are we good to go? Yeah. All
right. Um.
>> I will call to order the
regular planning commission
meeting of thursday, AUGUST
20th, 2026 and we will start
with the pledge. Salute and
pledge.
>> I'd like. To the. United
states of america and to the
public.
>> for which it stands one
nation under GOD, indivisible
with liberty and justice. And
roll call please. Commissioner
wolfe. Here.
>> commissioner wahl. Here.
>> commissioner sharp here.
Commissioner laffins.
>> here..
>> commissioner bykerk kaufman
here. Vice chair. Scarpa here.
Chair scott here. All right.
Seven people here. Um.
>> just a speaker card
announcement. Anyone wishing.
>> to address the commission on
any item um, listed on the
agenda needs to, um, complete a
speaker card that are in the
back. Um, once those are
completed, they can be turned
in over here to the clerk and
they're taken in the order that
they are received. Um consent
agenda. Um, nicole, do we have
any speakers for consent? No.
All right, so we just have one
item uh, 2.1 approval of the
meeting minutes. Wow. FEBRUARY
2026. Is there a motion to
approve? I move to approve. All
right. And a second. So all
right, so we have a motion by
commissioner sharpe, a second
by commissioner wall and uh,
vote please. Commissioner
wolff. Yes.
>> commissioner wall.
commissioner sharpe. Uh.
>> commissioner laffins. Yes.
Commissioner bykerk kauffman.
Yes.
>> vice chair.
>> scarpa. Yes.
>> chair.
>> scott. Yes. So that passes.
Seven zero. Um, we'll move on
to uh public comments. Uh,
members of the public MAY
address the commission at this
time on any matter not already
listed on the agenda with
comments being limited to three
minutes. Nicole, do we have any
public comment? No. Okay. Do we
have any public comment from
the audience? Great. And then
we will move to item 4.1 a
public hearing on use permit 20
5-06 and architectural. Review
ah. 20 508. Garrett you're. Up.
>> oh it's pretty. I can't.
All right. Good evening chair
scott and members of the
planning commission. My name is
garrett norman and I am here
this evening to present on the
skyway travel center project
located at the northeast corner
of east park avenue and
carmichael drive. The subject.
Uh site is shown on the screen
and outlined in yellow um and
is just shy of one acre in
size. The site formerly
contained a restaurant and has
since been vacant. The parcel
is adjoined with the butte
county office of education,
which houses their
administrative offices and
provides technical instruction
to students. The request before
the commission is for a use
permit and architectural review
to construct and operate a new
six pump gas station and
convenient store and
self-service car wash in the
regional commercial zone. An
iteration of this project was
first presented to the
commission in JULY of 2024, and
the commission passed a motion
to approve the project. The
butte county office of
education filed an appeal of
that decision to city council.
The applicant ultimately
withdrew the application before
going to council after
discovering improvements were
proposed within an access
easement that's granted to bco,
the applicant submitted a new
application last year that
reoriented the site plan,
eliminated a coffee kiosk from
the proposal and removed
obstructions that were within
the access easement. Shown on
the screen is the proposed site
plan the access easement that
benefits the bco property that
I was referring to is in this
diagonal hatch mark right here.
As you can see um circulate
around the parcel so that is to
remain um. Unobstructed and
access for bco uh the fuel
canopy is right here which
fronts towards um carmichael.
The convenience store is
adjacent to that and then the,
uh, proposed car wash is
attached to the convenience
store and the entrance to the
car wash comes in from the
north side and exit to the
south. Shown on the screen is
the proposed landscape plan.
This landscape plan is updated
from the one that was included
in the staff report and has
been provided to the commission
earlier today by email. A paper
copy of the plan has also been
provided to each of you and is
also available up at the front
for the public. This revised
plan eliminates two landscape
planners that were um down here
on the south end um and that
were in conflict with the
proposed underground storage
tanks. The project still meets
the tree shading and
landscaping requirements of the
municipal code 13 trees are
proposed for removal as they
conflicted with proposed
improvements or were um in poor
condition. New trees and
replacement trees will be
provided, improving overall
shading and landscape coverage
of the site as well as a
variety of shrubs and bushes.
Here are the proposed
elevations of the convenience
store and attached car wash.
The building uses a variety of
materials such as stone, vinyl
siding and board and batten.
The facade incorporates planar
changes with push and pull
elements as well as varied as
well as a varied parapet
creating articulation to the
roof plane. Butte county office
of education has reviewed the
proposed plan and provided
several letters of
correspondence expressing
concerns to the proposal. These
letters have been included in
the attached staff report and
has also been provided to you
as supplemental material. Um
the applicant has addressed
many of their concerns such as
relocating the venting stacks
for the underground storage
tanks away from the bco
property, ensuring that the
fuel truck delivery will
maneuver entirely within the
gas stations property and
relocating the trash enclosure
away from the gazebo where
students often congregate
during breaks. Pco remains
opposed to the proposed project
citing concerns related to air
quality, emergency response and
site security. Staff finds the
project is consistent with the
general plan by activating an
underutilized site, enhances
architectural design and
landscaping has been designed
to reduce impacts to adjacent
operations of the butte county
office of education is um and
is located in close proximity
to highway 99 and the on and
off ramps along east park
avenue. Staff recommends the
commission approve the project
based on the findings of fact
and subject to the conditions
of approval contained in the
staff report. This concludes my
presentation and both staff and
the applicant are available for
questions. Thank you.
>> okay um so we'll start with
uh questions for staff and I'll
start to my left. Uh yeah just
uh one question and it has to
do with um um the easement on
the property and circulation.
Uh, we saw the circulation
going around this building. Is
there a mutual easement in
place? It seems like there was
some disagreement about that.
Yeah.
>> so there there was an
easement that was on the bco
drive aisles that benefited
both properties. Um, but that
easement had an expiration date
which had expired in 2020 so.
It no longer benefits the
subject parcel. All right. And
and now that I'm sorry I didn't
bring this up to you earlier
but now that I'm looking at the
at the site line, does that
mean that um uh, this property
does not have access to the uh,
driveway that. Uh.
>> exits on to east park? Uh,
the subject property will have
ingress and egress access right
here. Um, off of carmichael.
There is no driveway access off
of east park. Right. And this
driveway access just for
clarity is, um. Will be closed
and, um, improved with, uh,
landscaping. All right.
>> thank you. Any other
questions to my left? Uh,
question on procedures. Um.
>> so we're going to do a
health risk assessment. From
the air quality board.
>> so happen before or after a
after a. Maintenance so that
typically that practice happens
after um it's standard for
entitlements for an applicant
to secure their land use
entitlements from the local
agencies first and then.
>> go. Through the subsequent.
Permitting that occurs after
and.
>> one. Of. Those is going
through the the local air
district. Okay.
>> thank you. Um and one more
um do we have any guidance from
the uh I know the general plan
doesn't discuss it. Um, so the
pine dogwoods doing guidance
from the egg clinic committee,
the chico clinic clipboard
about.
>> uh. Emissions from gas
stations. This project
specifically did not go before
the climate action committee. I
think for like any general
guidance. Um, to my knowledge,
uh. About gas stations, we do
not have any policy, um, for
use permits in gas. Stations
due. To issue no. Okay.
>> am I right? Yeah.
>> I have. A couple questions.
So, um, the permit. Findings
what the staff report says is
that, um, this use would. Not
be detrimental to the health,
safety and. General welfare of
persons residing.
>> or working in the.
Neighborhood of the proposed
use. Um, there are. Children
going to school. At the.
>> county office. Of education.
Building.
>> um and that wasn't
mentioned. In um any of the
documents. Uh, it's hard for me
to imagine that um a
convenience store that sells
alcohol and uh, tobacco would
be a good thing to have right
next to a school. Apparently
there's children as young as
ten that, um, attend classes
there. So I'm just wondering
did you take that into
consideration? Yeah.
>> the proposed, uh, request
before us this evening is a
land use entitlement to
establish a gas station. It
does not take into
consideration the items that
MAY be sold as part of the
convenience store. There's no
use permit requirement to sell
alcohol or to sell tobacco
products within the convenience
store. So, um, let's say this
gas station wasn't here and it
was just a um, retail store.
That retail store could go in
by right without any use permit
requirement and they could
still. Choose to.
>> sell alcohol or tobacco. Um,
because it would be allowed.
within that zone they would
still have to get their
permitting of course through
abc and what other state
requirements. But there's
that's coming to us merely
because it's it's a gas
station.
>> correct. Garrett, could you
just repeat maybe and help us
the current zoning that's there
and then what would be allowed
by right there? Yeah.
>> so the the current zoning is
regional commercial. So it
actually allows a variety of
land uses usually commercial
serving type land uses. So as I
mentioned like a retail store
maybe a grocery store or
pharmacy um or even a small
retail store would be permitted
by right. Um they would come in
for like a staff level
administrative review for the
architecture of the site. Um
gas stations within the city
require use permits in most
zones and this is one of the
zones that requires a use
permit. So that's why it's
before the commission this
evening. Other questions? Um.
>> I you know, I've learned a
little. Bit about what. Vent
stacks. Are and I've. Never
heard.
>> of them before. I'm sure
I'll be looking for them in
every.
>> gas. Station now but. It has
there. Been any I didn't really
understand what I was reading
when I was researching was that
it's. Going to vent. Gases and
is there any requirement for
that? I mean I know we are also
right next to a highway so I'm
sure there's plenty of gases
being emitted there. But is
there any requirements that
we've. Overlooked regarding
those vent stacks? We don't
have any policy or code
requirements within the city
code that would um regulate the
placement or location event
pipes. Um a lot of that is
handled through the.
>> the local. Air district um
to manage that placement. What
we were concerned a more about
was the esthetics of that and
how it MAY be screened. Um so
they are including some
landscaping to help with the
screening because it is at that
corner. Um, but we don't have
any sort of environmental
regulations about where. That's
located and they are required
for all gas stations and um, as
you learned as designed to do a
little bit that you will find
them when you approach a gas
station. Okay.
>> thank you. Um I have another
question. Um, which is
carmichael is a dead end
street. Um, and so I'm just
wondering about the emergency
access if if there's something
going on at this gas station,
let's say there's a fire. Um,
anybody needing to get out of
the area would have to go right
past the gas station on
carmichael to get out. Um, what
,um, was that something that
was looked at? Yeah, our our
fire department did review
these plans. Um, and they will
review it again. Um, if it's
approved and moves forward to
building permit. Um, and there
are two points of ingress and
egress here that are on
carmichael. Um.
>> uh, department of public
works could maybe clarify more,
but having access on. The east.
Park is, um, not a good idea
because it's a a heavy arterial
roadway. So that's why there's
no, um, access that is there.
But my general understanding
about, um, the fire code and
the requirements is that you at
least maintain like two points
of access in and out of a site.
Um, and. More importantly that
the maneuvering on site is
adequate enough for a fire
truck to be able to get in
there and circulate around the
entire building and be able to
pull their hose to all. Corners
of the building as well. So
that was already preliminary
looked at by the fire
department and there were no
access, circulation or concerns
flagged by the fire department.
Yes, I guess what I was asking
about though was people having
to use the carmichael to get
away from the area in general.
So if carmichael is blocked
then anybody who is working in
that area or just is in that
area that they won't be able to
get out. I don't know if that
has any ideas on that. Um, it
is signalized. I can't speak
to. What it would be in the
event of a fire emergency and
it depends on how many people
are there and how many people
need to get out at that
specific time and what those
conditions are at the time that
the fire is occurring.
Obviously emergency personnel
would show up and if there is
threat to the lives, I'm sure
they have some protocol to
expeditiously get people out of
carmichael and make a quick
right probably on the east
park.
>> and get them out of the
location. The neighboring
property. Does have egress. Off
of. East park as well though.
Yeah that's correct. There's
there's.
>> two driveway points. Yeah
additional questions. Uh well.
>> yes and.
>> I didn't see signage was
discussed in any of the um uh
any of the materials. Can you
speak a little bit about what
signs will be on the property
or is proposed. For the
property? Yeah.
>> so there has not been a
tenant identified um for this
so the the staff report vaguely
speaks to that they have
locational ideas of where some
of that signage would be and
you can see them here on the
elevations. We also have a
condition of approval that um,
all signage is subject to a
separate review and approval
process and to be consistent
with the municipal code. So uh,
when that comes in staff will
evaluate that against the code
and make sure it's complies.
Great.
>> are we ready to open the
public hearing? Okay. So we
will open the public hearing
and we will begin with the
applicant julio tanjiro. Good
evening. Hi my name is aaron
from milestone associates from
yuba city. Uh, we're the design
firm for the project. Um, we're
glad to be before you this
evening. I want to thank you
for taking the time for your
package. I also want to thank
staff garrett for all his help
during this process. As you
mentioned earlier, you know we
originally started this project
back in 24. So it's been kind
of a lengthy process. But uh
the good thing about it is that
the the owner of the project is
been totally um, wanting to
work with um, you county and
we've done everything pretty
much at the last by still
making the project viable
because we need you know, there
are some things that we just
can't do based on the type of
project that it is. But we did
take all their concerns into
consideration and actually
consult with experts in those
specific concerns that they
had. And we actually had a
letter addressed or included in
your package that you you were
able to refer to you um the
easement. Yeah. That was just
kind of like a surprise for us.
But um again, that didn't kill
the project. We still had
access off of carmichael. So
although it would have been
easier to be able to have more
access off of the adjacent
property like originally was
designed um it didn't affect
the project. We have uh,
circulation throughout the
project and avoided all the
conflicts. It was reviewed by
traffic um and again all the
departments reviewed it and um
the comments that were
presented were addressed so
there wasn't anything regarding
that one access off of
carmichael. Um the seed uh
again it we meet all the zoning
requirements so they're not
we're not asking for an
exception or a uh, variance or
we've met everything that the
city required and so um, when
quite a couple of questions
were brought up the mean stacks
i mean, it's kind of like it's
kind of funny because every gas
station has them and you really
don't see them. We try to
screen them but state
requirement that we have those
tanks uh vented and so we
usually do it somewhere where
it's not visible. Um you
obviously don't smell them
because a lot of people are
like oh I'm going to be
smelling fumes but if you go to
any gas station I mean usually
it's at the pump or you might
smell something but they have
the vacuum pump so it's very
minimal if anything in the way
they're designed is high enough
that it's going to disperse any
kind of fuel. If there was um,
it's not going to be down at
the ground level where it would
affect pedestrians. So that's a
common design that's been
around for since gas stations
have been around. So it's not
uh that really isn't a concern.
Um fire department did review
the project and again they
reviewed the driveways. Um we
originally wanted to keep the
existing driveway on the south
because again we have more
access better for us. But um,
traffic came back and said that
it was too close to the corner
and might cause conflicts and
peer reviewed it and they said
the site still was viable with
the one driveway. So that
worked out really well. So you
kind of met with the city and
agreed to close that south
driveway. Um the cul de sac
question that's that's
interesting because I mean
right now it's a classic,
right? So I mean any building
that's on that street that gets
has a fire or emergency
regardless of at the gas
station or anything else
they're going to have that
conflict or evacuation concern
like was mentioned on this
project is that on our specific
parcel and the you county's
parcel they actually have
another exit. So if something
happened on our site it should
be able to get around our
property and but it was to come
down carmichael back to park.
So regardless of people's lives
or somebody else that concern
already exists and we are
already by allowing the
multiple access points or
egress um it was deemed that it
would not come create a
conflict and then uh the
signage question uh yeah we're
required by state to have price
signing. So we have these
monument signs that we have to
provide the prices those are
requirement but we also have
tenant signage so it all meets
uh it all has to be designed
per the city sign ordinance.
And as garrett mentioned it
comes back to before you for
approval under a separate
submittal so you guys will have
a chance to review it. And we
also design those to match the
building decor so they don't
they match the overall building
architectural theme and works
together. So that will be
definitely encouraged with our
sign vendor when we present
that to you. Um with that um
again we're really excited
about the project. This is a
unique project. It's not a
prototype like you see multiple
times is a unique design for
chico. So you guys are going to
have this you're never going to
see this design anywhere else.
So we made it specifically for
this location so we're excited
about that. And again we've
been doing these projects up
and down the state for 30 years
and we know the concerns about
traffic um you know the
concerns about safety all those
are always our number one
concern when we design these.
And so I want to just express
that we did really do our due
diligence to make sure what we
provide would be something to
the benefit to the city and the
citizens of chico. So with
that, um is there any questions
I can answer? Any questions to
my left commissioner. Yes.
>> um um, first I'd like to say
thanks for taking the time to
work with um um, the county
folks and in resolving it seems
like a lot of the issues that
came up I know that's um, took
a lot of time, a lot of work.
So that's that's appreciated.
Um, I had a question for you
about the, um, the car wash and
the need for any additional
stacking leading into that car
wash and like this is a fairly
small gas station so maybe
that's not going to be an issue
but I know in some other
settings it can and how does
that work in. Terms.
>> so most of the variance is
considered an in bay automatic.
So usually they have a one car
stack because it's a quick um
in and out. Um it's not like
you don't want to compare it to
like an express car wash that
you see these popping up all
over the place like quick
quicker surf through those are
these are just mostly for gas
customers who might get a
discount on a car wash. Right.
Getting pump is not going to be
uh high traffic. So our
experience using these it's
usually you know one uh two
stack in this case we designed
it where the site was kind of
tight but we did provide the
one stack and then we had the
overflow that even if it did
back up into the aisle it would
still provide um it would be a
minimal time for it because
these car washed as you guys
know they go pretty quick. So
if there was any kind of
stacking it would be um it
wouldn't impact that dry bill.
All right. And we haven't had
the problem with stacking but
if it was I know the applicant
or the owner has had staff
where they go out there and
they might you know close it
off kind of like driving
queuing for starbucks or one of
these coffee places we do the
kind of the same thing we
haven't had to do it for these
types of car washes again
because they're small okay. But
that's one of the options if it
it become a you know. I got
some questions for you too
about the um some of the design
aspects of the project. I
noticed the uh the canopy has a
minimum um, height of uh, 16ft
above the pavement and I'm
wondering about um, some of our
design guidelines that talk
about trying to maintain a
human scale, pedestrian scale
and whatnot. Is it possible to,
um, to lower that a bit and
still comply with the building
code? I I think the answer is
yes but from your. Yeah we we
try to do it we design it. Uh
you know the minimum height on
highways is 14ft and we try to
keep it um a little bit higher
just for the unknown safety
factor and throughout uh,
almost every petroleum company
has a 16 foot minimum for in
this case it would be more like
rvs or mobile homes that are
coming down the 99 they're a
lot higher but they might stack
something on top so it's more
of a safety concern. You could
drop it down but um overall I
think we usually don't go lower
than I haven't done a gas
station where I've gone lower
than like ten 15ft but usually
14 would be that's the minimum
for state highway. So if you're
driving down the highway you're
going to be less than that. So
you're right you know we just
want to make sure there's no
they don't need the canopy
because that's pretty expensive
and then structure. Thank you.
>> and then about the the
lighting under the canopy um
some parts of it are it looks
like the lighting comes in at
around 30 foot candles and
other parts it kind of
disperses a little bit. Um and
we don't have some we don't we
don't know much about that
really as a panel but it seemed
like you know, just looking at
what other cities have the
standards and whatnot that that
was a little on the bright side
is this something that is um
from your perspective an
absolute necessity uh, for the
so.
>> we we have the uh design
guidelines um, by the
corporation plus just the
industry in general and we hire
uh lighting consultant who are
experts in lighting and so they
have the criteria to make sure
it's lit well for operation for
safety security. But also we
got to consider that we don't
want to bleed off the site and
become a nuisance to the
adjacent. So if you look at the
photometric plan they do show
like you said it is bright
under the the canopy. We want
to make sure that you can see
what you're doing but it does
taper off as it goes out. So in
general it is an industry
standard to keep them brighter
under the canopy and then and a
phase it out as you go. As is
the um uh the surface on the
underside of the canopy
reflective or is it going to be
a matte finish? How is that
going to be treated? It's kind
of like a white um uh surface
on it. Okay.
>> I don't know what it's like.
They call it a like an acm type
material. Um metal cladding.
Yeah.
>> I'm just trying to get an
idea of if it's, you know,
matter highly reflective in
terms of the the actual
surface. Uh or. Mhm.
>> that's a good question again
okay. I don't think.
>> it's I probably be gloss I
guess maybe for weather um
purposes I don't. Okay thank
you that's all I had. Any other
questions left.
>> yeah uh thank you um can you
walk me through the thinking
for the crosswalk to the to the
gazebo area? Okay, so that's a
really there was a a walkway.
There's an existing, uh,
planter from the gazebo going
south and there's a sidewalk
there. So we added that
crosswalk to we figured if
somebody is going to be at the
school and they want to be at
the gazebo, they probably want
to go to the convenience store
and buy a sandwich or pop or
something. So we just wanted to
make sure that was a delineated
walkway just so that it's a
little bit more safety factor.
And just to make it clear that
they could actually have access
to that existing walk in
gazebo. Anything else? I have a
question. Um, what's your
anticipated life of this
business mean? We're kind of
switching from gas powered
vehicles to electric vehicles
and there's already three gas
stations within a mile of the
site. Um, seems like this place
won't be in business all that
long. Either that or the other
places will go out of business.
What is your anticipated
business life of this project?
>> I mean average is like a 20
year life when they they
estimate 20 years but we know
what's happening in california
and what's going on with the ev
and um, those uh these stations
have actually started a lot of
these big petroleum companies
are realizing that as well. So
they're real they're starting
to have us have the potential
to possibly convert to eb or
provide more ev spaces on site.
So uh, you know, the california
code requires us to add some
spaces based on the number of
parking. So as the mandates
start coming down the
requirements for eb the site
would be able to provide
additional ev chargers. But the
they're expecting to be at
least 20 years. So I I don't
know how quickly the ev mandate
will be down but it's um
they're are projecting is it's
going to be while still. And
are there any provisions to um
have money set aside to take.
The so what the tanks.
>> out when they're no longer
needed. So they're. Leaking
hazardous material into the
ground? I don't know about that
one because I know you guys are
I don't even know. But back in
the 80s they had a big state
fund that paid um gas stations
to replace their underground
fuel tanks because they were
leaking and so they came up
with the uh you know, basically
code is is hey, we're going to
pay you guys a big chunk of
money to just replace them. And
so it was a oh, the state fund
that actually it was a federal
fund that actually helped the
owners do that. So I'm pretty
sure that you know, these gas
station guys are big guys as
you guys can imagine. Um, they
they're going to want to do
whatever they can to work with
the local agencies but to make
a local business owner replace
them that's going to be a big
expense and that would be I'm
pretty sure they have to be
offset somehow with some kind
of and to from either state or
federal funding again
everybody's going to. We're all
in the same boat. We all want
the best for the community and
for the citizens. But right now
like I said earlier that this
this project currently meets
everything all the zoning and
um the requirements. So kind of
hypothetically you're trying to
figure out what could happen in
the future. I mean, it's you
know, we'd just be guessing.
Yeah.
>> I'm just concerned that the
city will then be stuck with a
tank with hazardous material in
it and there's no money to
clean it up and I would think
it would happen. I mean, we
know it's going to happen but
we're no we're going to switch
to electric so. As you. Own
yeah as part of the application
uh and the building permit
we're required to submit a uh
stormwater pollution prevention
plan that addresses any kind of
spillage, any kind of
contamination stuff that's
handled. We have a plan that's
required to be part of the
project that we would train the
staff at if there's an
emergency, what they need to do
to make sure is not affecting
anybody downstream from that.
And so that's a requirement
that the state actually makes
us do on every gas station,
which will be part of this
project as well. Any questions.
I actually have one more um so
my apologies. Um, uh with
respect to uh solar panels uh I
don't know what the
requirements are and I don't
are you going to be uh,
including those as part of this
project and where do you plan
to.
>> put yeah. So what we do on
solar we try to put them on the
canopy. Um, right now we're
required to do so much but not
not to be 100%. It's supposed
to be a percentage of the
overall used to get it down to
uh acceptable leep requirements
.So we typically in the in the
historically have used the
canopy itself put up up there
there's nothing up there so it
works perfectly for a solar
panel on the building itself
it's a little bit harder
because there's rooftop units
there's exhaust fans. There's
you know other items that kind
of restrict the space. We've
also looked a bit um some of
the owners have decided to put
canopies over um the parking as
you guys you know, sacramento
and roseville I don't know if
you guys have done it here but
there's you can put canopies
over uh the parking and use
that a solar. So it all comes
down to you know, the
profitability you know, the
cost benefit of adding these
solar panels and right now
based on what we're proposing
is we're going to do the state
requirement um per permitting
but and most likely will be on
the canopy. All right. And
maybe a question for staff on
on that point does the uh the
commission have any authority
over the design of those panels
or not?
I don't know I yeah. Um uh I
think our our scope is limited
when it comes to solar and I
think the state has put in a
lot of protections, uh, when it
comes to photovoltaic panels.
Where they can be placed. Um,
so our overall discretion is
limited, but um, and a lot of
this is handled through the uh,
building permit stage. And so
when it comes back through
planning we will take a careful
look at it to see where it is
placed and make.
>> sure that it. Is in an
appropriate location and not.
Some kind of obscure. Location
that will kind of interfere
with the overall design and
esthetic. All right.
>> thanks can add to that
really quick. So that's
actually a good point also
because being 16ft that's the
bottom of it. The top is going
to be like 19ft. So I mean
you're not gonna even see the
panels from the street. Um also
it's the catch 22. You could
you want to screen them you
want to see them but you also
can't screen them from the
morning so it's worked out
really well. We're they're on
the the canopies are piling up.
You don't see them but they
still have maximum efficiency.
Which you mind um and I just
kind of want to orient us that
um the planning commission
we're dealing with the land use
um, and that's the decision
that we're making tonight is on
the land use use permit. Can
you walk us through, um, what
the rest of your process. Looks
like? Um. If there was. Uh, a.
Decision tonight, where do you
go from there?
>> all right, so. MADAM Chair,
if I if I MAY just to clarify,
um, we also have before us the
design review component. Of the
correct. Yes.
>> okay. Thank you. Want to
make sure that was.
>> under so bye bye. Right.
It's a commercial use and zone.
It's an approved use with use
permit which means it's
required to come before you by
stopping use. So uh the process
here is we presented to you and
let's say you guys vote yes and
you take their staff
recommendation and approve it.
Our next step would be we would
get the conditions of approval
those those would be part of
the resolution and then we
would take those conditions of
approval and prepare
construction documents that
would be presented to the
building department and then we
would submit all that for
building department. We'd also
submit environmental up for the
gas portion also the food
portion all the departments are
going to have to be submitted
and we have to get approval
from all different agencies and
then once we get that building
permit at that point then we're
going to start construction and
depending on on that. I am most
interested in I.
>> forgot. About the design
side. So thank you for
correcting me but um the
environmental portion what does
that look like for you guys
where what what local entities
are you working. So the
environmental portion um and
and I'm going to help review is
both the food bomb food portion
of this historic is selling
food. So even though it's a lot
of it is hidden serve or you
know prepackaged food they
still have to require for that
the fuel itself has to be
reviewed by the cooper
department, which is also an
environmental health uh agency
that reviews all the pumps,
tanks. Um.
>> everything that has to do
with fuel. So we have to submit
petroleum drawings to their for
their review as well. Um, as
far as um you know, the sequel
part of environmental that's as
you saw in the report it's
exempt because of the enfield
category but also there was
nothing that was, you know,
environmentally concerned that
other than that you think that
the county brought up but
overall the county or the city
um staff and agency saw that it
was categorically exempt of any
environmental concerns. So
great. Okay.
>> before we let him sit down,
any other questions because we
will not call him back up.
Okay.
>> thank you thank you it. And
then uh we'll go back to our
public hearing. How many
speakers do we have, nicole?
Three. Three. Perfect. Okay.
>> um, and who's our first.
Speaker todd alexander,
followed by michelle zavala.
Okay.
>> thank you, MR. Alexander.
And you have three minutes.
Good evening. Um, I. Am the.
Deputy superintendent.
>> with. Butte county. Office
of education. First I.
>> want to acknowledge the.
City staff. Who have worked
with us. Apc this.
>> this year to help us. Better
understand. Thank you gary.
>> for. The help there and
addressing many of our concerns
and uh we appreciate that
coordination. Um, at the same
time we maintain several
significant concerns because of
how uh how close this project
is and sits to a growing
educational campus. Um, so we
serve students here through
career technical education,
regional occupational programs
and courses as well as foster
youth services. Our cte and our
ap programs are actively
recruiting and filling seats in
a high demand career pathways
and including health care
dentistry. And so this campus
is going to continue to grow
and continue to see substantial
student use. One of our main
concerns has been touched on
already is the safety issue um,
due to a fire or a potential
spill once that uh driveway is
removed to the south well
they're only going to have one
um driveway out. And in the
event that something happens at
the front end of carmichael,
it's a dead end at the other
end. So we would have to see
about getting all our staff and
all of our students down to the
other end and we have to go
past whatever that spill or
that fire is at that point. Um.
There are a number of other
concerns that we've put into
our letter. Um, and uh,
including the the concerns with
tanker truck access, uh,
different security issues and
different emergency response.
Um, again, we do appreciate the
work the city has done with us.
Um, our responsibility is
always to butte county
students. So we want to make
sure that the commissioners
fully understands that this is
is not a lightly used property.
Um, the proposed development
will negatively impact students
and educators and it is an
active educational site serving
a growing number of students
and preparing for important
careers within our local
economy. For those reasons, bsu
continues to have serious
concerns with this project and
as proposed um and I'm here to
go on record so that um in the
event that something does
happen and there is an
emergency or there isn't a
fire, we brought it to your
attention. And so um, we've
done our job for the students
so thank you. Thank you.
>> uh, any questions for MR.
Alexander? Okay.
>> thank you. Next speaker is
michelle zeppelin followed by
amanda simmons. Good evening
commissioners, thank you for,
um, allowing. Us to.
>> speak and want to first.
Start off with saying. We want
to make sure that you know that
we are pro-business. There have
been multiple businesses in
this area um, and in this at
this site restaurants mostly
but also a wick grocery store
public health. So we have been
a good steward and we want to
be a good neighbor but our
concerns rest with a lot of the
congestion that this, uh, new
proposed business will bring.
If you can picture the area
there's dutch brothers there.
Um and yes, there is uh, access
out to east park but that has
been closed off for a long
time. So right now there is
really no access out that way.
So at the other end is chico
unified school district bus
barn. So we have school busses
.This is our main bus barn and
only bus barn so we have school
busses coming out that way
morning noon in and out in the
afternoon added to the dutch
brothers and then added to our
own traffic. So it's going to
be a very congested area. So
that's our main concern because
if there is an incident of
safety um it's going to be a
congested area. So just want to
share that we do have career
technical education programs
there and our next speaker is
going to speak to that. But we
also serve county wide uh we're
technical assistance and
support for our districts, um,
with homeless youth, foster
youth and also students who are
having um troubles with um
tobacco and vaping. So we have
prevention services there. So
every week we have minimum of
40 students age 16 to 25 of
that population coming to the
site to see staff and have
services and supports. These
are students that can have
alcohol and tobacco um
challenges. And so that is one
of our concerns is having a
convenience store um with those
products. So it's important
that um we highlight those
students and that this proposed
business will add additional
traffic and and flow that will
be a detriment to us. So thank
you again for listening to our
concerns. Thank you.
>> there's any questions. Any
questions for the speaker. And
then amanda simmons.
>> good evening. Amanda simmons
senior director of workforce
development and business
partnerships I work at the
carmichael location every day I
have the great honor and
pleasure to oversee our rop
programs. So there are some
significant concerns, as you've
heard earlier for our students
and our employees. Safety with
a specific business. Um,
including the traffic
congestion and east park avenue
is a well known emergency
thoroughfare daily I sit in my
office and I hear the sirens
running up and down that road,
so I fear what congestion added
to that area does for our
ability to get in or out of the
site to paint a picture for you
of what this site looks like on
a regular basis or daily basis,
we have approximately 100
students that move through our
rop programs on any given day.
Uh a quarter of those are high
school age students that are
exploring career pathways. The
remainder are 18 and older and
they are completing skilled
workforce training programs to
enter high need, high wage
careers in our community. If
you have been to a local dental
office, a veterinary office, a
doctor's office recently or any
time you most likely have run
into one of the graduates of
our programs or uh, that are
offered at this site that we
train. So we have certified
veterinary assistants,
registered dental assistants
through a variety of programs
including our comprehensive
program, an apprenticeship
program and dental specialty
courses that we offer. We train
medical assistance. We train
phlebotomy for our high school
students. They're on our
campus. They're exploring
careers in the medical and the
medical field as well as early
childhood education. All of
these are needs within our
community. Many of our students
have demonstrated an incredible
resilience in overcoming
addiction and other life
challenges. Uh they use these
training programs as a pathway
to a fresh start, meaningful
employment and a more stable
future for themselves and their
families serving our community.
So as you consider this
decision, I respectfully ask
that you consider not only the
use of the property but the
people whose futures are being
shaped here. Please prioritize
an environment that supports
the health, safety and success
of our students. Thank you.
Thank you and any questions for
the speaker? Um yeah I have a
question. So there have been
businesses there before and
there's been traffic in and out
of that property before. Um,
did that cause a problem? Um,
there was parking congestion
and and most of that occurred
before I was in this role. So
to my knowledge the businesses
that were there before worked
fairly well with our population
of students as well. But we had
three points of access into the
site to. Any further questions.
Thank you. Uh any other public
speakers? No. Okay. And then uh
we'll bring the applicant back
up to um. To speak as someone
uh. Yes, I it's the applicant
you you're allowed to come back
up and we're about anything
that you heard. Uh.
>> my name is I'm the old and
I'm the owner and developer of,
uh, skyway travel center. Uh,
2495 carmichael drive. I want
to thank the city staff, the,
uh, reviewing departments and
all the community members who
have evaluated this project. I
would first like to acknowledge
the concerns raised by butte
county office of education.
Bcso is important neighbor and
we take our responsibility to
protect its students, employees
,visitors and property
seriously in response to those
concerns regarding the previous
approved version of this
project, we withdrew that
application, reconsidered the
design and have returned with
the substantial downsized and
revised proposal. We took time
to have additional
environmental reports done. I
think it's in your staff review
from base camp. And it
disproves a lot of the concerns
the bco additionally, both
parties are now aware that the
previous easement regarding the
shared parking and mutual
traffic use between the two
parcels has expired. The new
proposal removes the drive thru
coffee kiosks, relocates the
fuel pumps and convenience
store, moves the trash
enclosure away from the
students areas and positions
the fuel system ventilation
stacks further from bcos
operation. The project has
undergone review by the city's
public works, engineering,
planning and fire departments.
According to the staff review
review report, the layout meets
the city's circulation and
safety requirements, provides
adequate emergency vehicle
access and turnaround and can
accommodate the anticipated
traffic volumes. Security and
site impacts have also been
carefully addressed because the
convenience store will operate
24 hours a day, an employee
will always be present to
monitor the property. The
project features downward
directed lighting to illuminate
the site. We're minimizing
spill over into the
neighborhoods the neighbors
properties drawing with drawing
from experience with there are
other developments we have also
prepared to maintain ongoing
communication with bco
regarding security and incident
response procedures. The the
1.93 acre commercial property
near highway 99 is designated
regional commercial and zoned
for regional commercial uses.
The surrounding area is
similarly zoned for commercial
use. Bco e, however has
received exemption from the
county and is operating in a
commercial office space. The
property was on the market for
over a year before we purchased
it, and bc bco could have
easily purchased the parcel
adjacent adjacent to their
operations during the time as
the property owners, we should
be permitted to develop the
parcel in compliance with the
established zoning regulations.
The project exceeds several
city requirements providing 34
parking spaces where 17 are
required nearly 20% of
landscaping and over 50%
shading in the parking areas.
Furthermore, the pump fuel
pumps will be positioned 34ft
from the nearest property line
exceeding the required 15 foot
separation. New landscaping,
trees control lighting and
contemporary art architecture
will significantly improve the
site's the site's appearance
and function. We recognize our
responsibility to the
considerate neighbor we and the
city have been in communication
with bco since SEPTEMBER of
2022 I think I we started this
process with tina and then we
had bruce and I've been here a
couple times. We got it
approved and we have redesigned
the project several times and i
don't think I had all these
gray hairs when we started in
2022. So and we have ensured
that our delivery vehicles can
operate entirely on their own
property as courtesy to our
neighbors. Fuel delivery
vehicles will only operate
during hours when bco is not in
session so all the fuel
deliveries we would do three m
for him on the weekends when
they are not in operations so
it does not affect the
students. City staff has
concluded that this project is
consistent with the general
plan complies with the code is
compatible with the surrounding
commercial areas and will not
significantly impact related to
traffic noise, air quality or
water quality and we have the
studies to show that proves
that ultimately this project
will provide vital jobs and tax
revenue to the city while
replacing an outdated building
with state of the art facility.
And I receive calls from the
city about the landscaping,
about their being homeless and
we solve it, we go out there,
he said. We're very responsive.
I have his phone, he has my
cell number saved and we make
sure this property is clean as
much as we possibly can. We
also respectfully ask the
commission to consider the
revised project based on
evidence before you and to
adopt resolution number 20 6-02
approving the use permit and
architectural review subject to
the recommended conditions, we
remain committed to complying
with all the applicable
requirements and working with
the city and bco you and to
note today is uh it's my wife's
birthday so I dragged her out
here for planning commission
hearings so it'd be a good gift
so we can get this one approved
and so we can it's been about 4
or 5 years since has been stuck
for so we can get this one
going and really enjoy our
night. So thank you guys. Thank
you. Um okay with that we will
close the public hearing. Um
sir, if we could just get you
to follow the speaker card so
we have your name in the record
too. That would be great. Um
and I will bring it back to the
commission for any questions or
comments. I've got a question
for for staff about the the
scope of our authority here
tonight. Um, on the uh the use
permit it's understood that
the, uh, convenience market as
you explained is a use this
permitted by right. There's no
use permit necessary for that
to be established in this
location. Is that correct? That
is correct. So, um, that could
go in without any kind of
special use permit. Correct?
>> right. Um, the gas station
is the use that requires the
use permit. How about the
carwash? Is that part of it as
well? Is that part is that a
I'm sorry two out of the blue
question yeah. The carwash is
also a permitted use in this
specific zone for out all zones
but in this one it is. Okay
right. Thank you.
>> any other questions?
>> I don't.
>> have a question. But I.
>> have a comment. Um, MR.
Alexander you got me with the
danger part and that is you
know. Obviously something.
>> that. We all want to take
into. Consideration is safety.
Um, and also the traffic. Yeah
,that's very obvious to
someone that's lived in chico
their. Entire lives and driving
by there. But at.
>> the end of the day. I'm not
an expert on that. I haven't.
>> done the traffic studies or.
You know, we. Have to take.
>> the fire.
>> and safety.
>> and all of those things and
listen to what. They say and if
they give their stamp of
approval then. They're the
experts, not us. But certainly
I.
>> think everybody. Would agree
we would all have concerns
about especially the safety
issues. So I just wanted to
make that clear because. Um.
>> nobody wants to put anybody
in harm. That would be awful.
Thank you. Yeah. Anybody else?
I have a uh maybe a procedural
question for staff. Um, and
that's on the uh the actions
before us there's two different
actions covered in one
resolution. Um, how would we or
could we proceed if we wanted
to take one action on one
component of that resolution
and a different action on
another component of it? You
can take both together or
however you want to present it
as long as they are, you know,
both either approved or denied
to me. But my question I think
I'm sorry is that um uh say for
example the the the commission
uh wanted to uh support the use
permit for the gas station but
did not want to support the the
the design of the project. Um
how would that how would we
proceed? You would amend
whatever design choices you
would you would want to see
reflected and so we would adopt
the resolution with the
amendments kind of suggested on
the dies. Okay.
>> thank you. Of course. Any
further discussion? Do you have
proposed amendments? No I just
um um I just for commission
discussion right at this point
um, I think that the. Uh I
don't have a concern at all
with uh, the environmental
review component of this. I
think the right call was made.
It's an infill project. That's
pretty clear. Um, I think that
that all the permitting that's
necessary these days for
projects are going to cover all
that very well. Um, and the the
gas station use um and the car
wash their uh any use of this
property is going to have some
impacts. It's going to have uh
traffic generating impacts and
other impacts that might be a
concern for adjoining
properties. So I um I don't
have a great concern really
with with the use uh my
concerns lie more with the
design of the project and some
of the details and um um. I
it's uh it's challenging
because I think that with a few
changes that could be made into
a a much better project in
terms of the design. But I
don't think that we should try
to design a project up here.
Um.
>> you know, ad hoc and just
kind of make stuff up on the
fly but um, I I I would support
the use permit but I do have
some concerns about the design
and the the reason for that is
that the reason for those
concerns is as the commission
knows. You know.
>> when we approve design
reviews, um, we have to make
findings that are complies with
the design guidelines of the
city. And so by making that
action we're confirming that
yes, it's consistent with
certain policies in the design
guidelines and I've gone
through that and looked at it
and listed a few here and you
know. I, I. I see us kind of
missing the mark and I would I
would find it challenging to
make those findings for for
design review on this project
for example um some of the
materials used and on the
building you know the vinyl uh
siding I'm I'm concerned that
that maybe you know, it doesn't
really advance uh design
guideline 1.2.32 that says use
building materials that
reinforce a sense of permanence
or place and I don't think that
vinyl does that. Um I think
that the um the lighting might
be a little a little much might
be more than uh is is really
uh, necessary here. Um and
there are some. Um.
>> uh, design guidelines about
that. Uh.
>> design guideline 1.5.14
incorporate the minimum
intensity of lighting necessary
for safety and security to
minimize glare impacts and
energy consumption. So I'm just
thinking maybe maybe this
we've. We're pushing that limit
here on this um the um. Uh I
found the the elevations also
MAY be in conflict with some of
the design guidelines um the um
.Uh I understand the you know,
the modern design approaches on
things but you know, there's
one elevation, there's seven
different materials on it and
that's especially challenging
to get that to kind of hold
together. And we have uh um, a
design guideline says uh uh we
should articulate a clear
design concept in a written
narrative which I don't think
we saw in this 128 decision
makers and understanding
fundamental design elements of
a project. And I see we just
have kind of a and I don't
really mean this to to diminish
the work that was done on this,
but this seems kind of a kind
of a jumbled elevation uh, in
terms of the mixed mix of
materials and I thought that
the um. Um uh the parapet um,
was also had kind of a um a um
uh almost a stuck on appearance
to get the sign up a little bit
higher. Uh, and there was a
design guideline that says uh
uh void mansard torus which we
don't have here necessarily or
parapets which appear stuck on
or not integrated into the roof
with equal design treatment on
all sides. Um, and just seems
like that was just kind of
stuck on there and it's I
understand why that why that's
done. But I look at this as a.
Whole and it's like I'm not.
Quite quite there with it. I
think it could be there but I'm
I'm hesitant to try to start
tweaking the project and and
making changes to it trying to
design something up at the
dais. So thank you. Um so what
you were saying earlier you
feel okay about the use? The
use is a very intensive use for
traffic and air quality and
for. I understand it's.
>> an infill project and for
the categorical exemption for
the infill project. It must.
Not result in any significant
effects relating to traffic
noise, air quality.
>> and water quality. For the
air quality I'm feeling
uncomfortable. Because there
are sensitive. Receptors use
our considering. Sensitive
receptors per square and so
it's like I feel uncomfortable
approving the project and I
know that there will be a there
what that uh hra or the hsa but
like I'm I'm feeling a little
uncomfortable just approving.
>> it and just saying it'll be
okay so. And that's the the gas
station component of the use
and the emissions from that. I
do think that is why we have as
you. Know okay. Any other
comments?
>> um can we segment off the
use permit and have the.
Architectural review. Um
perhaps. Go to. Yeah I think it
fits.
>> give me a solution here.
>> so if. It's the commission's
will you could. Choose to um.
Approve and adopt the findings
associated.
>> with the use permit and then
recommend that the.
Architectural component come
back maybe either to this.
Commission or to the arb board.
Um, if that's the case, I just
ask as part of that motion that
the commission. Provide some
direction to. Staff on. What
are some of those changes you'd
like to see? Um modified so we
would have clear direction um,
bringing it back. And I guess
before we do that. Um.
>> I do want to see if there.
Was a. Will.
>> uh.
>> we do.
>> have the recommendation of
the motion. In front of us to
pass both the use permit and.
>> the architectural review.
Um, but with uh, out of. Yeah.
Would we have the will to pass
that collectively. Or maybe
commissioner. Well can.
>> make that motion. I'm sorry
what. I said maybe another
commissioner could make that
motion.
>> and we could see. He's not
going to he wants. No I I I
would say that I would I would
support a resolution approving
the the use permit but not the
the design review this evening.
But uh.
>> I don't know what the other
commissioners think about that.
Um.
>> and how that that follow up
design review should take
place. Order people's thoughts
on that. Or staff do you have
any further insight on. That if
I MAY recommend let's take the
first use uh use permit um
resolution first and or motion
and move through that and then
that's. Great and.
>> then make a motion on the on
the design aspect and see if
how the commission feels. Great
okay well. How about this let's
give this a try. Um I move
approval of um use permit I'm
sorry I don't have. 20 506.
>> thank you. Um uh uh. And
adoption of the resolution to
the extent that it approves uh,
that use permit with the
necessary findings. All right.
So we have a motion. Is that
sufficient for your staff and
nicole. And that would be a
motion to approve the use
permit component of the project
only. Okay.
>> and then do we have a.
Second I'll second that. So we
have.
>> a motion and a second um
nicole could you take the vote.
One moment.
>>
commissioner wolff.
>> I commissioner wall uh.
Commissioner sharpe. Uh.
>> commissioner laffins. I
commissioner bykerk kaufman. I
I. Thank you vice. Chair
scarpa. I chair. Scott I that.
Passes seven zero. And then um
how do we go about then getting
a resolution on on the the
design review I would propose
that we get it back before the
rhp. To um take a look at some
of the design details a
compliance with uh design
guidelines. Um, and. But I
don't know if we need a
separate resolution for that
now. Separate motion. Or
separate it. So can we do that
simply with uh with a motion
without a resolution then
correct.
>> because you're just
recommending for irb to review
with your edits if I MAY. So
then just a simple motion to um
.Um uh. What will we say refer
the the design review component
of this to the er hpb uh to
address compliance. Uh with the
design guidelines of the city.
.
>> um. Okay have that can you
give a few points of the notes
you made before.
>> so we can. Capture that.
>> in the motion? Sure.
>> I would say the I.
>> have stuck on. Appearance
but.
>> I think.
>> there's a nicer way to.
>> say that. I'm sorry I would.
Have stuck on appearance, but I
think.
>> there's a nicer way to say
that that material. Okay.
>> well, I have a a whole list
of design guidelines here. I
don't want to get into all of
them really. But um, maybe we
could talk about um. Uh.
>> using appropriate massing,
fenestration articulation
materials and buffering to
provide a pedestrian level
scale perhaps in particular
with regard to the height of
the uh the canopy um design
guideline 1.5.1 to subdue and
we'll integrate exterior
lighting into the overall
landscape plan um design
guideline 1.2.3 to use building
materials that reinforce a
sense of permanence or place.
Um let's see here. Um and then
uh avoid mansard roofs is a
design guideline 2.2.26 avoid
mansard roofs or parapets which
appear stuck on or not
integrated to the roof. Etc.
Um. I and I think it's not to
necessarily limit it to to
those but those are the things
that I'm kind of picking up on
as the areas in which I think
just some really small changes
can make a big change in how
this project ends up looking at
I think and I I kind of
hesitate to do this stuff
because people don't think that
that design review is a big
deal but it really is and uh,
this is a um uh it's a actually
it's a gateway into this part
of town um, coming in on off of
uh 99 and uh, the city is
making a tremendous investment
in park avenue there and.
>> uh um. You know. Um, the um.
That whole part of the city is
getting a lot of attention from
the city and a lot of money
going into beautifying it. And
I think that, uh, this is an
opportunity to. To to, you
know, make sure that we're
really in compliance with our
design guidelines here and get
a a great project. I'm glad,
uh, that it's moving forward. I
think it's going to it's going
to end up being a real fine
addition but I think it just
needs a little more attention.
Okay.
>> the staff feel like they
have enough to go. Yes yes
okay. And to um share.
>> with the. Applicant as well.
Great.
>> okay. So uh the motion is
to. Um refer.
>> the. Architectural review to
the architectural. Review and.
>> historic preservation. Board
um with the key highlights. On
design guidelines um. Mentioned
by.
>> commissioner wolfe. So is
there a. Second to that motion?
I have a question.
>> I'm so sorry. You know, go
ahead. What determines. And I'm
sure it's in that big. Binder I
was given when I got on this
commission. But whether. A
project goes to the
architectural review board. Or
doesn't. Yeah.
>> so um, typically major new
construction projects that.
>> are located like on an.
Arterial roadway like such as
this. One would go but. Since
it was. Combined with the use.
permit which necessitated
coming to the planning
commission, we lumped both of
them together and brought them
here to you because.
>> there's. This commission can
have purview over both of those
items. It's we're intended to
streamline um. But and.
>> this but.
>> sometimes it we need a
little bit more right. So it
could have all been done in.
>> this one meeting. If we.
>> had the will to all if there
are a majority of us who say
the design as it is right now
so we have a motion we still
don't have a second. Um.
>> if there is a majority of
the planning commission who
says the design looks great,
let's move forward. Then that
would be passed tonight. If the
majority. Of the commission
says no, we want the design. To
go back then that would go to
the rhp and.
>> if I'm if I MAY MADAM Chair
just it's not um and to be
clear to everybody it's not a
matter of of just subjectively
saying oh I like that or I
don't like that it's a matter
of looking at it in the context
of uh the design guidelines
that the city has and why we
have them and then looking at
the findings that we need to
make to take that action by by
approving it we're saying yeah,
we we believe it it dances the
design guidelines. It's it.
>> makes. Perfect sense. I
agree. With everything you're
saying. I guess I just. Um
questioning or. Wondering if
this could have all. Been
achieved and talked about.
Tonight so. That it doesn't.
have to go to the architectural
review board. But I guess the
way the process goes it does
have to and that way they could
be done. And I think that this
is the kind of project and I
think it's been handled
correctly. Yeah ideally that
would be happening here right
now. Um uh and I would. I would
you know. Kind of prefer that
but I uh the thing is is that
um. Uh you. Know, I just
hesitate to as a panel try to
tweak a project and this and
that and then you end up. You
know.
>> it's just not that that
process gets gets very
cumbersome. So I think it's
better if we have a just break
it off, talk about it
separately and.
>> resolve it right. Okay. Do
we have a second. I'll second.
Okay so we have a motion and a
second uh. To uh. Refer the
design uh review.
>> to the architectural review.
Board.
>> um nicole. Commissioner
wolfe. I commissioner wall.
Right.
>> commissioner sharp. Yes.
>> yes.
>> commissioner laffins. Yes.
Commissioner bykerk kauffman.
Yes.
>> vice chair.
>> scarpa. Yes. Chair. Scott.
>> yes. So that passes. Seven
zero. Um all right. Thank you.
Happy birthday. Happiness.
>> would be.
>> better if. You got this. I
know. Yeah the use. Permit
though. That's the big one.
Okay. Uh, so we'll move to item
5.1 regular agenda. Um,
garrett, do I turn this.
>> over. To. You to okay. So
this is a. Bit of an unusual
request that we don't get very
often. Um, but chico unified
school district is requesting a
finding of general plan
consistency for a new, um,
transitional kindergarten
through eighth grade blue oak
charter school located at 2485
um apodaca place which is uh
tis right off in the bruce
road. The 2.47 acre site would
relocate the blue oak charter
school from the current
location at 450 west east
avenue and is expected to serve
up to 3300 students. The site
was previously planned for
residential, commercial and
parking under the miriam park
master plan um the proposal
would instead use the 2.47
acres for the proposed school
or the new school and the
adjacent 5.2 acre park that's
adjacent to the site will still
um remains unchanged and will.
Still be in place. So state law
requires that local land use
agency's planning commission
transmit a letter determining
that the school is consistent
with the agency's adopted
general plan or any other
applicable comprehensive
planning documents. Normally
this letter would be completed
prior to the district's
acquisition of the property.
However, in this case the
district has already purchased
the property and is moving
forward with construction of
the school site. In my
conversation with the district
representative, it was
indicated that the california
department of education still
requires this consistency
letter prior to them operating
in to review the location of of
the proposed school is
supported on this side of the
city and would help address
increasing enrollment and
growth in east chico, including
development around marion park.
The general plan supports the
location of schools in new
neighborhoods with incompatible
land uses and planned
circulation infrastructure.
Staff is recommending that, uh
this commission pass a motion
directing staff to transmit a
letter on behalf of the
commission to the chico unified
school district summarizing the
consistency analysis analysis
that was. Provided in.
>> the staff report. Um, I'm
available for any questions.
>> thank you. Um, I don't mean
this to sound snarky but I just
wonder why does the state
recognize our authority when it
comes to the general plan but
not. Design guidelines? Do we
know because there is there a
philosophy there. I do not have
a.
>> philosophy on. Okay
operations. Okay.
>> um is there um motion to
direct staff to transmit a
letter to chico unified school
district stating that the
proposed. School site is.
Consistent with the chico
general. Plan so moved. All
right. And do we have a second.
Second can we have. A motion by
commissioner wolf, a second by.
Commissioner wahl and.
>> a vote please nicole. Excuse
me chair yes. Forgive me.
Procedurally you still have to
open it up to public comment.
Oh, sorry. Um, is there any
public comment? Okay.
>> seeing none and no one in
the audience uh, we will close
the public hearing redo. Yes,
we have a motion and a second.
So moved. Thank you. Uh. And
nicole.
>> commissioner wolff. Uh.
>> commissioner wall.
>> uh.
>> commissioner sharpe. Yes.
Commissioner laffins. Yes.
>> commissioner bykerk kaufman.
Yes.
>> vice chair. Scarpa. Yes.
Chair. Scott.
>> yes. That passes seven zero.
>> you guys. There are 709.
Okay.
>> so exciting. Um, reports and
communications. I have reports
and communications for the
commission. So, uh, just a
heads up, we have two uh, media
items coming before the
commission here. Um, the first
one we have tentatively
tentatively scheduled for
SEPTEMBER 17th and the other
for OCTOBER 1st. Uh, the first
one would be our residential
readiness phase three which.
Consists of. Um a host of uh
code amendments and general
plan amendments and then the
um. The other.
>> one on OCTOBER 1st um
tentatively is the barbara.
Yard specific plan. So nicole
will be reaching out to you,
um, for um. Attendance and. It
is much appreciated when you do
reply just to make sure that we
have a quorum for these
meetings and as always um. We
do appreciate your service.
>> on this commission. Great.
>> thank you. And we will move
to adjournment. So uh no no
meeting on SEPTEMBER 3rd. No no
okay. Thank you.
>>
and then.
>>
uh.
>>
um.
>>
uh for.
Any.
>>
uh.
Any.
>>
um um.
>> na na na na na na na na na
lead on. In. Um.
Okay.
Come back. Okay. And and. Uh.
Come back. To. I could make.
I could make. Could come and.
Be. Like. Come back. And.
Uh oh.
Uh.
>>
we.
>>
MAY.
>>
be.
>> here.
You.
>>
see?
>> she she she's.
Even. Easy.
You.
>>
you you you.
Do.
>>
you.
MISS.
>>
me?
>>
you.
>>
me?
>>
i I
.I I.
>> I
I.
Uh I
MISS. You.
Hey!
Hey hey.
You! You. You you. You.
You.
>>
you.
You.
>>
you.
Me.
You.
You you you.
Me. Hey! You.
Me you you.
You.
You. Me you.
Me. Me. You little me. Hey!
Love you love you.
Me.
Really? You. You.
Me. Me.
You.
>>
me. Hmm? See? Me.
You. Me and me you me and. Me.
And. You.
>>
you.
>> and.
>> me.
>> we. Make. You.
You.
>>
mhm.
>> you.
>>
me.
>> with.
You.
>> I.
>>
I.
am.
>>
me.
>> me me me. I am. You you we.
Me.
You.
You me me. Me.
Me.
You see you. You. Me.
Now. Me. You. You.
>> you.
>>
me. You you me.
You. Me.
You.
>> you.
>>
you.
See.
You. You. You you. Me. Um you
you and. Me.
You me me.
You.
>>
I.
>>
me. You. Me you. You.
You.
You okay? You see.
You. You.
You. You
.You.
You. Uh.
Come join. Us every. AUGUST for
summerfest.
>> and. Beautiful la hoya
california. And hear some.
Great music.
And.
>>
we.
Have a.
Few.
>>
new.
>>
uh.
Uh. Uh
.Uh.
um.
Uh.
>>
uh.
>>
uh.
>>
band.
>> and uh.
Um.
>> you.
>> uh uh.
>>
uh.
>>
you.
You you.
>> you you.
You you you. You you. And me.
And and.
We.
>>
we.
>>
uh uh.
>>
we're.
>>
we.
Uh.
Uh. You.
We.
Know you.
You.
>>
and uh you.
You.
>>
you.
You.
>> we you you.
>>
I I. We.
>> you. You. I.
You you.
Us. You.
You. She she she she. She you
she's. She you. She's. Even.
She. She she.
But I'm.
>>
mine I.
Know.
Oh.
Whoa whoa whoa. Oh oh. Oh.
Whoa. Oh oh. Oh. Oh.
Um.
She.
>> we.
She.
Got us. In.
Under.
The. Car.
Back. You come back.
I cook. I cook. I cook. Cook.
Cook. I I. Cook cook. Cook.
>>
oh.
>>
oh.
You you you.
You.
>>
you you you. You you. You.
>> you you see.
>> you.
>> you you.
You you. You you.
You.
>>
oh.
>>
you.
>>
you. You.
You.
You you you.
You.
You you.
Me.
>>
me.
>> uh uh.
Me.
I I
you.
You I.
oh.
You.
>>
me.
>>
you.
You. You and me me. Uh. You.
You.
Me.
Me me. You. You. You. You. Me.
You you you.
You. You.
>> you.
>> you. You. Me. You. You.
You.
You. You.
You.
>> me she she. She you you she
you you.
She. She. She. Even.
You.
>>
I.
>>
she.
>>
you.
>>
uh.
>>
uh uh. I.
>>
mean.
>> uh.
>>
I. Stop stop me. Right? Back.
Down. Right? Right right.
Uh um oh uh. Um. Ma ma ma ma ma
ma ma ma uh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh oh
.Oh.
Oh.
Whoa whoa. Oh oh. Oh oh. Oh. Oh
.
>> oh.
>> oh oh. Oh. Oh.
Nah nah nah nah nah nah nah nah
nah don't.
Think.
Come back. I think. I could
cook. Cook. You could cook.
could cook cook could cook.
Cook. I I. I could make. Could
cook. Cook cook. I cook. I cook
cook.
She she.
>>
I.
>>
I'm I'm.
She she.
>>
me me.
>>
was I was.
Me.
I.
Cook.
>>
me. I. Me.
>>
I'm.
Me.
>>
I me.
I.
Me.
I'm.
>>
me.
>>
she.
I.
>>
do.
>>
I'm I'm.
Here.
And.
Uh.
>>
have.
>>
to. I'm.
>>
you.
>>
you you you. You you.
>> you. You. Me. You you you.
You you. Never.
>>
you she.
>>
uh oh.
>>
uh.
>>
oh.
>>
you you.
You.
Me me.
You me. Me. You. Me. Me.
Me me you you.
You you. You me.
You.
You you. You.
>> you you. You you.
>> you.
You.
You me. She she.
Me she she you she she she. It.
Eating me she. She.
Eat eat eat eat eat eat eat eat
eat eat eat eat. Eat. But oh uh
uh uh. Um. Ma ma uh.
>> ma uh. Uh uh. Oh.
>> 0000. Oh oh. 000. Oh.
Uh.
Whoa whoa whoa. Oh. Oh oh. Oh
no. Oh.
>> oh.
>> oh oh. Oh.
I'm my.
Uh.
I'm.
Na nah nah nah nah nah nah nah
nah nah.
Come. Back.
Come back.
Come. Come. Come. Back. I can't
cook. Can cook. Cook. I cook.
Come cook come back.
He's.
>> he's.
Got. An.
Irish irish.
Uh.
>>
air.
>> oh oh.
Oh.
>>
oh.
>>
you you.
>>
you.
>> you. You. You you. You you.
You you.
You.
You you. You.
Uh oh.
>>
oh.
>>
you you.
>> know.
>> how.
You.
>>
eat.
>> I.
>>
oh.
>>
no.
>>
he.
You.
>> you. He.
You you.
Oh.
Oh you you.
>> you.
Mhm.
>> you you.
>>
him you.
You you you.
You. Me me. Me. You you. You.
You.
>> you. You.
>>
you.
>>
you.
You.
you. You. You.
>> you. You.
Me.
>>
you.
You. You. You.
You.
>> me.
Now.
You you. Stop me.
I.
You.
>> you.
You you you. You.
>> and me me dear. Me. You. Me.
>>
me.
>>
you you.
You.
You. You you you.
You.
>>
me.
You.
>>
you.
>>
you me. You. You you.
You.
>> you. You.
>> you. You. You you. I.
I me. Me.
>>
me.
>>
you. Me.
I.
>>
you you.
You.
>>
but.
>> uh uh.
Uh my my uh. Oh.
>> oh. Oh. Oh. Oh.
>>
oh.
>>
oh whoa no. Oh. No. Oh no. No.
Oh.
>> 000.
>> oh oh. Oh oh.
Uh uh.
>>
uh.
>>
uh uh.
I. Got stuck in. My bag. Uh you
know. Why why?
>>
I uh.
>>
you know.
Um um.
Uh.
>>
uh oh.
>>
oh oh.
Oh.
>>
oh.
>>
oh.
Uh.
You.
>>
know.
>> I I
wish. You.
>> uh
.
>>
uh. Uh
.
You.
>>
you you.
>> you you. You. You you you.
You.
Oh oh.
>>
uh oh.
I oh.
Oh.
>>
you you you.
You.
>> you. You. You.
>> you you you. You you.
Uh.
>>
you.
>>
you you. You.
You.
>>
you. You you you.
Me.
>> me.
>>
you.
How how.
You.
>> you.
You.
>> you. Me you you and. Me. You
you. You.
You me.
You. Me me you.
You. You.
You.
>>
me.
You you.
You. Me you.
You you you.
You.
>>
me.
>> you me.
And. You. You. You.
You. You.
>> you.
You.
Me you.
>> you.
>> you you.
You.
>> you. She she she she she she
she. She.
Tbd, tbd, tbd, tbd. Eat eat
eat. Eat.
I'm I'm.
Uh.
Boo.
>>
I'm.
>> I'm. I'm I'm on. Beat on.