Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the city of Antioch planning commission meeting of October 1st, 2025. It is 6:30 p.m. and I'm calling the meeting to order. Kitty, can I have a roll call, please? Yes. Thank you, Chair Weber. Commissioner Spiker, present. Commissioner Sumant, present. Commissioner Martin, present. Commissioner Riley is absent. Commissioner Perez, Vice Chairperson Jones, present. Chairperson Webster, Weber, present. We have a quorum at 6:30 p.m. with commissioners Riley and Perez absent at roll call. Thank you, Kitty. Please join the commission for the pledge of

allegiance. To the flag of Americans desiring to address the commission on an item that is on the agenda, please note that each speaker is limited to three minutes. The Brown Act limits the commission's ability to discuss or respond to items that are not on the agenda. Please fill out a speaker card and place it in the speaker tray. Staff, are there any public comments on non-aggendaized items?

None received. And for the record, Commissioner Perez arrived at 6:31 p.m.

Thank you, Kitty. All right, I'm now closing the public comment period. That brings us to our continued regular item 5-1. Appeal of Cruise America home occupation use permit and business license denial at 2425 Willow Lane. The appellant, Nanette Johnson, has appealed the city of Annioch's administrative denial of a home occupation use permit and business license application for a Cruise America recreational vehicle rental business at 2425 Willow Avenue. The city denied the application on the grounds that it does not meet the current zoning code and the home occupation use permit requirements. May we have a staff presentation, please?

Yeah. Uh, good evening, commissioners. At the September 17th, 2025 meeting, the planning commission heard the appeal of staff's decision to deny the Cruise America business license and home occupation use permit at 2425 Willow Avenue. The commission then voted to support the appeal and allow the um business to operate. The attached resolution contains the requirements the planning commission and the appellent agreed to at that meeting. Staff recommends that the commission adopt the resolution in the staff report. Thank you. Okay, for anyone who'd like to speak on this, I will now open the comment period. City staff, please proceed with identifying the speakers who will have three minutes to address the commission. Any public comments?

Uh, we have received no public comment cards, but I see somebody in the audience that wishes to speak on the item. just to step in. We could give the appellent 10 minutes if they want to speak.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Tyler Johnston and I'm here speaking on behalf of the property owner, Nette Johnston. Um, I would like to start out by thanking you for the opportunity to speak tonight and we greatly appreciate your decision at the last meeting to support our appeal and allow the Cruise America business to continue operating. Additionally, I'd like to thank city staff for their work and communication in drafting the resolution. We are fully committed to meeting all of the conditions outlined in the resolution presented tonight. We would ask that a slight change be made to the last line in the resolution. We just want to add on the end of it as specifically set forth herein. We propose a suggesting to the wording to reflect that our appeal will be upheld Cruise America business and property meet the conditions you set in the resolution. In conclusion, we are fully committed to implementing all required conditions. We appreciate the commission's guidance and support in continuing this legal non-conforming use and respectfully request that the minor change be made. Thank you for your time and I'm happy to answer any questions. I've received no additional public comment. Oh, I see somebody in the audience that wishes to speak. Thank you. Um first uh clerical um for the city uh city is making its changes to a city website. The meeting that you referenced, there is no public agenda or minutes on the city's website accessible to the community. So I do not know what transpired at the last meeting, but here today also noticing was also changed. So

I'm not being noticed on any of the uh agendas coming out as well. Um I'm I'm a little confused though because the city has a zoning code and a land use map. you have a non-conforming use and then you have a separate business entity that draws a separate business license and is a separate business but falls under the same non-conforming use. I'm curious how that plays out because the intent of updating your zoning code is to address those historic nonconforming needs and then to create a comprehensive plan going forward. And so while I support this business being here in the city and the operations, we literally have on the agenda, the same agenda, an item that is just around the corner from this property and is going to be operating. These residents are going to be adjacent to this business. And the issue with that zoning code is that this area was not identified with this zoning need because there is not sufficient infrastructure in the area. The site is not set up appropriately. And I was a bit confused when I looked on the city's website at those business licenses and when they were in effect because on the city's website, the last business license shows 2022, but I rented an RV there last year. And so, how do we have an item today that just previously applied for a home occupation use permit in a business license in a non-conforming zone that is working to stay in that same

zone, but has been historically operating in that zone? If you go on that national website, they brand the city of Antioch in that location. What is the point in having a process? What is the point in creating a zoning code? What is the point of you all being here if we're just going to continue to allow things to happen? With the last 15 seconds, I would like to say this is not an appropriate space or use. The paperwork does not reflect a right process and the city should better spend their time trying to find an appropriate place for this business to stay in Antioch and operate. Thank you. I will now close the public comment period for this item and put it back before the commission for discussion.

Yes. So, um I had the same concerns as the public comment. Um and I do have well this is on the agenda today so I will address this today. um for the what is stopping them from coming back in 5 years and wanting to do sell rent RV or boats. You know what I'm saying? Because right now we're agreeing that they can operate the U-Haul and the um the RV. Uh they were doing that already prior to us approving. So is there anything in this that's like says this is it? You're not expanding. You're not going to come back and say legal non-conforming for RVs or I mean not RVs obviously but um boats or quads or trailers or tractors. So is there anything that they is there going to be another appeal in five years because they want to add something different? I want to make sure that it stops here I guess is the question. Is it look a little bit to the attorney on the wording? Exactly.

Because we're making an exception to the rule, but I don't want to keep pushing it further and further. Sure. So, at the last meeting, the commission decided this was a legal continuation of illegal non-conforming use by the operation of the Cruise America business and our discussion centered on certain conditions that needed to be met in accordance with the updated uh home occupancy use uh ordinance. And so adopting this resolution would ensure that operation of this new cruise America business would adhere to these new standards under the updated uh hoop ordinance. Do you want to add anything to that? Okay.

So they couldn't come back and say, "Oh, we're grandfathered in to because it has four wheels." Like because that's kind of what happened this time. They appealed it because it was a similar business. We agreed that it was a similar business, but I don't want it to keep continuing on at in that manner. And I'm not sure that this um and I don't think we addressed it last time. So that's our fault because we didn't think about it.

If there was a instance down the road uh where this property sought to bring in a whole entirely new business, the commission is free to say this is no longer continuation of of a legal non-conforming use and then deny the operation of that new of that new business. But that's speaking hypothetical. Uh at the last meeting uh and looking through this updated resolution, it seems pretty clear to me that it's very specific to operate operation of this cruise America business and we set forth conditions to ensure that this new business adheres to the updated hoop ordinance.

Okay. And then my next question is is there any legal uh ramifications to adding the line that um the applicant wanted to add or change to it? I'm assuming that you guys already looked at it, city attorneys looked at it and we should keep it as is. But I just want to So my understanding was, if I heard correctly, was the the sought after change was at the end now therefore be it resolved line for it as specifically set forth therein. Is that is that correct?

Okay. And if we need time to answer that question, then I rather have the time to answer that question as opposed to having you try to figure it out right now because this came two weeks early in the first place. So if we have to push it back then that's we were expecting it in 30 days, we got in two weeks. Yeah. I mean, look, just the insertion of that phrase, I'm not sure quite what it's clarifying or adding. If if there's if you want to come up and present uh more of a commentary on that. So in that line it says that subject to the appellant taking appropriate action to align with Antioch Municipal Code 9-5 901 home occupation use permit and our fear is that later down the road the city could come and say that we don't align with the home occupation use permit because we don't align with the exact code in there. So we're just asking for that as specifically set forth here and to show that we do align if we meet those conditions that you are that's presented in the resolution. So I think from the updated my sense from looking at this updated uh resolution is that the uh discussion last couple weeks ago centered on very specific conditions that the cruise America business would need to adhere to and it's clearly outlined here and um have every confidence that the uh the entire department would work in good faith to ensure that it wouldn't be piling on new conditions later on that aren't set forth in this updated resolution. resolution. So, I would recommend that uh if the commission's good with it, they could go ahead and

adopt this this updated resolution tonight, unless there are any uh outstanding concerns about that. Just like to ask one question. How long has that business been operating as what it is now under that hoop? I think it was 2012 or 20 2022. Which business? The Cruise America or the the U-Haul? the U-Haul. So, I believe um 1996, was that eight? The hoop for U-Haul was approved in 2002. 2000. Sorry. Yeah.

But another the custom bunk beds business started in 1998 and is licensed on the property. I was simply asking that question to make the point that this hoop and this allowance for this business started long before anybody well most of whom is sitting here now on this commission was even uh a part of this and it's not my agenda to deter familyun businesses from continuing on here especially when they've demonstrated uh commitment to the community and dedication to providing a service for their community uh for an extended period of time. And so that is sort of why we made the decision to add to this process to help um come up with a win-win and amicable solution for the the uh topic.

Do Sure.

Yeah. I mean I agree. Um, from my perspective though, the the centered point here was that the original hoop, the general plan didn't really give some concrete um, definitions of what the ongoing life or realistic life of a business actually is and what it comprises of. I mean my thought process here would be that the general plan should be you know over time what gets um essentially adopted by that particular piece of property that you know when the natural life of the business were to finally expire that it would revert the use of that property would revert back to what the general plan envisioned for that property and that's was absent from any everything that we saw in the paperwork, right? There was no definition that said that, you know, there was a period of time and um by which you know this this business should end you and conform back to you know the the definition or the guidance provided by the um the general plan. Uh so based on that is is and the kind of vagueness of you know similar businesses you know we all kind of determined um myself included that um it was similar enough that it should be essentially continued to be grandfathered in but we're also kind of felt I felt personally kind of like my hands were tied behind my back like I didn't have the option to say no you know that they don't based upon the rules rules and the way it was the paperwork was submitted. There's nothing there that says that we can say no, you know, as long as it basically aderes to the conditions of the original hoop that it basically we

have or essentially forced to approve it. So, I don't know what what the solution is for that if that's you know longer term. Uh we're talking about potentially updating the general plan. Um you know what can we fix that as a city council, planning commission, you know, process of review of the general plan. Can we can we fix loopholes like that in the future to help guide us in the decision-m process?

But just this is my thought process, but I I think um that the denial of the approval was your ability to say no. I originally had said no and was not willing to um approve the pro the change in the property because of the fact that they were operating under that guideline anyways because of the fact that um they continue to do that for years and just because they didn't get caught. However, after having our conversation and um and um seeing how the similar businesses is and wanting to bring business to Antioch and keep businesses any suggestion to make those recommendations to change, but the your ability to say no was the denial of the project and staff recommendation. So, that's just my two cents, but we're here now. I um honestly I kind of regret my decision after thinking about it. Um but we're here. I said yes and so now we're moving forward. Oh like one of the question said what if they come back in few months or year and say we are adding another business like Krishna said what would be what would we do? Is there anything we can do to stop it or add boats or any other vehicles, trucks maybe? I don't know. So, can we limit it or it's going to continue because they are in the similar business. So, where do we say no? And that that's what most of the discussion centered on a couple weeks ago was was this does does this classify as a continuation of illegal non-conforming use. So uh the commission found it was a similar enough business

to classify this as a continuing use and therefore adopted an updated resol or came to a discussion to amend the resolution to uh uphold the appeal. If there are concerns though, the commission is free to uh either uphold the resolution or deny the resolution. Uh it's it's well within your authority. And then as as mentioned earlier, if there is a situation later down the road where you feel like a new if there is a new business that's sought to be uh built on this on this property, the commission has the authority to say this is not a continuation of a legal non-conforming use and therefore deny a permit a hoop permit for for that new business. But again, that's a complete that is a hypo hypothetical situation. So if that does occur down the road, the commission is free to deny a hoop permit.

Are you guys able to read what the conditions are that were established that we're approving? Can you guys kind of go over that whole thing? You mean what's in the resolution in the staff report? Reread it or what's the specific? Well, I just to be transparent because I think some people uh particularly in um like the audience didn't have uh they weren't able to access this so far. Yeah. So, we can read it. Yes, please.

Okay. So, the first um number one is by December 1st, 2025 repairing the fence on the west side of the property. Um, uh, number two is by December 1st, 2025, develop a planting plan for the planting and landscaping on the west side of the property, including irrigation and plant selections that will provide screening at the time of planting and provide the plan to the director of community economic development, known as the director, after review and approval of the planting plan. The planting shall be installed within 90 days unless an extension is granted for good cause by the director. Number three, by December 1st, 2025, install privacy screening, including possible fencing slats. Prior to installing the screen, the Helen shall make a good faith effort to coordinate with the neighboring property owners in a mutually agreed upon solution. Number four, allowing no more than a maximum of 15 RVs to be stationed on the property at any one time. Number five, by November 1st, 2025, limiting use of the space on the south side of the property to allow for adequate emergency vehicle access to at least 20 ft. Number six, by November 1st, 2025, installing appropriate signage on the south side of the property, clearly designating emergency vehicle access to the satisfaction of the director. And number seven, 6 months after the completion of all items, the appellant shall provide the director performance update report showing ongoing compliance with all the above requirements.

If I'm not mistaken, wasn't the appellent willing to agree to 12? Wasn't it supposed to be 12 was the number of RVs that were supposed to be there?

The discussion was 15. So, and we, as the staff report said, shared this with the opponent. So, it was 15 and that's what was in the record. I think my concern is there's no meeting notes. Also, I know that I I made the decision last time to um and I'm the one who motioned for these changes. Um however, I I think I don't know. I'm torn honestly. So, I don't know. Another thing I'll just quickly add is because it does sound like there is a bit of a divide in terms of whether to move forward. Uh if there is no majority of the body to vote for or against the resolution, then no action will be taken and this would be tabled for further and next another future

and then it goes back to the appeal process because they've appealed it, right? And so we said instead of appealing it, make these conditional changes because it's similar in nature. If we denied this changes, even though we did agree to make this happen, if we denied that today, it um I does it go back to the appeal process. Uh so you need a majority of the of the body so four votes to either uphold the resolution, uphold the appeal and move forward with this resolution uh or deny the appeal and therefore can cannot uh deny the uh deny this resolution. But if it's if there's a if there's not a majority either way, then it's tabled

and then it would go back to city council to make the decision because last time they they appealed it. If we were to approve that, then it would go to city council. If we tonight deny it, um, then with a majority, then it goes back to us again to deny or approve. I believe it there would be it would be an appeal to the city council. Okay. But if someone made that appeal, but wouldn't should we come back with if they weren't moving forward with this resolution? Should we come back again with an the at a future meeting?

A res the resolution we had the first time. Yeah. Is that the best course? I guess if the commission feels that at a future meeting, it's best to revisit this resolution. If there's if we feel like we need to table this for a future meeting to amend the resolution, if there if you all feel that there's u additional discussion that needs to be had, then you could all vote for that as well. But again, there needs to be a majority of the body.

Okay. Okay. Those are all my questions. I have two questions. Um I know it says on section four that we're maximum of 15 RVs. How is the city going to monitor to make sure they're complying with the 15 RVs? Because I guess in the first the whole thing was you guys got a anonymous call that they weren't compliant. So now my question is how will we make sure they'll continue to be compliant with those 15 RVs?

Yes. So that's why we um did have the sixmonth um performance update report as a way of a check-in. Um typically throughout the city we aren't constantly checking on every condition of approval that you all you know maintain compliance but if there were to be ongoing complaints then code enforcement would be going out there. Um, but that's why we did try and build in this six month um update report. But if you wanted it to say something like ongoing perhaps I think ongoing would be best if the all commissioners agreed on that. And then additionally where it says for the emergency ve vehicle access of at least 20 feet on section five. Um has the fire district reviewed the site plan to confirm that when the RVs are parked that there is 20 ft of clearance?

No. So the fire district hasn't um gone out there but that's part of the compliance that we would confirm. But that would be a city compliance standard. So the fire district's a separate agency. So this is something that city staff is confirming compliance with of the 20. I thought um during our discussion also there was going to be something um added that required the applicant to keep the RVs in the rear of the residence. similar to what was going to happen with the U-Hauls, like it wasn't going to be that they could have um the RVs in plain sight of the residents. So, that one point that was a discussion item, but that wasn't what was in the final um motion. So, what was discussed was the um fencing. And then in the staff report there's the discussion about um some of the screening on the um uh sorry that the about the fencing um but the west side of the property which is the front that was what was discussed was the planting plan. I will say this and I'm sure that the other commissioners are feeling the same way and I um know that there was some commissioners who weren't present so they would have to abstain tonight. Um but it does feel as if this is somewhat being like placed at us very quickly when we believe there was going to be like a month's time that it would take to create some sort of resolution. Um so my feeling on the matter is that um we need to be more transparent and make it so that anybody else in the public who would maybe like to uh participate in the discussion could also have that. Um that's just my thoughts on it.

I guess as a commission if you needed what um did you feel this resolution didn't contain that was in the original motion that would need to be changed? Well, like that that piece of it where I don't know maybe in our discussion when we were all brainstorming, we kind of got away from the fact that the RVs are, you know, to be or the idea of RVs being kept in the same uh premises like in the rear of the business where all of the U-Hauls are being stored rather than like in the front of the property. We discussed that and then it kind of the conversation turned to, you know, hedges and we started talking about planting trees and then fixing fencing. And so it sort of seems to me like more of what maybe the complaint was about is the fact that you could see even though the complaint was very vague, it seemed like more of the issue was that they could see that um what was being like the business that was being operated like it was very um apparent that there was a RV rental happening there is what it seemed to be. So, I guess I would look to the attorney again, putting him on the spot tonight on this resol how they would then amend to add more conditions to the resolution. Considering

Yeah, my my concern is that this can be an ongoing process of continuing to add new conditions. It can get really messy. My recommendation would be either uh and I understand there were some uh absences last week and you do need a majority of the body to move forward with either upholding the appeal or simply just denying uh the resolution as it stands tonight. And then therefore uh if you were if the majority of the body uh denied it uh the resolution then the appellent has the opportunity to then appeal to the city council and the city council would decide. I'd like to make a motion to deny um the um the as it stands today.

Do we have a motion on item 5-1?

I second. Okay. So, if I could ask a question on Okay, we are the motion is to deny this agreement. Okay. Kitty, roll call vote. Thank you, Chairperson Weber. Commissioner Spiker. Uh, no. Commissioner Commissioner Suman. Hi, Commissioner Martin.

Abstain as I was absent at the last meeting. Commissioner Perez. Nay.

Vice Chairperson Jones. I is the correct. Okay. Chairperson Weber. No. The motion failed with two nos, two yeses, three nos, two yeses, and one abstension. So, do you have to take another motion for approval or now? What? There there's no majority there. Yes, there's there's there hasn't been a majority vote either way. You need four votes to either uphold the appeal or deny the appeal. So, my understanding was there was two yeses and two nos and then one extension.

There were three nos, two yeses and one extension. Okay. You need four votes either way to either uphold or deny the appeal. So, now it goes to city council and let them decide.

Uh well, yes. So, no no action in this instance has been taken. Okay. So yeah, we'll need it's sounds like they'll they'll need to appeal to city council, but yeah, uh we'll confirm that since no action has been taken on this matter and we'll let we'll communicate clearly that with the process with the appellent. [Music] Okay, moving forward to our next item. Public hearing item 6-1, Vineyard Crossings, PD2024-00002, intersection of Phillips Lane and Oakley Road. Bright Sky Residential is requesting approval of a vesting tenative map for condominium purposes, design review, and a density bonus application for development of a new residential subdivision with 13 37 residential units at Oakley Road west of Phillips Lane and east of Hickory Nut Street. The project includes 45 single family homes, 40 accessory dwelling units, and 52 duplex units along with a recreation center for residents and other amenities. The site is zoned PD planned development district with general plan designations of low medium low density residential and medium density residential and it is currently a vineyard. The applicant is proposing to designate 10% of base units or 13 units total as affordable to low-income households in order to obtain a density bonus of six additional units as well as waiverss from certain development standards in accordance with state density bonus law. Proposed site work includes construction of storm water infrastructure, new private streets and walkways, utilities, lighting, landscaping, and frontage improvements to Oakley Road. May we have a staff presentation, please?

Good evening, commissioners. I'm Nathan Tinclair, associate planner. I'll be presenting the entitlements uh to you for the Vineyard Crossing residential project. There are three recommendations to the city council that we're asking you to consider tonight. approval of a vesting tenative map that would subdivide the project site into 71 individual lots with 137 residential units. The map would be for potential future condominium purposes on a portion of the site creating 52 condominium light uh condominium lots. Um we're um asking uh you to consider um recommending approval of the design review confirming the project's consistency with applicable objective design standards as well as approval of a density bonus application designating 10% of base units for low-income households in exchange for um additional units and waiverss from certain development standards. The project site consists of two parcels totaling approximately 14.6 6 acres uh located northwest of the intersection of Phillips Lane and Oakley Road. Um the project site is uh currently contains an existing vineyard, electrical transmission towers and PG& infrastructure and a paved walking trail. The project site is part of the Almond Ridge South Plan Development District that was entitled in 1991 but only partially developed since that time. As part of the city's 2003 general plan, the western project parcel was designated medium lowdensity residential um with up to six billing units per acre permitted and the eastern project parcel was designated medium density residential with up to 10 dwelling units per acre permitted. Uh both parcels are zoned PD plan development district uh with the original final development plan envisioning a single family development.

State of California housing law provides that a proposed housing project is not inconsistent with zoning standards and it does not require a reszoning if the proposed project is consistent with objective general plan standards um which must be applied to facilitate development at the density allowed at the site by the general plan um and as proposed by the housing develop excuse me housing development project. Um and so therefore, while the project site um does not conform to the previously adopted plan development zoning standards um around things such as lot size and setbacks, it is consistent with the density established in the general plan. Um and therefore per state law, a reasonzoning would not be required to develop this project. Um and as a reminder, we're evaluating this project for compliance with objective standards only. And um waiverss from development standards um provided via a density bonus do not make a project inconsistent with objective standards. Um so just to emphasize that per per state housing law, the city um is quite limited in its ability to deny um such a housing project. Um so again the project includes 45 single family homes um 40 accessory dwelling units which are on lots with single family homes as well as 52 duplex units. Um the applicant has stated that they intend to own and operate the development as rental housing um after completion. The project also includes private streets and sidewalks, a small recreation center adjacent to a pool and children's play area, landscaping, utilities, storm water control infrastructure, and frontage improvements along Oakley Road. 13 of the project space units, 10% um which are proposed to be accessory dwelling units, would be deeed restricted as affordable to low-income households earning 60% of area median income um in

order to obtain an up to 20% density bonus of additional units. The bonus units are being applied to the duplex parcel um so that it meets the density permitted uh under the general plan. And additionally, the density bonus provides that the applicant u may um take advantage of waiverss from development standards um which is relaxing or overall waving of a standard that would prevent a project from being built at the density proposed and allowed. Um, the applicant is claiming eight waiverss, um, including relief from lot sizes and setbacks from the original plan development approvals, an alternative street width, um, and relief from, uh, certain single family and missing middle zoning, um, excuse me, objective design standards such as garage width and building entryway design and orientation. Um, this slide shows the proposed site plan for the project. Um again the project's map would divide the project into 71 residential lots along with various common parcels like roadways, landscaping and amenities. Um the project provides a total of 48 parking spots. This includes 194 spots within twocar garages for each single family home and duplex unit. um 130 spots within the single family home um and um additional driveways for the accessory dwelling units and 84 spots on street. Projects that receive a density bonus are entitled to reduced parking standards um with a maximum parking requirement of one and a half parking spaces for a three-bedroom unit. Um the project as proposed exceeds both what is required for a density bonus project um and also u meets the number of spots that would be required um under standard municipal code requirements as well.

Um so just showing some of the design of the um of the homes. So um these are the single family homes and an example of the accessory uh dwelling unit shown on the screen. Um the project offers three different single family floor plans um and three different architectural styles, traditional farmhouse and craftsman. The designs feature roof and facade variations and projections, recessed entryways, gables, shutters, window sills, trim, and other features in accordance with Antioch's single family and missing middle objective design standards. Um the accessory dwelling unit um while not subject to the same um single family and missing middle objective design standards is designed to reference the um adjacent single family homes. The applicant is also proposing uh two different duplex elevation styles with three different building floor plans. Um and the duplexes are designed to reference one larger home um which is in accordance with our missing middle design guidelines. Um and the um image on the bottom of the screen is the proposed recreation center and leasing office which also references the proposed architectural style of the development. Landscaping would be provided throughout the project site. Um uh there'll be about three and a half acres of landscaping on the site or about 25% of the total project area. There are currently eight trees uh on or adjacent to the project site and the developer will be removing six trees that meet the standard for an established or mature tree um requiring replacement. Um the six trees proposed to be removed are coastal live oak. The project um will plant approximately 300 trees far surpassing the 12 that would be required as replacements for the protected trees proposed to be removed. Um and this includes California native species such as coast live oak and island oak.

The project features a central amenity parcel um with a pool, the small clubhouse rec center, and a children's play area. There's also a second amenity area um in the northeastern portion of the site um which includes an activity lawn for active and passive recreation as well as benches and a petway station. Um and the existing asphalt pathway which runs along the northern portion of the project site will remain with development of the project. Um front yards include a variety of shrub and tree species to beautify each residence and rear yards include concrete patios and synthetic turf lawns to maximize usability. The project also includes an enhanced entryway at the Oakley Road entrance featuring a monument sign, landscaped median, and landscaping on both sides of the street. The project's environmental review was performed um based on the SQA guidelines section 15183 community plan exemption. And this exemption allows that for a project which is consistent with an existing community plan or general plan for which an EIR was already certified, additional environmental review is not required except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project specific significant effects um that are peculiar to the project or site. Um in order to evaluate whether there are any project specific impacts um several technical analyses were prepared including a transportation impact analysis, a technological bi a technical biological report, farmland impact assessment, geotechnical investigation, and a phase one and limited phase 2 environmental site assessment. Um and the analysis concluded that the proposed project would not result in any peculiar effects that would require further SQA review. Um several project specific conditions

uh are also proposed. Um while the project applicant has stated that they intend to operate the development as a rental community. Um given that they are seeking approval of a tenative map for condominium purposes that would allow each of the units to be sold individually um in the future. Um the project is being conditioned that a homeowners associate association must be established um to maintain the private streets, open space and amenity parcels. Uh the project is conditioned to require that the applicant enter into a covenant with the city to ensure the continued affordability of the designated affordable units as part of their density bonus application. Um, I also wanted to note that the planning commission is required to approve uh the proposed private street names which are within the project conditions and are listed here on your screen. Um, these street names uh have been reviewed by uh city planning and engineering staff as well as the Antioch Police Department. And then um lastly, there are some conditions of approval related to avoiding impacts to some animal species that have the potential to occur on site. Um, and this includes things like doing pre-construction surveys during bird nesting season, um, protecting species and nests, um, if found, and a requirement for training of construction staff. Um, and so to conclude, um, staff are recommending that the planning commission recommend city council approval of the vesting tenative map, design, review, and density bonus. Um I will note that we did receive approximately 10 letters expressing um opposition to the project which um you have as part of your packet today. Um and then just a a final reminder that per state housing law, the city is highly restricted in its ability to deny housing projects um or condition them at a lower density if um consistent with applicable objective standards. Thank

you very much. Look forward to taking your questions. May we have an applicant presentation, please? Good evening, Chair Weber and commissioners. My name is Jessica Hidari. I am the project manager representing the applicant Bright Sky Residential for the Vineyard Crossing project. Joining our team tonight, we have the developer and some of our amazing consultants um who've helped bring our project to where it is today. Well, Nathan did a wonderful job covering many of the project details. I'd like to take a moment of time just to highlight some of the project benefits for the future residents and um the city of Antioch. Vineyard Crossing is a unique buildto- rent community um offering array of product types at different rent structures and provides state-of-the-art amenities inclusive to all residents of the project. Here on the screen, you can see an amazing list of um amenities and project benefits. As a result of our community outreach efforts, we heard um we added um different access points to the existing multi-use trail at the north end of the project. We also added Wi-Fi to the wreck building accessible for all the residents as well as security cameras within the common areas. We've also reached out to the city of Antioch Police Department to um to participate in the neighborhood watch program. Here's another look at the site plan that Nathan showed earlier. You'll see the amenities are central to all of the residents within the project. Um, you

will also see the existing vineyards in the PG&E uh land and easement areas that will remain. Um, we will be doing off-site improvements like Nathan mentioned along Oakley Oakley. Um, in addition to undergrounding the existing utility lines, uh, while not required, we will also be undergrounding existing utility lines for the two non-owned parcels that are right there on Oakley. As I'm sure we're all aware, California is in a housing crisis. Only an estimated 15 to 17% can afford to buy a house in California right now. Our goal is to keep is to provide much neededed housing here in Antioch and keep residents in Antioch. Our project will serve the missing middle and give workforce families an opportunity to rent a home without the cost and the burden of home ownership. I have a young family and a project like this is ideal in our case just as it as it is for many others. Um, Vineyard Crossing will also provide um will also contribute towards the city's reena numbers which were required to to meet as well as contribute to lowincome housing care for Antioch. To wrap up this slide and as mentioned earlier, um we are SB330 compliant and I have Jana here to touch on that in just a second. So again, we are providing 13 ADUs um for low-income housing limited to households earning 60% of the area median income. As mentioned, all affordable units will have access to all the amenities um within the project and the deed restriction will remain for 55 years. If you're not familiar with Bright Sky Residential, I highly recommend you guys go on their website. Um, I think you'd be highly impressed with the communities they build and I think the city of Antioch will be proud to bring in

another Bright Sky project here in Antioch. Bright Sky. Bright Sky, sorry, excuse me. Bright Sky leads in the build for rent sector. They develop, own, and manage purpose-built communities here in California and in select markets nationwide. You might be familiar with the Laurel Ranch project here in Antioch, which consists of 216 two-story homes. They also have similar projects in Vakavville and Ley. Uh Bryce Sky is very involved with their man their project management company ensuring high quality in operation. So what does this mean? It means a clean well-maintained community. It means eyes on the community and it means that the rules and regulations in the HOA will be upheld. The rule the HOA that the city will um approve. And really quick just uh I want to further highlight rent versus buy. Um it's a unique opportunity here at Vineyard Crossing of of course housing affordability is an issue. The cost of a mortgage, interest rates, um property taxes, insurance, repairs, and maintenance are very costly. Renting a single family duplex or single family detached duplex or ADU will provide a sense of home ownership with high quality living standards, 247 on-site management, and um access to amenities. Like I mentioned before, build for rent improves stability for the community. For instance, longer tenencies equal stronger neighborhoods, increased housing supply and improved rental standards as well as revitalizes underused land. With that, we hope you can support and approve our project. Um, before Dana Kennedy comes up here, I just want to acknowledge that we did receive and take to heart the um, letters received by the Gold Coast Gold Crest community adjacent

to us. And we did reach out in advance to engage with them. and we still want to listen to any comments or concerns. We'd also like to reserve any time to respond to public comment.

Good evening, Chair Weber, commissioners. I'm Dana Kennedy, a land use attorney at Charts Freeze and Council to the Applicant. Um, as Jessica said, we're grateful for staff staff's collaboration and support over the past many months. I just wanted to take a moment to remind the planning commission and the community of the legal setting for tonight's hearing. As Jessica said, and as you know, the state of California is in a deep housing crisis. The state legislature has responded in part by establishing laws that promote and protect housing development projects, including ADUs. Crucially, these state housing laws allow a local agency to disapprove or reduce the density of a qualifying housing project under only extremely limited circumstances. The Vineyard Crossing Project qualifies for these protections. Nathan did a really good job of describing the protections of the state density bonus law and the project also qualifies for the protections of the housing accountability act. The commission's discretionary authority over the project is therefore significantly limited. We respectfully remind everyone here tonight that under the HAA, the city cannot legally disapprove the project without finding a specific adverse impact upon the public health or safety, which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid. A specific adverse impact is defined to mean a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact based on objective, identified, written public health or safety standards that existed on the date the application was deemed complete. Vague unease about a pending project does not constitute a specific adverse impact. Other examples that do not meet the legal standard related to public health and safety include concerns about property values, the number of cars on the road, questions of neighborhood character, or whether the occupant of a home is a renter or a property owner. This project will not have a specific

adverse impact upon public health or safety, and no evidence has been provided to the contrary, let alone the required prepoundonderance of the evidence. As you know, case law explains that these findings are the only lawful means of disapproving a housing development project that complies with the city's applicable objective development standards, as this project does. Similarly, the proposed ADUs are not the subject of tonight's hearing. Both city and state law provide for ministerial review of proposed ADUs, meaning they cannot be the subject of an approval hearing, are not subject to squa, and are not subject to a public design review process. As you may be aware, the Department of Housing and Community Development is the body tasked by the state legislature with interpreting and enforcing the state housing laws. HCD reviewed the specifics of this project and confirmed that it qualifies for the protections I just described. We trust that the city will understand and comply with the HAA, the state density bonus law, and the state ADU laws and approve the project as proposed. Thank you very much for your consideration. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Sandre Harris. I am the senior vice president of planning for Bright Sky Residential. The team has done a great job of highlighting the benefits of our of our proposed project. I just wanted to highlight a few things. At Bright Sky, we design, we develop, we construct, we lease out, and then we manage high quality rental communities. We control about 3,000 throughout the United States in key markets. But there are two projects, local projects that we have open. And I really encourage you to go visit those communities so you can get a feel. We have two projects. One in Leup, one in Vakavville. They're called Escala and Sierra Vista. If you visit there, you'll see products similar to what we're proposing here. you'll see our single family product, the the

duplexes, the ADUs, even the recreational building will be very similar. Um, I really encourage you to visit. When you visit, you'll see our upgraded interior unit finishes, on-site management 247. We even have on-site personnel that that reside on the property. It's professionally maintained, and we have resort style amenities that Nathan has already highlighted. So, please visit. you'll see we have clean, quiet uh communities where people are very happy to live. So, my time is up. Uh we're available for any questions. Thank you very much. For anyone who'd like to speak on this, I will now open the comment period. City staff, please proceed with identifying the speakers who will have three minutes to address the commission. I received no public comment cards, but I see a gentleman from the audience who would like to speak.

Thank you for your time. You know, it it's interesting because I come before this body and I come before council a lot and speak on housing in our city and regionally we understand the direction that the communities go. um and the control that local agencies have and the legislation that state passes and um things become siloed very quickly and then they become chaotic and out of that it's hard to find um a benefit that serves your community. Um or I should say rarely it's hard to find that. What's interesting here is that this project brings a housing type that is abundant in our community but is also unreachable for a lot in our community. Right? You look at the city of Antioch and as I go through the current projects list, you see roughly 7,000 units at some stage in the planning process here in the city. and you have homes that are costing upwards of half a million to a million dollars. How do people afford these mortgages? How do people afford these down payments? How do they meet the creditworthiness? Um, well, it's getting into a housing model like this, sustaining, understanding what that homeownership, that that personal stake feels like, growing their reserves, building their credit, and moving into a housing purchase model. And so all that is to say that I wholeheartedly support this development and I ask that this developer continue to not just work with the city of Antioch but other regions here because

it meets a need in our community that so many few have. How many families of five are crammed to an into an apartment because they can't find a single homeowner that'll rent to them? And now you have a professional leasing entity that can work with them and understanding their needs and elevating them. And so understanding that this um will be entitled um and maps drawn independently on these individual parcels um I ask the developer to if they do eventually look at converting um open up potentially first right options to the existing tenants should they meet the criteria that is needed for home ownership and the setting there. Um, but other than that, you know, I appreciate the developer and their commitment to our community and the beautiful product that they've brought and to the existing community next door. While I support the developer in reaching out, I would say that that community was built within the last 24 months and their residence next door probably maybe felt similar to them. Thank you.

Any other public comments? I see none. All right, I'll put um the item 6-1 back before the commission for discussion.

Stand by. Uh my first question would be to staff to explain the 18th Street near Freeway as mentioned in the uh letters that we got the half a dozen or so letters that what were they referring to? I have not heard anything about that.

Yes. So I believe um based on the letters that they're referring to what we entitled as the Amcow project and is now known and I think labeled and marketed as the Antioch uh family and senior apartments that's at the corner of 8 East 18th there right next to the freeway. Um so that is uh a new apartment building in town. I reached out to Antioch PD and I spoke to a captain there about the calls for service. So he gave some general information to me and said that while there are quite a few calls there, there are a lot of units and a lot of people at a large apartment complex. Um so this captain felt that overall um the number of calls was comparable to other apartment complexes in the city um call ratio-wise I guess is how it would be put.

So how would that relate to what we are looking at tonight? I couldn't figure out the relationship. That's what I was looking for. Yeah, I don't believe that there is a relationship and certainly um you know the project before you is um you know a new community. These were newer apartments but beyond that um there's really not a relationship um before you tonight that I would say is um relevant.

Thank you for that explanation. My next question is I was not aware and I know you put it in your staff report that you can apply the density bonus to a different area in a development. You you say on page five it says the applicant is utilizing the you bonus units on the east parcel. I was surprised that that could be done. Is that part of state law that they could do that or it's okay? So my my understanding is that if it's part of the same project that's like a contiguous project, you can apply to separate parcels.

Okay. um within the one development and and um as the applicant mentioned, you know, the state did provide some guidance on this project um and certainly supported the use of the density bonus as is proposed. So am I to understand then that gives him eight other units in the duplex section because there were 16 granted. Is that correct?

The 16 is the bonus. So there's 121 base units for the project. 10% you always round up when using density bonus. Um so uh they would be entitled with uh 10 and 10% is the minimum for the low income threshold. Um they would be entitled to up to a 20% density bonus. So that would be 25 units. They're only applying 16 of them to bring the east parcel into compliance with the um density established in the general plan.

So since they are duplexes that means that you only get eight house eight units eight buildings out of that. Is that correct? That it with this model I think that would be accurate. The it's based on unit numbers not building numbers. Okay. So if they had chosen to do extra single family homes for example, it's all units, right? It's not. But in this case, I I think that's accurate how you described it.

Okay. Uh you mentioned in your staff report about the applicant also has entitled to one concession. What type of concessions would you expect if he decides or the applicant decides to come back? which you described that they'll have to come back for an additional hearing. What type of concessions would you expect?

So, the concession is meant to be um a deviation from a standard that is solely for the purpose of saving money. Um whereas a waiver is a deviation to build at the density that you would be allowed to build at um based on the density allowed with the density bonus. So it would be like a material change or um some other treatment that would be specific to saving cost. Um it there are limitations. you can't um wave fees through a concession. Um so it would be limited to some type of design element. Um that would be a cost savings and again they they would need to come back to amend their entitlement application since the waiverss um are part of what you and the city council would be approving. Uh, my next question is, can you show me the location of a asphalt pathway that you referred to?

Uh, sure. I couldn't figure it out. I I hate to say this, but I looked at that. So, um, if you see on here, so the the northern 80 ft is it's part of the project parcels, but it's an easement owned by PG& with electrical lines. And so it you can kind of see it runs along the very top. Okay. And then comes back around through here.

I assume that, but I don't like to be what the word means. Uh you talk about the level of service for Hillrest Avenue and other parts and that they will be they are currently operating at an unacceptable level and this will only apply to a small percentage of the unacceptable level of help. How do we compensate for that if we don't have some sort of plan to improve these areas that are operating at level F if we keep approving projects and and you listed three or four different places where we have level of service F. So my question is, how do we compensate for that? Because it's just going to compound it.

I'm also going to look over to our engineer who can probably explain a little bit more clearly some traffic analysis concepts, I guess.

Hi, I'm Kevin Vancwick with with Inner West. Um I'm work with the engineering department here at the city. Um to answer your question um you got to look at overall traffic and then you have to look at what's impacted by this development and the overall traffic as you know on Hillrest is pretty busy pretty congested and it's a conglomerate of you know all the projects that have occurred in the city and the new projects surrounding the city and the area all converging on that one street that causes a level of service F. And uh we've been working with with uh the traffic engineers for some time on how to uh alleviate that. Sometimes it's a left turn pocket, sometimes it's a right turn pocket that will key that intersection to exceed the capacity. We call it level service because it doesn't quue all the way through it. Sometimes it gets bottled up and then it cues back and it doesn't clean itself out like you see a normal intersection will will glide through and clean itself out or you know everybody will get a chance to go through but in level service F it it it it just doesn't it just it traffic moves and then it stops and it it bottles up and so you you get that feeling like oh man there's a lot of traffic here. So but where I'm going is this is that every tra every project contributes some more than others. And so getting to this traffic uh in this situation, this this project is very much removed from Hillrest. It's a pretty long distance. Um I know our analysis show that it didn't uh really impact it that much. Not significantly. The ambient traffic already existed in the city contributed more to the project. That's why there was no um conditions on Hillrest or any addition specific conditions on this project because there because it was negligible. still didn't answer what I was I was hoping that some way we could figure out how to relieve the problem on Hillrest

Avenue. In other words, I know other places you you uh you have a a setup where developers will pay into a fund and then you take money out of that fund to improve what it is down the road. And I was just cons concerned whether or not this one would be contributing to a fund. And apparently that is incorrect.

That's correct. The city uh Commissioner Martin has not adopted a citywide traffic impact fee, a program to have such program. They they do have other fees in the county that contribute to countywide facilities, but not specifically for city roads yet. They're they're looking at that. They've been studying it for a not long time. Um, but that's something that hasn't been implemented yet. We'll have to encourage the council to come back with something like that. Yeah, thank you for your help. To tea off of what u Mr. Vancowick's saying is also our general plan is hopefully an opportunity for some of that. Okay. More comprehensive planning as well. But

uh you talk about clear vision zones and we may end up back with you up here. Uh and your references. Can you show me what you're referring to about clear vision zones? I think I understood where you were referring to and I believe it was in a particular uh view of one of the items in the uh printed material. I'll have to get down to where the those are, but uh it's uh in your uh I think I saw what you were referring to in Come on, Bob. Uh, in uh B13 of the staff report or maybe it was B5 of the staff report.

So B13 shows the correct site vision triangles. B13, you're correct about that. Okay. Yeah, it's the red the red lines on B13. The little red dashed lines at the intersections are the clear zone. Just to explain on the screen what that is. So these intersections here where if you guys can see my cursor, the private streets meet the new public street. You draw a 50 foot triangle emanating from each corner. And you can't have structures over three feet tall within that triangle.

Okay. And then there's 25 foot sight triangles within the development itself. Okay. Yeah,

that's what I assumed was the uh reasoning. Now if I look at B5, I see something says loss of four parking stalls to keep 11 foot lane width. So this is related to one of the waiverss that I mentioned which is the alternative street design. Um so in order and um Kevin Vancwick please jump in if I misspeak here but in order to keep the lane width wide enough and as close to the um objective standard as reasonable without compromising the density of the project. the applicant is removing a few parking spots that were previously proposed for that location in so there would be no parking in order to allow for the proper fire clearance and safety clearance. You wouldn't be able to park there as well as have two lanes.

Okay, let's go one step further. Because this project has narrower streets, how are you going to prevent people from parallel parking on this area where you've got narrow streets? Because that was one of the things that that was brought up that we are get we don't have standard widths. Are you going to require them to paint it red so they don't park next to it because it's under an HOA and private property? I was just concerned about it and and I've seen where people park on both sides of narrow streets. You can get only you can't get a fire truck through it.

Um so yes, any locations where street parking is not permitted would be painted red. Um the fire district also reviews the building permit plans and and signs off on them. They did review these initial plans and um confirmed that the access appeared adequate. They also have conditions on um allowing parking only on one side of the street when and painting very clear in terms of what you're supposed to paint and mark on the sidewalk. Um, for streets that are below a certain width,

are they also going to be required, I didn't read it, in the project specific conditions, to put up no parking signs so people really understand that, uh, rather than just red marks on the street. So, um, unless there's a specific fire requirement, I don't believe that signage beyond curb markings would be required, but um, you know, I think again that the fire district will be reviewing these plans and I think would comment on whatever is typical or required for marking where the fire lane is. Okay, the next one is a very something that I just read this past week in the newspaper about a rule that CalFire is working on. And that's called five foot dispensable space. And they are basically saying you've got to have 5 foot from your building to any burnable item and they recommend either gravel or cement. Now if I look at the plans, these have only four feet between the ADU and the main building. So, how are we going to get around the CalFire requirement or do we have to?

So, I'm not aware of what specific situations that Cal Fire requirement may end up applying. Sometimes it's just in like a high fire or very high fire severity zone. um which is typically not this area of town um based on current mapping but um Contraosta Fire District would ensure compliance with every um all the regulations. So I haven't heard that that would affect you know projects in this type of development right now.

Well what really brought it to my attention is when I looked over at the fencing plan they plan to put a wood fences at 4 foot levels. That's what bothered me. And and I've seen what a wood fence at a six-foot level happened when the place caught on fire. And that's what bothered me thinking about I here's six feet and the fence is already gone from the place and now CalFire is recommending five foot. So it was just a a thought of a comment that I happened to happen to read this past week. So uh Just a note now on back on exhibit E page 11 which is way back at the very end we are talking about republic services and I somewhere they said uh e uh E13 uh down at At the bottom it says for me lane could we add a add-on lane similar to populate? Was that done? So I'm trying to find that whole um thread here. I apologize. Um thank you. So, my understanding is is that was not added um as you can see on the plans and that the applicant worked directly with Republic Services which is evidenced um later in this letter to come up with a trash collection plan. I believe on that one it was um to instruct all residents to move their um bins to one side of the

street and then Republic accepted the plan with that agreement and indicated their approval. I couldn't quite figure that out while reading this this messages going back and forth. Yeah, the final one. I'm trying to find it here. Oh, yeah. Apologies. I I don't have it in front of me, but I I do recall seeing in the full and I apologize if maybe it got cut off that um they they did indicate their approval of the plan. Okay.

So, apologies if that um got cut out. So, as longow as long as public services is happy with that. Yes. Oh, here we go. It's actually it is at the bottom here. It's just a little bit out of order. Um I've confirmed everything with operations. I'm pending your approval to have the carts on one side of the street and that there's no commercial service at parcel B. Republic Services approves the site plans.

Okay. Uh and I'm for a long time very particular when I start looking at design. When I first joined the planning commission, I was only a planning commissioner. Now I got design review board added to it and I had to do a lot of studying about it and then looking at the design on this. I wasn't really happy because the buildings all look alike even though one may be a farmhouse and one may be you just look at them and they're just look the same to me because you've got one that has a room that comes out. The next one has a room that comes out. the next one has a room that comes out and the only difference is a little bit of a facade on it. I know I can't change that, but the fact is that somehow for staff, as far as I'm concerned, should have a little bit of variety in it because I don't I've gone down streets and I couldn't tell which my house was mine because they all looked exactly alike. And that's what got me to thinking about can we change it a little bit and I liked our design standard that did that. It gave you a little bit of variety setbacks and and the way it looked from the street design. I like that with our design standard. I know we are limited because of the size of the lots and what the state has put on to us as to what we are

required to get houses. But I just like to put that out that I prefer a lot of variety in the way it looks on the street side. Saying that, I do support this project because it does one thing and that gives us lowincome housing or lower income housing. We need it. the people of California need it and I think that is a good idea and I appreciate you coming forward with that. Thank you.

Next I have questions for the applicant. Um is the entire project going to be random or facilitated by the same HOA? Okay. And then how many of the ADU units will be under 800 square feet? All of them. All of them. Just for ADA purposes, we have to speak into the microphone. Thanks. All ADUs will be under 800 ft. So, there's one plan. I think it's 730 26 square ft. So, that will house exactly one person.

Um, it's two-bedroom unit, so it could be two, three, however many people would fit in a two-bedroom unit. at 800 feet. 800 square feet. Okay. Um I also want to ask the applicant, do you guys happen to know um Mr. Decker? We have communicated with him. We've done extensive outreach. We reached out to the community, sent out letters, and we have spoken with Andrew as well. Yes. I just find it interesting that there's over a 100,000 people. Is it something like that in Antioch? Um, anyway,

30,000 people. Well, I'm glad that Mr. Decker showed up on your behalf and I don't think it's by any coincidence that we're having this meeting and you guys are the neighbors to the previous agendaized item, which I just think I don't really believe in coincidence. I don't think that I think there's it's too much of a coincidence really. Um, as far as that, it goes to say when we talk about affordability, um, Mr. Decker said that you are a leasing company and that's exactly what I see here. The way that affordability is created is you create an HOA where if I'm not mistaken the people who buy the property only own the four walls. They don't actually own the land that the residence is on. Is that correct? Yes. Bright Sky will own all of the property.

So basically it's just controlled rent at a high price with a promise of owning something that you don't necessarily own. which I see this over and over again and it's disheartening where it's like we create it's like we create affordable housing and we almost do the right thing. So that's a little bit disheartening to me. And we have a very similar project at the end of uh Davidson, corner of Davidson and A Street. Very similar condominiums, HOA. Same similar, not as nice of a layout, but basically with the same promise and principle. So that's all I want to say.

Um I have a question about the vesting tentative map. It says a condominium map could be recorded for the duplex uh for 46 through 71 on the eastern eastern parcel creating condominiums. So is there an HOA? You might want um so it the HOA I just I think he answered the you answered the question. There is going to be an HOA regardless if it's a condo or not. The HOA is required. That is the condition of a um in regards to the affordability piece. The rent may be affordable, but is the HOA included in the rent? Because once you add HOA fees on top of the affordability, it starts to not be affordable.

This is our attorney. I'll encourage she's drafted the affordable housing agreement.

So, the the details of this will be negotiated in the affordable housing agreement, which will be recorded against title. And we have a draft that the city attorney has not reviewed yet. So, I I don't know exactly what it will say. um as it currently exists. It describes the um the way the maximum rent will be calculated um and what the um property management will cover things like maintenance. There's no they're not paying extra for that each month. They have access to all of the community amenities. There is a section in the agreement that addresses the possibility of the units being offered individually for sale. And under state law, the the calculation for the affordable kind of payment takes everything into consideration.

Yeah, that answered my question. Um, and that was I think the only other question I had. I think the names of the streets are uh they're good. I like those. So yeah, those are my only question my only questions. I have one question for you regarding HOA. The HOA will be different for the people the lower income or be at par with everybody else. It's one HOA and everybody has access to the same amenities. Yeah. But the HOA fees will be the fees.

Yeah. I think how it works is that the and I this isn't something I focused on because it the plan is to offer it for rent and we're still negotiating that agreement but I think the way it works is that the whatever the monthly payment is that the purchaser would make in that scenario would contemplate their mortgage and their um HOA fees. But I'm not I don't know if you know offhand not on the top of the Yeah. Yeah. But but it is something that will be addressed in the agreement for sure.

So HOA will be added to the payment whatever the payment is the lease or purchase whatever they think. So the the household would qualify at a rate that is affordable based on um the math equation that you do for how much they can afford would take into account all of the expenses they're paying including the HOA fees. as I understand it. Okay, let me ask it again. Is it going to be price based? Is is what going to be price based? I think you're asking

use will be price based. So, if somebody's paying $1,500 versus regular rent is $2,000. The CCNRs haven't been drafted yet, so I don't know. Um, but I do know that the total amount the purchaser would pay would contemplate whatever that fee is in addition to the amount they're paying to purchase the home. All right. Thank you. I have another question on the HOA. Um, so being said, is there like a a rate standard you guys are going to start off the HOA?

So when an HOA is prepared, then there's an HOA budget that's prepared. So we have no idea what that amount is going to be. It depends on the facilities. Um, the CCNRs have to be drafted and then a budget has to be prepared. So I have no idea what that would be at this point, but it's not like a set rate. It's prepared. It's project specific.

I think my concern is that we've I've seen a lot of communities like this here in Annioch and the HOA tends to increase every year. And the communities are not as what we got presented or that we've seen. And then you have these people having affordable housing, but they're paying more HOA than their actual monthly rent. Well, that's why it'll have to be addressed in the specific to the affordable housing agreement and in the future CCNRs.

Oh, yeah. Um Dana's reminded me that the city and the city attorney will be reviewing and approving the CCNRs.

All right. Um I guess my question I'm going to start first question I guess I have is surrounds the legal subdivision of the laws um and how it how it works with the ADUs and how that works with you know 13 of them deed restricted for low income. Now, initially, of course, you're planning on um offering these all the units, both the single family residents, the ADUs, and the condominium units all as rental. So, for the time being, everything was basically under the control of the applicant as far as you know, rent and costs and everything. But, um so any deed restriction having to do with low income would be applied and enforced by Right. Um however um one of the questions I had here regarding you know what could be happening in the future um I know it may not be your plan initially but there is a possibility of actually offering the units for sale. So I guess the first question I have is would that be just the condominium units that are offered for sale or each of the residences and the ADUs as you know that are part of this project.

In the event in the future if it was sold um uh there would be there is condom mini map that would be over the duplexes so that the duplex units could be sold individually. And then there's the the single family lots which are already fee simple lots and those could be sold and they would be sold with the ADU and the primary unit on them. But there would be a deed restriction over the ADU portion specific to the affordable requirements on the ADU portion and that would run on title for 55 years.

Okay. So all right. So, if this happens and it runs on title for 55 years, um, but what happens here if the lot, the one of those individual residential lots, you know, with its corresponding ADU is sold as a unit. How do how does the city enforce within that 55year time frame, you know, that this particular uh ADU remains low-inccome accessible?

Part of the affordable housing agreement, there is a monitoring requirement. And so that's part of our question to the city. What is your program? What do you want us to do? So, the city will dictate what that monitoring requirement is, but it will be very part of the um the affordable housing agreement which will be recorded. Okay. Um I think that concludes my questions. Does the city have a monitoring process in place? Because I'm thinking you go on, you type in your address, you make sure that as an tenant, I would be like, "Okay, I'm supposed to be paying this amount and I want to make sure I'm I'm not getting overcharged by uh by the landlord." So, is what is the city's process?

So, we have a housing division and the staff within that um Terry House, you may have seen through the CDBG uh committee. I'm not sure she's ever come here before, but um she handles all of those sorts of agreements and monitoring for the city. I guess my question is more tailored to what does monitoring look like? Does somebody go out there and just knock on the door and say, "Hey, are you guys paying what you should be paying?" Um, so I'm not sure the exact specifics of her process. Um, and I think it depends also, you know, she deals with different types of um, monitoring depending on the project and what the funding sources are and the different rules. So some of that comes through the agreement with the city attorney's office, but um so I don't want to speak out of turn on what her exact process is there, but um she does follow all the monitoring,

but okay. So we technically don't have like a written like I can't go to a website and figure out what the process is. It's just what she's determining it is at the time based on all the rules and regulations. Yeah. So again, in the agreement there is that monitoring piece. So that's kind of with the city attorney such that's not something I've reviewed. So, I just don't say I can't say what it includes right now or what it may include after the city attorney reviews and maybe edits it. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Um, just want to say one last thing. When something is good and it's beneficial, I don't think I think that the product sells itself. I think it need not be said that there's no choice otherwise in the matter. If something is righteous and it's good and it's meant to be good for a community, I don't think it needs to be said that it fits, you know, the state's criteria and you guys can't really say no to it. But with that being said, um I'll move on to motion on item 6-1, the Vineyard Crossings, PD2024002, intersection of Phillips Lane and Oakley Road. Do I have a motion?

Mr. Chair, I move the resolution of the planning commission of the city of Antioch recommend that the city council approve the proposed bestie tentative map design review and density bonus for the development of the vineyards crossing residential project PD20004-00002.

Kitty, may I have a roll call? I second it. You better get a second first. Thank you, Chair Weber. Commissioner Spiker, I. Commissioner Suman, I. Commissioner Martin, I. Commissioner Perez, no. Vice Chairperson Jones, I. Chairperson Weber,

no. The motion passes with four yeses to adopt the resolution of the planning commission of the city of Antioch recommending the city council approves the proposed vesting tenative map design review density bonus for the development of the vineyards crossing residential project PD2024-00002 [Music] and that was chair and commissioner Perez Bino. No. All right, that moves us on to the next part of our meeting. Written oral communications. Are there any written or oral communications?

Yeah, I had a couple. Um, so first off, we have a new website. As everyone knows, there's formatting issues, there's other issues. We're working on it. Um, so bear with us on that. I I it's frustrating for all of us. You I'm over there trying to use it, too. So, um just understand we are trying to fix that. Um you all should have received the invite for the joint planning commission city council general plan kickoff um for October 21st. Um we'll be reaching out just to confirm attendance for that. And I just want to say we're still confirming the exact details, but I believe that the event will actually be at the community center since it's a little bit bigger um for everyone to have enough space. And then one other item is I don't want to say for sure if we are not having an October 15th meeting. Um, but I just wanted to say that I believe this may be um, Commissioner Martin's last meeting with us, assuming we don't have a 15th, but maybe. Um, so I just wanted to say that he's served two full cycles on the planning commission. Um, and we appreciate his service to the city of Antioch over all those years. Um, he's served on the planning commission my entire time here at the city of Antioch. So, I can't really imagine the commission without him. It's going to be a big change. I've always appreciated his thorough review of the projects, his taking the time to visit all the project site visits. I remember you went to every single um uh faith owned property for our overlay district to check it out. It was um very committed. Um I've appreciated his insightful comments and I know

you'll be missed as a very valuable part of our commission. Well, I will say that I got started on the planning commission back in 1988 and I've been through three different sessions with it. In other words, if you look at the rules, you can only serve two continuous terms. So, I got split up the tie and I have thoroughly enjoyed it and I will say that it has been wonderful to work with staff. uh they always seem to come to my defense when I can't figure something out. They will help me figure it out and I really appreciate it. Uh but I'm going to move on to other things. Uh uh I was telling Zoe tonight that uh I just the reason I missed last month's the first meeting of the month uh I was in Alaska. something that I had been trying to do for something like 12 years that I finally did the inside passage on a small ship. And so I'm sorry I missed last meeting because I had some comments about it, but I abstained. But anyway, I really have enjoyed working with the city and trying to get my ideas of where I think the city should go out to the public as well as to staff and of course as a city council. So going to miss it in some ways but not in others.

Thank you very much. [Applause] You will be missed, my man. Um, do we have any committee reports? Uh, the transplant committee did not meet. Whoops. The next planning commission is scheduled for Wednesday, October 15th, possibly, 2025. Yeah, we'll send out a notice um either way, obviously. Do I have a motion to adjurnn? I move we adjurnn. Second. Any second? Second. Kitty, a roll call vote, please.

Yes. Thank you, Chair Weber. Commissioner Spiker, I. Commissioner Simon, I. Commissioner Martin, I. Commissioner Perez, I. Vice Chairperson Jones, I. Chairperson Weber. I The motion passes unanimously to adjourn at 8:12 p.m. Meeting adjourned. Hey, I really appreciate you. It's been a pleasure and I hope you enjoy your travels and your retirement.