Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Commissioner David Lobato that will be joining us remotely. David, can you hear me?

Yes, I can hear you. Thank you.

Okay. In compliance with AB 2449, can you tell us why you're remote?

Yeah, just let my fellow commissioners know that we are going through household colds right now. Just found out my son itself has the flu. So out of the abundance of care for everybody else's health, I am staying home, but I still want to participate.

Okay. And then I need to ask you, is there anybody over the age of 18 in the room with you? No. Okay. Thank you. Jenna, can we do a roll call?

Thank you, Chair Wilson. Chair Wilson?

Here.

Vice Chair Habib?

Here.

Commissioners Lake?

Here.

Muller? Here. Tonda? Here. Lovato?

Here.

And Downey?

I'm here too.

Thank you. Thank you. Do we want to talk about the translation services?

Yes, we do have translation services available. The QR code that you see above, you can scan that with your smartphone or we have devices up here for you. Anyone visiting us using Zoom, viewing us on Zoom can scan the QR code and translate it to any language that you'd like to view the meeting in.

Thank you. Can you do a declaration of the posting of the agenda?

Tonight's meeting agenda was duly noticed and posted in accordance with government code section 54954.2.

Thank you. Commissioner Lake, you want to lead us? Yes. Public comment. Members of the public are entitled to address the Planning Commission concerning any item within the scope of the Morgan Hill Planning Commission subject matter jurisdiction. Public comments are limited to no more than three minutes. Except in certain circumstances, the commission is prohibited from acting on any item not appearing on the posted agenda. Thanks. Orders of the day, gents.

No change. Comments? Changes? No change, Chair. Good.

Okay.

Wait, hold on. Do we have anyone from the public that would like to make public comment that's for an item not on the agenda tonight?

Good catch. Thank you. Minute approval.

I'd like to move approval of the September 23rd meeting. Minutes?

Second. Which date?

September 23rd?

No, October 28th and November 11th. Sorry.

That's why we have legal counsel. You can probably do the vote in one motion.

Okay.

Well, I wasn't here on the 14th, so I was... You can still vote. Well, I was going to approve one and abstain on the other. All right.

Okay, so let me make a motion to approve the minutes for October 28, 2025 and November 11, 2025. Second.

Who is the seconder?

Can I ask if we do it separately? Because I was also absent for one of them. Can we do it separately?

Just because you are absent from a meeting, you can still vote. You don't have to abstain for minutes because all you're doing is confirming that they were done and they accurately reflect your level of participation in the meeting. And if that means you weren't there, as long as it accurately reflects that you weren't there, it's appropriate to vote on them.

Okay. Thank you.

You know, I have to ask for just a bit of clear. Oh, okay. I got it. I got it.

Can you confirm the seconder?

It's the chair. And the votes all tonight all have to be roll call votes, so.

Okay.

Chair Wilson? Aye. Commissioners Habib?

Aye.

Lake?

Aye.

Muller?

Aye.

Tonda?

Aye.

Lovato?

Aye.

And Downey. Aye. Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you. Public hearings. So our first item is a request for conditional use permit to allow the operation of a new 13,730 square foot daycare facility within Madrone Village, Primrose School. Okay.

Hi, good evening. My name's Tiffany Brown and I'll be presenting the first item on tonight's agenda. Make sure everybody can see my screen before I get started.

Yep.

All right. All right. So again, this is Tiffany Brown. I'm with the Planning Department, and I'm here to present the first item for a conditional use permit for a new daycare facility. Starting with where the project will locate, it is proposing to locate in Madrone Village Shopping Center, which is located on the northwest corner of Madrone Parkway and Cochrane Road, identified by that star on the site plan in front of you. um the general plan and zoning just explained this site as general commercial and the zoning has a planned development on it and that is the village at madrone shopping center which allows for a daycare use as a conditionally permitted use in front of us is a site plan i apologize that it is tiny but we wanted to give you an overview and if i could if you could see my mouse there we go can you see my mouse moving okay yep so the street on top this is madrone the street on the right is cochrane and so what this map is showing you is how they would access the site i'm going to start since i'm at cochrane when we go in from cochrane it's a right in right out only and the current parking lot is going to stay as is and the property that is undeveloped will be developed here and will include 10 new parking stalls and as a shopping center it is a shared parking lot the other access point is off of madrone parkway and it is a two-way full access entry so in and out left and right from this point here The road behind us is Woodview and there is no access to the shopping center from Woodview Drift. And as part of the project, when we look at conditional use permits, we're looking at site. Is this the right site? Is the access, is it compatible? And because I just reviewed site location and access with you, I thought appropriate to start with the traffic analysis. So we'll jump into that and then I'll go ahead and go over in more detail about the school and its actual proposal in front of us. So the site was evaluated for to look at the traffic that would be added to the roadway for the school. It was also looked at as level of service consistent with the general plan and it was also looked at the site access. So the traffic volume, geometric design, and the site distance. In conclusion, there are no changes to the intersections that are currently operating at a level C, which is acceptable per our general plan. There will be no change. The trip generation peak hour volumes added would not warrant updates or addition to existing infrastructure. So no lights, no changes to medians or anything like that. and concluded that it would not have an adverse effect on operations at steadied intersections. It also noted that because this is a preschool, the parents have to get out of the car with the child. So they have to park, get out, walk the child in, check them in, and then walk back to the car. So there were no safety concerns with like a typical school drop-off that you might have because they don't have that type of format. And there's anticipated a high turnover of parking because people are coming and it's not, it doesn't start right at a specific time like a school. It's a larger window. So parents have a larger window of time when they can drop kids off. So it's a little more manageable in that sense. So they don't anticipate needing any more parking than what is already provided at the shopping center. All right, so now let's talk about the school. Hours of operation would be from 6 a.m. to 6.30, Monday through Friday, occasional events on evenings and weekends. They'd have approximately 27 staff members on site. Children's age ranges from six weeks old to four years old, and would total 212 kids on site. The building, as we noted, is 13,730 square feet that contains 13 classrooms and five outdoor play areas. The outdoor players would include a 6,630 square foot after school playground area, a 2,235 square foot infant playground area, a 3,200 square foot open play area, and a 7,795 square foot early preschool playground. Lastly a 1,145 square foot primrose patch. Here's the site plan in front of you. We zoomed into that corner. The dark green is the Woodview landscape buffer and then a buffer from the school playground area and the neighboring parking lot for the office business park. The light green is all the outdoor playground area and the gray is the floor plan for the building itself. Here's a floor plan zoom in so we could see what we're looking at. So those are all the classrooms. There's a resource room, a staff room, storage, infant rooms, conference rooms, as expected for a preschool. For a conditional use permit, our zoning code requires that the project meet findings, and those have been summarized in your staff report. Just to quickly go over, those findings include the general plan consistency, zoning code or PD consistency, noting that the site is suitable and adequate for the proposed use, et cetera, et cetera. Community engagement, so this item was publicly noticed with a legal ad in addition to mailing out to property owners within 300 feet. They did put a site on site, excuse me, they did post a sign on site for the project and it also has a webpage on our city project. The project is categorically exempt from further environmental review per the new Senate Bill 313. And the next steps is if this application is supported tonight and approved, they would require a design permit and then the associated building permits and on and off site. Staff is recommending to open and close the public hearing and adopt the resolution approving the conditional use permit with the conditions of approval. And that concludes my presentation. We're here for questions and the applicant is here as well.

okay let's uh let's start with commissioner lovato do you have any questions i do not okay i do not have her stuff liam yeah i got a couple quick questions thanks stephanie um good presentation as always um some very basic questions so

The you have these kind of dedicated parking spot at the front of the facility and then this is all part of the same development so the other carbon parking spaces we don't fill up too much, but It's all shared so they can be used to write if necessary. Is that right? Like there was an event let's say and all the parents showed up and It's okay to use, like this is shared parking, right?

You are correct. Even the 10 parking spaces in front, it's shared parking.

For the whole development. That's correct. This is all part of the one development.

Yep.

Okay, got it. Okay. And then I couldn't really tell from the drawings and the report, how secure is the perimeter of this? I can always ask the applicant, but is it fairly secure from both obviously people not getting up, but also more importantly, people not getting in?

Yes, there is a proposed fence and I'm sure they have different security measures about how the fence has to lock and everything that they could go over with you when they come up. But yes, it has a fence.

I couldn't really tell that from the report. Okay. Sure. And then on the trip generation, right? You've heard my opinions about how we do this stuff, but I'll refrain from that. Do we have any idea what percentage of the increase that might be? For example, with this facility, it'll be a 5% increase because that's a pretty busy area already, right? With all the businesses coming out from the drone parkway, but also you've got a lot of very active areas in there. Is it a 5% increase, a 10% increase, a 2% increase? Do we know?

It doesn't give a percentage increase. The report does go over different decibel increases for different types of measurements that it went through, VMT, LOS, etc. It does increase cumulatively but not significantly and it does not go over It doesn't change it from what it's currently operating at.

So it's currently operating at a level C, and it will continue to operate at a level C. Okay, so they don't provide real numbers, they just say the level's not gonna change, therefore we don't see the impact.

So in the report, it does specify how many new trips it will generate, and it was between 165 and 167 during the peak hours. But for percentage-wise, it doesn't specify that exactly, like Tiffany said. It's just that it maintains the same level of service.

We can save it for another day. But it would be nice sometimes to understand, is it 167 where there's already 1,000, or is it 167 where there's already 5,000? Okay. And then maybe I have one other question. Occasional events on evenings and on weekends, no limits on that? As many as they want? i take it yeah okay um i think that was it sure i think that was it thanks thank you oh i had one other one was there any feedback from the legal notices any neighbors businesses no no no commentary no feedback no feedback okay thanks thank you

Yeah, a real detailed question. As I was looking at the floor plan, there are 11 classrooms beyond the two infant classrooms. And of the 11 classrooms, some have no toilets, some have two, some have one, some have two in a shared room. I'm sure there's some rationale to it, but do you know what that is?

Just because I'm a parent, I think it's based on the age of the children that are in that room, but that is a really good question for the applicant and they could clarify for you.

Okay, thank you. Anything else?

Oh no, thanks.

Commissioner Habib. No clarifying questions at this time.

Commissioner Lake.

Just one, what is a primrose patch?

That is a good question for the applicant as well. It's just green space at this time.

Thank you.

Great question. Commissioner Mueller?

Yeah, no questions right now.

OK. Thank you. So we're going to open the public hearing. Does the applicant want to give a presentation?

We have Caitlin. Let me see.

Can you hear me now? Okay, that sounds better. Good evening. My name is Caitlin Sharon. I am a development project manager for Primrose Schools, and I'm here along with our franchise owners, Madhuri and Sri. I want to thank you for your time this evening. Primrose Schools is an early child care provider and leader in education. We offer child care services for children from six weeks of age to four years of age. And we have over 500 locations across 34 states and the locations are franchised owned. And if you don't mind, I'd love to answer your questions that you had earlier. Perfect. So regarding the fencing, the fencing around the playground is six feet in height and there is a security system it will alarm when opened. So that's how we keep children in and people from coming into the playground. For the events on the weekends, those are not anticipated to be very many. It would be for open houses to the school, encouraging enrollment within the school. For the restrooms, your question there was for the infants, it's changing stations. And then as they grow older, we have toilets that get incorporated into the classrooms as they begin to potty train. And then the Primrose Patch, this is from our original originators of Primrose. They believed in educating children in gardening. And so the Primrose Patch is used for the children to learn how to grow vegetables, grow fruit, and they get to actually participate in the activities. We are very excited to be coming to Morgan Hill and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

I'm good. No.

I'm good. That's an open fence around it.

No, it's a closed fence around the entire playground, and then there's individual fences in between. It's open, right? It's wrought iron? It's wrought iron. The pickets are roughly three inches apart, and that's per state licensing. We can't have them any wider or narrower for children to get through.

That answers that question.

Okay. David, do you have any questions?

No questions. Thank you.

Okay. Do we have any speaker either in person or online?

I don't see any more speakers.

Okay.

Actually, maybe one question I just wanted to maybe clarify. So are there any future plans for maybe extending to post daycare or things like. I don't know if that's really necessarily an age for tutoring but maybe more so like day camps or after school camps and so on or is it just strictly the work that you do across all of the daycare centers are strictly daycare use?

So our franchise owners do have the option of incorporating an after school program into the school but as of today's date it's going to be for six years to the five years of age.

Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions?

I'll make a motion to approve the condition on this. Are we closing the public hearing first?

I'm sorry.

Are we closing the public hearing, or are we done?

Give me a minute.

Joe was already making motions.

No, I just want to find out if the applicant themselves want to give any presentation.

I think we just had it.

That's the project manager, right?

Our franchise owners do not have a presentation this evening. Okay. Thank you, though.

Then we will close public hearing.

Now I'll make a motion to approve the conditional use permit.

Seconded. Chair.

Okay. Chair Wilson. Okay.

Can we do a roll call?

Chair Wilson.

Aye.

Commissioners Habib.

Aye.

Lake.

Aye.

Muller.

Aye.

Tonda.

Aye.

Lovato.

Aye.

And Downey?

Aye.

Motion passes unanimously.

Resolution. Thank you.

So our next item is a request for a design permit and a tentative subdivision map for the development of 106 single-family attached townhome-style condominiums with associated onsite and offsite improvements on a six-acre site within the RAM residential attached medium density zoning district. That's a mouthful.

Sounds perfect, John.

Good evening commissioners rich Bukema from the Planning Department. I'm here to present a project It's a design permit and a tentative map for a hundred and six units The property is located, it's a 6.3 acre site. The property is currently vacant and it's adjacent to the Butterfield Channel. It's located at the northeast corner of Tennant Avenue and Butterfield Boulevard. The general plan for the site is residential attached medium, which allows 16 to 24 units an acre. and the zoning for the property is residential attached medium density residential. So the project is 17 units per the acre and is being developed in accordance with the existing general plan and zoning of the property. The design permit application calls for 106 three-story attached townhome-style units. The project consists of two car garages with 37 surface parking spaces for a total of 249 stalls. It includes a centrally located open space and community building and includes connections to the neighboring property, which is also eventually anticipated to be developed with residential development. The project also includes the widening of Tenet Avenue to add an additional left turn lane at the intersection of Tenet and Butterfield. And a portion of the property will be dedicated for that purpose. Here are the elevations for the project. Consists of seven plexes, six plexes, and five plexes. There's three different material treatments being utilized throughout the project to create variety. Here are the six plexes. And the five plexes. The project conforms with the zoning with the exception of in three cases where waivers have been requested. A waiver has been requested for a reduced setback along Tennant Avenue. The typical setback, zoning required setback is 30 feet for an arterial street. They're asking for a reduced setback to account for the widening of Tennant Avenue. In accordance with density bonus law, they're allowed to provide less parking than would ordinarily be required. They're proposing 249 spaces. Oops. The requirement for riparian setback against a streamed category two stream is 30 feet. The Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency has requested, has approved a reduced setback to 20 feet. And there's a memo from the habitat agency included in the packet for your review. The project also includes approval of a tentative map. This is a condominium project, so it's one large condominium lot with airspace rights granted to the various condominium units. The project will provide 16 below market rate units in accordance with the inclusionary housing ordinance and will be conditioned that prior to final map, they'll need to execute an agreement with the city for the provision of those units. As indicated in the staff report, staff is able to make the necessary findings for the approval of the design permit as well as the findings necessary to approve the tentative map. With regard to community engagement, there's a notice in the newspaper. Residents and property owners within 300 feet were notified. There was a project webpage developed, as well as a sign posted on the property. So our recommendation is to open and close the public hearing, adopt a resolution approving a design permit for the development of the project, as well as adoption of a resolution for the approval of the tentative map. and staff's available for questions.

Thank you. Commissioner Lovato, do you have any questions?

No questions at this time.

Okay.

Yeah, I have a few. Okay. Let me start. Yep. A couple of quick questions for clarification. I saw a couple, I saw in the bigger package there was like an alternative design, but it looks like the main entrance into this development is on St. James's Drive, is that right?

That is correct.

Okay. Why St. James's Drive and not the bigger road of, was that Juan Hernandez, right? The main one, to the north of it? Or to the, was that east? Why that? Because that's a residential street, right? Why not have the entrance come in off the main street there?

Juan Hernandez is across the Nantucket Park.

Is it? Yeah.

Yeah. So it fronts, it also fronts tenant.

Oh, I misread the, maybe I misread the, oh, I see, nevermind. Okay, so that's the only way in.

Yes, just for clarification also, the, On Tenet Avenue, it appears that there's an entrance there, but that's just an emergency vehicle access, so there will not be any vehicle access off of Tenet Avenue. So that's the primary access off of St. James Place. There's an existing intersection there that was constructed in anticipation of this project being developed.

Okay, that was going to be my other question. It looks like there are some gaps maybe for future development next door, potentially where there would be suites joining in. Is that the idea?

Correct. We're requiring that there be reciprocal access easements granted between this project and the neighboring project so that eventually there will be the ability to access Juan Hernandez by this project.

Okay. And then... Typically, developments like this, even though there seems to be reasonably accommodating parking, parking is always an issue for big developments like this. Have we considered the impacts of that on St. James' Drive? Is there going to be any restrictions on street parking there, or is that open public parking there?

Yeah, street parking would be available to the to the public. There's no, there hasn't been any discussion of any parking restrictions in that neighborhood as a result of this project or anything like that.

Okay, that St. James's Drive is open public parking to anybody then? Any of these new residents could park there too?

That's correct.

Okay, and then, I only have one or two more questions. The widening of tenant, I don't get the necessity for that. Why is this development driving the widening of Tennant?

There's a number of traffic improvements going on or proposed right now on Tennant Avenue, one of which includes an additional left turn lane from westbound Tennant onto southbound Butterfield. There's a project under construction on the other side of the street of the 10 South development and that project also entails improvements to tenant. It's part of a larger plan, larger widening plan along tenant that the city's undertaking.

This is a burden, this is a cost we're putting on the developer to widen it?

I think there's a requirement to dedicate land to the city for the street. But as far as construction costs, I don't believe this project would contribute to that.

Is that correct? That's not correct?

Correct.

Oh, that is correct. So it's just more a dedication of the land, but the cost of the development is paid through some other fund. The waivers right the zoning compliance the reducing the setback along Tennant Avenue Why is there some law regulation that entitles them to the waivers? Well, they're just asking for the waivers

Waivers are waivers or entitlements and it's entitlements essentially developers are allowed to get waivers for any from any design standard or standard other than a safety standard that would include them from building at the densities that they want to build so it's very broad standard and they're entitled to essentially unlimited waivers from development standards. The only thing we can actually require are compliance with safety standards.

So by law, unlimited waivers?

Yes.

Skip that question. And then last question is on the newspaper community notices web page, any feedback, any questions, any concerns from anybody, anybody who expressed any concerns, questions?

Not that I'm aware of.

Okay. All right. Great. Thanks. Thank you.

Follow up on an item that Liam brought up on tenant. Tenant is an emergency only exit or entrance at this point?

Correct.

Okay, and the reason for that is why? Why isn't that an access to a public street? It certainly would make a lot of sense since tenant's a major street. I realize it's very close to a major intersection, that's a better field, but it seems like if you had the access move to the east, it would have been perhaps far enough away for the intersection to allow right turns out. So why did staff, what's the reason why we're prohibiting access on the tenant?

That was direction from our traffic engineer, given the, as you said, the location of the driveway in relation to the intersection, as well as traffic levels on tenant. There's a concern about cars exiting out on such a busy street, even at the most Easterly Point, that's my understanding, but I'm not the traffic engineer, but that's the direction we got.

Is he accessible tonight? Adam, can you fill in?

Yep. So what Rich indicated is accurate. It's the location and the proximity to the intersection with Butterfield and Tenant Avenue. And that's the reason why it's just EVA access. When there's future development on the adjacent property, we see that there could be a possibility, depending on locations there and the development that occurs, access onto Juan Hernandez and then to a controlled intersection.

and perhaps it was looked at adam but it seems like if you move this oh 100 feet or so to the east that would be better in terms of uh its location to butterfield and you could probably see that maybe if you could bring it up one slide that has design permit application as the title

While Rich is bringing that up, we also have a limitations on access points onto arterials as part of our general plan and city policy.

Okay, is that the reason then even if we were relocated further to the east, it would be prohibited because of the access policy in the general plan? I'm just trying to understand this, because this is so odd that you're going through a residential neighborhood all about the 2,000 cars per day when you have an arterial that is abutting the project.

I think it would still come to safety concerns on that getting onto Tenet Avenue within that short distance from the intersection.

Okay. So to capitalize it, even if the developer wished to do that, because he could see maybe some benefits in it, the city is saying you can't do that. You can't have any access onto a major arterial street.

Correct.

Okay. I find that kind of a bit odd, but I guess that's not relevant to this development. It would be a city hall.

So can I please, or can you please remind me again where those, I think it was 15 or 16 BMR units are in relation to the map?

There should be a page in your, I don't have my plans with me, but there should be a sheet in the plan set that was included. The project complies with the complies with the city's policy of requiring that the BMR units be spread throughout the project and not concentrated in one portion of a development or only one type of development. But since all of these are since all these are pretty much similar units. That's not an issue. Possibly the applicant is available to answer questions as well. He may have that information more readily available.

And then I was also going to maybe ask the follow up to is if the applicant does have that information for where there is below market rate. Locations are, or those units are in accordance to the proposed. Map, I may have missed it. That's why I was asking. Um, I can look back and try to locate it, but I was also curious to know based on that. Which ones were at which level of below market? Right? So it was, um, uh, realized so on and so forth. So just wanting to get an understanding of that. The 2nd question I did have, so I'll maybe wait for that for that question. The 2nd question I did have was, there was a couple of letters that we received in accordance with comments from California Department of Fish and Wildlife. I think we also got 1 from. Santa Clara Valley habitat, and there was some conflict in regards to. the the setbacks i think one was indicating 25 feet one was requesting 35 feet and i was hoping if you can maybe provide some clarification in regards to um that when it comes to the the map that we have proposed in front of us versus going with the more i guess you can say conservative uh one and i think the more conservative was um That might have been the fish, California Department of Fish and Wildlife that was requesting the 35 feet rather than the 25 feet that the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency was saying they were okay with.

Yeah, the reduced 25-foot setback was determined adequate by the Habitat Agency and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Agency. Correct, the reduced setback was opposed by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. the habitat agency took into consideration the implications of an increased setback on the number of units that could be developed and so forth, and determined that that would have been a significant hardship on the project to provide that additional setback. The California Wildlife Agency didn't take that into consideration, but... The city concurs with the habitat agency that this is not a stream that supports a lot of wildlife and riparian vegetation, so it doesn't warrant significant setback.

Okay, so when, for example, we're making the findings that we need to make, we would, I guess, to some degree, ignore what the California Fish and Wildlife has when it comes to their recommendations for that more conservative 35-foot based off of what Santa Clara Valley Habitat is saying and agreeing with the more liberal setback of 25 feet. So we should be okay with that.

Yeah, and that's consistent with a project that came through, I believe in July, further north at Diane and Butterfield, which a 20 foot setback was approved.

Okay.

So if I can interrupt this. So the California Department of Fish and Wildlife response was a recommendation, but the determination is made through the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency, as well as through us, through the city. one of the requests from the applicant was a waiver to reduce that setback from 35 feet to 25 feet. As part of, as a waiver, it's something that's Approved, um, it's something that they requested. It's re, it's something that the city has to, um, agreed to. We got the Santa Clara Valley habitat agency to agree to that based on the conditions of that. Butterfield channel that does not support the vegetation for wildlife and anything like that. And so they reduce that back to 25 feet is appropriate for this project.

Okay, so the regulatory agencies would all need to concur with that. Or what is it just Santa Clara Valley habitat?

Just Santa Clara habitat. And so it was just a. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife was. I'm trying to think of the word, was just consulted with on this.

Got you.

Okay. Just to add to that, to deny a waiver, we ultimately would have the burden of proof to show that we could make one of the findings for denial, and if the Habitat agency is saying that it's not an impact, then we would have a hard time making those findings.

Got it. Okay. So it can be like, oh, for example, a CD, a conference department efficient wildlife set. So that's our.

Yeah, that wouldn't be enough of a justification and they're not even. They weren't even definitive like, no, you can't do it. It was the suggestion.

Got it. Thank you. I do have one final question. This was also, I guess, in some relation with regulatory bodies, but there was that conversation around the groundwater contamination, around the perchlorate plume. I think this was more so around well water or if water was going to be extracted and so on, but Maybe a point of clarification was, does it affect soils? So, for example, future residents, if they want to grow vegetables, fruit, fruit trees, so on, would that prohibit them from from growing such. Items when it comes to procure a plume contamination, or is it just water?

The contamination is limited to the groundwater and it's. and the conditions that the Water Quality Control Board had asked for are in the approvals, so that should fully cover the issue. Okay.

That's all I had, thank you.

Commissioner Lake?

Yeah, the only question I had was around the water quality in terms of how they're mitigating the So obviously development is not going into the groundwater. They're getting their supply from some other source, is that it?

That's correct. They won't be using well water to supply this project. They'll be using the city's water supply.

Didn't the Water Control Board ask for those conditions to be put into the CC&Rs and stuff?

Yes, the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board did request that we add those conditions. No local groundwater will be used for drinking or other uses. A land use covenant or no deed restriction is recorded to ensure that groundwater will not be used for drinking or other uses. They also requested that we conduct a preliminary endangerment assessment prior to issuing the occupancy permit. and then regardless cleanup and so these conditions are Included in one way or another with and within the resolution for the project The project would have, as Rich indicated, that they will be served by public water and sewer. So they'll be hooked up to utilities. If the Commission wishes to specifically state that a land use covenant or deed restriction is recorded on the property so that groundwater is not used, we can add that to our list of conditions. As for the preliminary endangerment assessment, that's already included within our conditions. The project per AB 131 are required to do a Phase 1 analysis and possibly a Phase 2. Depending on those results, they would have to do a preliminary endangerment assessment. So that's already captured within the conditions.

Are there any cleanup wells on the property right now?

There are no cleanup wells on the property. There are two modern wells.

Okay. On the property or in the street?

If Rich can correct me, I believe they're on the property.

Well, one of the things of the letter says not to interfere with the cleanup. So is there ongoing cleanup? Or will there be?

Yes, there is ongoing cleanup. There's other wells outside of this project, off this project site.

Oh, off the...

So when I read it, I thought the current wells are in the street as opposed to on there. But they were saying if in the future they needed to be on the property, then they needed to allow that.

I believe they are in the city's right-of-way on the property, but currently on the property, not in the street. The applicant can probably clarify that. With regards to the cleanup status, originally there were 188 impacted wells by the contamination. Only four of the initial 188 wells remain in the replacement water program. But off-site monitoring is continuing, including on this site.

Okay. So there's two monitoring wells right now on the property?

That's correct.

So who's going to be responsible for maintaining those? It's not going to be on the developer?

the condition is just that the developer not interfere but we're obviously not asking no no i understand but people have to get access to it right yeah that's requested yeah so that that's part of that's one of the conditions it's built in okay my question my other question is then where are they located relatively to the buildings that's a great question yeah let's save that question for the

applicant he can indicate the location of the existing monitoring wells and their relation to any proposed buildings okay then the other question i have is can you go back to that street the map that shows the uh the uh reduced uh setback from tenant

I think it's up we just need to get the shared on the on the monitors.

Okay now the piece we're talking about is on the right hand side. Now as I look at that if I go to the farthest east portion of the boundary it looks like there's almost no reduction in the 30 foot setback. But if I go down to the very bottom of the page, it looks like we're in the full amount. So what is that doing? How does that fit?

That just corresponds with the widening of the proposed widening of Tennant Avenue. There's gonna be, proposed, I believe they call it a deceleration lane, and a dedicated right-hand turn onto Butterfield.

So you're gonna have to widen, it looks like you'd have to widen quite a bit across the Butterfield channel to do that. Is that part of a proposed project in the future?

That would be a future project by the city.

to make an additional right-hand turn on the northbound Butterfield.

Correct. Yeah, there's a condition, there's an engineering-related condition specific to that improvement to Butterfield Channel.

Is that gonna be done concurrently with the project though? Because otherwise they're gonna stop right there on that widening of the lane.

Yeah, I understand there might be a temporary condition where that would be the case.

Oh, okay.

Okay. Okay. So at, what is it, 17 foot, I think is how far they're taking it down, or remaining, what's the interior acoustical noise based on the traffic? inside those buildings?

As part of the building permit process, they'll need to do acoustical analysis to make sure that the windows are appropriately rated to mitigate any traffic noise from.

But if you are from tenant, totally?

Yes.

Okay, so it's possible that those, some of those units may or may not need to be improvements. Need to be raised in standard to get to meet the interior noise level With You know more acoustically reduction in the windows or a restriction on the windows opening It would be based on the construction of the other buildings.

So they want to meet the building code and it's It's the acoustical analysis and the results are based on when the windows are closed. So, the property owner, the future property owner, if they choose to open the windows, that's on them, but there's not going to be any limitation on the restrictions of windows that can or cannot open.

And we weren't able to require any noise analysis or. in light of the fact that this is a AB 130 project, which exempted infill residential development.

But the building code would force it.

On sites like this from CEQA, preparing initial studies and so forth.

Okay, but they will have to during the construction?

Yeah, there are building code standards with respect to interior noise that will need to be achieved.

Okay. And then educate me a little bit on this assessment that has to be done. If it only has to be done at occupancy permit, that means everything's built. What do they have to do to correct it if they don't pass it?

I'm sorry, assessment?

The assessment for the groundwater contamination.

The PEA.

If that's not due until occupancy permit, I mean, everything's built. What if they fail?

Well, the recommendation here is to have it done prior to issuing occupancy permit.

Right. But that's way late in the process.

Well, there's a report right now that tells us the status right today, right?

No, there's a new report required.

Well, then you're right. We should get one before they start.

I mean, what is the assessment? What's the test? And what's the mitigation? Hey, Bill?

So that before we go out in the condition in the... permit, it indicates that a phase two soils analysis is required in light of the fact that the phase one analysis identified the potential groundwater contamination. If a phase two finds that there is soil contamination, then a more involved assessment will be needed. That's spelled out in AB 130. It indicates what they need to do Okay, so the problem. Can you read that out loud, Adam?

Yes, so it's the last condition in the resolution. It says number 53. So it's the environmental assessment per AB 130. So it's prior to recordation of the final map, a phase two environmental assessment is required.

Okay, I thought I read it was said that the results aren't due until occupancy permit or prior to occupancy permit. Whereas that assessment sounds like it's done when they start grading.

I believe it's prior to the final map.

Prior to final map. I don't see any language that says prior to occupancy.

We just had it.

Yeah, I'm going by what's in this.

It's in the letter. Yeah, those aren't.

Those aren't our conditions. Those are just suggestions that the board made. And we're suggesting that we include them. But what we're saying is we didn't include them verbatim. Everything they've asked to have in the conditions is in the conditions, but in the condition, we would never have a condition, a final map condition that didn't have to be completed until occupancy, so that's not.

Okay, what about the land use covenant deed restriction recorded to ensure that groundwater will not be used for drinking water?

Is that also included? That's not a specific condition if the commission wanted to add that. The idea behind those conditions is to put future property owners on notice that they can't. So it would have to be, I don't see any circumstances in which those would come into play. So that's why we haven't suggested doing that. But if that's something the commission wanted, it's certainly something we could, it's not hard to do. It's just, I'm not sure what it necessarily accomplishes.

Yeah, I think it just gives the homeowners or potential homeowners awareness, right?

So we wouldn't put that in. So the suggestion isn't to put that in, we could. The suggestion wouldn't be to put that into the HOA CC&Rs. It would be a separate deed restriction so that if the entire project ever sold, which is unlikely when you've got this many condos, each being individually owned, but if somebody was to consolidate and then sell the project, then the new owner would be unnoticed that they couldn't switch the wells. If that's- Gotcha.

Well, if there are wells on the site though,

From my knowledge, there aren't any water wells on site. There are testing wells.

Well, they're monitoring. Monitoring wells, but those. They have a pump to get the water to the surface to test it.

But there's no water that would provide drinking water on site.

Got it, yeah. Okay. Thank you. All right. Okay. So I did hear though from Rich, we're testing the soil also?

Yeah, it's a phase two. So they've got to do a phase two prior to recording the final report.

Okay. And that's in there. Okay.

Any other questions before we open the public hearing? He's going to do that during the public hearing. You're talking about David? Did David already? Yeah, we asked him earlier. Oh, you did? Okay.

If I can remind everybody to make sure to speak directly into the mic.

Okay. Thank you, Don.

Okay. Another question, Rich. In the past, several projects like this that we've seen condominium projects relatively high density parking is always an issue and uh to the same extent that it makes any difference which is debatable we've included uh a in our resolution approving a design permit and or tentative map a condition that residents shall use dedicated parking garages, I should say, for parking. And this requirement shall be incorporated into CCNRs of the project. Was that considered in this project also? It's about the same situation as the others that we've seen.

That is not proposed as a condition.

Okay, that's something to actually ask the developer when he comes up to do a Q&A.

Yeah, I would defer to the city attorney as to the enforceability of such a condition.

Can you repeat the condition you wanted?

Yeah, it's about using a garage as a parking.

So yeah, you can't. really enforce that very well. We could ask them or require them to put in the CC&Rs that garages have to remain free and clear for parking cars if that's what they intend to do with parking cars. It doesn't mean that we can enforce them to park their cars in there. And we would have a hard time enforcing even those conditions, but at least it puts people on notice that we expect them to use their garages.

Yeah. Right.

And I think we have some standard language that we've used in the last two or three projects.

Yeah, that's correct.

Yeah. And what it would do, Don, is it would provide consistency with the... uh... position or the opinion of the planning commission which is you know we are designing a lot of things with not enough parking on site and this is our uh... uh... effort to try to optimize the parking that is being provided that's something that

I just had maybe a quick clarification here. This might be pretty straightforward. So if you can help me clarify on the tenant side, is street parking currently allowed? Because on the block before you come into this project site, it has the do not parking signs, but once there is development on there, will that shift from currently parking, assuming that there's no signs along the tenant side to no parking?

I don't believe parking will be allowed on Tenet.

Okay, but as of now, is it allowed?

I don't know.

Okay, because I don't see any no parking standards along that frontage of Tenet and the project site. The other question I had was, The one entrance along Tenet, is that intended primarily for ingress and egress, or is it intended for one?

It's an emergency vehicle access only.

Oh, okay, that was the one that you were asking about.

It kinda appears to be a access.

So emergency access would be via a curb on the sidewalk? How would an emergency vehicle get through?

Yeah, they probably do have a curb cut or something like that, yeah.

Okay, I think we need to somehow put this project on notice that that mid outlet out of this project midway between St. James Place and Tenet going into the vacant property will probably go through to Juan Hernandez at some point in the future. We just need to put everybody on notice because they're gonna cry foul as soon as that project comes in, right? And they'll cry foul even if with it, but I think we need to put the buyers of these homes that that street is potentially gonna go through at some point in the future all the way to Juan Hernandez. And that will cause traffic patterns to potentially change interior to this project and through the project in the future because it's just one of those things. Does that make sense?

Yes, there's a condition. that prior to occupancy the property owner shall record an appropriate deed restriction running with the land for a reciprocal ingress egress easement along the common driveways to the joining site so that will be that would be required to assure that that cross access is ultimately provided, so.

I understand, right?

As far as where the road goes out to, you know, I think that would be subject to our transportation department where they want the connections to be,

Okay, but that's the technical term that allows them to go back forth. I'm asking a simpler statement that says that street's gonna open up at some point in the future and the traffic's gonna go through there, right? I wanna just straight, simple language that the people that buy these condos understand that they're gonna go through there. They may not understand what a reciprocal ingress, egress means. but I want it just straightforward that, hey, that road will be extended. Because I've seen this done probably maybe a thousand times in my tenure, right? And every time it turns out to be a point of contention, right? And so I just want some fairly straight blunt language going to the buyers that says these streets potentially will open at some point in the future so that they clearly understand that and then whatever happens happens, right?

So on other projects, uh, we've had, um, conditions where it was a requirement to place a sign saying feature through street or something like that. Uh, we can, if the commission chooses to add a condition requiring that, uh, we can, the commission can certainly do that and we can look for that language so that it's kind of the same language that are from other projects.

In fact, there is a similar type of sign right now at the existing driveway on St. James Place that this is intended for a future through street.

Right. And I just think that's important for people to understand.

Anything else, Joe?

No.

And Joe, I had a quick clarifying question for you too. So is that both of those roads or is it that one road to the north of the park?

I don't know whether there's one or two. I don't remember. There's two of them. There's two. So you'd put it on each one.

Yeah. Okay. David, did you have a question?

Yes, and this is just before we go to public comment because I have a feeling this is going to prelude to it. When we go back to community engagement, you talked about the 300 feet notification. Just so that we're all aware, 300 feet covers what, maybe six, 10 of those homes in that entire community, notifying them of the future project. I'm in communications, transportation communications. 300 feet is nothing. 300 feet is just if you can see that patch of land. So you're effectively only notifying up to six homes that this future project is happening and all this onset traffic is gonna happen. I really think we should reevaluate what 300 feet means, who's actually being notified. That doesn't even reach across Butterfield as far as notification. The newspaper notification, I'd like to know what newspapers, what languages, Well, we're notified. Not everybody in Morgan Hill reads one type of newspaper. So in future projects, I'd like to see a little bit more notification as far as outreach, because when we go to public comment and nobody's commenting on this, that tells you how many homes you've reached. 300 feet is nothing. 300 feet, you notified nobody. The only people that really know about this project are the people that are facing this project of that inlet who see that future traffic sign. So I'm just curious, are we looking at when we move into construction, are you going to look at additional outreach more than 300 feet?

So the 300 feet notification is from our ordinance code so it's a requirement that we notify with at least 300 feet it's specified within our code and what we do is we do we do go above and beyond that what the because what we're required to do is either notice within 300 feet or notice within a newspaper that's in circulation within Morgan Hill and we do so we do both that we do the notification within 300 feet and then also within the Morgan Hill times I'm not sure if rich knows how many residences or property owners were notified but the 300 feet if you give me some time we can look that up as well how many people were notified okay it's more than six but

Well, I'm not saying six bodies. I'm saying you got six homes facing the property. Yeah, it's 300 feet from that inlet or where the project property is. You're only talking about that small batch. It's St. James and St. Tiffany court. That's really the only homes that cover that that radiance.

It's the 300 feet from. The exterior boundaries of the project, so it's 300 feet on each. Side, we, um. State law dictates how we, A, define the 300 feet, and then B, which newspapers we advertise in, and it has to be a recognized paper with certain circulation and a certain distribution, and there happens to be only one, besides the Mercury News, which is prohibitively expensive. So that's why we do Morgan Hill Times. But that's why we also have project pages that are available in multiple languages, and other types of outreach, because frankly, the newspaper notice and the postcard notices, they're required by both our ordinance and state law, but most people don't even know when they get the postcards. because they're little postcards and they throw them away. So it's pretty rare that either the newspaper notice or the postcard notices get people to turn out. What gets people to turn out are social media and project pages and things like that.

Okay.

Anything else, David?

I'm just curious was it decided at all to really target this community that's adjacent to the project to make sure they were all aware of the project rather than 300. I don't know if this community has a name. I don't see it having any kind of neighborhood association like that. But are we looking at targeting communications to this entire neighborhood knowing that there's only 1 inlet to this new community? We're building our next door.

Yeah, we follow the legally required noticing procedures for this project.

So the answer's no, right?

The answer's at least, okay, at least.

Okay, anything else? David?

No, nothing else. Thank you.

I do have one question, Rich, about one of the items on the permit. Connections to the neighboring property. Are we extending the utilities to the other property? Or what connections are we doing?

We're just providing two access points

Oh, okay, roadway.

Roadway improvements, yeah.

All right, thanks. Anything else, gentlemen, before we open?

No, let's go to the public comment.

Okay, we're gonna open the public comment. Does the applicant wish to address the commission?

We have Bill McClintock online. I don't know, do we have the applicant in the audience?

Is your microphone on? Is it on, Jimmy? Bill, I think you're muted.

He might be muted, bye.

Okay, I was waiting for Bill. He's on mute right now.

Trying to find the elusive unmute button.

He's still on mute.

Yeah. Yep. Bill, if you can hear us, Bill, on the Zoom at the bottom left, usually there's a little microphone that you should be able to unmute yourself. You can see that. You can unmute him, right?

I'm asking him to unmute.

Oh, you can just unmute him.

He should have probably received a notification on his screen after Jed sent that notification.

I'm on Zoom all day long, so I know where all the buttons are.

Bill, you can try pushing the space bar.

Bill, push the space bar and hold it down, see does that work? Yeah, we got that, Bill. We agree with you.

Bill, you should see a microphone, and the microphone has a cross through it.

Oh, there we go. Are we on now?

Welcome, Bill.

Very good. So it was showing up on the bottom, and I went to pick it, but my big thumbs here hit the wrong thing, and I got stuck. But I'm sorry about that. Now, I'm Bill McClintock with MH Engineering speaking for the project. Just a little history. We did have a development plan with the neighboring property included in the project. and we were working very hard to try to get the agreements to do that. We had done several development plans that were very nice plans, and they all included the street off of Juan Hernandez to come into this project about where we show it right now. But unfortunately, those negotiations fell apart, time was of the essence for the owner and so we went forward with our own project here and I think it has the capability that you want to see with the road extending out to Juan Hernandez and and that can be stipulated to um with the reciprocal ingress egress easements we're going to dedicate those so uh You know, the hard part might be getting the neighboring property owner to agree to provide that access. But that's not something that's of... critical concern with this project right now. I think we have the two emergency accesses, the main access, and we should be able to go forward with this development. Just a little bit about the widening of Tennant Avenue. This was a surprise to us since it was Tenet Avenue was already at its 110 foot wide designated width. But the city wants to provide another left turn lane. westbound onto southbound Butterfield, which Rich pointed out. And to do that, they did not want to move the median at all. So we were stuck with the existing median that's in Tennant Avenue. And all the widening for this new left turn lane was to come from our project. And this... We were allowed to taper this, which is why you see the east end of the project is pretty close to where it has always been. But to the west side of the project on Tennant Avenue, you see where most of the dedication is. Now, this is going to require significant improvements in the future. but we were asked to provide the right of way for that. And at first we were told these improvements weren't gonna be required just the right of way, but as it turned out through the conditioning and staff review of the project, we're actually going to be installing those improvements. And where you see, we have a, A barricade at our project boundary, this public works department is actually asking us to provide the corner round off all the way onto Butterfield Boulevard, which is going to involve moving the. The head walls. I'm sorry, not the headwalls. The barricade wall that's there now will be able to be moved over to the top of the culvert. So no culvert improvements are going to be needed to provide this widening around the corner onto Butterfield. But the city did say they were going to pay for that part of it. We think the city should actually pay for the land that we're having to dedicate as well because there's no widening that's being required on the south side of Tenet for the project that's now being improved. And I don't know the name of that project, but it's well on its way. And we'll be providing all the land dedication beyond the required 110 feet that's needed for this new left turn lane. And we're glad to do it, but if we can have credits on traffic impact fees, reimbursement agreements from the city, that's where we would be heading when we go into the subdivision improvement agreements that we'll be preparing in the future. Any other questions that came up that I might be able to help you with?

Hey, Bill, can I ask a question, Bill? Certainly. Yes. So, Bill, you've been in front of us many times, right? And every time we have a conversation about sort of a large, dense development like this, which in principle is fine, I don't have a basic problem with it, but in its location and with its ingress and egress with really one entrance, traffic flow and parking is always a concern, right? And, you know, everybody spins a story about, oh, we'll put it in the CC&Rs and we'll tell them park in the garage. They never do, right? I'm really concerned around the speed and the volume of traffic on St. James's Drive, and I'm concerned around parking, even though I know you said in your intro there, Your intent was to work with the development next door and maybe have other exits or entrances out of this facility, but it's not there. Is there anything you think that can be done around ensuring, I know it's a different conversation, but it's a public street and everybody says public streets is public parking, but I feel like St. James Drive is going to become very busy and very congested. So, you know, is there, and maybe it's a question to you, but maybe it's also a question to staff later, but how do you control that St. James's Drive doesn't become a parking lot, you know?

Well, my experience has been that whenever we provide these high-density projects and we face the front doors towards... the street i mean from a streetscape point of view it's great it looks good but it's so convenient for the occupants of those homes to park on the street and not drive through the development to get to their garage in the back so you you you will always see a lot of parking on the on the frontage streets because it's it is convenient and not as not as convenient as going into their garages. But I don't know. It is an issue that if there was an easy solution, we should do it. But how do you make people park in their garage? That's where most of the parking is in this development is in the garages.

Because if they don't park in the garage and there's very limited, let's call it, what, visitor parking? I guess that's what you'd call it. All the other areas are either drivable areas or they're probably fire lanes, right? You're not going to be allowed to park inside the development itself, correct? So people are just going to go out onto, and the only real street available to them is St. James Drive. There's no other street available to park on because you can't park on Butterfield and you can't park on Tennant.

Well, it's going to be quite a hike to the south side of the property if you park on the street.

It is, but I'm not saying everybody will, but people closer to St. James's Drive would, right? True. Okay.

That's a good point. You know, I do know that there's always been this issue about driveway aprons, and if you put the driveway aprons in, people park in them. And to avoid sometimes having people try to park in front of their garage doors when there's not an apron, that forces them to go into the garages. So, you know, what might happen here is since that is such a long walk from a public street to park, to get into these units, maybe they will use the garages because there isn't that convenient street parking available to them. It's just a thought.

It's a good thought, but also be wishful thinking, but good thought. All right, that's it for me.

Anybody else have any questions for Bill?

I do.

Joe?

so bill it was mentioned earlier that there are a couple monitoring wells on this property yes where are they at really in relationship to the buildings you know i read the staff report and uh

to be honest with you i don't know specifically where they are i know that it said they were in the public right away and i was a little concerned that if we're widening the road and these monitoring wells uh are in the way of uh some underground utility or something we may have to uh you know work around them or take them out and replace them but i wish i i wish i knew exactly where to tell you where they were but i think they're in the asphalt so you're saying they're in the street they're in the street

Well, that was different than what we were told here.

uh but i thought i read it in one place that it was in the street too and i in my experience the water quality control board doesn't generally share that information with us so um it may be a question we can ask them um but but i've never i don't we don't typically know for these cleanup sites where they put their monitoring wells because they don't want them damaged yeah okay so so here's the question then

What if one of them's under a building?

They have the plans. I would assume they would tell us that.

Okay, because somehow... What do we do, right?

I mean. That's the reason that we have the conditions, that they gave us those conditions. We've incorporated them in some form or another into our conditions of approval. If there's an issue with it, it's really incumbent on them to tell us that no, you can't do this because it's gonna interfere with our wells.

Okay. Well, if they have to be relocated though, whose cost is that?

It wouldn't be the cities and it wouldn't be the property owners. It would have to be the...

Okay.

All right. Okay. So, okay. I understand that we don't want to make it public because somebody will go do something to them. Okay. But it does propose a problem for us, right? If we condition it this way...

I suspect that if there was a problem, because they're aware of the project, I suspect if there was a problem with the plans as they're proposed, that we would have known, we would know more specifically than a general, hey, don't interfere with our wells type of condition.

Can we ask that question explicitly to get a yes or a no?

We can reach out to the water quality.

Well, have they seen the plans?

I'm Ron Cheery. I represent the owners and the developer. And I can answer the water issue. The wells, the monitoring wells are right inside the curb in what would be the sidewalk if Tennant was widened as originally planned. It's likely that the wells will be in the street as after Tennant Avenue was widened. They'll either be in the street or they'll be in the sidewalk. But they are not inside the interior of the project. So there's no chance they'd be under a building.

But at a minimum, it complicates the heck out of that widening.

Not necessarily. Throughout the city, we do have lots of modern wells within our right of ways.

As staff is aware of that issue and there's a condition included in the permit that the project's erosion and sediment control plan needs to be updated to include a note that the existing monitoring wells shall be protected during construction activities.

Okay.

Okay, well I just wanna thank the commission for going through this in depth here. And I noted two questions that I can respond to. One was regarding the location of the BMRs. There is a sheet, I don't have the page reference, but it shows the plan and there are dots where each of the BMRs are located. They're spread throughout the project. They're also proportional. We have two-bedroom, three-bedroom, and four-bedroom units. Whatever the ratio of that is, if the four bedrooms are 10% of the units, then they're 10% of the BMRs. And so there's four-bedroom, three-bedroom, two-bedroom BMRs in the same ratio. So that's that. And the other issue was regarding notification. There are three four by eight foot signs on the south side, the north side, and the west side of the property. And the one on the north side is almost right in front of where St. Lawrence comes out, or you can easily see it. So anyone that's driven down St. James Place can see that sign. So there's been a lot of notice there and it's a large sign, has a plan, a site plan, also has a QR code where you can code in to go to the city website and look at the project. So there has been notice in that regard.

Okay, so the discussion about that noticing that I was talking about was the The future regresses on the east side.

There was also the question.

That can be simply, there is on the existing stub of St. James Place, there's the standard sign that says future street subject to additional traffic. There's a barricade there and it'd be the same thing on both those stubs.

Hey, can I ask one more question? Chair? Yes. And maybe you could answer, or Bill could answer it. The emergency ingress, egress on Tennant, how do you control all the traffic not coming in there? Is it going to be a barrier or a gate? What's going to be there?

Bill would know that better than I, but I believe it's like a paved or something, and then there's either, I think there's a barrier, I think there's posts across there that are locked in, and the fire department has a key to remove the posts, is what I've seen in the past.

bill is that accurate that's that's correct yes so there'll be a vertical curb too so that cars aren't tempted to try to go in through that uh driveway but you can't go in bill if it's barrier right is it barrier or is it not yeah it's it'll have bollards six inch uh steel posts um so they will knock box there so the fire department has access to the key to unlock them Yes.

Okay. But pedestrians can come out there, bicycles can come out there, right? Yes. Onto people going at 65 miles an hour intended, okay?

Yes.

I have two questions. Do you have a question, Wayne?

There's typically not a curb cut, so it doesn't look like a driveway.

It's not a curb cut. Okay, got it. Okay, thanks. Wayne?

I have two questions. One I had asked earlier, and you didn't respond to it, and that would be if the city required or included, I should say, in the design permit intended to map a condition that residents shall use dedicated garages for parking and that this would be included in the CCNRs. Do you have an issue with that?

No, I think it normally is included in CCRs. There's just no way to enforce it.

Well, that isn't necessarily true, but thank you for your response. The other one is, as I looked at the project, it's very efficient. It was like an engineer bill. I designed it. It's nice and rectangular. It's got long alleyways. But, you know, as I think about it, these are really long alleyways. And as I looked at your elevations of your garage side, which is all you see when you drive in, there's no vegetation at all that's shown. And that would be one thing, the aesthetics. And the other part of it would be speeding. As it sits now, you've set up really a street pattern where you have these two long extensions without anything shown to mitigate the traffic. What are you planning to do to address those two issues?

I will have to look into that. We did not recognize those issues.

Okay, another, it seems to me, recent tentative maps, we've included things that address that. We included, as a developer puts in a location for a marked crosswalk and signage, we've commented on it, they show speed deterrents such as bumps or humps. And is that something that the city should be considering to be included a tentative map or otherwise in a design permit We've done it recently III To I don't know if you could answer that I can't answer me as well Are you asking me if the city should consider that I I don't know I mean I know that in the past there's been a

there's been issues with fire and police and whatnot that they don't want speed bumps because that impedes their ability to get to an emergency site. And in a desert development, we wanted speed bumps and they wouldn't go for it. They wouldn't approve it. And I don't recall the exact reason.

There's an issue with speed bumps and it relates to what Commissioner Mueller asked is cars driving over speed bumps is loud.

The ones on public streets, they have different names. I refer to them as road bumps and call them speed humps.

Well, there's speed tables, there's bumps, there's speed. All of them, we are cautious about how we use them because they do create noise impacts and they're not terribly effective.

Think there are going to be showing up in your toolbox. That'll be considered by the safety committee tomorrow night but this is a private street and The private parties do things I've seen it do things differently than the city and what you will have for sure is I don't know how long this thing is it seems like a thousand feet or so long alleyway with no deterrent at all, and it's hard to believe that people won't really be speeding down there. And so I think it would be important for the condominium to address that. You'll find that as a problem sooner or later. Somebody's going to start really complaining.

We'll certainly look into that as part of the HOA rules and CCRs.

OK. And the question that I had was really for the city. Is that something? that could or should be addressed in the tentative map or in the design permit because In the past year, we've done that several times. I remember us arguing or discussing site distance, crosswalks, where to put the crosswalks.

Well, site distance and crosswalks, that's a different issue than what you're talking about because those are things that we have specific safety standards for. We can't enforce a condition that is not in our existing written safety standards. So to the extent that there's a recommendation to amend those safety standards to include things like speed tables for certain distances or things like that, right now our existing policy is that we don't put them on city streets, so we probably wouldn't want to encourage them on private streets, but if that changes, we could add that to our safety standards for this project because it's not in our written safety standards. It's something that the applicant could do voluntarily, the HOA might want to consider, but it's not something that we can require.

Yeah, the other ones I think were voluntary because they came to us and we commented upon them and they took I think those comments to heart and made modifications. And in this case, there's nothing And yeah, the question was, well, should the city encourage them or otherwise be looking for something? And if you're saying no, I guess that would be the answer. But we've done it recently. Or am I, my memory really slipping that much?

I don't know that we've done speed bumps recently. There's other traffic calming measures that are... available that aren't speed bumps or speed tables or speed dots or whatever they are. There are other tools that are available. They're not part of our written safety standards, so we can't require them. We could encourage them.

I think the other, that you referenced the other projects, I think also the applicant agreed to it too when you brought it up.

Yeah, they did. They brought them up.

At 10 West, we made some things with pavers in terms of crosswalks and stuff. Rich, can you bring back up that same drawing that shows the Central Park? Okay, so if you take a look at this one, how do people get across to that Central Park? Where are the sidewalks that allow the people on the south or on the west and on the east to get to the Central Park? So what we ask in 10 West in one case where they had something like this is to use pavers to mark up a spot where people could crosswalk with at least some identification of pedestrians coming up there, okay? Because the east and west side are caught up. They either have to go all the way to the end and go up, and even then I'm not quite sure how you get across there with doing it. So there's some places there where you could put pavers, I think, to help. people identify where they can get to. And like Wayne said, you've got garages on both sides of that street, so there's no sidewalk. The sidewalks are in the front. So if I take and look on the left bottom corner, there's a sidewalk that looks like it comes out between units from the front, but that sidewalk goes to nothing. The person has to walk in the street right, where we're talking about worried about how long that is where you're gonna get high speeds, they have to walk there, right, to get to it. And that cross coming up on the bottom doesn't even match to the sidewalk on the left side of the building. So you have potential for high speed cars going both ways. Right? And a person, the only way to get over there is to go that way or go way around. So they're going to want to come out to that extension and come out. And every one of those one, two, three extensions does the same thing. And the same thing is true basically on the east side. So when you're looking at how people walk around the project to get to the open space, at some point they're almost walking along garages on either side, which with speeding cars, it would be helpful if you put pavers in there somehow to let people know there's potential for pedestrians that are residents there.

I think that's doable. That's doable? I mean. We'd have to check. Bill, do you have any issue with that?

Well, you know, there are a lot of sidewalks here, and they don't show up on this drawing real well, but there's a sidewalk along all the front doors. You see the garages along the driveway, but on the other side of the unit on the front, there's a sidewalk there. all the way along the property lines on both East and West. I do know, Joe, what you're saying about these sidewalks that do come out and stub into the drive aisles and there's not a direct path to another sidewalk, but then there is a sidewalk that follows the drive aisle on the interior side of the island, both sides, So, you know, you would have to maybe get across the driveway and we could put maybe some pedestrian tables or something in there which would slow down cars and also provide a point of access to the sidewalks that are on that interior island that circulate all the way to the park and around the park. And then back to the front doors, all those interior units that don't follow the long driveway, the short ones in between, they have paseos between the units with sidewalks. So people come out their front door and they get on the sidewalk there. So there's a lot of sidewalk in this process. but you're right, you may want to do some maybe short runs of sidewalk that would follow the fronts of the garage doors.

Yeah, except I don't think, as the typical project is, Bill, you don't have enough for cars going each direction and have a sidewalk on one side. not a full sidewalk. And if you look at, let's see, I saw the example here. So if you look at the second one from the left, it's almost center in the project, right? It goes right out onto the garage driveways and then it goes into parking, right? If I'm a resident anywhere close to that, the quickest way to get to the park is go out that inlet and then try and cross. Right? And then you got a sidewalk that'll take you right there as opposed to going all the way to the north and then around St. James. So people are gonna try to jump across that street. And that was the same issue that we had in that. If you market some way, then we get a much better or potentially much safer. But I think we really should ask you to do that without necessarily telling you specifically how, leaving you a little room to figure it out, right? But do it in a couple of places. And like you said, if you put something in there that's a different color, a paver or something, it maybe slows people down a little bit, but it also gives an indication that pedestrians are gonna go across there. Yeah, we can do that.

Yes.

And I was actually just gonna mention too, I believe Commissioner Tonda you had brought this up last time as well, where when it comes to safety, it's not necessarily the striping or the pattern change, which I think would also be beneficial, but I think another one is lighting. So increased lighting across areas where you would have this potential walkways for pedestrians or designated areas too. So whichever types of measures, I think that's really important because point taken with, those really large areas that do not, even it's like some of those aisles that abut the garages, like if you look at the corner of Tennant and Butterfield, all those homes along Tennant are abutting other garages, so there's essentially no way to walk across as that point being that Joel was talking about. So just wanted to add that.

Might take a look at sheet 2 in your packet able site plan and maybe gives a better idea of the extent of the sidewalks and crosswalks that are proposed as part of this project and what's shown on the screen here.

Can you bring it up. I don't have another computer right now.

Yeah.

And if I may, is it possible to point me in the right direction for those BMRs as well, please? I've been looking. I can't find those dots on the map of the 60 pages of maps we have.

It's not on this because that's not a... These are airspace condos, so they're not specifically pointed out, but it's on a separate sheet that isn't in your packet.

Got it.

Is it?

I don't see it. So it's in the design permit intent of map plans attachment. I see it in there. It's on page three. It might also be on that one. It's page three of the PDF. It has listed all the BMRs.

What color are the dots?

So on here, they're just labeled BMR. And so there are six two-bedroom BMRs, seven three-BMRs, and three four-bedroom BMRs.

I got it. Thank you. They're all moderate, right?

Yes, they're all moderate.

Thank you. I find it.

Okay. Okay, Rich, it's a little clearer here than it is on your one slide, but it still has the same problem I'm talking about. So for instance, if you look at, I'm on the south edge or the south, it's the west edge of the project and that center driveway, when you come up and you look up just above it and to the right, you can see a hatched area there where it looks like you've got a, Some indication by a change in material or something? You see that? I can't point at it. Can you use the mouse to point where I'm talking about?

Right there, right there. So we have the sidewalks coming down here and the sidewalk going here. It looks like crosswalk that's going here connecting to another sidewalk.

Right, but if you just down and to the left a little bit of that crosswalk, right there, that's where something is missing.

Yes, so we have a sidewalk here and that's going right to the interior roadway. Right. Right across from there we have parking spaces.

Right. So if you did something that indicated like it looks like you've already gotten places, that would help. Right? All right. And so and then you can look at it other places of one. They're actually crosswalk markings fairly close to a couple of those, right?

So.

I'd just add some markings, whatever you're doing there, add it. But I'm thinking you're doing something there to say people walk here, right? Be aware of it. That's fine. Okay.

Any other questions?

No.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Do we have any other speakers here or online?

I don't see any raised hands.

Okay. So we're going to close the public hearing. Motion.

I'd like to move.

There's first motion is a design permit. Hang on, I think Commissioner Habib had a question. Hang on one second, Joe.

Yeah, so thank you city staff for putting out those BMR units. I actually just wanted to bring our attention to that too because as I'm looking through them, the highest concentration of those BMRs are actually a long tenant, which in my personal assumption would be probably the area that's least desirable given the frontage to the highest level of traffic. as well as the furthest distance to the amenities and the open space and the internal location of the property. As a matter of fact, there's two BMR units that are right next to each other along that tenant frontage area. Again, the furthest along tenant and Butterfield, there's two units that are right next to one another, abutting one another. And if you actually look at the area where you have the amenities and the open space, there's only one unit that actually surrounds that entire area that is a BMR. So I guess my only recommendation there, whether it's a condition, whether it's just discussion for staff to take a look at, is reevaluating those placements of those BMRs.

How many BMRs are there? I think there's 16? 17. 17? How many buildings are there?

102, right? No, no, no.

Individual units, there's that many.

No, not individual units. Buildings. Why don't we just say there's got to be at least one in every building?

And again, the reason I point that out is literally if you look at the surrounding main amenity and open space.

I'm looking for a response to that question.

So this will be for the design review. In our housing division, they would take a look at this again when it comes to the building permit phase and when they do an inclusionary housing agreement. Thank you, Joe.

We can make that a condition?

It's something that we would do anyway, and so our city staff would take a look at it and make sure that it's... That would solve the problem right there.

Okay, perfect.

It's not a tentative MEP issue, particularly because these are... No, I understand. So it's something that gets done when the inclusionary housing ordinance is looked at. But they're going to have to comply with the ordinance, which defines where those units have to go. And so if they need to be moved, they'll be moved.

Okay, perfect. And then just wanted to make sure that's something staff is going to look at, at least a comment.

Mr. Chair, I count up four things that I think this body has more or less agreed upon that should be reflected in either the design permit or the tentative map and i'm not sure which one in each case but the four things include parking and we've discussed that about the use of dedicated garages for parking this requirement shall be incorporating the ccnrs the second one is the future street extensions The applicant talked about that and I think what Joe is saying is to add into the appropriate resolution And this is how I'd look at it that to face signage Be installed at the end of the two stub streets on the east side of the project signage saying something like this straight may be extended to San Juan San to Juan Hernandez Drive The third thing is on these long private streets and potential issue regarding safety is to add in the appropriate resolution that the applicant shall provide safety enhancements for pedestrian and cars backing into the private streets. That's where I see the issue. You have speeding cars, they could hit pedestrians, they could hit backing up cars into the streets. And the last one is the evaluation of local location of the 17 BMRs and it does come up to one in every building because there's 17 buildings.

That's actually a separate inclusionary housing ordinance agreement that is done. Staff will make sure that they follow the requirements of the inclusionary housing ordinance in that separate agreement.

So I don't know where these things fit in in either design permits or in the tentative maps or in another document that you had just described, Joe.

Okay, so we don't have to talk about the spread. We've raised it. It's known. Staff will deal with where the BMRs are located both in proportion to the number of bedrooms, because there's three different bedroom counts, right? And the location throughout the project. That's a requirement of the inclusionary housing ordinance. That's a separate agreement that housing does with the applicant and it's approved by the city council. So I don't think we need to include that here. I've got four. One is the deed, I wanna add the deed restriction on the wells. to make that so that's commutable. I don't think that's a design permit. Isn't that a tentative map? Okay, so in the design permit, one is the standard parking wording about they park their cars in the garage. One is the future extension signs on the east side of the project. The third one is pedestrian crosswalk marking additions to what is already there. So that's three... design permit amendments or additions. I'll leave staff to appropriately place them with the standard wording. And with that, I would propose amending the resolution to add these three conditions to the design permit resolution.

Okay, Joe, I had four, but I acquiesce to your understanding that the fourth one, the one that was brought up by Mohammed can be addressed and would be addressed anyhow that you know those three we just Actually, he repeated exactly what I had recommended. So if we could agree make a motion I would like to make a motion to move those three items to be included in the appropriate document, whether they're a design permit or the tentative method.

So the three conditions for parking within the garages, the future street extension, and then the pedestrian crosswalk, those will be included in the design?

Yeah, it's not pedestrian crosswalks only. It would be safety enhancements for pedestrians and vehicles.

Well, Commissioner Mueller made a motion. If somebody wanted to. Yeah, I would like to second it. And then if you wanted to offer a friendly amendment, that would probably be the way to do it.

Well, actually, I had made the motion and then Joe repeated it.

Well, no, you made suggestions and didn't know where to put them and then Joe turned it into a motion. So.

Okay, we have a motion. Okay. It's been seconded. Can you go back?

Yeah. A motion to approve the design permit for this project with three additions in the conditions. One to be at our standard park your car in the garage language. Second one is to make sure that we put the future extension signs on this extension.

Stub streets. Stub streets.

And the third is to add pedestrian markings or other, if you want to include a little different, other safety language, I'm fine with that, on the streets and the crosswalks that we discussed, right? Correct. So that's the three modifications to the design permit resolution.

Any second?

I seconded.

Okay, let's vote on it. You didn't recommend that.

Well, Commissioner Tonda had suggested that maybe more than crosswalks, so if you wanted to offer a friendly amendment, that would be appropriate.

Oh, I thought he mentioned he added safety enhancements.

If he's already made your friendly amendment, then that's fine.

Yeah, that's reflected in it.

Okay. Let's vote.

Chair Wilson?

Aye.

Commissioners Habib? Aye. Lake? Aye.

Aye.

Muller?

Aye.

Tonda?

Aye.

Lovato?

Aye.

Downey? Aye. Motion passes unanimously.

We now make a motion to approve the tentative map. Right? With your... With one other condition added that put in language that puts the deed restriction on the wells. Seconded. Monitoring wells.

Yeah. Seconded.

Jenna. Discussion?

Yeah.

So the one we just voted on, which for the design permit, did it all go on the design permit? Right.

Those three conditions went in the design permit, the condition on the CC&Rs, but the deed restriction on the wells would go into the tentative map.

Okay, and I'm not debating it at all. It's just the last time, my recollection is, last time an item like this came up, it was a tentative map, We were looking at the map, and we saw the crosswalks, we saw the signage, we saw the city, everything, and it went into a tentative map, and I don't really care where it goes, it's just we're not being terribly consistent.

If you distinguish what we would distinguish, and the reason, it could go, that particular condition would fit well in either place. The difference this time is we're not, this is an airspace map, so the Department of Real Estate is who's gonna approve all of the locations in the building. So if you wanna make changes, the best place to do it for this particular project would be the design permit.

This is called an air space tentative map.

So it's a one lot subdivision. It's a one lot subdivision, so you're creating one lot. The Department of Real Estate will allow the developer to parcel out the various units for individual sale, but the person who purchases those units isn't buying the building. They're buying the airspace within the building.

I see. I see. The other one was in an individual lot. I thought it was a condominium.

Yeah, like a townhouse development.

So quick question then is, so Commissioner, you were just indicating that the land use covenant for the groundwater not to be used for drinking, that was when you're adding to the grant one?

Yeah, I'm adding it as a deed restriction in the case that the whole project moves. Everybody will know it then.

Okay, and what about the other recommendations on that report? Were there any other ones that? The other ones were already.

What Don said is that, and Adam said, the other stuff has already been included.

In other parts, but you were saying that, I mean, even with the covenant for the deed restrictions also included.

That was not covered.

Oh, that's not covered.

That's the only one that was not covered.

I thought it was in a different location. No.

No. No. From the staff's perspective, we didn't think it was necessary, but if the commission wants to add that, that's perfectly appropriate.