Good evening and welcome to the February twenty-sixth twenty twenty-six um uh meeting of the um City of Sacramento Planning and Design Commission.

Bear with me, I'm kind of winging it.

I didn't bring my uh script here tonight, so I'm kind of reading off the calendar, but we'll hopefully cover everything.

Um I think the uh do we have a quorum?

Let me go ahead and do okay.

Um I have to do that.

Yeah, so thank you.

Uh could we uh do roll call?

Thank you, Chair.

Commissioner Blunt, here, Commissioner Hernandez.

Absent.

Commissioner Caden, here.

I'm sorry, Vice Chair Caden.

Commissioner Lamas here, Commissioner Lee?

Here.

Commissioner Mercius Reid, absent.

Commissioner Nybo.

Here, Commissioner Ortiz here, Commissioner Rushke?

Here, Commissioner Tao?

Here, Commissioner Thompson here, Commissioner Young, absent, and Chair Chase.

Present.

Here she can be able to uh thank you.

I'd like to remind members of the public uh in the chambers if you'd like to speak on an agenda item.

Uh please turn in a speaker slip uh down front here before the item begins.

After the item is called, we will no longer accept speaker slips.

Uh and you'll have two minutes to speak once you are called on.

Uh we'll now proceed with uh today's agenda.

Uh before we proceed, I want to uh announce that uh item two.

Actually, I should do the land acknowledgement first, right?

Yes, um could we rise uh for the relanded acknowledgement and then we'll stay standing for the pledge of allegiance.

Please rise for the opening acknowledgments of in honor of Sacramento's indigenous people and tribal lands to the original people of this land, the Nissanan uh people, the Southern Maidu Valley and Plains Mewak, Patwin Winton, uh peoples, and the people of the Winton, Wilton Rancheria, Sacramento's only federally recognized tribe.

May we acknowledge and honor the native people who came before us and still walk beside us today on these uh ancestral lands by choosing to gather together today in the active practice of acknowledgement and appreciation for Sacramento's indigenous people's history, contributions, and lives.

Thank you.

Please remain standing for the uh Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

No, I have no members that wish to speak.

Okay.

Uh thank you.

Um we have no speaker slips.

Uh, are there any commissioners who wish to speak on the uh this item?

Seeing none, we'll proceed.

Uh is there a motion uh for uh approval of the minutes?

Commissioner Blunt?

I make a motion to pass this item.

Thank you, Commissioner Blunt.

Uh Commissioner Caden.

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

Um Clerk, can you take a vote?

Thank you, Chair.

Let's see.

Commissioner Lee?

Commissioner Tao?

All right.

Commissioner Lamas?

Aye.

Commissioner Nybo?

Okay.

Vice Chair Caden.

Aye.

Chair Chase.

Hi.

Commissioner Hernandez.

Wait, why does it say?

Sorry.

Ortiz.

Apologize.

Commissioner Ortiz?

Aye.

Commissioner Mercius Reed.

Commissioner Blunt?

Aye.

Mr.

Resky?

Commissioner Thompson?

Aye.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Thank you, Clerk.

We'll now move on to public hearings.

Before we move on, I want to announce that the item number two on the agenda.

The uh business and license and regulations has been continued to uh March 12th, 2026.

I think that would be in two weeks.

So I hope no one has come out just for that.

We'll now proceed to item three.

Uh Del Paso Boulevard Alcohol Sales P25011.

And uh presenting that would be uh Deja, good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Deja Harris, associate planner with the community development department, and I'm here to present the Del Paso Boulevard Alcohol Sales Project.

This item P25011 is a request for a conditional use permit to authorize the sale of distilled spirits within a 1600 square foot neighborhood market in the limited commercial C1 zone.

The market is located on the southeast corner of Del Paso Boulevard and Verano Street and is surrounded by both single family and multi-unit residential.

The market currently sells beer and wine through an ABC type 20 license, which will be replaced with a type 21 license if granted for the sale of beer, wine, and distilled spirits.

There are no changes to the existing beer and wine sales proposed or exterior changes to the building.

Notification of the project in the hearing were provided to all neighborhood associations, residents, and property owners within 500 feet of the subject site.

Staff received two letters of opposition and three letters of support from nearby residents, as well as a letter of support from the Hagenwood Community Association, which were included in the staff report.

There are also four e-comments expressing support for the project.

This concludes my presentation, and staff in the applicant team are here.

Should you have any questions?

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Um do we have any uh uh questions?

Members of the uh commission for staff.

No, sorry.

Uh before that, can we do we have any public comments on the item?

Thank you, Chair.

Yes, we do.

Can I have Folona please come up?

And then next will be Harpet.

Is it Falona?

Atarato?

I'm sorry, I probably mispronouncing that.

Okay.

Can I have Harpert, please come forward to the podium?

Okay.

Shane.

Shane Camino.

Conmio.

Um hi, my name is Shane Cornano.

Um, I live around the corner from uh said store.

Um he actually helped me quit drinking while I was drinking, so I've been clean for like 14 years.

I've known Tony, I don't know, plus 10 plus years.

Um, I just think it'd be a good idea to give him his license, and you know, continue there.

That's all I gotta say.

But I am supportive of it.

Thank you for your comments.

Can I have Daniel Savala, please come forward to the podium?

Good evening, Commissioner Daniel Savala.

I am a North Sacramento resident, live in the old Norsack neighborhood.

I'm coming here to support um Tony today.

I wanted to come and give kind of some context.

I created uh during the COVID pandemic a brand called Cerveza Landia, which was a way for me to help celebrate um Chicano and Mexican brewed craft beer.

Took me on this whole journey throughout Sonoma County, Yolo County, and Sacramento County.

And if you've seen me at here before speaking in support of licenses and in representing licenses, I wanted to provide some context of historically, we have suffered in all over California with an over concentration of convenience stores or liquor stores.

Prior to the early 1990s, most of those stores were unregulated or underconditioned because it didn't require conditional use permits.

What you have before you today, what Tony's had to go through was a loss of a partner through a divorce, which made his license his type 20 license, he couldn't use it anymore.

Um the only license available to him was through a lottery, which is through the type 21, and so here we are.

He's been a great operator.

I've known him for almost 10 years.

Um came into the store and realized he wasn't selling beer anymore and he was waiting through this long process.

Um you have a guy who's been a longtime business business owner in North Sacramento.

He's going through the only process that's available, he's well regulated.

When I first met Tony back in 2013, he was only selling six packs and above.

His license has always been highly restricted to protect the neighborhood, and from what I read on the staff report, he continues to do so.

So I just wanted to come out and just as a beer advocate and as a resident of the neighborhood, I think he's just the perfect candidate to continue operating a successful business by having a type 21 license that will be regulated, his hours of operation, the not being able to sell singles, restricting the bottles of 750 milliliters.

Those are good sound conditions that help keep neighborhoods safe, and that's why I'm here to support it, and I hope you will too today.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Can I have Marquise Bibbs?

Please come forward.

And after Marquise, Michael Sims, hello, Michael Sims.

Expand his sales and continue.

Uh I don't personally drink, but uh a lot of people that elderly and some and people I know that can't really get out and about on their own, send me out to go pick up the groceries and whatnot.

And sometimes that includes alcohol.

And I it'd be a lot better to just go to his store, which is right next to my house, rather than go to another store in the area that ha often has people hanging out and around that I'd rather not deal with.

It's just a safer place at his store.

So that's why I'm here.

That's all I got.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

William Johnson, and after William Johnson, I have Lacey Barry.

I'm just here at the court scene for for getting the license, and he's been a good business person in my neighborhood.

Just hope you guys uh grind some license.

Thank you for your comments.

I have Lacy.

Hello, good evening.

I live in the neighborhood.

Uh Mr.

Singh's store.

He's been an amazing man, not just in his business, but in his personal life with us that live in the community.

And I really hope that you do grab his petition.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

I have Lisa Ortiz and then Jason Randwall.

Lisa Ortiz.

Hi.

I'm disabled and I'm a neighbor of Tony's.

I don't drive.

He's four houses down.

So I'm able to walk to Tony.

And if for some reason I run a couple pennies short, he covers me until I can pay him back.

He's an asset to our neighborhood.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

And the last speaker I have is Jason.

Hello.

Uh I am a business owner in the same area that Mr.

Tony is in.

I also have liquor there.

And these two uh the officials also approved it.

He's gonna be my competitor, and now I still am in favor of getting it.

So that's all I have to say.

Thank you.

I'm in favor.

Thank you for your comments.

Chair, I have no more speakers on this item.

Thank you, Clerk.

Um are there any commissioner questions of either staff or uh well the applicant of the staff speaking for the applicant?

Seeing no questions, we've had the public uh is there a motion on this item.

I'm sorry, Commissioner Thau.

Thank you, Chair Chase.

Uh is the applicant here tonight.

Oh, hey, uh Tony, right?

Yeah, just a few concerns from the community and just want to get this across.

Um, you know, uh we we did see that there's a lot of community support for this application.

There's also concerns from uh neighbors about the music and uh that I think you know that's something that uh uh I thank you for, you know, I see that the community association supporting the project.

Uh a lot of commute neighbors are here supporting the project, which is also great, but I was also want to uh ask for your commitment for you know for some of the concerns addressed by some of the neighbors here about uh you know after hours hanging out or loud music as well with the security.

I I know the PD also imposed a couple restrictions, some r good restrictions on the business as well, and you've been a good operator, you know.

I I heard from the community that you also live in the community, and so you know in the past we've had commu uh businesses that comes in and uh opens up like a stores in low income communities like ours, and uh I you know represent North Sacramento as the planning commissioner and I have to look out and make sure that the best interest of our community is there, and you know there's a unique scenario where where you live in the community, you own the business, and you are a planet.

So we we are looking to look at this as a positive example of what uh a small business and uh can do to uh with the community and so um just want to make those comments for that, you know.

Uh with that, I don't see any other commissioners with any comments, so I wouldn't make a motion to uh pass the item to move the item.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Uh we have a motion.

Uh is there a second uh for this?

Uh Commissioner is it rescue or Thompson?

Thompson, Commissioner Thompson.

I second.

Thank you.

We have a motion and a second.

Uh Clerk, could you take a roll?

Okay.

Please have patience with this.

The names are not in this order of the seating chart, so um it's gonna be kind of random, like it was the first time around.

Commissioner Blunt.

I Commissioner Hernandez, absent.

Com uh Vice Chair Caden, aye.

Commissioner Lamas.

I.

Commissioner Lee.

I.

Commissioner Masias Reed?

Commissioner Nybo?

Uh.

Commissioner Ortiz, aye.

Commissioner Rushski?

Aye.

Commissioner Tao?

I.

Commissioner Thompson.

Aye.

I also just want to add thank you for being a good citizen.

You seems like you've impacted your community.

So thank you.

Commissioner Young, absent.

And Vice Chair, I'm sorry, Chair Chase.

Yes.

Thank you.

The quorum passes or the motion passes.

Thank you.

Thank you for everybody's support.

Thank you.

We'll now continue to item four on the agenda, which is the floor and road quick quack car wash.

P25013.

And uh I think Danny Abis is making the presentation.

Yes.

Thank you.

And uh good evening, Chair and members of the planning and design commission.

I am Danny Abbas in the planner for this item.

Uh if I could, I would like to start with uh for about 10 seconds showing uh an aerial on the overhead and then moving back to the presentation.

Perfect, thank you.

Uh this item.

You want me to turn let me rotate this?

No.

Back.

That works better.

Oh, should I flip it again?

Well, north of.

If you turn it so that you can see it, like it reads properly to you.

Yeah, then it'll display.

Okay, great.

Um, so uh this item is uh request to establish a quick quack car wash on a 1.15-acre portion of a 14-acre parcel at 3815 Florin Road near Franklin Boulevard.

Uh the proposal requires approval of a conditional use permit and site plan and design review entitlements.

Uh conditional use permit is a zoning instrument to review the location and conduct of uses known to have a distinct impact upon the area in which they are located.

They are discretionary in nature.

Staff are tasked with assessing the proposed use's impact, suitability, and consistency or inconsistency with adopted city documents.

In this case, staff does not support a car wash use at this site on Florin Road and recommend the can the commission deny the use permit request.

General Plan Map M3 identifies Florin Road as a candidate high frequency transit corridor and the subject site as a part of a designated transit oriented development area.

The site is near the Florin Light Rail Station, high bus service, high service bus transit with a bus stop located adjacent to the site, and planned increase bus rapid transit service.

Bus service here works in concert with light rail service with buses going both ways on Florin Road, providing direct drop-offs to the floor and light rail station.

The South Area Community Plan speaks specifically to the land use intent of Infill along the Florin Road high frequency bus corridor as uses that are oriented to and supportive of transit.

An oriented use is clearly misaligned with this vision.

What's being shown is a less than one mile stretch of Florin Road.

The blue dots are bus stops, and the orange dot is the Florin light rail station.

There are six bus stops within less than a quarter mile of the site.

Nearby frequent buses go north, south, east, and west.

And those along Florin Road, including the bus stop next to the site, connect directly to light rail.

Those are the two dots next to the orange one.

The area of the proposed project has excellent transit proximity and service.

Transit supportive uses, not car washes, will help support existing and future bus service.

Regarding future bus rapid transit, it is like most plans in the city that don't yet have an exact timeline or complete funding.

Is a plan or expectation to align with so that planning can reliably create a compatible environment worthy of future transit supportive investment.

Back for a second.

A requirement of this proposal or any other at this site is to dedicate right of way to accommodate a BRT lane, which provides active evidence of the intent to progress bus rapid transit.

This dedication area is seen at the front of the site as the paved and landscaped section.

The proposed use is an abundantly available service in the area with four active car washes less than a mile from the site, including a tunnel wash almost directly across the street.

Staff does not find that another car wash in a concentrated area would provide the surrounding community with a service that is needed.

Staff find that a car wash exacerbates known public safety hazards and is a fundamentally incompatible use at this location and inconsistent with the aims of the city adopted Vision Zero Action Plan.

General Plan Map EJ5 represents communities cumulatively impacted by environmental justice issues.

The subject site is a section that has both county and city land with what within what is deemed as a most disadvantaged area.

Some of these issues include poverty, transportation safety, air pollution, and access to health care.

The site is also within a state designated SB 535 and AB 617 areas, which have a disproportionately high air pollution burden and aim to reduce local emissions.

Staff maintain that the best opportunity for a commercial use to reduce air pollution is for it to offer services to pedestrians, cyclists, and transit riders, especially in an area that is walkable with high quality transit service.

Additionally, this furthers basic city adopted climate action goals.

Staff received correspondence from the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District and Civic Thread, formerly walk Sacramento.

The Air District commented that a pedestrian-oriented use rather than an automobile-oriented use would be consistent with the public health aims of AB 617 and would support sustainable transportation investments.

Civic Thread commented that the proposal is inconsistent with adopted multimodal safety and climate goals.

Staff believe that a commercial use at this location should support transit, promote walkability, prioritize transportation safety, reduce congestion, protect air quality, pursue climate goals, and address environmental injustice and equity.

Therefore, staff recommend denial of the discretionary conditional use permit for a quick quack car wash at this location.

Only through our collective commitment to the vision of the general plan and recognize good planning principles will corridors like Floor and Road be able to flourish and transform into the vibrant pedestrian environments we know they can be.

Land use is the most important component of that transformation.

Thank you.

That concludes the presentation, and I believe the applicant has a presentation prepared.

Is that correct?

Okay.

After both staff and the applicants would be available for any questions if there are any.

Thank you, Danny.

It's a little bit below.

Click through it.

The rendering, the site plan.

Yes, there was a site plan in the with attached to the um staff report.

Yes.

The rendering.

No, the attachment to the staff report.

Is that possible to do that?

No, it's not an additional one.

Let me pull up.

The project plans.

Attachment number four.

Is that possible?

Yes.

Yes.

Thank you.

Sure.

For sure.

And I also have a handout for the commission.

May I place it on the desk?

Okay.

Thank you very much.

I'll just get started.

So good evening, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the commission.

My name is Leticia Ramiras.

I am with Thatch and Hooper, and we represent the applicant Quickquack.

Here with me today is Vance Shannon, the Director of Entitlements for Quickquack.

Nick Wecker with Course States, who assisted with project planning architecture, as well as John Tealfilo, who completed the CEQA document for the project.

Also here is Ryan Hooper with our firm.

It's not easy for an applicant to come to the commission with a staff recommendation of denial.

Others have proposed a similar use on the site and face a same same face the same response from staff.

Therefore, they abandoned their plans, and the site has remained vacant for the last thirteen years.

The applicant intentionally reached out to the community to determine if there was community support for this project before they initiated their application.

They went door to door, spoke to a hundred and thirteen residents.

A memo detailing these efforts was included with the staff report.

What they found is that there o there is overwhelmingly positive support for this project.

The top responses were that individuals supported the project because it will bring jobs to the community for young people and residents.

They support the project because they need or want the service.

They support the project because it will beautify an empty concrete piece of property.

One of the results of this community engagement effort was Quickquack Connecting with the Rose Family Creative Empowerment Center.

A nonprofit led by Miss Jackie Rose that serves youth in South Sacramento.

Ms.

Rose submitted a letter of support for the project, which was emailed to the commission and published on e-comments.

This connection led to QuickQAC hosting a career exploration day for youth with the Rose Family Center.

You'll hear more about this from the youth participants during public comment.

For QuickQAC, this community outreach is not just about getting a project approved.

It's who they are.

The company's mission statement is to change lives for the better.

That includes giving back to the communities they serve.

The app also revised its site plan designed to include a unique design element, which I'm attempting to show with the rendering.

And this design element is a pedestrian amenity along the entire frontage of the parcel on Florent Road.

The inspiration for this feature is the city's 2040 general plan policies relating to improving the pedestrian environment within corridors.

There is no other Quickquack in California that has this feature.

This amenity provides shaded bike storage, and I think I'll pause just to be there in a minute.

Thanks to technology.

So this amenity provides shaded bike storage for Quickquack team members who ride their bikes to work.

It includes a leaning bench for visitors or passerbys, including those waiting at the bus stop west of this parcel.

From a design perspective, it mimics a storefront and creates an urban feel similar to what is seen at the Safeway in Midtown.

It has multiple benefits from an aesthetic and functional.

It's creative and it shows high design standards and caliber project that we think will set a standard that for whatever comes next on the remaining 13 acres of this parcel will also have to meet.

With respect to staff's take on the project's consistency with the general plan, we believe the analysis misses the mark.

We prepared a document which we shared with the commission tonight, listing the 15 general plan policies that the project is consistent with or furthers in some fashion.

Case law is clear that when determining whether a project conflicts with the general plan, the nature of the policy and the nature of the inconsistency are critical factors to consider.

Here, there is no mandatory general plan policy that expressly prohibits this use at the site, or that the proposed project is inconsistent with.

From a general plan perspective, the project is more than half a mile distance from the light rail station.

Therefore, it is not inconsistent with land use policy 4.1.

The project is constructing an enhanced sidewalk, it features a pedestrian plaza.

All of those items are consistent with the mandatory policies under the land use.

Policies of 4.9, 4.10, 1.15 for the mobility policy as well.

From a VMT and emissions perspective, the project is reducing VMT as required by this general plan.

By locating a QuickQAC at this particular location, QuickQ is constructing a project closer to where a number of their members live, and they know this based on the membership data.

About 80% 70 to 80% of customers at QuickQuack are members.

This is not a destination in terms of a car wash.

Most of the trips are passed by or diverted.

So they this project in and of itself will be will be resulting in less VMT than any of the other commercial uses allowed under the existing zoning.

Staff also mentions air pollution and AB 617.

You know, at present there's no specific emission reduction policies or mandates under that effort.

It is merely a program to monitor emissions.

I think I'll just give up hope on the rendering, but courts have also said that consistency with the general plan can also be found if a project furthers the objectives and policies of the general plan and does not obstruct their attainment.

Again, this is where it's really important to remember that the project is a private investment and infrastructure that will facilitate the expansion of BRT.

When it comes to BRT, you need a bus lane, and you need the dedicated frontage and setbacks, and that's exactly what this project is doing.

Through private development, the city is being able to facilitate investment into making that infrastructure happen so that BRT can actually come to fruition.

With respect to staff's claims that the project will exacerbate existing pedestrian safety concerns, there's simply no evidence in the record to support those claims.

Instead, what the record shows is that public works reviewed the site plan, proposed conditions of approval to ensure that the driveway and curb cut is consistent with the city standards, which address safety concerns.

In addition, the sidewalk is actually being set back further away from Florin Road, which will create a more positive and comfortable pedestrian experience for those who travel along Florin Road.

Also, though they will be constructing a bicycle lane where there is none.

I'll close by saying tonight that the commission has the opportunity to activate a vacant site with a project that enjoys community support that will serve as a catalyst for future development by setting a very high design standard.

It will construct the needed infrastructure to facilitate BRT on Florin Road and will create jobs where there are none.

We urge the commission to approve the project by finding that it is consistent with the general plan and making the required findings under the zoning code for the CEP and design review.

The applicant team is available to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

And thank you, staff.

Thank you.

Are there members of the public that wish to speak on this item?

Yes, Chair.

I have some members that would like to speak.

The first person can I have is looks like Bishop Chris Baker.

And then after Bishop Chris Baker, I have Phoenix on the Rise.

Good evening, staff.

I'm not a business killer, but I've been in my community over 30 years, and we just opened a quick quack on Franklin and Mac, which is I believe maybe a mile.

And when I looked at the sites, I'm in support of businesses, but when I looked at all of them, you have one there, you have one floor in Franklin, and you want to do one on 65th.

Well, when I go up and down the street, here's what I want you to understand.

I'm in the faith base.

When I go up and down Franklin, Florin, and I talk to those senior citizens that was kicked out of their places because they couldn't afford to rent and they're sleeping on the ground.

That should be a location looked at for senior housing.

I'm not against any business.

Hell, I brung food for less up there, and they got other locations.

This should be looked at as housing, low density housing for seniors.

We need to take a look in our communities.

How many of our seniors are sleeping on the streets?

I have nothing against quick quack, but I'd rather see a development go there for our seniors to have somewhere safe to sleep.

I've seen it today, and I literally wanted to pull over and cry because these folks are getting checks, they have nowhere to live.

But we need to look at all these vacant lands and start putting some positive things together with developers and getting our seniors out of the coal.

And I am not in support of this bill, and I want you to oppose it.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Can I please have Phoenix on the Rice come to the podium?

Good evening, commissioners.

My name is Casey Myers.

I'm a student at Luther Burbank High School and a member of Phoenix on the Rise, and I'm here this evening to ask you to hear my voice.

I went to the Quick Quack Center of Excellence to learn about the company, its management and operations.

We toured the plant, talked to the project manager, and talked with the regional manager.

All the employees told us that they really enjoy working there.

We want those jobs in our neighborhood.

So please support this application.

Good evening.

My name is Kaomi Myers.

Hear my voice.

I am also a student at Luther Burbank, and I'm a secretary in BSU and a member of Phoenix on the Rise.

I recently learned that Quick Quack makes their own equipment at the Center of Excellence, and we are allowed to take a tour to examine how all the fabrication is done.

They make they have everything from different materials that are used to create magnificent things from soaps and wipers.

I was really impressed.

And learned that it takes a lot of skills and management to do so in this kind of establishment.

Good evening.

My name is Isaiah Swan, and I want you to hear my voice.

I am a student from Luther Verbing High School, and I want to become an architect.

At the Center of Excellence, I was able to ask questions to the architect who designed this building.

She not only reviewed um the plans with us, she also detailed various educational plans with us.

Um detailed being um wait what?

Oh, um, she also in the project.

Oh, she also has a project engineer overseeing the Quake Crack operations.

Good evening.

My name is Zekaius Warren, and I'm a student at Fern Bacon Middle School.

Hear my voice.

Quick Quack is a good community neighbor.

They support food bank, schools, literally, and soccer programs.

We need partners who contribute back to our neighborhoods, not just to take money out.

My name is Jayla Cook.

Good evening.

My name is Jayla Cook.

Um I'm a student at Parker Elementary.

Hear my voice.

Good evening, my good evening.

My name is Keisha.

I attend Rosemont High School.

Hear my voice.

During the visit to the Quick Crack facility, we saw how the companies innovate.

We saw new flooring mat cleaning and wait, a new service polluted by one of the shops.

Good evening.

My name is Kaylea Myers, and I'm a fifth grader that attends Parkway Elementary.

Hear my voice.

We visited a quick crack to get an up close feel of the operations, its management, and people.

We saw the process of the cars entering using technology of the license plate recognition that moves the cars through faster and the automation of the conveyor that takes the cars to get washed.

Good evening.

My name is Liliana Barker.

I'm a student at Sava Simps Center.

You will hear my voice.

Quick crack employees 15 to 18 people at each location and meeting our young high school and college students.

Good evening.

My name is Melissa Geddes.

Hear my voice.

I am president of VSU Black Student Union.

And I'm here tonight as an ambassador of Phoenix on the Rise and to remind all of you that our voices have value.

We're tired of the crumbling sidewalks that we have to walk on every single day.

We're tired of the blight.

We're tired of the dirty lot that that is the entry to our neighborhoods.

We're tired of being patient.

We're teenagers.

Hear our voices and support this project.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

The last speaker will be Tony Johnson.

Good evening.

How is everybody?

Good.

So good afternoon.

My name is Tony Johnson.

I'm employed at Rose Family Creative Empowerment Center where we serve families in this community through local outreach and neighborhood programs.

I believe building a quick quack car wash at Florin and Franklin will be beneficial to our community.

It will improve the cleanliness along the corridor, reduce illegal dumps, create jobs, and provide a safe, well-maintained space that helps deter loitering and blight.

Investments like this help revitalize our neighborhood and support residents who take pride in where they live.

I respectfully ask City Hall representatives to say yes to this project.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your comments, Chair.

I have no more speakers on this item.

All right.

I know it can be intimidating to speak in public, but you all did a great job, and thank you very much for for turning up.

Um with that, uh I'd like to open this up to um uh commission uh questions.

Commissioner Rescue or Thompson?

Thompson.

Uh can you clarify how long this lot has been open for?

I think you said of it.

Um about 2013.

Are you asking how long this site has been vacant for?

Yes.

Uh circa 2013.

Okay.

15 years?

No, I'm not mathing good.

What is that?

12?

13.

Thank you.

I yield.

Uh sorry, thank you, uh Commissioner.

Commissioner Nibel.

I have a quick quick question for the applicant.

In your presentation, you said that the sidewalk improvements will be across the entire uh frontage of the parcel.

Did you mean the entire parcel or just for this small amount that will be just for the developed site under this application?

Just the yes, which is just flooring road.

I'm sorry.

Along the entire frontage of the parcel on Florin, or just the part where the project is just where uh the part where the project is.

Okay, just the front of the project, not the entire parcel.

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

Thanks for the clarification.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Uh any other commissioner comments or questions.

General Ortiz.

Yeah, I'm having trouble reading all of my documents and my it's really small.

Um I see that we have a letter here from the air quality management district, and I can't get it any bigger.

Uh could the staff address the specific position of the air quality management district.

Yeah.

Uh they commented that a pedestrian-oriented use uh would uh be more in line with uh public health aims associated with um uh AB 617, considering the site's location uh within there, and also uh it would also be more in line with um sustainable uh investments for transit such as uh bus rapid transit.

I'm sorry, I missed the first part.

What is the it that would be more aligned?

Uh pedestrian-oriented use or use that can allow for people to arrive by foot, bike, um, or transit.

Which by conclusion is not there, they're but they are not taking I appreciate their interpretation of what would be ideal for this site, um, and that's why I couldn't open their letter.

Um, are do they take a hard position that this is violates uh specific standards?

I I understand the public health air quality standard.

Is there any other basis for them?

So it's hard to pose.

Like let me ask you that.

Um there is no specific standard that it violates, so they weren't referring to anything like that.

Uh, it was uh a comment uh about the general aim to reduce local emissions uh and be in uh consideration of local air quality issues.

I appreciate that.

And I so this is a challenge we have often when we have a lot of competing ideals of what should ideally go there versus what is proposed to be here.

And um, you know, I struggle with this because we, you know I've been in this place before when we were discussing the um drive-through for raising cane where I thought it was a challenge because RT had designated a light rail line.

Um the drive-thru was inconsistent with that.

I took a position to oppose the project for that reason.

And here we are again with what should be ideal in this site, and I appreciate that.

What are those principles that would guide us to some other type of more pedestrian-oriented project?

But we have a pretty compelling unique quick quack by all standards.

This is not the standard quick quack that I've seen.

Looks like they've gone to great lengths to make this a very attractive site with a setback and a wide.

So that's the challenge I have is you know, it is a site that has not had anything there for some time.

A net plus at that corner, I'm I'm familiar with it well.

And if I I understand that the light rails right down the line, doesn't appear the frontage would appear to enhance the ability for those who would seek to walk to the light rail line rather than impede it.

So I I'm struggling because we struggle between the ideal versus what is before us, and whether or not the quality of this project would have a considerable improvement in what is a pretty challenging and blighted area.

So I just want to walk through my process of trying to weigh these competing interests.

Um yeah, it's not your usual quick whack site.

I mean it's it's a pretty fancy one.

And but again, we you know, why do we have these standards and why do we have these um ideal goals, particularly in communities that are have challenged, you know, do we settle and this would not be settling, but do we do less than ideal because it is something that is a net gain?

So that's what I'm struggling with right now.

I'm just thinking out loud, I don't know.

And I appreciate the representation about jobs for the community, but I I did speak, I just want to be real transparent.

It's a probably 15 jobs, they're all part-time.

There's no full-time, but I think it would be ideal for students, and there's no guarantee it has to be from the community, but they are I think they ought will in good faith seek to recruit, but I I also think it's not a promise to hire from the community, they can't legally do that, and these are not full-time jobs, these are three hours, four hours, so it'd be less than a living wage.

But if you're a student, if you're uh a college student or a high school student that's looking at a part-time job, then indeed they can hire from the community, that would be awesome.

But I also don't want to overstate the likelihood of these being 15 full-time jobs at this site.

I risk my comments.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner Blunt.

Yes.

Um thank you, every thank you, everyone who came to speak, um, especially the students.

I think you did a marvelous job.

So thank you for that.

Um so I also want to speak to the the first speaker.

I'm sorry, I didn't catch your name.

Um, but uh I was moved by by your comment, and um I I would like for staff to so when you were when staff was giving the presentation, it was um this site is preferable for not a quick car wash, but for uh some other type of commercial, but not residential.

Can you clarify on why um staff would uh support residential at this site?

Uh it's a great site for housing.

Uh housing is a use that is allowed by right at the site.

Okay.

Um so and I mean, okay, so I know that this was formerly a car dealership, correct?

Um are there issues with the soil?

Is there, I mean, like how much because I I'm just I'm thinking like it seems kind of natural for to go from a place where a lot of cars were to a place where a lot of cars are going to be.

Um and not necessarily where people are gonna be, because that could lead to all sorts of yikes problems.

Um, so I'm just kind of curious on like, yeah, how much of a nightmare would it becoming a housing like residential sort of situation be.

So chair, commission, uh, commissioner um Scott Johnson with our environmental planning unit.

Uh there is a, I believe it's a closed case.

So the site is on a list which prevents any categorical exemption from being used.

However, sites like this can be reused.

It would just there might be some extra cleanup that would need to be done.

Okay.

But it wouldn't prevent uh future residential.

Okay.

Interesting.

Um I learned a lot just then.

Okay.

Uh that's all like questions for now.

I yield my time.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Uh Commissioner Tao or Lamas.

Oh, I'm sorry, Commissioner Caden.

Sorry.

Yeah, thank you, Chair.

Um, yeah, so this is this has been I think a challenging one for me.

Um I think, you know, uh Commissioner Ortiz brought it up, right?

There's a lot of similar themes here to kind of previous applications that you know I I supported as well, you know, the recommendation of of denial on.

Um, you know, the staff recommendation tonight, it's so it's it's relying on ideas and policies that that I obviously support.

Um, you know, I want to see areas like this become more walkable, bikeable, accessible via transit.

I want to see, you know, some of the the higher intensity uses that we're talking about.

Um, you know, I completely agree on the vision zero point, right?

It's like we need to to treat street safety as a as a crisis, right?

And we need to treat our vision zero corridors like the same way that we talk about housing in this really kind of um you know crisis mindset.

I think part that I'm struggling with on this one is that we also at the same time, and we talk about this a lot, right?

We want to be able to provide clarity to potential businesses around you know what we want where and and what's allowed where.

And I think the challenge in this case is that it's it's not as explicit, I think, as it as I think it could be.

Um, you know, I really like our our TOD ordinance, our transit oriented development ordinance, um, because it makes it really, really clear, right?

Like it you we want to prioritize people-oriented uses, we want to preclude auto-oriented uses, and we're doing that within an you know, a half mile of of existing and planned light rail.

And you can, you know, you can look at your project on a map, you can see that buffer, you can see, okay, my project is is you know within that that buffer or it's outside, and you have a pretty good idea about I think what the what the city is is sort of looking for in those areas, um, and I think that's why I felt pretty comfortable, I guess, voting to to deny and in you know similar situations in the past, like for that um project most recently, because that was within a quarter mile of that buffer, and we we sort of made it very clear through this, you know, through this document what the vision was there.

And I think so, you know, it wasn't you know explicitly mentioned right tonight, but this is outside of that buffer, so you know, as referenced as close to the light rail station, but it's you know it's it is um you know a three-quarter mile walk as as I measured it to the Florent Light Rail station.

And you know, I'm a big believer in in kind of treating frequent bus routes and and bus rapid transit, I think, you know, as as just as kind of worthy of that same treatment, but that that isn't the way that we've talked about it in our in our TOD ordinance, our RTD policy.

Um, you know, I think Florin does have the potential to to be a more frequent bus corridor, but I think right now it's not 15 minute frequencies.

I think it could be.

Um, and I think you know, I think we're a little bit overstating the the BRT component.

Uh I I don't really know or haven't seen any concrete plans at all for BRT on Florin.

Um so you know, I I I don't think this is like a priority for for RT in the same way that we've seen kind of the green line extension, um, you know, that's a conversation like that we were talking about before is like, well, this is maybe far away, but at least there's a reserve right-of-way.

There's a lot of planning.

Like that is that is a you know preferred scenario that that has been in effect for for almost 20 years now.

I mean, it's not even a comparable to me to Stockton in the sense that you know that's a project for bus rapid transit that that we've really put a lot of planning and time into.

I think you know that's something that we're actively in the process of selecting a preferred alternative for, and there's there's sort of money behind.

Um so I think it's a little bit more challenging to I guess for me look at our general plan and know for sure that this is a transit corridor that we are saying we do not want any auto-oriented uses to be allowed on it.

And because I think it raises this sort of series of questions, right?

Is it like, is it all commercial corridors that have bus service that we're saying that on?

Um is it bus service above a certain frequency?

Is it you know bus corridors that are also top five Vision Zero corridors, corridors that have a lot of redevelopment potential, right?

Like I think it's not obvious to me what the objective criteria that we're using are here, which I think you know should be really the goal of all of these processes.

We want to try to create objective criteria by which we're saying yes or no.

Um so I think if if we want to hold out, I think in these situations for more transit supportive projects in places like this, I would actually be really supportive of providing that clarity.

I think in our policy and kind of expanding the area that we're providing that clarity to beyond just a half mile of um light rail um to include certain bus corridors that that really want we want to prioritize as a city.

But I think until then it's actually quite tricky for us as a commission to kind of make that call when we're sort of, you know, the zoning allows this, right?

It was mentioned before, right?

The zoning does allow this through a conditional process, it's not precluded.

So again, I you know, I I support I think the the underlying goals of what staff is laying out here, but I do I think worry a little bit about the the subjectivity here, and I think there's you know, if there is an appetite, if we want to kind of have this conversation as a city about like precluding auto-oriented uses in all of our bus corridors or even along kind of the select bus corridors that um you know was highlighted in that map M3 from the general plan.

Yeah, I would completely support that, and I think maybe that's something that we can talk about as part of the zoning code overhaul.

But I think that would need for me to be a little made a little bit more explicit and kind of incorporate that that into our TOD policy with you know the maps and the kind of the um objective criteria.

So that's sort of what I'm trying to also think through as part of this.

It's it this is a challenging item, but um I'll leave it there and then look forward to hearing other comments.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Uh Commissioner, is it Tao or Lamas?

Thomas.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, everyone who came to speak on behalf of the item and staff who helped prepare the report.

Um I think, and I also want to thank the commissioners for their comments.

Very um insightful comments.

Um, and I'm also kind of on the fence about this um proposal.

Um it's it's a tough one.

Um I think for me, um, especially when we hear about how good the applicant is and all the good work that they're doing in the community, um, it seems like they're really trying to engage with um kind of the local uh schools, the um the local youth group, um, and trying to be a true community partner.

Um and also being responsive to their uh some of the design requirements that the city's looking forward, looking for and trying to increase their setback and support um folks um that may be visiting the site on bicycles.

Um but at the same time I I'm trying to be receptive to the city's intended goals here and trying to support additional uses for this particular site that maybe aren't um auto-centric and that would allow for more pedestrian access and um to the uh first speaker's point, um, there could be other uses that uh could be a benefit to this location, including housing, um, affordable housing, senior housing, um, and make it particularly competitive, probably for some state funding as well, given the look the proximity to transit um access and um the fact that it has buy right approval to build housing in the location.

So I'm grappling with that.

Um, and so I I I appreciate and recognize the city's intent here to try to um to deny the project and try to support additional uses for this site.

Um so just wanted to share my comments with the commission.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner Thompson or Rescue.

Thank you.

Yeah, and thanks to those who who spoke as well.

Um I appreciated that um I think the applicant shared this is not a destination that it's used by local um residents, and um the rendering was really beautiful.

I was able to look at it on my own screen the whole time you were speaking.

Um, so that was nice.

Um, and I think the site plan is really appropriate the way that there's just one drive in and it goes to the back.

There's not like a U-shaped, like two drives.

Um, however, this area, like basically from 14th in the north to Meadow View in the south, it's really really hard.

Um we're talking about bus, but we're all also talking about other types of non-car travel, such as biking or walking to cross 99, Franklin, and the light rail tracks if you're going east-west, the the opportunities to do that are mostly the vast and more dangerous roads such as Florin, Meadow View 47th, Fruit Ridge, and um there's a few like overpasses for the freeway to go east, like if you're traveling east-west across the city, but then you get stopped by Franklin and no roads really line up across Franklin from each other, and then you wind into a neighborhood that doesn't have an outlet, and then you're stopped by the tracks.

So, really walkers, pedestrians, and cyclists are really diverted onto these roads, such as Florin.

And it would be, I think, really um, you know, a shame to put another car-oriented business there.

Um, I do appreciate that we don't have as much of a clear mandate to avoid it as if it were one half mile from the light rail, but um I'm thinking less of transit riders and more of pedestrians and cyclists because of its its distance from the light rail.

Um, I think for people living east of the freeway, yeah, just if they wanted to get to that light rail station, it's it's very difficult.

And um, and let's see.

So, so yeah, I think the site plan does everything it can and the rendering with the, you know, on one hand it's it's really nice to have that extra wide sidewalk or that extra deep sidewalk and the roof with the um, you know, sort of like arcade there, but I think that's also kind of a place where depending on the the situation, it could just become like uh dirty and and not taking care of um and then also you know, pointing out that there's four other car washes within a mile of this, you know.

Well, I don't want to stop, you know, if another business feels like they can compete and and succeed there.

I think that they should be able to do that, but um from a neighborhood perspective, it doesn't seem like it's needed.

So yeah, again, it's this is a hard one.

I'm I'm torn, but I I am concerned about pedestrian and bicycle traffic.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner Nybo.

Um there are there are a lot of similarities between this project and the one that um a couple weeks ago up in the Thomas a month or two ago.

I think, and by the way, if I may just say, point this out.

Uh I'm the one who made the motion to move against staff recommendation.

I know Station knows remembers because I remember that looking her eyes.

Um so this is so the comments I'm giving are in light of that.

Um I think there are some critical differences between this project and that project.

I thought that that project was reasonable moving forward because it was a little remnant parcel.

There wasn't anything else that there was no grand idea that was gonna go on that parcel.

It was like an acre or something.

It was pretty near to a proposed light rail that may or may not go there within our lifetime.

This, however, by the way, the lead is buried on this particular on this particular site plan.

The corner is owned by the same property owner as this parcel.

So this particular piece of par this particular piece of property isn't a remnant parcel.

What we're doing is we're contemplating creating a remnant parcel today.

Light rail exists already.

There's plenty of clarity that the applicant had before they came before us.

It's not like they were surprised and we're playing gotcha with them right now.

They knew that when they proposed that there was gonna be problems today.

They knew that.

So they went out and they went to the talk to the community and they tried to raise it.

They tried to make a nice project, it's a nice project.

I'm a member of Quickwack up until right now.

I'm sure that all of them are about to get canceled.

Nonetheless, it's a nice project, you know.

They put nice wall up front.

There's some nice nice street frontage, but it doesn't make up for the fact that it's we're never gonna be able to connect the north part of the property with the south part of the property to Florin as effectively as we could without this quick quack.

I think there's a lot of you know, there's a lot of big issues here, but as we've heard, this area needs housing.

It does need housing, and there is a lot of use at that light rail station.

There's a I know this property really well.

I know this neighborhood really well.

My son goes to Luthor Burbank, and he takes light rail at least twice a week, maybe three times a week.

They're constantly using that light rail right there.

It's a used place.

This neighborhood, I frankly am slightly offended when I hear blighted.

Because I don't think this neighborhood is blighted.

I think this neighborhood is a very vibrant neighborhood.

It's a growing neighborhood.

It deserves better, no offense, than a remnant piece of property right here on this corner.

That's my thought.

So unless there's any big issues, I would like to move staff recommendation of denial.

Did I say that the right way?

Yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner.

So we have a motion on the table.

Um Commissioner Ortiz.

I was gonna ask two questions of staff.

Um, uh Vice Chair Caden referenced the one-quarter mile from light rail, and this project is three quarters of a mile away from light rail.

Is that relevant in your analysis?

Excuse me.

Um, the project is so if we're talking a walking distance or as the crow flies, um, of course there's some difference.

Um, uh a walking distance uh uh around two-thirds, maybe three-quarters of a mile is accurate uh in terms of as the crow flies from the light rail station platform, uh, it is approximately a half mile plus 300 feet.

But it is not within a quarter mile of the light rail station, and and why is that compelling?

I think in his argument, it's a distinction that does not speak to rejecting the project.

Okay, so uh there is a there's an ordinance, which is basically an implementation piece.

There's a zoning instrument specific to light rail, um, and it's it this does not include bus service, which this area is has a lot of bus service, of course.

Um, but that was a specific piece for uh distance from uh light rail service.

Um what staff is uh looking at is the overarching uh policies, visions, maps, goals uh in the general plan that speak more generally, including bus service as well, and we're looking at it from that perspective.

Um, it is true that the specific transit oriented development uh uh ordinance for light rail distance does not apply to this.

Yeah, but that's not what we're applying uh public transportation, bus including bus is well I don't want to interrupt.

If anyone could help me sort through this why it's relevant.

If I may to your question though, uh and Commissioner Caden bringing up that distinction, um basically it comes down to the quarter mile or the half mile.

We wouldn't be here tonight because then it would not be permitted.

So I think what Commissioner Caden was saying that now that we're in a discretionary period, which uh which which Danny did bring out that's why we before you're here that we're here before you tonight, because you do have the discretion based on what we've presented and what the applicant has presented to make that decision.

Thank you.

That clarifies that there's discretion outside of that one quarter mile, but that one quarter mile is an absolute uh okay.

The other question is I I seem to recall maybe I miss misrecalling.

Is there a bike lane that is proposed by the in this project in a di uh uh a very wide sidewalk, which is lovely, but um I mean I I you know I know people need to ride their bikes on the sidewalk.

Um when you have really streets like this not safe, but is there a bike lane also proposed in the improvements uh by the proponent?

So the area where there's landscaping and a sidewalk, that is the area that is dedicated, it's dedicated right of way for future bus rapid transit.

So there's a a future BRT lane that would go in that area as well as a bicycle lane, and so at a point at which um that would be developed, then uh that paved area, that side uh landscaped area would be gone.

Be removed, yes.

So, somewhere down the line we'd have a BRT shared bike bus lane, but it would remove a good chunk of that either the landscape and or the wide and the wide sidewalk.

Okay.

That's uh wow, okay.

Thanks for clarifying that.

I'm done with my questions.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner Lee, I guess.

Thank you, Chair.

Um I just want to say that um I'm really familiar with this area.

I actually grew up not too far from here.

Uh I even went to summer school at Luther Bread Bank High School.

Uh, and I also even work at the uh shopping center uh right across from here, Katie Corner to here.

And I've, you know, really seen this area change over the years.

Um and Commissioner Naibu, I really appreciate uh your comments.

Uh you you really hit the nail on the head.

You know, I I too voted for raisin canes and I recall that that was uh uh you know we were sort of split on that vote.

And I think that uh to what Commissioner Neible said, you know what's different here, and uh my comment is you know we have to blink slate to to potentially start something new here, and uh, you know, I agree with the first speaker.

Uh, you know, we need more housing, uh, you know, you know, homelessness is is uh growing crisis.

Um it's been a crisis for a while, and um, you know, approving this could really set the stage for uh turning the entire uh parcel uh to be even uh more auto-oriented.

You know, Florida Road is is extremely high traffic and and it's you know essentially almost a freeway.

Um so uh with that I uh second Commissioner Naples uh and support the denial.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Um before we uh take a motion on the uh uh or uh act act on the two motion on the motion and the second.

I'd like to comment.

I I also like many others, I know this site very, very well.

Um as an architect, I was hired by Paul Blanco, who was the car dealer who was in the process of buying this site from Cal Worthington in his dog spot um many many years ago.

Uh well.

So we we heard I think from staff that this uh site's been vacant since 2013.

It's been empty, though.

There were buildings prior well over 20 years ago when I was working on it.

They were just sitting there vacant when the Chevy dealership uh did close out.

Um and that never the the purchase by Pablanco never uh materialized.

He was looking at a variety of uses out in that back uh northern, large northern portion there, um, which as I say never never materialized, but I I spent plenty of time on uh on the site and around the site to get a good sense of it.

Um it is I I think it is certainly very auto-oriented as it is right now, and I don't see that changing in the near future.

Um not only those uh car dealerships gonna be there, uh their tax revenue uh to the city.

Uh so that they have value.

Um I don't think they're gonna be uh you know done away with quickly.

Um I do like Commissioner Naibo, I'm also a quick and quick quick whack uh member.

Um I must say I I go to the one near uh Costco and um uh Cal Expo area.

Uh this I think it was pointed out by the applicant and uh the the frontage along uh the design of the frontage along Florin is unique.

I mean it doesn't exist on any other uh quick quack.

And I find myself wondering, uh, I think the design is very good for the project.

It's better than most that I've seen anywhere.

Um and I also can't help but wonder if that chunk, even though it's not huge, uh frontage along Fro Line could not be a potential catalyst uh for other development that will come along.

Uh it's setting a tone for pedestrian frontage along that street.

Uh and you know, and staff could say this is what your anyone else does come along is is gonna be picking up and and uh following on.

Uh it still leaves a huge chunk of uh land for housing or whatever else may come here.

Uh but as I say, you know, I've worked on it well over 20 years ago, nothing else has come along since.

So uh do we forego what what I think is a good design?

Granted, there's some very uh violations perhaps of some policies, but not strictly of the TOD uh distance.

Um, and uh you know, d do we uh let it be, provide some jobs.

Uh we heard a lot of support for the community uh for this project tonight.

Uh and for that reason I think uh uh and and what seeing that it could be a catalyst uh for it, I I tend to um uh I would tend to oppose staff's recommendation and the motion that's on the table right now, but we'll see how the how the vote goes.

So um with that, uh I think as it is, we have a motion and we have a second, so clerk, why don't we take a uh a vote?

I'm sorry.

Okay, clarifying, uh sure, yes, yes.

So the comment I just want to make sure um, and I know it might be a little it might be a little hard to see, but just to clarify the existing right-of-way line will be moved back.

The the um behind the pedestrian plaza, that will not be removed.

It it's the entire project is purposely being set back in order to accommodate uh the bus transit lane and I understood a comment from staff saying that as if all of that will be ripped out in the future.

That's not accurate.

Um I also want to just clarify that the zoning code section that dictates the measurement of the distance between the site and the light rail station um is uh 17.104.130, which specifically measures the st um the distance based on the shortest accessible, shortest publicly accessible right-of-way.

So for those reasons, uh that particular measurement is important because that is where the general plan policy about the city encouraging um more transit oriented development is comes from.

That's the origination of that that comment, and that's why the distance is really important.

And again, I just want to clarify that pedestrian plaza is a permanent feature.

Thank you.

I'm sorry, okay, uh Commissioner Ortiz.

Uh thank you for allowing me because I would like a clarification on that.

That's really helpful because I just when you say it'll be moved back, what will go away in the picture that I'm looking at with the the closest to Florence Road landscape strip, the very wide sidewalk, and then more landscape, and then that leaning in order to do the BRT, where what will go away?

My interpretation, even with I think what you've shared, is that everything will go away except for where the leaning bench is.

Yeah, my name's Nick Wecker.

I'm uh with our civil engineering firm uh with core states.

Uh we did the civil engineering and architectural plans uh for this application.

And I just want to clarify again, we pushed we're dedicating right away to the city so that those improvements for BRT, the bike lane, the ultimate right-of-way width is all gonna be accommodated off our site.

And so everything you see on site, including the wider landscape planter, um, the special paving, um, our decorative um our decorative wall there, our faux wall, um that's all permanent structures.

We've already accommodated the right-of-way that should be necessary based on our coordination with how it works and our measurements um to ensure that uh all those future improvements for BRT, the bike lane, the sidewalk, uh it'll be a detached sidewalk.

Uh, that quick quack constructs and buffers that adds additional buffer from the right-of-way.

That those are all permanent um improvements.

So let me just be a little more specific, and I don't know if staff can bring up the picture that I'm looking at.

43, thank you.

Page 43.

If we could bring up that um image that report, correct of the staff report.

Yeah, same back.

I this um but so are you saying all of that in that pretty picture will stay in your dedication of the right-of-way commences at this at that outer cement?

Commissioner, is this the photo?

Yes, that one.

That's the one.

So you're saying none of this will be altered when the BRT goes in.

It will all be in front of correct.

Yep.

The landscape, the sidewalk, the landscape behind the sidewalk, the leaning benches, the bike rack, the faux wall, uh, the decorative paving, all of that is permanent and not to be impacted by BRT based on our coordination with public works.

Um we set back the site enough uh with our right-of-way dedication to be able to do that.

So can staff clarify that their statement was consistent with that, or is it do you have a different interpretation?

Um the the dedication is a requirement as far as the location, uh the specific to this um staying or going, it it was my understanding uh that uh this would not be staying at the time of uh development, but uh that that could maybe maybe I misunderstood that part um uh but the uh the dedication for uh space for uh bike lane and future BRT uh would be a requirement of this or any other project.

So I think the statement of the representative is accurate and there may have been some misunderstores on our staff could perhaps clarify.

No, it's um because I don't, you know, it's hard with this image because um according to the applicants team, I guess they're insinuating that what we're seeing there would include the BRT lane, and I don't have we don't have with public works comments, we just have the uh dedication condition, but we don't have an image so um so it could just be pretty pictures and it could be.

No, I know I'm not gonna send this.

I'm not gonna I'm not gonna go against their engineer here, but I'm just saying I can't, you know, either confirm or uh verify that um yeah on that one.

Um, I'll uh uh it just helpful if we get a real clear statement, but thank you for it.

Yeah, let me just say we're not interested in constructing something for it to be removed later.

We would be working with staff engineering to ensure that this is set back far enough to be a permanent improvement.

Okay.

Our understanding is that the dedication we've done would would accommodate those improvements in the future.

Okay.

And this may or may not be to scale.

It could be a more condensed version of this.

No, it's it's the scale.

Okay.

Thank you.

I'd like to follow up on it, Commissioners.

I was saying that when you're saying this, I don't know.

Would this be the stuff right here be the curbed gutter?

Uh, yes, yeah, that's the frame of reference, curb and gutter, and then the asphalt would be the the right of way.

So that one all the traveled right away.

Back to the quickwack would remain.

Correct, from the curve back.

Yep.

Um, thank you.

Commissioner Reschke.

Look, well, the um applicant is up at page 24 again.

I just want to clarify because it it looks to me like um there is an addition of the bus lane being made just in front of this site.

There'll be like an extra lane.

So what I'm seeing is from starting from the median at the bottom center where it's a six foot medium median, there's two travel lanes north of that, and those travel lanes are existing, and then it looks like that bus lane is being added already, even though it's only gonna be for the short distance, and then um the the ultimate right-of-way line is at back up walk, which is typical as I understand it.

And so um it looks like we're adding a lane, you know, not really a very short lane at this point, and so none of that stuff will be taken away, but that's correct.

That site plan is to show that we're accommodating those improvements.

Yeah.

Um it's a very short distance, and so whether Public Works wants us to do that generalization now or or um have it developed in the future when it can be more cohesive.

Um but that exhibit there is to show um that we are accommodating those improvements and that you know everything back of uh curve like we showed on that rendering would be a permanent improvement that QuickWack is making.

So is that bus lane that's being added?

Is that gonna be available for cars to drive in at this time?

I don't know that it'll be um channelized.

We'd have to work public to determine that um until uh the rest of it.

What is channelized mean?

Uh sorry, st striped for a bus lane yet.

It's about accommodating the right of way for those few those future improvements and setting our site far enough back, um so that we don't have a conflict in the future.

Yeah, okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Are there any other commissioner comments or questions or with that?

Then we'll go back to we have a motion.

I'm sorry.

Oh, sorry, keep the Commissioner Longness.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, and I appreciate just trying to find some clarity here.

Um, and I want to ask staff as well, because I'm looking at Google Maps and Google Maps does show the two travel lanes and a third lane.

So I don't so Google Maps is showing that there's already three lanes there.

That no and that I don't so I don't know where an additional lane's gonna be added.

Um, and if it that additional lane is supposed to be just maybe dedicating that third lane to bus, but there is a third lane there, um, or if that bus lane was gonna be further up into the property.

Can staff provide some clarity here.

Well, what I was gonna say is um I'm having Danny look at the public works condition as far as dedicating the IOD, but an example it it would be odd to me that they would actually have the bus lane there for the BRT.

An example I would give is Brucefield Road where also we uh require IOD for future it was gonna be light rail now.

Now actually we're gonna do BRT on Bruceville.

But you don't see the lane already there.

Usually that space is not put there because um to some of the points that were made, we don't know when that's gonna happen.

So typically uh that bus lane if it is, it should be an existing bus lane.

I don't believe we have a bus lane markings on uh flooring.

I don't I haven't seen it.

So okay, so thank you for that.

And I think you're right, it doesn't look like it's a bus lane, it's just a third lane already on the street that's there.

But it's not marked for bus.

So I I don't know if Danny's but uh if public works was asking for an IOD, then that's telling me that they don't have that, you know, that amount, yeah, and that's what they're asking for that dedication.

Okay, so then it may require further area to be to be.

Right, and apparently what I'm hearing from the applicant is regardless, I guess they're saying that they will go into that, and they can correct me if I'm wrong, but they would go into their property if necessary to give you the pretty pictures as we're calling it.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner Ibo.

If I could have a follow-up question, Ms.

Doc, this is a requirement of public works.

Yeah, the IOD, uh the dedications of the uh did you confirm that uh yeah, so uh if you look at um attachment thirteen, so that would be uh PDF page 56 of the report.

Uh there is um public works condition number three, uh to uh dedicate sufficient right of way um construct floor and road consistent with the adopted street section that accommodates a future bus rapid transit lane.

Uh so yes, it's a requirement uh for for this or any project at the site to dedicate space to ensure that uh the but required improvements, uh bus lane, bike lane uh can be constructed.

Why wasn't the why wasn't the project uh conditioned to improve the whole frontage?

It's one parcel, it's a lease, they're not subdividing it.

Why is it only the small part in front of Quickwac and not the entire parcel frontage?

When you say the entire parcel on Florin or you're speaking of Franklin too, Florin.

Actually, it wouldn't be Fakeland because it doesn't touch that.

Um I don't know the exact answer.

I do know that public works has a ratio.

If the improvements would um exceed a certain amount compared to the uh estimate uh the project value, then the nexus isn't there for that to happen.

So that might have been the case here, I'm not sure.

Okay.

I'm sorry, can I ask one more follow-up question?

In this general area near, how many parcels of 14, 15 acres are there in this area that are uh along uh these busy streets that are potentially developed?

Along Florin, I can't think of any um of that of that amount.

Um, you know, we had the fairly large parcel on Florin that stayed vacant for over 80 years and was finally developed with this uh the kind project, but I can't say off the top if it uh exceeds this or hatches that.

But I would I would say we don't have that many that are um of this size.

And and then on Franklin, the next one would be what like Campbell Sioux, that area up there.

That's that would be the next big one that someday may or may not develop in some order.

So this is a pretty large parcel, though.

Is it's definitely a large parcel, correct?

Okay, thank you.

Uh just to kind of uh add to uh Commissioner Naibo's questions, I'd like to ask, is this the um the staff or applicant can answer the the quick quack parcel is it parcelized or is it part of the a portion of the larger parcel is uh Commissioner's?

The 14 acres is just one parcel.

So this is a part of the 14 so the development is yes, correct.

It's yes, the development of that large parcel.

Okay, thank you.

Any other comments or questions of one?

Yeah, on one, I'm muted myself.

Um on one of the on the site plans it says least area.

That that's how I I garnered that.

Again, Commissioner, Thompson.

Clarification.

So if there is a conditional to do a project like this, does that apply to just the project that's being proposed, or does it apply to the whole parcel?

I believe you're asking if uh conditional use of permit would apply to uh any project at this particular site, or just this type of proposed uh use.

Is that what you're saying?

And then a conditional use, is it?

Is this a conditional use?

Yeah.

Okay.

So then the question is right now we're looking at a component of this full parcel, and we're talking about conditional use for that.

If the conditional use is approved, does that use then translate to the entire parcel or does it stay specific to what's being proposed?

It would be to for the whole parcel.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other commissioner comments or questions?

Seeing none, uh, I'm sorry.

Uh Commissioner Tao.

Oh, it's council.

Council, ma'am.

Sorry, Marcus.

I want to make sure I understand this question.

So yeah, um, commission's being asked to approve a conditional use permit and site plan and design review.

So I I might not understand your question, Commissioner, but like the f the footprint of the quick quash could not expand.

It will be limited to that portion of the parcel that it's on now.

I think okay.

So it's and a hypothetical.

If the parcel then the rest of the parcel is developed, is there already a pre-authorization to do what this is approved for because it is all part of the whole parcel?

Right.

So any development of it, whether it's an expansion, if to so if they went to expand this, this is say expand the car wash, they would have to modify the conditional use permit.

If they went to do another type of development on there, depending on what the zoning is, um, there would be some type of a discretionary more than like a discretionary action that would need to be taken.

But I I guess what I was stating though is that uh literally that parcel is someone said what's the use of that parcel, it would be that that use is considered that whole parcel.

That's what I was just meaning by that.

I think we wouldn't say that's a portion of the parcel.

As a follow-up, it would be if the remainder of the parcel is dedicated to housing.

What would that would that have to go through a discretionary because now it is outside of what that parcel is known as?

I'm trying to think I'm thinking on that on that question.

So if they wanted to develop housing on that parcel, yes, uh, they would not they wouldn't have to parcel it.

They could they could put housing on there.

And it wouldn't have to go through any sort of discretionary.

No.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner.

So following up on that then, i is this particular portion of the parcel, I guess it's not a parcel as we're talking about.

How is it defined uh or described uh in our approval?

The approval just have the parcel number and it would have this use on there.

We wouldn't say a portion of the parcel.

It would just it would just be someone said what's the use of that parcel in this and if this were approved, we'd say the the use there is the car wash.

So the approval is for the entire 14 acre parcel, as it's put before us right now.

Technically, yes.

Once again, that doesn't mean that they could just go ahead and just develop it with a car wash going further, they would have to modify that.

So it's sort of just kind of literal and figurative, I guess is what I'm trying to state.

I would I would add that uh the the approval is associated with the site plan, and the site plan dictates the location of the car wash.

There's two entitlements appro uh um proposed, one's a conditional use permit, one's site plan and design site, yes, site plan and design review, they go hand in hand.

So the the bounds of the car wash as shown on the site plan would dictate you know that that's what's also being approved here.

So the site plan exhibit is what everything would be tied to.

Yeah, all right thank you for that clarification uh commissioner lee thank you chair uh question for staff on page 55 of the staff report um I see a preliminary site layout and I was uh had a question on that so is are there plans or feature plans for the applicant to install it looks like a gas station into drive through restaurants or what's the uh story on this uh so uh this was a conceptual uh plan referred to in the uh application for this project it is not part of this project uh the scope of this project is the car wash um but as background information staff did uh provided us attachment to the report yeah it so potentially this is what it could end up looking like although it's not the applicant hasn't like submitted an application or anything or uh there there is this is not part of an application uh currently okay thank you yeah I just I just saw that and um you know obviously if if something like this were to go through I mean that would take out a big chunk of of the parcel for what you know could be housing so uh just wanted to bring that up um by you and my time thank you thank you um Commissioner I would have expected this to have been parcelalized separately but you know whatever um my 50 years of uh retail site planning and development um but uh I guess as long as the s the exhibit site plan is tied to the approval that hopefully is enough is that uh your your your take yes you're approving the site plan okay thank you and with that commissioner Thompson Rescue so is it I guess for our now but um so it sounds like right now the um oh thank you the site is available by right for housing if if there was a project that wanted to do that so once this car wash is built if the same owner you know as soon as they're done building it wants to build housing on the rest of the site do they need to split the lot or build a CMU wall or do anything does it complicate making future housing by having this approved um well I would mention that it's uh not known to be the most compatible use with housing um uh there would need to be a CMU wall um they could uh in theory provide housing for the remainder of the site um but uh it's again not known as they would never have to like create a property line or split the lot they would just build it the proper fire distance away from the car wash right they wouldn't yeah they would not have to split the lot or separate the lot um one complication I I think I would note though would be the circulation um there probably would not be other use floor and road for the housing um component and so then just then they're just left with just Franklin uh as far as access so if I was gonna say it's gonna be a complication that that could be I would think perhaps also the financing of a total totally different type of project like housing may require some kind of a more formal separation I would think um all right any other commissioner comments seeing none we have a motion and a second on the floor uh the motion I believe was Commissioner Ibo could you restate your your motion just so we're all approval of the staff report here again uh catch you off guard.

Yeah, to move staff's recommendation of denial.

Okay, thank you.

With that, that is the motion.

Uh, Claire, can we take a roll?

And for the record, Commissioner Lee second that motion.

Okay.

Commissioner Lee.

Aye.

Commissioner Tao?

Aye.

Commissioner Yam Lamas?

Aye.

Commissioner Naibo.

Aye.

Vice Chair Caden?

Aye.

Commissioner Hernandez?

Absent.

Messias Reid?

Absent.

Commissioner Young, absent.

Commissioner Ortiz?

Aye.

Commissioner Munt.

Aye.

Commissioner Ruske.

Aye.

Commissioner Thompson?

Aye.

And Chair Chase.

No.

No.

The motion passes.

Thank you all.

We will now move on to the director's report.

Thank you, Chair.

Just one item for the director's report this evening on uh Tuesday of this week, February 24th.

The City Council adopted the Planning and Design Commission's 2025 annual report.

So it's in the can for this year.

Thank you.

Thank you, Stacy.

Next item, Commissioner Comments, ideas and questions.

Seeing none.

Public comments matters are not on the agenda.

Are there any public comments?

Thank you, Chair.

I have no public comments on this item.

Thank you.

With that, we're adjourned.