Transcript
SOURCE TRANSCRIPT
This transcript is downloaded from the source you provided but we haven't reviewed it for accuracy. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record. You can also request an AI-transcription of the audio file with the button to the left.
[8:11]
>> Okay, sorry
[8:12]
for the bit of delay. We're
[8:13]
going to call the meeting
[8:15]
to order at 4:02,
[8:16]
and we're going to start with
[8:17]
roll call please.
[8:20]
[CALLING ROLL]
[8:35]
>> Thank you. And then,
[8:37]
Jeremy, would you like
[8:38]
to introduce staff,
[8:39]
please?
[8:40]
>> Sure thing, Chair. We have
[8:41]
clerking for us, Ms. Jennifer
[8:43]
Gannon and Michelle Yang. To my
[8:45]
right, we have Interim City
[8:47]
Attorney Mary Wagner, here
[8:48]
with us in person today.
[8:50]
Assistant Director of Public
[8:51]
Works Josh Anthony, myself,
[8:53]
Jeremy Pagan, Director of
[8:55]
Development Services. Lily Toy
[8:56]
is our Planning manager and
[8:58]
Associate Planner Danny Castro
[8:59]
will be giving our presentation
[9:00]
later on today.
[9:02]
>> Great. Thank you.
[9:03]
Before we move on
[9:04]
to item two, I just want to
[9:06]
remind we have some community
[9:07]
members here that we have cards
[9:09]
if you would like to speak.
[9:10]
They're kind
[9:11]
of a periwinkle color
[9:12]
in the lobby,
[9:13]
and you can bring them up
[9:15]
to our admin up here if you'd
[9:16]
like to speak. Okay. Item two,
[9:18]
approval of minutes. The
[9:20]
minutes for the August 11,
[9:22]
2026 meeting.
[9:27]
>> I move approval.
[9:29]
>> I second.
[9:32]
>> Okay. We have a first and a
[9:33]
second. All in favor? Aye.
[9:35]
Any opposed? Okay, motion
[9:37]
carries. Thank you. Number
[9:41]
three, announcements. No
[9:44]
announcements. We'll move on
[9:47]
to the public hearing. Item
[9:50]
4A1, the amendment application,
[9:52]
which we've read many times,
[9:53]
but we'll do it again. AMND
[9:55]
202500266 and parcel map
[10:02]
application PM2025 00991
[10:07]
by EP2 Redding Oasis, LLC. I
[10:10]
will turn it over to Mr.
[10:11]
Castro
[10:13]
to give us this presentation,
[10:14]
please.
[10:15]
>> Yeah, and before Mr. Castro
[10:16]
jumps in, just want
[10:17]
to take a quick minute
[10:19]
to thank the Planning
[10:20]
Commission. I recognize we're
[10:21]
in our third hearing
[10:22]
for this item,
[10:24]
but this commission brings a
[10:25]
lot of good, unique
[10:26]
perspective, good voices, lots
[10:28]
of years of experience. And so
[10:29]
I think the questions and
[10:30]
comments have been really good
[10:31]
ones, and the end result is a
[10:33]
much better and more refined
[10:35]
permit,
[10:37]
I feel more legally defensible.
[10:39]
So I know we're
[10:41]
in a third hearing, but I
[10:42]
believe it has been time well
[10:43]
spent. So, thank you
[10:44]
for helping staff as we wrestle
[10:46]
through some changes and
[10:47]
refinements,
[10:48]
and certainly thanks
[10:49]
to the applicant for their
[10:51]
patience as we're working
[10:52]
through here
[10:53]
to the finish line. And we're
[10:54]
able to get the necessary
[10:56]
technical information
[10:57]
from the applicant between the
[10:58]
last hearing and this one,
[10:59]
to bring that forward
[11:01]
to this commission today. And
[11:02]
then last, just want to thank
[11:03]
staff and our city attorney.
[11:05]
It's really been a team effort
[11:06]
to try and figure out how
[11:07]
to make this work. It is a
[11:08]
complex permit,
[11:10]
as this commission knows.
[11:11]
We're working with 20 plus year
[11:13]
old documents and approvals and
[11:15]
working to tweak and change the
[11:16]
project and still have it fit
[11:17]
within those confines. So
[11:19]
staff's done a good job getting
[11:20]
us to this point. I think today
[11:22]
we have new information
[11:23]
to present to the commission
[11:25]
and a good recommendation
[11:26]
for you all to consider. So
[11:28]
with that I'm going to pass it
[11:29]
off to Danny. Take it away.
[11:31]
>> All right. So yeah,
[11:33]
good evening or good afternoon.
[11:35]
Thank you, Chair. Greetings
[11:37]
to everyone. So we are going
[11:39]
to go over the Oasis
[11:42]
Commercial center amendment and
[11:44]
parcel map application and I've
[11:46]
got this divided
[11:48]
into three parts. So I'm going
[11:51]
to do part one, I'm going
[11:52]
to do a recap. I mean,
[11:54]
I know we were all here
[11:55]
on the 23rd,
[11:56]
but there might be some members
[11:57]
of the audience who weren't.
[11:58]
So I was just going to try to
[12:00]
briefly recap and go through. I
[12:02]
don't want to rush it,
[12:03]
but I don't want
[12:04]
to spend too much time
[12:05]
on the recap. So we'll
[12:06]
go through those. And then part
[12:08]
two, we'll be addressing
[12:09]
Commissioner Kent Manual's
[12:13]
suggested changes
[12:15]
to the conditions. There was a,
[12:17]
if you recall,
[12:18]
on the 11th or I'm sorry,
[12:19]
on the 23rd, there was a list
[12:21]
of 13 conditions
[12:22]
with suggested changes. And so
[12:24]
we'll be going
[12:25]
through those and then
[12:26]
in part three we'll be going
[12:28]
over changes to the
[12:32]
environmental and when we get
[12:34]
there we'll talk about that.
[12:36]
So without further ado,
[12:38]
part one project recap. So,
[12:40]
yes, so the site we're talking
[12:42]
about, it's in the north part
[12:44]
of the city off of Oasis Road
[12:48]
up there off of i5. Right now
[12:50]
it's a group of properties.
[12:57]
Off of i5 and it's zoned RCSP,
[13:00]
which is regional commercial
[13:02]
specific plan overlay. So we'll
[13:04]
talk about the Oasis Road
[13:05]
specific plan in a minute. And
[13:06]
as a general plan, designation
[13:07]
of regional commercial. So, you
[13:10]
know, relatively large piece
[13:11]
of land up there designated
[13:12]
for commercial development
[13:13]
at the north part of the town.
[13:19]
In 2005, no, 2006, the original
[13:21]
permit was approved and it was
[13:23]
originally for Costco. It
[13:26]
planned a large Costco building
[13:28]
with some other outbuildings
[13:31]
on the site. It proposed
[13:35]
to delete Twin View north of
[13:37]
Oasis. So Twin View would have
[13:38]
came through here,
[13:41]
connecting there and there. So
[13:42]
it proposed to delete Twin View
[13:45]
altogether. It deleted an
[13:46]
intermittent creek that
[13:49]
currently runs through the site
[13:50]
and it included two phases,
[13:51]
a phase 1a and a phase 1b. So
[13:57]
with this amendment
[13:58]
application, there's also a
[13:59]
parcel map application
[14:01]
to change the property lines
[14:04]
and to create the lock
[14:06]
configuration that looks
[14:07]
exactly like this. So currently
[14:09]
Twin View is this gray area. It
[14:11]
comes down and connects
[14:13]
through here. And the parcel
[14:15]
map would move that right
[14:17]
of way here to align with
[14:19]
Oasis Court, which is
[14:20]
confusingly enough, is not a
[14:22]
court, it's a through street,
[14:23]
but it's called Oasis Court, so
[14:25]
you still have that north south
[14:26]
connection there. The project
[14:28]
overlaid
[14:29]
on this exhibit would look
[14:32]
like this. So whereas
[14:34]
previously this whole area was
[14:37]
for commercial development and
[14:39]
they were going to fill
[14:40]
in this creek, now
[14:41]
with this amended project,
[14:43]
they, they're proposing to
[14:44]
leave this intermittent creek,
[14:46]
parcel this off for future
[14:47]
development that would require
[14:49]
its own conditional use permit
[14:50]
and to leave this part
[14:53]
of the site about 13 or 14
[14:55]
acres, leave that
[14:57]
for this proposed development.
[15:07]
So let's see what's essential
[15:09]
here. I think I just went
[15:10]
over most of that in terms
[15:12]
of the uses. We're talking
[15:14]
about a couple hotels,
[15:16]
some quick serve drive thru
[15:18]
restaurants, coffee kiosk,
[15:21]
drive thru coffee kiosk, a sit
[15:22]
down restaurant there,
[15:24]
and a gas station. So
[15:29]
like I mentioned before,
[15:31]
this property is within the
[15:33]
Oasis Road specific plan area.
[15:35]
And without getting too much
[15:37]
into recapping the details,
[15:38]
essentially what the specific
[15:39]
plan overlay is that it's a
[15:41]
zoning overlay district that
[15:43]
goes over the property that
[15:45]
essentially elevates the
[15:46]
standards of development
[15:48]
for the property
[15:49]
above that which is required
[15:51]
by the standard zoning code.
[15:53]
So some examples of things that
[15:55]
wouldn't normally be required
[15:56]
of a development like this,
[15:58]
but that are required
[15:59]
of a development in this area
[16:01]
are parking lot screening
[16:02]
walls, some enhanced
[16:03]
architectural design
[16:05]
guidelines,
[16:06]
additional street landscaping
[16:07]
like this project is bringing
[16:09]
in separated sidewalks and a
[16:10]
median
[16:11]
with trees and landscaping
[16:12]
along there,
[16:13]
as well as some requirements
[16:15]
for public art features and
[16:17]
things like that. So all that
[16:20]
specific plan overlay,
[16:23]
increased standards apply to
[16:25]
the project is essentially what
[16:26]
this slide was talking about.
[16:30]
As for trees and landscaping,
[16:32]
like I mentioned, the medians
[16:33]
and the fringes would be treed.
[16:37]
And there's a mitigation
[16:39]
measure that exists already
[16:41]
with the project in the EIR
[16:43]
that requires tree preservation
[16:45]
and replacement. So all trees
[16:46]
greater than six inches
[16:48]
measured at breast height,
[16:49]
which is
[16:50]
about four and a half feet
[16:51]
off the ground west
[16:52]
of the parking area adjacent
[16:53]
to I5 would be preserved. So do
[16:55]
I. Can I get back
[16:56]
to the slide quickly? So
[16:58]
there's a bunch
[16:59]
of trees that would be in here
[17:01]
that would be preserved, kind
[17:04]
of these guys in here. There's
[17:08]
another couple
[17:09]
of large trees up here
[17:11]
in the northwest of the
[17:13]
property that are already
[17:16]
mitigated to be preserved. So
[17:18]
those would also need
[17:20]
to be preserved, and the rest
[17:22]
of the trees that would be
[17:23]
removed would all need
[17:25]
to be replaced in accordance
[17:26]
with the scheme that exists
[17:28]
in the EIR. So there's like
[17:30]
replacement ratios depending
[17:31]
on how big
[17:32]
of a tree you're planting,
[17:33]
whether it's a seedling or a
[17:34]
box tree,
[17:35]
how many trees you're
[17:36]
mitigating for,
[17:37]
but there's a kind of
[17:38]
determined scheme that applies
[17:40]
to those ratios. So that,
[17:44]
in a nutshell,
[17:45]
is the project. And I'm happy
[17:46]
to answer any questions
[17:48]
after the
[17:49]
presentation if there was
[17:51]
anything that you needed more
[17:52]
refresher on. But I wanted
[17:54]
to get into part two,
[18:01]
which is the proposed changes.
[18:02]
So without further ado. So the
[18:03]
first one on there, if you'll
[18:05]
recall, was a revision
[18:06]
to condition number four. And
[18:07]
essentially it was asking
[18:10]
for architectural review
[18:11]
to come back to this body.
[18:14]
At the on the June, I'm sorry,
[18:16]
July 23rd hearing, the planning
[18:18]
commission didn't express
[18:19]
desire to add this condition.
[18:21]
So in the draft conditions
[18:22]
of approval,
[18:23]
this condition was not added.
[18:26]
And I should say the draft
[18:27]
conditions of the new,
[18:29]
newly revised draft conditions
[18:30]
of approval is what I'm
[18:31]
referring
[18:32]
to proposed revisions
[18:35]
to condition 17B. So this has
[18:43]
to do with those two oak trees
[18:45]
in the northwest corner
[18:48]
of the site that I mentioned.
[18:53]
And the recommended changes
[18:54]
were essentially updated
[18:57]
language that's more in line
[19:00]
with how we would word things
[19:02]
today. So it's not necessarily
[19:03]
too substantially different.
[19:04]
It still satisfies the existing
[19:06]
mitigation measure. It's more
[19:08]
of a lateral change that kind
[19:09]
of updates that language to,
[19:12]
to the specifics that we now
[19:13]
use in the city
[19:14]
for tree protection. So staff
[19:16]
agrees that that that seems
[19:18]
entirely plausible to
[19:20]
change the condition as such.
[19:22]
So the draft conditions
[19:23]
of approval have been revised
[19:24]
to include this updated
[19:25]
language. Condition 17D, there
[19:30]
was wording. So the last two
[19:32]
sentences
[19:33]
of condition 17D read,
[19:36]
some tree plantings are
[19:38]
to occur within the open space
[19:40]
areas adjacent to Salt Creek.
[19:41]
The landscape plan shall
[19:42]
include the planting plan
[19:44]
for this area. So staff's
[19:46]
interpretation of the intent
[19:48]
of this condition was
[19:50]
to ensure that there were some,
[19:51]
at least some tree plantings
[19:53]
that get planted adjacent to
[19:54]
Salt Creek because
[19:56]
without that condition,
[19:58]
there would be no requirement
[19:59]
to plant any trees next to
[20:00]
Salt Creek. So it's not clear
[20:04]
what putting a 50% limit
[20:06]
on the plantings would achieve.
[20:10]
So for that reason, staff has
[20:11]
not included the suggested
[20:12]
changes
[20:13]
into the draft conditions
[20:14]
of approval, again,
[20:15]
as the conditions intent seem
[20:17]
to be, to require some tree
[20:19]
plantings and putting a limit
[20:21]
of 50% if I'm not a biologist,
[20:24]
but if it was feasible
[20:25]
to do 100%, I don't
[20:28]
see why that wouldn't be
[20:30]
allowed. But again,
[20:32]
this is just staff's
[20:33]
interpretation,
[20:35]
staff's review. But
[20:36]
that's why that change wasn't
[20:37]
added to the draft conditions
[20:38]
of approval. This one had some
[20:42]
discussion
[20:43]
on the first hearing.
[20:44]
Condition number 40. It was the
[20:46]
condition
[20:47]
for fair share funding for a
[20:49]
fire department ladder truck.
[20:50]
So we did have time to,
[20:53]
to speak with the fire
[20:55]
department and they had time
[20:56]
to kind of look
[20:57]
into this a little bit. And the
[20:59]
Redding Fire Department staff
[21:00]
concurred with the suggestion
[21:01]
that an additional ladder truck
[21:03]
is no longer required
[21:04]
to service this development.
[21:05]
And so that condition was
[21:08]
struck. Condition 49, there was
[21:14]
a proposal to strike the,
[21:16]
the condition for bus turnouts
[21:20]
to be incorporated
[21:21]
into the project
[21:22]
with improvement plans. The
[21:24]
suggestion was if they're not
[21:25]
shown now,
[21:26]
then they shouldn't be there
[21:28]
at all. I did communicate with
[21:31]
our RABA representative and he
[21:33]
explained
[21:34]
to me that they do prefer
[21:35]
to have the flexibility
[21:38]
to place those at time
[21:40]
of development. It's a little
[21:41]
closer to,
[21:42]
I mean it's way closer to when
[21:44]
the development's actually
[21:45]
going to go in and,
[21:47]
at that time they're better
[21:48]
able to know exactly what
[21:50]
transportation needs they have
[21:52]
at that time, what needs they
[21:53]
might not have and where they
[21:55]
might need those bus stops and
[21:57]
turnouts,
[21:58]
should they even need them.
[22:00]
In addition to that,
[22:02]
it meets general plan policies
[22:04]
for transit. There's a couple
[22:05]
listed in the staff report and
[22:14]
I remember there was one more
[22:16]
point on that. But essentially
[22:19]
staff didn't see why it was
[22:20]
inappropriate. I mean,
[22:21]
there's plenty
[22:23]
of things that are,
[22:24]
conditioned for
[22:26]
at time of improvement plans
[22:27]
and this seemed to fit. So
[22:29]
staff did not,
[22:31]
did not strike that condition.
[22:32]
Oh, I was going to mention it's
[22:34]
also a mitigation measure
[22:35]
for air quality standards
[22:37]
from Shasta
[22:38]
County Air Quality Management
[22:40]
District that were suggested
[22:42]
to be incorporated
[22:43]
into the project
[22:44]
to meet SIMS and BAMS. So those
[22:45]
are the standard mitigation
[22:46]
measures from that agency.
[22:47]
So, we left it
[22:49]
in. Proposed revisions
[22:53]
to condition number 55
[22:54]
of the amendment. So the
[22:56]
Oasis Road specific plan
[22:58]
for major driveways
[23:00]
into shopping centers requires
[23:02]
a minimum 8 foot wide landscape
[23:04]
medium that runs the length
[23:06]
of the driveway. Well, that
[23:09]
runs 50ft
[23:10]
from the driveway intersection
[23:11]
to the street,
[23:12]
to be specific. The proposed
[23:14]
site plan shows one of those.
[23:15]
The suggestion was that the
[23:17]
other two entrances that are
[23:19]
proposed off of the relocated
[23:21]
Twin View Boulevard also have
[23:24]
this requirement placed
[23:26]
on them. And upon reviewing
[23:28]
that it seems consistent
[23:29]
with the OASIS Road specific
[23:31]
plan, staff agrees that
[23:33]
it's a plausible condition
[23:34]
to put on the permit. So we've
[23:36]
included the suggested changes
[23:38]
into the draft conditions
[23:46]
of approval. Condition59 has
[23:49]
some added language
[23:51]
to this franchise. Chain stores
[23:53]
with prototypical structures
[23:54]
shall be modified as may be
[23:56]
required to have thematic
[23:57]
architectural consistency
[23:58]
with the OASIS Road specific
[24:00]
plan and approved architectural
[24:01]
details in accordance
[24:03]
with condition four
[24:04]
of this permit. So essentially
[24:06]
this condition kind of relied
[24:08]
on the very first one we spoke
[24:10]
about that required
[24:11]
architectural review. And
[24:14]
because that condition was not
[24:19]
added, it makes sense to also
[24:21]
disregard this suggestion.
[24:23]
So, I mean, unless there's a
[24:24]
change and this body wishes
[24:25]
to put
[24:27]
in architectural review, then
[24:28]
I'd suggest revisiting this as
[24:29]
a potential. But if not, then
[24:31]
this, that kind of goes hand
[24:32]
in hand
[24:33]
with condition 4's suggestion
[24:39]
at the top. Condition 60N,
[24:41]
this one has to do
[24:43]
with ground cover. So the
[24:44]
suggestion was replacing the
[24:45]
first sentence to say that
[24:47]
ground cover shall be of live
[24:48]
plant material and will be
[24:50]
designed and planted
[24:51]
to achieve
[24:52]
at least 75% coverage
[24:53]
at least three years
[24:54]
from planting. So the code
[24:57]
already requires that plantings
[24:58]
reach their maximum ground
[25:00]
coverage potential
[25:01]
within three years. And the
[25:02]
code requires complete
[25:04]
coverage. The OASIS Road
[25:06]
specific plan,
[25:07]
as far as I could tell and
[25:09]
could find, doesn't change that
[25:10]
requirement. And I was not able
[25:12]
to find any basis
[25:13]
for a 75% coverage three years
[25:14]
from planting versus full
[25:16]
coverage. So it's true that due
[25:17]
to
[25:19]
like state water regulations,
[25:20]
there's some constraints
[25:21]
on developments to,
[25:22]
with regards
[25:30]
to their water usage. And so we
[25:32]
have become a little more,
[25:33]
I don't think relax is the
[25:34]
word, I guess would be strict
[25:36]
in terms of, with water usage.
[25:40]
But we haven't
[25:42]
required 100% coverage. We
[25:43]
require kind of substantial, as
[25:44]
long as it looks good and you
[25:45]
know you have the right kind
[25:46]
of hardscaping integrated
[25:47]
with it to meet state water
[25:49]
requirements. And we are
[25:50]
flexible. But in terms
[25:53]
of adding a 75% coverage, it
[25:55]
wasn't clear why that would
[25:57]
need to be spelled out
[26:00]
in the conditions
[26:01]
of approval. So staff did not
[26:03]
include the suggested changes
[26:04]
into the draft conditions.
[26:09]
There were some proposed
[26:10]
technical revisions
[26:11]
to condition 66 and 68
[26:13]
of the amendment and condition
[26:15]
23 of the parcel map. These are
[26:17]
just technical changes. A
[26:19]
couple of them were changing
[26:20]
the words air quality element
[26:22]
to natural resources element.
[26:23]
That's been done. And then
[26:25]
adding PM2.5 in addition
[26:29]
to PM10 which was also done.
[26:37]
There were a couple conditions
[26:39]
again, one
[26:40]
on the amendment and one
[26:41]
in the parcel map
[26:42]
for nesting birds. And so
[26:46]
on the amendment conditions.
[26:49]
The language that was
[26:51]
in the permit was what's in the
[26:53]
mitigation monitoring program.
[26:56]
The suggested language
[26:57]
essentially is kind of updated
[27:00]
language again a lateral change
[27:01]
that it doesn't literally say
[27:03]
the same thing,
[27:05]
but essentially
[27:06]
in a nutshell, it kind
[27:07]
of says the same thing. It's
[27:08]
like do nesting bird surveys
[27:10]
per standards. And so we've
[27:12]
changed the language
[27:15]
of condition 71B in the
[27:17]
amendment and then that
[27:19]
language in the parcel map, it
[27:21]
actually was literally already
[27:23]
in there word for word. So we
[27:24]
left that in. So both sets of
[27:26]
conditions now have that
[27:29]
updated nesting bird survey
[27:35]
language. So that concludes
[27:37]
part two. So we'll move on to
[27:38]
the environmental discussion.
[27:40]
So a little background
[27:42]
on that. So again, on July
[27:45]
23, the commission had some
[27:46]
concerns
[27:47]
about the initial addendum
[27:49]
with regards to new species and
[27:51]
our approach and our
[27:53]
understanding
[27:54]
of what was required
[27:55]
under CEQA for that analysis
[27:56]
in the addendum. So
[27:58]
after consultation with the
[27:59]
city attorney's office, staff
[28:02]
did request that the applicant
[28:04]
provide some revised biological
[28:06]
and aquatic studies
[28:08]
to update that addendum. So the
[28:14]
findings for those studies have
[28:16]
been incorporated
[28:17]
into the addendum
[28:19]
for the project and we will go
[28:23]
over the environmental right
[28:24]
now. So this is a recap slide.
[28:26]
So the EIR again the project
[28:28]
had a EIR done and adopted in
[28:30]
2005, April of 2005. The EIR
[28:34]
did identify wetlands on site
[28:37]
and mitigation measures were
[28:38]
and are required. And this
[28:44]
exhibit shows just where some
[28:46]
of the wetlands are. And I
[28:47]
found this kind of funny. This
[28:48]
is a copy error. It is not a
[28:50]
giant wetland
[28:51]
through the property. This is
[28:52]
just a photocopy. So disregard
[28:54]
that. No need for alarm.
[28:57]
But yeah. So the conclusion is
[28:59]
that the amendment is much
[29:00]
less impactful
[29:01]
on the environment due
[29:03]
to not filling in the creek or
[29:06]
the intermittent drainage. I
[29:07]
should say not filling in that
[29:08]
intermittent drainage area due
[29:14]
to just its scope and size
[29:16]
being smaller. The off site,
[29:18]
not off site, but adjacent
[29:20]
to the site, the street
[29:22]
improvements being smaller. So
[29:24]
staff prepared an addendum
[29:25]
for the project. So in terms
[29:30]
of the new biological factors.
[29:33]
Madrone Ecological Consulting
[29:34]
did prepare a memo, a
[29:36]
Biological Resource
[29:38]
Assessment, which is BRA and an
[29:40]
Aquatic Resource Delineation,
[29:42]
which is the ERD. They
[29:45]
identified seven newly listed
[29:47]
species with the potential
[29:49]
to occur on site. We wanted
[29:51]
to analyze for newly listed
[29:54]
species because that's what
[29:56]
would count in terms of
[30:00]
assessing whether or not a
[30:02]
subsequent EIR or A
[30:06]
supplemental EIR would be
[30:07]
needed. So we went
[30:09]
through that analysis. Spoiler
[30:11]
alert. Staff feels that we're
[30:12]
still in addendum territory,
[30:14]
but I'd like to go
[30:16]
over those findings briefly.
[30:19]
So they identified Shasta
[30:20]
Snow Wreath, which is a shrub,
[30:22]
as having the potential
[30:23]
to occur on site. Although it's
[30:26]
a newly listed species
[30:29]
in terms of its candidacy
[30:32]
for endangered species, it was
[30:35]
already considered a special
[30:36]
status species under CEQA
[30:38]
at the time of the original EIR
[30:40]
because it was listed by the
[30:42]
California Native Plant society
[30:44]
as a rank 1B2 California rare
[30:46]
plant. It was
[30:47]
already
[30:48]
on the radar and considered
[30:50]
under CEQA,
[30:52]
even though it kind
[30:54]
of counts as newly listed, it
[30:56]
was already considered and was
[30:57]
a special status species at the
[30:59]
time the original EIR was
[31:01]
adopted out of an abundance
[31:03]
of caution due to the age
[31:04]
of the EIR, an avoidance and
[31:06]
minimization measure for all
[31:08]
special plant species
[31:11]
identified in the EIR as having
[31:13]
the potential
[31:14]
to occur has been added
[31:15]
to the conditions
[31:16]
of approval. Again, the
[31:17]
original EIR looked
[31:18]
for plants, didn't find them.
[31:19]
There was some potential
[31:20]
to occur, but they looked and
[31:21]
they weren't there. So they
[31:22]
didn't mitigate for them. So
[31:23]
the only change is that we're
[31:24]
clarifying that, okay,
[31:25]
because it's old, we're
[31:26]
refreshing and adding
[31:27]
minimization and avoidance
[31:28]
measures so that we have those
[31:30]
pre construction surveys
[31:31]
for special status plants
[31:34]
within two years
[31:36]
of development. So it's merely
[31:39]
a clarification. There's no
[31:40]
real new information there.
[31:42]
We're just refreshing those
[31:46]
contingencies because the EIR
[31:48]
is 20 years old. Next was the
[31:51]
Grasshopper Sparrow. This is a
[31:54]
sparrow. It's a bird. It does
[31:56]
have the potential to occur
[31:57]
on site. Even though no
[31:59]
suitable habitat was identified
[32:01]
for this species, the typical
[32:06]
nesting bird survey condition
[32:09]
would apply. So no new
[32:11]
condition would be required
[32:14]
to mitigate for this. It's
[32:15]
basically already mitigated
[32:17]
for. So we can go a little
[32:19]
slower. Michelle, thank you.
[32:26]
The third species, Crotches
[32:28]
bumblebee. So Crotches
[32:31]
bumblebee,
[32:33]
there's the potential for it
[32:35]
to exist on site. It's a
[32:36]
candidate species for listing
[32:39]
under the California
[32:40]
Endangered Species act, or
[32:41]
CESA. CESA requires protocol
[32:42]
level surveys and consultation
[32:43]
with fish and wildlife
[32:44]
with a positive finding even
[32:45]
for candidate species. So
[32:47]
whether or not this project
[32:49]
were to mitigate for, you know,
[32:51]
were to officially mitigate
[32:53]
for Crotches bumblebee, it's
[32:55]
the law that those surveys
[32:57]
would have to be done
[32:59]
at the state level. So out
[33:01]
of an abundance of caution,
[33:04]
we've added the avoidance and
[33:06]
minimization measure.
[33:07]
Requiring surveys
[33:09]
for crotches bumblebee. But
[33:11]
it's officially incorporating a
[33:13]
new mitigation measure was not
[33:14]
necessary since it's actually
[33:16]
the law regardless. So we are
[33:18]
taking the right steps. The
[33:19]
project incorporates those
[33:21]
measures,
[33:22]
but there was no need to
[33:24]
to do a supplemental EIR for
[33:25]
that because it's already
[33:27]
covered under state law. The
[33:28]
monarch butterfly,
[33:30]
similar story. It is a
[33:33]
federally listed candidate
[33:36]
species. There's milkweed
[33:38]
on site, and milkweed is their
[33:40]
preferred plant
[33:42]
for eggs and larvae production.
[33:48]
So one of the differences
[33:50]
between the California
[33:51]
Endangered Species act and the
[33:53]
federal Endangered Species act
[33:54]
are just the regular
[33:55]
Endangered Species act is that
[33:56]
candidate species under the
[33:58]
federal act don't receive any
[33:59]
protections
[34:00]
at the federal level. There's
[34:03]
also no guarantee under CEQA
[34:05]
that federal candidate species
[34:08]
would receive any further
[34:10]
protection. Nonetheless, best
[34:13]
practices and out
[34:14]
of an abundance of caution,
[34:16]
staff has moved forward and
[34:18]
taken the biologist suggestion
[34:20]
and we've added a avoidance and
[34:21]
minimization measures into the
[34:23]
project conditions requiring
[34:28]
those surveys for monarch
[34:30]
butterfly eggs and larvae. And
[34:32]
we've added those
[34:33]
into the conditions
[34:35]
of approval. Again, no need
[34:36]
to add those into the formal
[34:38]
mitigation measures, but out
[34:41]
of an abundance of caution, we
[34:43]
have, you know, strived to do
[34:44]
the right thing and added them
[34:46]
into the project conditions.
[34:48]
Western spadefoot toad. So
[34:51]
western spadefoot was listed as
[34:52]
a species of special concern
[34:57]
in 1994. And so this species
[34:58]
was also analyzed
[35:00]
with the original EIR. There
[35:01]
were several indications that
[35:02]
the species wasn't present
[35:04]
on site. And because of that,
[35:05]
no mitigation measures were
[35:06]
actually incorporated
[35:08]
into the project again 20 years
[35:09]
ago. So while it's not expected
[35:11]
to be on site even when, even
[35:14]
with the more recent analysis,
[35:15]
out of an abundance
[35:17]
of caution, again, avoidance
[35:18]
and minimization measures
[35:19]
for the toad have been added
[35:20]
to the conditions
[35:21]
of approval. And again,
[35:22]
I just want
[35:23]
to reiterate that these things,
[35:24]
they're not adding any new
[35:26]
information, really. We're just
[35:27]
kind
[35:28]
of refreshing the conditions
[35:29]
of approval
[35:30]
to make sure that we stay
[35:31]
in lockstep
[35:32]
with that original EIR
[35:34]
with the current amendment.
[35:36]
Same thing for the
[35:37]
Northwestern pond turtle. Same
[35:40]
year it was designated 1994 as
[35:42]
a species of special concern
[35:44]
by CDFW. So its analysis was
[35:46]
also included
[35:47]
in the original EIR. It's
[35:49]
essentially the same situation.
[35:51]
So we've added avoidance and
[35:53]
minimization measures
[35:55]
into the conditions
[35:57]
of approval, but no need to
[36:00]
change or add any formal
[36:03]
mitigation measures. Number
[36:04]
seven, the last one,
[36:06]
the burrowing owl. So this
[36:10]
again, this has been
[36:12]
on CDFW's list, I believe,
[36:14]
since the 70s in terms of a
[36:16]
Species of special concern. It
[36:17]
was also analyzed in the EIR.
[36:22]
It was not observed on site
[36:23]
during bird surveys 20 years
[36:27]
ago. There's a mitigation
[36:29]
measure which we talked
[36:30]
about before,
[36:31]
mitigation measure A2, which
[36:32]
was originally incorporated
[36:33]
to ensure compliance with,
[36:34]
with the Migratory Bird Treaty
[36:36]
act,
[36:37]
which is nesting bird surveys.
[36:38]
It may have been a slight
[36:40]
oversight 20 years ago because
[36:41]
the burrowing owl,
[36:42]
it burrows. And so there's some
[36:44]
slight differences
[36:46]
in how you need to survey
[36:48]
to detect that bird. And so
[36:50]
just to clarify that and to
[36:51]
strengthen up this project's
[36:52]
approach to protecting all the
[36:54]
birds that the EIR strive
[36:55]
to protect and included
[36:56]
in their analysis, we've added
[36:58]
to the conditions
[37:00]
of approval the measure
[37:03]
for burrowing owl surveys.
[37:06]
Again, this species was
[37:08]
analyzed in the EIR. And our
[37:11]
approach here is that we're
[37:12]
clarifying and refreshing those
[37:14]
conditions of approval
[37:15]
to make sure that we're staying
[37:16]
in step
[37:18]
with what the EIR strived
[37:19]
to do 20 years ago. Aside
[37:22]
from those seven species, there
[37:24]
was a marsh identified that was
[37:26]
not identified 20 years ago.
[37:28]
This marsh is actually at kind
[37:32]
of the corner of Oasis
[37:34]
Road and Gold Hills Drive. If
[37:36]
you go out there, I think you
[37:37]
can see the cattails and stuff
[37:39]
out there still. It's right
[37:41]
there in the southwest corner
[37:43]
of that intersection. It's kind
[37:44]
of far from the project,
[37:46]
but the project may be required
[37:47]
to bring water line from
[37:49]
Bella Vista
[37:50]
for firewater pressure,
[37:53]
for emergency water only. And
[37:55]
there's the possibility that
[37:57]
that emergency water pressure
[38:00]
line from the Bella Vista
[38:02]
hookup over there could run
[38:03]
through this marsh. I imagine
[38:07]
the project would try
[38:08]
to avoid it
[38:09]
in the first place.
[38:11]
Nonetheless, the existing
[38:13]
mitigation measures
[38:16]
for jurisdictional waters,
[38:17]
waters
[38:19]
of the state and waters of,
[38:20]
of the US would still apply
[38:22]
to this, to this wetland. And
[38:23]
so existing mitigation measures
[38:24]
already cover that newly
[38:27]
identified marsh. So the
[38:30]
takeaways here is that the
[38:32]
project is still found
[38:33]
to be less impactful
[38:34]
in the environment.
[38:36]
With the amendment, no new
[38:37]
major mitigation measures are
[38:38]
needed and clarifications and
[38:40]
avoidance and minimization
[38:41]
measures added to the project
[38:42]
conditions adequately address
[38:44]
CEQA without the need
[38:45]
for a supplemental EIR. So that
[38:50]
was kind of section three. So
[38:51]
we're going to move kind of
[38:54]
to the stuff at the end here.
[38:55]
The coda, if you will. So,
[38:57]
public comments again, I
[39:00]
believe I received one inquiry
[39:02]
where somebody was just
[39:03]
interested. I think they might
[39:05]
have been with some sort
[39:07]
of firm or something that is,
[39:09]
we're curious about the status
[39:10]
of the project,
[39:11]
but no formal comments,
[39:12]
just more questions. So lastly,
[39:19]
so as you know, the last time
[39:23]
we met was about a month ago,
[39:24]
which,
[39:25]
to get all this analysis done,
[39:27]
to get the biologist and to get
[39:28]
staff and city attorney and to
[39:30]
get the staff report together
[39:31]
and to get,
[39:32]
get all this prepared
[39:34]
for you guys today. And that
[39:36]
with that amount
[39:37]
of turnaround time,
[39:38]
inevitably there are bound
[39:39]
to be some things that needed
[39:40]
to be fixed in post. So here's
[39:41]
the list
[39:42]
of recommended changes
[39:43]
to the attachments. So if,
[39:45]
if there's a motion made
[39:47]
to approve the project tonight,
[39:48]
if we could include these
[39:51]
changes, would be
[39:53]
staff's recommendation. The
[39:55]
first thing would be we added
[39:58]
an indemnification condition
[39:59]
to the permit. This is
[40:02]
something that in working
[40:06]
with our city attorney, this is
[40:08]
something that is standard
[40:10]
in other jurisdictions
[40:11]
for every project. And so we're
[40:14]
looking
[40:15]
at potentially moving forward.
[40:17]
Maybe this is just me,
[40:18]
this is not an official thing,
[40:19]
but it seems that this might be
[40:20]
something we want to look into
[40:22]
doing as a standard condition
[40:23]
moving forward
[40:25]
for future projects. But so
[40:27]
we've added that here and that
[40:30]
condition is in order
[40:32]
to get the,
[40:33]
in the staff report, it's put
[40:34]
as condition four because
[40:35]
that's kind
[40:36]
of where it belongs in terms
[40:37]
of its importance and kind
[40:38]
of having it at the top. The
[40:39]
thing is,
[40:41]
is that when I was doing the
[40:42]
PowerPoint presentation,
[40:43]
realizing that it kind
[40:44]
of threw all the numbering off
[40:45]
for everything. So I could
[40:47]
either A, go change a bunch
[40:49]
of numbers and a bunch
[40:50]
of attachments,
[40:51]
which could lead to a bunch
[40:52]
of problems, or B, just move
[40:54]
the indemnification condition
[40:55]
to the end of the conditions
[40:57]
of approval
[40:58]
for the amendment and
[41:00]
for the parcel map. So long
[41:02]
story short, what I'm trying to
[41:03]
say is staff recommends moving
[41:05]
the indemnification condition
[41:06]
to the last condition in both
[41:07]
of those sets of conditions
[41:09]
of approval. Number two, in
[41:12]
that indemnification condition,
[41:13]
staff recommends striking the
[41:15]
following language. There's
[41:17]
some language in there
[41:19]
at the end of a sentence that
[41:20]
says or the applicant's
[41:22]
exercise of any right granted
[41:23]
under this approval,
[41:25]
the applicant took issue
[41:26]
with that part of the
[41:29]
condition. I'm not a lawyer,
[41:31]
so I don't really want
[41:32]
to speak to it too much,
[41:34]
but we did run this by the city
[41:36]
attorney's office and they
[41:39]
agreed that it was fine
[41:41]
to remove that. And so we're
[41:43]
recommending striking that
[41:45]
language. And then lastly,
[41:46]
embarrassingly enough,
[41:48]
there was a copy paste error
[41:49]
in the last sentence
[41:50]
of that condition after it has
[41:52]
all the legalese and
[41:53]
disclaimers, it talks
[41:55]
about building elevations.
[41:57]
That was supposed
[41:58]
to be a separate condition. So
[42:00]
if we could strike the last
[42:01]
sentence from the
[42:02]
Indemnification condition. I
[42:04]
will sleep better tonight. And
[42:05]
lastly,
[42:07]
the applicant had a chance
[42:09]
to run our final draft
[42:11]
of the addendum. They ran it
[42:13]
by their biologist,
[42:15]
and there was a suggestion
[42:17]
to modify the condition for
[42:19]
Crotch's bumblebee. And so I've
[42:21]
put the underlined added
[42:24]
language there in this slide.
[42:26]
Essentially, that condition
[42:27]
calls
[42:30]
for bee surveys according
[42:32]
to a specific protocol. And the
[42:34]
biologist suggests that because
[42:36]
this is a candidate species,
[42:37]
if
[42:38]
between now and the time they
[42:39]
go to do this survey, if that
[42:41]
species ends up becoming
[42:42]
formally listed under the
[42:44]
California Endangered Species
[42:45]
act, there may be a more recent
[42:47]
protocol. So this condition,
[42:50]
they suggested changing it so
[42:51]
that we have the flexibility to
[42:53]
require a more recent protocol
[42:54]
if published. And then also
[42:56]
in that condition, they
[42:57]
suggested specifying that the
[43:00]
surveys are looking for
[43:01]
bumblebee nests and not
[43:03]
individual bees. Their
[43:05]
reasoning was the individual
[43:06]
bees with the ground disturbing
[43:08]
activities will leave the area,
[43:10]
whereas nests are there. And so
[43:13]
what you're really doing is
[43:14]
looking
[43:15]
for nests and mitigating
[43:16]
for nests. So, upon the
[43:18]
biologist's recommendation,
[43:20]
we propose those changes
[43:23]
to the draft conditions
[43:24]
of approval in both sets. So
[43:28]
with that in conclusion,
[43:30]
an addendum
[43:31]
to the EIR has been completed
[43:32]
for the project. Appropriate
[43:34]
mitigation measures remain
[43:35]
incorporated and additional
[43:36]
avoidance and minimization
[43:37]
measures added
[43:38]
to the conditions
[43:39]
of approval. And staff
[43:41]
recommends determining that the
[43:42]
findings are in evidence,
[43:43]
adopting the addendum
[43:44]
to the previously certified EIR
[43:45]
for up 2302, and approving this
[43:47]
application subject
[43:49]
to the draft conditions
[43:50]
of approval
[43:51]
with the proposed changes
[43:52]
from the previous slide. And
[43:53]
I'm available
[43:54]
for any questions. Thank you.
[43:57]
>> Thank you, Mr. Castro. I'm
[43:58]
going to open it up
[43:59]
for commissioner comments,
[44:04]
please. Anyone? No? Okay, good
[44:10]
job. Looks like there are none
[44:12]
at this time. So now I will
[44:13]
open up the public comment.
[44:14]
Are there any cards for that,
[44:17]
seeing that there are none?
[44:20]
Okay. We do have someone who
[44:21]
would like to speak. If you
[44:25]
could give us your name when
[44:26]
you get to the podium,
[44:27]
please.
[44:31]
>> I sure will. Thank you. I'll
[44:32]
keep it brief. My name is
[44:33]
Michael Schumacher. I represent
[44:35]
the ownership group and serve
[44:37]
as the manager of the LLC that
[44:39]
owns the property. Good
[44:41]
evening, planning commissioners
[44:43]
and city staff. I just wanted
[44:44]
to take a moment
[44:46]
to express our gratitude for
[44:48]
the time and effort that you're
[44:50]
putting forward to hear our
[44:51]
project tonight and also
[44:53]
to recognize all of the effort
[44:55]
and energy that has gone
[44:56]
into getting us
[44:58]
to where we are today. So I
[44:59]
want to just say thank you. I
[45:00]
know it's a big lift
[45:02]
along the way,
[45:03]
so we're looking forward
[45:07]
to hopefully being Approved
[45:10]
for this project. It represents
[45:12]
not only an advancement
[45:13]
for the property,
[45:15]
but more importantly,
[45:16]
it brings to the neighborhood
[45:17]
and the region much needed
[45:18]
services to this part of town
[45:20]
that don't currently exist. So
[45:22]
we are looking forward to
[45:23]
hopefully taking the next step
[45:26]
and continuing to work with the
[45:27]
city and advancing the project
[45:29]
and moving forward. And I'm
[45:32]
here to answer any questions
[45:33]
and I'm here
[45:34]
with my team as well. They're
[45:36]
easy questions. I can answer
[45:38]
them potentially. If they're
[45:39]
difficult questions,
[45:40]
that'll be my team. So thank
[45:42]
you for the opportunity
[45:43]
to say a few words.
[45:45]
>> Thank you. Michael. Are
[45:46]
there any questions for him
[45:47]
before he leaves the podium?
[45:49]
Okay, thank you. And seeing
[45:52]
that there are no cards,
[45:53]
I'm going
[45:54]
to close the public comment.
[45:56]
Do we want to bring it back
[45:57]
to commissioners
[45:59]
for any comments? No. Do we
[46:04]
have a motion from any
[46:06]
of our commissioners? It's
[46:10]
going to be a long one because
[46:11]
we got a reference back
[46:12]
to the slide.
[46:13]
>> So with permission
[46:14]
of staff, I'd love to have that
[46:16]
recommended changes slide put
[46:18]
back up because that'll make it
[46:20]
very easy motion. There you go.
[46:27]
I move approval
[46:28]
of the staff's recommendation
[46:30]
with the recommended changes to
[46:32]
attachment slide as articulated
[46:34]
by Danny. That's it.
[46:38]
Everything else is spelled out.
[46:40]
>> Okay, we have a motion.
[46:42]
>> Do we have?
[46:43]
>> I'm happy to second that
[46:44]
motion.
[46:45]
>> And we have a second. All
[46:47]
in favor? Aye. Do we have any
[46:50]
opposed? Okay, thank you.
[46:54]
Motion carries. Good job, Mr.
[46:56]
Castro. I know that was a long
[46:59]
time spent. And three planning
[47:00]
commissions later. So item
[47:03]
number five, public comment
[47:05]
for any non agenda items within
[47:07]
the city's jurisdiction and we
[47:09]
don't have any for that. So I'm
[47:10]
going
[47:11]
to close the public comment.
[47:13]
Bring it back over
[47:15]
to item six. Commissioner
[47:18]
comments. Yes, Commissioner
[47:19]
Miner does.
[47:21]
>> Yeah, I just wanted
[47:24]
to say this is
[47:27]
about the 4A1 item,
[47:28]
but just wanted
[47:30]
to say thank you again
[47:32]
to staff for the hard work and
[47:33]
getting that
[47:34]
across the finish line. Also
[47:35]
for working with the developer
[47:37]
and whoever else came up. I
[47:39]
know it was a
[47:40]
big lift and there was a lot of
[47:42]
things that were put your guys
[47:44]
way. So really appreciate it
[47:47]
and appreciate the
[47:48]
comprehensive response
[47:49]
to all the items. So greatly
[47:51]
appreciated.
[47:53]
>> Thank you. Okay.
[47:54]
Commissioner Manuel?
[47:55]
>> Yeah, I think I'll just
[47:56]
follow up with that. You know,
[47:58]
the path of least resistance,
[47:59]
I think
[48:00]
for staff would have been
[48:01]
to require a new permit
[48:02]
on this. But certainly the
[48:04]
tactic they took was
[48:06]
appropriate. It saved the
[48:08]
developers some time. It's
[48:09]
certainly saved some money. It
[48:11]
was a bit of a struggle, as
[48:13]
Luke pointed out, with the 20
[48:14]
year old documents trying to
[48:16]
make sure everything fit
[48:18]
together. I think we're all
[48:20]
glad that it did and we can
[48:22]
move forward. Congratulations
[48:23]
on your project. I hope it's
[48:24]
successful.
[48:27]
>> Thank you. Any other?
[48:29]
>> Yeah, I just had one. I'll
[48:31]
echo that same thing
[48:33]
without repeating it. The other
[48:36]
area that I would say should be
[48:38]
put on for consideration is if
[48:39]
we're going to bring in
[48:42]
indemnification language and
[48:44]
start making that part
[48:46]
of our standard practice, we
[48:47]
should very quickly move
[48:49]
towards bringing it in as part
[48:51]
of our standard conditions
[48:53]
of approval. Thoroughly vetted
[48:55]
with a bigger group than this
[48:57]
looking at it, attorneys
[48:58]
representing developers and
[49:01]
implementers looking at it to
[49:03]
make sure we've refined that as
[49:05]
carefully as possible. And then
[49:07]
it should be vetted all the way
[49:08]
through to where it becomes
[49:10]
approved standard conditions
[49:11]
of approval
[49:13]
like the other standards.
[49:14]
Because I think it's way too
[49:15]
important
[49:16]
to be just an ad hoc item. And
[49:19]
I'm confident that there'll be
[49:21]
other situations where, you
[49:23]
know, every word matters and
[49:26]
on how open ended is it
[49:29]
in terms
[49:31]
of an applicant being response?
[49:32]
At some point an applicant's
[49:33]
responsibility has to end when
[49:35]
the project is built
[49:37]
and it's
[49:39]
operating right away
[49:40]
and that sort of thing. They
[49:41]
still remain responsible
[49:43]
for their own development, but
[49:44]
they should have no liability
[49:46]
for public right away and
[49:47]
public facilities. And the
[49:48]
language is a little
[49:50]
open-ended-ish. I know from my
[49:51]
former career the attorneys
[49:53]
that reviewed contracts
[49:55]
before I was allowed
[49:57]
to sign them would have, you
[49:59]
know,
[50:00]
expressed some opinions. So.
[50:01]
Thank you.
[50:03]
>> Thank you. Commissioner
[50:04]
Johnson, did you want to say
[50:06]
something?
[50:08]
>> I have a couple,
[50:09]
just a couple of things
[50:10]
with regard to the process. I
[50:12]
also appreciate the time spent
[50:14]
and I was grateful. I think we
[50:16]
all were nervous. How long will
[50:17]
it take to get the updated
[50:19]
report and be able
[50:22]
to come back here
[50:23]
and move forward
[50:24]
for the applicant. But
[50:25]
appreciate the consultant and
[50:26]
also the staff that put
[50:27]
in the time
[50:28]
to help us get here.
[50:30]
For my own education,
[50:32]
I am curious about because we
[50:34]
referenced the, we called it.
[50:36]
Did we say the original EIR or
[50:38]
the old EIR? So maybe the word
[50:40]
28 year plus. I am curious how
[50:44]
the 2023, 2045 General Plan
[50:48]
EIR why that might not have
[50:50]
been tiered off of that or
[50:52]
would the project not tier off
[50:54]
of that as a new environmental
[50:56]
document to reference because
[50:58]
they would have maybe looked at
[51:00]
that site and seen if there are
[51:01]
any additional mitigation
[51:03]
measures that we could have
[51:06]
used or maybe that would have
[51:07]
helped the city feel a little
[51:09]
more cozy about this
[51:12]
amendment So I am curious
[51:14]
about that. Just, you know,
[51:17]
if, because I was looking
[51:18]
through the documents and I
[51:20]
just couldn't see the reference
[51:22]
to it.
[51:25]
But I did look up, you know,
[51:26]
just there was a
[51:30]
case called Bowman vs City of
[51:32]
Petaluma, and it does defer to
[51:33]
the lead agency's factual
[51:37]
findings unless the record
[51:39]
lacks substantial evidence.
[51:41]
And it seems like
[51:45]
the indemnification is helpful
[51:48]
as a stopgap. At the end
[51:50]
of the day. I do appreciate
[51:51]
what you're saying that there
[51:53]
has to be.
[51:54]
At some point it has
[51:56]
to come back to right
[51:58]
of ways and need to, you know,
[51:59]
we need
[52:00]
to relinquish the liability
[52:02]
on the developer at some point
[52:04]
in the future. So maybe working
[52:09]
on that. But I
[52:12]
guess what I'm trying
[52:16]
to understand is how we can,
[52:19]
you know,
[52:21]
I guess maybe avoid something
[52:23]
like this if other future
[52:26]
projects come up that are aging
[52:27]
and they might come up again.
[52:29]
Can we utilize documentation or
[52:30]
environmental reviews that have
[52:32]
been done and maybe have been
[52:38]
updated to help us and
[52:39]
to feel better
[52:40]
about an application?
[52:41]
Obviously, this one shrunk
[52:42]
significantly in size,
[52:45]
which is really helpful.
[52:46]
Obviously, if it was the other
[52:48]
direction or maybe remain the
[52:49]
same, maybe it would have been
[52:50]
a whole different scenario
[52:52]
altogether. So that was the
[52:55]
only other thing. And then the
[52:57]
other situation with. It seems
[52:59]
like we answered everything. I
[53:01]
came in
[53:02]
with a little more question,
[53:04]
but I appreciate the deeper
[53:05]
dive in the description. And I
[53:07]
just like, okay, this is
[53:09]
really, really thorough and it
[53:11]
protects the developer
[53:13]
in the end, because I'm pro
[53:14]
property rights and allowing
[53:16]
development of property
[53:18]
within the general plan
[53:19]
in accordance
[53:20]
with the general plan. And this
[53:21]
developer is doing that. And we
[53:26]
don't want to hold them up,
[53:27]
but we also don't want
[53:28]
to set them up for failure
[53:29]
in the future to be
[53:30]
unnecessarily resisted because
[53:32]
of some, you know,
[53:34]
aging documentation. So I think
[53:36]
the process that.
[53:38]
Commissioner Manuel, some
[53:40]
of his suggestions, it was
[53:42]
at first it was like.
[53:43]
But I feel
[53:45]
like we worked it out. So thank
[53:46]
you for that. So if I can just
[53:47]
go back to the question, just
[53:48]
the, you know,
[53:49]
the tie or tearing off
[53:51]
of the general plan EIR, was it
[53:53]
a reason there wasn't reference
[53:54]
to that?
[53:56]
>> Yeah, I just. I would keep
[53:57]
it high level
[53:59]
for this discussion.
[54:00]
But we are tearing
[54:02]
off our new EIR. You've seen
[54:04]
that
[54:05]
with some previous approvals
[54:06]
with our 15183 exemption and
[54:07]
utilizing that new
[54:08]
environmental analysis. I think
[54:10]
in my opinion, for this one,
[54:11]
the path
[54:14]
of least resistance was looking
[54:16]
at the EIR that was certified
[54:18]
and approved and it made sense
[54:19]
to pursue the addendum
[54:20]
in this case. Now that's a
[54:22]
smoother pathway. I,
[54:23]
I recognize it still took us,
[54:24]
you know, a few hearings
[54:25]
to get here,
[54:26]
but it was there,
[54:27]
it was legitimate. There was
[54:29]
just a few holes we had
[54:31]
to fill. So it made sense
[54:32]
from a staff perspective
[54:33]
to take that approach.
[54:34]
But we are starting to leverage
[54:38]
the new general planning EIR
[54:40]
already on some recent
[54:41]
approvals and we'll continue
[54:42]
to tear off it or use
[54:44]
exemptions as necessary
[54:45]
to help streamline approvals.
[54:46]
And then with regard
[54:47]
to this particular permit,
[54:48]
it's kind
[54:49]
of unique that we have this old
[54:50]
of a use permit on the books,
[54:51]
at least in my opinion, because
[54:52]
newer use permits have a three
[54:54]
year clause and then a one year
[54:56]
extension and then those
[54:57]
entitlements will expire. So
[54:59]
it's pretty unique to have one
[55:01]
that's this old when it comes
[55:02]
to subdivision maps and the
[55:04]
like. You can get extensions
[55:05]
and get up into the six
[55:07]
to nine year time frame
[55:08]
for approval, so those can get
[55:09]
a little bit older.
[55:11]
But I don't anticipate us,
[55:13]
maybe I shouldn't say this on
[55:14]
the record. I don't anticipate
[55:15]
seeing this kind of a,
[55:16]
an approval in the
[55:17]
near future. It is pretty
[55:18]
unique in that way. So
[55:19]
hopefully that gives you some
[55:20]
high level answers
[55:21]
to your questions.
[55:23]
>> Yeah. Thank you.
[55:26]
>> Okay. Any other comments
[55:27]
from commissioners? Okay
[55:29]
with that. We're adjourned.
[55:30]
Thank you.