the city that's that's a lot okay that's all I really have thank you commissioner TS just not much more than what's

already been said uh I think the uh use of the property is going to be fantastic for our city the um concerns were addressed significantly appropriately by the uh the applicant and the presentation by um M kingan was fantastic and I'm 100% behind this project anybody else a couple questions to staff um roadway Ingress and egress for trucks entering East and Westbound La Avenue is there a center turn lane is there what is the roadway going to be for these trucks entering and exiting these driveways I'll defer to the city traffic engineer for that I knew I was here for a reason sorry good evening commissioner man yes uh so one of the requirements when we were doing our due diligence on the project was to have the applicant uh do a truck turning analysis to make sure that they could get their trucks on and off site so uh I believe it's in in in the plan set somewhere but yes we did ask them to do a truck turn analysis to make sure that the trucks could enter on site Traverse the site exit the site there is a center a two-way left turn lane on West LA Avenue I believe that whing was done a few years back uh but that would also accommodate the truck turn movements if they're unable to make that turn from the through Lane now when they're turning out of the driveway onto La Avenue is there a lane for them to get up to speed or are they right in the traffic lane and a car coming behind him is going to be stopped until the truck gets up to speed no they can turn into the two-way left turn lane the the center two-way left turn lane and the driveways as an acceleration Lane so they can make it two stage we call it two stage Gap so make the turn on the left turn lane so that you're not inhibiting the through traffic whether

you're turning they can only go eastbound technically because uh when you get to a Royal Avenue trucks over two tons are not allowed to be there I believe or it's five ton limit something like that so they can only enter in from the East and then exit and head east as well okay so but they can either enter the site because the loading bays are on both sides of the building they can either enter the site on the western driveway and then come through that way to get to the eastern most loading Bays or enter in on the east side of the building to get to the Western most loading base and then again exit the building into that left turn lane and then move into the stream of traffic got it thank you very much that was it oh wait I got a question if you don't mind real quick abolutely so I I noticed it's kind of on a corner there are there any adjustments to uh speed for visibility coming around uh through a through a corner with the trucks exiting I mean actually in this case no uh and the design of the building reflects that because in one of the iterations the design iterations we actually had them change the design of the building so that we did have adequate site distance looking to the east so that's why it cuts off on that diagonal in that direction thank you thank you anybody else any comments any comments no I would I would like to say that I really like the Aesthetics of this building and I I had like a million notes I was not I was one of the lucky ones to to make that not a quorum for you because I was out of country so I never got to review this project before but but I really like that that we're going to give opportunity for more employment in the city and maybe even with construction and um and I like the lights uh adjustments uh I really

appreciate that's that's that's all for me may I please have a reading of the resolution resolution number svpc 02202 a resolution of the Planning Commission of the city of SEI Valley approving conditional use permit cups 2023 004 and adopting a mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring and Reporting program to construct a 664317 67 acre vacant site located at 615 West Los Angeles Avenue thank you the chair will now entertain a motion I move to adopt a resolution approving cups 203004 a mitigated negative declaration and and a mitigation monitoring plan a motion was made by commissioner rice may I have a second I'll second it call for vote motion passes unanimously the appeal period for the conditional use permit is 14 calendar days proceed to the next SL yes is everybody this is the time and place set for a continued public hearing of the consideration of Cups 2023 0011 and the determination that the

project is is exempt from the California environmental quality act are there any exte communication to report may I have an oral report on this matter by staff yes chairman Chrisman this is um sorry again a continued public hearing was continued twice for um Quorum reasons and concerns raised and it is a um request to construct a 24,29 ft industrial building with accompan outdoor storage our associate planners raran will have the rest of the presentation the applicant Michael lman of cool at rentals requests approval of a conditional use permit to construct a 24,29 ft tilt up building for industrial and office use accompanied by 87,7 squ ft of outdoor storage on a 3.84 4 Acre Site and a determination that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality act due to a lack of Quorum on the December 18 2024 and January 8 2025 meetings the Planning Commission meetings were cancelled and the public hearing for the project was continued to tonight's meeting the subject parcel is the subject property is located in the West End pafic plan presently the subject property highlighted in blue is vacant the property uh the proposed building is for the manufacturing warehousing and storage of coolit rentals storage units existing manufacturing industrial and office uses surround the site to the South and West to the east is the SEI Valley Chevrolet dealership and to the north is the 118 freway the property is accessible from Cochran Street via two

access easement driveways the eastern and western easement highlighted in yellow the easement extend from the subject property over to the two southerly properties until they connect to Cochran Street some improvements will be made within the access easements including Paving restriping of parking and Landscaping improvements in the Eastern easement include minor work over the adjacent Southern parcel the property is fairly flat and slopes up to the 118 freeway along the north where trees line in the property boundary the site will be accessible via two access easements along the west and the East Side the Western access easement is shared with the property owner to the West the project will have parking spaces located on the Southwest and North sides of the building the open storage area will be paved concrete fencing and a landscape buffer along the northern and Eastern property lines will screen the building and open storage from the 118 freeway and neighboring lot to the east a 6 tall iron fence with Vine screening will run along the southern property line that will screen the Open Storage from the neighboring lot to the South the proposed building will screen the storage from the neighbor to the west the project will provide over 26,000 Square ft of landscaping as shown on screen the proposed project meets the height setback parking and Landscaping requirements of the development code and West Den specific plan staff will impose special condition a17 as provided in the supplemental staff report the future sign depicted on the site plan is not a part of this approval all project signage is subject to Future review and approval as defined in the SEI Valley Municipal Code the condition is being added to clarify that the

depiction of the future sign on the project site plan was not analyzed by staff as signs are normally reviewed at a ministerial Level under the provisions of the the municipal code the southern elevation is the portion of the building that will be the most visible coming in from the Western access easement the building is surrounded by parking along the southwest and North as you'll see throughout the design incorporates articulation along the building's facade via wall indentations and use of different colors such as Grays blues and white tones and different materials such as concrete metal and glass shown on screen is the west elevation as would be seen from the neighboring industrial complex to the West Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving the proposed conditional use permit cup- s-223 0011 and a determination that the project is exempt from squa this concludes staff's presentation and we are available for questions thank you do we have any questions questions of sta I do it talks about uh phase one is the is the tenant or the applicant uh using the property for themselves and then down the road potentially having six different tenants in there is the parking adequate for phase two if you had six different tenants in there yes parking was analyzed for um the the um proposed floor plan that was shown on that is shown on screen right here any other questions staff we will open the public testimony

portion of the hearing would the applicant like to present the project thank you um Mike lman back again I'm Brian Paquin with PK architecture we're the architect's first project um anyhow I think the same thing I think you know obviously the project plans the project elevations and such have been presented quite well um if you guys have any questions about the architecture and this is Mike lman our client he he uh runs the business and if you have some questions about the business itself he's here to answer those as well are there any questions for the applicant I I I would like to ask John's question that he just asked if there's any plans for who the possible tenants would be to to just continue to your question well one of the main in in regards to if that would require any significant more parking than than I don't think so I think the it's fairly similar to the project below um dick darling's project which you guys approved I don't know what five years ago or four years ago and it was built I think it was received quite well um this is similar building similar style smaller building that was two buildings back to back this is a single building um and a portion of it how many square is it uh 10,000 square ft that you're utilizing for the business say the current drawing up there showed um six bays and because we were going to take you know one Bay could you show that uh real quick the with the one word that's it's all uh

this one you know identified in the condos okay right so this was the original plan but our business is growing and so we we've already decided that that whole back part will be ours now so we've expanded to that and the objective for this is to pretty much expand into the whole entire building over time just as our business grows and it's growing pretty fast because like I said it wasn't too long ago that we we get we identified you know five different clients that might come in here to help us as we grow but now we've already taken up the whole back part there uh Unit D and C you know thank you are there any other questions for the applicant we we kind of continued this last time because there was some questions over uh the easement access and uh how that all played out uh with the I believe parcel number one I'm sorry with the the parcel the adjacent parcel and the EAS access along along that side yeah we've we've had discussions we've we've gone back and forth um I'm sure I think they're going to have you know third thir day here um the bottom line is that we have two different versions We we've tried to negotiate with them a little bit and uh it was mostly on today's call anyway it was what what I understand was the uh the landscaping and the sign were the two identified things and we tried to you know work that out today we weren't able to do that because I think there was other things that weren't mentioned in the meeting today and you'll hear from them okay so but I think one point I I was talking to the civil engineer and if you look at the language on the track map Scott maybe come up um the track map says the reci it's a reciprocal easement for the use of both parties and all is Mike is doing is basically taking care he'll willing to

take care of the easement we were going to landscape the easement per City requirements Andor gee if they don't want to change the landscape we won't change the landscape but the statement which Scott you can explain Madam chair if I could just intervene the Planning Commission is not the form for de in your private property rights so the applicant has asserted that he has property rights we're processing the land use application based upon that understanding I understand there's a dispute between the two easan holders and I also understand that one of the Ean holders is seeking judicial intervention or potentially is doing so that is the correct form for that the Planning Commission is not the place to be discussing or or deciding property rights so I'd encourage you simply to say along the lines of we're figuring it out and I think that's sufficient for answering the commissioner's question okay thank you s thank you if you have any other questions to the team on architecture and planning or whatever we're here thank you any other questions is there anyone in the chamber wishing to be heard on this matter I have two cards Doug felbinger maybe I'm chopping that all right it's been a long night my name is Doug felbinger I own the property to the west of the subject I the do dominant tenament in an access easement on the west side of the subject project in 1988 my dad in the school district negotiated the current access easement at that time the school district owned both pieces of property and we were on a ground lease the easement runs with the land and is not only for my current project today but it also benefits all future owners of my property and their projects The Sur in tenament the subject

project must continue to allow my use of the easement which has been in place and remained unchanged for nearly 40 years the access easement is much larger than the roadway when my property is redeveloped future owners are entitled to place an access road anywhere within the access easement free of obstruction from the cian ten cient tenaments property my buildings were constructed on the property line everything to the east of the buildings was built on the access easement which was originally there to service our second phase but was never built the configuration was authorized by both the city and the school district but so there wouldn't be any doubts in 2017 as part of my purchase of the land from the school district I negotiated an amendment to the easement expressly allowing all my encroachments onto the EAS ment this right runs with the land and is for the benefit of all future owners of my property earlier this week I emailed Shan Gibson well actually this doesn't apply since you added the supplemental so uh but both sha Gibson and the City attorney have said this disagreement about the easement is a civil dispute between neighbors and the city will not get involved but far from being a neutral third party the city has actually incited this disp in a meeting this morning with Mike and his attorney we found out that the city it was the city that required Mike to include my encroachments in his project even though he has no legal authority to include them it was the city that approached Mike and said they want a freeway sign for the auto center in my easan area once I asked too many questions about the freeway signage sha Gibson stopped responding to my emails you may reasonably ask why would the city coers Mike into invading my encroachments the answer is to give them

a precedent and a pretense for putting the autoc center freeway sign in my planter but why would the city Kush Mike into showing a monument sign location in his documents without showing any specifics about the signage could it be to wait for might to be in the middle of his construction so he's over a barrel in any sort of negotiation if the monument sign is not a part of the cup it should not be on the plans this is a disgrace I don't believe the Commissioners or the city council are aware of this of what's going on based on information I have I believe it comes from within the bureaucracy we depend on our elected representatives and their appointees on this commission to defend the public against this kind of behavior I'm opposed to the project as presented thank you next one is Puja Nair I'm sorry if I mispronounced your name you got it you got it right good evening uh good evening Commissioners my name is Puja ner I'm a a real estate litigation partner with Irving Cohen and Jessup in Beverly Hills California um and I actually grew up in Thousand Oaks just down the street um there are two grounds for our opposition based on my client's property rights as the owner of the uh dominant tenement my client has uh my client crocken properties has a recorded easement and an amendment that runs with his land that easement provides that Don dominant tenament with rights over the access easement and this is a permanent Perpetual right imposed on the owner of the servy in tendent uh which is the applicant uh to benefit the uh the

dominant tenament my client I understand that uh the City attorney and City staff have taken the position that this is a private uh matter to be to be essentially agreed upon in or to be determined in a Judicial for but the issue here is that by granting a conditional use permit that runs with the land the uh the commission would be taking a position that the rights in the easement that my client is asserting are not valid and taking the position of the um of the applicant over the position of the opponent here uh the access easement is a um is a recorded document both the original 1988 access easement and the 2017 easement were recorded documents that reflect the permanent uh Perpetual property r that runs with the land the access easement allows my client to construct a roadway anywhere in the easement for Access and it's not limited to the current location of the roadway uh with the idea that if um if future development takes place that that access easement and anything as specified in the easement that entire land could be used to construct a roadway for Access um the heath versus kettenhofen case which was 236 Cal app 2D 197 make makes clear that the owner of a dominant tenement isn't limited only to where a roadway is constructed but if an access easement and roadway easement is Broad enough it can go over the entire easement and can be changed as construction changes um given the the limitations of time uh the other argument is that the um the the project plan explicitly calls for the removal of

parking and Landscaping encroachments that were the subject of the 2017 easement Amendment I've laid out that position in the January 14th and 20th letters that I believe were presented in the supplemental uh today but essentially the if the conditional use permit is granted as submitted this commission would be authorizing and permitting the applicant to uh to remove encroachments from parking and um for uh for parking and Landscaping that are built into my client's 2017 easement Amendment um the position that the uh that the Planning Commission is not determining private property rights is inconsistent with what the conditional use permit uh actually allows the applicant to do the uh the C for the cup to be granted would be a violation of my client's rights and we would appeal it on an administrative level if if needed but the fact that the conditional use permit runs with the land and provides this right in the project to remove parking and Landscaping that my client has the right to maintain in a recorded property right document is something that should be of great concern and for that reason we oppose uh we oppose the project as submitted thank you thank you for your time you is there anybody else who wishes to speak hearing none are there uh any comments from staff regarding statements made during the public hearing Madam chair if I may I'll just follow up uh with the last speakers comments if you would refer to supplemental staff report I think it's the only one uh in any event there is a letter that's attached dated January 20th where I respond to this particular attorney's uh

Viewpoint and as I stated earlier verbally tonight uh the Planning Commission is not a court if the disputing Property Owners want to Hash this out then I suggest that they seek a Judicial intervention in the matter uh until that happens the Planning Commission can make a determination with regard to the application based upon the good faith representation and I believe the applications are filed under oath by the applicant that he has the property rights to move forward with It ultimately it is the real party in interest meaning that the applicant that that would defend and indemnify the city in any action so it's really on his dime that he needs to make a decision whether or not to move forward with his App application or not and it's up to the Planning Commission to make a decision with regard to whether or not the application is sufficient happy to answer any questions on this particular matter but again the city is not a courtroom and now there's the Planning Commission thank you would the applicant like to respond to any of the comments regarding statements made during the public hearing if there's no further questions we will close the public testimony portion of the hearing are there any comments or questions from members of the Planning Commission oh I'm sorry we we need to reopen public hearing civil engineer for the project um I understand the comment about about the dispute between the property owners I will just um wanted to state that we are showing all of the easements as recorded um in the tot report they're recorded on the the ten or the final track map they're shown on the tenative map we're showing them on our current project and we are allowing for the non-exclusive easement for Access and parking and all of the same rights that

they had previously so that um in terms of Legally what's in the title report what's been recorded and what's shown U we believe we've we've taken care of all of that we're showing all of it um so that we're um in conformance with with uh all of the easement rights that the adjacent property has thank you nothing else for the app from the applicant thank you if there's no further questions we will close the public testimony portion of the hearing are there any comments and questions from members of the Planning Commission who who wants to start um well it's a compatible land use definitely I mean it's very similar and it's not visible from the street and uh the traffic is uh you know it meets all acceptable standards so okay I'll go uh not withstanding the dispute of the easement I think our City attorney answered the question very well which is anything that is done at this point in time certainly they can seek judicial review and some Court may eventually make a decision as to who is right and who's wrong but that has no bearing on us that if the project meets all their requirements the fact that the two parties have an argument that is truly as I see it between them the building seems to meet all the criteria that the city requires I think it's a beautiful building PK Architects have done another great job so fundamentally I have no issue with it whatsoever I think it's a great project thank

you I like everything that's been presented I just hope they get this uh easement uh dispute taken care of I hate to be the last one to speak this makes me uncomfortable that uh you guys haven't been able to come to a resolution on on this aspect uh of this project continuing forward um I just I I think you're going to be neighbors for quite some time or future neighbors I'd like to see you get this uh resolved Let's uh let's work it out just so that you're not the last one to speak um I I also like the project I I hate seeing um the the non-agreement on it I I really I I feel like both sides are very passionate about that and and I I just can't we can't discuss it otherwise I would discuss it to death but that's that's not my position here I can't do it otherwise I'm going to get slapped um so I also like the project I hate the disagreement like commissioner Lee I I really wish that um maybe not us but maybe the city can help and find a way uh um to to to for you guys to agree on on everything or anything thank you may I please have a reading of the resolution resolution number svpc 03202 a resolution of the Planning Commission of the city of SEI Valley approving a conditional use permit cups 2023 0011 to construct a 24,29 square foot industrial building with accompanying outdoor storage on a 3.84 acre parcel north of 875 Cochin

Street and approximately 600 ft west of First Street and a determination that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality act the chair will now entertain a motion I move to adopt a resolution approving cup- s-20 23- 0011 a motion was made by commission commissioner tulson may I have a second second a second okay call for the vote motion passes the appeal period for the cups 2023 0011 is 14 calendar days I found it this is the time oh we need to move on the new business right we're going to move to the new business this is the time and place set for a public hearing on the consideration of Cups 2024 007 and the determination that the project is an exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act are there any expar Communications to report may we have an oral report on this matter by staff yes chairman Chris chairperson

Chrisman this is a conditional use permit request by Venice heal sem Valley hospital for a much needed um upgrade to their Central utility plant building and to add some additional emergency backup generators are our associate planner Neil moriset is here for the presentation good evening planning Commissioners tonight we will be we will be reviewing a request for a conditional use permit modification for the SEI Valley Hospital campus the modification will include the construction of a new Central utility plant building and yard with three emergency backup generators though three generators are being proposed as part of this request only two will be initially installed with this third installed at a later date the proposed project site is primarily located on the existing Southwest parking lot at the West End of Jones way with residential to the South and Medical Office Buildings to the east the parking lot consists of 157 parking spaces covered by three solar carports the project will eliminate 36 parking spaces and one solar carport to accommodate for the new building generator yard and additional Landscaping the hospital campus will continue to meet its parking requirement with 451 total parking spaces the proposed utility plant will consist of a new 1,880 Square ft building that will house an emergency and main electrical room a new 5,287 ft open generator yard that will have three emergency backup generators a fuel tank to supply 72 hours of fuel for the generators and other

equipment the proposed building will be approximately 19 ft in height will be constructed of CMU blocks in shades of brown and gray the attached generator yard will have 12' 4 in tall walls constructed of brown CMU block and dark composite fence panels the walls will screen a majority of the new generators with a stepped metal screen wall painted screened wall painted to match the generator's acoustical enclosure which will screen the top portions of the generators Landscaping will be installed on all four sides to assist with screening of any new equipment noise levels were analyzed based on the scenario of two of three generators being operated at one time with the third generator serving as a backup the projects anticipated noise levels would not exceed the general plan noise standards at the adjacent residences of 45 DBA for the interior or 63 DBA for the exterior the two generators being installed will be tested simultaneously for 40 minutes once a month at 5:00 a.m. it will be done at this time to avoid any disturbance to early morning surgeries and procedures at the hospital pursuant to a tree report that was prepared for the project there are 34 trees existing within the area of work on site 21 of which are protected trees none of which are oak trees Seven Trees will be removed as part of the project and have a replacement value of 11,4 $ 45040 the conditions of approval for the project will require mitigation of the tree removal by the planting of new

trees on site the applicant proposes a mitigation planting value of 19,35 th000 to be planted on site the project will also include a direct Brey utility run from the new building and yard to the existing Hospital and a new Transformer and circuit breaker at the northeast corner of aeni and Sycamore Drive an easement will be granted by the property owners of the medical office building to the east to allow for the utility run staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving the proposed conditional use permit modification and the determination that the project is Cate categorically exempt from squa thank you thank you any questions staff commissioner Le yeah you and I read that then the report the 500 am run of the two generators um that would concern me if I was you know uh residents very close to that is that is that pretty much in stone uh with the Hospital operating hours uh that's something you can definitely direct to the applicant but I know that they've emphasized that time frame so it doesn't disrupt with any services um if they did it any later there's a potential when they do those testing it puts all the power from the hospital onto the generators and they don't want any complications for surgeries procedures and such but um you can definitely direct to the understand that one perfectly I'm just thinking maybe later in the evening after everything shut down maybe a better time frame but thank you any other questions we'll open the public testimony portion of the hearing would the applicant like to present the project yes Sasha

King this is Mark mitchelson from the hospital good evening uh so just want to say thank you for the presentation summarized everything uh just giving a little background to the project we were able to apply for a hazard mitigation Grant from FEMA and which is going to be funding majority of the project along with some funds from adventus health uh it is one of those areas where our current generators are in a non-compliant area for the 2030 laws so we're just trying to get a jump on everything uh to be able to get into a compliant space uh definitely want to make sure that with all the fires and other disasters potentially within SEI Valley in the area that we remain a Lifeline to the community so this allows us to establish that for very long time going forward uh to the point of the uh generator concern where we currently uh do our generator test at 5:00 a.m. and there's been no issues with our neighboring surroundings and houses as well um and also just once again our surgeries usually start about 7 am. so if there is any issues with our generator testing failing it gives us some time to be able to kind of recoup and mitigate those issues uh happy to answer any questions otherwise though and from our acoustical uh report can you come to the mic please so we can hear you and from our acoustical report report um uh they demonstrated that the sound would be uh comparable to a refrigerator with 45 Dees so and there was also testing done as a baseline um and um at around that time five 5 a.m. we right around that 45 as it is now so we don't believe it's a significant acoustical impact thank you that report part was prepared by our acoustical engineer who can't be here tonight but thank you are

there any questions for the applicants other than that how big are these generators either in both in size and output like the size of a semi-truck or van um could you maybe click ahead to the we have a isometric so um they're fully screened so what what will be observed um as you experience the site is that that fence um around the yard the open yard and that fence height um is the same height as the acoustical enclosure portion of the generator and then there's a little bit of equipment just above the generator and that's that smaller screened uh portion above which is set back um to give some relief to the mass but but anyway they are um in line with the existing building so it's screened from the residence by the building the the tallest point of the generator is 18 fo4 while the building height is uh 18 fo8 so um fully screened that way and the mass of the project lines up with the existing M Mo and what's currently um in that parking is covered um solar panel parking which is 16 foot height uh already so this is you know another two feet so it's um it it fits in well with the surroundings I think he was asking how how big is that little battery right there the length of it yes um I I would have to guess at this point I don't recall

exactly I apologize 25 ft maybe I think staff is looking at the exhibit to see the dimension on that perfect it's quite large yeah like the size of a semi truen yes yeah okay I guess that that would work yeah okay oh shipping container good one that that makes sense um so back to the noise thing so I'm reading the acoustical thing so when they did these reports were they testing or were the were they doing the sound at the property line at the generator itself inside the enclosure when it says interior exterior what is the interior what's the exterior reading based on um the uh exterior I believe was referring to um the uh staff or or the city adopted our report um should our generators will never go over 45 which is that's the interior there were Baseline readings done um uh which we're already at the 45 point now so this isn't a significant impact to what is already what are they sorry are they testing when they're when you're testing sound you have a monitor of some kind are they actually testing it next to the generator are they testing it at the property line where are they getting the the reading of 45 Debs at 45 would be at the property line when the generator is in operation okay so the South property line specifically where the residents are got it thank you so any other questions for the applic

is there anyone thank you is there anyone in the chaper wishing to be heard on this matter can you sir please come up and state your name and residence thank you my name is if you can fill out the speaker card some after after yeah thank you uh my name is OS faota I'm a neighbor living on Nicholas Street just one block from Jones way and um my concern is Acoustics um and but mostly my concern is the exhaust because pretty much since covid time um the generators that they have these semi- TR generators that they've had over there am made an exhaust that it just makes it impossible to walk our dogs on our street and breathe without feeling like we're compromising our health so the exhaust is what I'm very concerned about and um we've had I mean there's I don't know if there's any correlation with that but we've had neighbors that have died of cancer uh we've had five of them in the last 10 years and um I'm just very concerned with the exhaust and that's all I have to say thank you would anybody else like to speak are there any comments from staff regarding statements made during the public hearing uh we'd recommend directing the maybe those comments to the applicant to to respond about the exhaust would the applicant like to respond to any of the comments regarding statements made during the public hearing

um I I want want to emphasize that there are two generators currently at the hospital so this is a proposal for replacement of those two um the third is strictly redundant as a backup um so in that regard um there's not an additional load that we're trying to uh place here um the hospital is trying to um use use the FEMA funds that they have been granted to make significant improvements my name is Brian George and I am with Excuse me with the office of design and construction for avenus health and just in responding to the um exhaust issue at the moment um we are subject to the ventur county air quality management rules that are applied to us and as a we have meeting is all along with the current ones that we have there are stringent levels that need to be met through recirculation Etc and things like that and we're going to follow all the codes necessary to meet the air quality standards we have successfully in the past and we will continue to do so in the future generators thank you is there any um any data or uh studies done on the exhaust that they're currently the manufacturer provides the output provided and we in order to get this we had to provide that information to the air quality district for them to approve it and they have approved it if you had to guess do you think it would drastically change no it will not if not it will probably even better because these are newer units okay thank you any other questions are the current generators that you have that you're replacing these with in the same place no excuse me no they are not they are currently located um on the

other side of the hospital they are located within a seis U non-compliance sement building and that is the whole reason that we are doing this project is in order to meet the Senate Bill 1953 standards that have been placed on the hospitals in California um our essential Services have to be in buildings that will meet the earthquake standards that are designed for 2030 this building as currently is in will not meet that standard so therefore we were fortunate that female offered Hazard mitigation funds we applied for it met the criteria and and uh through a shared uh financial responsibility we are now going to relocate these to a safer seis compliant area that will able us to maintain our services the event of a seismic event or a fire of some sort so on that map there if you could where are the current generators at we could boost you up okay they're moving and West well they're moving south and west yeah they're going moved over there correct and Sir that Nicholas way that's they're moving them closer to your house yeah well I when I yeah go ahead sorry I'm just kind of ask clear all this up too we're trying to figure out where this exhaust is coming from so when I went to investigate it I thought sem and you say that was during the co period of time yeah that would be yeah and that's also that those type of generators are temporary sorry closer the microphone oh sorry excuse me those generators are temporary so they're not considered a permanent installation that

they right exactly and lack of Perman installation that the AQ um I want to say AQ the quality management required standard for our fixed site yeah because you're not those those were just yeah because you're not you're not smelling from the current one right commissioner Kennedy thank you sir thank you thank you thank you yeah they were going through the whole process so you you have these generators already these generators that you're moving you're not we're not going to move the existing ones okay okay we are installing new ones which are better that's the clarification I wanted with California's new laws on diesel admission they're going to be very very clear yes very it will be clean burn you can't even buy a new motor home California for sure thank you thank you any other comments or questions no no oh if there's no further questions we will close the public testimony of the hearing any are there any comments or questions from members of the planning commission no mayor please have a reading of the resolution resolution number svpc 04- 2025 a resolution of the Planning Commission of the city of SEI Valley approving a conditional use permit modification cups 2024 00 7 to construct a new building and yard for a central utility plant for an existing Hospital Campus located at 2975 Sycamore Drive and a determination that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality act thank you the chair will now entertain a

motion I move to adopt a resolution approving cup- s-202 24-7 a motion was made by commissioner tulson may I have a second yeah I'll second the motion call for vote motion passes unanimously the appeal period for cups 2024 007 is 14 calendar days oral Communications is course does staff have anything to report chairman Chris and members of the Planning Commission we have a Planning Commission meeting scheduled for February 5th we have a couple items or at least one item for that evening do thank you do any Commissioners have anything to report um yes um I I would like um if it's possible for staff to come back in the future and maybe explain some of the new bills that have passed for example Senate Bill 1211 which has to do with adus M and some of the others that's all thank you mobile home run mediation board does staff have anything to report uh no items tonight we will have a report at the next meeting tree Advisory Board does staff have any anything to report uh I will say that um our tree City USA application has been approved and we expect to have a um presentation in a couple months before the city

council thank you this concludes the meeting of January 22nd 2025 the next scheduled meeting will be February 5th right this meeting is adjurned yes for an authority now