Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Commissioner Atwal, we'd like to test your video again. I'm not able to see you on video.

The video is on, so can you see me?

I'm able to see you right now, yes. But please understand, if you're not connected to a good, if you don't have a good connection, I'll have to pause the meeting every time you freeze or you go out. So you're connected through a Wi-Fi connection?

I'm pretty sure it will not happen. So, yeah. Okay.

Thank you.

All right. Good evening. It is Wednesday, April 22nd at 7 p.m. Welcome to the Planning Commission meeting. I'd like to call this meeting to order. First of all, disclosure of participation by teleconference pursuant to government code section 54953.8.3, if applicable, participation.

There is one announcement for remote participation. Commissioner Atwal is here with us. Go ahead, Commissioner. Please state your reason.

Yes, so wanted to request for a personal physical illness. Today's meeting on remote access and family urgency.

Commissioner Atwal, it's Daniella Green, Assistant City Attorney. There's no request to vote, but I do need you to state on the record the government code section that you're using for your just cause exemption for remote participation.

OK, let me do that. So I'm affirming and attesting that I cannot attend tonight's planning commission meetings because I am experiencing a physical or family medical emergency that prevents me from attending in person pursuant to government code section 54953.8.3.

Thank you, Commissioner.

All right, thank you very much. Roll call and declaration of conflicts.

Commissioner Atwell? Yes, President. Commissioner Chavez?

Present.

Commissioner Shrout?

Here.

Vice Chair Boachie-Boateng?

Present, no, no conflicts.

And Chair Penning?

Present, no conflicts. And if you'd all please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

All right. Thank you very much for that. Director's report. Yeah. Thank you, Chair. There's no director's report this evening. Okay. The City of Tracy will continue to allow for remote participation by members of the public at tonight's meeting by using the following option. Online by logging into WebEx using the link provided under public comment raise your hand to speak by clicking on the hand icon on the participants panel to the right of your screen. This procedure will be used to receive all comments received from WebEx during items from the audience and all new business items.

Chair Penning, I'm sorry, I'm going to have to ask you to put the media, oh, there we go. Commissioner Outwall's back. I'm sorry. Thank you.

For sure. All comments received from WebEx during items from the audience and all new business items. Are there any presentations? None. No presentations. Okay. We're going to move on to consent calendar, which is the minutes. We have, we had two. We had to delay the first one due to a lack of a quorum. So the first minutes from March 25th, two of us were present here, three including Commissioner Atwal, and the other two, have we had a chance to review them for the March 25th? Okay, if so, can I get a motion for approval?

Move to approve the maintenance of March 25, 2026. I second.

And can I get a roll call vote, please?

Commissioner Atwell?

Yes.

Commissioner Chavez?

Yes.

Commissioner Shrout?

Yes.

Vice Chair Boakye-Botting?

Yes.

And Chair Penning.

Yes.

Thank you.

Chair Penning, real quick before you move on to the minutes from the April 8th meeting, since Commissioner Shrout, Commissioner Chavez, and Commissioner Atwal were not at the meeting on the 25th, but they did, I believe, watch the video. If I could just get an oral affirmation on the record that they did watch the video and that's why they were able to vote yes. PLEASE DON'T NOD YOUR HEAD. I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER CHAVEZ, I NEED ORAL RESPONSES ESPECIALLY BECAUSE COMMISSIONER ATWAL IS REMOTE.

PERFECT, YES. I CAN AFFIRM THAT I WATCHED THE VIDEOS.

THANK YOU. SO I CAN CONFIRM AS WELL I WATCHED THE VIDEO AND AM IN CONCURRENCE WITH THE MEETING MINUTES.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER ATWAL.

I ALSO WATCHED THE VIDEOS AND CAN CONFIRM THE MINUTES.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER SHROUT.

ALL RIGHT. SECONDLY, LET'S MOVE ON TO THE APRIL 8TH MINUTES. AND THE SAME THING. You weren't here at that particular meeting. I'm not sure if you had a chance to review and watch the record. If so, can I get a motion?

Move to accept the minutes of the meeting on April 8th, 2026.

I'll second. Can I get a roll call vote, please?

Commissioner Atwal?

Yes.

Commissioner Chavez?

Yes.

Commissioner Shrout?

Yes.

Vice Chair Boakye-Botting?

Yes.

And Chair Penning?

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you very much for that. Okay, item two, items from the audience. Just first and foremost, please sign in before speaking. We invite members of the public to use WebEx to comment under items from the audience. Now this particular one is for items that are not on the agenda. Online by logging into WebEx using the link provided. Are there any public comments received by email for items that are not on the agenda?

No emails received.

No emails. Are there any public comments received via WebEx for items that are not on the agenda?

No comments via WebEx.

Okay, looking out in the audience, are there any, would anyone like to speak about items that are not on the agenda? Show of hands. No show of hands. We will the public comment period for items that are not on the agenda has now closed any Comments that were received after the close of the public comment period will not be included into the record We will move on to new business public hearings Item 3 a Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and upon this conclusion adopt a Resolution 1, granting a conditional use permit, application number CUP 26-001, to operate an indoor entertainment and active play facility located at 2005 North Tracy Blvd., Assessors Parcel Number 232-070-08, exempt from Quality Environmental Quality Act, also known as CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 pertaining to existing facilities. Two, making a determination that the existing parking spaces are sufficient to serve the indoor entertainment and active play facility. The applicant is Anil Uluri, WWNexus, LLC. And the property owner is Save Mart Portfolio Owner, NLPCA, LLC. Staff report.

Can we get the PowerPoint, please?

I have it up. Okay. There we go.

Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you, Commissioners. Christina Desidio, Assistant Planner. The project is a request for approval of a conditional use permit to operate an indoor entertainment and active play facility at 2005 North Tracy Boulevard. This project also includes a request to make a determination related to the parking requirements as described in Tracy Municipal Code Section 10083490. The 44,870 square foot tennis space is a part of the McKinley Village Shopping Center that sits on the corner of Manor Court and the North Tracy Boulevard. The project site is zoned as community shopping. In this zone, the recreational use is a conditionally permitted use, which means in order to operate at this location, a conditional use permit is required. Here's a close-up of the site plan in which you can see the other suites in the on-street parking areas. Here's the floor plan showing the proposed layout of the business. As you can see, the facility will include party rooms, laser tag, an air core, a small food core, and other activity areas. Currently, the parking ordinance of the Tracy Municipal Code does not list the parking requirement for this specific use. As such, per the Tracy Municipal Code Section 10083490, the Planning Commission shall determine parking requirements. The suggested parking requirement is one parking space per 250 square feet of gross floor area, which is the same as a retail store. The site has more than 180 parking spaces, and this would allow the use to operate with the existing number of parking spaces. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit as well as make a determination that the parking requirement for this use be one parking space per 250 square feet of gross floor area. This concludes the staff report. Staff is available for any clarifying questions you may have.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Is the applicant here? And if so, do they have a presentation? Okay. Before we open up public hearing, are there any clarifying questions for the commissioners? Does it appear so? All right. I will now open up the public hearing. And once again, please sign in up here at the podium if you do decide to talk. Are there any public comments received by email for item 3A?

No emails received.

Are there any public comments received via WebEx for item 3A?

No comments via WebEx.

Okay. And are there any out in the audience? Anyone want to like to speak about item 3A?

I'm sorry, Chair. I do have a hand raised now. I try to give them a moment. For sure. Hit the button to raise their hand.

That's for WebEx?

For WebEx. Okay. Yes, correct. So I have an Anil Madathati. He's the applicant. Okay. You've been unmuted. Okay. Go ahead.

I just I'm representing as an owner and see if anything I have to clarify further of any comments from anyone.

I'm sorry that was unclear. Can you repeat that if you don't mind?

Yeah, I'm the park owner, future park owner. So just join and see if any anything I need to further clarify or any comments that I need to from anyone else and And that's from our owner's perspective, we're definitely planning to bring the more fun and entertainment to the city of Tracy. And that's our goal. And yeah, we would love to present something, but we would love to come in and present something if you needed anything, but are happy to answer any questions over the phone.

All right, thank you very much. I appreciate that.

I've muted Mr. Madathati, but if you do have any questions for him, let me know and I can unmute him. Thank you. No further questions from WebEx.

All right, let's bring it back to the commission for discussion.

Chair Penning. Public hearing is closed, correct?

Oh, I'm sorry. I apologize. Yes. For item 3A, the public hearing is now closed. Any comments that are received after the close of public comment period will not be included in the record.

Thank you.

Commission discussion.

Excuse me if this is my first time in this. Is this an existing project that's already been laid out, or is this... Is this already a go? We're just doing parking spaces?

The building is existing. There's two parts to this project. One is the conditional use permit. Each use may be permitted or not permitted or conditionally permitted. In this case, a recreational use just such this for community shopping, especially within shopping centers, it requires a conditional use permit. So that's specifically just for them to be able to operate. And then we're making a determination for the parking. For now, the parking ordinance does not lay out this type of recreational use. We have assembly and other uses like retail. However, we don't have this specific one. So we're making a determination to have a parking, basically a parking calculation to be able to use for them to say that there's enough parking on the site to accommodate the use.

So we're saying there's 180 spaces plus in that parking lot.

Correct.

Oh, I'd like to just say I have seen that Save Mart building vacant for so many years. And I'm grateful that a business owner in Tracy is making an effort to occupy it and bring life to that center. It seems the center of town and the Kenley Village shopping centers become a sort of food desert. So what I would love to see is, should this conditional use permit be granted, that area be filled with more life, more students, more children in the area, and hopefully the surrounding businesses benefit from that. One of the concerns I have is concerning traffic congestion. I know at the Grant Line-Tracy Boulevard intersection, there's a lot of northbound traffic that builds up. and a lot of southbound traffic as well. Does the staff have any concerns about potential traffic or congestion increases with the issuance of this permit in that area? I know that we have enough parking, but it's clear that that shopping center hasn't been utilized, specifically the Save Mart building, for a long while, and I think that the area of town is adapted to that lack of foot traffic and car traffic. Are we prepared for the potential congestion issues?

Our engineering team reviewed that and did not see any traffic issues, nor Tracy Boulevard is at its...

Yes, the Tracy Boulevard and Grant Line Road are all at the master plan total width, so the existing use is within that calculation, and therefore we saw no objection to the adding lanes or traffic issues.

And from, just to kind of add a little bit further too, from a traffic... standpoint, I mean, the assumption is that that shopping center is full. Even though it's vacant, that's an existing shopping center. We have to assume that it's full and occupied and the existing road network is designed to accommodate all uses on that site.

Perfect. No further comments.

My clarification had to do with traffic, and I think it's been addressed. I just have another minor. I didn't see hours of operation. It's probably in there. And this property is probably going to be adjacent to a school, I believe. I'm not sure. And I'm wondering if the timing was considered in the study. I believe it was, but I think it would be good to clarify.

When you say the study, are you talking about traffic study?

Yes. You've talked about all of the expected users for that corridor being in the master plan. I believe we also confirm with the operations of the business being in line with the operation of the school and making sure that there are no conflicts with movement of vehicles during the peak periods.

Yeah, I think what David was explaining earlier is that the roadway network in that area is at max build-out. It's already at ultimate build-out, and it already takes into assumption all of those existing uses that you're talking about, the existing school, the existing shopping center. Vacant or not, it's assumed to be fully occupied as it has been in the past. It's continued to be assumed that it would be fully occupied in the future. Yeah. What David was explaining wasn't that there was a specific traffic study that occurred. He was talking about an in-house review of the existing roadway network that serves all of those existing uses.

Okay, thank you. Commissioner Atwal.

Thank you. Yeah, just a question for the staff. So is it safe to say that this use is the same as a retail use with respect to the parking?

Yes, we consider this based on the space. You're looking at a type of use that has more equipment than there is space to hold people, much like a retail center. You've got your columns, you've got your actual grocery area. So we consider this to be close in with the ability to do the gross floor area of how much people could actually occupy the space.

And just to add to that a little bit further too, the applicant prepared a parking analysis for this site. based on the typical parking needs of all of their other existing facilities. This is a nationwide franchise. They've got many different existing businesses to base their numbers on. And what they found through those calculations is that this establishment would likely need maximum about 150 parking spaces, which is less. It's actually less than what we require for retail. But we are still recommending the retail parking requirement of one per 250, would be equivalent more to 180 spaces just to be a little more conservative because we will once planning if planning commission makes this determination that the required parking for this type of use is one parking space for 250 square feet we would use it on future applications for similar types of uses so just to be a little bit safe and conservative we're saying one for 250 rather than going down to say one for 300.

So, yeah, that was another point. As we do not have a benchmark for this kind of use, as you mentioned, that this will be a benchmark for the future use. Is it possible just to codify this one as a detail has its own specification, recreational use will have its own specification? So, or there's another way to approach it?

Yes, thank you for that question. A city can make an amendment to its parking ordinance to establish a new parking requirement for a specific use, so that would be one option we could do. But the Municipal Code also has provisions within it for the Planning Commission to make a determination for a use that's not listed and make the determination for what that parking requirement would be based on similar types of parking demands from other uses. And that's what staff's recommending here, that Planning Commission make that determination for this use. As we move forward in the future, we're not set in stone that Planning Commission has to do further approvals based on that, but it would be kind of the new base that we would most likely be recommending. And then if we are aware of any problems in the future regarding whether we, you know, under-parked this particular use, we would not be held to it again. Planning Commission would still be in a situation to either make the determination or not for future uses of the same type of use.

Sure. Thank you very much.

I want to bring it back to the parking. Can you back up a few slides, if you don't mind, where the number 180 was? There it is right there. Okay. So I guess maybe a little clarity. So the total required for this, if this was approved, is 180 spots. Am I reading that correctly?

Yes.

Okay. So how many total parking spots were in that location, in that complete parking?

In the area specifically close to, let me move to the site plan to give you a better area. So the McKinley Village actually has over 500 spaces. However, this area specifically on this site plan is approximately 310. So how much that they would need plus the other uses in the building would not be enough based on another use that we have in there if we were to use a different one such as assembly. So for this, 180 would be more than enough with the one per 250 square feet, which is what we would use for retail. And this was at one time probably a retail space, and they had enough space for that as well.

That's a great answer. Thanks for that clarification. And the reason I ask is there's a gym there, I think, for kids, for teenagers, and my granddaughter's there. So I go there frequently, and at certain nights, that parking lot is very, very busy on that, I guess it would be the northwest side of that parking lot. Okay. And with this, this is a great idea. I mean, yeah, Tracy needs this 100%. However, you know, it's just that parking because I don't know, you know, we go there Thursday nights and that parking lot is extremely busy. Again, only on that, you know, near that, I forget the name of the gym, but. It's over there on that side. But of those over 500 spaces, it sounds like there's ample parking.

Yes. Approximately 525 for the entire McKinley Shopping Center, which is basically that entire block.

The whole thing. Yes. From the Carl's Jr.'s all the way down to...

Yes.

Yeah. Okay. Thank you for that. That helps my brain understand the parking side of it. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. I don't have any other questions. Looking for a motion.

Move to recommend that the Planning Commission grant a conditional use permit, application number CUP26-0001, to operate an indoor entertainment and active play facility located at 2005 North Tracy Boulevard, assessor's parcel number 232-070-08, exempt from California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA, pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15301 pertaining to existing facilities and determine that the existing parking spaces are sufficient to serve the indoor entertainment and active play facility.

I second that motion. All right. We have a motion that's been seconded. Can I get a roll call vote?

Commissioner Atwal.

No, I'm a yes. And thank you very much for the project owner to bring such a lively project to the city of Gracie. Thank you.

Commissioner Chavez.

Yes.

Commissioner Shrout.

Yes.

Vice Chair Bwache-Bwating.

Yes.

And Chair Penning.

Yes, I just want a little editorial. This is going to be great. I know we've heard from the families, people with kids, they want entertainment, entertainment, entertainment. This is it. You got what you asked for. This is awesome. Congratulations. Thank you very much. All right. Let's move on to 3B. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and upon its conclusion adopt a resolution approving a development review permit application number D25-0016 for the installation of two solar panel canopies in the Holiday Inn Express parking lot located at 3751 North Tracy Boulevard. EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ALSO KNOWN AS CEQA PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 PERTAINING TO NEW CONSTRUCTION OR CONVERSIONS OF SMALL STRUCTURES. THE APPLICANT IS TENCO SOLAR INC. AND THE PROPERTY OWNER IS PAC AND PAC HOSPITALITY LLC.

STAFF REPORT.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioners. Christina Delgadillo again. This project is a request for approval of development review permit to install two solar canopies in the north and west parking lots at the Holiday Inn located at 3751 North Tracy Boulevard. Here is a location map that shows the existing hotel in the surrounding area. The site is currently zoned as highway service. Any new structure such as a canopy requires a development review permit. Per Tracy Municipal Code Section 1008-3950-B2, development review requires planning commission approval if the site is located within 500 feet of the freeway. The site is approximately 115 feet from the freeway and therefore requires planning commission approval. Here is the site plan in which you can see the location of the two canopies. One canopy is a T-frame and the other is an L-frame. With the installation, nine trees will be removed and replaced elsewhere on the property. No parking spaces will be removed but will add shade to the existing parking lots. Here are the elevations for the T-frame canopy that will be placed in the north parking lot closest to Larch Road. Here are the elevations for the L-frame canopy that will be placed in the west parking lot in the rear of the hotel. Staff recommends approval of the development review permit for the solar canopies. This concludes the staff report. Staff and the applicant are available for any questions you may have.

Thank you. Once again, thank you very much. Is the applicant here? And if so, would they like to make a couple opening comments?

I do have a hand raised. Vanessa with Tenco Solar. You've been unmuted. Go ahead.

I am the director of project management, and we are here to answer any questions regarding the construction of this project. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I'm sorry, your name again was? Could you repeat your name, please? I'm sorry.

Apologies, I was muted. My name is Vanessa Laura.

Thank you.

Hold on. Wait one moment. I can't hear you.

On the microphone, is there a button on the side to press on the actual stand of the microphone?

There we go. Green light.

Test it again.

How's that? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Once again, my name is David Blumenthal. I am with Sagecrest Planning and Environmental, 27128 Paseo Espada in San Juan Capistrano, California. I am actually here representing both the property owner and Tenco Solar as well, too. I wanted to give a special thank you to Christina for doing such great work on this application and being always very responsive to our questions and concerns as we worked our way through this. THE HOLIDAY AND EXPRESS ITSELF IS A FAMILY OWNED AND OPERATED HOTEL. THE FAMILY, I MEAN, THE MANAGER OF THE HOTEL IS ONE OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS. I MYSELF, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, AM MARRIED INTO THE SAME FAMILY. SO IT IS DEFINITELY A BUSINESS THAT KEEPS THE FAMILY VERY CLOSE. EMPLOYEES THAT WORK FOR THIS FAMILY HAVE WORKED 30 PLUS YEARS. SO WE VALUE BEING HERE IN TRACY. WE VALUE OUR EMPLOYEES THAT WE HAVE. WITH ONGOING AND INCREASED COMPETITION, WE REALLY NEED TO FIND A WAY TO REDUCE OUR OPERATING COSTS TO STAY RELEVANT AND STAY COMPETITIVE. SO IN DOING SO, ONE WAY WE FOUND WAS TO REDUCE OUR POWER CONSUMPTION, OUR POWER COST FOR THAT, AND TENCO IS COMING IN TO HELP US OUT ON THAT. The number of solar panels being provided meet the needs of the hotel. They're programmed at about 100% of the hotel's actual needs. Unfortunately, due to the configuration of the roof, we can't get all those panels up on the roof and do need to get the two carports installed to be able to accommodate that 100% capacity. We are not proposing any additional capacity beyond that, so it's not meant to be generating more and being pumped out back out to the grid. It does have the two batteries as part of this project that will be able to accommodate some of those solar generation during the day to take us into the evening hours on that. And with that, I just wanted to, again, say thank you, and if you have any questions for the ownership or for Tenco. All right.

Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Before you go public comments, are there any clarifying questions from commissioners? All right, does it appear so? Okay, so now I will open up the public comments for item 3B. Are there any public comments received by email for item 3B?

No emails received.

Are there any public comments received via WebEx for item 3B?

Just waiting a moment, giving people the opportunity to raise their hand. Yeah. Thank you. No comments via WebEx.

Looking out in the audience, are there any public comments for item 3B? No show of hands. The public hearing for this item is now closed. Any comments that were received after the close of the public comment period will not be included in the record. We'll bring it back to commission for discussion and or a motion.

I'll go first. First off, kind of a personal story. My house flooded years ago and I stayed there for two months. So where you want to put these is where I parked every day. So I would have liked the shade back then. But I did feel like it was a family-owned business then. I don't know if it was at that time, but no, I think it's great anytime you add solar. As an employee of the school district, we did this a few years ago and put solar everywhere and IT'S REALLY HELPED OUR DISTRICT, SO GOOD JOB BY YOU.

NEW SPEAKER NO COMMENTS FROM ME.

NEW SPEAKER THIS IS JUST CLARIFICATION BECAUSE IT'S IN THE I-205 AREA. That's the reason why it's coming to commission. But because of the height of the structure, I don't expect there to be elevation visibility from the highway. Can we clarify that, that there is no visibility from the highway or the elevation we can use to clarify that?

The elevation won't be a problem for the freeway. The reason why it's coming to Planning Commission is just because of where the parcel is. It's less than 500 feet from the I-205 freeway, but there is no issues with the elevation or the heights.

Thanks for the clarification. Commissioner Atwal?

No question. Thank you.

Can I retain a motion? I can go this time. I MOVE TO RECOMMEND THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVE A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT APPLICATION NUMBER D25-0016 FOR THE INSTALLATION OF SOLAR PANEL CANOPIES IN THE HOLIDAY AND EXPRESS PARKING LOT LOCATED AT 3751 NORTH TRACY BOULEVARD, EXEMPT FROM CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, CEQA, PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 PERTAINING TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.

Second. We have a motion that's been seconded. Can I get a roll call vote?

All right. Commissioner Atwell?

Yes.

Commissioner Chavez?

Yes.

Commissioner Shrout?

Yes.

Vice Chair Boaché-Boateng?

Yes.

And Chair Penning?

Yes. Congratulations.

Thank you.

All right. Moving on to item 3C. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and upon its conclusion adopt a resolution approving a CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT C.U.P. 25-001 AND A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP T.S.M. 24-003 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF EIGHT CONDOMINIUM UNITS AND RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS ON A 24,056 SQUARE FOOT UNDEVELOPED SITE LOCATED AT 310 WEST MOUNT DIAVOLO AVENUE Assessor's parcel number 235-100-13 exempt from California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15332, which pertains to certain infill development projects. The applicant is Wafaa Al-Muhammad, if I said it wrong I apologize, and the property owner is Sierra Investments LLC. And once again, staff report. Christina, you're on a roll tonight.

Thank you, Commissioners. This project is a request for approval of development review permit, a conditional use permit, and a tentative subdivision map for the development of eight condominium units located at 310 West Mount Diablo Avenue. The project site is located on West Mount Diablo near West Street. The site is currently zoned as medium density residential, or MDR. In this zone, condominiums are a conditionally permitted land use. The eight units are within the density range for the zone and for the general land use designation of residential medium. Here is the site plan. The project proposes a duplex, fourplex, and a standalone unit. The Hammerhead Street UC was a requirement of the fire department to ensure fire truck access. There is also an open space picnic area, which is a requirement for condominiums at the rear of the site. There are two differing floor plans for the condominiums. Here is the floor plan for the unit A. And here is the floor plan for the unit B. Here are the east side and west side front elevations of the condominiums. These are facing the private street that will be constructed. Here are the north and south elevations. The north is facing the west Mount Diablo Avenue, while the south is facing the rear end of the lot. Here's the landscape plan for the site. Again, you can see the play area near the rear of the site. And here is a map in which you can see the proposed eight condominium lots and common areas. Staff recommends approval of development review permit, conditional use permit, and tentative subdivision map. This concludes the staff report. Staff and applicant are available to answer any questions you may have.

All right. Thank you very much. And once again, if the applicant is here, if they have anything they'd like to say prior to opening. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ARE THERE ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS PRIOR TO PUBLIC COMMENTS? GO AHEAD.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I HAVE A CLARIFICATION REGARDING THE SITE PLAN. A106 AND ALSO ON A201. THE CORNERS OF THE STRUCTURE THAT HAS UNIT 5, 6 AND 7 seems to be touching the roadway that is there. I believe it's not supposed to be. So I'm wondering if these are actually final drawings or there's going to be a bit of easement.

Well, which page was it?

The site plan is A106. I'm not sure. It's not got a page number. The colorful plan.

It can be clarified during the construction drawings. There will be a PUE, but it's not touching the actual street.

Okay, so this will be clarified during construction?

Yes.

Thank you. And just to add to that as well, that's technically not a street. It's really just a private driveway serving these condominium units. But that little portion of the building that appears to be, you know, encroaching over the curb, like she said, that'll be addressed during building permit. Thank you. Okay.

Commissioner Atwal, any clarifying questions?

No question, thank you.

All right, I would like to open up the public hearing. Are there any public comments received by email for item 3C?

One email was received and that was provided to the commission. It will not be read into the record tonight.

All right. Thank you. We have that. Are there any public comments received via WebEx for item 3C?

No comments via WebEx.

No comments. And once again, looking out in the audience, any comments for item 3C? NO SHOW OF HANDS. THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM IS NOW CLOSED. ANY COMMENTS THAT WERE RECEIVED AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD WILL NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE RECORD. NOW WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO COMMISSION. IF I CAN KICKSTART THIS. I WAS READING IT A LITTLE BIT NOW. IS THIS, DOES THIS FALL UNDER THE INFILL DEVELOPMENT OR HOUSING ELEMENT?

BOTH.

BOTH. OKAY. HOW DOES IT GET DECIDED WHAT'S INFILL?

Infill is normally through decided with the surrounding area already being developed. That's necessary because you're filling what's left. You're filling in what's left.

Okay. Also, Chair Penning, in order to qualify for a CEQA exemption for infill under 15332, there are certain categories that every project has to meet, and the commission is required to make findings that the project does meet those. Particular has to be less than five acres, no significant impact to water traffic, a few other things, speciation being one of them. But if a project can't hit, I think it's a list, it's four or five, I can't remember off the top of my head without looking at it. If a project can't meet those things, it can't qualify for infill.

So there's a threshold.

Yes.

Okay, thank you. A couple more things. Now, I don't know, I don't have my notes right in front of me, but in the last 18 months or so since I've been up here, I believe we've approved two other projects similar to this in different sizes and scopes in that same area. That being said, I'm not sure if they broke ground yet on those two projects. Traffic study.

Thank you for that question. It's similar to the other item that we heard tonight. Being infill, this falls under the Transportation Master Plan. This has already been pre-zoned and essentially it doesn't need to be studied for traffic. All of the assumptions that the roadway and the roadway network have been accommodated already.

Thanks for the answer. However, that area though, there's a school right across the street. Again, I don't have the numbers right in front of me, but we've already approved two other developments. I guess then what does trigger a traffic study?

Just to kind of add a little bit to what David's saying. So basically, first off, I think there was a question about whether those recently approved projects has begun to impact traffic in the area. Neither one of those projects we've discussed are actually built yet. So that hasn't occurred yet. However, what David's explaining is that the Transportation Master Plan has identified the existing built roadway widths in this vicinity to be at ultimate build out. And that's based on the idea that given the zoning for this surrounding area, there's assumptions on how much development is going to occur. Some of it's existing, some of it's planned for the future. But the Transportation Master Plan already studied this and determined that those roads are of sufficient width to accommodate the anticipated traffic volumes for those streets.

But I guess how would they know at the time they made that plan, how would they know how many units are going to go in each development?

It's based on the zoning. So the zoning, when they do those assumptions, they have to assume essentially maximum density.

Okay. So they use, I don't want to say it like that. Conservative.

They have to base it on conservative estimates of what can be built. Okay. Thank you.

So all those master plans, too, to add on to what Dave and Scott have mentioned, they take into account your general plan zoning at the highest density. So whatever has the, there's a bunch of assumptions, like you say, that have gone in there, but The zoning is key to all of that. So you can't have the assumptions made in a vacuum without the zoning. So the zoning is key. So if the parcels fall into what they have been zoned or a lower impact zone, then they would meet the traffic that's already been pre-studied in the master plan for those thresholds.

What about any plans for stoplights? Is there anything on the horizon for that?

Yeah, thank you for that question. It would be this fall under the same category. The Transpiration Master Plan looks at lanes, lane widths, ultimate right-of-way widths, traffic signals. All of that is all considered in part of the Transpiration Master Plan, and it is at its ultimate density. It was studied for the ultimate density, and therefore it complies with the existing road network.

So is that a yes, so it's going to be a traffic light?

No, there will not be a traffic light.

There will not be a traffic light, even after all the buildup of these three projects.

That is correct.

You don't see that as being a problem or a challenge?

No, no.

Staff, I think what David's trying to explain is that All information that we've received and all information that went into developing the transportation master plan did not indicate a need for signalization in this area. I believe the city has the ability over time, if a need becomes obvious, if there's concerns being raised, staff can go out. We can do like a signal warrant analysis, I think. Is that correct, David? And we can, if it passes that threshold for needing the signal, then the city would put one in. But we're not really able to do it unless it meets certain threshold for that, right, through the warrant analysis. Am I correct or am I off a little bit?

Yeah, I think you're correct in general.

Yeah. Okay, so if there, again, I don't want to just keep beating this up, but if there is a need, once again, I know the other two haven't even broke ground yet, and if this one does get approved, if there's a need, fast forward, then that'll be addressed.

Yes, that's correct.

Just like the one on, what is it, Gandy Dancer and Tracy Bullock? Yes, that's correct. Okay, thank you very much. I don't have any other questions.

I just, I think I have one. This is the street that goes in and there's only one entrance and one exit. It's not a, because I'm looking at the map, it looks like there's a road kind of behind it. So it's not a, you can't drive through it.

Correct. It's going to be a private road that does dead end at the end there, which is why a fire truck turnaround was required by the fire department to be able to have a fire truck be able to come in and turn around since they will not be able to go all the way through.

And I suppose that this is a fenced off development. Correct. So it's not a public park or not a.

Correct.

Okay. That was it.

I had a page 19 of SB 2. There is a part that talks about street improvements. So I also wanted a bit of clarification. What is the extent of the street improvements that have been highlighted in this project?

Yeah, thank you for that question. The roadway improvements are solely reconstructing the concrete sidewalk in front to provide a five-foot landscape strip between the face of curb and the back of walk. And any roadway improvements after the utilities are installed? Essentially, there will be grind and overlay to smooth out the road after all the construction is completed.

So that is basically addressing the side effects of the construction, making sure that we get the roadways into a condition that is acceptable to prior traffic, but no improvements beyond that.

Yes, Commissioner. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you.

I did want to clarify that this is not a gated community. It would just be a private road leading into a private property that conjoins all the condominiums.

No, thanks for that. Commissioner Atwal, I'll see your hands up.

Thank you, Chair. So just a clarifying question on the gated community. Then is it fenced off or is it not fenced off?

It's not fenced off. It's not a gated community. It's a private, it's a, will be a private parcel with multiple condominiums on there that are different units that are different lots. However, it's not gated.

And not fenced. Correct. Thank you.

Just a follow on to that. So not being gated doesn't mean that facilities such as the play area are open to the public or those are reserved for residents.

It'll still be a public, thanks for that question, Commissioner. It'll be a private park, but somebody could walk into it. So another clarification, there is a perimeter fence around the project. There's not a gate to prevent vehicles from driving in. Somebody from the public could walk in and use the park. However, they would be trespassed off, I would assume. It is a private park. It is not open to the public. Somebody could walk in.

Thanks for that clarification.

I will entertain a motion if nothing else.

So just a clarifying question. So if I can ask.

Yeah, absolutely.

okay so it's for the staff as again it's mentioned that it is fenced so just wanted to understand if a infrastructure like a play area is developed in a zoned cup allowed zoning then shouldn't it be for the whole public or it should be only for that particular person?

Condominium projects require a common type of open space. It's not something that's required for the entire public. It's just required common open space for the condominium units only. So whoever owns those condos have the ability to have the open space, but not the entire public.

So that open space, if I'm understanding correctly, that is as per the general plan or other codes that if such infrastructure is developed, this thing has to be provided by the builder. So then if I'm understanding correctly, so it is being stated that it is only for the use of those residents and the rest residents are barred from using it.

Yes. Thank you. Let me just explain a little bit. So basically, the requirement for the open space is a requirement through the zoning itself. And as Christina mentioned, through the condominium requirements. Because when you build condominium units such as these, as you can see from the site plan, there's very little to any, like, backyard area. And so the idea is, I mean, there's a little bit, but it's not very much. And the idea of the common open space is just to provide a little more livable area for enjoyment, essentially, just to make sure that that's being provided for. It's built into the zoning. It's built into the condominium requirements. It's separate from what you would think of as park requirements for a residential project. This project would still have to basically pay its park fees to satisfy the public park requirement. There's no public park as part of this project.

Just to understand better. So is it so if I could be wrong, just need you to help to understand it better. So I envision it as a development for the residents. If we are building houses or we are building condominium, if we are building houses, then there will be a park. Then the whole public uses it. As you mentioned that the park or in these condominium, the common use area will be paying the fee for the to the city.

The condo owners own the facility. It's privately owned by the condo association, which is the condo unit owners. It's basically like their backyard.

So then will it be kind of a gated?

No, they have not proposed a gate as part of the project. It's still private property. So if you were to walk on there, you'd be on their private property.

OK, but the residents would be the OK, maybe I'll.

The residents are the condo unit owners, the people that live there.

OK, understood your point. Yeah, we'll follow it up offline. But yeah, understood your point. Thank you.

I move to recommend that the Planning Commission approve a development review permit d24-0017 a conditional use permit cup25-001 and a tentative subdivision map tsm24-003 for the construction of an eight unit residential condominium development and related site improvements on a 24,056 square foot undeveloped site located at 310 West Monteablo Avenue, assessor's parcel number 235-100-13, exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA, pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15332 pertaining to certain infill development projects.

I second.

We have a motion that's been seconded. Can we get a roll call?

All right. Commissioner Atwal? Yes. Commissioner Chavez?

Yes.

Commissioner Shrout?

Yes.

Vice Chair Boakye-Boateng?

Yes.

Chair Penning?

Yes. Congratulations.

Thank you.

All right. Moving on. Regular agenda. We do not have one. That was from the consent. So the final items from the audience, we invite members of the public to use WebEx to comment under items for the audience for items that are not on the agenda. You get one last chance for this tonight by logging on to WebEx using the link provided. Are there any public comments received via WebEx for items that are not on the agenda?

No comments via WebEx.

Any comments emailed for items that are not on the agenda?

No emails received.

And once again, a show of hands from the audience. For items that are not on the agenda, no show of hands. The public comment period for items from the audience has now closed. Can we get a final director's report?

Thank you, Chair. There's no director's report this evening.

All right. Any final parting words from the commission? Does it appear so? Can we get a motion to adjourn?

I motion to adjourn.

Seconded. We have a motion to adjourn in a second. Can I get a roll call vote, please?

All right. Commissioner Atwell. Yes. Commissioner Chavez.

Yes.

Commissioner Shrout.

Yes.

Vice Chair Boachie Boateng.

Yes.

Chair Penning.

Yes. Thank you very much. And thanks, Christina. You did all three. It was perfect. Thank you.

Thank you.