[0:01] I want to recognize that it is 4 p.m. when we generally start, however, because we are in hybrid meeting, we are addressing a couple of technical issues, so please stand by.

[2:05] We're tuning in. This is the Redlands Planning Commission of January 24. However, we are sorting out a couple of technical issues, please stand by.

[7:22] Good afternoon and welcome to the January 24th meeting of the Redlands Planning Commission.

[7:27] We have a form of President and as mentioned earlier we are keeping in the practice of the past few years of having a meeting that is both in person and hybrid as result.

[7:44] In the event that we have in your interruption of the connection with the Zoom portion of the meeting,

[7:50] we will pause to allow that connection to be re-established so I appreciate your patience with doing that this evening.

[7:59] If you are on the social media link, please use the raised hand feature to make a comment at the appropriate time and we will call on you.

[8:11] and if you are on telephone, you start 9-2 to comment.

[8:20] To start with, so we have no consent calendar items.

[8:27] I want to ask all commissioners, has anyone had ex-partate or outside communication with

[8:33] any party to the any of the applicants to tonight's meeting?

[8:38] Seeing none.

[8:39] And we want to open with the opportunity for anyone to speak on an item not on this evening's agenda for public comment.

[8:48] Is anyone here to make public comment on an item not on the agenda?

[8:54] Yes, please.

[8:55] Are you Albert Kelly?

[8:57] Please come forward.

[9:05] Please give us your name and for the record.

[9:06] Yeah, Albert Kelly.

[9:07] Good afternoon commissioners.

[9:09] I want to talk about key term QUITAM. It is a legal concept. It is a legal written when a private citizen

[9:18] who assists a prosecution can receive all or part of the damages or financial penalties

[9:26] recorded or levied by a government entity as a result of a prosecution. In this case,

[9:31] this goes back to 2009. This is a Pharaoh's war to park in the individual with Giovanna Arianna.

[9:37] At that time, during 2008, in 2009, when they were having the raves there, I went to

[9:44] the City Commission, I went to Planning Commission, I went to City Council, I met with

[9:48] the Corrupt DA, and they were all corrupt, I guess.

[9:50] I also met the City Manager, they were all corrupt too, I guess.

[9:53] Nobody would do anything.

[9:55] I met with the police, nothing was done there.

[9:57] Finally, I believe he was captain Fitzmores, I met with him several times.

[10:01] He told me that nothing would happen.

[10:04] I ended up bringing several students to a meeting with F. Dad. One was seven. One was 12 years old.

[10:10] They had been kidnapped at a fair rose, short-up a week later with the 65-in-year-old individual

[10:16] and a parking lot in Bany. At that time, finally, the city council said that they would do something.

[10:21] The only reason they did something was that I introduced the Drug Interdiction Act.

[10:26] And under the Drug Introduction Act, they could find these people a million dollars a day.

[10:32] So I have met with the City Attorney Day in several times.

[10:35] I haven't yet to receive any information on it, but if I do my calculations, this goes back to 2009.

[10:43] At the cost of $1 million a day in penalties, there is levied 3,650 million dollars.

[10:51] I'm only going to claim 10% of that, and that would come out to be $365 million.

[10:59] The city of Redley of Redlands owes me.

[11:01] I'm very serious about this.

[11:02] I'd like to take $5 million of that and give it to buy the Mr. at a project so we can all

[11:07] go home.

[11:08] Thank you very much.

[11:10] Thank you.

[11:13] The first item on our agenda today is the continuation of a public hearing held two weeks

[11:19] to go regarding the Mr. at a Canyon Partners.

[11:23] This is to continue in extension of time

[11:25] for the tentative track map number 18845

[11:28] and conditional use permit number 1036,

[11:32] a request for a third one-year extension of time

[11:35] for this 1.1 acres parcel that will feature 24 single family,

[11:43] residential lots in a planned residential development

[11:45] according to the proposal.

[11:46] So, with that, I want to, this is a public hearing.

[11:51] We will open that at this time and staff presentation by Catherine.

[11:55] Catherine, please.

[12:02] Thank you, Chairman.

[12:03] And members of the Commission.

[12:08] Do we need to pause for a moment?

[12:19] I'm just going to apologize for causing for technical connection.

[12:36] This item was continued for two weeks ago.

[12:39] To allow staff more time to look into the public comments.

[12:42] we have received many public comments since this agenda was published the first time.

[12:49] As mentioned, the applicant is requesting planning commission approval for the third time

[12:54] extension to the expiration date of tentative track map 1-845 and conditional use permit 1036.

[13:11] Yeah, we're looking at the area photograph of the photo site of the project site,

[13:15] The size located south of Highland, high view, dry, and east of southland.

[13:21] It is a, you can follow the cursor, the screen here,

[13:28] here's a location of O-mark, O-Gmang Park in relation to the project site.

[13:35] The project is zone A1, it allows for, it's zone for agricultural uses,

[13:41] and it allows low density residential development.

[13:43] Now,

[13:51] we're looking at the approved tentative trap map, as you can see, of the overall

[13:58] project site, the development is going to happen on the eastern half, in there's 24 homes,

[14:08] proposed there, and the eastern portion of the project site is going to be left the way

[14:16] it is, and the development is going to

[14:19] saturate on the Western part of the project site.

[14:24] This map was originally approved on May 26 of 2015.

[14:31] And the project includes 120 acres.

[14:38] The map, I'll go through the project timeline

[14:41] and explain the

[14:45] multiple time extensions

[14:48] that this project has had.

[14:53] The first time that this project site was presented for development was in April 20.

[15:00] In 2005, the city council approved what was known as the Coventon Track of that time. It was a much larger

[15:07] development, including 188 acres, to be subdivided into 85 residential lots and five common

[15:16] lots for open space purposes. An EIR was prepared and certified for the Coventon Track. Back in 2005,

[15:26] And it was certified on April 19, 2005.

[15:32] After the project was approved,

[15:35] Rettland's Residential Rule Living File

[15:37] also against the city,

[15:39] Challenging the Secure Determination.

[15:42] Subsequently, major R was placed on the ballot

[15:44] to ask the voters if zone change from A1 to RR zoning

[15:50] should be approved as part of the proposals

[15:53] of the COVID-19 tract, the result of the vote was that the zone change should not have been

[15:59] approved and the zoning of the poverty should remain A1.

[16:10] The parties, so this case went to

[16:12] the court and there was a settlement that was entered into, there was a stipulated judgment

[16:18] and that was filed with the superior court in 2005.

[16:25] The stipulate adjustment did a following.

[16:30] One, the EIR for the project is legally adequate

[16:36] and is certification is valid under CEQA at that time.

[16:41] Two, a determined that the project entitlements

[16:44] with deemed legally permissible and three,

[16:47] The party is agreed that a plan residential development with 36 lots of fewer would be permitted with no EIR.

[17:00] Then in 2014, the CDL Redland purchased 60 acres of the project site that would be the southstim portion of the project site,

[17:09] as well as the development rights to 12 lots from the developer to preserve us open space.

[17:15] Therefore, amended stipulated judgment was entered into bi-departies.

[17:22] The amended stipulated judgment stated that a planned residential development with 24

[17:28] lots of fewer will be allowed with no EIR and I emphasize again that the city was part

[17:35] of the stipulated judgment and the amended stipulated judgment, as well as the resident

[17:41] who are living in the Australia family. Those are the three parties in the stipulated judgment

[17:47] and amend the stipulated judgment.

[17:52] And on May 26 of 2015, the Planning Commission approved

[17:56] tentative track 1-845 for the subdivision of 24 residential lots on the now approximate 120 acres

[18:05] of the project site. This project is known as the mistrata Canyon track, and that is the

[18:13] solidified ERR for the Coventon tract as per the stipulated judgment.

[18:22] Subsequently, staff determined that the map was automatically extended by AB 116 for two years

[18:29] to May 26 of 2019.

[18:34] Then in April, on April 9 of 2019, the Planning Commission approved the first time extension

[18:40] for the map to extend it by another year, then on April 14 of 2020, the Plenty Commission

[18:48] approved a second time extension to approve the map by another year to May of the following

[18:55] year. Then AB 1561 extended a map by 18 months to November 26 of 2022.

[19:10] Then the applicant

[19:10] submitted the time extension request on October 27 of last year before the deadline for the

[19:18] expiration and the subdivision map stated that the life of the map is automatically extended

[19:26] by 60 days or until January 25, 2023.

[19:35] In terms of environmental review, which is one of the

[19:44] 2025, again in 2025, the SMAP was approved with the Certify EIR for the Coventain

[19:53] Track which was done in 2025 and that was produced a stipulated judgment which

[19:59] specified that the 2025 EIR was sufficient for secret purposes.

[20:08] We have received a lot of questions asking the 2025 EIR was done a while, it was done a

[20:17] One time ago, is still sufficient and legal to use that document in consideration of tonight's proposal to extend the approved map.

[20:30] And in that regard, we would look at SQL Guidelines for Guidance.

[20:36] CQA, guideline session 15162, A, stated that in order to require a subsequent EIR additional

[20:46] environmental review, one or more of the following conditions that are shown on the screen now

[20:53] and also including the staff report must be met with substantial evidence.

[21:00] So let me go over the criteria. The first criteria is no substantial change

[21:06] changes up proposed in a project. In this case, the applicant is not proposing any change to the project.

[21:14] And number two, substantial changes occur in the environment with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken.

[21:23] We have received a lot of comments, but none of the comments contains substantial evidence and I'll go over what that how that is defined later.

[21:34] 3, new information of substantial importance which was not known or could not have been known

[21:41] with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the previous ERR or certified.

[21:47] And then under that, the project will have one or more significant effect, not discussed in the previous

[21:53] ERR, not discussed and be significant effect previously examined will be substantially more severe

[22:03] and shown in the previous EIR.

[22:07] And all these need to have substantial evidence

[22:10] to challenge that prior EIR.

[22:16] And the final two conditions had to do a mitigation majors.

[22:21] See, mitigation majors previously found not to be feasible

[22:24] would, in fact, be feasible and would substantially reduce one or

[22:29] more significant effects over the project.

[22:31] But the project proponents declined to adopt

[22:33] the mitigation majors. That does not exist in this case. The project applicant has accepted

[22:40] all the mitigation majors and continues to agree to all the mitigation majors.

[22:46] The mitigation majors or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed

[22:51] in the previous EIR was the substantial reduced one or more significant effects on the environment

[22:57] but the project proponent declined to adopt the mitigation majors or alternatives. This is

[23:02] also not the case, so with that, we have determined that there's no substantial evidence in them.

[23:19] I mean, on the screen now, I'm showing how SQL-defined substantial evidence, substantial evidence as used in these guidelines means enough relevant information,

[23:31] and reasonable interferences from this information, that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion,

[23:39] even though other conclusions might also be reached.

[23:42] Whether a fair argument can be made, that a project may have a significant effect,

[23:47] only environment, is to be determined by examining the whole record before the lead agency.

[23:52] argument, specification, and substantiated opinion on narrative evidence, which is clearly

[23:59] unown as or inaccurate, or evidence of social or economic impacts, which do not contribute

[24:07] to or not caused by physical impacts, only environment does not constitute substantial evidence.

[24:14] and further substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions, pretty,

[24:20] predicated upon facts and expert opinions supported by facts.

[24:27] We have received a lot of comments that touch about multiple issues that are of great concern

[24:33] to the state and to the city certainly, but they do not meet the differentational, substantial

[24:42] evidence as defined by C4.

[24:50] I wanted to talk about public comments.

[24:52] We have received over 60 written comments in email,

[24:57] and I have received phone calls from surrounding neighbors

[25:03] as well.

[25:05] The issues that have been raised can be categorized

[25:07] into five topics, lots of open space.

[25:11] That's a lot of people used, the family was area because they used it for recreation, biological resources, there's wildlife, living there, and when the EIR was conducted, there was, we were, the city was already aware of that.

[25:32] fire protection issues, drainage and erosion, as well as tribal and cultural resources.

[25:43] In terms of loss of open space,

[25:47] this project is consistent with the CDC's general plan

[25:51] and land use zoning destination, as well as the stability judgment.

[26:00] In terms of biological resources, the EIR stated that live-old Kenyan has been identified

[26:07] as a wildlife corridor.

[26:10] However, yeah, I also stated that the project site is located north of

[26:14] LIVO Canyon, separated by hills and does not function as a wildlife linkage to that area.

[26:27] In regards to fire protection, we've been working with the fire department, and the

[26:32] fire department stated that the original conditions of Houveau, which is attachment F2, to

[26:38] for address fire department requirements, and we'll ensure the applicable code requirements

[26:44] are met when the project will be required to submit a fire response plan, and that's when the

[26:55] fire department will continue to work with the applicant to address fire protection issues.

[27:04] We also have received a lot of comments on drainage and erosion because issues have been observed

[27:09] at the nearby Oakmont Park, the city is aware of that, and is working with a consultant

[27:14] to address the drainage and erosion issues at the park, which is not part of this project

[27:21] site. And in terms of how the project site and how the applicant will address drainage

[27:29] and erosion issues, we have Mr. Pat Meier here. He would like to address this. So at this

[27:37] time I would like to turn over the slide to Mr. Mayer.

[27:46] Actually, I was going to call in your next slide.

[27:50] Before we give no any questions of staff before we switch to the applicant.

[27:55] Missionarily.

[27:56] I have a couple of slides.

[27:59] If you're you're not complete.

[28:00] I'm not completed.

[28:02] And we wait.

[28:05] In terms of tribal and cultural resources,

[28:08] we have her from three tribes since the agenda was published two weeks ago.

[28:15] Tribal consultation was not required at the time of the ERL preparation.

[28:20] However, it was done.

[28:22] We received a letter from NAHC stating,

[28:26] you'll listen to individuals that the CDC contact

[28:29] and the CDC at that time.

[28:31] They follow up with contacting the tribes.

[28:34] It's documented in the final DIR EIR response to comments section.

[28:39] And at that time, we didn't receive much comment on the tribes.

[28:46] There's a potential geoclif on this project site.

[28:52] And at the time of the EIR preparation, an archeological study was performed.

[28:58] And it concluded that the geoclif were mechanical markings for forming preparation.

[29:08] And that study was part of the EIR,

[29:11] which was certified in the core, applying that it was sufficient for C quad purposes, and that became

[29:18] the stability judgment that all three parties agree on.

[29:25] Medigation measures have been incorporated for inadvertent discovery during construction.

[29:31] So, a cultural resource was evaluated in a total of five years,

[29:36] and there's mitigation measures included in there already for inadvertent discovery of human remains.

[29:42] And the EIR concluded less than significant impact on cultural resources after the mitigation.

[29:55] So staff's recommendation is that the Planning Commission adopters...

[30:00] Resolution number 1611, and approve the one-year extension to extend the expiration date of the project to November 26, 2023, subject to original conditions of approval.

[30:14] Staff has prepared motion language on the screen, you'll be in need it, and I'll be happy to answer questions.

[30:26] Thank you.

[30:27] Thank you.

[30:27] Thank you, Ms. Lynn.

[30:29] So, I just wanted to clarify we had some questions from the last session regarding

[30:34] the geoglyph, whether it could be confirmed that the development had actually taken place

[30:40] over that, although it sounds like that the validity of that geoglyph is in question based

[30:45] on this finding.

[30:46] But so, that's the one question I have is just does this site actually result in the removal

[30:52] of this supposed geoglyph.

[30:55] The other question I have is,

[30:58] partially answered you said that it was not required,

[31:01] the tribal consultation had happened,

[31:03] was the tribal consultation that happened,

[31:06] would that be in conformance with the required tribal

[31:09] cultural resources, consultation through AB 52,

[31:14] pass in July of 2015?

[31:16] Or was it simply informal consultation?

[31:24] It was written letters sent by the city's consultant to the tribes and to I was not part of the city's stab at that time.

[31:37] But the written duck contains were included in the final EIR and we did not receive responses from the tribe.

[31:45] I'll rephrase my question, is would that be in conformance with a similar project today,

[31:50] or would there be other rigor required around tribal cultural resource evaluation?

[31:58] We have different requirements today.

[32:00] In terms of tribal consultation, it's often referred to as AB 52 for projects or SB 18,

[32:06] for general plethora amendments and specific line amendments, back in 2003 and 2004, when

[32:13] this particular EIR was being prepared, those requirements were not in place at the time.

[32:20] SB 18 went into effect and I believe March of 2005, and this particular EIR was prepared

[32:28] and circulated prior to that requirement, and the finally EIR was adopted in early 2005.

[32:32] So the short answer is,

[32:38] no, today's tribal consultation requirements are different than they were in 2004 and 2005.

[32:49] Thank you.

[32:49] And then my follow up to that would be, well, I'll come back.

[32:56] That's it for now.

[32:57] Thank you.

[33:00] Commissioner Shaw.

[33:01] So a question based on what I saw on the slides there.

[33:04] We talked about the fact that it wasn't required in 2005, and this is specific to tribal.

[33:08] But the comments there said that the EIR concluded that there was less than significant impact relative to the tribal and cultural peace.

[33:17] And we'll have confused how that works out if it wasn't required and it wasn't actually part of that,

[33:23] then how are we saying that there was less than significant impact.

[33:28] So, as part of the EIR Circulation process, back in 2004,

[33:36] the document was circulated through

[33:38] the State Clearinghouse, which is standard procedure, still is standard procedure.

[33:42] And at that time, the Native American Heritage Commission was notified as part of that standard

[33:46] circulation process at that time.

[33:48] The response from the Native American Heritage Commission to the city was to contact certain

[33:56] individuals on a list provided by the Native American Heritage Commission, I believe it's

[34:00] sort of a five, and the consultant at that time, the consultant at the IAR, reached out

[34:07] to those individuals for information or consultation at that time, and my understanding is that

[34:14] no significant information nor response was provided from the tribes to the city at that time.

[34:19] And that's the documentation that we have in the final IAR.

[34:22] Okay, and so that's the most current information is that's 2005 essentially.

[34:28] We don't have anything since that point in the last 18 years where we've done anything related

[34:33] to tribal and cultural.

[34:37] Well, we did receive three comments on January 10th from tribal representatives from

[34:43] So, Boba Band, of Luis Nguyenian's Seminole Band of Mission Nians and the Morongo Band of Mission Nians.

[34:52] So, we received three comments and staff followed up the very next day with those three tribal representatives and through various email correspondence.

[35:05] We've heard general concerns, but we've not been provided any specific information, or evidence of any specific tribal cultural resources on or near this project site.

[35:19] The concerns that have been expressed have been very general and non-specific.

[35:27] Okay, my concern is just that we've, you know, obviously, that they've raised that, and if we haven't done anything in 18 years on it, it seems like that is certainly an avenue that we should, in some manner, explore before we, before we sign that office, not, you know, it's not significant.

[35:45] It's basically, that is an 18-year-old statement there, and it was not significant.

[35:53] I specifically followed up with the three representatives in the past few days.

[35:58] It's recently as a afternoon, and we've still not been provided any specific information

[36:03] or evidence regarding tribal cultural resources on the project site.

[36:07] Commissioner, that is a very critical point that Mr. Floyd makes.

[36:12] We need to show substantial evidence and the tribes haven't given that to us, but that needs

[36:18] to factor into your consideration on that particular issue.

[36:22] And would that only come from the tribes or would there be something else from an EIR standpoint

[36:26] that we would be asking other people other than those three representatives that the tribes

[36:29] to weigh in on that tribal and cultural peace?

[36:33] They are the main source for that information.

[36:36] They are the experts in that area, so we rely on them to provide that information to us.

[36:41] we've asked them for it, they have not provided it.

[36:44] They've been making general comments,

[36:47] generalities, some information, but nothing

[36:49] that rises to the level of substantial evidence

[36:53] that you could consider to make your decision here

[36:57] on the CEQA analysis here.

[37:03] Commissioner Ancily?

[37:05] As a follow-up, I guess, to be well, Commissioner Shaz,

[37:09] saying, would not be the introduction of AB 52 in July, it's 2015 not supposed to create

[37:15] a significant, or be significant evidence of a change in, if not environment environmental

[37:21] review, in that, given what we were just hearing, they have not provided this.

[37:26] I think that this project was posted a week before January 10.

[37:31] My assumption would be that they'd have far more than three weeks to respond if it was

[37:35] going through a full EIR with the current requirements for tribal cultural resources.

[37:40] So I'm not really surprised that we haven't received anything in last couple of weeks.

[37:45] It seems far from a formal process of simply just asking for information.

[37:50] If this were going through a formal EIR, I guess my question is, what's the timeline we

[37:54] would give them to respond and what that kind of process look like?

[38:02] Under today's standards, we would provide them letters and give them 90 days to respond.

[38:06] Thank you.

[38:10] What's your role?

[38:12] I'm just a follow-up again on the Tribal Corporal Resources.

[38:15] When I did my EV52 training, we learned that there are elements of the Tribal Cultures

[38:21] that can't be shared with folks outside of the tribes.

[38:23] Are we receiving any information from the tribes that the information that they're giving

[38:28] us general information?

[38:29] Is that because of their own cultural practices or is there no indication that any of this?

[38:34] I'm just wondering if this is something that's been kept from the city because of their

[38:37] cultural reasons or if they're truly saying these are general concerns with no further information

[38:45] to us.

[38:48] So in terms of specific information in data for actual tribal cultural resources, whether

[38:53] it's location or description or use of tribal cultural resources, that particular data is

[38:59] held confidential between tribal government and the elite agency, the city, in this case,

[39:05] and the developer is also entitled to see that information.

[39:10] We need to document it.

[39:12] It would be kept in a separate confidential appendix that is not circulated with other public documents.

[39:18] However, we would provide a general description to inform the public and inform the commission as to the basis of the recommendation or the basis of the decision.

[39:28] We have to provide a general description.

[39:29] But we don't need to provide the actual confidential information itself, whether that's

[39:39] burial data or a village site or other sensitive tribal culture resources.

[39:44] The state law has a specific provision for the sharing of confidential information between

[39:49] the tribal government and the lead agency.

[39:53] So that mechanisms already in place that can be provided if they wish to do so.

[39:58] So having said that, it's not the absence of confidential information, it's the absence of any

[40:03] of response at all, correct?

[40:08] I have received your response, but again, it was just in general terms.

[40:11] I did ask for specific information that could be provided and there's been no specific information

[40:16] regarding tribal activities, for instance, that's been forthcoming.

[40:20] And that would be tribal resources that are on this parcel of property in particular.

[40:24] on the project site, anywhere in the vicinity of the project sites,

[40:31] I'll just say that the

[40:34] description that's been provided has been very vague in general that there might be a

[40:39] concern of potential type of cultural resources just in this general area of the city.

[40:42] Nothing specific to this project site or vicinity.

[40:46] Thank you.

[40:48] It's just to clarify, there is a certified EIR, it came for this project, at the time that it was certified and that that EIR was reaffirmed by the stipulated judgment, correct?

[41:03] Correct.

[41:05] Thank you.

[41:05] That was in 2014.

[41:06] That was the last time it's been reaffirmed.

[41:12] All right.

[41:13] And with that, vice chair from Shaw.

[41:16] You partially answered this. I just want to be a little bit more specific. Can you share what those general concerns were that weren't specific from the tribal responses?

[41:30] Yes, from the Marango Bands, there was a general concern about a potential historical village site or potential burial site.

[41:42] some distance to the east, my understanding was probably in New Kapa, which again there was

[41:52] there was nothing specific provided in terms of specific location, specific description or

[41:58] characterization of what the resource might be. That was the extent of the general description

[42:04] of what might be in the area.

[42:10] You can see no additional commissioner comment.

[42:30] Thank you, Miss

[42:33] My name is Pat Meyer. I'm representing the administrative family as I have been for quite

[42:39] a while now. I think like what I thought I do is just kind of briefly touch on the process

[42:48] here and then spend a little time on the comments that were made. You also have a letter from

[42:57] Frank Mastretta, hopefully you had a chance to look at that and Frank expresses his opinion

[43:04] about what the family has gone through over the last 20 years with regard to the property

[43:09] in particular about trying to be good stewards with regard to the design of the property

[43:15] and saving open space and wildlife co-orders and so forth.

[43:19] So, as Katherine alluded to, the property started out as a little over 180 acres, and there was an 85-lot project approved there with a certified EIR.

[43:34] And then it was challenged and a referendum occurred, and the result of that was that a group of citizens out there got together with the most threat of family,

[43:47] because Covington walked away from the whole ordeal and the mistred is worth left with it.

[43:54] And the city of Redlands and entered into negotiations with regard to the property,

[43:59] which resulted in the stipulated judgment the first one in 2005.

[44:06] And after that time frame, the mistred of family, they're not residential builders,

[44:12] So there was no real desire in their part to try to decide what a bill is going to want to do with these 36 lots.

[44:21] And so they sat on it for a little while.

[44:23] And then there was negotiations with between the city of Redlands and the Conservancy.

[44:31] The Redlands Conservancy to acquire about 60 acres which equated to one unit per five acres would be 12 lots.

[44:39] So, the stipulated judgment said,

[44:42] Mr. Ed, did you get 36 lots per se when to the A1 zone?

[44:47] And we would like you to put those up into the northwest portion of the project's side and cluster it and leave as much open space as possible.

[44:57] So, subsequently, the Conservancy and the...

[45:01] We want you to reduce that by 12 lots, and the city has the money to buy 60 acres on the bottom of the property and to the southeast.

[45:10] Mr. Edder, family concurred with that and that acquisition happened and then the project

[45:18] was reduced to 24 loss potentially on the property and those were put up then in the

[45:24] design in the northwest corner and that's the track map that you see in front of you today.

[45:30] So then went back to court and had that stipulated judgment revised to reflect that no

[45:37] have 36 of 24, but all the original and title months and everything is certified EIR, the

[45:43] CUP are still valid. And so that's what we've been respecting and relying on for the last

[45:51] few years while we're doing the final engineering and so forth. So getting specifically to

[45:57] some of the comments and I'll follow kind of the staff report with regard to the items.

[46:03] The first bullet point was impacts on tribal and cultural resources.

[46:10] Linda, I hope I don't mess this up for you.

[46:18] So, as Catherine said, as part of the regional certified EIR,

[46:23] the Native American Heritage Commission was contacted in December of 2004,

[46:29] and they sent a letter back, didn't identify any specific resources

[46:34] sources on the property, but indicated they would like as the contact to people that were

[46:41] involved with the Morango ban and mission Indians. And we have heard concerns about the

[46:48] so-called geoglyph and so the project proponents actually prepared a cultural resource survey

[46:59] that is part of the city files in 2003,

[47:06] and the conclusion was that there was no

[47:08] geoglyph there. This was incorporated into the EIR, and this specific study was sent to

[47:18] the two individuals that the Native American Heritage Commission asked us to contact.

[47:27] So they

[47:29] from them. And the EIR that was certified concluded that there were no significant cultural resources

[47:36] based on this study and the fact that the Native American Indians did not respond saying yes,

[47:43] we believe there is one there. So that's why that particular cultural resource thing in our minds

[47:50] remains not significant and it hasn't changed. Cultural resources don't come and go like biology does.

[47:58] I mean, if it's there, it's there, and it's not there.

[48:03] The second bullet point was the impacts to the drainage and erosion.

[48:08] I don't know, Catherine, did you want me to refer to that slide at all?

[48:12] You had to slide up.

[48:17] So there's two distinct drainage areas here that one comes down off of south

[48:25] and southern London that goes into the Oakmont Park.

[48:29] And that's a pretty significant drainage area because it goes all the way up to sunset and you've all been down those streets, they're very steep, and it includes club drive and several other streets in that area that all drain down right into the Oak Grove.

[48:46] This particular map is in a different drainage area and only a small portion over near, I think,

[48:55] at South Lane, extended down in here, goes into that drainage.

[48:59] Everything else drains from this project site into the water quality, the tension basin,

[49:07] and then we'll go, um, and it'll stay there and percolate.

[49:11] If any leaves is going to go around the corner, it bypasses the oak grove.

[49:18] It would enter the live oak creek further south, so it doesn't go into that same drainage area.

[49:26] In terms of the loss to natural habitat again, we started with 180 acres.

[49:33] We are ending up with about 40 acres on site that were impacting 100 and over 140 acres

[49:43] where we may in a natural open space dedicated to the city of Redlands.

[49:49] And in terms of the potential impacts on wildfire, as part of the certified EIR, there was

[49:57] a fire protection management plan done by an outside consultant, incorporated as an appendix

[50:03] into the EIR and certified, and that was reviewed by the fire department at the time, and

[50:11] as part of the ongoing effort with regard to the development of planned, we will update that

[50:18] in terms of the current codes.

[50:20] And it really talks about setbacks from slopes and vegetation, and that sort of thing.

[50:27] So again, that was prepared and was part of the EIR.

[50:32] So, in my conclusion, I think that we can occur with the staff's opinion that this item

[50:41] should be the time extension, should be recommended for approval, and we would hope you

[50:46] would concur.

[50:47] Thank you.

[50:48] I'll be happy to answer any questions or if after the testimony you need me to come up, I'll

[50:52] be happy to.

[50:52] Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[50:54] Any questions by the commission of the applicant at this time?

[50:57] All right, we'll open for public comment.

[51:02] This is one of the knowledge that, as staff mentioned, we do have a significant number of

[51:10] written correspondence that the Commission has received and that was all shared with us

[51:16] in the prior week, and because of the topic that we've been discussing here, I have two

[51:25] sheets that indicate speakers are prepared to speak to the tribal issues, so I'll first

[51:32] call upon Ryan Nordness please.

[51:43] Hello again.

[51:44] Thank you again.

[51:47] So I do want to address some issues that we've had concerning the existing EIR, some issues

[51:52] with the correspondence that we sent to the city, and the lack of correspondence we've

[51:57] received from the city regarding our comments that we're deemed too general.

[52:02] by staff.

[52:05] I just kind of want to do some quick clarification here. Could the committee clarify

[52:09] on what specific information they require in the future for issues like this? The term

[52:14] general is in self to vague. If we are better informed on what the city requires, we can

[52:22] supply that information. We are going through our literary, GIS, and other resources.

[52:30] Given the

[52:31] to see the deadline, could the city address why there was no follow-up when staff from

[52:35] Simowell, I'm sorry, and the staff from the city deemed a tribal documentation to

[52:39] general, two general, after viewing the comments sent.

[52:46] I've never heard back from Mr. Foot's office after our comments were sent.

[52:52] I also like clarification on Simowell's correspondence which cited the EAR comments,

[52:57] letters, the existence of nearby resources, two general.

[53:02] If we could receive that, that would be great, and some kind of correspondence, I realize that the deadline is very, and I think we push this issue too quickly.

[53:11] And that's my done.

[53:13] Thank you.

[53:16] And Laura Chatterton,

[53:19] you can give your name and your agency for the record.

[53:27] Oh, excuse me, sorry.

[53:29] I had to give my photo of my name as Laura Chatterton.

[53:31] and the cultural resource specialist for the Marango Band of Mission Indians.

[53:36] I would like to speak to the fact that under AB 52, which is the law that you're saving the confidentiality.

[53:44] Unfortunately, we're not in AB 52 consultation with the city.

[53:48] There is not really a mechanism for us to share confidential information

[53:52] without a formal government to government relationship.

[53:56] The generalities are because of that.

[53:58] We're trying to tell you that we have concerns.

[54:02] We want to give you a little bit more information.

[54:05] But the city needs to initiate formal consultation

[54:08] with the tribes in order for us to share that information.

[54:13] That's all.

[54:13] Thank you.

[54:14] Thank you.

[54:19] Before we begin, I want to remind all speakers

[54:21] that we limit all public comment to three minutes.

[54:27] You will receive a bit of a warning when you're getting close

[54:30] and above and run light at three minutes and ask all speakers to respect that so that we can

[54:37] get through a substantial speaker's list.

[54:41] Join us.

[55:00] Thank you.

[55:01] I appreciate the time that you put into these meetings and what you do and how to do for the

[55:07] city.

[55:35] Here is the photo of the J-cliff taken in the 1930s.

[55:41] We don't find any evidence of it anymore, even though we've searched hard.

[55:50] However, from that location which is documented, we see the solstice, the winter and the summer solstice.

[56:01] From that location.

[56:04] And that is forever.

[56:07] It's marked by the sun and by our mountains, which don't move.

[56:11] Please vote against discretion of this site.

[56:18] It's very emotional to be there on the Salsa Seas.

[56:27] What are the institutions in redlands defined as character?

[56:36] The old post office, the library, the Kimberly Crest, the University of Redlands.

[56:46] They all get old and crumble.

[56:48] So,

[56:52] this all of Liberténe is unchanged,

[56:59] it can regenerate itself and be a place that will

[57:05] define redlands for the future in all generations.

[57:10] It will be a modern example of something that defines redlands.

[57:15] So please vote against this extension.

[57:19] your children and many generations after them.

[57:23] Well, thank you.

[57:26] Thank you.

[57:32] David Matuzak.

[57:44] Any commission members?

[57:45] My name is David Matuzak.

[57:46] I am the president of the Friends of Lival Canyon,

[57:50] and also the coordinator of the Lival Canyon Firewise Community,

[57:54] which is associated with Firewise USA program.

[57:58] You have my comments.

[58:00] Originally, I gave you 10 reasons not to extend this project.

[58:07] I added one when I found out that there is a septic system in there, so close to a blue line

[58:16] stream that is absurd.

[58:19] So you're going to hear a lot of points and comments by various people.

[58:25] I don't want to address those at this time.

[58:27] And I want to address the process itself.

[58:31] The staff report that you heard and the report that you heard from Mr. Myers, in the cowboy

[58:36] world we call that it's a lot of sheep dip.

[58:41] What I'm trying to tell you is, those reports are done by people who have never set foot

[58:47] in live-olking.

[58:48] I have resided in live-olking for well over 30 years.

[58:52] I horseback ride there for decades to say that that area is not a wildlife quarter is a bald-faced

[59:00] lie.

[59:02] If any of you want to take a hike out there, I'll show you tracks of animals all over that

[59:07] area.

[59:10] The Bixler biotic survey was not included in the original EIR.

[59:16] it is the only onsite survey of wildlife and fauna and flora in the canyon. It should be consulted

[59:26] on a new EIR.

[59:31] This whole thing really boils down to one thing. Developers versus residents

[59:39] and the experts. You've heard from the experts in your comment. You're going to hear from residents.

[59:46] I'd just like very quickly all of the residents that are here tonight that oppose this project to stand upright now.

[1:00:00] This is your citizens and your people versus profit for developers. That's what it all boils down to.

[1:00:12] To sort of conclude, you need a new EIR for this project. You need current tribal input.

[1:00:21] There have been recent fines of Native American artifacts in Lival, Kenya as a result of the rains and the flooding and the creeks out of Oakmont Park.

[1:00:33] At least one of those artifacts are housed in the Ranch, the Gateway Ranch House Center there that's run by the Rev. Conservancy.

[1:00:46] I heard a lot of good questions tonight from you.

[1:00:50] are this afternoon? This is really profit versus quality of life. Do the right thing. Do the

[1:01:00] right thing by voting no extension. Thank you.

[1:01:11] Jim Demickle.

[1:01:21] My name is Jim Demickle. I live

[1:01:23] on the corner of Altavista and Hive. Are any of you familiar with that area? How would you drive

[1:01:29] to the proposed development tonight, from here. Could you tell me, Commissioner?

[1:01:37] There's any one to how many roads there would be into the development?

[1:01:43] How many? How many? Name two.

[1:01:47] From here to the development. How would you get into the development?

[1:01:51] Actually, this is a Q&A. If you've got a statement to make.

[1:01:54] Well, my statement is that you don't know what you're voting on, I guess.

[1:01:57] By the other statement is you haven't even taken the time to look at the map

[1:02:01] to see that there's only one way in and one way out.

[1:02:04] And that goes right by my home.

[1:02:06] But I've been here for 30 years.

[1:02:08] Teaching your boy scouts, feeding your homeless,

[1:02:11] attending your church, my wife teaches at Mariposa.

[1:02:14] So don't tell me, this isn't a Q&A.

[1:02:17] That's exactly what you're here for.

[1:02:18] You're here to answer our questions.

[1:02:20] And we're here to hear your statement.

[1:02:22] Well, my statement is, there's three reasons

[1:02:25] you shouldn't approve this.

[1:02:26] You raise the speed limit on all to VISTA,

[1:02:28] even though I stood here.

[1:02:30] a month ago and asked you not to. There's a lady in the hospital tonight because of that, not to, but the traffic, they're the city council.

[1:02:39] The street, the impact study was done in 2005, it hasn't been updated since 2005.

[1:02:45] There's Amazon trucks, FedEx trucks, bigger pickup trucks, a higher speed limit.

[1:02:52] The landscape is nothing like it was in 2005.

[1:02:55] the second reason is, the people don't want it.

[1:03:00] The people that live in that area that help this community

[1:03:03] don't want this development.

[1:03:05] We're not against free enterprise.

[1:03:07] We have all made our own money.

[1:03:09] But we don't see how you can jam development into an area where one street

[1:03:14] goes in and one street goes out when you don't have any studies

[1:03:17] to support the additional traffic.

[1:03:19] When I asked Mr. Meyer a few years ago on the phone,

[1:03:22] What the impact of this would be when I read them the environmental impact statement

[1:03:25] He said can be Jim you're gonna stake and it's not another four or five trips for house. It's ten fifteen trips more per house

[1:03:32] Maybe he can speak to that later and the third thing I want to talk about is the process

[1:03:36] I just learned a letter into address these issues. It didn't appear on that slide

[1:03:40] So I don't know why you said you you brought up every issue that was addressed by the public because mine wasn't up there

[1:03:46] And traffic is a dynamic evolving changing landscape and you guys don't even know how to get into the

[1:03:52] project, you don't know how to get out of the project, and you don't even know what the

[1:03:55] streets look like or what's going on in those streets. So for those reasons, I encourage

[1:04:01] you, and I apologize. I encourage you not to grant this extension and instead look for ways

[1:04:07] to preserve what's their cultural, biological, ecological, recreational, the way it is now

[1:04:14] and make Mr. Mr. Mastretta hold in a different way. Thank you.

[1:04:25] All right, Albert Kelly on this item?

[1:04:35] Hello, Albert Kelly. Just saying hello again. Several years ago, I spoke to public hearing about

[1:04:40] the Mr. Project. At that time, I just gave input to Mr. Mr. Mr. and Project Award in any

[1:04:45] Pat Myers. I suggested that the eastern two lots, actually it's four, were fire-indefensible

[1:04:50] and block-miracorded roof for large mammals using the root 10 more batch interchange. I did

[1:04:55] work seven years for the U.S. Forest Service in both this degree and the night-of-while crews

[1:04:59] and so I do know fire a little bit. Several adult mule day in Montline have been killed on

[1:05:03] the Lieutenant-Walbash in the last decade. Calfish, while if you're a pity, Rick Fisher

[1:05:08] and I removed them. I also submitted a video showing one adult buck, and for those,

[1:05:13] at both Crystal Springs and the Canyon Crossing Sunset heading south.

[1:05:17] Sequo only works if municipalities don't lead a potential developer in delays to a building

[1:05:23] the project or canceling it.

[1:05:26] The city of Redlands and Constance delays and not doing the requirement supplemental and

[1:05:30] you attendums works against the developer and state environmental guidelines alike.

[1:05:35] This is not for you to miss a Mr. Strutter or to the neighbors in the adjacent proposed

[1:05:38] project.

[1:05:39] In light of what's going on in local communities and Redlands negligence, the filing problems

[1:05:44] need to be addressed because they have been amplified.

[1:05:47] The elimination of the Dunlap Bridge with you Kipa's new Clover Leaf, Egress, and lots

[1:05:52] emergency routes for Lival Canyon, Oakland road as well as out of highway 10.

[1:05:58] You type as approval of 3600 homes and warehouses all the way to the Redland City

[1:06:02] border and penciled in mitigation numbers.

[1:06:05] Approval of 3800 homes in Calamacis, Oak Valley using Lival Canyon and Route 10 and Sintim

[1:06:12] as penciled in mitigation projects.

[1:06:14] As far as contact with Native Americans, it's Theresa Coopermberg called me 25 years ago when

[1:06:20] the local developer loanland bulldozed it.

[1:06:23] That's what the scrape marks are.

[1:06:25] That's from his bulldozer.

[1:06:27] And the native antiquities act still requires,

[1:06:30] is that that project area is saved.

[1:06:33] Regardless of it's been destroyed or not.

[1:06:35] And you have not met that burden of proof.

[1:06:39] Any new fire extension for the fire prone wildlife

[1:06:42] interface areas has not been followed.

[1:06:45] And that's a new state guideline.

[1:06:47] In late of some of these points, and especially the backbone

[1:06:49] of SQL, which is the accumulation of impacts needed to be addressed.

[1:06:56] The responsibility of this lack of legal compliance falls and fails, squarely on you guys,

[1:07:01] the City of Redlands, and the misinformation given in Mr. Mastrada regarding fiscal

[1:07:06] timeliness and affordability are proceeding with such a venture.

[1:07:10] Thank you.

[1:07:15] Sharon Durgens.

[1:07:27] The chairman and finding commission members.

[1:07:30] My name is Sharon Durgens.

[1:07:31] My husband, Tom and I live at 317-317-318-view drive.

[1:07:37] While we wholeheartedly agree with all the reasons cited

[1:07:40] for denying this home development,

[1:07:42] there is something else I would like for you to consider.

[1:07:45] Each of you could be heroes to our community

[1:07:48] by denying this project.

[1:07:50] We who are opposed would always hold you up as a group

[1:07:53] committed to doing the right thing for redlands, in spite of intense pressure to just

[1:07:59] give in to the big development machine, which has no loyalty to the community, only to

[1:08:04] profit monetarily from this building project. It has been documented that besides the

[1:08:10] obviously important physical health benefits of exercise, there's a mental component too

[1:08:15] by being close to nature and the serenity it provides. LIVO Canyon, although small, is a beautiful

[1:08:21] respite from the noise and bustle of city streets.

[1:08:25] There are so many of us who want to call you our heroes.

[1:08:29] If the animals in the canyon could speak, they would beg you to be their advocates too.

[1:08:35] If you haven't, please take a walk and open the park and through the canyon and see what

[1:08:39] we're talking about and why we are so afraid of losing a part of it to the negative changes

[1:08:45] that have been detailed in this meeting.

[1:08:47] Please vote no, on the extension.

[1:08:50] Thank you.

[1:08:59] Thank you, Watson.

[1:09:00] Hello.

[1:09:01] Thank you, guys, for taking the time to hear our public comments.

[1:09:06] So I live in the Opemonna State's development.

[1:09:10] I purchased home there right when it was built.

[1:09:12] I was there when the ground was broken.

[1:09:14] And I basically saw the entire process.

[1:09:18] And I'm here to say that for 16 years,

[1:09:21] I have been fixing the disaster that is that development.

[1:09:24] It was not a success, it was a planning failure, and it was based upon and approved EIR at that time in 2006.

[1:09:33] Now, the kinds of things that I saw just to give you some context from someone who is boots on the ground in that area in that development.

[1:09:42] There was a rain across the street from my home, and I watched the water erode under the street, and I watched it oak tree actually get sucked into the hole and vanish underground.

[1:09:53] The city came and dumped a bunch of rocks in that hole, and it happened again the next year.

[1:09:59] Then they dumped more rocks in the hole.

[1:10:01] The owner of the property across the street, just on his own, put an culvert all the way in

[1:10:06] to divert the water so that it didn't continue to erode.

[1:10:09] That was the best thing that could have been done in that area.

[1:10:12] He has now moved away.

[1:10:13] Trimart Pacific that built the property is now gone out of business.

[1:10:17] So there's nobody to talk to as far as accountability with that builder.

[1:10:21] But they put hydro seed all over the ground with non-native plants that have taken me 10 years

[1:10:26] hand-polling every plant to get rid of them and replace with more native of foliage.

[1:10:31] The erosion, the septic tanks and seepage pits that were placed, there are 22 lots.

[1:10:38] There were three seepage pits per lot, 30 feet deep, eight feet wide that were placed

[1:10:43] on this development.

[1:10:45] There was poison put all over the soil to keep weeds from growing during the development

[1:10:50] as well, and I have watched unbelievable amounts of erosion and had an, an, an inordinate

[1:10:55] amount of expense to try to bring it back to more natural landscape that was water-wise.

[1:11:01] Can you imagine the amount of water needed for that development and wasted?

[1:11:06] They slapped a sod right on the, uh, clay soil, just slapped it right on top.

[1:11:11] My neighbor would water for five hours a day to keep his lawn from dying for three years.

[1:11:16] I tore my lawns out the minute I moved in and I put mulch on the ground so that I was not doing that.

[1:11:22] But that was not the character that the response of the majority of individuals who were simply just trying to keep their football field size lawns green.

[1:11:31] I would hope here that we're not trying to be unreasonable with you.

[1:11:35] You are not required by law to actually approve this extended EIR.

[1:11:39] There is an attorney letter that you have received from an attorney, let me get the name, so that you can look it up if you haven't seen it in the giant stack of paperwork that you have.

[1:11:51] It's from Shoot, Mahaley, and Weinberger.

[1:11:53] So please read that if you get a chance they talk about you're not being legally obligated to approve this.

[1:12:00] So simply all I'm asking is, do the right thing.

[1:12:04] Do the proper EIR of this area.

[1:12:06] That's all.

[1:12:06] Thank you, guys.

[1:12:07] Thank you.

[1:12:12] You're all bliny.

[1:12:25] Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

[1:12:27] I appreciate your public service and doing what you're doing and I'm glad to be here

[1:12:33] today.

[1:12:36] There's so much that Sven said that I would say yes to, yes, to the cultural concerns,

[1:12:43] most of all, that yes to so many other concerns that clearly, legally, morally and every

[1:12:51] the other way rise to the level of substantive changes in the environment that affects the project.

[1:12:58] And I can say two words to speak to most of that, those two words are climate change.

[1:13:04] That was not addressed at all in that 2005 VR.

[1:13:07] You could, I did a search in the document just to be sure for greenhouse gases, climate change, nothing.

[1:13:14] And if that doesn't say that there, that there's something missing, I don't know what does.

[1:13:21] I'd like to refer you to a letter.

[1:13:24] Let's see if I can pull this up here, that was written by a biologist.

[1:13:30] And it looks like it's not going to pull up on my phone, so I'll summarize for you.

[1:13:34] There are a lot of biological endangered species or threatened species, sensitive species,

[1:13:42] that occur on or near this tract.

[1:13:45] And mountain lions have recently been

[1:13:47] that big mythic native in Southern California,

[1:13:49] Southern California mountain lions.

[1:13:51] That certainly wasn't addressed in the year.

[1:13:53] That's definitely a change.

[1:13:54] Now it's allowed that insects are also

[1:13:57] allowed to be considered.

[1:13:58] We have a globally imperiled bumblebee

[1:14:01] whose habitat is included in this tract.

[1:14:04] We don't know if it's there yet,

[1:14:06] because we're working from a 2005 EIR.

[1:14:08] And the 2005 EIR depends on biological data that was listed and categorized in 1980 and 1988.

[1:14:19] So it's not just 2005, it's 25 years before that.

[1:14:23] It's really, really not accurate to say there have been no major, no substantive changes in this time.

[1:14:32] It is not accurate.

[1:14:35] And as people have referred to you, you have the power here.

[1:14:39] You have a discretionary vote.

[1:14:41] You are not legally required to vote one way or the other.

[1:14:45] And so please consider with an open mind what you've heard

[1:14:48] and please consider for the community.

[1:14:52] What is the best?

[1:14:54] What's the wisest choice?

[1:14:57] And from my perspective, for the community,

[1:14:59] the wife.

[1:15:01] And to work with the land owner, none of us have any animosity toward toward him, toward his family. But to work with that person, for the good of the community, that's what we're asking you, really. That's underlying question of all of it, to work with the tribal people who have time immemorial connection with this place.

[1:15:22] No, they have tremendous rights to this place.

[1:15:27] Thank you, and to work with the landowner and to work with the community.

[1:15:30] Thank you.

[1:15:31] Thank you.

[1:15:36] Very richest singer.

[1:15:39] All right.

[1:15:40] Thank you.

[1:15:43] Bruce Bryce Taylor.

[1:15:54] Thank you, Commissioner.

[1:15:55] You've currently managing a very difficult job.

[1:15:58] So my, I live near Oklahoma.

[1:16:05] I had no idea this was privately owned. I thought it was part of the nature preserve. I had lived in one other city Los Angeles. I'm not suggesting that we looked to Los Angeles. As an example, for a lot of what we do here, excuse me.

[1:16:27] in reference, but, sorry, I really loved this land.

[1:16:36] So, when I lived in Los Angeles, there were two areas where I would go to get away.

[1:16:40] For my own mental health, it was the Santa Monica wilderness and the Saint-Gorgonia wilderness.

[1:16:48] Saint-Gibriel, sorry, thank you, Saint-Gibriel.

[1:16:52] So when I found this was privately owned, I looked at the ratios of land that's preserved

[1:16:58] for natural recreation in Los Angeles County, just in these two areas, Santa Monica and

[1:17:04] San Gorgonio, San Gabriel. That's 30% of the land area of Los Angeles County.

[1:17:14] Similar

[1:17:15] to Los Angeles County, we have two large areas here in Revents, the Santa Matteo Preserve

[1:17:21] and the Hernarchi Preserve Oakmont Park. That represents, by my calculations, 2%, so Los

[1:17:30] And it was county has 30% and we have 2% such as ASCII to, sorry, I don't know why I'm emotional

[1:17:39] about this, sorry, visibly emotional.

[1:17:44] So I know the staff report said that this is, even if we develop this land, it's inconsistent

[1:17:51] with our open space plan.

[1:17:55] Please let's exceed our open space plan.

[1:17:58] even looking to our neighbor to the West, Los Angeles,

[1:18:02] not known for nature conservation, has preserved 30%.

[1:18:07] And this is not, and it's not, they struggle with it.

[1:18:13] I mean, I'd look through these, those two wilderness areas

[1:18:16] in Los Angeles County, they fight tooth and nail for every acre,

[1:18:20] and they've managed to save 30%.

[1:18:23] Please, let's do better.

[1:18:25] And if we add this 120 acres, somehow, by some means, this will take us to 3%, by my

[1:18:35] members with these two sentimentail and her occupiers are.

[1:18:39] Thank you.

[1:18:46] Ryan Roche.

[1:18:58] Hello, everyone.

[1:19:00] I'd like to say that I'm not opposed to this development per se, but I'd like to highlight

[1:19:06] some things for your consideration.

[1:19:08] Some of it's been said before.

[1:19:10] The previous owner used to run long-horn cattle out there, as largely been replaced by handlebars,

[1:19:18] bicycles, kids on bikes, even from the schools and their teams.

[1:19:23] And walkers and horses are all out there.

[1:19:26] Some people have said to me that's trespassing.

[1:19:29] Well, we have a way of rationalizing,

[1:19:34] and we have a way of rationalizing, and history

[1:19:36] have run in roughshod trespassing to say the least over

[1:19:40] native American sensibilities.

[1:19:43] The G.O. Glyph has been subsumed by cattle and gofers in time.

[1:19:49] But as the best we can do to commemorate it on the side of the

[1:19:52] IT and freeway in concrete, which is what we've done so far.

[1:19:56] The recreation of value of this land, to the area citizens, is enormous.

[1:20:01] the Wildlife corridor, which this development sits a stride,

[1:20:06] links to the Jack Dangerment Lands in Yucapa and Redlands in the Mento and Hills.

[1:20:12] I could attest to the mountain lion and deer being there.

[1:20:16] The mountain lion has killed quite a few of my sheep,

[1:20:21] which I no longer run.

[1:20:23] We used to do many things that weren't so smart.

[1:20:27] We are learning.

[1:20:27] perhaps we should stop building houses in the wildland interface.

[1:20:32] Luckily, we have averted a wildfire disaster so far.

[1:20:39] I would add that the fire department of which I used to be in the fire service has never

[1:20:43] met a development that they don't approve of for tax, tax revenue reasons.

[1:20:49] The erosion fiasco due to the oak month, adjacent development, has never been remedied

[1:20:56] as the previous speaker said, over a dozen oak trees have been lost so far and we continue

[1:21:04] to lose them.

[1:21:06] Developers do have a habit of absconding on this issue once they've got the thing built.

[1:21:12] What we need in this town is affordable housing.

[1:21:14] More density downtown in infill, we even need apartment housing, of course, that's in

[1:21:24] touchable, the homeless case, what we need, they're growing. Are we really doing the right thing

[1:21:31] by building more fluid housing? It just doesn't pencil out. I know. So it doesn't get built.

[1:21:39] So I thank you for your consideration and do your job. Thank you very much.

[1:21:50] Mr. McClamart.

[1:21:57] My name is Theresa McClamart.

[1:21:59] As he just said, and good afternoon, commissioners.

[1:22:02] And chair.

[1:22:04] And thank you for your time.

[1:22:05] And as other people have said, you have the power here.

[1:22:09] You have the power to do so much.

[1:22:11] And this room is reflective of a very large segment of

[1:22:18] Redlands, not everybody can be here at four o'clock.

[1:22:21] But I'll get into my, what I want to say, the biological assessment or feel survey for this area was done around 2001 to 2002.

[1:22:33] This report was compiled at a time when many of the plants have no flowers, which were not in bloom.

[1:22:40] They are not in bloom making positive identification of plants unreliable in many cases.

[1:22:48] This is especially concerning when it applies to sensitive plant material in the area.

[1:22:57] It's over 20 years old, that assessment.

[1:23:01] The environmental impact report is also very old 18 years, I believe.

[1:23:07] Many things have transpired in this period, such as erosion from the oakmont through the oakmont development.

[1:23:15] drought, water shortages, possible establishment, and decline plant populations within this area.

[1:23:25] One specific area of concern for me as I'm a horticulturist, retired from the University

[1:23:30] of California Riverside.

[1:23:33] One specific area of concern is the Quarcus Agrofolio, or Coastal Live Oak, in the area,

[1:23:37] as a prior-speaker addressed and Quarcus Beberfolia, which is a scrub oak, which can get quite

[1:23:45] tall as in the tree.

[1:23:48] In examining the proposed track, it appears that the project streets will pass very close and

[1:23:56] possibly through these populations.

[1:23:59] There is also a cluster of Quarcus Beberfolia, at the top of the ridge on the proposed

[1:24:07] post-development. Quarcus oaks, or oaks do not tolerate changes in natural water exposure,

[1:24:17] runoff, pooling, and such. Oaks do not tolerate soil disturbance, grating, or compaction

[1:24:26] anywhere near their surface or feeder roots. The water retention basin at the low point

[1:24:33] development is a location where we have a concentration of

[1:24:40] oaks. The plant populations in this area are also essential for

[1:24:44] habitat for mammal species reptile, avian, and insect species. Some of

[1:24:51] these mammals, such as the mountain line which we've seen quite a bit of, I

[1:24:55] think a few people will attach to that, and the fox which isn't mentioned

[1:25:01] anywhere are protected, avian species are protected by the state of California, yellow

[1:25:08] warbler protected by the Migratory Treaty Act, and least, Bell's Virio are federally protected.

[1:25:17] These are just a few of the animals that use this area.

[1:25:21] It's their habitat.

[1:25:23] Thank you.

[1:25:29] Guy Denton?

[1:25:40] Hello Chairman, Council.

[1:25:41] I'm Guy Denton.

[1:25:43] I'm new to Redlands, I moved here about two years ago.

[1:25:45] I took a job at Patton State Hospital,

[1:25:47] it's a forensic mental institution.

[1:25:49] It deal with basically down the line,

[1:25:51] impact with drugs, mental health,

[1:25:53] various other things.

[1:25:55] It was during the time of COVID-19.

[1:25:57] So I was quarantined, my mental health deteriorated, right?

[1:26:01] I thought I was gonna end up in that hospital.

[1:26:04] So, you know, my wife, who is my rock,

[1:26:07] encourage me to get back in touch with nature.

[1:26:09] So I bought a bicycle,

[1:26:10] Redlins is a cycling community. I found community here. My wife's advice. Yeah, so I

[1:26:19] embraced cycling as a coping mechanism. It allowed me an outlet to channel my frustrations and a productive manner

[1:26:25] So I was taking that out of people and various other things

[1:26:29] I decided to go to Oakmont because a lot of the writing out here is very very difficult

[1:26:33] Oakmont was beginner friendly and it was extremely beautiful and just constantly when I'm there

[1:26:39] I'm just seeing people enjoying it, children getting pictures taken, all kinds of various

[1:26:44] other stuff along that area.

[1:26:46] And I thought the whole corridor was predicted, I didn't know it was going to be a massive

[1:26:50] development going on.

[1:26:52] And I'm in a market for a home, so I should be in favor of the land developer.

[1:26:56] However, I have fell in love with this land and it's really, really beautiful.

[1:27:01] So if the zoning goes forward, more houses, which benefit those with high incomes will be developed

[1:27:05] that the cost of indigenous lands and open access-based degradation, the coyotes that serenade

[1:27:12] me during beautiful sunsets will become back your pets alongside the host of non-native

[1:27:16] wildlife that follows most developments.

[1:27:19] In closing, please in our place of views, pun intended, of wealthy home buyers over the habitat

[1:27:24] of redlands natives, both residents, flora, and fauna.

[1:27:27] Thank you.

[1:27:35] Brian, who?

[1:27:46] So thank you, Commission, for picking up this issue, I think, what we hear from public

[1:27:50] comments is that Live O Canyon means a lot to a lot of people and I think it means a lot to

[1:27:56] Redlins.

[1:27:56] It's really a jewel of Redlins and when we decide on a major intrusion in the canyon,

[1:28:02] I think this just means that we need to do so with a abundant care.

[1:28:05] So the decision you have before you is hard.

[1:28:08] So what I do when I have hard decisions, I think more information helps.

[1:28:11] I think more knowledge helps.

[1:28:12] So I'm going to help propose three things about the canyon that I think might help the

[1:28:17] commission.

[1:28:17] Number one is my personal observations and the observations of the other people in the audience is the

[1:28:23] canning is changing. The erosion, you know, I run there and bike there often. This is definitely a

[1:28:30] corridor when I hear the staff report saying that, oh, this level of erosion. It's not within the area.

[1:28:35] This is all connected. This is a canyon. This is a wildlife. And so I think that part of the staff report,

[1:28:41] I feel strong. I disagree with strongly. Number two, what has changed is climate change.

[1:28:46] I think the world is changing.

[1:28:48] Paradise was five years ago.

[1:28:50] That was a town about the same size as our town

[1:28:53] and it got wiped off.

[1:28:54] So what we think, or what we thought in 2004,

[1:28:58] is radically different.

[1:29:00] And so I think the third thing is we are very different.

[1:29:04] If I did what I did in my job 18 years ago,

[1:29:07] I'd be very bad in my job.

[1:29:09] So how we interpret and how we plan cities

[1:29:12] is very different from 18 years ago.

[1:29:14] And I think that's probably the biggest takeaway here

[1:29:16] Yes, we can debate if the canyon is different if it's significant or not in the impacts and where it is, but I think we can't debate that we as humans understand the world better

[1:29:26] We understand planning better. We understand water mitigation fire mitigation better, and I think that's what we as humans are strengths and why this commission should reject the proposal

[1:29:39] Thanks. Thank you.

[1:29:46] Do you go Alba?

[1:29:50] Do you go Alba?

[1:29:53] Okay, he has submitted a written comment. Are you do you go?

[1:29:58] Oh, I'm sorry, picked up the...

[1:30:00] The next development. There are so many where heavens go through that. All right. That concludes slips that I have or comments that I have slips for. Is there anyone else in the audience that did not? Yes, ma

[1:30:18] 'am. Also, while we have an audience member approaching, if there is anyone listening online that intends to make a comment, please use your hands up feature on this in connection. Please share your name.

[1:30:30] Yes, my name is Brenda Spulstra. I am a resident of Redlands. I moved to my parents moved to

[1:30:39] Bedford Drive, which is off southernland in 1974, and so I'm very familiar with the canyon.

[1:30:47] It's where I played in the early 80s until like the mid-80s, so I just aged myself.

[1:30:54] And this Sunday I took a walk to kind of say goodbye to this area because I don't know what's coming.

[1:31:00] And I saw a cougar across my path, so I think that in some ways the natural environment is protecting itself, because it's saying we're here, and please don't disturb our home.

[1:31:14] But the other aspect is I have a degree in urban and regional planning, so I looked at the regional housing needs assessment for residents, and this report was done by Brian Hub and the planning.

[1:31:32] staff and we are currently 402 units surplus for the high-end housing need assessment.

[1:31:42] So there is no need for these

[1:31:48] houses.

[1:31:49] The other thing is the reason why we zone land is so we can differentiate between neighborhoods.

[1:32:02] But as planners, you also know that it's the adjacency that is important.

[1:32:09] The boundaries that are drawn on paper are not the boundaries in real life.

[1:32:14] So as you analyze projects, it's the adjacency that the ordinance doesn't always address.

[1:32:21] So this is your burden to analyze the adjacency to this which is a wildlife corridor, which I saw this Sunday,

[1:32:34] because like other zones like commercial zones, we can build a liquor store if we want, but we can't build it if it's right next to an elementary school.

[1:32:45] So, we can build houses if we want, but we shouldn't build them right next to wildlife corridors.

[1:32:53] Thank you.

[1:33:01] All right, and I want to assume participants, Wendy Rae, or Wendy Rae?

[1:33:11] Yes, Wendy Rae, thank you.

[1:33:13] I think I'm a little bit of background.

[1:33:16] I am a bad student with an emphasis in landscape and environmental arts

[1:33:22] technology and a decent engagement.

[1:33:25] I actually intended to say something completely different this

[1:33:28] evening, but in the interest of time.

[1:33:31] And because of some of the sincere questions that were asked,

[1:33:35] I think by the planning commission,

[1:33:38] I would like to just kind of address a few points to begin here.

[1:33:42] also a reminder that the commission can of course ask any questions I would be willing to answer

[1:33:49] because of my background in archaeology. To address the city's comments regarding the

[1:33:54] Sequo code, I just want to come back to something in section three. This is really, I think what

[1:33:59] you're hearing argued over and over, new information of substantial importance, which was not known

[1:34:05] and could not have been known. I mean, this is really what people are arguing here and it's not just

[1:34:12] Clearly, Nimbee, I don't even live anywhere near this development.

[1:34:16] You have comments from all over the country, the Zerpsi Society, the Center for Biological

[1:34:20] Diversity, two different sets of attorneys, giving you strong legal comments that the

[1:34:26] things that the city is laying out in terms of the legalities of your procedural votes

[1:34:30] are not correct, that the extensions have not been correct.

[1:34:33] And so, as prior commenters, I would request, especially that the planning commission take

[1:34:38] time to review those documents. I know they're quite thick. I also wanted to address some

[1:34:45] of the questions that I think are archologically specific to the areas around the chief glyph.

[1:34:56] I want to emphasize that there was a letter that spoke specifically in the 2005 EIR that you

[1:35:03] not destroy, that in 30 years of doing this work, Dr. Von Hulf said that he had never seen

[1:35:09] a J-Gliff that could not be verified by accurate surveys. And a 15-meter pedestrian survey

[1:35:16] is just pathetic. I have spent my summer in the ground at Jefferson's Monochello reassembling

[1:35:24] plouson. And the truth is under that plouson. And none of the contemporary methodologies

[1:35:32] that are appropriate to be utilized here.

[1:35:34] I have been utilized, and that would include

[1:35:36] light, art, photogrammetry, so much has changed.

[1:35:42] You have the voice of the indigenous laying this out for you.

[1:35:45] You have archaeologists experts that we frankly didn't listen to.

[1:35:49] And I would add that is a category for secret trigger that if something

[1:35:53] was insufficiently covered in the EIR, it should be attacked again.

[1:35:57] And I think you have the indigenous community saying to you,

[1:36:00] That was not sufficient. That is clear. And you have legal responses backing them. And just

[1:36:07] enclosing, I would say, I just want to reiterate that the legality here is that we are all,

[1:36:14] I spent a good deal of time going through records, newspaper records, looking at the historical

[1:36:20] record as a historical archaeologist. I'd like to tell you that at the end of the day,

[1:36:25] when your children and great grandchildren are going back and looking at the things you made the

[1:36:30] decision on what you put your signature to. There's not going to be a city standing in front of you

[1:36:37] or a city attorney explaining why you did that. It will just be you making that decision. It's

[1:36:43] your name. And I just want to implore the commission as an archeological professional. Look at

[1:36:49] the content of this EIR and the people. I understand that this is an insufficient process. Thank you

[1:36:56] much for your time. Thank you.

[1:37:04] And are there any more online comments? Seeing none. I

[1:37:10] went to give an opportunity for the applicant to respond to public comment. No comment

[1:37:17] from the applicant.

[1:37:21] Okay. Is that Joe? Could you please give us your phone name please?

[1:37:29] Yes, my name is Joseph Onterveros. I'm the tribalist sport preservation officer for the

[1:37:37] We have committed specifically related to this project.

[1:37:42] Last hearing we were able to attend, virtually.

[1:37:46] We have requested that the city reach out to us to arrange discussions

[1:37:51] as we had no formal record of any correspondence in accordance

[1:37:57] with SB18 or AB52 for this project, obviously, to older project.

[1:38:04] We did receive a rather informal email from a Brian foot stating to please provide additional information

[1:38:13] any written documents and information for evidence, maps, exhibits, ethnography notes, oral histories, and so forth.

[1:38:21] And we did respond back to Mr. Foot reminding him that information that we maintain would be disclosed to the agency in confidence,

[1:38:30] although that opportunity has not been granted.

[1:38:32] There's tons of information, substantial information that the tribe has prepared to share,

[1:38:36] although that information is protected.

[1:38:39] And again, we still have no record of formal correspondence or communication with regard

[1:38:45] to applicable law.

[1:38:47] With that being said, we again request that the city reach out, that discussions are arranged,

[1:38:53] and if necessary, that those formal notifications are circulated, even though they're after

[1:38:58] the fact.

[1:38:59] But yeah, with that being said, we look forward to hearing back from the city, thank you.

[1:39:04] Thank you.

[1:39:11] All right.

[1:39:12] With that under the format, the public hearing is closed and commissioners discussion on the proposal or items that we've heard.

[1:39:26] Seeing none, I'd like to ask the city attorney if she is able to address the questions of

[1:39:31] legality in the EIR over this much time having passed since it was originally having been

[1:39:37] conducted and how that is taken into a valuation with this much passage of time.

[1:39:46] I think the staff report adequately lays out the standard of which you would evaluate the EIR

[1:39:54] in light of all the time that's passed.

[1:39:56] The criteria is there in your staff report, substantial evidence, and the criteria for evaluating

[1:40:06] whether a new EIR supplemental would be appropriate here, so I refer you back to your staff report.

[1:40:12] That would be the standard to evaluate your EIR to determine whether that criteria has been met.

[1:40:20] Thank you.

[1:40:24] Again, commissioners, commissioners, endlessly.

[1:40:27] We're in discussion now, so I thought I'd just share some thoughts I had

[1:40:31] thought on right down.

[1:40:34] Yeah, I disagree with some of the sentiments in the staff report, I think that was obvious

[1:40:39] with some of my questioning.

[1:40:40] I believe there's significant evidence of substantial changes since the originally I

[1:40:44] are prepared 20 years ago, including the introduction of AB-52, which clearly was

[1:40:50] part of the requirement for an ER at the time, and I believe it should be today.

[1:40:56] I believe a new EIR should be very, for the project site with new standards for tribal

[1:41:00] cultural resources evaluation, as well as a reevaluation of other environmental impacts.

[1:41:04] I will not be voting for an extension.

[1:41:13] Commissioner Wells.

[1:41:16] I just wanted to echo Commissioner Ensley's statement, and unfortunately we have to rely

[1:41:22] staff to give us the best information in, you know, in the documents prepare, but with having

[1:41:28] three tribes present tonight commenting still that they are in disagreement with your findings.

[1:41:33] I also am not prepared to vote yes on a succession.

[1:41:41] Mr. Nusha.

[1:41:43] Which one?

[1:41:44] Commissioner.

[1:41:45] Oh, yes.

[1:41:46] You have a new title now.

[1:41:49] And keeping with those and some of the questions I asked earlier, I just, I'm not comfortable with

[1:41:54] 2005 EAR, I know that it mentioned that, you know, through the stipulated agreement that

[1:41:58] it was valid or with nothing being done since 2014 being kind of the latest date relative

[1:42:04] to that stipulation, I think that eight years passing is a significant amount of time.

[1:42:09] As a lot of people mentioned, a lot of things have changed and so I would only be supportive

[1:42:14] if we would go down the path of doing something with the EAR to make it more contemporary

[1:42:18] with current information that we have before I would support it.

[1:42:22] Thank you.

[1:42:23] Commissioner Gonzalez.

[1:42:25] Chair.

[1:42:29] Before we get more people wane in, I just wanted to comment, if the commission is inclined

[1:42:37] to deny this extension request, our process is going to be, we're going to listen to your

[1:42:44] rationale and reasons and we hope you'll be as specific as possible, particularly tying them

[1:42:51] to the criteria that are outlined in the staff report,

[1:42:56] we will then incorporate those into a resolution

[1:43:00] and bring it back at the next meeting for vote

[1:43:04] by the Commission.

[1:43:06] That's our normal process when we go to deny a project

[1:43:12] is to document it and bring it, bring a resolution back.

[1:43:17] And make sure that we have the rationale and we'll be able to articulate it and put it

[1:43:26] in writing and have the commission review it one more time before finalizing the vote

[1:43:32] to deny.

[1:43:35] Is she going to pause?

[1:43:37] When I read the staff report, I thought, okay, it seems like all the eyes were dotted and

[1:43:42] were crossed. But hearing all the public comments, it definitely changed my mind. More specifically,

[1:43:50] the new AB 52, I believe that that should be addressed. And the fact that the EIRs over

[1:43:57] or 18 years old, it probably should be again. I'm hoping that's fairly specific.

[1:44:09] Vice Chair Shaw. Thank you. First, I want to state that I, you know, this is really hard

[1:44:16] and see what doesn't make it easy with terms like enough, relevant, fair, significant,

[1:44:22] clearly reasonable. Those are very difficult terms to measure. They're not very easily measured.

[1:44:30] With that said, I have a specific question for the city attorney in regards to the communications

[1:44:36] from the tribal representatives and the disconnect with their comfortable,

[1:44:40] ability sharing information with us when there is no legal protection from their point of view

[1:44:47] in place. And I would like to know, that's my first question, how you feel about that.

[1:44:53] I think that that is something the planning commission can weigh in light of what was said today.

[1:45:00] And way that, and give that it's appropriate weight in making your decision. Again, as we mentioned,

[1:45:07] there was effort by city staff to reach out to them. But the planning condition has to weigh that.

[1:45:14] Is that, was that adequate? Could you have received the information to make the sequel analysis and make those determinations?

[1:45:23] That's up to the planning commission.

[1:45:24] Okay, and then my second question is probably for Mr. Descent and what are our options here?

[1:45:30] So do we have to approve or deny there was a 60-day extension that clearly expires tomorrow?

[1:45:38] Do we have the ability to say, hey, we're not ready?

[1:45:40] We need more information or does that only come in the form of the denial where the applicant has to start over?

[1:45:46] What can we do here?

[1:45:54] We are, as was indicated, we are on a deadline which is the 60-day extension period actually expires tomorrow, so if it is not approved tonight, we will assume that it will be denied and will bring back at the Nile Resolution to formalize that at the next meeting.

[1:46:18] So we have no ability to say we're not ready yet, we need more information, specifically based

[1:46:28] on the tribal representatives feeling like there is more significant data to present.

[1:46:39] Okay.

[1:46:40] We'll have to make a decision.

[1:46:42] And what we'll bring back is just the resolution for denial.

[1:46:46] And then remember in the code, there's a right to appeal.

[1:46:50] That appeal time will run when you adopt that resolution.

[1:46:53] The way the code's written is that the planning mission must make findings and only what you do that is a group is by adopting a resolution

[1:47:02] So essentially the time period between today your decision today and that resolution pretty much stays everything until you adopt that resolution

[1:47:13] Then the appeal time period runs from the date you adopt that resolution

[1:47:17] Okay, so typically where we could possibly continue a matter for more information, because of this extension deadline, we are not able to do that tonight.

[1:47:26] What you're going to do tonight is you're going to put on the record your reasons for denial and direct staff to bring back a resolution of denial.

[1:47:37] That's what you're going to do tonight.

[1:47:39] And then the next available meeting, you will see that resolution of denial.

[1:47:43] Okay. Thank you. That's really unfortunate. I wish we weren't up against this tight time frame. Thank you.

[1:47:51] City Attorney. One of the tribal representatives also mentioned a lack of a government

[1:47:56] government relationship with the city that they felt impaired their ability to be forthcoming

[1:48:03] with the city. Is there any light that your director does that and I can put on give us on that?

[1:48:10] I will defer to the staff on that.

[1:48:12] I don't have an information to comment.

[1:48:16] Don't know.

[1:48:17] It's also the particulars of the correspondence

[1:48:19] between the city staff and the tribe to be able to answer

[1:48:22] that question.

[1:48:25] Anything?

[1:48:27] All right.

[1:48:28] Any other comment from commissioners?

[1:48:33] This one is a difficult one.

[1:48:36] And it comes down to one of it is certainly

[1:48:39] the passage of time. Certainly comes into play, especially when this development was originally

[1:48:47] assessed and originally approved in terms of the ERR and its certification was a much larger

[1:48:54] development than what we're looking at today. So there has been all kinds of mitigation steps

[1:49:00] that have been dealt with through litigation and the stipulated judgment and re-examination

[1:49:08] by citizen groups,

[1:49:12] the property owner in the city, and then again another long passage of

[1:49:18] time.

[1:49:19] During that passage of time we've come to take a tribal input more to the forefront than

[1:49:27] had been the case 17, 18 years ago.

[1:49:31] We also have the additional concerns over climate change that has become much more apparent

[1:49:38] with both storm events and fire.

[1:49:45] So these are things that weigh on making a decision,

[1:49:47] even with a very carefully crafted much, much smaller development

[1:49:52] that we're looking at today.

[1:49:55] Unfortunately, one of the things we on this panel here,

[1:50:00] time and time again, is we've used this area that is an open space.

[1:50:06] We thought it was open space, we've always treated it as an open space, however, it's not.

[1:50:14] It's private property that has been carefully crafted and developed and mitigated over a long

[1:50:23] creative time.

[1:50:25] And we don't have, for example, a nonprofit that wants to buy it from the private property

[1:50:30] owner to donate to the city.

[1:50:32] Which I know is the sentiment, I wish that all of us come from, and I know that we had a proposal in humor that they would like to be able to do that.

[1:50:46] So we have a private property right of the applicant that they have made efforts to be as aware of the property around them,

[1:51:01] constraints of the topography, the drainage issues have certainly come up in their consideration.

[1:51:12] And again, and that's not discounting the newer concerns that come into play, like the compassionate,

[1:51:22] but still imprecise input that we've had from the tribal representatives that we know that there is a presence

[1:51:27] in the canyon or in the immediate area, but it doesn't necessarily

[1:51:33] zero in on the particular parcel at play.

[1:51:38] So I get that we like the canyon.

[1:51:43] I get that we don't want it to change.

[1:51:45] I get that it's a beautiful open space.

[1:51:47] I've hiked through the adjacent park area several times.

[1:51:52] And I get that it's beautiful spot.

[1:51:55] But when it comes to the findings, the substantial findings that you could put to paper and defend in a legal standpoint,

[1:52:10] other than the concerns about things that have been looked at in the stipulated judgment and found to be still valid adequate within state law,

[1:52:19] I am troubled that we don't get there to say no, and so I would welcome more observation

[1:52:28] from my fellow commissioners in that regard.

[1:52:31] Commissioner Anzley.

[1:52:34] I do appreciate that sentiment where I come from is precisely how you started it, Chair,

[1:52:43] that are sentiment in this community and in the state and this country has changed quite a bit.

[1:52:53] And, you know, none of us at least, none of us on the commission it would seem.

[1:52:57] We're present to know what the process of that EIR looked like,

[1:53:03] what engagement had happened at that time.

[1:53:05] And we certainly do know, which is what I'm at in my confidence level,

[1:53:10] We do know that the guidelines for an EIR has changed substantially.

[1:53:16] If for no other evaluation other than AB 52 and tribal resources, and knowing that it

[1:53:24] wasn't required but some an attempt was made, but not necessarily what would stand up

[1:53:30] to the standards of today back when the original EIR was made, knowing that that had happened

[1:53:38] is nice, but it doesn't necessarily, it may be legal, it may be okay, but doesn't make it

[1:53:43] right in my mind.

[1:53:45] I think that we've heard a lot of evidence today, certainly from the people I think would

[1:53:50] be most interested in weighing in on that particular subject, that they are in disagreement

[1:53:55] with the EIR, which is a more reason for me to think that something has substantially changed,

[1:54:00] and maybe it just simply was conveniently overlooked then, but I don't know, so that's

[1:54:04] my confidence level.

[1:54:05] I think that we see a little bit more of that and I do appreciate efforts made by staff but as I alluded to earlier, the standard for which they would be allowed to comment in a standard EIR today as far more than two weeks there would be supposedly some additional protections offered.

[1:54:25] If there was some sort of an agreement, or an official EIR with the AB 52 SB 18 undertaken.

[1:54:33] And because that doesn't exist, there's a lot of concern I have on whether or not we're doing the right thing there.

[1:54:42] I think simply put it, you know, this is an extension of one year extension.

[1:54:48] You know, it's a continued something that was decided on 20 years ago.

[1:54:51] For me, it's, you know, we're not saying no that this project can exist, and I'm simply

[1:54:57] from the point that it may be it's okay to exist, but let's go ahead and make sure.

[1:55:02] Let's look at a new EER, the NIA one year extension under the 20 year old one, and all the stipulated

[1:55:08] judgment that came with it, and say, let's start a fresh.

[1:55:11] Make sure that we're doing the right thing, and we may very well come up with a project that looks

[1:55:15] very similar, not exactly the same, but at least we'll be confident.

[1:55:18] I'll be confident that we aren't overlooking substantial evidence.

[1:55:22] So I'm on the other end of the spectrum.

[1:55:24] A concern that are we not legally there, it's a deny.

[1:55:27] I actually have a concern that we're not legally there to approve.

[1:55:37] Vice-Chair Shah?

[1:55:39] A couple more questions.

[1:55:40] OK, so what's before us is a map extension on a project.

[1:55:44] If a project, if we approve the map extension and a project

[1:55:48] comes through for approval, do the treble representatives have any authority at that point

[1:55:57] to come back with their concerns?

[1:56:04] The project is approved, so this is an extension of an approval.

[1:56:08] There's no, if the extension is granted, there's no future approval because the project

[1:56:14] is approved.

[1:56:15] So no, there would be no process at that point to involve the tribes.

[1:56:23] Okay. So now I need to understand what the repercussions of either approval or denial of.

[1:56:30] So if we deny this, they have approval rights, which what is that process?

[1:56:37] The applicant can appeal the denial. Correct?

[1:56:42] That's correct, yes.

[1:56:43] So what happens then, where does that go to in what other agencies look at that?

[1:56:48] I would go to the City Council for the appeal hearing.

[1:56:53] Okay, and then how long do they have?

[1:56:59] We usually schedule it for the the soonest available meeting that we can prepare a report for.

[1:57:07] Okay, so not necessarily enough time to work out any potential issues that we're looking at today.

[1:57:15] Okay, all right, thank you.

[1:57:16] I'm just trying to weigh the entire process here.

[1:57:21] Thank you.

[1:57:22] Commissioner Smith.

[1:57:23] And this is more of a, I guess, a question for staff in reading over this letter from

[1:57:29] a previous Franklin Shuttle.

[1:57:31] There's a comment on the bottom here that it started out at 180 acres and it's, they've

[1:57:35] literally mitigated this down 80 percent, it's down to 36.

[1:57:40] Is that figure correct?

[1:57:49] Yes, they are, that the 30,

[1:57:54] they're down to 24 lots, is that what you're referring to?

[1:57:57] Well, I guess my question is, is this truly a landowner that is said, I hear the concerns

[1:58:03] of the community and his has relinquished up to 80% of the original project and there's still

[1:58:12] a question that people want more.

[1:58:15] The information in this letter is accurate as far as I can tell, but that answers my question.

[1:58:21] I'm sure no one else.

[1:58:23] Thank you. Yes, I actually was prepared to come here tonight or when we got our packet.

[1:58:29] I was thinking that all of our questions that staff would take those back and we get them

[1:58:33] all resolved and, you know, private property rights would go on and I was assuming it would

[1:58:37] probably get approved but I'm just not feeling confident that the tribes feel confident in this

[1:58:43] project and they've communicated to us tonight that they don't feel that it's an appropriate

[1:58:47] mechanism in place to communicate those significant changes that have occurred.

[1:58:51] So I'm with the commissioner, endlessly, that I think that we need to be listening or closely

[1:58:56] to those concerns and also get that mechanism set up before we can confidently move forward

[1:59:01] in approving an extension on this.

[1:59:08] Just to clarify from points of legality, Director, you've mentioned that this project has been

[1:59:16] approved previously by the standards in place at the time it was approved and with the

[1:59:26] play that has tried to be addressed, I think, someone informally, because it was not part

[1:59:35] of the process at the time, how does that come into play? Does any update required like

[1:59:44] retroactively or anything like that from a legal standpoint,

[1:59:50] on the tribal consultation?

[1:59:51] There

[1:59:57] is no requirement to retroactively.

[2:00:00] Review and the IR that's been certified. You just, what you need, your analysis here is really focused

[2:00:08] on whether there's any substantial changes since it's approval based on expert opinion and

[2:00:15] medical evidence, not speculation, not just opinion, it has to be based in some expert

[2:00:23] consultant opinion that's been entered into the record that would move this group to

[2:00:31] take a look at reopen basically, reopen the EIR and re-review those issues in the EIR.

[2:00:40] short of that, there's no substantial evidence and you accept the ER as is.

[2:00:49] That's again, it's laid out in your staff report.

[2:00:53] Thank you for the clarification.

[2:00:56] And to radio, it is the city attorney has said the staff report was quite thorough and we have read it twice in the last.

[2:01:05] Well, since the turn of the year,

[2:01:09] so I'm

[2:01:16] sorry sir,

[2:01:26] Mr. Mayor, since you're dealing with the property could actually come up and speak to the microphone on the, this is dealing with the original proposal acreage on the current acreage at this time.

[2:01:38] Yeah. The numbers are as follows. The original project area was 181.82 acres. The current amount of open space shown on the tentative map is 141.47 acres.

[2:01:55] That represents right at 78% of the original project site is natural open space.

[2:02:08] Again, with the requirements that we are tasked to look at, is the, and as Vice Chair

[2:02:17] Shaw mentioned, some of the terminology can seem purposely vague, which makes it purposely

[2:02:24] difficult as to what constitutes a substantial, or substantial evidence.

[2:02:37] And emotional speculation and things as while we all feel that, you can't quantify it in terms of doesn't meet this standard or doesn't not, that's laid out by which the applicant, the zoning, all of the other, all of the other considerations that the applicant works on with staff over a long period of time to create

[2:03:04] the proposal within the zoning and specific plants and all of the other land use.

[2:03:11] In fact, one of the speakers mentioned, that's why we have the zoning rules that we do for different parts of the city.

[2:03:20] So, absent those standard changes that have been deemed, albeit eight years ago, most recently,

[2:03:30] As being adequately meeting, I think all of a sudden had a chance to weigh in on it, but we

[2:03:39] have not, we need to look at a motion at some point.

[2:03:45] Director.

[2:03:46] Can I?

[2:03:48] So I've been trying to take notes from what people are saying, and at this point, I'm thinking

[2:03:56] in terms of drafting this resolution to bring back, and at this point, the only point I have

[2:04:04] that I've heard from a number of you is that you believe that the tribal consultation

[2:04:11] process was lacking, and that that should be a more robust process that is in place now

[2:04:21] that was not in place at the time,

[2:04:27] that comments like the EIR is old, and I understand

[2:04:34] that's a perception,

[2:04:38] but that's not going to help us address the criteria that we have

[2:04:43] to deal with in the sequence statute.

[2:04:47] So if there's anything, if I'm missing something,

[2:04:51] if there's anything you can add to be a little bit more specific

[2:04:54] so that when we do bring back a resolution to deny,

[2:04:59] it'll be as robust as possible.

[2:05:05] Thank you, Director.

[2:05:08] Once again, at some point, we need to create a commissioner shop, please.

[2:05:12] Just had a question.

[2:05:13] So setting this project aside, how long, I mean,

[2:05:18] IR validity, is that something that, once it's done, we would say 40 years from now, we would

[2:05:23] be able to use the same EIR, is there a time when an EIR, can I have a life span,

[2:05:37] or?

[2:05:37] If you're asking, there's an expiration date on an EIR, not necessarily.

[2:05:45] You might have a situation where you're relying on an EIR for a project, a new project.

[2:05:50] And you find, again, there's substantial changes in some of the information that you relied

[2:05:57] on back then, then you'd be able to supplement or revisit that environmental document.

[2:06:04] But if you're asking, if you've got any IR and a product, and you don't have that situation

[2:06:10] as their expiration date on any IR, no.

[2:06:13] Okay, so if I set aside the substantial piece, because I know that's that seems to be a term if we look at what was on that one slide that had three A and it said that this was not discussed in a previous EIR and or you know we're talking about significant effects and B and then it says that the EIR concluded that there was less than significant impact.

[2:06:34] I'm not sure how you would have substantial or significant impact on something that wasn't addressed or something that wasn't looked at.

[2:06:42] And I think that's my hang up with this EIR is, I mean, 18 years is a long time, as a lot of people commented, things have changed.

[2:06:53] So I understand there's not an expiration date on any EIR, but it comes to me what's reasonable, you know, if things have come up, at what point do you say,

[2:07:01] Even in good faith, we go out and we do any IR to see if any of these things or if these concerns are valid.

[2:07:07] If they're not, and you push forward, then at least we've satisfied, and we've done our good faith piece of saying,

[2:07:13] hey, you know what that is not a concern, but I think it's hard to say whether it's substantial or significant those terms,

[2:07:20] when we can't say that there is not a significant impact when we never evaluated it to see if there was a significant impact.

[2:07:32] And so, director to your point, that's where I would be going with something in our resolution is, you know, we can't call something insignificant if it hasn't been evaluated to determine its significance.

[2:07:44] So, which are the, er, topics you're referring to?

[2:07:48] I think it's more than one. I don't think it's just tribal and cultural. I think there are a couple other things that have probably developed in 18 years and climate change is one that has been spoken to pretty significantly.

[2:08:00] So, you can call that as a piece of the erosion or the piece of the grain edge.

[2:08:05] But I do think that certainly tribal and cultural is going to be a piece of it.

[2:08:12] Commission, you have to make a decision based on what's been presented to you, not based

[2:08:18] on speculation of what you might get if you reopen, or if you do more consultation.

[2:08:25] You have to make your decision based on the evidence that's been presented to you on the record.

[2:08:30] Or not presented?

[2:08:32] What's been presented? Or what's not been presented with lacking?

[2:08:42] Vice-chair Shaw.

[2:08:46] I'm just going to say that, you know, this is a really, really difficult decision.

[2:08:52] And I wish we had more time, but we don't have more time.

[2:08:54] And I wish that we could say, hey, go back and help us answer these questions.

[2:09:00] But as the city attorney said, if we're looking at everything that is in front of us,

[2:09:06] Unfortunately, we're missing some pieces, but I don't think that we have the authority to make a legal decision based on what is missing.

[2:09:13] And everything that the applicant has done, the applicant has done everything that they, that they could in, and their arena.

[2:09:22] I just don't see how we

[2:09:27] hold them responsible for information that we don't have.

[2:09:31] And I'm really, really disappointed that we don't have more time together.

[2:09:34] But we can't change that.

[2:09:49] The public hearing is closed, is

[2:09:55] that you turning?

[2:10:00] Chair and commissioners, if you want to entertain more comments, you have to reopen the public hearing.

[2:10:07] That means when you give one, you give everyone.

[2:10:11] So, please just keep that in mind when you make a decision to reopen the public hearing.

[2:10:24] I'd reiterate that the public hearing has been closed for some time, and typically we do not reopen it.

[2:10:35] And I think as the audience can hear, we have heard the comment, I think we understand the sentiment in the room really well.

[2:10:51] And it's not that not hearing that's not our challenge at this point.

[2:10:56] It's trying to discern how we navigate this within Sequoelle and being able to move forward

[2:11:05] Commissioner Ensley.

[2:11:07] Yeah, I was just going to add more for Director DeSatniks, more details.

[2:11:12] Obviously, I think I've got that go pretty largely or pretty loudly that evaluation driver

[2:11:18] So a culture of resources is an important one that it feels under-supported, and that seems

[2:11:25] based on testimony, which has been presented to be a lacking area.

[2:11:31] So I think that's more than enough, but I would do also echo some other sentiments that

[2:11:37] we've heard, whether it's in the staff report or not, what has been provided to us that

[2:11:44] There is substantial changes in fire risk considerations that 20 years ago may have been

[2:11:51] very, very different than they are today, and that should be reevaluated.

[2:11:57] Traffic concerns are very different, especially when you consider the thousands of additional

[2:12:02] housing projects that are going on to our east, and that that is going to contribute.

[2:12:08] This will help to contribute to worsening of traffic in the area.

[2:12:11] that's a concern. I don't believe what have resulted in the same evaluation 20 years ago.

[2:12:19] I'm keep-killing. Mountain lion sightings. These are protected species.

[2:12:31] What we've also seen to be a lack of evaluation of the specific

[2:12:39] for in the area and whether or not those are endangered or protected,

[2:12:44] close to the levels, being one.

[2:12:49] I hope that's enough.

[2:12:54] Commissioner, should we have a motion of some sort?

[2:12:58] Chair, I'd be happy to make a motion.

[2:13:02] I move that the commission did not grant an extension to this project.

[2:13:07] I could be happy to amend that anyway we need to to document it appropriately.

[2:13:11] to say I had there to direct staff to bring back a resolution.

[2:13:14] And to direct staff to bring a resolution.

[2:13:18] Do I need that to now?

[2:13:19] To now motion by Commissioner Ensley.

[2:13:24] Seconded by Commissioner Shaw, all in favor of the motion is as outlined by Commissioner

[2:13:32] Ensley.

[2:13:34] Any opposed?

[2:13:37] Opposed.

[2:13:38] And again, the opposition comes from the fact that the vote is three-four in favor of commissioners motion.

[2:13:59] Three-four.

[2:14:00] Can we do a roll call?

[2:14:03] Yes, sir.

[2:14:04] Roll call.

[2:14:05] Commissioner Wells?

[2:14:08] Hi.

[2:14:08] I'm Commissioner Anzilisa.

[2:14:11] Commissioner Smith.

[2:14:14] So, I'm opposed, Commissioner Shaw.

[2:14:17] Yes, I'm Councillors.

[2:14:19] Opposed.

[2:14:21] Opposed.

[2:14:22] Yes.

[2:14:30] Yes.

[2:14:30] So, four, three, the motion carries.

[2:14:34] I'll commissioner, end of these motion carries.

[2:14:38] With that, Director, you were asking for detailed and Commissioner Endsley laid out

[2:14:44] some things that you'd want to take into account.

[2:14:48] The erosion issue that was brought up at the adjacent development, I believe, is the Oakmont.

[2:14:56] I think we need to be taken into account as relevant.

[2:15:00] The change in traffic pattern with current commerce. I think it would be relevant as a point of change that needs to be looked at at this point in time in addition to the tribal issues that have run up.

[2:15:16] And the wildlife issues that people have mentioned that may not be accurately reflected.

[2:15:25] All right. Thank you. And thank you for everyone who participated in the discussion this evening.

[2:15:42] The next item, the next item before the commission, is item 5A, excuse me now.

[2:15:52] Item 4B, order please, item 4B is continued from the December 13 meeting.

[2:16:02] This is a request for a recommendation to city council to approve text, ordinance, text, amendment

[2:16:07] Number three, six, five, pertaining to a proposed new warehouse development standards in

[2:16:12] the city of Redlands, and the public hearing for this item is now open.

[2:16:18] And again, if folks could take their conversation outside the chamber, much appreciate it.

[2:16:23] Mr. Foot.

[2:16:26] Thank you, Chair.

[2:16:28] This item is continued from December 13th, I'll proceed through the presentation again for

[2:16:37] your information, a little bit of background and June of 2022, the City Council adopted a

[2:16:43] moratorium on New Warehouse Development Projects exceeding 50,000 square feet in the

[2:16:47] commercial and industrial zones of the city, and then on July 19, the Council extended

[2:16:51] the moratorium that moratorium has since ended. And then on July 27th of 2022, some draft

[2:17:00] development standards were discussed with a planning commission and the commission provided

[2:17:04] comments and suggestions to staff for further revisions, and then a revised ordinance, and

[2:17:12] with draft old misstandors was brought to the commission on December 13th, and further discussion

[2:17:17] and revisions were suggested to staff. So we are back this evening with a final form of the draft

[2:17:24] developed standards.

[2:17:27] In some terminology, often you hear the term high cube, warehouses,

[2:17:31] or logistic distribution centers.

[2:17:34] And those typically have some common characteristics.

[2:17:37] They typically have a floor area of 200,000 square feet or more.

[2:17:41] They often have docked doors on two opposite sides of the building to facilitate sorting

[2:17:45] and incoming and outgoing packaging.

[2:17:55] They often have high interior ceilings, typically from 28 to 36 feet high for, again,

[2:18:01] packet sorting and delivery, and then they also tend to generate high rates of truck

[2:18:07] for large trucks, medium trucks, and small delivery vehicles.

[2:18:11] And so, high-cube warehouses or logistics,

[2:18:13] distribution facilities do not include manufacturing types

[2:18:17] of uses assembly or product finishing or other types of uses.

[2:18:24] The definitions of warehousing and enslaved warehousing

[2:18:28] were discussed previously and they're also provided in the

[2:18:32] Stafford in terms of applicability.

[2:18:36] The draft oil and standards would apply to new warehouses,

[2:18:40] having a gross floor area of 50,000 square feet or more, and after further discussion by the

[2:18:45] commission on December 13th, an additional criteria has been added, and that is any building

[2:18:49] containing six or more truck docks for dock-high loading doors. And basically that reflects a rate

[2:18:56] of one truck dock per 10,000 square feet, no four area, is generally how those facilities operate.

[2:19:05] The applicability would apply to any redevelopment of projects, so we currently have

[2:19:12] provision in the zoning code for non-conforming buildings and uses, and essentially this provision

[2:19:17] mirrors that non-conforming provision, and it uses a threshold of 50% of the reasonable

[2:19:22] replacement value of the structure. So if, for example, industrial building were to be proposed

[2:19:30] to be converted to a warehouse or redeveloped in some manner with substantial reconstruction or

[2:19:35] additions, then if that meets the criteria of 50% of the reasonable replacement value, then

[2:19:41] property would need to also construct the applicable development standards that we're going to

[2:19:45] go through here in just a minute. The same standards that would apply to a new warehouse

[2:19:48] on a vacant site.

[2:19:52] Generally, there are five categories of development standards. Those pertain

[2:19:56] to site location requirements, screening and buffering from adjacent sensitive receptors,

[2:20:01] adjacent uses traffic patterns and signage requirements, sustainable energy, and then

[2:20:05] operation and construction of the facility. So one of the main criteria here is site location

[2:20:10] requirements, so new warehouses, or then 50,000 square feet, would need to be located within

[2:20:16] one mile of a freeway ramp.

[2:20:20] And generally, that includes most of the industrial and commercial properties on the west side

[2:20:25] of the city in the East Valley corridor, commercial industrial zoning, what's referred to

[2:20:29] as the donor whole area.

[2:20:30] That's the unincorporated county area, north of Tannin, west of Tuchan, freeway.

[2:20:34] And then also include several industrial properties M1, M2, CM and IP properties within Redlands.

[2:20:44] And just for clarity, warehouses under 50,000 square feet can still be built, and they can be built more than one mile away from our favorite ramp.

[2:20:51] The restriction is on warehouses, 50,000 square feet, or more must be located within one mile at a freeway ramp.

[2:20:59] This is just a map showing a general one-mile radius, the red, circular lines, and approximately

[2:21:06] a one-mile radius around freeway ramps that's interstate 10 and highway 210.

[2:21:17] The next category is screening and buffering from adjacent uses.

[2:21:20] So, the new development standards would require a 10 foot ice screen wall when abutting

[2:21:24] any sensitive receptors such as residential uses, childcare centers, hospitals, and those types

[2:21:30] of sensitive receptors, in addition trees and landscaping, screening would be required,

[2:21:34] so in other words, above the height of a 10 foot screen wall, trees would provide additional

[2:21:38] screening, above the height of a 10 foot screen wall.

[2:21:41] We would review the site plan to make sure that docs and truck entries are oriented sufficiently

[2:21:45] away from a budding sensitive receptors, and the standards would also require a 35 percent

[2:21:51] shade cover within passenger vehicle parking lot areas.

[2:21:56] This category pertains to traffic patterns and signage requirements.

[2:21:59] So, with a development application, we would require a truck routing plan to be prepared

[2:22:03] and submitted by the applicant, but we would also require a traffic impact assessment

[2:22:07] report to be prepared to evaluate that particular development in terms of the truck routes

[2:22:12] and the capacity of the streets to handle the anticipated trip generation and truck routing

[2:22:17] that we would see on the truck routing plan.

[2:22:22] Generally, we would prohibit any truck routing through any residential under districts

[2:22:25] the trucks would need to follow the designated existing truck routes to the freeway ramps.

[2:22:30] trucks would not be able to stack or queue on public streets, so in other words, the site

[2:22:33] must be designed with sufficient space on-site to allow trucks to maneuver and pull in off

[2:22:39] the street and then wait on-site in the event of any gates that need to be open to allow

[2:22:44] entry into the truck dock areas that trucks deck in a queue and needs to happen on the

[2:22:48] project site and not on public streets.

[2:22:52] In addition, signage may be required to direct truck drivers to the appropriate designated truck route and help them avoid residential areas, and signs could be also required offsite to prevent truck parking or trailer parking on surface streets in residential areas.

[2:23:10] And this is a map from the general plan showing the existing truck routes indicated by the purple lines, and as you can see those are the major corridors, and those lead to the freeway ramps.

[2:23:24] Excategory is a sustainable energy requirements, so there is some further explanation in the draft ordinance as to the

[2:23:31] the formula that is used to determine what amount of photovoltaic or solar panels in the

[2:23:37] electrical generation would need to be provided on site for a particular building that would be handled through the plan check process

[2:23:44] in addition to cool roof materials would be required on any sections of roof without PV solar panels

[2:23:51] And then also the passenger vehicle parking areas would need to have a certain amount of level

[2:23:55] to charging systems installed with the development.

[2:23:59] And then on-site motorized equipment should be zero emission.

[2:24:02] Also, the truck docks themselves, if refrigerated trailers are anticipated, then the truck

[2:24:06] docks need to provide an outlet for the trailer to plug in and use the electrical system as opposed

[2:24:11] to running an engine or idling on-site.

[2:24:17] The last category pertains to operation and construction requirements.

[2:24:21] So in addition to the roof of the building, cool surface treatments would need to be installed

[2:24:26] at dry miles of parking lots, in addition to solar, additional solar, PV panels, it

[2:24:31] be installed on structures like car ports and the parking lot.

[2:24:35] And in addition, or in large electrical room would need to be constructed within the building

[2:24:40] to handle future expansion of the electrical system or anticipated future electrical demand.

[2:24:46] I like exterior light fixtures, what we need to have shielding.

[2:24:51] That's basically to prevent any nuisance effects on adjacent surrounding properties.

[2:24:57] And then, for any sites that are but any sensitive receptors, any outdoor stacking or staging,

[2:25:02] would need to occur below the height of the exterior screen, all which is a 10 foot limit.

[2:25:07] There was a discussion on December 13th as to potential scenarios of converting properties,

[2:25:17] or other potential scenarios where new warehouses might, what's the term.

[2:25:24] Slip by and inadvertently without being subject to the standards.

[2:25:29] So, the most expedient option seems to be to do a code amendment to acquire a conditional use permit for warehouses.

[2:25:39] Where warehouses already are permitted to use specifically commercial manufacturing zone M1M2 and IP zones as are industrial zones.

[2:25:49] Requiring a conditional use permit would allow additional layer overview.

[2:25:54] There are four findings for conditional use permits and those four findings pertain to the land use.

[2:25:58] And that's a difference from a commission review and approval permit.

[2:26:03] So permitted land use is still required commission review and approval, but there's only three findings in commission review and approval.

[2:26:08] And those three findings pertain to site plan approval, not necessarily the land use or the operation of the facility itself.

[2:26:15] And that's compared to a conditional use permit.

[2:26:16] We can actually look at the proposed land use and potentially add conditions of approval.

[2:26:21] You need to that particular proposal or that particular use to address any unique problems or circumstances.

[2:26:28] to be generated by the land use.

[2:26:30] The condition we use permit is the appropriate mechanism to do that, to have the additional

[2:26:35] layer of review of the land use and to potentially attach additional conditions if needed.

[2:26:42] So that is now in the proposed code amendment.

[2:26:46] Overall, the proposed code amendment is consistent with the general plan.

[2:26:50] It's explained in the December 13th, staff report in detail that lists all the policies with which this would be consistent.

[2:26:57] There's a number of policies from chapter 4,

[2:27:00] livable community, chapter 5 connected city,

[2:27:02] chapter 7, healthy community, and chapter 8 sustainability.

[2:27:07] In terms of environmental review, the code of amendment is

[2:27:09] exempt from environmental review.

[2:27:10] There's three sections that we've identified that we could use for

[2:27:12] exemption.

[2:27:13] The general rule exemption is section 1, 5061 B3.

[2:27:17] There's another section for actions by regulatory agencies for the

[2:27:20] protection of the environment.

[2:27:21] That's section 1, 5308.

[2:27:24] And then if we need another section, there's 1, 5378,

[2:27:27] five regarding activities of the city that don't result in any director-indirect physical

[2:27:33] changes in the environment. So we have at least one of those reactions will work for

[2:27:37] exemption from CEQA. And with that, staff is recommending that the commission adopt a

[2:27:44] resolution, number 1607, the test of the staff report, that will make a recommendation to the

[2:27:49] city council to adopt new ordinance implementing new warehouse development standards and the

[2:27:55] related code amendments to the zoning code for a conditional use permit requirement.

[2:28:00] And with that, staff is available to answer any questions.

[2:28:03] Thank you.

[2:28:05] Thank you, Mr. Foot, any questions by commissioners of staff?

[2:28:10] Mr. Shoshan.

[2:28:11] I just want to say thank you for addressing all our concerns.

[2:28:14] You guys did a really good job, and I think it's all the comments that we had all been addressed

[2:28:21] and just want to say thanks.

[2:28:24] I'm very pleased to see that the result of that conversation did get incorporated.

[2:28:32] And one question regarding the additional electrical capacity,

[2:28:38] hearing that, I take that to mean potential changes in operation, but with the states drive to get more electric vehicles, and how that may affect charging vehicles.

[2:28:51] vehicles that serve the warehouse property, does the wording in the ordinance cover that kind of expansion of capacity to be able to generate enough electricity to serve as vehicles at their location.

[2:29:11] Well, that section regarding energy generation was reviewed by our building division. We had help from our building staff and it is consistent with the building code and

[2:29:22] future anticipated, changes to the building code, and it should the energy generation

[2:29:29] should be sufficient to satisfy the needs of most if not all of the energy demand of that

[2:29:38] particular site.

[2:29:40] Thank you.

[2:29:43] Make sure to answer.

[2:29:45] Actually, I was going to echo Vice Chair Shaw's sentiments, I know we've given a lot back

[2:29:51] staff on this particular subject, and as someone who was very particular about what made

[2:29:59] it into the...

[2:30:01] This resolution, I just want to say thank you very much. I think you've really helped to identify what it is we were trying to get at, you know, a concern of, as you said, slipping through the cracks.

[2:30:16] And, yeah, I really love these proposals, so I'm good.

[2:30:22] Are you sure you're good, Zoss?

[2:30:23] I echo, and please, comments, and also it was very thorough.

[2:30:30] Do we have a motion?

[2:30:34] Vice Chair Shaw.

[2:30:35] I moved that the Planning Commission adopted resolution number 16.0.

[2:30:39] Move by Vice Commissioner, or Vice Chair Shaw?

[2:30:42] Second.

[2:30:42] Seconded by Commissioner, Ensley, All in Favor?

[2:30:45] Aye.

[2:30:45] Any opposed?

[2:30:47] Motion carries unanimously.

[2:30:49] And the record show Vice Chair Shaw needs to leave the meeting at this time.

[2:30:56] Our next item is new business that is item 5A.

[2:31:04] This is a request to approve Tendative Track Map 20320 and conditional use permit 1148 for

[2:31:10] a planned residential development located at the east and west sides of Wombash Avenue,

[2:31:14] northerly of Reservoir Road.

[2:31:18] This is, again, a public hearing.

[2:31:22] I will open the public hearing for this item

[2:31:23] and ask for the staff presentation by Emily Elliott.

[2:31:31] Commissioners,

[2:31:37] all right, the project before us

[2:31:38] this evening is a tentative tract map

[2:31:42] with a conditional use permit and a street vacation.

[2:31:45] The project site is located on both sides

[2:31:48] of Wabash Avenue, very close to the city boundary.

[2:31:51] That's that white dashed line indicating city of redlands from the west and then unincorporated areas of the right.

[2:32:03] Specifically, the project entitlements include the tentative tract map.

[2:32:07] This would subdivide the approximately 65 acres into 67 single family residential lots and 10 littered lots.

[2:32:15] The conditional use permit is for the planned residential development.

[2:32:19] The Pline Residential Development or PRD for short is a mechanism offered to developers to consolidate lots in exchange for open space, and it is a conditionally approved action by the Pline Commission.

[2:32:36] And then finally there's a street vacation, and this is to correct just not discrepancies with variances and widths along reservoir road in order to achieve consistent alignment of reservoir road consistent with the general plan.

[2:32:54] On the screen is the conceptual plan for the project.

[2:32:59] And the project is going to be, or is proposed to be constructed in two phases with the alignment of Wabash Avenue being constructed and completed along with everything on the west side of the site and then phase two would consist of all the dwellings and open space on the right side.

[2:33:21] This project was previously entitled, however, those project entitlements have expired, and so the project applicant has refreshed their environmental review and brought forward new applications.

[2:33:34] Back in 2004, a zone change conditional use permit and tentative map were all approved.

[2:33:39] The zone change is still valid, that zone change altered the site from the agricultural district to the residential state district and the site is currently owned R.E.

[2:33:51] But the tentative map and the CUP did expire at that time the developer was seeking 76 slots and five common lots.

[2:34:03] This is a general plan map of the project vicinity.

[2:34:06] The entirety of the project is within the very low-density residential designation.

[2:34:12] This designation allows for up to three dwelling units per acre.

[2:34:16] The project is proposing just under one dwelling unit per acre, comes out to 0.96.

[2:34:25] This is the zoning map.

[2:34:27] Like I said, the project was previously converted from the agricultural district to the residential

[2:34:32] the state district and this is consistent with the existing developments to the west and across the

[2:34:37] freeway to the south.

[2:34:43] The project does meet all of the development standards and requirements

[2:34:46] of the R-E district, particularly when the planned residential development standards are also applied.

[2:34:58] The next couple slides show the tentative track to map and closer detail. This first cut sheet

[2:35:05] is part of phase one. This is lots one through 13. I know the gray scales kind of hard to see,

[2:35:11] so if there's any questions, just let me know.

[2:35:15] So this will be among the first of the project that

[2:35:18] is developed. And then this is the second half of phase one. Lots 13 through 42. Sorry, 14 through 42.

[2:35:28] Then, finally, phase two, which is on sheet 3,

[2:35:33] site, or a lot 43 through lots, 67.

[2:35:40] This is the project plan in its entirety.

[2:35:44] This is the PRD site plan, so it shows the lots,

[2:35:47] but then also the pads on each lot and where the dwellings

[2:35:51] will be located.

[2:35:53] The project is consistent with the PRD standards,

[2:35:58] and it is also subject to the city's

[2:36:03] side development district because it's on an area that is quite hilly and is consistent with

[2:36:08] those provisions as well. The project is proposing three floor plans across three different

[2:36:18] architectural types. So there's the craftsman and farmhouse and a like mission style or Spanish

[2:36:27] style. That's plan one with just a single story product, plan two. It's a two story product

[2:36:35] as is plan three.

[2:36:42] The project would be nearly fully landscapeed and these types of projects

[2:36:46] the developers responsible for landscaping the front yards, the parkways, basins, and any

[2:36:52] programmed open space.

[2:36:57] The project is also required as part of the PRD ordinance to provide a minimum

[2:37:01] of 20% open space, which is achieved through a couple of programmed park spaces, but also an abundance

[2:37:12] of more passive recreation open space.

[2:37:15] There are some existing trails out on the property.

[2:37:19] And the projects design takes those trails into account and will actually improve some of those

[2:37:23] trails with the DG-based, so residents and members of the community can still access them.

[2:37:28] In total, the project provides 43% open space, which exceeds the 20% minimum requirement.

[2:37:39] The street vacation is intended to correct the street width and alignment of reservoir road.

[2:37:47] Right now that property boundary with reservoir road, kind of varies in width for about 1,300 feet.

[2:37:53] And so what the street vacation will do is make reservoir road consistent with the collector street standard in the city's general plan.

[2:38:04] The planning commission's being asked to adopt a resolution finding that the street vacation is conformance with the city's general plan.

[2:38:13] That street vacation will then proceed onto city council.

[2:38:16] There's a condition of approval on this project that entitlements or permitting cannot continue until the applicant receives that City Council approval on the vacation.

[2:38:26] The general plan classification map, so each color corresponds to what type of street.

[2:38:34] So, in the teal box is the section of reservoir road that is subject to the street vacation and it is a collector street.

[2:38:42] I'll also point out that Babish Avenue has been on the city's general plan as a minor arterial and this project would complete that through construction of Babish Avenue.

[2:38:56] This slide shows the general plan standards for collector streets, again, this applies to reservoir road, and then the project's proposed cross section is on the right.

[2:39:11] The collector street has a 64 foot right of way.

[2:39:14] We tend to talk in terms of half widths, which is 32 feet, and the project is providing that 32 foot half width.

[2:39:24] Compliance with measure U, the project under a Windows Associate Economic Cost Benefit Analysis,

[2:39:30] and during that analysis, it was determined that the project would have a positive cost benefit ratio of 2.22,

[2:39:42] and then for environmental review, a new environmental document was prepared for this project,

[2:39:47] and was analyzed under all of the resource categories identified on the screen,

[2:39:53] which is the most current sequence available.

[2:39:56] No significant impacts were identified for the operation of the project. However, some impacts were identified related to construction. However, all of these impacts can be mitigated with the implementation of measures that have been included in the project's conditions of approval.

[2:40:14] The environmental document was circulated for a 30 day public review.

[2:40:18] And then notice that the intent was posted as required with the city clerk and the state clearing house and on the city's website.

[2:40:26] Six public comments were received, most pertained to a site circulation and the build out of Wavash Avenue

[2:40:34] and one comment letter was received from their quality district.

[2:40:38] The responses to the comments are all documented in the staff report attachments,

[2:40:42] so the projects and environmental consultants in the audience and prepared to answer any specific questions.

[2:40:47] It's the staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the initial study mitigated

[2:40:55] neck declaration and approve the resolution or adopt the resolution that would approve

[2:41:01] the socioeconomic cost benefits that he conditionally use permit and then adopt the

[2:41:07] resolution for the street vacation which again will proceed to city council for approval.

[2:41:13] A motion for the council or commissions considerations on the screen and I'm happy to answer any

[2:41:18] questions.

[2:41:18] Okay, thank you, Ms. Elant. Any questions of staff?

[2:41:25] Ms. Sherner-Wals?

[2:41:27] Just a quick question on the M&D.

[2:41:33] On page 138, when it addresses schools, it says that the closest schools to the

[2:41:37] product site are Mission Elementary School.

[2:41:40] And I believe that that section, that's a typo, and I'm not sure if that means

[2:41:45] the whole section gets redone or just the update, but missions kind of across towns.

[2:41:49] So I'm thinking it's either Mariposa or Craftin.

[2:41:54] Yeah, just to note on that.

[2:41:57] But it's got Mission Elementary at California Street,

[2:41:59] Redland's Academy at Stewart,

[2:42:01] so totally different part of Tampa.

[2:42:07] Is that indeed a type forward?

[2:42:10] Or a mistake?

[2:42:11] Yeah, it must be.

[2:42:12] OK, I was like a question.

[2:42:17] Commissioner Shaw.

[2:42:20] If you're just a couple of questions,

[2:42:22] I know it mentions that Wavash will be improved.

[2:42:26] It's probably the key concern I see there.

[2:42:28] How would, I mean, I can get making what Rose Wider and whatnot, but my question is,

[2:42:33] is when you get to the top of Wabash, where the dirt basically meets what's low-grade asphalt,

[2:42:39] at this point, there's a significant pitch in the road, they're like, I mean, where you can't see over.

[2:42:45] So, how's that road going to get restructured to change that considering there's existing housing

[2:42:52] and whatnot there?

[2:42:54] Sure, I'll answer to the extent that I have knowledge and then I believe that the traffic

[2:42:59] consultant is joined us via Zoom and so after I take my attendee I will let them give their

[2:43:05] professional opinion but part of the Sequoanalysis or the environmental analysis is to assess

[2:43:10] the project for traffic hazards and the creation of any roads that would present the hazard.

[2:43:16] So I can't address how that rise is being addressed but that it would need to be considered as part of the

[2:43:23] projects in environmental review. Linda, if it's possible to let the consultant address the rest of the question.

[2:43:43] We can let.

[2:43:44] Do you let Dawn respond?

[2:43:47] Dawn Young.

[2:43:51] So the engineer?

[2:43:59] Hello.

[2:44:00] Excuse me, hello.

[2:44:00] This is Dawn Young.

[2:44:02] I'm not using the engineering.

[2:44:06] The realignment of Wadaash if the map can be pulled up.

[2:44:09] occurs, I'm guess, I'm estimating 150 to 200 feet, northerly of the location that the

[2:44:19] commission was describing with the pitch and the road, that section of Wabash is actually

[2:44:27] over the county and we'll call that'll become an old Wabash, the little extension that

[2:44:33] or road, which is a private road, will tie into a long-ashic stealth itself as if you're

[2:44:41] picturing your driving subtly on a long-ash long before you would get to that pitch point,

[2:44:49] while that actually appears to the left or to the right or to the west, and goes the other side

[2:44:55] of the hill and housing that currently exists there.

[2:45:00] And I wrote will be designed to appropriate standards.

[2:45:06] Okay, so if you're proceeding down, if you're proceeding south on wall bash on the paved portion,

[2:45:12] you're saying the road is going to be the right kind of vented of the canyon, which is the right

[2:45:16] behind where those two new houses are being constructed.

[2:45:23] It'd be over in that direction. The easiest way would be if the tentative map is pulled back up.

[2:45:31] now you have that little bit of the to see to picture your mind you can see the alignment of

[2:45:37] the wall bash which is across property the city obtained back in the 1980s for a lining wall

[2:45:46] bash along that the proposed group that the developer will be constructing.

[2:45:56] Okay I guess I'm

[2:45:56] on a tough time understand and where

[2:46:01] it's the top of the map there yeah so it's a very

[2:46:05] top where the road is is that what's current or is that new

[2:46:10] that's going to be the

[2:46:12] obviously the very top of the map was the the probably the best person to answer that because

[2:46:18] they can see that what's in front of you would be the project applicants engineer that's in order

[2:46:25] to project applicants and they can describe it in a point using laser pointer to show you where

[2:46:31] the road go, where the road is and where the road would go. So off to the right, that's the existing,

[2:46:37] and that's kind of what comes down to where the freeway offer emp is. That would be continuing down,

[2:46:41] if a map continued, it would go down to where that's existing. Well, this is all alignment, but this

[2:46:46] is understood. So that's what I'm only. So where Wavash is now going to intersect a reservoir is

[2:46:53] a fair distance west of where it currently intersects.

[2:46:59] No, the lalt describe it again for a

[2:47:01] different perspective. If I'm on reservoir and I get on to Wabash to go north,

[2:47:09] early I go up the dirt road, you know, and it goes to the right around the hill and up

[2:47:17] a fairly steep grade. Instead of going to the right, it'll geared to the left or to the left

[2:47:21] and come around and then pipe back into Wabash up at the top of the hill.

[2:47:28] I see, so where it intersects with Reservoir now does not change, but I

[2:47:39] think that's

[2:47:40] not the question for him. I have one or two more. Okay, up off of Camelot, which is

[2:47:45] be existing kind of behind them with that cul-de-sec is there, connectivity there,

[2:47:50] like trail-wise, or anything you mentioned, trails and whatnot. There's no connectivity to

[2:47:54] the existing residential that's on the far north end.

[2:48:00] See that there is a little trail here, it's hard for me to tell where exactly it goes.

[2:48:06] The bulk of the trail system is to the south and then to the southeast.

[2:48:12] Okay, so that the very top end, kind of a green space up there, is that basically that would be a budding to current property lines that are off of Channelot.

[2:48:20] Right, so these are private property lots.

[2:48:24] So if there are any existing trails here, they wouldn't be continued as part of the Developers project,

[2:48:29] because it would be going on to private property.

[2:48:32] So they're just constructing and finishing trails

[2:48:34] that are wholly within their project area.

[2:48:37] Okay, and then my last question is relative to reservoir

[2:48:39] where you talked about the road that alignment piece,

[2:48:44] or does that eliminate the city citrus there,

[2:48:47] or is that changed to the road on the north side of the road

[2:48:50] where it does not affect the citrus?

[2:48:56] On, or if I can get out of the city engineer,

[2:48:59] respond to that one.

[2:49:03] The citrus would not be impacting.

[2:49:06] My understanding is more of a mapping exercise,

[2:49:09] where the property lines for the project currently end

[2:49:12] resulting in too much right of way, or in some cases,

[2:49:15] maybe not enough.

[2:49:16] So it's more of just a correction of the property line,

[2:49:19] but the way that it's constructed is going to remain.

[2:49:23] So that impact would only be between where the existing residences are

[2:49:26] on reservoir between that and, in essentially,

[2:49:29] wall-bash. It wouldn't affect anything where there's already the houses on

[2:49:34] reservoir. It's only going to affect the project frontage.

[2:49:37] I did. Okay. Thank you.

[2:49:40] Mr. Rensley.

[2:49:43] This question might be for the traffic in sultanate.

[2:49:45] I'm just kind of curious the proposed routes to access freeways, right? We got a one-off

[2:49:55] I'm coming from ITN West, from EKIPA direction, and then an on-ramp going east, is there

[2:50:04] thought and proposed, you know, passage from this to the freeway.

[2:50:11] I'm just thinking that on-ramp at forward going west is going, it's already fairly congested,

[2:50:17] and it's kind of a really odd intersection, but the freeway there and two other collector

[2:50:22] streets right next to it. I'm just curious that that's going to exacerbate a traffic problem

[2:50:27] at that location and also for people who might be returning, commuting, coming back,

[2:50:35] ahead of the east, the only, or the most logical off-ramp would still be at Ford Street and then

[2:50:43] taking that same route. I'm just curious if there's been thought about that.

[2:50:50] It's a traffic consultant available to the answer.

[2:50:53] Commissioner Ensley's question.

[2:51:00] We've got the Mr. Crawford.

[2:51:06] I'm Crawford, are you able to?

[2:51:08] Yeah, Mr. Crawford.

[2:51:09] Any group in here, me?

[2:51:10] Yes, thank you.

[2:51:11] Okay, perfect.

[2:51:13] Yes, we did.

[2:51:13] We did the traffic analysis.

[2:51:16] And in the subsequent one from Matthew,

[2:51:19] and for your concern, we did the, we showed a product for distribution.

[2:51:24] It's on figure 13.

[2:51:25] and for freeway traffic, we're showing at 55% of the freeway traffic would head west

[2:51:31] from a protest site on reservoir road to Ford Street with 30% heading westbound on a 10

[2:51:39] freeway and 10% would go up north and four or 15 south on Ford and for eastbound traffic

[2:51:46] we're showing 30% heading south on a law bash with 25% of that and then getting on to freeway

[2:51:55] had it east on the I-10. So, you know, it was traffic

[2:51:59] or good traffic concerns and the traffic flow was, you know,

[2:52:02] evaluate the assessment report to show, you know,

[2:52:05] giving to the freeway using different routes.

[2:52:08] The most logical routes.

[2:52:11] I think that's part of my question or concern that the most

[2:52:13] logical routes with that increases.

[2:52:17] You know, is there any recommendation for additional traffic

[2:52:23] medications that can be put into place, or enhancements to existing on-ramps off-ramps,

[2:52:33] or even the introduction of those are conversations with the call of trance about putting

[2:52:37] another on-ramp level, I don't think you can.

[2:52:40] Ford Street, I just, I'm, my concern is that it's going to exacerbate a really significant

[2:52:44] problem of wondering if there's been any suggestion for improvements.

[2:52:47] But we analyze, you know, in a few way ramps as well as, you know, the ones on Ford, the intersection of Ford at reservoir, believe it is currently unsignalized and it's currently warranted for a traffic signal.

[2:53:02] So that would be an improvement there on that intersection. The few way ramps we analyze them for existing all the way to build out conditions and those ramps will protect the operating acceptable levels of service for going out conditions.

[2:53:13] Thank you. Before he, before he lose him. Can you address the same for, for Wavash? That's

[2:53:20] where I see it as a significant traffic increase would be on when you punch Wavash

[2:53:23] through. Yeah, what we did for that, you know, as well is we did that

[2:53:28] dot our analysis. We took the SBTAM model from San Bernardino Transportation Authority. They

[2:53:34] have the projections, you know, what traffic flow is going to be like in a modeling. And we,

[2:53:39] You know, use that model to come up with, you know,

[2:53:42] combined with existing traffic volumes,

[2:53:43] to come up with future traffic volumes, you know,

[2:53:46] based on that model, and conducted the analysis

[2:53:48] and analyzed those intersections as well.

[2:53:52] And the intersections, wall-bass reservoirs,

[2:53:54] as well as the two ramps are projected

[2:53:56] to operate, except what levels of service

[2:53:57] and the feature for future build-out conditions.

[2:54:00] But let's talk further north.

[2:54:01] So I'm thinking wall-bass in fifth,

[2:54:03] which is already a disaster on a Friday.

[2:54:06] It's a stop sign, it's one lane passing through there.

[2:54:11] If that becomes a major thoroughfare, which is going to be, what is, is that any of that

[2:54:16] been mitigated down through that, through the residential all the way toward fifth and then

[2:54:21] at that intersection?

[2:54:23] A wall bash of fifth was not an intersection that we analyzed, it did not meet the requirements,

[2:54:27] we had shown that 15% of future traffic hitting north on wall bash, and it didn't meet the

[2:54:33] and for analysis for this project?

[2:54:36] That's going to see a significant impact there.

[2:54:41] Mr. Chair, do you do also have a question

[2:54:42] about the grade at the top of the hill?

[2:54:44] He answered that because he said that the road

[2:54:47] is going to be diverted to the west, which is less

[2:54:51] of a grade over there.

[2:54:53] But I still think that as you get into that

[2:54:55] residential that's existing on the other side,

[2:54:56] and especially to fifth and wall bash,

[2:54:59] that's not going to be significant.

[2:55:01] Thank you.

[2:55:02] And thank you, Mr. Crawford.

[2:55:03] Thank you.

[2:55:04] I had a question about the landscaping and with the increasing attention on drought, does the landscaping

[2:55:13] plan take into account sufficiently the drought tolerant plantings and things staying away

[2:55:20] from the thirsty trees and turf that.

[2:55:26] Sure, I'm pulling up that section of the staff report.

[2:55:32] Without reminding myself of the exact species,

[2:55:35] this project is going to be subject to the city's water-efficient landscape ordinance,

[2:55:38] so whatever is proposed, the developer will have to calculate their water budget

[2:55:43] and keep it within the requirements of the water-efficient landscape ordinance.

[2:55:55] Here we go, landscaping. It looks like primary trees are Chinese fringe,

[2:56:02] Australian Willow, Great Mertal, and Brisbane trees,

[2:56:12] Parkway trees, Sweetshade, Strawberry, Purple

[2:56:15] Orchid, and Golden Rain trees.

[2:56:21] We'd be pretty dry trees.

[2:56:24] All right.

[2:56:25] And this parcel for development, that's all currently taken.

[2:56:31] I remember when we entitled this property the last time, and we went over all the details pretty

[2:56:35] significantly at that time.

[2:56:38] Thank you.

[2:56:41] If there's no additional questions of staff at this time,

[2:56:45] public comment, Jago Alba.

[2:56:58] Bear with me.

[2:56:58] I've never done this before.

[2:57:02] So I've concerns, I think.

[2:57:05] The commissioner and Shah's kind of brought that up.

[2:57:07] The lack of planning and infrastructure in the area of crapped in hills.

[2:57:11] When you come up, Wabas, you do end up in that area where it drops down.

[2:57:16] and that's Panorama Drive, which is actually a community where I belong to, and I have property

[2:57:23] at coming down, going south, down on Lop Ash. So if you look at the drawing up there, that's

[2:57:31] one of my biggest concerns is if you look at the community that the developers are putting

[2:57:35] out there or the project. It's all code of sex. I don't see anywhere where they're actually

[2:57:40] doing anything to improve ways around traffic. I have a child that has a rare

[2:57:46] Syndrome and one of the biggest concerns is getting, you know, prior medicine they're in and out.

[2:57:50] We obviously have to use them more than normal family would, but, you know, fire department,

[2:57:56] the, the, the, these kind of emergency personnel, and I just see a bunch of prototypes with 67 homes.

[2:58:01] It's going to just create additional traffic to what already exists during the time of traffic.

[2:58:08] Well, if I just have an exit coming out, going east off the freeway, but then when you have to get back on the freeway,

[2:58:13] you do have to go out forward as you guys were mentioning.

[2:58:15] you have to get on forward so it's just I don't I don't see how they've done their homework

[2:58:22] in regards to given this access to multiple areas not just Wabash being the point of access

[2:58:28] for everyone including in additional 67 homes and obviously families that are going to be living

[2:58:35] in those homes we have to consider the fact that that's going to create more traffic when we are

[2:58:45] Wabash, that's one of my biggest concerns for us in the community in that area, there wouldn't

[2:58:52] well look at my notes, but you have access where they can create access if you look at their

[2:58:58] drawings, they have G Street, which is the Colorsek Way at the bottom, when they're drawings,

[2:59:02] that G Street actually goes to Jason to Opel Avenue, they can create access there to Opel Avenue,

[2:59:08] which is a public right away and try to find ways to give us more access to Reservoir to get us back

[2:59:14] the freeway or off the freeway. These are some of the things that I feel like the developers

[2:59:20] are not considering, again, all of us in the community, and they're just kind of looking at

[2:59:24] their project and seeing what would accommodate them with these codosax in place and having

[2:59:29] to avoid traffic and general for all of us. They're going to be dealing with, if you guys do

[2:59:36] approve this development, we're going to end up dealing with this on a day-to-day basis. Again,

[2:59:42] my biggest concern is that, you know, we need to be able to have emergency personnel, you

[2:59:47] know, not just ourselves, but then to be able to come in and out of there without having

[2:59:52] additional problems that we already have.

[2:59:56] Okay, thank you guys.

[2:59:58] Thank you.

[2:59:58] Appreciate that.

[3:00:00] Good

[3:00:08] evening.

[3:00:13] My wife and I have a home at 10 panoramic drive, which is essentially the intersection

[3:00:18] of old-wabash and panoramic. The road in question is bisected by our property line. The majority of

[3:00:34] developer and the city of Redlands is a joint operation to extend your sphere of influence

[3:00:42] with San Bernardino County on the final vacating of the remainder of Wabash Avenue.

[3:00:49] It's going to be abandoned from the north boundary of this subdivision down to Reservoir Road.

[3:00:57] That part is part of this project. Our property line is essentially the north boundary of

[3:01:02] 43, by leaving that upper stretch of Wabash unvacated or creating, it would create an unnecessary

[3:01:13] and undue burden on we property owners up there, specifically on our neighbor directly across

[3:01:21] the Wabash alignment from us, whose driveway on paper version of Wabash Avenue and it's

[3:01:31] goes right through his driveway. It was poor land planning 120 years ago and I would like to say that

[3:01:38] let's don't compound the problem further into the 21st century by leaving a mistake on rectified.

[3:01:46] Abandon the rest of the wash up to the panoramic intersection,

[3:01:52] grant us the permission with that vacating to block that off, get it. We need access for fire

[3:02:01] behavior with our neighbor and us down there, it serves no public good and on my wife's

[3:02:07] and my side of that line, we're only talking about 2,400 square feet.

[3:02:14] In comparison to 67 and 1,5 acres, I think it's a real small request and it would eliminate

[3:02:21] a longstanding problem of a public nuisance up there.

[3:02:24] Again, it serves no public good whatsoever, the topography is unpassable or it's just

[3:02:31] attractive nuisance for dumping, for joy-writing, for the public thinking that they could be entitled

[3:02:39] to roaming around in there when there's nothing to see, do or anything else. And it creates

[3:02:45] an unfair liability on we private property owners. I'll have ever been told by both the city

[3:02:51] and the county is, you can't vacate it, you can't vacate it, you can't do anything with it.

[3:02:56] If I were you, I would have a lot of liability and insurance.

[3:03:00] Well, that's a pretty lame excuse.

[3:03:03] We'd just like it vacated, we wish the developer the rest, the best to luck with the

[3:03:07] remainder of his project, we're not opposed to his project, but we would just like the problem

[3:03:13] with the potential future problems with reservoir, with Wabash Avenue, Old Wabash Avenue,

[3:03:20] to be rectified and put to bed once and for all.

[3:03:23] Thanks for your consideration.

[3:03:24] Thank you.

[3:03:26] Any other public comment on this matter, Mr. Hodor?

[3:03:37] Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission.

[3:03:40] I'll try to make this quick. I know the hour is getting late and you've been here

[3:03:43] a long time.

[3:03:44] Please give us your phone name for the record.

[3:03:46] My name is Andy Hodor.

[3:03:48] I thought I was famous.

[3:03:50] Anyway, my comments have been addressed partially by some of the previous comments referring

[3:03:55] to Wabash, Old Wabash, and New Wabash, and what I recollect is when this similar project

[3:04:01] was proposed quite some time ago.

[3:04:04] The developer at that time said,

[3:04:05] can't we just build part of Wavash and Northbound from Reservoir

[3:04:09] until we get a couple of houses built?

[3:04:11] We get a revenue stream, and then we can finish

[3:04:13] the rest of Wavash all the way north.

[3:04:16] And after that, as far as I knew,

[3:04:17] the project died on the vine.

[3:04:19] I never heard anything further.

[3:04:20] I never saw any further development.

[3:04:22] So now that this is resurrected,

[3:04:24] what I would suggest and what I would hope for

[3:04:26] is that the city would hold the developer accountable

[3:04:29] for finishing all of Wabash as proposed new Wabash from reservoir to the next major street to the

[3:04:36] north so that they don't build a short section at the bottom that serves their houses and then

[3:04:40] the project gets abandoned and they go bankrupt who knows what they walk away from it with Wabash

[3:04:45] half finished. I think that should be a condition of approval that they will finish all of Wabash

[3:04:50] as specified by the city. Regardless of how many houses they build and then the other part I

[3:04:56] to add was also alluded to is to the east of that is that vacant area it's very rugged

[3:05:03] terrain. It isn't useful for much of anything else except folks on dirt bikes or off road vehicles

[3:05:10] that might want to go hot riding down there and so I agree with the previous comment that

[3:05:14] that that issue should be addressed also by vacating old-wavash and making it impossible once the

[3:05:20] new-wavash is finished. That was my comment. Thank you. Thank you.

[3:05:27] And any other public comment?

[3:05:29] All right. Do we have any online comment on this item?

[3:05:34] Okay, seeing none.

[3:05:41] You come back to,

[3:05:43] and we didn't receive any written comments on this particular item. I don't recall.

[3:05:53] Okay. Does the applicant wish make a statement, please?

[3:06:03] Please give us your name.

[3:06:05] Did you view Mr. Sherman, member of the Commission? My name is Mohamed Yunus.

[3:06:13] I'm with the

[3:06:16] projects in 2012 and we were the previous owner of the previous knife that was approved

[3:06:21] that has expired. For some reason, never catch up with the economy when they were able to finish

[3:06:27] the project without the map expire. We visited and we solved a lot of issues that they were

[3:06:33] going to address back in the old map and we provided the solution mainly to Wabash Avenue, which

[3:06:40] may be of our comments and I concur. The way we address in Wabash is going to be built in one phase

[3:06:46] to Mr. Orders, Mr. Lethamno, will be as part of phase one, so it would be completed all the way from reservoir,

[3:06:54] and to connect with the county, the road, which is Wavash, with the Netowning, and also realign

[3:07:02] Panorama and the Old Wavash to connect to a safe intersection. The Old Wavash would be terminated

[3:07:10] at the north property line by a lot 43 and there are some existing homes in the old waters which

[3:07:18] outside of our area is in the town area which we can not control and those were remade to have

[3:07:24] access on the old waters and then have a new intersection that is saved the travel back to the

[3:07:30] waters and be able to access to the north or to the south. So that's how it is open this the traffic issue

[3:07:38] As far as the G3, which is then a bit of the future,

[3:07:43] the Latin Hill Drive, it will terminate at the easily project boundary.

[3:07:49] Currently, there is one access to an existing home, which is about

[3:07:53] a few hundred feet to the east.

[3:07:55] He has a license from us to be able to use it.

[3:07:58] And also, it is accessible for any emergency,

[3:08:03] a first responder, to fire, in case if they needed.

[3:08:06] They have access to it, they have, there's a gate currently at Wavash and Reservoir for the resident to the east that he put it himself.

[3:08:16] However, we have, you know, provided the fire department, the code for that gate and there'll be able to use it in case of any emergency.

[3:08:25] That road has not been used for the last, that's far as we know it 12 years since we've been involved with the property, and even prior to that has not been used.

[3:08:34] As far as the access to a panoramic street, it's going to improve the intersection, it's

[3:08:41] going to eliminate a lot of problems for people to try to go and travel that very dangerous

[3:08:46] road on the existing alignment, which is south of law 43, this kind of really very dangerous.

[3:08:52] And it is outside of the alignment of the existing right away.

[3:08:56] So what it will be doing, we're going to be improving on the alignment of the former

[3:09:00] Avenue. We veered it toward the west. So to eliminate also a daily foot height, a daily

[3:09:07] wall that was previously approved. And the impact the existing resident to the east of

[3:09:13] all batch. So we veered it more to the west to eliminate that problem, but we still need

[3:09:18] the design criteria that's approved by the city engineer.

[3:09:25] I believe we have addressed all the

[3:09:27] issues. We solved a lot of engineering, so that we went to just before. We provided all the

[3:09:32] amount of documentation. We have data to all the studies to make sure that we are

[3:09:36] currently receiving all the requirements. We have some mitigation measures that we

[3:09:41] have to implement in your construction, which we are honored. We accepted the

[3:09:45] conditions. We work closely with staff and we resolve all the issues. And I

[3:09:51] really thank them for their religion to work, but they have worked with us throughout the

[3:09:55] years just to try to solve these issues and we're able to solve it. And with that,

[3:10:02] we

[3:10:02] And I look forward to your approval for this project.

[3:10:06] It should be improved on the traffic situation.

[3:10:09] It address all the issues that the resident may have concerned either

[3:10:13] to the north or to the south.

[3:10:15] I think outside our project limit project and that support

[3:10:18] any other condition outside of the project.

[3:10:21] This is not part of the project.

[3:10:23] It is not part of the project.

[3:10:24] Based on the traffic study and all the other environmental departments.

[3:10:29] Thank you.

[3:10:29] but that I'll be available for any question you may have.

[3:10:34] Thank you, Mr. Eunice.

[3:10:38] With that, we'll close the public hearing and continue with the comments from Commission.

[3:10:51] Typically, we don't have a return comment, but thank you.

[3:10:57] Commissioner Shaw.

[3:10:59] I'm not sure I understood kind of a follow-up question for the developer.

[3:11:04] The new Wavash, obviously, will align in this way, which we're panorama.

[3:11:09] You mentioned the old Wavash at panorama, and you said, I thought you said something about improvements there.

[3:11:15] Yes, there's an intersection as you see it on the map right there, up on the north.

[3:11:19] That's the old Wavash is being re-aligned to be a 90 degree intersection where the new alignment of Wavash

[3:11:26] that will improve on the existing conditions.

[3:11:33] Well, Panorama is further to the north, but this is the old Wavash, we connect to the

[3:11:39] new element of Wavash.

[3:11:42] So what happens with the rest of old Wavash, where it goes up to Panorama?

[3:11:46] It's going to be improved up to about, I believe, 200 or 300 feet north of Panorama

[3:11:53] project and to connect to the existing road, right at Panorama.

[3:11:57] That

[3:12:02] then becomes the county is outside of our project.

[3:12:05] We already improving more than 1200 feet outside of our project limit.

[3:12:10] Just to make sure that we provide the safe transition of foravash and improve on the existing traffic condition.

[3:12:16] Based on the traffic study and recommendation of the traffic study.

[3:12:20] Okay, so I'm sorry.

[3:12:21] I'm trying to visualize just if you can help me understand it.

[3:12:24] So we're going to have new wall bash and then we're going to have old wall bash and old wall bash is going to be new wall bash.

[3:12:30] But there's still part of Old Wallabash that's going to continue up to Panorama.

[3:12:35] Correct, and continue further to the north, actually.

[3:12:37] The existing intersection of Panorama are to remain, which is outside of our project, and then the alignment of all of us continue it to the north.

[3:12:46] For fifth, three, and further to the north.

[3:12:49] So we have two Old Wallabashes.

[3:12:50] No, just one.

[3:12:52] One Old Wallabash from north of Lot 43 up to the intersection with the New Wallabash.

[3:12:58] That's it.

[3:12:58] But there's an existing wall bash that then continues up to Panorama, which is we're meeting that the existing alignment and the North we are meeting the existing alignment of wall bash at the intersection with the old wall bash.

[3:13:12] This is the existing alignment if you're looking at the intersection where the nine of the green the intersection.

[3:13:18] Can I walk over here and try to figure it out on the map or please do.

[3:13:21] I'm also a little bit confused where this comes into play in the section that Mr. Coffin was referring to.

[3:13:43] No, it doesn't. No, it's the fear of connecting the alignment of the new Wavash.

[3:13:48] It does not continue to,

[3:14:01] no, sorry.

[3:14:03] The real element of Wavash, at the old Wavash, this is the current existing alignment of Wavash.

[3:14:09] It terminated right at that point.

[3:14:20] If we could put anything over puts the aerial photograph so I could show it exactly.

[3:14:26] I can.

[3:14:30] I can.

[3:14:30] But we can hold it on that.

[3:14:32] I can

[3:14:52] see that this is a bit too short.

[3:14:58] I'm going to try this.

[3:15:10] Commissioners, not just explain it, you know, where the tea in our section is, that it used to be a curse in front of that love, if you're cornered. So I stand up front on his corner lot and continue to ignore it. But if you did, you just realized it at that location.

[3:16:20] excuse me we need to make sure we're using microphones when we're talking we have a

[3:16:25] robin mic we can give you sorry yeah we're looking at the area we're here with

[3:16:30] for the funded boundary, and it shows the way that the new war bashed, if we exist in

[3:16:36] war bashed at the same location, we're not changing the location of war bashed at the

[3:16:43] intersection with the new war bashed. We're not changing it. If you made a look at this,

[3:16:50] yeah,

[3:17:01] see if I'm, I mean, sure you, sure.

[3:17:06] And therefore, pose all up to the microphone.

[3:17:10] And if a pose of my understanding was, is that,

[3:17:12] Wavash, instead of continuing down like it used to,

[3:17:15] will come around this way where the grade is less substantial,

[3:17:20] or somehow it will come, this way.

[3:17:23] Okay. This is the new Wavash.

[3:17:25] Okay.

[3:17:26] It's determined that they exist in Wavash.

[3:17:29] But I mean, it's right there.

[3:17:31] We're re-aligning this to make the theater such that we're keeping

[3:17:34] That's the limit. We're not touching it.

[3:17:36] I understand that. Okay. So what happens here at Panorama?

[3:17:43] We're not touching it. We're just stopping the project right at the

[3:17:46] motility of here. We're just keeping it to your clothes.

[3:17:49] See what they're doing. And Panorama was so have a connection to the old

[3:17:53] lot of us. See what they're doing. Okay.

[3:17:57] Hold on, just a second. Okay. I understand that I'm here. I don't want

[3:18:01] That's what it is.

[3:18:07] That's what it is.

[3:18:09] That's what it is.

[3:18:10] That's what it is.

[3:18:10] Is

[3:18:31] it a coffin?

[3:18:32] Could you point it to Mr. Foot, this section of road that your family is referring to?

[3:18:39] I was asking Mrs. Coffin if she could point out on that aerial view, the section of Old

[3:18:45] Wabash that Mr. Coffin referred to and it is public comment.

[3:19:00] And I'm not sure where you want to be.

[3:19:17] Old Wabash, he was referring to.

[3:19:24] I mean, what is it?

[3:19:25] That's correct.

[3:19:26] That's the new alignment over there. This is the new intersection of Old Wabash, New Wabash.

[3:19:33] This is the intersection of Panorama Drive and the road as traveled and the right of way of the Old Wabash.

[3:19:45] And that's the person you're saying is in the county's jurisdiction.

[3:19:47] that's correct as Mr. Jonas Illustrated, the city limit line is the North, his North

[3:19:56] boundary, our south boundary, and it's a little bit in question over here on the West.

[3:20:05] The small triangle I believe is county, but Mr. and Mrs. Cordova's home on the West side

[3:20:15] city of redlands.

[3:20:18] Yeah, so that's something that's outside the project site and that would be a correct.

[3:20:24] Correct.

[3:20:24] And our comment is, if you would extend your spirit of influence, because all the traffic

[3:20:31] that comes to this intersection is generated in redlands.

[3:20:36] Yeah, we'd have to have our engineering staff talk to the county engineering.

[3:20:39] Correct.

[3:20:40] Correct.

[3:20:40] That's our request.

[3:20:46] Mr. Fett, John Young would like to speak his hand-to-series.

[3:20:54] Mr. Young, please go ahead.

[3:20:56] Mr.

[3:21:30] Young, are you able to go ahead?

[3:21:31] This is John Young.

[3:21:35] Are you able to hear me?

[3:21:36] Yes, thank you. Please go ahead.

[3:21:39] My apologies for not being there.

[3:21:42] The short section from the coffin property,

[3:21:47] Fatherly where the existing dirt wall bash road

[3:21:51] does not stay within the existing right-of-way of wall bash

[3:21:55] and does go across coffin property.

[3:21:58] That section has been pointed out,

[3:22:02] is within the county.

[3:22:04] And the city wouldn't,

[3:22:11] you know,

[3:22:11] that section of road because it is in the county. I would participate in discussions with the county

[3:22:17] as to the need for the road or lock their road and what actually need to be taken.

[3:22:26] Okay, thank you, Mr. Young. If we can bring the conversation back to the development at hand,

[3:22:35] did we resolve the questions? I think so. I'm still not exactly certain what's going to happen at

[3:22:43] passion, panorama, but that's going to be a county issue. It sounds like, and that's my concern.

[3:22:51] So, right, that's one of the library discussions of a road ahead in some time. Commissioner

[3:22:57] Hansley, you're late.

[3:22:59] Actually, I just wanted to see if we could, for the sake of sharing on the screen, if there's

[3:23:03] any way to indicate that on one of the site plans or elsewhere, what this discussion has

[3:23:10] been pertaining to, just for people who, and the record, just so that we can see where

[3:23:15] that's that. I believe we have clarity there. I don't know if there's a way to use the cursor

[3:23:21] to show on the map where we're talking about in question. If we go up, I think there's a slide

[3:23:28] before that that actually shows the current condition, aerial photograph.

[3:23:36] And if we, you know,

[3:23:37] blow that up in Zoom, and I think we can, we can point on screen to what we're speaking

[3:23:43] to here as my only request.

[3:23:49] I would use the mouse so that it's recorded and also available for

[3:23:57] those tuning in on Zoom.

[3:24:02] I will try to use the mouse and the pointer at the same time

[3:24:07] here.

[3:24:11] So the red shape indicates the project site in the area where we were just talking about is to

[3:24:16] the upper right of the project site that's actually county unincorporated area.

[3:24:35] I think this is the

[3:24:36] That's few we're going to get at this point.

[3:24:40] The fact of the matter the area the Mr. Foot is pointing to is to the northeast of the project site and outside of the city of Redlands.

[3:24:56] Thank

[3:25:03] you.

[3:25:04] Mr. Younger, are you able to.

[3:25:10] Yes, are you able to hear me?

[3:25:12] Yes, thank you. Go ahead. Please.

[3:25:17] What would you like to describe and I'll do my best to describe it?

[3:25:24] Mr. Shaw.

[3:25:26] Actually, with the with the pointer, I think we resolved.

[3:25:30] What Dr. Commissioner Ansley was asking for just a clarification of where this area of

[3:25:35] contention was and we establish it's outside of the city.

[3:25:44] Thank you.

[3:25:46] All right.

[3:25:47] Was that commissioner?

[3:25:47] Do we have a motion?

[3:26:19] All right.

[3:26:19] I moved to adopt resolution number 1, 6, 1, 0, adopting a mitigated negative declaration prepared

[3:26:24] for the proposed project in accordance with the state law and the California Environmental

[3:26:28] Quality Act and approved tentative track map number 2, 0, 3, 2, 0, conditional use permit

[3:26:34] number 1, 1, 4, 8, and the related socioeconomic cost benefit study for the project.

[3:26:40] So do these together when?

[3:26:44] We can do them as a package, sure.

[3:26:47] I think you have a package, we'll probably be best.

[3:26:49] All right, and then I also moved to adopt resolution number 1, 6, 1, 1 to make a determination of general plan,

[3:26:54] conformity for street vacation number 1, 9, 1, and recommend approval of the street vacation to the city council.

[3:27:00] And it's through a third or just the two,

[3:27:07] those are the two red allusions.

[3:27:10] Move by Commissioner Wells.

[3:27:12] Second by Commissioner Smith.

[3:27:14] All in favor.

[3:27:16] Any opposed?

[3:27:17] Jerry Janana.

[3:27:20] This is Jerry.

[3:27:21] Just have a question.

[3:27:21] Is there a way that, because it's outside of the project, that intersection of if and

[3:27:27] Wabash?

[3:27:28] Is that something that the city can look into as the, as this project is progressing?

[3:27:33] How are we going to deal with the traffic issue that's going to be presented down there with

[3:27:36] Bob Ash pushing through?

[3:27:41] That's a good point, and it is outside of the project area, but that's one that we can discuss

[3:27:50] with staff in terms of general development in the city,

[3:28:07] which we're talking about punching

[3:28:08] a through to connect with other streets, correct?

[3:28:32] But this, this, this item has been moved in past now, and, and within the project site, the, the, design,

[3:28:42] uh, within, uh, within that project site and cul-de-sax or not, and use one in developments like this.

[3:28:50] But I, I do appreciate your, you're, you're sharing with us.

[3:28:57] All right.

[3:28:58] This has been a very full and lively meeting.

[3:29:01] And I think, thank you all for your patience with it.

[3:29:04] to conclude Director DeSatnik any thing to report director's report?

[3:29:11] No, I don't, just other than we will be having a meeting on February 14th.

[3:29:19] That's okay with everybody.

[3:29:20] I know it's a Valentine's day.

[3:29:26] We love our city.

[3:29:29] All right, and any commissioner announcements?

[3:29:32] All right, with that, we are adjourned until our next regular meeting

[3:29:36] of February 14th. Thank you again. Good night.

Jan 24, 2023 Planning Commission

Transcript