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