Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I can try it again.

Good evening, and welcome to the October 28 Planning Commission meeting. I'm gonna call to order the meeting. Jenna, can we get a roll call?

Thank you, Wilson. Chair Wilson?

Here.

Vice chair Habib has an excused absence. Commissioners Mueller?

Here.

Tonda? Here. Lovato? Here. Downey? Here. And Lake?

I don't see him online.

Lake said he would be joining us remotely. Let me see if I can get him on Zoom. Let's see. I'm going to send him another invitation to see if he got here. Okay.

I sent him a email invitation to join on Zoom.

Okay. So we can move ahead and then he can catch up. So, Jenna, do you wanna declare the posting?

Tonight's meeting agenda was duly noticed and posted in accordance with government code section five four nine five four point two.

Thank you. Wayne, you wanna lead us in the pledge of allegiance? Sure.

Ready? Yep. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, unduly, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you.

Public comment. The member of the public are entitled to address the planning commission concerning any item within the Morgan Hill Planning Commission's subject matter jurisdiction. Public comments are limited to no more than three minutes except in certain specific exceptions. The commission is prohibited from discussing or taking any action on any item not appearing on the posted agenda. Do we have anybody that wants to speak on any non agenda items?

I don't see any hands or I don't have any speaker cards.

Okay. Then we will close public comment. Any questions or comments about the orders today? Looks good. All good? Okay. Our first item is a request for design permit and tentative parcel map on the corner of Butterfield And Tennant and the Cherry Family Ltd partnership for development of a 106 single family attached townhome style condominiums.

So this item is being requested to be continued to December 9. And so tonight staff is asking for the commission to open and close the public hearing and then make a recommendation to or to approve the continuation to December 9. So this item was noticed to go tonight, but it's not the item was not ready.

Okay.

Make a motion to continue.

To yes. To continue and then also open. Then for anyone who may be here tonight to allow them to speak.

Okay, so we will open the public hearing. Is there anybody that wants to speak on this item?

Online?

I don't see any

Seeing none.

Raised hands.

I'll make a motion to continue this to December 9. Second.

Okay, I second a motion.

Jenna, can we do a roll call?

Yes. One moment here. Chair Wilson?

Aye.

Vice Chair Lake? I do see he is online. Commissioner Lake, can you hear us? Okay, I've promoted him to panelist. Let's see if he can hop in.

Commissioner Lee, can you hear us?

Hopefully you can hear and see me now.

Yes.

Okay, I've been promoted to a panelist. Thanks, Jenna. I was able to hear you when you started, but So, yes. I I also say aye.

Thank you. Commissioners Mueller. Aye. Tonda. Aye. Lovato.

Aye.

And Downey.

Aye.

Motion passes six zero zero one.

Thank you. Item two is a request for vesting tentative map and design permit to allow for the development of a 16 unit single family attached townhome style condominium project by Myrtle Investments. Do we have a staff report?

Yes we do. We Thank you.

Pulling it up right now.

Alright. Good evening commissioners. My name is Joey Din. I'm with the planning division. I'm here to present to you item number two on tonight's agenda which is a request for a vesting tentative map and a design permit located on Myrtle requested by Myrtle Investments.

So again, the request is to approve a vesting tentative map and also a design permit to allow the development of 16 single family attached townhome style condominiums. The project is located on a 0.6 acre site along Myrtle Avenue just east of Monterey Road, a little south of that Taco Bell off of Monterey. It is also in the city's form based corridor zone district. So the project will have four buildings totaling 16 units total. Each of the units will have three bedrooms, attached garages and private open space areas including patios and balconies.

The project will also have two income deed restricted units on-site and also pay an in lieu fee for the fractional affordable unit. The project will provide 34 total parking spaces including 32 covered, so two in each of the units and also two guest parking spaces on-site. A small landscaped entry drive shared open space of approximately 3,900 square feet and perimeter landscaping will also be included. There were some minor deviations with the project as requested with waivers and concessions permitted by the state's density bonus law. Those included a parking reduction and slightly narrower unit sizes, but a little bit more on that a little bit later.

So the general plan for the site is mixed use. This does allow for attached residential development at eight to 24 units per acre. The project is proposing 23.5 units per acre which is in that permitted range. The project also supports several general plan policies including ones that encourage infill housing, orderly development, and providing a mix of unit types and also ownership opportunities near existing infrastructure and transit. The zoning as I mentioned before is form based corridor.

This permits permits multi family residential and also attached residential development. The project is expected to meet all development development standards including density, height, and setbacks. So as I said it before, the project does meet all the development standards in the form based corridor zone district. The proposed 16 unit townhome project complies with density, height, setback limits, but there were minor deviations, so waivers and concessions that were granted by City Council. So these include a parking reduction of 34 spaces, narrow unit width, so typically 18 feet is required but 16 feet was allowed for two of the units, a waiver of recreational amenities, and also a modified tree replacement ratio.

For CEQA, the project does qualify for CEQA exemption under Assembly Bill 130. This provides a streamlined environmental review process for eligible infill housing projects. Some of the requirements are that the site is within the urbanized city limits surrounded by existing residential and commercial uses and is also consistent with the city's general plan and zoning. The city had already initiated the required tribal consultation process and the applicant also provided the city with a phase one environmental site assessment among other reports such as a flood analysis to confirm that the site was free of contamination and any environmental concerns. So staff finds the project exempt from further CEQA review under AB 130.

So the tentative map findings can be made for the subdivision. This is the tentative subdivision map findings. It's consistent with the City's general plan and also the subdivision map requirements. The map provides a single point of entry along from Myrtle Avenue. It includes the private driveways and pedestrian circulation throughout the site.

All of the utilities will be extended from existing services in the public right of way and the layout as I said supports orderly and efficient pattern of development. So these are the design review findings that Planning Commission has to make. It's found to be consistent with the general plan and also the form based corridor and also the city's design review handbook. The site incorporates high quality architecture, varied facades, pedestrian friendly frontages facing Myrtle Avenue. Staff finds that the project will not be detrimental to public health safety or welfare and that it enhances the corridor through scale and design and it was also evaluated to be in compliance with CEQA.

So based on staff's review, the project does meet all the required findings for both the design permit and also a vesting tentative map. So staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution approving the design permit and vesting tentative subject to the conditions of approval in exhibit b of Reso twenty five fifteen. With that staff is available for any questions.

Okay. Can you tell us the waivers

that they were granted? Yeah. So they were one of them, first waiver was for a parking reduction so they were required to provide 36 parking spaces so that's two per unit and also four guest parking spaces they requested a reduction to 34 so just two less than the required Additionally, they requested more narrow unit sizes so in Building 4 which is the bottom building, I can't really, let me see if I can show my mouse. This building right here. Two of the units are 16 feet wide as opposed to the 18 feet required.

Okay. Additionally, for a project of this size the City's objective standards requires two tier one recreational amenities so that could be like park bench or a barbecue grill or something like that. They requested a waiver from that and then the last thing was the city typically requires a one to one tree replacement ratio. They are removing approximately I believe 19 trees and they are replacing it with one tree as shown here.

Okay. Thank you.

It was a concession as well, right?

Correct. Oh I'm sorry, you're right. There was also a, you are correct, so those were the waivers. There was also a concession to allow them to not have to underground their utilities along their frontage. Thank you for that correction.

Were they asked to pay any money into a fund that we could use to get it underground in the future?

They were not. I don't believe that the city currently has a fund like that set up.

Okay.

And then they paid the in lieu of, right, for the Partial. Partial for the

The affordable unit. Affordable unit. Correct, yeah. So with the city's inclusionary housing ordinance requirements they're required to provide 2.4. Right. They're building two and then they'll be paying for the point four fraction. Okay. Sure.

Was there any consultation with the neighbors? Any inputs from the neighbors? Any questions? Any concerns?

So the city sent out surrounding property notices and we did not receive any.

Received nothing? Surprised. Okay.

Thanks. David?

Yeah, just on the on street parking on Myrtle, how's that gonna be managed?

Yeah, so there is limited street parking along Myrtle and that will still be the case. I think this project does at least provide the two required on-site parking for each unit.

There's Is there guest parking? I didn't see any guest parking. They still will Tandem that's it or is there guest parking?

So, there will be two tandem parking spaces in each of the covered garages for each of the units. On-site there's also two uncovered guest parking spaces which is right where that tree is basically.

Okay. Yeah.

Anything else? Have two questions.

Both of them had to do with the thing called site features. The first is could you describe the landscape entry drive? What is that going to look like? It doesn't look landscape to me, but

So they that's pretty much as shown on this landscaping plan they will be providing some ground cover, some plants and some shrubs along the front entrance along those front units on Buildings 1 And 2, and then also be required to provide the necessary street landscaping as required by our public works department.

Okay. So it's as shown and depicted on that diagram in front of us.

Correct.

That's the landscaped entryway.

Correct.

Alright. Well, that's kinda nominal. The second question is that they included 3,905 square feet of open space, shared open space. Can you identify, Joey, where they that those areas are on the map?

Most of it would be along the rear of the property. It doesn't really show you well but there is a what they call a dog run along the back of the property.

Is just a dog room?

Correct.

On the right hand side of our picture here. Is that the back? That's what you mean by the back.

Correct. The rear of the property so opposite the access.

Anything

else, Mike?

No. I was just wondering though that it would have been nice to have accumulated that space for people rather than just dogs. Most of our other projects have some communal gathering space on the outside and was that considered as part of the design?

Yes. So, the as city's does have objective standards which tries to guide developers towards providing these certain amenities. I can let the applicant speak to which amenities they decided to go with but that these are the amenities they decided to go with. Okay.

Thank you. That's it.

Follow-up? Sure. I just wanted to double check. So since this is only having one access exit, emergency vehicles, they reviewed this, no problem. The radius for a fire truck in and out, especially for the units at the front, the two units, the two one, two two fire trucks and get in and out? That one looks narrower than the other two.

Yeah, so the all of the internal driveway roadway widths were looked at by the city's fire emergency services and fire and they also they did not make any comment on it.

Okay, no raised issue on one access point for this entire community. Okay. Yeah. Thank you.

Joe. Got a few. How is the property gonna treat having make sure that the residents park in the garage?

Hopefully that will be addressed in their CCNRs but I'll let the applicant speak to that.

Okay. And are the 16 foot width units the BMRs?

Let me double check. I don't remember off the top of my head.

While he's looking that up just to address parking, So they for the covered parking they're meeting that. Our code does allow the tandem and then also with their waiver they reduce the amount of guests parking by two. So the Armenian requirements with the waivers because of density bonus law, but also based on the location of this property being so close to Monterey Road with recent legislation they are not required to provide any parking. I'm not

questioning that.

Oh okay.

Right? But I am questioning are they gonna do anything to make sure the people use their garages to park cars in? Because with tandem parking it's even worse than when you have two parallel parking stalls, right? That front space gets used for storage that forces a car onto the street. And we don't have a lot of public parking on that street.

We can require provisions in the CC and R's that say that the garage has to be free and clear for cars. We can't force people to park in them but we can ask or require the applicant as a condition to put that in their CC and R's.

It gets enforced

That's is the the problem.

Okay. So I could ask for that condition in the CCNRs, and I can also question the applicant on how he's gonna enforce it to start. Yes. Okay. The second one is, I took a quick drive past there and I noticed a reference that this property is in the floodplain?

Yeah. So there a lot of the properties in this general area is in the AE Zone floodplain. We the applicant was gracious enough to work with the city providing flood analysis flood modeling which we got reviewed through not only the City's engineering department but also Valley Water and through their findings as long as they designed the project as they're shown with the the foundation that they're proposing they will not be altering the flood plain.

Okay so how far above top of curve on Myrtle is the floor gonna be? Because Taco Bell's like five or six feet it feels like. Usually when you look at it, right? I mean it's really high and that's literally across the street and a little bit to the west.

Let me pull up that information for you.

Okay. And then I have one little question about the whereas in start of the resolution. The whereas says the project has been reviewed in compliance with the California CEQA and then down in section two it defines that a lot better than that. It just read wrong to me. The Reviewed as in compliance or found to be in compliance would be more suitable than just reviewed.

In the resolution you said?

In the resolution, the third whereas.

We can take a look at that language and if commission wants to change it, we could. It

just read for, especially considering below it lays it out as it's really statutorily exempt, right?

Correct. Anything else, Joe?

No. Liam? I'll wait for after the applicant. I've got a couple comments but I'll wait. Okay.

Sorry just to answer your question earlier, you had a question about the reduced unit widths, those are the BMRs.

Figured. Okay. We're gonna open the public hearing and the first speaker is the applicant wanna give a presentation? We'll have them first.

Test.

Good evening, commissioners and staff. We certainly appreciate you letting us present here today. I wanna say my name is David Marshall. I'm here with Brandon Winters who's on our team at Diamond and Paul Farrow our architect. We're very excited to bring this project to you today. You know we really believe in Morgan Hill as a community and as a market for us. We're a builder. We're very excited about building in this market. We feel very comfortable about this market. Fundamentals are all there.

We're very excited for this project. Just wanted to speak to kind of the last two years that we've gone through this project. We submitted in December 2023. At that point, this was a 15 unit market rate project. We spent a lot of time collaborating with city staff in the housing and planning department. We greatly appreciate the time and the cooperation that they showed us. We were able to then expand the project to 16 units and include two on-site BMRs. We feel really good about that. We wanna create more affordable housing in this community, and we feel like by working with staff and collaborating, we were able to bring that to this community. So thank you very much for your time.

And if you have any questions, we're here to answer.

Let me

I had

a question. Paul?

Yeah. I really appreciate, you know, the investments you guys are making in Morgan Hill. And you mentioned the word community a lot. The part that's disappointing to me with this project as you've kinda put a lot of houses in that lot, is that is there like a place where kids can play to to build that community?

There currently isn't a place on-site. I think to your point earlier, there's a dog run on the back. We had looked at a couple different

Yeah.

I see I see the dog run. I see the dog run, but you talk a lot about community. And to me, one of the critical parts of having in a community is where parents and kids can come out in a shared space and speak to each other, get to know each other. And so that place will actually be a community if you have some space for kids. That's the that's so disappointing.

Thank you for your comment. I think you know it's tough in an infill environment. You know, if we were doing out fill, think that's much easier. When this grew from 15 to 16 units to allow the two BMRs, it really stripped our ability to add more space in the back. You know, we looked at playgrounds and otherwise and we were kind of left with a small sliver back there. So I hear you.

Thank you. Anything else Paul?

No, thank you.

Any questions for the afternoon?

Yeah. Oh, sorry. The first question is, how would you feel about us adding a condition, a requirement for the CCRs, CCNRs to address that people actually use the garage two tandem parking spaces for parking cars?

As far as the enforcement goes, I'm not sure what we're able to do in the CCRs. But as far as managing the on-site parking and maybe putting something to that effect in there, we're definitely comfortable with that in the CCRs. We think the HOA should manage that.

Right. I mean, it's really, if you wanna be part of the community and a good neighbor to that area, right, the future resident, your customers, really need to use the two parking spaces because you're a market rate project and they need to try to use them and I would encourage you to figure out a way to try and force that through the association, right, as you go forward. But I would request, or I am gonna request that we make that a condition of approval that you, and we'll work with Don to make sure we language that, that says the residents should use the parking spaces. I don't think we can actually say force them because that's up to you. That's up to the strength of the homeowners association and how you address that and set it up.

Is that okay.

So Joe sorry chair Joe what are you you're adding language that says they should because if you're gonna say they should you might as well not bother putting it in. No I agree

with that.

Well, I run an HOA and I can tell you almost nothing is enforceable, right? So, good luck, right? I think we're going to end up with a bunch of cars on the street, on the public street, because they're entitled to power care like anybody else is. And, I guarantee you, if I could see a third of those units putting two cars in their garage, I'd be super excited. But we all know what happens. We see it in every development.

But you can put it in. But I don't think you can put anything in any stronger. No, you can't because it's not enforced.

No, you can't. They're entitled to park on the street right down. I mean, they can go park on public street like anybody else.

Yep, streets belong to everybody.

Yeah.

Yeah, Liam's right. I have the same issue with my HOA that I'm a board member.

Yeah, me too.

Yeah. I mean, we have it in the CC and ours. It's just it's virtually unenforceable unless you wanna spend twenty four hours doing it. Anything else, Joe? No. Anybody else? Thank you very much.

Thank

you. Do we have any other speakers, Jenna, either online or in the audience?

I don't see anyone online and I don't see any raised hands.

May I ask

you a question? Oops. Sorry. Certainly. Joy, were you able to figure out what the height is above curve?

Are we close to public comment guys?

Yeah.

Didn't want to get.

I didn't find above curve but I did look at their flood analysis they submitted. The base flood elevations is around 03:41, 03:42 and their finished floor elevations is around 03:42. So they wouldn't be elevating it that much.

That's what I don't, my problem is I got no reference point. My reference point is the street, right? And what is Taco Bell from there? 100 feet or less? Right? And that's way above that, right? So my concern is that this floor elevation's gonna go up and I don't know, I don't have a reference point because that has an impact on the neighbors, right? I mean if it elevates the whole system up two or three feet

or more? Joe, we can get the architect and you

That's why I didn't want to close the public hearing. Oh,

okay. Sorry, Joe. I thought it was a different topic. I

can say on this item, we spent quite a bit of time. I told you we submitted in December '23. I'd say a good year of that, if not more, was spent working with Valley Water to understand where we needed to our base flood elevation. So I can tell you that that elevation was not taken lightly. It took a lot of work to get to that.

You're not answering the question. Okay? I don't question the amount of work you put into it because I know it's a lot of work. Okay? What I'm trying to do is get a reference point on where your floor levels are gonna be compared to the top of curb of Myrtle. Because when I drove past it today, it almost looks dead flat. Okay? And the Taco Bell is several feet above Myrtle for the floor plan and it's practically a neighbor across the street. Right? So the question is is how high is your gonna raise it?

We can get you that elevation.

Okay. Because my concern is, is if you raise your pad that high, what happens to the neighbors?

Well, sorry, chair. What do you mean, Joe? What happens to the neighbors?

What was He's talking about runoff. Yeah.

Oh, runoff. Raise there.

Yeah. If you raise there, where does it go?

Yeah.

Got it.

Okay. Here comes Tiffany to help.

Haven't got used to the new microphone yet. It shows green even when it's not on. Hi Tiffany Brown senior planner. So the project as conditioned will have to meet all the storm water control requirements and make sure everything is maintained on-site and it will be buildable the way that the project is conditioned. We have had a project come forward where they thought it was not gonna have to be padded as much as it was padded during the building permit process.

That's a good example on Dunn and Condit just north of the outdoor sports rec facility. You will see what they did is they double sidewalked it, so they had to push stuff back and move stuff around, and to get up to those residential doors they had to do a ramp. So and all that was done during the building permit process. This does

You're trying to help me understand that you don't have the answer yet?

I'm trying to tell you that it's conditioned and it will work. That's all. Thank you.

Okay. We're gonna close the public comment. I've got some comments. Any discussion? Yeah. Comment?

Yeah. Okay. I think a number of us have made references here so I looked I looked at this development today and I could pick it to death. There's a lot I don't like in this proposal. I think in our lamenting days of before SB three thirty and AB one one hundred thirty or 01/2020 we would never see an application like this. It's essentially a bunch of sardines in a can. No play area. No recreation area. No facilities. A bunch of concessions.

Don't even wanna do underground cabling. I think this is a classic example of an applicant who's doing exactly what they're entitled to do. I'm not complaining about that. Taking complete advantage of the state bills and the assembly bills and jamming in 16 homes where I don't think they really belong and then to stand up here and say that we're doing something for the community. I I don't see it but there's nothing we can do about it so I'm not gonna waste my time debating how this is being designed. We don't get a say in it anyway but I don't like it.

Okay. Thank you. You have to realize though that they didn't make the rules our state made them. Right?

Oh the state made the rules but you can like, maximum advantage of the rules too, which I think is exactly what's going on here.

I know

By the

way, it's my opinion. Manage is the right word.

I would that's the word I'm using. Yeah.

They complied with what the city required. I think that's probably

No. I think it's a bit more than that.

Okay. We can debate it all day, but

Yeah. I'm not gonna debate it because there's nothing to debate because you don't get a say anyway.

Okay.

So but I'm pretty disappointed about it with with how it's been been being designed.

Ryan?

On the one hand, I agree with Liam. I look at the development, 16 or 18 foot wide unit. This reminds me of San Francisco on steroids where I never thought would think I I would have seen something like this in Morgan Hill a few years ago. And and this isn't still common from what's going on now. I think it's an extreme. I said on the one hand, I agree with you. I don't particularly like it. On the other hand, it is allowable. Okay. So, you take advantage of the 24 units per acre.

This this is it. 23. Five units per acre. I had a concern too about providing some open space, I think like as being proposed in another development we'll be looking at tonight where that is occurring and I think that would have been great but it's been designed what you mean is rather than having 16 units you'd have 15 units.

Right.

So I I'm inclined to agree with you, but on the other hand, I I see the value of having units that are somewhat affordable. I guess this is the Bay Area affordable for people who need housing. The comment I wanted to focus on was one that Joe brought up and the one that our chair spoke to and everybody else, and that's the parking. This is deja vu. I had brought this up, you may recall, a couple meetings ago, you said the same thing about the chair about he's in the homeowner association where you could say things but the implementation of it is tough.

What I would be looking for is consistency. All of the projects that we're getting now have the same issue with parking. They're very gracious when they talk about two parking spaces per unit, but I think that's really because that's what you need to sell the units. Not so much that they would necessarily really wanna provide it. And we may have a debate not only tonight on how to handle it in the CCRs or the next project or next week's project or the project after that.

I think we really should just be consistent, And I don't recall what we did when I had brought this issue up a couple meetings ago. I think I got outvoted, whatever it was, that's what I recall, but I'm wondering if the staff recalled what the item was and how we handled it?

I think multiple projects have had a condition.

That's true. And we're

not Right.

That's I'm asking for tonight.

Being consistent. And in fact, yeah, my question was directed to staff to find out what the last action we took on the exact same issue was. And the chair would recognize staff to be able to respond?

Certainly. So there was a condition that was added on the project where similar to what Commissioner Mueller stated that we require that the eight that within the HOA that they require that the parking or the garage remain open for automobile parking. We can refer back to that language and if the commission chooses to elect to have that condition added to this one, and if the applicant accepts, then we can put that in there.

I have one comment first. I mean, I have no problem, and I agree parking is a problem. But the problem is once you put it onto the HOA, it's out of the city's hands, basically. So it's up to the HOA to enforce it, and it's it's a tough road to do it.

There's there's really nothing this city can do to enforce that. So so I mean, the reality is it's it's tilting at windmills, but.

Well, know where I live, there's two ten units, and I guarantee at least half of them, they use half the garage for storage, So like you

say, and they're on the

do I.

And if I could add, state law would also allow any resident in a complex to convert their garage to an ADU with no parking. In this particular case, they are subject to AB ten thirty seven because of their adjacency to Monterey and within the half mile of the transit station so they don't need to provide any parking. They also came in with building to the density numbers that are in existence there is no density bonus requested for this project so it's conceivable depending on the amount of affordable units that they were including and what they might try to do. You could see a much much larger product here and I'm not trying to give the developer any ideas but it's they are coming in with as small of a project that meets their needs that achieves as many of our objective standards as possible with some exceptions and I know the outdoor play area is going to be an issue and we're gonna see that on infill projects in general but an infill project that is this close to downtown and the community center there are areas in that space for the residents to be able to utilize.

Just making that point.

Yeah, but to Wayne's point, sure, sorry, but Wayne was, obviously you said Joe, know, sometimes you provide the parking because you gotta sell the units too, right? You know, and the people buying them want to be able to utilize either parking or storage space. I get what you're saying, Jennifer, but I still don't like

it. I think all I'm saying is, the most we can do is put in a requirement that the CCNRs include a statement that's used at. And we owe that to the residents in the neighborhood, right? To not put it in to me wouldn't be fair to the residents in the neighborhood.

Agreed. I agree. Question. Certainly.

So, don't see it in the design. Maybe we're not at that detailed level yet, but I wanna take the attention back onto the street. More of a safety concern. And I'm taking my own community, which is fairly new. We have red curbs because of the width of some of our streets, and these smaller streets are community managed.

They're not part of city management streets, so we don't get street We don't have playgrounds. That's where our kids, my kids played on the street because we did not have playground. Are we looking at red curbs for this entire community since every car needs to be in a garage? Is that something that we can add as a condition? If so, that would be my recommendation because all it takes is one car, two cars to decide not to park in their garage, take up a curb, now we have a fire, now we have an emergency.

Because I've seen that in my own community. So can we add that as a condition? Yes, that ensures that nobody parks and yes, they'll be on the public parking, but if that's not in design, can I add that it's a condition I as part of

thought it was already there but maybe it's not? There's no, they're not red curbed right now?

Are you referring to the on-site internal streets?

On-site internal streets, are they gonna be red curve? If not I'd like that to be added as condition.

I would guess in a tight site like that most of them will be red.

I mean, usually, they're I know virtually all ours are.

My community only has two streets. Everything else is open.

I mean, it has to be based on a safety standard to make them red. Suspect that these will be red based on the need to get a fire engine in and be able to turn it around.

Yeah, that was my thinking too. With the narrow ones and the short turns, they'll probably be read from the standpoint is you can't have a vehicle in there because the fire truck can't come in.

Right, exactly.

I mean it's not something we we condition based on

A design?

But on design, it would be on the safety standard and our fire department would do that if it's appropriate. And I suspect in this case it would be appropriate.

Yeah, there's a formula they use to figure that, but I'm assuming most of them will be.

But if they don't the problem would be is I'm sure fires looked at it and they've got the radiuses in it, but a narrow street of whether they'll be red curbed or not is something they're gonna require. And to me, that would be at the permit stage where they're gonna make that determination, right?

But they're looking at it as long as there's no car here, we're good. But if we're saying we have no control if a car decides to do it.

Only the extent is if you need it for a fire truck, then they're gonna red curb it, Right? And I think they can do that on the private property because of that need for access and that level

of

detail other than the general curve is less to the design permit stage to me.

Okay. So that that was my question because I don't see it. So we're not there yet as far as the intimate details of it.

So all of the internal streets are private so that is something that staff can look for when they give the city their CC and Rs to review that there would be no street or curb parking on the internal streets.

Okay. Great. And usually that'll be as Joe mentioned, there'll be a requirement underneath the building permit phase when.

Okay. The net. Okay.

Part of vision reviews. Alright. Fire safety.

Paul, do you have any questions? Comment?

No. Just disappointed with the design as as as some of you are. Yes. But nothing else.

So I at this point, I would make a resolution, I think I would like to make two changes. One to add a requirement that the CCNRs have a statement in there that the residents should park their cars in both tandem spaces. Okay. Okay, and the second one, I'm gonna take a shot at it, or Adam, if that language you wanna pull out of another resolution that we've already used, I'm happy with that.

Yeah. So I've been pulling up other resolutions and we've had

the same

language where such request was considered by the Planning Commission at the regular meeting. I'm sorry.

You're talking about the

project has been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. So these are these are resolutions dating back from years ago where we use that same language.

Just same language?

Yes.

Reviewed? Interesting. Okay. But what about we have also have some languages we've used before about the CC and Rs and parking?

Yes. I haven't found those. I can't recall which project it was but we can refer back to that.

Okay, that would be the language I'd ask to be used in this resolution.

Okay.

Okay? So it's only one change.

The CC and R? Right, the CC and Rs. Okay.

And what about the red carving? Do we need to mention that or is that gonna be taken care of anyway?

That'll be taken care of, I believe, at the building permits. Okay. Okay. And as Adam said, apparently that's the language you've used before. Just, it seems strange.

So Joe, do you wanna restate your

Oh, so the resolution, or the motion is to add language that we've used on previous projects to require that the CCNRs basically inform residents that they should use the parking spaces and not park, whatever that language is.

For the design permit.

No, design permit you don't need to add for red curves. Okay. That'll take care of it.

Seconded.

Discussion? Sure. I'm gonna say yes, but it's a very reserved and disappointing yes. Okay. Because it's compliant, mean it's legal and compliant, but it's a very disappointing project.

Jenna, can we do a roll call?

Excuse me.

Is there a second to the motion?

Yes. Yeah, Paul. Paul.

Chair Wilson. Aye. Commissioners Lake.

Aye.

Muller. Aye. Tonda.

Aye.

Lovato.

Aye.

And Downey?

Aye.

Motion passes 6001.

Okay.

Next item. Next item. Next item is a request for design permit and vesting tentative map to allow the development of a 20 unit attached townhouse style project. Pebble Square LLC located in Northwest Corner Of Monterey Road and Pebble Avenue. Hello,

good evening. I'm Tiffany Brown, senior planner with the planning department. Before us tonight is our last item for a design permit and vesting tentative map for the Peebles, Peebles Squares project. Starting off with the site location, the project site is located on the Northeast Corner of Peebles Avenue and Monterey Road. The general plan and zoning designate the site as mixed use flex, which actually that was the zoning when they applied for the application, so we stick with those zoning standards, but today you know it as form based code.

The site acreage is point nine acres and it is largely undeveloped with a cement and asphalt slab, which is a remainder parking lot from a previous development that was on the site. The design permit includes 20 units, they are three story townhome style structures. There's a seven plex, a four plex, and a five plex, two four plexes, excuse me. They range in materials that they use for each unit and they vary in push pull and at different front doors. When I say push pull, I am talking about the elevations and where you will see some of the different units will pop out more than others that's what I mean by push pull each unit does have a two car garage except for two of the floor plans so two units out of the 20 have a one car garage and the site plan does include seven guest parking spaces and a 2,500 square foot common open space.

The project did request waivers as they meet density bonus law. Before you is a summary of the waivers. Not to waste too much time but to go through them there was a waiver to the required amount of common open space to allow for more units, there was a waiver for the covered parking stalls for those two units that I already discussed, so each unit has two except for two units have one. There is a utility easement waiver to the minimum 10 foot width of that easement along Peebles Avenue and Monterey Road. There is a front yard setback reduction, street side yard setback, interior side yard setback, landscaping with setback, and also what we call the daylight plane, which is the shade and the height.

Here is the site plan with the surrounding property. It's a little hard to see, but you can see the project will be fronting on Monterey Road and is accessed off of Peebles Avenue. These are private roadways, so you will enter the site here and you can, these are private drives that go in. This is the driveway down, so these are the garage doors here for those units, these are garage doors here for these units and so they will have front doors facing outward, These two communities face each other surrounded by that common open space. The common open space does include a small park area, trellis, barbecues, etc.

That were summarized in the staff report, so that's this area here and those would be the front doors facing that area there. Here are the guest parking spaces here and then if we entered Peoples Avenue and went down, this is the driveway entrance to those driveways on the remaining units. Okay? And this is the vesting tentative map. You will see that there's 20 lots for residential purposes and then common open space areas and private drives.

The project will comply with our inclusionary housing ordinance in that they will provide two BMR units and they are meeting all the standards of those units and they will pay the in lieu fee for the third unit. These are the design permit findings in front of you as summarized. The application is consistent with the general plan and zoning minus the waivers that we summarized. The project does comply with all applicable provisions and complies with the design standards and review handbook that we could put onto the project. This project is statutorily exempt from CEQA as it is SB three thirty and AB 130 project.

These are the remaining findings for the design permit. We did not find it to be detrimental to the public health safety or welfare and we think that the project can be supported and meet all the rest of the design findings. The project also is in compliance with the subdivision map finding that it summarized before you on the slide. The project was publicly noticed for this night's meeting. Mail went out to residents located within 300 feet from the project.

There is project web page and they did post a project sign on-site. Staff is recommending to open and close the public hearing and adopt the resolution approving the design permit and the vesting tentative map. And that concludes my presentation. We have questions, I'm here. The applicant is here as well.

Thank you. Paul, any questions? So I don't forget you?

Yeah. Thanks, chair. I appreciate it. My concern, I think I I think David had raised it before. That's the fire just, you know, that one entrance going in.

Tiffany did the fire people take a look at it and they're okay with it?

They did, yes. So they will review the project as it is today, they look for the widths and making sure there's enough access points and that the truck can get where it needs to get for each unit and then later during the building permit phase if curbs need to be painted red they will require that.

Read ahead, Paul.

Yeah. Thank you very much, Tiffany. And I really do like that play area that, you know, that community space with a grail and a trellis that they've done in this project versus the project before. Thank you. Those are my comments.

Thanks, Paul.

Joe? I thought I read in there there's an emergency entrance off the one.

That's off Monterey, isn't it? Right. No.

So, if we're looking at the site plan in front of us, my cursor is on Peoples Avenue. Right. This is the main entrance. If the fire truck needed to go through here would be the push through here onto Monterey.

What's a push through? Is it is that protected? How do you stop people from using it on an emergency?

It's an EVA usually they do like a rolled curb and if they feel that people will use it they'll have those you see those posts that go in the ground or they can do a swing arm gate.

Oh they can, okay. So they can do something like that. Yeah.

Anything else Joe?

Yeah, the other one, first of all, I think the CCNR change that we made to the previous one needs to be made to this one too.

Okay.

The second thing is, there's a statement in there that says if this seven foot easement doesn't work, they have to redesign the project. And I don't remember, there's all kinds of conditions they gotta meet, right? But I don't ever remember one that's like this.

It's under the engineering section.

No, no, understand where it is. My concern is we're approving a design permit and we're approving a tentative map. Where is the tentative map always gonna be valid? Because if they have to add three feet on the South and three feet on the West, right? How do we know they're still gonna get there?

I don't think that there's a situation in which they would need to add three feet on both sides. I think the issue we have is that we don't know what PG and E is going to require. And so PG and the city is able to give up some of what it would normally require as easement. Usually it's 15 feet back of curb, I mean back from gutter. We don't need that for our purposes. We don't know what PG and E is gonna require. And if PG and E tells them you've got to move your building, then they're gonna have to.

Okay, so is the PG and E easement not the PUE that's required on all the projects?

There is a PUE. We're not entirely sure it's going to be adequate for PG and E because PG and E hasn't given us their comments yet. And they're not likely to give them in a timely way so that we can still meet the permit streamlining act. We're operating under the assumption that PG and E is gonna say everything's okay and we can put our box in without problems or we can figure out a different or we can design it differently so that we don't have to move anything. We think that's what's going to happen, but because it's PG and E, we don't know.

Have you ever run across this before?

We haven't had a request like this before. This is is this is new territory for us because typically people don't ask for waivers to not have the PUE be the full 10 feet.

And

we're sort of boxed in here that we have a streamlining act where we have to act now.

Yes, we can't wait for six months to a year for PG and E to tell us what they want.

Joe, did

I ask them to show that on a map? I don't quite understand what is going on and what the impact would be if PG and E says we do need the additional space. Does that impact the project such as the building pads or any other public improvements? So Tiffany can you show us where that's at?

Yes, I'm gonna show you on the site plan in front of us because I don't have that exact site plan as part of the presentation. So if you can see my mouse, everyone can see that okay? Yeah? Yeah. Okay. So along peoples, you see this little dotted line here? It's very faint, sorry. Can I draw? I don't know if I can Yeah,

we can see it. No, we see it.

Okay. So there's an easement that if it goes down to seven feet, which is part of the project request, then those buildings and roads, everything has enough space. Generally, it's a 10 foot wide ease ment and there are reasons why they have a 10 foot wide easement, but we at this time don't have the plans to know if all the utilities will fit and still meet all the safety standards within a seven foot easement and so while we can grant the waiver for the easement we don't have the information to know if everything could fit in it so we condition it and that way we meet our permit streamlining act the project goes forward to building and review how it could affect the project they would have to come back and apply if it didn't work

but then doesn't that violate the streamlining act

No. No, because we will, they'll have an approved project. If they can't build their approved project, then they'll have to come back.

Okay, so if somebody is financing this project, they may say, well, let's make sure the project that we're approving is actually the project and effectively it it'll slow down the project until this determination is made. I think

that's the applicant, we've been in discussions with the applicant. They understand the issues the same way we do so. You can ask them the question. We can

ask them to, they don't know.

Yeah, do you have any idea how long PG and E is going to take before they can make a determination? Because it doesn't seem that hard for PG and E.

Well PG and E takes forever on everything.

They're gonna take, it's gonna be a while.

They're like the railroads,

Nope. They've been like the

But just as a ballpark, are we talking couple weeks, couple months Many months. Three, four years?

So many months is accurate. We still have to the applicant still has to prepare all the plans to submit to the building department, it has to get reviewed by all the teams, and then gets routed to PG and E, so there's a process that it has to go through, It's gonna be quite some time.

Right. But in the meantime, they've got a design permit approval and they've got a vesting tentative map which sort of locks us in to 20 units.

It can but they can also come back and amend both applications prior to the recordation of a final map so they can work on all these steps as they get ready to finalize their building permits and then come to council with the recordation of

I'm the just gonna take a worst case. I'm gonna guess, right?

Okay.

If I had to add three, I think it's three feet to the Monterey Street side.

Okay.

Okay, then what gets squeezed is the common lot. Right? And if I had to add three feet to the south side, it's gonna be a little harder to squeeze, right? Because you're gonna cut part of that side yard. There's a little section that runs almost through there but it might be in that building on the west side of the common lot. So, I don't know how you squeeze it, right, off the top of my head, unless you make the units smaller.

That would be a choice. It's up to the developer to redesign the project how they see it would fit best.

But either way, we're gonna lose. Right? That's what bothers me. Now, I understand we're locked in a box because if we don't act, there's automatic, right? If we don't meet the streamlining act?

Right, we have to, our drop dead deadline is this Friday. Yeah,

okay.

If this project is not approved today or it gets continued, it's automatically approved on Friday.

Yeah, that's what I thought.

So let's keep moving then.

And the other one is if it's denied, it's automatically approved.

Oh no, denied would be even worse because then you're delaying defining a project that actually meets and we'd be subject to all kinds

of If terrible there was a motion to deny the project, you had to base it off of the findings. Right. And then we would have to the commission would have to explore that. We'll talk through that if it comes down that.

But, Joe, hang hang on a second. They knew going in that the easement was only seven feet. So we if we approve it, it's on them to deal with it later. We're not at risk for anything.

Yes. But what is the impact of the project? Of the things we like about this project

I don't know. You're asking I don't know. PG and E could have no problem with it.

I understand.

But But and they may. I don't know. But Okay. But the developer knew all this going in. So they went in with their eyes open.

Okay. What what for the purpose of what are we debating and why? I don't understand.

Because we're

that's what we're

here for.

What? To debate something we have no control over? I mean, like, what are we I'm I'm asking is there is there something we can decide here

or Well, think we're we're actually still in the clarifying questions phase. Right. Right. We I mean, I think there's room for more discussion, but it probably would be better served to go to the public hearing and

Yeah.

Come back and discuss further.

Is is the hearing closed, mister chair?

We never had to open

it. It's not open yet.

Maybe we should do that and see if there's any more comments before we continue Miss our

Brown was eloquently explaining the situation. So are we done with her? I think now.

Yeah. Thank

you. Now we're gonna open the public hearing. Does the applicant wish to give a presentation?

Good evening. Sorry, I'm using a little flashlight to get more light, so excuse me on that. Good evening, commissioners, city staff, and members of the public. My name is Steve Saray. I'm with the development and ownership team.

Before you this evening, we are pleased to present our project located at 25 Peoples Avenue. This site is approximately one acre in size. It proposes a 20 unit townhouse community. For the past two years, our development team, design consultants and city staff and planning engineering building and fire department have worked closely and diligently to bring this thoughtfully designed project to fruition. People's Square is envisioned as a model of sustainable and appropriately scaled development, one that fosters an active, vibrant residential community and contributes positively to the neighborhood's character.

The project reflects a careful balance of design, functionality, and community sensitivity, ensuring that it's both compatible with the harmonious two d surrounding uses. We sincerely hope that you find People's Square to be a well conceived and thoroughly planned community worthy of your support and approval. Thank you for your time and consideration. We'd be happy to answer any questions you have. I know there's a few questions, so I'll be standing here. That concludes each. And, Tiffany, the great presentation as well.

Thank you.

Okay, so the first one I think you heard the discussion with the other project and that is about the additional statement to the CCNRs that you, the residents should use their parking, the parking that's in the units.

I'm sorry, could you repeat that again?

Well, what our concern is, and this neighborhood is no different than any of the other neighborhoods in this city where we have development of this density, right? We have a problem with everybody wanting to use the street parking and there's not enough, right? They need to use the parking stalls that are in their homes, right? So, we're gonna, I'm gonna request to add language that we did before that your CCNRs make a statement that the residents use the parking spaces in the garage for their cars.

Absolutely, commissioner. As you noticed in the planning design, each unit contains two parking spaces, except two units. And that's simply because of the design constraints. But we are providing not tandem, but side by side spaces, which are very adequate and proper for the owners to use. And we are providing seven guest parking spaces on-site as required. So we are meeting the requirements with an exception of this unit.

And I'm gonna assume the two units are the two BMRs?

No. One is BMR and the other one is normal units.

Okay. Okay. Now, the other one is, you request a waiver on this public utility to to come down to seven feet. Yeah. What if it's not approved?

That's a great question. And with good intent, commissioners, we started with the city staff and they worked really well diligently with us. Originally, it was seven feet and then it changed to eight and a half feet, and then became 10 feet. But to make the long story short, we have prepared through our civil engineer a utility plan that outlines all the on-site, off-site, dry and wet utilities. And, he did a modeling of that, and he found it to be sufficient, more than adequate.

And, with that said, we provided a copy or a utility plant to the city for the review until that point where we reach PG and E and other departments, we really can't say. But, based on the information that we have from the Green Book from PG and E and other departments, we feel confident that it would work within the seven states.

Do you know of other any other municipality where they've cut it down to seven feet?

Not I'm not aware of any.

So my question goes back to the same question. What if it isn't approved?

The the the system that I've experienced, we would work it out with the city departments and various departments and figure out exactly what needs to be done to make it work. And, historically, it does work.

But you're missing the question. PG and E is the final say. They're gonna say yes or no and I know of a project in Morgan Hill that ended up stopping what they wanted to do because PG and E wouldn't give.

Until we get there commissioner and just from my experience and knowing PG and E under the sidewalk is where the hotlines go, there is adequate space just from hope it would work.

Okay. Dave?

Actually, only question I have might be more geared towards city staff, but as far as traffic flow expectations into, from Pebble to Monterey, was that included in this as far as what the plan would be? Are we looking at once it's built, signal timing changes or lane re striping? What's that impact to Monterey since Pebble's the only in and out access? I'm talking about 40 plus cars coming and going now.

Anything else David? Liam? Wayne?

Yes. I see in

the review. Let me just interrupt because we are still in public comment period So, just wanna, right now it's just questions for the applicant, but we also wanna check to see if there's any other speakers for

I the

can direct it to the applicant. I direct your attention to the report that we have. Maybe you could pull it up. Tiffany, it's the objective criteria standards waived. As I understand it, what Tiffany is going to be, bringing up are the standards that were waived by the city council who has authority to do it. And my presumption is that the documents that we have are consistent with what the city council had approved. And of the eight criteria standards that you had requested, it appears the city council had approved seven of them.

Waivers don't go to the city council, only concessions.

Then okay. What is this is this thing in front of us? Who who made it up? Who approved that? Objective criteria standards waived. Who waived?

The waivers are automatic. What has to happen is the city has to make And so the difference between concessions and waivers, concession the city has to affirmatively approve them. Waivers, somebody would have to actually affirmatively deny them, and there are no criteria by which to deny them. So they don't they don't they just they're just automatic.

Well, they're automatic, why is the one called utility easement blank when it says approved waivers? It's blank.

Because that would be like PG and E.

We were just discussing.

That's just a typo on my end. It should have said seven foot. So, it's a seven foot, so it's going from 10 feet to seven feet. Apologies, but if you look

Well, that caused a lot of confusion.

Sorry. But, if you look in the staff report and also in the resolution, it is correct and clearly defined in both areas.

And I think I think to avoid confusion in the future we'll not put the word approved and just put the word waiver because it's automatic it's not something we approve.

No gonna I'm gonna hold off my focus question until we bring it back to staff. So thanks for listening.

Of course, thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other speakers?

Yes, we have Brian Sullivan.

Good evening. Thank you for your comments about parking. Parking is definitely gonna

be an

issue. As you know, I came before you a few years ago about the Gemcord project, which is the Madrone Parkway project. And there was supposed to be a one way emergency gate for people to get out of. That gate has been broken open. It's constantly open. People park on the road right there on Taylor and also over on Rose Lane. And the police have had numerous calls. I mean, I feel sorry for them. They've been out there numerous times. They've given tickets.

They've told cars, but it continues. And we've spoken to three different managers at the location, and they all say, well, we're trying to. We're talking to people. But as you know, people don't listen. They don't have to. So it's gonna be a problem. It's gonna continue to be a problem. If you notice that when you drive down Monterey Highway, people park their cars right on Monterey Highway right in front of the complex there at Village Of Madron. So it's gonna continue to be a problem throughout the city. There is other cities.

And if you remember, some of you were here. I came before you and I talked about parking permits. And you said, hey, if there's a parking problem, come back to us and we can talk about it. We have spoken to the city about it and the city says no on parking permits. Other cities do have parking permits. That may be one way to do it. We're not sure. I don't think any of us are sure really if that would help or would take care of the problem. But this isn't a problem just for these projects. It's a problem for any project that's gonna take place, especially ones where there's no parking, which we have one coming up across from the adult ed school.

I think there's gonna be 44 units eventually built there with no parking because it's within a half mile of transit. So this is gonna continue to be a problem for our city, and I don't know what the answer is, but I do appreciate your comments and what you're looking to do in trying to solve this issue. I don't see how we're ever gonna get it really solved adequately with what the state's doing. So thank you.

Thanks. Anyone else, Joan?

I don't see anyone online or I don't see any hands raised.

Okay, then we'll close. Discussion?

I'd like to continue with my question that I had. More correctly should have been directed to the city rather than to the applicant. Could you please put back up the criteria chart? And as I now understand it, I forever am being educated during these meetings that between waivers for stick standards and concessions, waivers and concessions. Concessions require affirmative approval.

Waivers require affirmative denial. Okay. So we have eight criteria to be waived, and none have been affirmatively denied. Do we have the authority on the Planning Commission to deny any of these?

Only if you can make a finding that they relate to the ability of the applicant to build the project at the density that they're looking to build it at. And so that's the dilemma is that yes, you have the authority, but no, you don't have the ability to deny the waivers because you can't make the findings.

Okay, then we're into Where you were at. Why we even even Tell me again. Yeah, why do have this on the agenda? But, to just be a bulldog and look at this further. What if the project was before? It's this exact same project with their bigger units and so they needed to have less of a setback. In fact, the setback instead of being 15 feet from Pebbles Avenue is zero. Pick it up. Zero setback. So that they could have instead of their 1,600 square foot units 2,000 and that's what was before the city tonight, hypothetically.

You're saying that we could not challenge that unless we could say it directly impacted the proposal?

Well, a zero setback on a corner might be a safe might violate a safety standard. We would need to look at that. If violates a safety standard, a written existing safety standard, then we could deny the waiver. In fact, we would probably deny it. I mean, we would probably work that issue out with the applicant before it ever got to the Planning Commission.

Yeah, that's what I would think. And, same thing with covered parking. If they came in with zero covered parking, they could do that, as I understand it. And until somebody affirmatively denied it, that's the way it's going to be in today's world. Yeah. And the same thing with common open space. You don't need it. The other applicant didn't have it. So this one seems like though, to Joe's point, it's really unique in that if a third party, PG and E, were to deny the waiver.

Well, wouldn't be the third party denying the waiver. It would be PG and E saying we can't give you power which would effectively deny I mean it would effectively be a denial of the prior prevent the project from being built as designed at PG E. Says we can't we can't give it electricity.

And that that's my point. I mean, actually, I like the project. I like OTS design. I wish that this one hurdle was not there because if PG and E in the course of things denies it and basically it's no issue to them, the applicant then has to submit a new project possibly or you know, we don't know what their options really are. And that is the different.

That's that's unique. It it seems to me. It would almost be a cause for a basis for denial of a waiver because we can't assure of the request for that waiver, the seven foot easement. It just seems different.

Yeah. That's not the finding for denying a waiver. The finding has to be that it doesn't I mean, it it yeah. The fact that PG and E might not be able to give them power is not a basis for denying the waiver.

Well, they don't have power.

That's not And I think the applicants, as they've explained, they've done their homework. They understand what PG and E's expectations are. They're doing this at their own risk. Know, I think it's a very well measured risk given the fact that the amount of work they've done on it. And I think it's premature to say what PG and E's gonna do because they don't do any, they don't even have the project yet. Once they get it, they don't do things quickly.

Oh, they haven't even seen this, they haven't even seen the request.

Yeah, I think it was Tiffany who explained that it goes through building review, building permit review, it's funneled through PG and E and others for comments and that's when we'll find out. But these things don't happen quickly. The applicant doesn't have to wait for PG and E and they've chosen not to.

The other point

is we're backed into a corner with the streamlining act. Right, we have to act or it's automatically approved at the end of the week.

Maybe that's not so bad, Joe.

No. I disagree with that. We may lose more control than what little control we may have. Are you gonna do about Joe?

I mean, apart from sitting here and debate it all night, but what are you gonna do? I find it very frustrating to sit here having these discussions this whole night when there's nothing you can do. Like, this is how the law is now, right? And we're a bunch of rubber stampers here, right? So unless you get a proposal to change something, I'd rather move on.

Well, I'm gonna make a proposal to add to the CC and Rs, the same statement we added to the law.

That that that's what we all agree on. Right. Sure. But the thing is out of our hands. Yeah. They've made a informed decision to go forward with getting their permit. It's on them. It's not our job to tell them it's right or wrong or PG and E may or may not approve a seven foot easement. That's not our place.

I understand. I understand where you're coming from with that. What I don't like is one being putting in in the in the streamlining act issue because as I think we've been said a couple times here, we don't think as a city we've ever seen it. And in the thirty five plus years I've been on the Planning Commission, I don't ever remember seeing this, okay? No, I understand.

But the applicant thinks he knows better, right? It's his dollars, his risk, but I don't like being put in the corner because I don't, I'm not convinced they're anywhere close to that positive. But to me, I'll make a resolution or make a motion to pass the resolution adding the CC and R language that we added in the previous project to the conditions of approval.

I'll second that when I have some discussion.

Yeah. I guess just one thing. I found the language while Tiffany was giving her presentation from the other projects. So there's been multiple projects where we added this where it states that residents shall use dedicated garages for parking. This requirement shall be incorporated into the CC and Rs for the project. Yeah.

Great. That worked. Well done.

Can you make it retroactive to the item?

No, we're gonna use the same language.

We're getting off track here. Ligon?

Yeah. So, a couple of quick comments. So, I did second Joe's motion. I think overall, this is, of the two, you know, that we've reached out, this is a better application. I think there's a better attempt here made. Yes, they've got slightly a bit more space to play with, but not a whole lot. I don't really like some of the waivers, that's life now, right, which we can do. But at least the applicant made a reasonable attempt at the design of the homes for parking, some reasonable level of open space for, you know, there's gonna be kids there and people to play with. I think they've made a fairly reasonable attempt there. It's still pretty tight, but I think this is the nature of these infill projects that are kind of townhome style.

But better overall design, I think a better overall attempt, and I think a genuine better attempt by the applicant to make it more of a livable community compared to the last project, you know, I made no attempt at that. But, I'll support the motion.

Anything else there? That's it. Thank you. Wayne?

Well, I on the one hand, this project period, I definitely feel it's a much better, stronger effort for the community than other projects we may have seen tonight. However, this thing that we got ourselves put into really does cause us to be just about a rubber stamp. You know, it doesn't matter what we personally think professionally have an opinion of. It's going to be waived and the project is gonna go forward and if you do nothing to vote against it, it's gonna be approved by Friday I think. Anyhow, for that reason I'm voting no.

If my vote means nothing, I'm not gonna vote except I'm gonna vote in the negative.

Okay. Anything else?

That's it. David? Paul?

No. I'm good. I just like this applicant submission a lot better than the previous one For reasons that have been stated by my fellow commissioners.

Okay. Joe?

Yeah. I'm

done. Ready for a roll

call? Yeah.

Chair Wilson.

Aye.

Commissioners Lake. Aye. Muller?

Aye.

Tonda? No. Lovato?

Aye.

Downey? Aye. Motion passes five one zero one.

Thank you. Adam?

So we're on the director's report.

Yes, sir.

An announcement. We have a planning commission on November 11.

Thank you.

So, we'll have at least two items that night, possibly three. So, we'll be hearing the public hearing regarding the Healthy Neighborhoods for All Element, as well as the Natural Resources and Environment Element update. We may have one private development application that night as well. And then also I want to check with the planning commissioners on availability for the November 25 planning commission meeting. So that's the week of Thanksgiving.

And so we just want to get a ballpark to see if there's availability because we may have project that may be available for that date.

Paul? I'll be in LA.

Would you be able to attend remotely or are you gonna be out shortly?

I doubt it. I'll be out. Yeah.

We couldn't hear what you said. You'd be out. Okay.

I'll be

I'll be out. Okay.

I may be out too.

You're out.

Me too. I'm out.

Okay. I think it's a no go. Thank you.

No other reports? Okay. Everybody have a safe

How about we?

Have a Oh, I have a long question. Why?

Should I make it a quick one?

It's gonna be a quick one because nobody's gonna have the answer. We might. The parking issue with CCNRs. Somebody has to have figured this out somewhere How to make it more enforceable?

Don't think anybody has.

Well, I'd like to

Donna Donna, I think he's looking directly at you.

Yeah. Well,

know. I

mean, there's a

little what of

they end up doing is HOA starts getting aggressive and towing, and then that's lights out because it's just complete disaster.

There's lawsuits. Yeah.

You have lawsuits. You end up reimbursing people for towing. Know? Joe, you

can't you can't stop parking on a public street. Right? They wanna park on the street outside right outside. You're right. It's tough. They're tightly

is focused. Tough.

What do wanna do? You can't probably give

them I a didn't

say that. That's not what I'm

saying. Well,

think what HOAs have done is when they become aware that somebody has filled their garage with boxes and there's no possible way anybody gets in there they'll go in and send people a violation notice and tell them they need to clean up their garage. But forcing somebody to actually park in the garage is virtually impossible.

Right. And we tried that for a while and then you know you're beating your head against

the police.

Anything else? Any other comments, questions?

Everybody should take way more. That's what we should do. What are you

dressing up as in Halloween?

I'm dressing up as a planning commissioner.

Adjourned.