Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

All right. All right. Thank you so much, everyone. I really appreciate your patience. I apologize for all those technical difficulties. I'm going to go ahead and call to order the Morgan Hill County Commission meeting. Jenna, if you can go ahead and please start the roll call attendance.

Thank you, Chair Habib. Chair Habib?

Aye.

Vice Chair Lake?

Here.

Commissioners Muller?

Here.

Downey?

Here.

Adamo?

Here.

Wilson?

Here.

And Commissioner Lovato has an excused absence.

okay and if i could please have commissioner lake uh you may either pledge allegiance and be that before uh proceeding to the declaration oh yes thank you with chairing tonight's meeting agenda was duly noticed and posted in accordance with government code section 54954.2 okay i'll ask everyone to stand and face the flag for the play congratulations

you return us

Okay, we are going to go ahead and start the public comment. This is where members of the public are entitled to address the Planning Commission concerning any identity within the Morgan Hill Planning Commission subject matter. Public comments are limited to no more than three minutes. Except for certain specific exceptions, the Commission is prohibited from discussing or taking action on any items not appearing on the posted agenda. So just for some clarification, we're opening public comment for items that are not currently on agenda. So items that are not related to the Morgan Health Devco site off of Barrett and Hill. So anything aside from that that you'd like to address the planning commission on, you may do so by coming up and filling a public comment form. Otherwise, you can also check on Zoom.

I'd also like to take a moment to remind the audience how to make a little comment. If you're joining us today using Zoom, feel free to use the raise hand feature. If you're calling in by phone, you can use the raise hand feature by dialing six, or dialing star nine and then star six to speak. And we are live on Facebook and on Zoom. You can also send us an email at pcpubliccomment at morganhill.ca.gov. I don't see any speakers.

Thank you so much. Once again, we will have an opportunity for those who are wanting to talk about today's item in a public hearing section of today's agenda. Thank you, Jenna. We're going to go ahead and move to the orders of the day. So first we'll start with the minutes approval for July 14. All the emotions. All the emotion. So we have a motion and a second general to all of us. Yes. There are heavy. I mission is weak. I will learn

Aye. Downing? Aye. Adama? Aye. And Wilson?

Aye.

Motion passes 6-0-0-1. Thank you, Jenna.

So now we're going to go ahead and move on to the public hearing. This is most likely what we have many comments that were submitted to the Commission for, as well as those doing this in person and online. So first, we are going to open the public hearing. This is for the request of a tentative subdivision map for 320 residential lots on a 69.4 acre site located on the northwest quadrant of Hill Road and Deer Avenue. And what I'll do is I will go ahead and hand it off to city staff for a presentation and then we'll follow that by opening and closing public hearing period. and going to back to the Commission for any discussion and a recommendation or a resolution.

So, yeah, this is going to have a full decision by staff before we started the presentation.

Yes. So what I was going to wait for is after the presentation, before it comes back to Commission discussion to bring that guidance for the Commission in regards to the item that we have with the discussion.

Okay, great. Good evening. My name is Tiffany Brown. I'm a Senior Planner with the Planning Division. Here tonight to present the tentative subdivision map for the New Horizons Hill-Morganville.co project. Starting off with the project site location. This is an approximate 69 acre site located on the northeast corner of Hill Road and Barrett Avenue. The general plan designates the site as residential detached medium The zoning is also residential detached medium with precise development plan, plan development. The approved plan development with precise master plan was adopted in 2024, along with the environmental impact report that was this project specific analysis for this project. Therefore, the map falls under the CEQA approval. and it's two for two all the mitigation measures within. As part of the plan development, we're looking at the tenant map tonight for performance with what was approved as part of the master plan. As part of that master plan, there were two specific substantial public benefits that are related to the map. One of them is the dedication of four acres of common building space. The second one is the roundabout at Hill Road and Merritt Avenue intersection. In addition to those substantial public benefits, there are other parts of the project that were outlined in the plan development that includes the dedication of 1.76 acres to Jackson Park and also a public trail. This is not going to be readable, so don't worry. It is just to show that the plan development outline the different types of block sizes and standards, which we will also review tonight for conformance with the approved tentative map. But for us is the proposed tentative map, and it highlights the different ratings. So the dark green is the public park area, which is to Jackson Park. The brighter green is the common open space that is provided throughout the project. And then the red dashed line is the trail connection. The table at the bottom summarizes the consistency with the approved PD in the tentative map. So the PD had 320 lots. The proposed map has 320 lots. The common open space requirement was four acres. They have gone bug with 5.3 acres. The public park's dedication is slightly under what was approved, and it is in substantial conformance, and they will pay from BC for the remainder that is not part of the project. And the trail connection is set as signed in the UNHCR line. This is the map that shows the different colors of the different size lots within the KD that was approved. The map on top is what was approved and adopted. The map on bottom is the lots that are proposed. And you can see the same table on the right. So in the different colors, you have a different size lots, and those are the minimums. So a lot of these lots exceed the minimum, but that's the way the standards are written. So originally for the 7,000 square foot and one, there were 64 lots and we have 63. The 5,000 square foot went from 159 to 166. The 3,000 and one went from 42 to 36. And then the other two remain the same and totaling 321s. This is also in substantial conformance with the PDE. As the project progresses and more details are confirmed, like stormwater, things get shifted a little bit. You understand that you need maybe more part of your area of dedication to meet stormwater. And so, of course, the lots had to shift. But they remain with the correct number of lots and are in substantial compliance. This highlights the Hexagonal report that was prepared for the project and adopted as part of the AAR and LOF study. So part of the PD pulled the requirements from the Hexagon Report that was prepared and made it a requirement of the future project. So on the left, these are the key items that are required and what we're looking for. So there is a roundabout at Hill and Barrett Intersection required as part of the PD. But for us tonight, we have a map. The map is the property only. It does show the roundabout at Killing Barrett. This is not its final design. This is still in the process. So the process of designing that portion of the project continues with the design permit and then gets really close to its final, it's pretty set at that point by design permit. And then at offsite improvements, That's when they get down into the nitty-gritty details of where the plants go, et cetera, along with the plan for building permits. So that's the process for now. But tonight is just the map. So the discussion about the roundabout location and impacts is not on tonight's map. It is just here and as part of the PD. The Hill Road Lightning, far westbound left turn lane, onto Fountain O Strive and a new sidewalk and bicycle path. So the new sidewalk and bicycle path is on Hill Road and the improvement is on Fountain O Strive. This is a requirement of circulation. The traffic circle at Barrett's entrance into the community. So if you look at the map in front of you, and this is part of the map because it is part of their property. This is the traffic circle here. So this is the entrance, the main entrance to the residential property. Additionally, the hexagonal report requires a four-way stop sign at Fountain Oaks Drive and Sorel. And so you can see part of this plan, we are connecting Sorel, so it will go all the way through to Dunn, and then there's the stop sign right here at Fountain Oaks that's required. Again, the hexagonal report requires did analyze the traffic and circulation and found this to be the appropriate circulation plan for the project and was approved as part of the PD. The project was publicly noticed and the only two programs were the 600 feet. The site was posted and also updated on the city webpage. We did receive nine public comments that were reported to you when I wrote this report. I think there may be a few more tripled in as we were sitting here, but there's about nine roughly, give or take. And then the next steps for this project would be a design permit. That design permit does come back to Planning Commission. And then they would apply for the building permits, the associated on and off-site improvements. And then they go to construction plans. So that's where you would talk about what roads would be closed at that time or for that phase. Staff is recommending to close the public hearing and adopt the resolution that approves a tentative subdivision map of conditions that are applicable. And that concludes my presentation and I'm here for any questions.

Commissioner, any questions?

Do you want to tell us a question? Yeah, yeah.

So maybe what I'll do is I'll have a clarification after the questions. And so that way the public can also hear before we open for public comment and then the Commission can also hear. But right now I'm presenting clarifying questions for city staff.

I have a small few questions. Definitely. So there's a way to do some of the questions. I can't do the email. So I apologize. I saw some emails very late. So which is a good might be an obvious question, but the EIR that was done in 2024 still legally valid EIR. There's no legal requirement. You don't need to refresh it. It is still a valid EIR. That is correct. Good. Another kind of obvious question, but we list, I think I know the answer, but I'm asking it publicly. The roundabout ahead of Barrett is seen as a substantial public benefit. I'm not sure it really would reach it. Why do you think it's a substantial public benefit? What's the reason you say that? Is it because of its easement of the traffic flow or?

There's a couple answers to that. So there was the hexagon report that was prepared that provides the HARP data analysis as to why the roundabout is better than a four-way signal or a four-way stop for short. And so the data, for one, shows it is. In addition to that, when the circulation was reviewed as part of the project, it showed that it's going to benefit not just this project, but the community and the growing community around it because of how the traffic circle efficiently moves cars through. but still has to slow down in that way. So those are the two critical ones that we feel are very important as part of the project.

Just for the public to get around better, maybe move better, better forward, you know, is the idea. Okay.

I can just add that was approved as a substantial benefit through the PD when that was approved.

It was, okay. Um, this is made in traffic server. I don't know. There's a moment. I mean, just the same thing. You call them to try to serve them around. What's the difference? The words? What does that mean?

The size of the circle? Yeah, I had to ask the same question.

Oh, okay.

Yes. So it's just the size based on the types of roads that it's serving and being, um, or accelerated versus neighborhood, etc. So that's the difference.

And okay, and there's last question. You know, the vast majority of the feedback in here is about track. By the way, the only years that we've talked about this with developers at this moment, you know, we have the same concerns, right? We live in town too, and we see the concerns. But again, just to reiterate, the traffic studies that were done by, I mean, your feedback is, that's all in compliance. So they determined that what has been constructed, the laws, the roundabouts. So that, study still stands as long as there's no from yours from your analysis and staff the traffic flow is okay from the perspective of what really what was the requirement yes and they would have any recommendations if they thought there was a way to make it better so what is approved for the pd is what they thought was the best for the issue over the project all right all right great thanks

Further clarifying questions. Further clarifying questions specifically for today's presentation. Okay, I would like to bring it back to city staff. I know I had a discussion earlier around maybe defining the scope for the planning commission. I think it's a good time for also the public to give you some context around what it is that we have in front of us for today's planning commission meeting. Just for some clarification that, you know, Commissioner Downey also wanted.

Yes, thank you, Charlie. So we are here today to consider a little tentative now. So we will have a kind of map requires that the Commission find that it is consistent with the general plan and any applicable special plans. There are limited grounds for denial that are set forth in our municipal code. Those grounds include things like findings of inconsistency with the general plan or a specific plan or findings on the site isn't physically suitable for developments. Under the state subdivision map act, a tentative map is defined as, and I'll just read from the statute, a tentative map is made for the purpose of showing the design and improvement of a proposed subdivision and the existing conditions in and around it. And it need not be based upon an accurate or detailed final survey of the property. Kind of wanted to kind of frame, hopefully that's helpful as far as framing the discussion. As Ms. Brown mentioned, there are still further approvals required after the tentative map, including design review, and then ultimately a final map.

Thank you. So maybe just a point of clarification to you. So as I'm understanding it, you know, things related to whether the housing belongs here, density, environmental impact before, it's a natural benefit. Those are off of today's resolution for what the planning commission is going to be saying.

Correct. Those determinations have been made previously on the previous applications that have been approved. And so It was again this time before you tonight is just the technical sublima as an inch for that is consistent with the precise development plan for the project that was approved in 2024.

And so, maybe for clarification is my also commissioner that was public he helped me explain or refresh our memories on what it is not this.

So the tentative map is an approval of what the lots would look like. There could be some deviations later on, but it is approving the map that is attached to the resolution as exhibit A. The tentative map for this project within the staff report. And so it's created the natural loss and they don't have the smell final maps are reported.

Okay. So as I'm understanding, you've had the Google, um, have now the map based off that Google. And so that's, I think it's like where the laws are going to be, where the streets are going to be, uh, where the parks, trails, et cetera.

Okay. Okay.

because it's called tentatively mapping, does that mean it could change, or how much could it change? Because obviously, we would probably have to see, this is the layout, it wouldn't come back to be substantially different, right? Or could it be different?

Correct, it cannot be substantially different. It would have to be, basically, there could be a minor deviation where, like, a lot of lines over a couple inches or a foot,

And maybe another quarterback question, too, is as I'm understanding the departments, there is a blue 60 day or 90 day 10 month he explained that time increase.

Yes, for housing developments once a dir has been completed and receive an application for a project. There's a 60 day timeline to review the project Commission or City Council here for either recommendation of approval or approval, approval with conditions or denial. The application was deemed complete on June 14 2026 and so 60 days from that date will be August 14 2026 which is the reason why we are here today before your commission asked to open close public hearing and to make either a recommendation for approval or not application.

So essentially, as we're understanding the commission, our bold release either approve or deny the item that would lie before continuance essentially would mean that we're going to be in three days past that deadline. And if we then feel it's either approved or denied before that deadline, that automatically will go into approval.

Correct. If there's not a decision tonight, And by August 14 that will be deemed approved. Okay.

So really either the denial or approval will need to be made.

Okay. May I? Yes. Just one thing. Attending that is approved by the planning commission. Okay. So we're going to deny it or approve. Okay. It would not go to city council.

Correct. The planning commission is the final decision of anybody for this item.

And if it does get appealed, that's still not within the time limit? Or does that extend that time limit?

The timelines for an appeal are set forth in the municipal code. So if it falls outside of the 60-day window, we're OK. The municipal code defines . OK. Thank you.

Any other clarifying questions on the presentation before we open to public comment?

Yes. Given all the interest, before we go to public comment, we need to understand how many speakers we have. So that if we have an enlarged number of speakers, then we want to consider shortening the time to three minutes of whatever ended on the note.

Thank you for that consideration.

We have eight speakers in person. So far, eight speakers have heard, and I see only one raised hand, but maybe we can re-evaluate that.

Yeah, so I would like to preferably give the public as much time as we can, so we'll give you guys 15 minutes. And for any of the public that is joining or folks on Zoom, would you like to please make that announcement on how they can go ahead and partake in public comments?

Thank you, Chair. If you're joining us today using Zoom, use the raise your hand picture. If you're dialing in by cell, dial star 9 to raise your hand and then star 6 to speak. You can also email us at Send us an email at pcpubliccomment at morganhill.ca.gov. Perfect.

Thank you, Janet. Now I'd like to officially open the public hearing. And if you'd please start with the items that we have for this speaker.

We're going to start with Glenda Garcia.

Please go ahead.

Thank you. Okay. Hi. Good evening. Thank you, planning commissioner.

allowing us to now, for our request for attendance, do that for new provides.

Thank you. Chair is Lindblom? Glenda. Glenda. So just for clarification, the applicant does have 10 minutes. So Jenna will go ahead and start that. Thank you. Thank you.

Well, I feel Tiffany already did a very, very good job. Everything I'm going to say, Tiffany's already said for me. But I will go ahead and move forward. We're here. Okay. As you have been told, it is at Hill and Barrett. It's a 59-acre project, and we've been in planning for over six years with design and redesign. We've worked closely with the city staff, of which I must tell you it's been a lot of work for all of us, and our team of engineers. Our plan development has been approved. Our EIR was approved. Traffic and transportation is approved. Stormwater and drainage plan were in the final review and planning stages with Public Works. We met with our neighbors. We had a social media. So we had lots and lots of comments. We took their advice. We had a three-story apartment that was going to be restricted for seniors, and they didn't want a three-story. We took it up. So we're right. We have four acres of open space. We have a wonderful, we're going to be enlarging Jackson Park, which is right next to Jackson Academy of Music and Math. We have public parks. We have back paths, walking trails, dog park. And we're working on the off-site improvements. What the city tells us to do will be done. That's how it is. The IR report reads and that's how we will move forward. I won't reinvent a new road without the city's permission. The public art and one of the artists is here tonight. He's a local artist. We have a 280 foot long mural that Anthony will be painting and it's going to be the history of Santa Clara County. We're starting with the Ohlone Indians. We're going all the way through even to talk about Mr. Jensen of NVIDIA. So we want people to know who we are and what's been happening here. In summary, we are happy that public benefits, the traffic mitigation, the open space, lots of local jobs will be created during this construction. And then I think the best thing is there'll be property taxes coming into the city. But I think you're all gonna be very proud that we will have a true new neighborhood of single-family detached homes. I thank you all for your attention and for letting me speak. Thank you.

I just wanted to add that if there's any questions in the commission, what are my questions?

Our engineers are here, and D.R. Horton is here. So everyone's very excited. If you have any questions, you can pick on my engineers. They do good with me all the time, so you guys pick on them. Thank you.

Okay, next we have Jim Corson.

Good evening, honorable commissioners. For the record, it's Jim Croson. I'm a retired corporate attorney, a 44-year resident of Jackson Meadows, and I'm the son of an industrial project architect of many years who's passed on. He was also a member of the Danville Planning Commission. I've been around through my naval service and through watching him growing up. I've been around projects of for almost 70 years. Projects of this complexity and this impact. Independent of the merits including the state, local, federal, county, political issues, I rise tonight to object to the lack of a mid-project exit entrance on Hill Road. It is a public safety issue of the first order. I'd like to make two points. Natural and manmade disasters are foreseeable. Torts 101, if it's foreseeable, one must attempt to mitigate the risk. In the time I've been in Jackson Meadows, I've seen dry lightning light the valley floor on fire. The 1984 and 89 earthquakes caused people movement around the valley. Just three or four years ago, a fire that started on the backside of Livermore threatened Jackson Oaks and required evacuation, and Jackson Meadows was on 30-minute evacuation notice. My point, you can't do anything about acts of God, but you know they're going to occur. My second point, it's also foreseeable that Fountain Oaks, Barrett Avenue, Saddleback are not by themselves capable of orderly and safe evacuation of over 3,000 people under emergency conditions. You may want to wish that the act of God doesn't occur requiring such an evacuation. But our experience with the fire three years ago tells us those roads jam up easily. I would observe that during school days, Barrett Avenue and Fountain Oaks are a parking lot just for the drop off of kids who aren't coming to school in a bus. My ask is simply this, take a 50 year perspective and build a third hill road access egress route for safety, even though it is not a minimum compliance requirement. I understand that Rocky and Glenda are in the business of meeting requirements, minimum compliance requirements. I'm overtly asking you to go beyond that and anticipate needs over the next 50 years. Bridging over the federal water line along Hill Road

is not a bridge too far and it will save lives thank you next we have darcy foster followed by francis columbus this will be thanks to

All the folks who came tonight who saw my post on the next little episode, missionaries, it's good to be here with you tonight. I've been involved in this project for 37 years. I can prove it. But the most recent developer has only been the last six. My concern is the program as it stands that keeps changing residents of Jackson Meadows, Holiday Lake, and Jackson Oaks continue to remind the developer they don't address the impact on traffic for already very busy community roads, the road in East Dunn, remembering that East Dunn is the only way down from the hill. The developer does not address increased load on police and fire support, power and water service. We have a concern we have problems with water and electricity now. The impact of increased traffic accessing East Dunn via the back exit is not addressed. We had to cut down one of the turns for people to not exit. Windhill Road from Barrett County went easily entered. Residents have to backtrack to East Dunn, already handling travel route. It's a serious safety issue, supported by recent requests to evacuate, as I mentioned, during a fight emergency. The roundabout that has been suggested does not in any way address commercial traffic. Hill Road is a commercial road. Yellow Farms has huge trucks that come down Hill Road. How they would traverse a roundabout, I do not know. So I'll just put that out for you both.

The negative enrollment impact on the three closest schools

Jackson, Britton, and Nordstrom, it's not even being considered, wasn't even being addressed by the city. The proposed cost of any of these homes has not been communicated. Nobody knows how much these have right upon them. The homes are anything but horrible. The engineering team for the builder has been unable to supply construction timetables over the past six years when I was working to acknowledge even the most rudimentary pre-construction amendments. It seems to be no idea how long residents will be impacted, even before building starts. My overriding concern is, gentlemen, the development as designed is too ambitious for the acreage involved and the access roads leading to and from property. Considering 320-some houses, we have probably 700 vehicles. The project should therefore be downsized.

Thank you.

Good evening, honorable commissioners. read all of the written comments that you got. And these are comments, concerns that people have raised, not just at this meeting, but through the course of this project. I failed to see why we would want to force all the traffic through the existing communities. It would be an utter nightmare for us. It seems so simple to... build the main entrance onto Hill Road. Why not? The other thing is the safety concern for the children at the Jackson Academy of Math and Music. You're going to force people going down Fountain Oaks. Why would we do that? That's the major thoroughfare that these people use to get to and from school. And then in the morning when you're commuting to work, you're competing with them. We've talked about egress during a disaster. That's a problem. And then, of course, the issues of the overstressed utilities, the water, the power utilities. I can tell you I've lived here for about 11 years now and have experienced multiple blackouts because just the power infrastructure can't handle the existing community without major improvements How could this community possibly exist here? I'm not going to repeat everything that everybody else said, but please do consider these concerns. They're being repetitively raised and it doesn't seem like they're being addressed. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

We have a let's be.

Well, city chair. So I want to start with a very small moment over here. So first of all, I want to point back in regards to zoning itself. So in the liberal planning development, it's a privilege. It's not a litigation for the city. So the original zoning was for 9,000 and 7,000 square feet for a plot, but right now we have a little bit different layout of this proposed solution. And it addresses the problem with the actual trough. So second point I want to discuss is about the actual trough screening. So data we have attached to this project was collected at 2019, but right now it's at 2026. So I would like to get recent data regarding the traffic itself. And second point, it follows the date when it was collected. So it was the beginning of the June of 2019. So some of the private schools, like open school, already closed their doors for a summer break. So you can see less amount of traffic control. Some of the private schools closed their doors, which means that less traffic on the one-on-one, and it resulted less traffic on the any parallel roads to the one-on-one. So I really would like to get the better numbers to be sure that we can make really good decision in terms of planning itself. So second part is recording the actual table we have listed in the traffic screening, it's table number 12. So over there we have very huge numbers of cars going through the whole day, both driving. It's really having something like 1700 cars going each day. And along with this, this new construction proposed use additional 1,200s of new cars from Fontaine Avenue itself. So in general, it results in 2,800s of traffic And it's actually a huge amount of traffic for a very small amount of the road we have in between the Fontaine Avenue and the Hill Road. So that part of the road will create a huge problem because of limited visibility. And even if there is a proposal to introduce a stop sign, like a four-way stop sign over there, it will not solve the problem because a four-way stop sign has limited traffic So it will create lines in both directions. So right now, during the rush hours into the school, it creates traffic jam closer. So we need to address it in some way. And yeah, so the main moments is mostly about Fontaine Avenue. So I do propose maybe to close this road and end up with the cul-de-sac in the end, and maybe at most for five extra houses. So in this case, it will not introduce any extra traffic on the Fountain Oaks Tribe, and it will keep this part of the city and the neighborhood in very safe and calm condition like right now. Because I think we probably will not be able to handle extra 1,200 cars. on this mountain avenue, so it's very limited visibility. It's going in one direction, and it's very difficult for our drivers to have a proper estimate of the traffic condition because of this layout of the street. Thank you.

We have Mitch Frame.

Good evening, council. My only credentials are I live on Trail Drive and Barrett. So my concern, and I'm friendly with a lot of my neighbors, our biggest concern is what's going to happen to Barrett and how you can funnel that many people into 320 houses off of Fountain Oaks and Barrett. It's like some have said in the past, My wife and I have a perfect view of Barrett. We live facing Barrett on trail. And so in the mornings, we'll have coffee and sit by the window, talk. And we call it the Jackson Academy Parade because it starts at about 745 and it ends at 830. And I don't know how many bars. That's not including Fountain Oaks, all people that are taking their kills there. Nobody has said anything about this yet, but I understand the need for housing. I don't disagree with it, but some of the planning doesn't take into effect the incredible, like the first speaker said, the safety of this neighborhood when everything is funneled in those two streets for all these new housing. One thing that I'm not sure of, somebody said that they would close Barrett for three years to build this. I don't know if that's true or not, but it's gonna take a long time to do that construction. Where does all the traffic go during that construction? Is it gonna be a one-lane road in and out? I don't know that. So my main concern is the safety, the quality of life. We want everybody to have a good quality of life. I can't understand why they cannot make an ingress off of Hill. I don't get it. There's plenty of room there. You can make an ingress. Somebody said something about the water comes from San Luis to Los Gatos on Hill Road. Okay, I never knew that, but like he said, you can put a bridge over that. Something has to be done to protect the people that have been living there. We're almost 20 years That's my, my comment. I just think it needs to be rethought a little bit.

Thank you.

Thank you for letting me speak tonight in commission. And two key points. First, we need affordable housing in the community, but this development is not giving us enough on-site affordable units. It says in your report, the Planning Commission's death report on H-2 and 12, it says that 15% should be affordable housing. But in lieu of those nine units that are not included in that, the developers now plan to pay an in-group fee. This should not be allowed. So, this does not serve your constituents. This is not legal. Purpose city requirements, from what I understand, Why is the city allowing this? The solution is do not add more units, but make nine of the current units already included in the plan to be affordable housing to comply with city regulations. Second point. Let's try. Good. Okay, good. All right. There you go. All right. According to your planning commission staff report, pages 5 and 10, and Appendix J, transportation report, pages 14 through 20, Currently, our LOS, which some people may not know, is the level of service that means that that's how they rate the traffic in that area. Currently, on the corner of Hill and Barrett, the LOS is rated A through B. And according to your report, I don't know if yours or the city's report, by 2030, when they plan to open this development, Hill and Barrett will be rated E to F. That is completely unacceptable, not only to us as a community, but to our, as many people said, to our emergency service vehicles. E through F. That's what you're going to do to us? So for the people who don't know, L-O-S-E means traffic is at or near capacity, unstable flow with significant delays and frequent backups. LOSF is forced for breakdown flow, gridlock, traffic demand is higher than capacity, causing long stop and go queues. This is one of the main authorities to go in and out of our neighborhood for hundreds of homes. This is not to serve your constituents or the community emergency services. So there's been talk about a roundabout So that roundabout, to put that one in that corner, from what I understand, a roundabout has to be really big. So there's three homes on three of those corners. So are you going to get rid of those homes, buy them out, flatten that out, create a big roundabout? What size do you need for that? When will you go in? Or I do propose maybe a solution is to put in a traffic light. And according to your transportation report, NXJ, pages 14 through 20, Putting in a traffic light is suggested there, and doing so will make it an LOSB as in Boyd, Braden, as per your report. Thank you. Very kind.

All right.

Thanks for having us here tonight. The other speakers have covered a lot of great stuff. I think they covered many great things. What I read from some of this paperwork, the LOS or the LOF, what is it, LOS? So A through F. I mean, I live in the area. I haven't lived there that long, but the roads aren't great. I don't know if you guys have turned around over there. They're not great. And they're A through D, and now we're going to make them D through F. I mean, I thought DEF, I thought those were bailing grades. Why are we saying that's okay to have roads that meet that requirement? I would think we'd be wanting better roads. So that's an issue. The issue of access, I've heard this from multiple people that Barrett may be closed down for a significant amount of time, maybe years. That's going to severely impact, I heard earlier, the quality of life of people around here, the safety. How do we think that's acceptable? Is that having, reducing our quality of life and our access and our egress, is that considered acceptable to the city council? I'm just not sure how these things normally go. I'm new to this type of environment. So I would like you guys to just consider that. Thank you.

Well, Laura, it's all right.

Good evening, everyone. Thank you very much for all the work that you're doing on this. It's very important work, and that's why I think we have to address this cautiously and with perhaps way more input than what you had. And I do understand that you send out flyers and all that, and I'm sure we met the minimum qualifications for that. I'm going to be speaking more about the process. My name is Dolores, and a lot of my family members live right around Jackson Meadows. We moved here, my husband and I moved here with our children in 1994, went to Jackson School, not the academy. And what struck me about moving here is the openness, the value of having open space very close to your home, the value of having lots of areas to play around the schools, around the homes, and the thought of having 320, whatever the number is, density plus two to three cars per Per unit of her home is pretty scary. Yeah. And I don't think that what you presented today is really very convincing I concur. I agree with all of the Excuse me, all of the comments that were made here earlier in writing specifically And I do think if there's an opportunity is that you may want to consider bringing in a different population that lives in the district. who don't speak English, perhaps, who have not been made aware either by their own doing or somebody took the information. Because I really think that folks really need to understand what's going to happen to our neighborhood. Like the gentleman right before me, our backyard where we can look at our kitchen, same kind of thing. You know, see the water and the bath. Before that, our children will just jump over the fence and go to school you know they didn't even have to go around it so um every day when i go to work in san jose it takes me a solid half hour to get out of where i live to uh all the way to 101. so um it's scary to to say yes to something that is well put together there's no doubt there But do we all understand it? Does the community truly understand it? And I think there's a community in near Jackson Meadows that perhaps would not have a clue of what this means. So if you could consider having another session like this one in a different language, perhaps two different languages, I think that would be a very inclusive thing to do. You might be thinking, oh geez, we don't have time. Well, we do have time because That's what we're here for. We're here to serve our community. So thank you for listening and thank you for your work. Appreciate it very much.

Hey, and one more thing. These are cards from the audience. Anyone else who would like to speak from the audience?

We still have speakers online.

Do you want to come up, sir? If you can please state your name for the record. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Calvin Thomas, and I've lived in the neighborhood for 30 years. I don't know if any of you live in the neighborhood. If you do, you certainly understand the concerns, especially the ability to get in and out of the barracks. I also want to speak to the concern that's been raised several times The open question is very going to be closed during the construction. Now, I think the biggest problem with this type of forum is we all have questions that nobody will answer those questions. You all get to sit there, hear what we have to say, but nobody will address us. So what I would love to see is a forum where the builder and where the city can sit down with us, members of the community, hear our concerns and answer them, as opposed to just kind of sitting silently back there. And then we wonder, do you really hear us? Because I've attended a couple of these meetings already, and the same concerns come up, and yet at no point have I heard an answer to any of those concerns. Let's have a forum where we can speak to you and you can answer us. Thank you.

Maybe before we go back to the applicants, I just want to see if anyone else has any public comment in the audience. We also have two speakers online. Kelly Stover on Zoom. Hello? Hi.

Hi, you can hear me? My view of you just dropped out. My name is Kelly Stover. I've lived in the Mirabella Circle since 1995. My concern is I was able to quickly look over the list of documents. I wasn't able to actually read some of them. They seem to be locked. But what I didn't see listed was any kind of risk assessment from any, for example, a crime assessment from the Morgan Hill or the county sheriffs. I did not see a fire risk assessment from either Cal Fire or the Morgan Hill PD. I did not see an insurance assessment from the... You know, the state commissioner. So... And emergency services. All of these... things may be connected to transportation. In fact, a lot of it is. And I know that other people have raised up the concern of having either Barrett closed for extended period of time or not having the access directly from Hill Road. What I would say to this is the risk of, there's a certain inconvenience to not being able to have all your traffic for this development go in and out directly onto Hill. And it's inconvenient, so that reduces our quality of life. But the bigger question to me personally is that the risk that this increased traffic and lack of ability to evacuate or for emergency services to get in, first responders to get in, is that you could... really wind up with people dying or people being severely injured because of that lack. And I think that certainly will put the city at risk as well. And I think insurance companies are going to be able to notice this increased risk and raise the cost of insurance here. which is also a financial burden on the community here. So I want to raise this and I agree with the previous speaker that it would really be good to have the forum where these things, these questions get a response from the city on record of what you are willing to, you know, what risk you are willing to take as the city of Morgan Hill, because you will be clearly sharing that risk with the residents here and with their new residents that will go into this development. Thank you.

Hopefully you can all hear me.

Good evening chair and commissioners. My name is Joshua Safran. I represent the Sanchez family who are the owners and the residents of 2050 Barrett Avenue, just off the corner of this project. I wanna thank city staff for including our written objections in the agenda packet and for adding some conditions that acknowledge our client's property and the potential impact from the proposed Hill Road and Barrett Avenue roundabout. And while we appreciate those draft conditions and that they now require some basic roundabout plans, At the design review stage to minimize impacts to the Sanchez's property and require the developer to obtain necessary public rights of way before the final map is approved. It doesn't fully resolve the problem for us for months, the Sanchez's have been trying to address these issues cooperatively and informally before they hired me. And then when I came on board, I helped them as best I could. And we're not trying to be obstructionists, but we are asking for basic information and assurances before the city approves this map and the offsite improvement framework that it may very well impact the Sanchez's home and their ability to access it. Months ago, we contacted the developer and requested the plans and a meeting to understand what is actually proposed at this intersection and how might it impact the Sanchez's and their neighbors. The developer referred us to their attorney, who declined to provide that information directly, declined a separate meeting with us, and told us to raise these issues through the city's public process. So that's why we're here tonight. It seems like an inefficient way to do things. The current conditions still defer too much. They say the roundabout plans will be revised later, and that right-of-ways must be required later, whatever those right-of-ways may be. But they don't prohibit entry onto the Sanchez property or protect their driveway access. They don't require advanced construction notice. People have lives. They need certainty to be able to know if they're going to be able to get to work in the morning and have their kids go to school, etc. They don't require a survey with an exhibit showing the Sanchez's and everybody else for that matter. where exactly this roundabout's gonna be, what it's gonna do. And it doesn't require any kind of coordination beforehand, before construction proceeds. We don't think these protections are burdensome. We think they're kind of reasonable, basic safeguards whenever a public improvement is gonna impact private property. So we respectfully request that the Planning Commission do one of three things, either continue the hearing, so that the city, the county, the developer, and the effective property owners, including plenty of the people that spoke tonight, can have the information that we need to meaningfully understand what this project is going to do or deny the tentative map without prejudice until those protections are in place or at the minimum add some specific conditions of approval that would provide the kinds of assurances that the Sanchez's and others are looking for. And those conditions should clearly state that approval of this tentative map does not authorize any interference with 2050 Barrett Avenue that no driveway access is going to be adversely impacted, that no final map or associated permits or work may proceed if it requires or assumes use of the Sanchez property or anyone else's private property, and that the Sanchezes get to receive the revised plans, any right-of-way exhibits, traffic control plans, construction access plans before there are further approvals. So we ask that the commission not approve the map at this time because it effectively locks in off-site improvements that are potentially adversely affecting private property without any clear enforceable protections for the rights of the affected owners. Thank you very much for your time.

I would like to make a couple of comments, either online or in person. I don't see any raised hands.

Thank you, Jenna. Actually, I have a question. I was actually going to just remind you that the app is allowed. Can you remind me of the timing on the response? Yeah, I know we're wrapping it up. But you had probably been working five minutes.

Thank you very much, Rocky Garcia. I just had two minor comments.

One next to the park, we're working with the city for a well site.

They're going to be put with the drilling out there as we speak, and hopefully we'll have a well site next to the park. The second thing is regarding the roundabout and the traffic circle. We can say that we're very proud that we did the very first roundabout traffic circle at Capriano in the city of Morgan Hill. It works.

I get your questions about the roundabout our engineers are here. They can answer them. As I said, you're going to ask questions. I don't know.

Do you have anything else you're looking to know? And I said any questions from the Commission specifically at this time for the applicant because once you close mobile will not permit for any questions.

But that this is asking parents to be closed or if I want to

As far as for right now, we're currently in the applicant comment period. We will address comments that we have from the Republican, and we'll make sure to pass those and say so.

Thank you. Which, interestingly enough, that's what I was going to ask. If you have a comment to the closure or not of Barrett during the inspection.

It will not be closed for three years. That will not happen. How long? How long?

Okay, so I might answer that question. Number one, we'll never close both of them at the same time. We will close Sorrel first, and then after that, then we would do Berry. But more importantly, we will do it during the summertime, and we would, after work, you know, we would start at 9 o'clock or 9.30. After school. Now, there's school to start at.

During the summer, we're going to do those two. And Adam, I would assume that that is all part of the public works permit for that offsite work, traffic control, traffic closures, et cetera.

Yes, and there's certain requirements on that. We have our electrical engineer stuff here where we can discuss stuff, right? And we maintain standards throughout the city when we do that for standard approaches.

And of course it would be impossible to do any of those things right now. Thank you.

Before we move on, sorry, I would just like to add that there's a phasing plan of the project that has to be assessed. And so while there may be 19 of the different roads that could be closed first, we won't know that until we're ready and have those plans in progress. And that's closer to the construction.

Just to answer the specific question of, or is the claim that someone thought we're closing the road for three years does not expect That is correct. There will be exposures at certain developments during certain phases and certain times, but not for free exposure. That's correct.

So our engineers are here and they're happy to share 50 cells and answer questions related to the traffic, circulation, et cetera. We can come back to that.

Great. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions before we close, public comment? Okay, so we'll officially go ahead and close the public comment, bringing back to the Commission. Before we do so, there were several questions that didn't come up during the public comment that I've noted, and so if city staff may take a brief moment to answer some of those questions as there were several that have come up consistently. So one was the closure. Do you know roughly a timeline on how long certain road closures may be?

Our city engineers are coming out to help you out. Good evening, commissioners.

I'm Christian Wallace. I'm a supervised civil engineer here with the City of Morgan Hill.

Good evening, commissioners. Marie Angeles, senior engineer, land development engineer.

So to answer the question about Barrett, typically roads are not closed unless for a full closure. The traffic may go down to one lane for a brief period of time to facilitate the construction, but full closures are a last resort. And that gets worked out during the encroachment permit process when the contractor has developed their traffic control plans, and we can see how they plan to phase out the public improvements. And that usually comes with reduction of hours, especially near a school zone or arterial roadways. So we take a look at that later in the process.

And as mentioned, traffic control plans are the means for us to make sure those are, right, followed and, you know, closures.

And then Christian also mentioned about, you know, doing drop-off pickups of school and during the summer would be the best time to do that. Any, like, partial closures and then evening work should not be, right, also an option.

So to answer a specific question, I know dates are not set yet and so on, right? But are you anticipating forward orders at some stage for some period of time?

I would think so because like for Barrett, there's like a overlap, right, of the existing road and the future road.

So there's some portion of it that you cannot like not close it because you have to build it in order, right?

And would that be days, weeks, or are you on the way?

That's to be determined by the contractor. They know their construction sequencing. That's usually why this is handled later in the process once a contractor is on board. They develop a plan on how to do it with an existing roadway such as Barrett. Usually they'll try to work on the fringes and then come into the inside so that the traffic can be maintained. And we'll be working with the contractor and the developer at that stage to try to minimize the impact. and any full closures if necessary will be the shortest amount of time that we can feasibly do that. And just trying to limit the impact of the traffic for the residents.

Can I follow up a little bit? First of all, you talked about these are in all likelihood will be fairly short in in closure time we're as sure as you can make them right correct we're not talking about many months in typical no okay how long in advance would we know so that we can inform the neighborhood as we're going through the construction of a large project like this of when things are going to happen uh that's a special related

Yeah, that's a great question. So we have several methods to communicate with the community. We have the scoop, which is on the city's website. We have the Morgan Hill 411 that regularly put out updates in the status of the construction. Any closures are going to be noticed a minimum of two weeks in advance and a certain radius from that street. The minimum is typically 600 feet, but that can be expanded depending on the impact. And so we would at

notices as we get closer to the construction i would surely i think the neighbor would would love to have warnings farther in advance that this is coming up so that they have times to react i mean doing it in the summer whatever while school is in session and things like that help but two weeks notice that that really might go down for a while it seems a little short

So those are the minimums. We can absolutely work with the developer and the contractor to extend that time once a construction schedule has been set forth as we get closer to construction.

Can you also set up like an email notification where people can sign up for these updates so that we're not talking about necessarily 200 or 300 feet? It can be a much larger radius that are very interested in this, and that would be a way for them to get the information.

Yeah, so that's what the morning of 411 is their email blasts to send out community updates and so residents can sign up for those notifications and they'll get an email in that newsletter. It's much more citywide than localized, but that would be the email notification.

Project level emails like we do during the time of days. Not to my knowledge, no.

I mean, one thing to add is when there's a contractor on board that the city requires the contractor to give notice. So if they think that it's certain houses will be impacted mostly, then that would be, I think they do door to door if I'm not mistaken. So they actually want to talk to give that information to the property owners.

That's also correct. And that's the two we can notice.

Okay. There will also be a phasing map, right? Yes. You have the phases of the project that are being built?

Yes, that's correct.

Okay.

When my time comes, I'll ask another question. Do you have any follow-up questions or any questions for the

I know tracking is not part of this, but I'm sorry. I know tracking is not really something that we can turn down to any map form, right? But why was there not an access onto Hill directly?

So there's several factors that go into establishment of intersections. Hill Road has established a high injury network for our master plan. And so there's intersection distances to account for on our interior roadways, such as Hill Road, as well as creating those what we call conflict movements. So crossing a lane at high speeds, it's conflict movement, potential for injury. So we try to limit the amount of access points on a high speed It's not intended to be high speed, but arterial networks. And so since there's an existing intersection there, the preference is to maintain and improve an existing intersection where these movements already occur rather than creating a new one.

Right. So there's traffic safety concerns at arterial speeds that set a minimum distance between intersections, especially if there are stops or traffic signals so that everything can move. By interjecting a street too soon, you actually can cause more congestion than you would get if you didn't put it.

That's correct. Also with the Tending Creek and the water line along the Hill Road, there's several agencies that get involved and they have their own say as well. It just adds to that complication.

And another complication you're going to have is because you have several people and some laws that tell you linkage can be near that creek. That's correct. And they have to be factored into the plant. And I know the public is asking a lot. I hate to say it this way, but it's sort of a weird thing. We haven't gotten to that level of detail at this stage of the program. Right. To know a lot of the details that you're talking about here, as was stated by the city attorney, right? This is a high level still, right? The details come in the next steps. And for the people who have been here for all the meetings, and I've been around for a couple of years on the commission, we hear you. We absolutely hear you and we understand what the issue is. It is just in any project, but especially one this large, we just don't know the fine details yet. And you combine that with the new state laws, which the city attorney addressed at the start of this meeting, we only have a few days to the new state law says this map will get approved okay that's correct so we have to either act uh with an approval or a denial or a condition but we just don't have the leeway to say we can wait because the new streamlining laws just don't allow that that's correct

So I guess maybe a follow-up question. I think this also came up several times. See, you know, Kauffman brought it up. Ryan also talked about this a little bit in public. Liz brought it up. Francis brought it up. And so it was really around traffic, right? And then the entire discussion around traffic, anywhere from the data being from 2019 to the traffic being so much working costs. access issues, especially during the evacuations. You know, I think Jeremy mentioned that too, when in situations where you have an active call or an emergency. Can you talk a little bit more about, or city staff here, about traffic, the impacts on access and how that can actually make a situation where it affects safety now?

Jeremy? And just after that, yes, it will follow it in and include it and make you covered in the degradation of LoS LoS rating. Yes, I'm sure there's a response to that.

Well, yeah.

I just wanted to know the emergency access portion of the question. So the project was reviewed by your fire control and also our fire prevention team. to look at access and pathways to get to not only the new residential proposed project residents, but also continued circulation to the adjacent residents and found the project consistent with overstanders. So I'll let him talk about this.

Sure. If it's related to that question. Sure. So, you know, it's kind of obvious question took me in, especially for the public here. So you're saying in the park, I'm not sure how much it comes. And as an expert, he looks at one exit, right, out of the 320 units, and he says that's safe, right?

Is that right? Because there is more than one exit. So yes, you're right. There are standards, and there are standards for the number of residents and how many exits are required for projects. Where is the other thing? There's one more entrance that will call the entrance to this whole project. And that's the rest of the new approach. Those are entrances and exits. So there's about six of them, and I can pull them out. So you have Fountain Avenue.

I think we have it. I don't see it. There's two or three.

Well, I'll just point that out. It's Fountain Avenue. Sorrel is being connected through the project. So that's a connection there. Uh, she barely got this at all. Okay, I see.

And then in addition, there's three emergency vehicle access points as well along the road.

So just because it's a big topic, right? I know it's not really a consideration for this approval, but I think it's part of the public's here. So there isn't just one interest. You can come into other streets. Right, right, you can go on to a street so not everybody has come down to the wrong. But there's three to four different ways you can get it now that's correct. But it doesn't work. It's not like everybody comes to one spot. Not enough tonight.

Some of those that provide the public comment is close to the same street. Some of you appreciate that and has this as a number is going to bring back to the Commission. Thank you.

So, okay, so again, just for public record, right, I was misunderstanding too, but there is multiple ways in, there's multiple ways out, there's multiple ways in for emergency vehicles and how, and in the case of emergency evacuation, we assume all routes, maybe all the traffic could be, could be utilized.

Yeah, as far as an emergency evacuation, Tiffany can promise me it goes better, but it was brought up during the EIR and compared against the strategic uh, plan in the case of an emergency, and that was handled during the project. Yeah.

Right. Sure.

Um, and it was for a kind of clarification. Is it possible you can point this out? So we're not clear on what it says.

And then we will get to another question that I have a statement to me.

Okay, so this is Hill Road here. This is Barrett Avenue here. And there is one access point here. So the project of Barrett, there is one main access here. And then it connects, this project will connect Storrow. So this connection goes here and all the way through to Dunn. And then there's also a connection here on Fountain. And that goes to Mountain Oaks, which then access to Hill Road.

Do you have any follow-up on your questions?

I think the only question we haven't covered is the designation of the LOS rating. Yeah, so the traffic analysis that was done with the project's EIR has identified degradation with allowable service at each intersection. Those are unmitigated level of service degradations, and then it recommends an improvement. So going to the roundabout specifically, it degradates the LOS at the intersection to ERF without mitigation. If you put in a signal there, it mitigates it up to level of service the best rating that you can get for an intersection. So those are the unmitigated impact to the project, and then it recommends improvements to bring them all to an acceptable level of service.

So can I just add to that? Sure. Again, for the account of which it was the perception that this is all done, that perception was, or at least the understanding was, At the completion of the project and with the flow of traffic, we'd be dealing with an E and F rating, but if we make the improvements as suggested, like for example, you said a roundabout, that the assessment says that will come back to a level A. That's correct. Okay. And then I think you just answered the question, why a roundabout versus a traffic light? I'm assuming you get a better, more flexible flow depending on people going in and out of where they're coming from. Is that a roundabout to give a better overall rating, right?

Yes, roundabouts move traffic more efficiently through an intersection rather than having to stop at a red light. You yield to different intersections as the volume demands. It's also speed mitigation along Hill Road. It's very long, very straight, very prone to speeding. So roundabouts naturally try to incur that speeding.

Which is a big man demand. Let's catch everyone.

Yeah, exactly. We should implement more of those. Yeah. several benefits to an intersection as opposed to a standard signalized intersection.

And one other question came up, sorry, which I assume is just your standard. How are trucks going to get around the roundabout? Of course they're going to be able to get around the roundabout. It's going to be designed to allow a full 53 foot truck to get around, right?

That's correct. So during design review, we'll establish what the which is the concrete pad in the middle. And so the back wheels can sweep over that without damaging landscape while the cab makes its movements around the intersection. So that'll be all analyzed during the design permit to ensure that those vehicles can make it through.

So we're going on to the next question. There was a question about if a if there's not an approval or denial tonight what happens then the question is shifted very quickly on the traffic um so one of the things i want to point out is that there's no decision tonight or if there's a continuous or anything like that it will be automatically approved on august 14th but with that there will be no conditions of approval because as stated in the title they are conditions of approval and the commission would have to improve the project with the conditions in order for those conditions to remain. If there is no decision, there are no conditions.

Okay, and just a clarification, in the instance of a denial, and in the instance, for example, it's significant enough for not to be able to make the change to the tentative map, the denial would allow the opportunity to make the changes based on that, or how would the denial work?

So the denial is based on certain findings, and the findings are that it's found that it's not consistent with the general plan for the site, it's not consistent with the precise development plan for the plan development, the master plan for the site, and the third one is that the focus of

Yeah, we're going to think this is the times.

This is, you know, I'm going to say to them that there is that's not in class with something that word apartments or so that's not consistent with the solution, not for the

so i mean from our standpoint those are the three things we look at for our example that's the three things we have to look at right i mean is it consistent with the general plan yes the density is within the allowed density right second is it in substantial compliance with the pd I think it's been pretty well documented that it is in compliance with that. And I haven't heard any objection from anyone that says it's in defiance or not compatible with the city's map, the city map ordinance or the state of California's policy. And we've tried to spend a few minutes here answering as many of the questions from the public is we can, but what we have to do to act on this, we have to act on those three things. All right.

Yeah, I get that. I just want to, I don't want to delay it because I completely appreciate your objection to what we have to let us, but to be respectful to people who can, there's a couple more questions that I wouldn't mind getting a response to at least. Yeah. You know, if you wouldn't take, I know they're not correct really, but maybe just a quick response. And I don't know who the right people are. Charlie, you can write it up. There's a little bit this one we're going down, you have a floor, we should go ahead and use the funds.

Well, my action is me to take make a motion with getting into those questions you want answered in the discussion phase of the motion.

That's fine. So there was other questions came up. And I know they've been addressed as we do this every year. But can we just respond to the questions around The, you know, electrical impacts, water impacts, how are schools going to deal with this? I know you addressed all that. Would you mind answering those questions? Yes, sure.

So this project is proposing a density gap was planned for in this area. So it's not exceeding the density gap. It's evaluated as part of our 2035 general plan and part of the EIO that's prepared for it, which analyzes the infrastructure that is required to support the development. So there is sufficient infrastructure for this development.

So for example, Valley Water PTV would have assessed it, and their response is, we have key services available to support this expansion, right? Correct. And the school district would have done the same. And so they've all agreed

The project was run into the all the school districts that would have been impacted by the new development and they are mediated with state or impact fees to support the growth of the school.

And then lastly, sorry to be sure, police and fire, please. Correct. They've also assessed and said. We've had enough infrastructure and police and fire to support it. Okay.

I think that was all I was able to, I don't know if anybody's in here. So, Chair, do you want to ask people to comment or ask questions? Oh, yeah.

So we will go around. I think there was one other one. I think this had brought this up from the public. This was around affordable housing. So if you can see the rest of that one, that was from not meeting the 15% minimum requirement.

Yes, thank you. So we have a inclusionary housing ordinance that requires a minimum of 15% or approval of paying an in-route fee if the city finds that it's preferred over providing that 15%. So what this project has done, instead of providing 15%, which is preferred by the city, to get the full in-route fee payment so we can do a more substantial project on that side of town, Um, what they've done says required the service substantial benefit of EPD and this project, and that is to provide these five lots that are affordable by design. The reason why that's not talked about now is because it's. Pertain to the lot size itself, but to the size of the home. And so there's lots and there's home sizes are smaller. and therefore considered affordable by design. So 55 will be restricted to the best smaller size.

If I can bring up our housing and economic mobility director to address this question. I'm not sure if he heard the question. I just walked into the room. But the question is about the inclusionary housing ordinance and how does this project meet that

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Housing and Economic Mobility Director. For this particular project, when it was approved by Council, as part of that approval and that agreement, the project is 100% fee-out. There is no affordable units under our inclusionary housing ordinance. Council does have the authority to grant 100% fee-out on a project of this size, and that was part of the discussion council entertained the review of this permit some time ago. So the project is completely feeing out. There are not going to be any affordable units under our inclusionary policy. And that is a power that the council does have for certain projects, allowing that to be considered. All things being considered, the project is feeing out.

Sure. And then just to confirm that with that was already improved back in training for for the whole field where they don't have to build that they didn't put money. But everyone has some question. Okay, I'm going to ask john just in

A minute or less. Can you sort of let the neighborhood know why the city would take a 100% fee out? Well, that is a large sum of money.

Yes, it's several millions of dollars. It's close to $10 million in a few. Just to be clear what that means is when a project fees out or pays in a lieu fee or part of the fee, those funds come into a restricted fund that the city has specifically for affordable housing. And that either allows us to contribute to projects, buy down affordability levels of projects, buy land for affordable housing, or put money into projects, say the Royal Olmst project, which was, the project that was supporting rapid rehousing and agricultural workers. So that fund is used exclusively for housing and not the impulse. In terms of weighing the merits of a project fee now or not, there are several factors that we do look at. One of the factors that we do consider in projects ultimately is The city has a regional housing needs allocation goal of so many units to be developed at a range of affordable levels, going from low, very low, moderate, and then market rate homes. That is something, depending on where we are in terms of meeting those goals for the state of California, we consider it a project. We also look at just access and where these projects are located. in terms of the product type, is this the right product type for affordable units? Is there actually access to other amenities that would support affordable units? So we look at a myriad of options on whether this makes sense to fee out or not. And I will just put note, for some projects you can fee out half of the project and build the other project. This particular case was 100% fee out.

I also didn't have any additional items on my comments list, so I'll go ahead and maybe bring it back to the Commission. Share any comments before we go on. I'll make a quick comment. You know, first of all, thank you everybody for coming down.

We love the participation. We're residents too. We have the same concerns we've expressed over the last few years, the concerns around traffic, traffic flow. There's been quite a number, we may not know, but there's been quite a number of improvements to this project over the years to address that to the best of our ability. Does that mean there's not any traffic problems? I think there'll be times and days where it may well be blacked out, right? Just like I live on often been in Santa Teresa and man that backed up pretty badly to some days. I hope we address most of your questions. I know we're not speaking about it tonight, but because we're asked, we appreciate staff making the commentary and giving the best possible answers. But I would say to what Joe brought up earlier, you know, there are three elements that we have to consider. I would be supportive. I don't see any reason why we would not. and we know this is one step in a multi-step process. There's more to come. But with that said, I'll pass it on to you, Paul.

Thank you. I have quite a list here, but I think all of these were addressed. I just have two remaining. First of all, I want to thank all the folks that showed up. The stuff that you said is you're living in that neighborhood, this is going to be an amazing impact, and so we hear you. The last of the two that I have is around the traffic volume and safety. Tiffany, you keep mentioning the hexagonal report. Is it one company we use all the time? Could we get a second opinion on the traffic? Because I keep hearing that if you add you know, 1,200 cars to 1,700 cars in that small space, it's a lot of traffic. You add that to the schools, and to me, it just doesn't resonate with me that the traffic report could come back and say it's all good. Can we get a second opinion on the traffic? Is that possible? So I'd like to interject.

So as part of the review process, we have... standards that we follow. There's standards that Hexagon follows as well under the traffic report. There are multiple staff members that review these reports as well. So it's not just taking the review process by Hexagon, but we have internal staff, multiple staff that reviews it from Bannon, as well as from our engineer and life development divisions. So there's a lot of internal review that we make sure that it's in compliance with the ICE manual. that's followed by the throughout the state. And there's modeling that occurs as well that do these sort of reviews for traffic reports. And so when we do scope projects like this through a SQL review process, we can no longer evaluate MLS for SQL purposes, but we still conduct level of service reviews outside of SQL. So when we do these studies, we also ask for those notes and we review how they are proposed and when we do receive those reports, we have like our engineers review these as well for consistency and for feedback review. So there is internal consistency and internal checks.

On the result of your review side, this is a point of order and public comment is from a close. However, when this into further information, we see that you have that information under these air.

Yes, sir. And those reports are pulling information. They are provided from that one. It was provided in 2004 when that application was approved for the land development. And what can we find that And so regarding any questions that it could be, anyone can contact our offices of asking those questions. We also have, we should have that information on our website. We're trying to hold up that there is a project page for this project and there's additional information on there and do those, the three, four seconds posted on there for the EIR.

He's correct it's on the project that he missed on the city of Birmingham office.

So the other question was one concerning the Sanchez property, it looks like that is going to be slumped back where people put that around about this correct.

So that that's where the intersection is a little very. We do not know the exact location of that roundabout. It's still something that we're going to review through detail. It's something that we will review prior to the design permit coming to the planning commission when that is submitted. If there's anything additional that our engineering team would like to add. But as of right now, we do not know the exact layout of that.

I believe in the conditions there is a condition that asks for that rather not be redesigned from this plan to minimize the impact on that particular block.

That is correct. So some preliminary exhibits were provided during the tentative map and we identified that this was potentially impacting the driveways on Sanchez property in And some of the design parameters be revisited during design review to minimize that impact because it's almost to the intersection. So we're trying to shift that north to keep it within the already dedicated right-of-way for that property.

um and uh commissioner if i may just follow up on that because i know uh one of the public comments joshua mentioned something in relation to that and that was the other three conditions i believe he had mentioned are those conditions currently in the conditions report that we have or didn't all make it um i'm not remembering specifically so we've done more about communication which the city intends during the design review permit

to reach out to these property owners, coordinate. Unfortunately, we haven't nailed down a design quite yet that we would like to present to those property owners, which is why nobody's reached out quite yet to buy those. So this shift is one of those things where we're trying to nail down exactly where it's going and where we think we can put it with minimizing that impact before we reach out to those property owners. We have had one of the property owners reach out It was designed.

Yeah, I see.

Yeah, are you gonna say something?

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah before our housing director joined the city. The developer is required to pay the obligation of the project, which is 15% at whatever rate they are ready to pull permits. At the time the project was approved, the obligation was $17,290,391. So I just wanted to correct that for the record. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair. I just have a question.

When you say minimize the impact, are you talking about location or the size of it?

Because if you reduce the size, is it going to affect large trucks trying to use it?

That is a great question. So the instructions are just correct. described by what we call the inscribed circle, which is the outer diameter. And there's a range that we can fit in for this particular size roundabout, this type of roundabout. And so those are one of the things that are in consideration. Center point, it can be moved and roads shifted so that we can meet design speeds. And also the driveways in this, we're consideration is there to maintain the property access as best we can.

Thank you.

I don't have a further question.

I just have a couple of questions before we go ahead and just do that. The one I have, this kind of brings me back because this is one of the situations that we're obviously seeing a lot more now than ever, which is wildfires, evacuation, etc. It was already addressed a little bit by city staff. But I think I'm just going back to the initial fire marshal review process. Are they looking at typical circumstances or are they really looking at instances where Again, after God once in a lifetime evacuation processes, etc. He knows what we're having to know the details of what fire marshal looks out and then you saw what they kind of intended not be back in the same.

Hey, we didn't burn out of the worst on that type of emergency access to their general plan or I had the fire marshal come, so.

So it's all the above what you stated. So it is reviewed for flight and safety for, there are state fire codes that are followed, that our fire marshal follows when reviewing these types of projects. And there's different standards that are in play, especially if it's in a high or very high fire zone. This probably is a little bit lower. I may not know, but it was reviewed on by the fire marshal or our fire code. But it was reviewed and it was kind of consistent with the proposal. And there are conditions included, there are standard conditions included over this project.

Maybe one final question is tied to some of those comments in that you also talked about it a little bit briefly with the Barrett access and you shared a little bit about some of the difficulties with having access by a Barrett. Is it impossible or is it just really difficult and complex? Are you referring to the Hill or Barrett? I'm sorry, did I say, I believe it was Barrett, was the...

It was HELP, yes. Sorry, HELP. So this would have been analyzed with traffic if there was a need. Usually these are based on what the proposed project is. And they identify what the impacts are and make recommendations accordingly. Circulation was one of them. So I would expect that there would be a recommendation for another access on Hill Road when it was analyzed by the traffic consultant. It is not impossible, but it is based on how many jurisdictions are involved in the creek. It's difficult. Yes. Okay.

Is that too complex to make a change at this time, given the route. As you're sharing earlier, we cannot make significant changes about if you wanted to explore.

We would have to see what those changes are before we can

So if we add a new access, the question, sorry, the question, if we add a new access from the project to Hill Road, would that be a substantial change? And the answer is yes. That would be a substantial change to the PD and to the math. Because the PD does not have that access point at this time. It was not required for that.

May I just speak there? The way the question was posed. like it's something we should look at, but the answer I heard was actually it's not the preferred design that would create a less safe environmental and non-traffic flow standards. So I just want to be clear, we're not actually asking and suggesting we should look at that.

I actually was coming in specifically for CNF that was proposed for the general final status and connections. And that goes into it requiring subdivisions to provide multiple connections to the surrounding community. And so as I'm trying to make that determination, it is to see whether or not we really explored all of those possible connections, even though with that general plan insight on, yeah, if it's possible versus a really complex, complex was obviously will need safety measures to control and maybe traffic light, et cetera, that will just again, make it really complex with other agencies. So there are ways to go around the safety. I'm just looking at one of the general plan items that we're looking for when it comes to making that resolution and making those findings. So really again, I'm coming in with that general plan findings that we have to make and using that to see whether we're really getting all of those things.

Any other questions?

I just want to make a clarification on one of my statements about the fire review. So it took me a second to pull up the conditions and to read the notes from the fire. So as far as the map review, there are no conditions on the map. Those additional conditions that I was thinking about would come at the design review phase. But our fire division has reviewed the map as consistent and for us.

Any motions?

I'll make a motion to approve the resolution approving the Kennedy map. Sorry.

Okay, we have a motion by Mr. Mueller and a second by Commissioner Padano. We'll go ahead and open it up.

Can I make just one comment on the discussion board? One of the speakers had requested that there be a forum that had the city, the applicant, and the neighborhood having a discussion. In the old days, before the state got into writing really new, detailed, and complex rules, that might have been possible. But in today's regulation environment, that public meeting would account for one of the meetings that we are held to and might be very difficult to fit into the streamline that. That's just the fact of the rules that the city has to operate under. Just like there's a rule that says we have a 60 day period after the project is being complete to approve the tentative map. It's not that we don't want to have one, it's just the timing set by the state really doesn't allow us to do that. the timing doesn't impact the applicant doing something but if the city's involved it becomes problematic okay so we hear it uh and it's very frustrating because i personally have participated in lots of those meetings that help explain things in years gone by right but under today's rules we just cannot do that

To answer this question. I'll maybe just add, as of right now, just based off of that discussion, I'm still a little bit held on the outside connections for the general plan consistency that we're looking for. And I know we have a really tight timeline as well for either approving it, not doing anything in the approval room automatically without having those conditions in place. And so I was your own side of the comments you've received so far that I really touched on the opposite connections component of general consistency that we're looking for. And so for myself, I think at this time, I'm being more person to that. Second, and you can do it over. Gary be made.

Vice chair Lee.

Aye.

Commissioner Muller.

Aye.

Jami. Aye. Adamo. Aye. And Wilson. Aye. Motion passes 5-1-0-1.

All right, if you all for your comments, I would go ahead.

I was going to say there is another Public hearing time is coming up. When we can't get into a lot more detail of the design review and design permit stake, that will get planned into mission immediately. And I want to thank you all for hanging in there tonight on our 35 or 40 minute delay. All of them, we appreciate everybody's comments, right? We always want to hear from you, right? And we always hear, sometimes you can do things, but sometimes we can't.

And with that said, once again, there is going to be one more public hearing that comes before the commission, and that will be the design of these. Thank you all for your comments. And we are going to go ahead and move on to the director's report slash announcements.

I don't know if there's going to be like a some break from Sorry, I was going to ask him this summer break.

So my throat is all trying to put my notes or director of reports on my calendar. So the next planning mission meeting is on August 20.

If I can ask the public to order things, if you can please sign with me if you are moving out. That's going to be so it's not just back.

Thank you.

So the next unit is on August twenty fifth. We will have a financial meeting that day. There's a couple of items that we are looking to bring forward. um so our housing director would have an item about housing policies that when you're looking to move over uh the bridge to the fish that night and then my computer frozen i don't know i can't recall any other notes that i've had so the city council is back in session next week on August 19th. They will have Bull 7 on August 26th, as I, now that I recall that. And so there will be a presentation, a PowerPoint presentation, or information rather, from staff about Bull 7 and updating the different divisions there. And I mean, I can share that with the back mission as well.

The other questions you should be seeing then we'll go ahead and turn things back to you.