[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.